Science & Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter epiphany08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lui

**Here comes my Peter Pan theory again. There is no evidence that he never existed, so that means he must have existed. **

No, there is no evidence that He never existed, therefore He may exist.

But since you close your mind and your heart to Him, you will never find out, will you?
 
SGW

The only refuge anyone with any pretensions to rationality has is to call Genesis metaphorical.

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis offers one helluva metaphor.

How is it that the metaphor in Genesis predates the science by 3,000 years?

Fortunately, you don’t have to explain that anymore.

Or you can just shrug your shoulders and say, “Lucky shot in the dark!” :confused:
 
StAnastasia

Sorry Granny, it is not scientifically possible that only two human being stand as the sole source of the human race.

Sorry, but you will never be able to scientifically prove that two humans did not stand as the source of the human race.

You will also never be able to prove, by mathematical analysis, that abiogenesis happened by sheer accident rather than by being intelligently designed.

Unless you believe God is not capable of intelligently designing the first life form.

Is that what you really believe? :confused:
 
StAnastasia. Sorry, but you will never be able to scientifically prove that two humans did not stand as the source of the human race.

Indeed, I have already shown (as has rossum) why the human species did not begin with a single pair, any more than the wolf species or the shark species began with a single pair.
You will also never be able to prove, by mathematical analysis, that abiogenesis happened by sheer accident rather than by being intelligently designed.
 
Sorry Granny, it is not scientifically possible that only two human being stand as the sole source of the human race. If you think this is possible, I encourage you to present your theory to the American Society of Human Genetics for professional evaluation. Otherwise it will remain your private hobby expressed here on Catholic Answers.

StAnastasia
Better yet. One should compare “theories” and “private hobbies” with Divine Revelation by the Creator of humanity. Your American Society of Human Genetics – what do they say about eternal life for good or bad?

Of course, I recognize that lots of people either do not believe in God or they reduce God to a genetic possibility or they tweak God to suit their preferences.

As for me, peerless humanity is evidence of a greater Creator than a genetics theory.
 

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.
  • both from Chapter Six of Origins.[/indent]

    rossum
Myrmecophytes, strictly speaking, do this.
 
When did I say anything about abiogenesis? You just made that up, didn’t you?

What are you talking about? Are you feeling all right?
People are talking about the whole picture of life and death.

Once someone denies God’s power to create unique human nature, then obviously abiogenesis is automatically included. And if God is powerless in the face of genetics, what happens at the close of death?

There are people who understand the limits of the material/physical world. Jesus Christ is one. Listen to His words.

Science is a gift from God. Science has benefited society. But science is limited when it comes to human nature. This is because human nature is both physical *and *spiritual.

Religion is also a gift from God. Catholicism answers the deeper questions such as Who am I? What am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? How do I get there?
 
I started this thread with the intentions of stating a theory and sparking a debate and to which it has been successful.

Science cannot explain the realm of religion. Yet the theories of religion apply to science as one member posted earlier with the example of the big bang.

It is hard to comprehend what happened before in terms of what you know today. Had I told you that long ago a gigantic creature the size of a whale walked this earth, would you believe me today? Suppose there exists no fossils, no traces of its existence, how could you explain it in terms of what you know today?

Events have occurred beyond our knowledge that was not documented. Some of these events are told through prophecies and other forms of supernatural conveyance. It is up to you whether you believe it or not. Actually, I rescind that, if you ask to believe, maybe God will allow you to.

Faith is a gift. It is not something you can just decide on yourself. You have to ask in order to receive and with that comes the responsibility of the knowledge you now possess.

Being skeptical is a trained human response due to the nature of society. Alterior motives among human interaction has caused humans to question the act of others: speech, action, and intention. This distrust did not originate from God, it developed through man, when man decided to lie for personal benefit.

God wished man to be pure, but man, in his efforts to achieve his personal satisfaction, did not turn to God; but rather, plotted his way to try and gain all that he wishes.

excuse the confusion of the brackets
You can imagine, if you (God) had a puppy (human) and all the puppy (human) wanted to do was eat (self-satisfaction); but at the same time, you understand that the puppy (human) cannot control its eating habit and that it eats more than it should (constant need for self satisfaction), what do you do? Suppose you (God) feed the puppy (human) just enough for it to be optimally healthy (happy) but the puppy (human) still wants to eat more (more self-satisfaction). So the puppy (human) then decides to go to your neighbors yard and eat out of the trashcan (find self satisfaction through impure methods, or acts against the conscience). You (God) love your puppy (human), your not going to force it in a cage and restrict it of its freedom (free will). You want it to learn from its own mistakes (asking for forgiveness). So when the puppy does decide to moderate its eating (control its self satisfaction), you reward it for its behavior (love, faith & hope).

