Wrong. It was your ludicrous suggestion about the recent past that would mean God deceived us. I said God cannot deceive us making your thoughts ridiculous.
At issue, imo, is the quality of that estimate and, more importantly, the tendency of evolutionists to deceptively present what is inferential as science fact, to post in the indicative mood what was offered scientifically only in the subjunctive mood.
Logically, the more dependent a conclusion is on multiple layers of inferences, the less probable the conclusion. Errors in each layer compound to negatively affect the reliability of the final inference.
No, the dog whistle blew and the usual evos showed up to hijack the thread. And, I didn’t miss your knee-jerk, snarky post to the OP.
Sad, just very sad.
Clearly you are not suggesting an error to the tune of multiple orders of magnitude. Certainly nothing that would have any meaningful bearing on the timescales which are required as a prerequisite for evolutionary processes, which is what’s relevant in the current debate.
The current debate is, as I have noted several times, off-topic. I think it could be a good debate but it is not the OP’s issue in this thread.
And the response I gave in post #297, is I believe on-topic. In the post, I offered the “legit Catholic teaching”. I think the OP would welcome other posters on-topic comments as well.
We can be sure that the standard scientific estimate is of higher quality than the evidence for your estimate. Since you have not given us any estimate at all, we have precisely zero confidence in the evidence supporting your estimate because you have provided zero evidence to support your non-estimate.
It’s a religion class. Please pay more attention to the OP.
How is that relevant here? Should a religion class teach truth or falsehood? It should teach the truth about entropy if the subject comes up.
I think your response to the original question was the best one offered. It explained how evolution should be taught in a religion class, and why a teacher would not allow the discussion to be diverted into the science questions about evolution. The 300+ plus contributions to this thread should be enough to show the problem with such diversions.
How do you teach evolution, which is a scientific subject, without answering questions that might arise? Not that I necessarily believe it should be taught in a religious class.o_mlly:
It explained how evolution should be taught in a religion class, and why a teacher would not allow the discussion to be diverted into the science questions about evolution.
In Catholic thinking, the science of evolution enters the theological realm when it attempts to explain man beyond the material.
That is a good answer to your first question.
Teacher: ‘Now we’ll discuss Genesis and the use of allegory in explaining God’s work’.Freddy:
In Catholic thinking, the science of evolution enters the theological realm when it attempts to explain man beyond the material.
Purely from a biological standpoint. Species, genus etc.
We start by declaring whether we read Genesis as a fundamentalist would and claim that the world is only a few thousand years old (in which case evolution as being discussed is literally impossible so there is no common ground) or we agree on the basic science and move on from there.
But Rossum, as as Buddhist, you deny that truth exists.
Now to continue…’ In science class only scientism will be taught. You will have to accept these dogmas because we cannot let the Divine foot in the door. You will hear many things that will have to be taken on blind faith. The alternative faith story you will be expected to regurgitate back to the teacher is the god of BUC did it all and it took a very long time. Test and challenge the current science as St Paul said we should.
Understand the difference between historical science and empirical science. One time events cannot meet the empirical test of being observable, predictable and repeatable. Science is provisional, Revelation is not.