E
edwest2
Guest
Why do human beings exist? No particular reason? I have it on authority from God but you do not want to consider the information.
Science is not evrything.
Peace,
Ed
Science is not evrything.
Peace,
Ed
- Status
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Alec!
Do you mean to say that out of nothing they are going to produce a living creature?
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Alec!
The circle might not be as odd as much as it isn’t scientific–though some are truly odd.
Since you are being inclusive, I must admit that I’ve not heard the scientists’ perspective–it is refreshing to know that the main goal to further science is not to disprove the existence of God.
Thank you for your import!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
…I think we may be at different pages… I am not from the scientific community… I have no personal knowledge of what scientists think–I am speaking from exchanges with people (both on-line and in person) who are not Catholic and support what is generally undestood as evolution.
Though I cannot remember a single NY Times article where a scientist has been credited for not excluding God when matters of evolution or science is concerned–I could be wrong since I do not always read all of the news articles.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
…the point I was attempting to make is that even the simplest organism confounds science not that my Faith is dependent upon man’s ability to define or discover things in the universe.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
…yet, this is simply estimation based on what is perceived from both the gathered data and the speculation on unknown factors–much like the idea that there are myriads of alternative realities in the time continuum or that time travel can one day be feasible (not withstanding the various built-in constraints…); I have no problem with science or estimation… my problem is when estimation is presented as factual science.
Maran atha!
Angel
S
SFTor
Guest
I can mention that the “dinosaur figurines” from Peru have long ago been debunked. They are modern-day creations.
Tourists like them a lot, I think they are selling briskly.
Best,
Tor
Tourists like them a lot, I think they are selling briskly.
Best,
Tor
S
SFTor
Guest
Just little drabs of thoughts here:
We hear about all these depictions of dinosaurs in historical societies (I can’t believe I’m discussing this.)
What is the content of the cave paintings of Lascaux and Altamira? Did they accurately represent the large fauna of their time and geography? Did they draw any dinosaurs?
Just wondering,
Tor
We hear about all these depictions of dinosaurs in historical societies (I can’t believe I’m discussing this.)
What is the content of the cave paintings of Lascaux and Altamira? Did they accurately represent the large fauna of their time and geography? Did they draw any dinosaurs?
Just wondering,
Tor
J
jcrichton
Guest
It is difficult to produce the exact meaning or definition that one desires from Scriptures… the wording or multiple meaning sometimes get in the way…
I will attempt it never the less:
***34 And Jesus said to them: The children of this world… 36 Neither can they die any more for they are equal to the angels and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. ***(St. Luke 20:34-36)
Here’s a direct comparison to Christ’s Disciples and the angels; Jesus speak man as being a child of God not the angels.
12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. 13 Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (St. John 1:12-13)
John reveals to us that God’s creatures become children of God only through Faith in Jesus–the angels are not included in this transition.
We see now through a glass in a dark manner: but then face to face. Now I know in part: but then I shall know even as I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall rise again incorruptible. And we shall be changed. (1 Corinthians 15:52)
16 For the Lord himself shall come down from heaven with commandment and with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God: and the dead who are in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air: and so shall we be always with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)
Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God: and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that when he shall appear we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is. (1 St. John 3:2)
As the Scriptures above state there is a change coming–we are to become as Jesus is; this change does not involve the angels.
Would there be a time when the angels would become part of God as man is to become part of God? I do not know–Scriptures do not reveal that there will come such time. Is that fair? Are the angels being shortchanged? I can only think of St. Paul’s revelation about the vessels:
***O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus? ***(Romans 9:20)
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
…I think that that is the precise problem… since my sources are removed from the actual arena the exchange is based on what these people believe science is saying–I’ve often heard of scientific publications perhaps I’ll give them a try; if anything I could perhaps point them to a source closer to “the horse’s mouth.”
…yeah, I don’t remember it either, my soused uncle used to try to sing it when I was a child… his singing scared me straight–1 shot is always enough!
Maran atha!
Angel
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
Irrelevant. Evolution is not about the origin of life. But be careful. What man cannot yet do, is a very unsafe place to hide your faith in God.
Trust in God’s power, not man’s lack of it.
Irrelevant. Evolution is not about the origin of life. But be careful. What man cannot yet do, is a very unsafe place to hide your faith in God.
Trust in God’s power, not man’s lack of it.
The astonishing thing is how much about organisms we have learned over such a very short time. Thank God, there will always be more to learn, of course. What a sad world it would be, if there was nothing new to explore!
I hope that is isn’t. Truth is the way home to Him.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Babarian, regarding macroevolution
It’s directly observed. Hard not to consider that a fact.
Barbarian, regarding the age of the Earth:
About 4 billion. A thousand times greater.
And then radioactivity was discovered. And that cleared up the source of the heat, and Kelvin grudgingly admitted that Darwin had been right.
It’s directly observed. Hard not to consider that a fact.
Barbarian, regarding the age of the Earth:
About 4 billion. A thousand times greater.
