H
historyb
Guest
Yes it does, I was thinking of inventions that were found like the steam invention. Sorry if I was wrong.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
You weren’t wrong.
Cheers,
Ed
Cheers,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Fortunately God doesn’t require you to accept the way He did it.
biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b…_influence.htm
Hmmm…let’s see what Mayr (an atheist, BTW) has to say:
It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).
Hmm… that’s what the Church says about science. Pope Benedict, for example, says that anyone who uses science to judge divine providence is out of line. That’s what scientists say.
Funny how folks like that, never know it applies to them, um?
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.
Science can’t affirm or deny God. Too weak a method for that.
Catholics.
I just want Catholics to know that they don’t have to turn their back on the truth; the Church has no problem with evolution, only with people who try to extend science beyond nature.
If you don’t care about the truth, maybe. But I don’t see any problems with the Church’s stand on this. You obviously do. It can, in an extreme form, turn people away from the Church.
It’s why, I think they have acknowledged the fact of evolution.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Hero of Alexandria invented the vending machine ( a coin was inserted to obtain a measure of holy water), a steam engine (which he never actually put to effective use) and self-opening doors.
Not bad. It appears that Archimedes figured out how to make a huge virtual parabolic mirror (from many soldiers holding polished shields), and managed to set fire to the sails and rigging of an attacking Roman vessel. (this was long thought to be a fable, until the Greek navy tried it, and it worked)
Some unknown genius put together the Antikythera mechanism. about 650 BC, an amazing bronze gearworks that could predict eclipses and phases of the moon.
They didn’t know as much as we do, but they weren’t any less intelligent than we are.
E
edwest2
Guest
Your misuse of Mayr shows again, where your goal is. Not the truth but a, sure, believe in God, if you want, even though I’ve just told you you have no reason to.
Still going with the fact of evolution line? Too bad. I think the Church will continue to tell Catholics the fact that evolution without divine providence simply cannot exist.
Catholics don’t have to turn their backs on what truth? You’ve noticed perhaps, the thread challenging infallibility? No, this forum is filled with exactly the same type of people as those on the forum I moderate. Atheist or agnostic at best. The only difference here is that they are forced to be more polite or risk being kicked out.
Mayr denies God, but you continue as if he said nothing of the sort. His tip of the hat toward the you can believe if you want to idea means nothing. hecd2 is trying to insist the supernatural out of existence with science as well. Odd that you keep going on and on with the same message.
Peace,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
You’re unhappy that Mayr didn’t simply say that science and faith are incompatible. But he didn’t say that, ed. In fact, from your own source, he says that they are. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
As the Pope says. “Virtually certain.”
Not really. The Pope took the time to learn something about it. He understands it better than you do, Ed.
I hope so.
Sorry Ed. If you’re pushing that, you’re on your own.
Maybe so. But the truth doesn’t change. And that’s what seems to have you in knots, Ed.
And yet he asserts that science doesn’t rule out God. How about that?
Ed, I just showed you what he said. Like it, or don’t like it. But there’s no point in denying it. Your own link shows it.
The truth matters, Ed. It should matter to you.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Tor!
What you propose is very interesting… it must be well-thoughtout though since polls have a funny way of being done to produce what is already desired… but something in the vein of: Define what you understand by the theory of evolution; what are its major premises; do you believe that evolution supports Creation?.. test sujects should be both scholars and non-scholars; adults, young adults and children; it should include a query for religious affiliation, sex and age group–income and race should not be considered; it should be nationwide (as far as it may be possible) and it could be done via the internet…
I do not recall saying that Darwin’s theory of evolution was orchestrated to prove that God did not exist; rather, that we can find that the theory of evolution is being used as a means to claim that it disproves the existence of God.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
…the problem is that we (science) cannot account for all the variants and while some things are easier to determine much is still left to estimation; take the life of the sun for instance… 4 billion years and poof!
