The Problem of DARWIN'S EVIL

[IWantGod]

I obviously have difficulty making my ideas understood.

No, your position is very clear, it’s just wrong because it follows from a flawed premise.

 

[IWantGod]

Scripture I’m sure you will agree is not a science book, nor a treatise on metaphysics.

So why do you treat it like one.

 

[IWantGod]

From that basis, in addition to tradition and a leagion of scholars, we try to make sense of all this.

That’s something everybody on this site is trying to do. I disagree with your treatise on scripture and for good reason.

 

[IWantGod]

Put Christ back in Christmas

It’s just about buying people gifts now. The traditional Christ Christmas? Well…perhaps a few conservative families practice this. But at least there is still charity involved in the event.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

I obviously have difficulty making my ideas understood.

No, your position is very clear, it’s just wrong because it follows from a flawed premise.

Obviously it’s not clear since your feedback has nothing to do with the meaning behind what I’ve written. What exactly is the false premise?

There is nothing in Catholic doctrine or science that states that animals became carnivores after the fall of man.

I did not state that this is what happened, although a possiblity exists related to a previous fall, described in other literature, before that of mankind, nor that any changes in the relationship between animals involved a temporal sequence of events. I am suggesting that the decision is made at the foundation of the world, where it is stated in scripture that the innocent Lamb was/is sacrificed, later to be revealed in the life, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As I said this is difficult to communicate.

If you did understand my position, you would not have replied thusly to “scripture I’m sure you will agree is not a science book, nor a treatise on metaphysics”:

So why do you treat it like one.

Where have I treated it as such? I am interpreting its historical and symbolic meanings in terms that are understandable to me and hopefully others.

I disagree with your treatise on scripture and for good reason.

You may wish to explain your position since I have failed to grasp your reasons.

 

[Aquinas11]

I disagree

Then you would have the burden to prove there is no difference between theistic evolution and Darwinian evolution, given they are two distinct theories of evolution as shown in a simple Google search of each term.

 

[IWantGod]

Then you would have the burden to prove there is no difference between theistic evolution and Darwinian evolution, given they are two distinct theories of evolution as shown in a simple Google search of each term.

With all due respect, you are the one who claimed there was a problem. I want to understand what you think that problem is. Please elaborate. What is it about the natural theory of evolution that conflicts with the Catholic faith, and what is theistic evolution to you that one should see it as a different theory?

 

[Uriel1]

sevenswords:

I contest that as evolution is only a theory brought about a handfull of years ago, before the 1800.s

A handy list of other things that are “only a theory”:

1. Germ theory of disease
2. Heliocentric theory
3. The theory of gravity
4. Plate tectonics
5. Theory of General Relativity
6. Theory of Special Relativity
7. Quantum Theory

You really need to learn what is meant by the the word ‘theory’ in a scientific context.

1. Germ theory of disease - this is both falsifiable and has been empirically tested
2. Heliocentric theory - this is both falsifiable and has been empirically tested
3. The theory of gravity - this is both falsifiable and has been empirically tested
4. Plate tectonics - this is both falsifiable and has been empirically tested
   etc.,

• Darwinian Evolution - this is neither falsifiable nor has it been empirically tested

 

[Aloysium]

The theory of gravity - this is both falsifiable and has been empirically tested

From another thread:

There is no Theory of Gravity. It is more an observation of how objects interact.

Way back there would have been an idea that things fall down because they are seeking a return to where they came from - the earth. It would not have been testable until it was determined that objects in the sky were of the same stuff as the earth. At that point it would be disproven. There may still be something to be said about the concept in that gravity seeks a return to the singularity from which all sprang, a sort of yang to the universal expansion, yin.

Moving forward to Newton, we have the law of universal gravitation that understands gravity as being an attractive force between any two bodies, proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. While it is the dominant force in the larger universe, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces at the subatomic.

The general theory of relativity describes gravity in terms of the bending of spacetime general. It is not here understood to be a force.