Granted the relationship with God and us is much more complex than that of a pet owner with its pet, but a basic theory of the love of parenthood still applies.

For all you who share in the faith given unto you by God, you are indeed blessed but be reminded it is as much of a responsibility as it is a blessing. If you are skeptic of God then my suggestion is for you to pray and ask to receive knowledge of him. Some prayers will be granted, others may not be, this is His sole discretion.

For those that don’t believe and don’t care to, then you can go on with your life taking everything you hear and everything you see with a grain of salt. Personally, I use to live like that and it has caused me to become a person who believed arrogantly that I knew everything and that I had the power to discern for myself what was true or what was false based on my own reasoning. Now that I do have faith, I realize how ignorant I actually was in putting such importance to my own reasoning. Do not confuse this with me trying to tell you to believe an advertisement that says Denny’s has the best breakfast in the world. It is simply a comparison of reasoning through faith, and reasoning through the human mind.

God has given you the freedom and the choice to make your own decisions in life, otherwise known as free will. This includes the freedom of thinking, the freedom to make your own actions, and the freedom to create your future. Whether you choose to acknowledge His hand in your creation is irrelevant. Maybe you were just not meant to understand.
 
In my position as a human being, body and soul, I wish you all a good night and sweet dreams.
A delightful farewell for the day - with the stress on **soul **in these times of soul-destroying scientific analysis… The biological **machine **hypothesis is in its heyday! 😉
 
I started this thread with the intentions of stating a theory and sparking a debate and to which it has been successful.

Science cannot explain the realm of religion. Yet the theories of religion apply to science as one member posted earlier with the example of the big bang.

It is hard to comprehend what happened before in terms of what you know today. Had I told you that long ago a gigantic creature the size of a whale walked this earth, would you believe me today? Suppose there exists no fossils, no traces of its existence, how could you explain it in terms of what you know today?

Events have occurred beyond our knowledge that was not documented. Some of these events are told through prophecies and other forms of supernatural conveyance. It is up to you whether you believe it or not. Actually, I rescind that, if you ask to believe, maybe God will allow you to.

Faith is a gift. It is not something you can just decide on yourself. You have to ask in order to receive and with that comes the responsibility of the knowledge you now possess.

Being skeptical is a trained human response due to the nature of society. Alterior motives among human interaction has caused humans to question the act of others: speech, action, and intention. This distrust did not originate from God, it developed through man, when man decided to lie for personal benefit.

God wished man to be pure, but man, in his efforts to achieve his personal satisfaction, did not turn to God; but rather, plotted his way to try and gain all that he wishes.

excuse the confusion of the brackets
You can imagine, if you (God) had a puppy (human) and all the puppy (human) wanted to do was eat (self-satisfaction); but at the same time, you understand that the puppy (human) cannot control its eating habit and that it eats more than it should (constant need for self satisfaction), what do you do? Suppose you (God) feed the puppy (human) just enough for it to be optimally healthy (happy) but the puppy (human) still wants to eat more (more self-satisfaction). So the puppy (human) then decides to go to your neighbors yard and eat out of the trashcan (find self satisfaction through impure methods, or acts against the conscience). You (God) love your puppy (human), your not going to force it in a cage and restrict it of its freedom (free will). You want it to learn from its own mistakes (asking for forgiveness). So when the puppy does decide to moderate its eating (control its self satisfaction), you reward it for its behavior (love, faith & hope).

Granted the relationship with God and us is much more complex than that of a pet owner with its pet, but a basic theory of the love of parenthood still applies.

For all you who share in the faith given unto you by God, you are indeed blessed but be reminded it is as much of a responsibility as it is a blessing. If you are skeptic of God then my suggestion is for you to pray and ask to receive knowledge of him. Some prayers will be granted, others may not be, this is His sole discretion.