Yet, we do not have all of the factors for stars going nova or even the fuel being comsumed–in our recent history there were thousands of people running to the Church and asking “final days” questions–the asteroid did not hit the earth… but there were speculations that even if it hit any of the planets in our system it would upset the balance that existed… why did science not correctly predict what would happen to the teeth?
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Since there is no direct Biblical passage that excludes them one can say yeah, it’s debatable… yet, Scriptures do account for a difference between man and the angels:
4 (8-5) What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 (8-6) Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: (Psalm 8:4-5)
5 For to which of the angels hath he said at any time: Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee? And again: I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? (Hebrews 1:5)
I’ve never read it… but I consider it early revelation when the prophets too were called children of God, though Israel was known as Yahweh’s First Born.
…the Virgin Mary–consider that Moses went up the mountain and found a patch of growth that was burning without being consumed by the fire… as he walks closer to satisfy his curiosity Yahweh God warns him that the ground onto which he will step is Holy and he must remove his sandals–if God made the ground near where He would encounter Moses Holy (due to His Holyness not coming into contact with that which is unholy) could you not consider that the Mother of God (Jesus is God, ergo Mother of God) could be made Holy (as Gabriel’s greeting suggests) in anticipation of the Seed (Genisis 3:15) that she would receive?
I understand what you mean… Adam and Eve were created in that perfection of God–how close to God’s essence I do not know… but they became separated and with the rest of humanity they awaited Christ’ Coming–as Jesus told the Pharisees and Sadducees:
Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it and was glad. (St. John 8:56)
The Holy Spirit, as St. Peter pointed out, reveal to man, throughtout time, the coming of our Lord. John the Baptist announced His arrival as he called Him “…the Lamb of God Who takes the sins of the world…” Though created in the image and likeness of God we were given bodies of flesh not spirit and when rescued from sin (1 St. Peter 3:18-20) we were elevated to a similar state as intended in Creation but not yet the final entity which we were ment to be:
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)
This was lost to Adam and Eve as even the avility to become eternal was removed from their grasp:
***And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now therefore lest perhaps he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. ***(Genesis 3:22)
I hope that the Holy Spirit Bless us with abundant Wisdom to understand these mysteries which are not so evidently revealed.
Maran atha!
Angel
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
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.
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.
That’s pretty well established, since we know why the sun shines and the rate at which fusion proceeds in various stars (the Hertzsprung Russel distribution depends on this fact) so that it’s not a guess at all.
Actually astronomers have a very good picture of that, and observation has confirmed that.
?
E
edwest2
Guest
Why are you denying the truth? Mayr’s reference to belief is similar to saying, oh well, if you think the moon is made of cheese, that’s fine, as long as you realize that science tells me there was no operation of the supernatural in evolution. This clearly denies Church teaching.
I don’t think the truth matters to you. Your mantra is simply Darwin and evolution is a fact. I will continue to point out your errors and assumptions. As Pope Benedict did say, “Evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” And before you, or one of your associates, returns with there is no proof in science, let me say that that is another reason to disbelieve textbook biology as written.
Peace,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Ed, I’m trying to get you to accept the truth.
It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).
Your statement is not remotely like his. He says that one doesn’t have to believe in God to accept evolution. Which is correct. He further says that there’s nothing inconsistent in accepting God and evolution. Which is also correct.
Ed, that’s what the Church teaches. Science is not about the supernatural, and evolution is consistent with Christian belief.
I wish it mattered to you. If it did, you’d be willing to accept the truth.
It’s directly observed. Hard to deny that kind of fact.
Good for him. There is much, much more to learn in evolution, and of course, nothing is ever actually proven in science.
The inductive method of science might seem like a bad idea to you, but I can only point out that it’s been astonishingly successful in learning about the physical universe.
Among other things, it has shown how to build the device in front of you out of dirt.
Not bad for something that never proves anything, um?
