Science is worthless

  • Thread starter Thread starter warpspeedpetey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
YESSSSSSS!!! Let’s gather all those evil books and BURN THEM!!!
what would that accomplish? what does it even have to do with the OP?
Then we can gather all the disciples of that evil religion (remember, evolution is really a religion) and BURN THEM!!!
i didnt know it was a religion, i thought it was a scientific theory. that said, whats this have to do with the OP?

what does evolution have to do with the OP at all?
Then God can prevail and the world will become Eden again!!!

Oh.

My.

Peace
im not sure that you read the OP, its not some luddite attack on the applied sciences or evolution.

Tim
 
You need to realize two things. First, the most widely used high school biology book in the United States was written by a Catholic! Second two, Two, TWO Popes have stated that the theory of evolution is not at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Then, if you really expect me to take that article seriously, and by that I mean read beyond the second paragraph where they make an incorrect sweeping generalization about the intellectual elite, you will have to provide me with proof that there is one single scientists who holds that evolution is a philosophy and teaches such.

Sure, there are people who attempt to disprove God with evolution. There are also people who attempt to disprove God with pure logic, but you’re not telling everyone to run around being illogical. Science and Theology are not enemies and the sooner both camps realize this the sooner we can move on to important issues.
Give me the link that the two Popes have no issue with materialist evolution.
 
You need to realize two things. First, the most widely used high school biology book in the United States was written by a Catholic! Second two, Two, TWO Popes have stated that the theory of evolution is not at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Then, if you really expect me to take that article seriously, and by that I mean read beyond the second paragraph where they make an incorrect sweeping generalization about the intellectual elite, you will have to provide me with proof that there is one single scientists who holds that evolution is a philosophy and teaches such.

Sure, there are people who attempt to disprove God with evolution. There are also people who attempt to disprove God with pure logic, but you’re not telling everyone to run around being illogical. Science and Theology are not enemies and the sooner both camps realize this the sooner we can move on to important issues.
Look it comes down to this. Faith and reason cannot be opposed. To get science right it must be illuminated by Revelation. If not, then you cannot arrive at the truth.
 
Give me the link that the two Popes have no issue with materialist evolution.
Do your own research. Pope John Paul the II made the statement in an encyclical and Pope Bennedict reaffirmed that evolution is not in conflict with the teachings of the Church.
 
im not sure that you read the OP, its not some luddite attack on the applied sciences or evolution.
40.png
warpspeedpetey:
it is a tired old thing and should be put down like the decrepit dog it is.
40.png
warpspeedpetey:
every scientific theory advanced as a possible origin exlanation ia therefore false, worthless. science really has nothing to offer to the debate.
Yes, let’s stop any and all scientific research into the origin of the universe. How about the origin of life? Is the research into the origin of life a decrepit dog that needs to be put down? How about those that conduct the research?

Please. Of course it is an attack on applied science.

Peace

Tim
 
Do your own research. Pope John Paul the II made the statement in an encyclical and Pope Bennedict reaffirmed that evolution is not in conflict with the teachings of the Church.
I take it you cannot provide it.
 
Yes, let’s stop any and all scientific research into the origin of the universe.
If science cannot get past the outermost skin of the singularity, to its interior, what’s the sense? It is nothing more than conjecture-from-a-distance. It’s not even hypothetical conjecture.
How about the origin of life? Is the research into the origin of life a decrepit dog that needs to be put down?
Again, it is conjecture-from-a-distance. The eight or ten top hypotheses seem to be very divergent. And, what would be the cost-benefit value of knowing one, or more, ways that life could come about?
How about those that conduct the research?
They’d have to get honest work. (Actually, I’ll take that back as I’d like to have one of those jobs.)
Please. Of course it is an attack on applied science.
Unless it’s an attack on “science” that has ulterior motives as its raison d’etre.

jd
 
If science cannot get past the outermost skin of the singularity, to its interior, what’s the sense? It is nothing more than conjecture-from-a-distance. It’s not even hypothetical conjecture. Should we put it down like a “decrepit dog”?
Science certainly will never get past the outermost skin of the singularity if we stop trying. Is there harm in trying?
Again, it is conjecture-from-a-distance. The eight or ten top hypotheses seem to be very divergent. And, what would be the cost-benefit value of knowing one, or more, ways that life could come about?
They are divergent now, but why would that be a reason to shut down research? Is it to ensure that an answer is never found?

Cost-benefit value? Is the search for truth bases simply on a cost-benefit evaluation? Is that true for all pursuits like history, literature, religion?

Peace

Tim
 
I take it you cannot provide it.
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=93653
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Now, provide me with what I asked you to provide. Give me one, just one, textbook which teaches evolution as a philosophy and not a theory. Bear in mind, the most commonly used high school biology text book is written by a Catholic.
 
Science certainly will never get past the outermost skin of the singularity if we stop trying. Is there harm in trying?
If we can’t expel our souls from our bodies without dying, is there any harm in trying? Only science - including bogus science - seems to somehow retain almost perpetual funding. I wonder how many hungry people could be fed with that wasted outlay.
They are divergent now, but why would that be a reason to shut down research? Is it to ensure that an answer is never found?
I would hope not. But, I don’t like the idea of it being used to extort the taxpayer either. Perhaps it is best left to private research, with no government funding. (Some of it already is anyway, I think - and hope.)
Cost-benefit value? Is the search for truth bases simply on a cost-benefit evaluation?
Would ascertaining the truth of whether God can make a rock so big and heavy that He can’t pick it up be something you might want to apply such a test to?
Is that true for all pursuits like history, literature, religion?
The last time I checked, religion was paid for by private people who wanted to pay for it. It was not taken from us at gun-point. Pretty much the same as history and literature, with the possible exception of the Natl. Endowment for the Arts.

