Science & Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter epiphany08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes it was. Mt. Everest was once spread out nice and flat under an ocean called Tethys. Mt.Everest is the deep marine shale and slate of the Tethys ocean bed and some metamorphic rock, gneiss.
The marine shale which currently forms part of Mount Everest were indeed once under Tethys. However, at the time they were not “Mount Everest”, but “seabed”. The metamorphic rock is more doubtful. It could have formed either before or after the uplift above sea level. Early gneiss may well have formed below sea-level. Later gneiss will have formed above sea level as the Himalayas were being forced upwards.

As I have said earlier in this thread, there are igneous (and metamorphic) rocks which have formed above ground and which have never been underwater.

All of this happened long before the arrival of man on the scene, so it cannot relate to anything involving a human-built boat.

rossum
 
The marine shale which currently forms part of Mount Everest were indeed once under Tethys. However, at the time they were not “Mount Everest”, but “seabed”. The metamorphic rock is more doubtful. It could have formed either before or after the uplift above sea level. Early gneiss may well have formed below sea-level. Later gneiss will have formed above sea level as the Himalayas were being forced upwards.

As I have said earlier in this thread, there are igneous (and metamorphic) rocks which have formed above ground and which have never been underwater.

All of this happened long before the arrival of man on the scene, so it cannot relate to anything involving a human-built boat.

rossum
The land from which the gneiss later formed was under the ocean. Ditto the volcanoes.
The boat can be real and a vehicle for a story.
 
If you can’t even summarise it your claim is not credible…

How are** persons** derived from purposeless particles which haven’t the foggiest notion of what they are doing?

No responses whatsoever!
You can’t have forgotten going through this before. Really? OK then. 😦

It’s not like any of it is exactly new, it started with Aristotle:

The whole is more than the sum of its parts

From there we have such things as:

*Emergence - In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Holism … is the idea that all the properties of a given system (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

Synergy - may be defined as two or more things functioning together to produce a result not independently obtainable. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy*

That’s about it. Loads of evidence, loads of philosophy, if you care to take a look.
 
I want to tell you, inocente, all about the most distinctive character of calcalkaline compared with tholeiitic suites, reflecting the relative timing of phase saturation with Fe–Ti oxides, plagioclase, and ferromagnesian silicates. But you can’t understand this right now. I will tell you a short story instead about a real man named Nobby and trouble and volcanoes and earthquakes under the depths of the sea. Or maybe I’ll tell you a short story about a programmer, called Nokki who was a real person, working with the Geological Institute of America on a computer program for studying Icelandic volcanoes and deep Atlantic basalt in Hawaii.
But it is all real however you tell it!
Do I take that to mean you now realize you can’t find any citations to back up your claim about modern geology, but can’t bring yourself to admit it openly?
 
Are all of us really human, rational and corporeal, spirit and matter, soul and body? Are all of us saved by the single salvific act of Jesus Christ? If we are, then we had to come from a carefully defined source and not some general population figure.
Why do we have to come from a “carefully defined source”? :confused:

If we preach Christ crucified then surely it can’t be for us to carefully define who He did and didn’t die for, who is and isn’t (in another poster’s memorable word) subhuman. If Homo erectus, neanderthalensis, etc.,were able to understood this then of course He died for them as well, of course they also share in His love.

*If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:

“For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, including a carefully defined source, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Rom 8, slightly extended dance mix :)*
 
Do I take that to mean you now realize you can’t find any citations to back up your claim about modern geology, but can’t bring yourself to admit it openly?
I don’t think you understand what I am saying. Modern geology studies [among other things] the sedimentary rock that was laid down by ancient seas and oceans. Every bit of earths landmass has a stack of sedimentary rock layers each different set of layers formed beneath different seas and oceans at different times and places. Every bit of earth was covered by water at some stage or another.
 
I don’t think you understand what I am saying. Modern geology studies [among other things] the sedimentary rock that was laid down by ancient seas and oceans. Every bit of earths landmass has a stack of sedimentary rock layers each different set of layers formed beneath different seas and oceans at different times and places. Every bit of earth was covered by water at some stage or another.
Yes, we all knew that and no one disagrees. If we took a vote, the vote would be unanimous. We are as one, we are mightily agreed, in total accord.

But that says nothing at all about Noah, unless it’s that the story must be true because we’ve all seen rain and trees, and darn it the ark was made of wood and it rained quite a bit in the story! But then Thor must exist since modern meteorology confirms the existence of thunder, Santa because modern architecture confirms the existence of chimneys, and Jiminy Cricket since he sang When You Wish upon a Star and dag nab it modern cosmology confirms the existence of stars! 😃

Sorry if your point is flying straight over my head, but you seem to be saying it’s amazing that there’s just enough news every day to fill up the newspapers. :confused:
 
Yes, we all knew that and no one disagrees. If we took a vote, the vote would be unanimous. We are as one, we are mightily agreed, in total accord.