E
edwest2
Guest
Science is not about the supernatural? It clearly is when you insist on pointing out the leader of the Catholic faith says common descent is virtually certain. Is his a scientific comment? Is his comment likely to appear in future biology texts or mentioned in public school science classes? The answer is no. Yet you afford it an obsessive concern.
I can only see this as political activism on your part. The formula is simple: see, the Catholic Church says common descent is virtually certain so it’s OK to believe in evolution.
Please don’t use religion to verify science, it’s inconsistent with what you’ve been saying all along. In Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69, the Church makes a true statement that stands outside of but is complementary to what science says. However, more than that, it adds information that is missing from the scientific account, evolution without divine providence simply cannot exist. To put it another way, mutation and natural selection are insufficient. I’m just observing that many young people will get the wrong idea: that they are just another animal and subject to no higher authority. That they are soulless and that this life is all there is.
For all Catholics, evangelization is job one.
Peace,
Ed
I can only see this as political activism on your part. The formula is simple: see, the Catholic Church says common descent is virtually certain so it’s OK to believe in evolution.
Please don’t use religion to verify science, it’s inconsistent with what you’ve been saying all along. In Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69, the Church makes a true statement that stands outside of but is complementary to what science says. However, more than that, it adds information that is missing from the scientific account, evolution without divine providence simply cannot exist. To put it another way, mutation and natural selection are insufficient. I’m just observing that many young people will get the wrong idea: that they are just another animal and subject to no higher authority. That they are soulless and that this life is all there is.
For all Catholics, evangelization is job one.
Peace,
Ed
J
jcrichton
Guest
Pump a gallon of gas on mid-size car and it will travel “x” amount of miles–this of course is an estimation since there are numerous factors that cannot be determined until they occur.
Any body/mass as our sun burning “x” amount of time and consuming “xy” fuel supply gives us only an estimation of its lifespan since we do not know every single variant that can occur (as a huge chunk of mass being permanently displaced by an unexpectedly huge sun flare or any accelaration on the consumption of the combustible materials).
Again, astronomy is a, relatively, new science–just a few years ago some were claiming that the universe was so old that it was collapsing onto itself… it was only after the Hubble’s data that the consensus changed to “still expanding.” So our understanding of the universe is based on how we interpret the data we gather. Can this be called factual knoweledge?–yeah, but oh so loosely.
Maran atha!
Angel
D
D_M
Guest
Hi,
I think the quotation from (probably St Paul’s) letter to the Hebrews, in its context looks more like it is referring to the only begotten Son of God (ie. the Word made flesh and God Himself), which, correct me if I error, is not what we are and is not the same as ‘children of God’.
You’re right there is a difference or distinction between the angels and humans in the plan of salvation, …but…does that distinction still necessarily entail that angels are in fact not created in God’s image?
You’ve convinced me that man is to be elevated to a place above the angels…
Among the ones you’ve cited, this is a very good one
Hebrews 2:5-6 For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been testified somewhere, "What is man that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man, that thou carest for him?
but even still, should humans receive a higher place than the angels… I don’t know if that still means that the angels do not have God’s image and likeness…
Sometimes I think that Jesus is king of the angels in the same as He is also the high-priest, that is to say that He has the office of an angel just as He does of a priest, or that the phrase ‘Emmanuel’ (God with us) is comparable and superior to the names Michael (Who can compare with God?), Gabriel (Man of God), Raphael (God heals), or Uriel (Light of God), etc.
As for the image of God being lost, I don’t think that those who were conceived in sin did not also have the image of God, and to reference the letter of James
James 3:8-9 but no human being can tame the tongue - a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who are made in the likeness of God.
I have another question to consider for the old earth- young earth debate that I’m not sure has been answered: if creation was entirely good in the beginning, then how does one reconcile the number of things that exist in evolutionary biology, and would have existed long before humans had supposedly evolved and inherited at their conception (before they could have possibly committed the original sin) like any other organism, that one would consider to be corruptions? (ie. death, bodily lust, disease, pain, suffering, etc.)