No. It is inference based on the evidence. Interestingly, Darwin and Lord Kelvin (arguably the best physicist since Newton) had an argument on the age of the Earth. Kelvin calculated the heat flux, and got a few million years. Darwin pointed out that the evidence from geology and biology showed it had to be much older than that.
And then radioactivity was discovered. And that cleared up the source of the heat, and Kelvin grudgingly admitted that Darwin had been right.
This idea depends on conflating evidence with imagination. Very bad thing, in science. The age of the Earth and evolution are known to be true, because a great deal of evidence supports those ideas. The ones you mention, not so much.
You have confused estimation and inference. Estimation comes at the beginning of science, but the inference must wait until there is evidence to support it. And even estimation must be based in prior knowledge of evidence.
E
edwest2
Guest
To The Barbarian -
What is the point of your posting this information? I thought the formula was evidence does not equal proof, but apparently, it does qualify something as true or a fact. I still have reasonable doubts.
Peace,
Ed
What is the point of your posting this information? I thought the formula was evidence does not equal proof, but apparently, it does qualify something as true or a fact. I still have reasonable doubts.
Peace,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
To clear up some misconceptions. He had it precisely backwards. The hypothesis comes first. Only after it’s verified by evidence, does it qualify as a theory.
Right. Science is inductive. The problem is, proof is a matter of deduction. You take the basic general principles, and then use them to figure out the particulars. The problem in science, is we are trying to find the basic general principles. So we have to infer what they are from the particulars (evidence).
And that can’t give you logical certainty, but it can give you “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That’s what the law calls proof, but as you know, the law is less precise than science.
Right. It’s a fact that the sun is going to appear in the east tomorrow morning. Can’t prove it will, but there’s enough evidence to make it foolish to deny. Scientific theories are like that.
Not reasonable, since they are not grounded in evidence but in your emotional objection to the way God did it.
E
edwest2
Guest
I have to be very skeptical of your that’s how God did it statement. Here’s why:
biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_2/darwin_influence.htm
The evidence is that you are obsessed with an ideology. I doubt you’ve missed the various posts here about it, especially from scientist hecd2. Look them up. His clear goal is to deny God based on scientific evidence that he claims does so.
In another post I was obliquely asked if Catholics would change their minds if the Church was found to be wrong about something. When I asked, what exactly, there was no answer.
Which appears to explain your constant mention of common descent. Who cares what the Church thinks? Why do you want their blessing? Do you think the biology textbook publishers will include it? Do you think the public school science classes will include it? The answer is no. I have to lump you in with the Church must change crowd here. Fortunately, both Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schoenborn know and understand this nonscientific ideological threat.
Peace,
Ed
biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_2/darwin_influence.htm
The evidence is that you are obsessed with an ideology. I doubt you’ve missed the various posts here about it, especially from scientist hecd2. Look them up. His clear goal is to deny God based on scientific evidence that he claims does so.
In another post I was obliquely asked if Catholics would change their minds if the Church was found to be wrong about something. When I asked, what exactly, there was no answer.
Which appears to explain your constant mention of common descent. Who cares what the Church thinks? Why do you want their blessing? Do you think the biology textbook publishers will include it? Do you think the public school science classes will include it? The answer is no. I have to lump you in with the Church must change crowd here. Fortunately, both Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schoenborn know and understand this nonscientific ideological threat.
Peace,
Ed
D
D_M
Guest
Hmmm… I’m not sure if simply ommitting any mention of the angels in scripture dealing with the children is enough to mean that they are in fact ommitted… I do not know either, and it is quite fair to state such
Other than the quotes I mentioned, I think for instance of the apocryphal book of Enoch which calls the angels ‘the children of the heavens’…angels would be in the Spirit, possess faith and obedience to Jesus, although they would not have required redemption (then again neither did Mary according to catholic teaching, and she is still reckoned among the children of God)
Also what the apostles mention about becoming like unto Jesus… is that the same as saying they shall become in the image of God? My understanding was that Adam and Eve possessed the image of God long before they could have had faith in Jesus and gone through the change that came through Jesus’ blood.
Admittedly I don’t know… and you’re right about the vessels, admittedly if they were not created in God’s image then they would have happy not to have been
Maybe we should ask?
(anyone reading this is welcome to repeat the following themselves)
Lord, if it please You, may You answer our query as to whether or not the angels were created in Your divine image, and also teach us to know the age of Your Creation. We ask this through Your Son, Amen.
H
historyb
Guest
For your information I have a BS and am working toward my Masters and onto my PhD, I am not an uneducated person. I went through all the biology classes at College and came out with knowing that evolution is man’s failed attempt to place themselves above God.And what comic books have you been reading?
As far as Comics - Old Star Trek ones on my PC in PCLinuxOS via Comix
H
historyb
Guest
If I may respond. That assumes as does modern Science that we are smarter than ancient man, there is nothing to prove that. There are discoveries being made in which things we use now were thought of in Ancient times and if the Library in Alexander had not burned down just think of where we might be today with Technology.