Quantum mechanics presents a very different concept as it looks into what occurs at the smallest level of matter and is a work in progress.

The idea of a theory of gravity in biological terms would be equivalent to that of a theory of reproduction

 

[Gabika50]

to respond to the headline “:the problem of darwin’s evil” respondeo (for Thomistic types) I answer that the potential for prjudice against all this jazz will go on ad infintem because it pleases the folks that love creationsist versus “I came from an ape- enists”

 

[Uriel1]

There is no Theory of Gravity. It is more an observation of how objects interact.

many think otherwise
blessings
https://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

 

[Roseeurekacross]

ok stop right there, what is your issue with Plate Tectonics? To whomever said its got issues. I mean, two plates crashing into each other are bound to have issues.

How does one empirically test the movement of plates and declare them falsifiable.

I mean we are watching the Himalayas rise 6 cm a year because its being crashed into by another plate. We are watching the sliding plates around the ring of fire create all those fireworks.

 

[Uriel1]

Beghein et al 2014 “The directions of past and present-day mantle flow can be detected by seismic waves, and changes in the alignment of the rocks inside and at the bottom of the plate can be used to identify layering.”

Read more at: New study reveals insights on plate tectonics

 

[Roseeurekacross]

What is this meant to prove or disprove. Are we talking soft rock geology, geophysics or plate tectonics?

Uriel are you arguing for or against plate tectonics because that article is all about the driving forces of plate tectonics and some of the effects of it and how things work.

 

[Uriel1]

it looks at measuring plate tectonics - ie empirically testing the theory of plate tectonics

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Which paragraph is looking at measuring plate tectonics? What is being measured?

 

[angel12]

“I came from an ape- enists”

Too bad there’s no such thing

 

[Aloysium]

I’m going to pursue this because its piqued my interest.

Let’s define things accurately. There are two terms that are relevant here “gravity” and “gravitation”. Technically, gravitation is the natural attractive phenomenon that exists between all things that possess mass or energy. I would call it a relationship existing between them, that defines what they are. Gravitation would be that universal property, a “force” that we conceive as being the reason why objects come together. Gravity, on the other hand would be what we experience on earth, the gravitational force that occurs between the earth and other bodies, attracting them toward the center of the earth.

We may not agree, it’s a matter of semantics at that point I guess, but I understand that there are “theories of gravitation”. I would estimate that there have been scores of them presented over the last hundred years, with many falling by the wayside.

I hope I clarified why I would say that “The Theory of Gravity” does not exist.

Events happen and suggest an underlying order. Within that order, from earliest childhood we have observed that things are heavy and fall. That tendency which can make life difficult, causing us to scrape our knees, we understand as a force that can be in opposition to or aid in our efforts, with or against the force we exert in getting our will done. In trying to understand how all this happens, beginning with the realization that it does happen, we formulate, with society’s necessary (name removed by moderator)ut, theories as to the underlying structure of, in this case, the physical universe.

 

[Gabika50]

Just invented it!

 

[Uriel1]

YOU SAID

I’m going to pursue this because its piqued my interest.

Let’s define things accurately. There are two terms that are relevant here “gravity” and “gravitation”. Technically, gravitation is the natural attractive phenomenon that exists between all things that possess mass or energy. I would call it a relationship existing between them, that defines what they are. Gravitation would be that universal property, a “force” that we conceive as being the reason why objects come together. Gravity, on the other hand would be what we experience on earth, the gravitational force that occurs between the earth and other bodies, attracting them toward the center of the earth.

We may not agree, it’s a matter of semantics at that point I guess, but I understand that there are “theories of gravitation”. I would estimate that there have been scores of them presented over the last hundred years, with many falling by the wayside.

I hope I clarified why I would say that “The Theory of Gravity” does not exist.

REPLY
In the language of science, the word “law” describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation tells us:

“Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses.”

So if we know the mass of two objects, and the distance between the center of mass of the two objects, we can calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

We can use Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.