For those that don’t believe and don’t care to, then you can go on with your life taking everything you hear and everything you see with a grain of salt. Personally, I use to live like that and it has caused me to become a person who believed arrogantly that I knew everything and that I had the power to discern for myself what was true or what was false based on my own reasoning. Now that I do have faith, I realize how ignorant I actually was in putting such importance to my own reasoning. Do not confuse this with me trying to tell you to believe an advertisement that says Denny’s has the best breakfast in the world. It is simply a comparison of reasoning through faith, and reasoning through the human mind.

God has given you the freedom and the choice to make your own decisions in life, otherwise known as free will. This includes the freedom of thinking, the freedom to make your own actions, and the freedom to create your future. Whether you choose to acknowledge His hand in your creation is irrelevant. Maybe you were just not meant to understand.
A fine analysis of the situation, although your last sentence suggests that some were created to be blind to the truth - which implies that they are not responsible for their beliefs and behaviour…
 
People are talking about the whole picture of life and death.

Once someone denies God’s power to create unique human nature, then obviously abiogenesis is automatically included. And if God is powerless in the face of genetics, what happens at the close of death?

There are people who understand the limits of the material/physical world. Jesus Christ is one. Listen to His words.

Science is a gift from God. Science has benefited society. But science is limited when it comes to human nature. This is because human nature is both physical *and *spiritual.

Religion is also a gift from God. Catholicism answers the deeper questions such as Who am I? What am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? How do I get there?
I’m fascinated to know what the response(s) to your points will be… 😉
 
A fine analysis of the situation, although your last sentence suggests that some were created to be blind to the truth - which implies that they are not responsible for their beliefs and behaviour…
This is not a necessary implication. There is a big difference between being created blind to the truth and not understanding the truth. We can accept or believe many truths, especially about God, without completely understanding them. This does not imply blind faith because it is possible to use our limited rational abilities when truth is involved. On the other hand, we can use our intellective tools to choose to be blind.

Human nature is complicated. In my humble opinion, it is best to skip the either-or mentality and go with the possible both-and explanation.

For example, both science and religion seek truth. But truth can only be found if science is conducted properly and religion is properly understood.
 
But the short answer is that natural selection is a rigid ordered system that exists by the necessity living creatures have to survive and reproduce.
How do you explain the urge to survive?
Creatures acting from the impulses of their own nature, and adapting to their environment as various unplanned changes dictate, can create the appearance of design and intricate order by themselves, by gradual and incremental improvements.
If design is only an appearance then intelligence is also only an appearance!
What good is a light-sensing cell, you might ask? It’s better than nothing at all, because it allows the creature to sense movement and respond better than a creature without it, thus enhancing its chances for survival.
How would you prove that colours are essential for survival?
Ever heard of a flying squirrel? They don’t have wings, but the membranes between their limbs and torso allow them to escape predators by gliding from one tree to another. So half a wing can be good for something.
How were membranes transformed into feathers?
 
This is not a necessary implication. There is a big difference between being created blind to the truth and not understanding the truth. We can accept or believe many truths, especially about God, without completely understanding them. This does not imply blind faith because it is possible to use our limited rational abilities when truth is involved. On the other hand, we can use our intellective tools to choose to be blind.

Human nature is complicated. In my humble opinion, it is best to skip the either-or mentality and go with the possible both-and explanation.

For example, both science and religion seek truth. But truth can only be found if science is conducted properly and religion is properly understood.
The key phrase is “meant to understand” - which suggests intention…
 
Myrmecophytes, strictly speaking, do this.
The tree gains defensive protection and other benefits from the ants it provides a home for. To quote the Wikipedia article: “In exchange for food and shelter, ants aid the myrmecophyte in pollination, seed dispersal, gathering of essential nutrients, and/or defense.”

This is a mutual benefit, not an exclusive benefit.

Good try, though.

rossum
 
The tree gains defensive protection and other benefits from the ants it provides a home for. To quote the Wikipedia article: “In exchange for food and shelter, ants aid the myrmecophyte in pollination, seed dispersal, gathering of essential nutrients, and/or defense.”

This is a mutual benefit, not an exclusive benefit.

Good try, though.

rossum
Hi, you quoted Darwin like this;
“…had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, …”

sounded to me like the exclusive good of another species, did not mention mutual good at all. Are you refining Darwins meaning?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top