I think ancient man knew many concepts better than we do now, it’s been a theory of mine for awhile that mankind gets so advanced and than something happens to push that back the earlier possible example could be the tower of Babel. With others example throughout written History.
H
historyb
Guest
We are required as Catholics to believe Adam and Eve were and are real.
E
edwest2
Guest
Smarter than ancient man? We have gadgets that did not exist in the past but gadgets have been found that challenge our ideas of what ancient man knew.
Any ideas about the Library of Alexandria assume a great deal. In the span between 1900 and 1945, man went from the first powered aircraft to jet planes, cruise missiles, supersonic rockets and atomic bombs. You’ll note that these were weapons.
It is debatable how much different man is. Ancient Greek plays can still be read and are comprehensible. Man himself, has changed little. In the last century, over 100 million people died in wars around the world. Nuclear arsenals have diminished but there are still enough to destroy the world and they are proliferating. In the last century, man made great technological progress, but he did not really become smarter. He has found more ways to kill quickly and on a massive, global scale.
The essence of what makes man human has not changed. Some claim we are little more than complicated snowflakes who reproduce and die. Your genes contain everything - your actions are preprogrammed, your mind is a computer, and any variations are the result of your own set of sensory (name removed by moderator)uts.
Practically all cultures since antiquity have recognized a force or power that is greater than man. The concept of spirit is common. In this, from the Catholic perspective, is the rest of the truth about man. He is here, today, but he is also linked to something beyond himself. The you are just a snowflake group would have you believe that religion itself was given to you by your genes, and you genes alone, to help man survive and reproduce.
In history, man has claimed contact with that greater force. He has seen it, spoken to it and learned from it. While all aspects of ancient history are studied intently, the Judeo-Christian experience is being attacked as mythical. PBS is telling people the Exodus never happened, director James Cameron was involved in a hoax about Jesus’ physical remains being found. Another program aired not that long ago that attempted to link coincidence and certain rare events to the plagues sent against Egypt by Moses.
What would be the purpose of such things? Scientific inquiry? Not likely. As in Russia in the 1920s, the goal was to stamp out all religious beliefs and superstitions from among the people. Then people lived in a totalitarian state and even spied on each other.
Those who control invention and innovation sometimes cannot resist the temptation to use it against their fellow man. To control, to intimidate and to coerce people to act a certain way. Yes, technology has saved lives as well.
We no longer have men walking around in robes calling themselves king or emporer (with the exception of a few countries) but they are just like the kings of old, fighting for land, resources and power. Finding ways to keep the peasants in line and collecting taxes.
After the USSR collapsed, the Churches and religious life reappeared. The spirit of man is not just his physical parts.
God bless,
Ed
Any ideas about the Library of Alexandria assume a great deal. In the span between 1900 and 1945, man went from the first powered aircraft to jet planes, cruise missiles, supersonic rockets and atomic bombs. You’ll note that these were weapons.
It is debatable how much different man is. Ancient Greek plays can still be read and are comprehensible. Man himself, has changed little. In the last century, over 100 million people died in wars around the world. Nuclear arsenals have diminished but there are still enough to destroy the world and they are proliferating. In the last century, man made great technological progress, but he did not really become smarter. He has found more ways to kill quickly and on a massive, global scale.
The essence of what makes man human has not changed. Some claim we are little more than complicated snowflakes who reproduce and die. Your genes contain everything - your actions are preprogrammed, your mind is a computer, and any variations are the result of your own set of sensory (name removed by moderator)uts.
Practically all cultures since antiquity have recognized a force or power that is greater than man. The concept of spirit is common. In this, from the Catholic perspective, is the rest of the truth about man. He is here, today, but he is also linked to something beyond himself. The you are just a snowflake group would have you believe that religion itself was given to you by your genes, and you genes alone, to help man survive and reproduce.
In history, man has claimed contact with that greater force. He has seen it, spoken to it and learned from it. While all aspects of ancient history are studied intently, the Judeo-Christian experience is being attacked as mythical. PBS is telling people the Exodus never happened, director James Cameron was involved in a hoax about Jesus’ physical remains being found. Another program aired not that long ago that attempted to link coincidence and certain rare events to the plagues sent against Egypt by Moses.
What would be the purpose of such things? Scientific inquiry? Not likely. As in Russia in the 1920s, the goal was to stamp out all religious beliefs and superstitions from among the people. Then people lived in a totalitarian state and even spied on each other.
Those who control invention and innovation sometimes cannot resist the temptation to use it against their fellow man. To control, to intimidate and to coerce people to act a certain way. Yes, technology has saved lives as well.
We no longer have men walking around in robes calling themselves king or emporer (with the exception of a few countries) but they are just like the kings of old, fighting for land, resources and power. Finding ways to keep the peasants in line and collecting taxes.
After the USSR collapsed, the Churches and religious life reappeared. The spirit of man is not just his physical parts.
God bless,
Ed
- Status