To your thinking, any absurd thing resembling a science has some sort of priority over us and everything else.

All I am trying to say is, “If science cannot pierce that skin - which it can’t as we cannot go there in person - why spend more and more money on it?” Spend it on evolution research instead. Or, on medicine.

jd
 
Only science - including bogus science - seems to somehow retain almost perpetual funding. I wonder how many hungry people could be fed with that wasted outlay.
So, let’s end ALL science funding and feed the hungry people. Ironic, isn’t it, that much of our ability to feed people comes from science that would no longer be funded.
Would ascertaining the truth of whether God can make a rock so big and heavy that He can’t pick it up be something you might want to apply such a test to?
Who decides, jd, what is a silly waste of time? You? Me? Should we stop all research into the origin of the universe or the origin of life because you find it to be a useless bit of information or an impossible goal? Maybe if you were in charge before we understood that microbes were the cause of disease, you would have cut off funding to researchers looking for a cause in a place that you found to be silly.
To your thinking, any absurd thing resembling a science has some sort of priority over us and everything else.
Where did you get that from my posts?
All I am trying to say is, “If science cannot pierce that skin - which it can’t as we cannot go there in person - why spend more and more money on it?” Spend it on evolution research instead. Or, on medicine.
We cannot go into the atom in person. Perhaps we should have never done the research?

Peace

Tim
 
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=93653
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Now, provide me with what I asked you to provide. Give me one, just one, textbook which teaches evolution as a philosophy and not a theory. Bear in mind, the most commonly used high school biology text book is written by a Catholic.
From 2:

…And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. **There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.
…**37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The *Catechism *states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).
 
Yes, let’s stop any and all scientific research into the origin of the universe.
the argument only shows such research is futile. there can be no scientific explanation for the origins of the universe.
How about the origin of life?
where is that mentioned in the OP?
Is the research into the origin of life a decrepit dog that needs to be put down?
who said any of that? evolution has nothing to do with the OP, the answer to the origin of the universe supersedes our specific biological origin, the manner of our biological creation is unimportant to me. evolution is just as good as a literal 6 day creation.
How about those that conduct the research?
this is what is making me think you either havent read, or misunderstand the OP.

it has nothing to do with evolution, its not mentioned, or even germane to the OP
Please. Of course it is an attack on applied science.

Peace

Tim
what makes you think that? so far, you have been talking about things not even in the OP.

can you refute the specific arguement int he OP?
 
having cruisede the thread this morning, i see it has been hijacked for evolution theories, something the OP does not address.:rolleyes:
 
the argument only shows such research is futile. there can be no scientific explanation for the origins of the universe.
Is your opinion that there can be no scientific explanation for the origin of the universe what decides whether or not research should continue?

If you don’t want to include the origin of life, fine. Let’s just stick to the origin of the universe. Should we ban all scientific research (I’m assuming you would be ok with a theological research) on the subject? When we do, what do we do with scientists who continue to do the research?
this is what is making me think you either havent read, or misunderstand the OP.
I have read and understood your OP. Now, are you the one who decides what science can research? And again, what are the consequences to those scientists who ignore your rule?

Peace

Tim
 
having cruisede the thread this morning, i see it has been hijacked for evolution theories, something the OP does not address.:rolleyes:
Actually, the question has become, in my opinion, who gets to decide that science will never find an answer to the beginning of the universe OR the beginning of life OR any other unknown.

You could substitute any other unknown topic in place of the origin of the universe and the discussion would be the same, at least as far as I am concerned.

Peace

Tim
 
Buffalo,

You are not worth responding to because you refuse to defend your position by providing the resource I asked for. I take this to mean you can provide no such resource and as such should be summarily dismissed.
 
Buffalo,

You are not worth responding to because you refuse to defend your position by providing the resource I asked for. I take this to mean you can provide no such resource and as such should be summarily dismissed.
Huh? I think that is the point. No textbook identifies it a non-empirical.
 
Is your opinion that there can be no scientific explanation for the origin of the universe what decides whether or not research should continue?
i dont care what they do, i am only pointing out that such research is futile.
If you don’t want to include the origin of life, fine. Let’s just stick to the origin of the universe. Should we ban all scientific research (I’m assuming you would be ok with a theological research) on the subject?
who said anything about a ban on research? what is theological research? ive never heard of it.
When we do, what do we do with scientists who continue to do the research?
again what does that have to do with the argument of the OP? let them bang their head on the wall if they want.

the argument proves said banging is pointless. let them do as they please anyway.
I have read and understood your OP. Now, are you the one who decides what science can research?
again, you dont seem to understand, im not talking about the ability to perform research, only its futility.
And again, what are the consequences to those scientists who ignore your rule?

Peace

Tim
what consequences are you talking about?

nobody said anything about that.
 
Actually, the question has become, in my opinion, who gets to decide that science will never find an answer to the beginning of the universe

if you wish to address that question, start a thread. i am proving that such research is futile. its not a decision, its a logical impossibility, the foundation argument being in the OP
OR the beginning of life OR any other unknown.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top