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
That’s pretty well established, since we know why the sun shines and the rate at which fusion proceeds in various stars (the Hertzsprung Russel distribution depends on this fact) so that it’s not a guess at all.
Actually astronomers have a very good picture of that, and observation has confirmed that.
Might be good for you to learn how we know. It’s an interesting story. One way to learn about the ancient science if astronomy might be Coming of Age in the Milky Way, a very non-technical, but informative guide.
That’s pretty well established, since we know why the sun shines and the rate at which fusion proceeds in various stars (the Hertzsprung Russel distribution depends on this fact) so that it’s not a guess at all.
What factors in stars do you think change the burning rate, which cannot be determined until it occurs? So far, the evidence shows very precisely what affects the lifetime of stars.
You think solar flares send appreciable amounts of solar flares out of the sun’s gravitational influence? Show me some evidence for that. That’s seems completely absurd. The flares shoot up and fall back into the sun.
Barbarian observes:
Actually astronomers have a very good picture of that, and observation has confirmed that.
That is cosmology. And it has nothing to do with why some stars blow up. The reason we know so precisely, is that the process by which it happens is not all that complex.
Might be good for you to learn how we know. It’s an interesting story. One way to learn about the ancient science if astronomy might be Coming of Age in the Milky Way, a very non-technical, but informative guide.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Yep.
You think the Pope can’t make a scientific statement? Scientists can also make religious statements. They just can’t use science to do it.
Yes.
Mine isn’t either. Because they go with the best experts they can find.
It simply and neatly destroys your argument that evolution is not consistent with our faith.
Never thought of the Pope as a “political activist.” And his statement is scientific, not political. Maybe your obsession with politics is leading you to believe anything is political.
It’s more than just that. Certainly, the Pope wouldn’t have endorsed evolution if it was contrary to our faith. But he’s hardly the first pope to acknowledge that evolution is consistent with the teaching of the Church.
I don’t remember saying that religion couldn’t address the issue of science. I said that science couldn’t address the issue of religion. Religion is metaphysical, and therefor transcends science, being able to consider nature and science, even if science can’t consider religion.
True. But it’s a truth that is not accessible to science.
Sufficient to explain the diversity of life. But not to explain why there is life in the first place. You’re wising up, Ed.
If they do, it will be caused by people like you; no one else says that.
And one of the major stumbling blocks to evangelization is creationism. Not just to saving souls, either. Creationism is an efficient atheist-maker.
E
edwest2
Guest
Atheist scientist PZ Myers, through his blog, and interviews has told me all I need to know about furthering the acceptance of atheism, particularly among scientists.
The program is out in the open for Christians to see: institutionalized atheism among scientists. Just add the books witten by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and you’re done.
Mr. Myers goes on in his youtube interview to say that the NAS and AAAS using a Christian like Ken Miller is a little dishonest. I agree. He suggests Richard Dawkins as being a good replacement but then brings up the politics of it.
I just wish more atheists, especially atheist scientists, were more open and honest about their goals like Mr. Myers is.
Peace,
Ed
The program is out in the open for Christians to see: institutionalized atheism among scientists. Just add the books witten by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and you’re done.
Mr. Myers goes on in his youtube interview to say that the NAS and AAAS using a Christian like Ken Miller is a little dishonest. I agree. He suggests Richard Dawkins as being a good replacement but then brings up the politics of it.
I just wish more atheists, especially atheist scientists, were more open and honest about their goals like Mr. Myers is.
Peace,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
It’s not surprising that atheists and creationists would unite on criticizing Catholics who accept the Pope’s words on evolution; they both have a vested interest in denying what the Pope says.
E
edwest2
Guest
What is a creationist? Really. As I understand it, there are two definitions, one purely political and the other one, not.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
- Status