But that says nothing at all about Noah, unless it’s that the story must be true because we’ve all seen rain and trees, and darn it the ark was made of wood and it rained quite a bit in the story! But then Thor must exist since modern meteorology confirms the existence of thunder, Santa because modern architecture confirms the existence of chimneys, and Jiminy Cricket since he sang When You Wish upon a Star and dag nab it modern cosmology confirms the existence of stars! 😃

Sorry if your point is flying straight over my head, but you seem to be saying it’s amazing that there’s just enough news every day to fill up the newspapers. :confused:
Exactly. I knew you’d get it in the end. Everyone is mightily agreed the earth was covered in water. huraahh…
 
You can’t have forgotten going through this before. Really? OK then. 😦

It’s not like any of it is exactly new, it started with Aristotle:

The whole is more than the sum of its parts

From there we have such things as:

Emergence - In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Holism … is the idea that all the properties of a given system (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

Synergy - may be defined as two or more things functioning together to produce a result not independently obtainable. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy

That’s about it. Loads of evidence, loads of philosophy, if you care to take a look.
What are the parts of a person?
 
By no means. Physics and chemistry are necessary for explaining cosmic evolution from the Big Bang to the gravitational formation of stars and planets, and for explaining the nucleosynthesis – in the core of stars and in supernovae – of the heavy elements essential to the formation of life. Genetics and biology are necessary for explaining evolution, and psychology for the development of human language, society, and religious ideas. I would argue that theology is also necessary, but this stand outside the purview of science.
What explains psychology?
 
Code:
			*  Of course, once you have it on that  footing, it's only a small step to the alternative conclusion that  God's non-existence is more probable than his existence.*
		 		 	 	 How would you justify that conclusion?
 
Exactly. I knew you’d get it in the end. Everyone is mightily agreed the earth was covered in water. huraahh…
What’cha talking about? You said, “Every bit of earth was covered by water at some stage or another.”

This appears to be an exceptionally difficult concept for you, so maybe if I say it loud:

"at some stage or another"
means
NOT ALL AT ONCE
 
This also appears to be a difficult concept:

"The whole is more than the sum of its parts"
means
A PERSON CANNOT BE NOT DEFINED BY PARTS
What is it that makes a person an entity?

NB Your childish emphasis merely reveals the weakness of your statements - which are not convincing enough to stand on their own merits - and it amounts to a disregard of the first forum conduct rule: politeness. You seem to think might is right!
 
Of course we came from a carefully defined source - our ancestors. No one descends from a “general population figure,” if that term has any meaning.
May I respectfully point out the famous, landmark, gold standard, general population evolutionary theory that at no time, no where, no how, did our human population drop below 10,000 breeding pairs. The same theory that the world’s scientists, some priests, and lots of educated persons hold which is in opposition to some of the Catholic doctrines.

Perhaps, you know about Francisco Ayala who, in his famous, landmark, gold standard, research did consider low estimates of humans, but effectively ruled them out. Since then, other scientists have speculated lower figures; however on CAF, the most popular speculation is 10,000 breeding pairs.

Since I am open to the various results of scientific research, my use of the term “general population figure” is correct.

When one reads actual research about human origin, it may look like there is a carefully scientifically defined source. However, when one uses common sense, it is easy to understand that sources of hard data are limited going backwards thousands and thousands of years, all over the wide world. Therefore, there are assumptions, estimates, and researchers’ personal choices of methods.

Please note that often assumptions and estimates may be valid in a particular, individual research study. I respect the efforts of scientists. Nonetheless, results of particular, individual study of hand-picked genes out of 20,000 - 25,000 genes in a human cannot be extrapolated to an absolute, universal conclusion of any kind. Add in the fact that humans are not clones of each other.

The Catholic Church teaches Divine Revelation, which includes a belief in a transcendent, pure spirit, personal Creator God. The Catholic Church continues to hold that the carefully defined source of humanity consists of two, sole, real, human parents as sole, real founders of the human species.
 
What is it that makes a person an entity?

NB Your childish emphasis merely reveals the weakness of your statements - which are not convincing enough to stand on their own merits - and it amounts to a disregard of the first forum conduct rule: politeness. You seem to think might is right!
So you continually posting one-liners that give me none of your thinking, asking your imperious questions and giving nothing back as if you’re my judge, jury and executioner, saying it baffles you how anyone in their right mind could have my views, all that’s dead polite? While me using a bigger font size (incidentally, same size as when first quoting Aristotle, who you seem to reckon is not convincing enough to stand on his own merits), that’s a childish affront to the forum? So report me.

Mind you, it was really nice to get a post from you that actually explained how you felt. Keep it up! So what do you think makes a person an entity?
 
Yes, we all knew that and no one disagrees. If we took a vote, the vote would be unanimous. We are as one, we are mightily agreed, in total accord.

But that says nothing at all about Noah,…
Finally, some common sense appears.👍

For you.:flowers:
 
So what do you think makes a person an entity?
(I ignore irrelevant statements)

A person is an entity from the following points of view:
  1. Metaphysical
  2. Epistemological
  3. Moral
  4. Religious
  5. Social
  6. Legal
  7. Aesthetic
  8. Economic
  9. Medical
  10. Common sense
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top