Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools. We were taught evolution because the nuns and brothers were well educated and could separate Faith from scientific fact. For us back in the early 60's it wasn't a problem.....

The scientifically determined laws of physics are themselves sufficient to determine the evolution of both the universe and life forms, that can live long enough to reproduce. Both Cosmology and Darwin's Theory of Natural selection are now recognized as merely a consequence of those laws.

The domain of Science is the domain of repeatable observations and experiments. The origin of the energy that started it all is outside the domain of Science - theories about the origin cannot either be confirmed or denied by science.

That's what the Jesuits taught me and what I heard again years later at Cal Tech.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/AllegreSHS.pdf

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Exactly. The paper describes the geological evolution of the earth and addresses the origins of life on it. In short it is entirely consistent to what I posted above.

The only contradictions here are in your incorrect understanding of what I posted above.

0 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

Wasn't quite my point. If you accept micro evolution, then you accept that animals of the same species:
- can evolve in size, growing very large, or very small
- can evolve in intelligence
- can develop bigger or smaller brains
- can evolve in speed
- can evolve in strength
- can evolve in teeth size
- can evolve in organ size (comes with overall size)
- can evolve organ function (skin is an organ - some evolved skin folds to funnel blood away from the eyes)

You also accept that animals of the same species:
- adapt to their surrounds (eg. very hairy dogs in cold climates)
- adapt in instincts (huskies are roamers, german shepherds are territorial)

With acceptance of those things, comes a recognition that the only reason for such, is survival (though in dogs case, human intervention as well), and those with traits that survived in the environment they were in were the ones that passed on their traits. Ie. survival of the fittest.

-----------------------------

Fossil records of course, show a gradual changing of species over time. The species now, didn't exist back then, and visa versa. The changes were usually gradual, with similar but different species.

Now if only there was an explanation for that.

The bible certainly doesn't offer one (for the fossil record).

You are welcome to believe what you wish. I just wouldn't go bagging others beliefs when your own doesn't offer an answer, but theirs does (and even if you disagree, its still a much more likely story in terms of the evidence available)

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Darwin proved all that with his finches.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Darwin proved all that with his finches.

Last time I tried looking them up, I didn't find a link, so I didn't bother this time. Anyway, I think it's easier to relate to for creationists in the way I presented it.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I was introduced to Darwin's finches on my visit to the Galapagos Islands many years ago. They have a Darwin's Research Center that displays his works. Here's a link, https://www.thoughtco.com/charles-darwins-finches-1224472. The fact that Homo sapiens evolved is also provided by anthropologists and archeopologists.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Yes, just as humans can create machines with sensors to automatically change based on the environment around them ....like a sunroof, or headlights on a car due to sun/rain or dark/light, likewise with Gods creation.

All your examples, and the finches too, fit into a creation model just fine. A creation model with genetic barriers.
Dog kind, cat kind, and humankind can change, but only so much.

Again, he created it vegetarian, and it has changed.
He created it without thorns even, and that has changed. (Genesis 3:18)
He created it without disease, and that has changed.

As for fossils, I have explained on previous pages and threads, that it is just WRong interpretations that lead ppl to conclude that they demonstrate cats turned into dogs, and cows into whales.
Just as ppl have the same words in the Bible, yet interpret them differently and come to different conclusions, likewise with fossils. Everyone has the same evidence, yet different interpretations.

2 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

Helloandgoodbye wrote:

Yes, but the Catholic Church teaches Many UNbiblical things. (Evolution is just one of them).
The Catholic Church is much like Mormonism, jehovah witnesses etc.

Just google: Catholicism is not biblical ....and read up

The Catholic Church was established 33AD....................It's not my fault you are uneducated. IU'm not saying the Catholic Church is superior to the heretics who engineered the Reformation....frankly I think it's all bullshit....BUT, at least the Church sought out and provided education to the membership.

I think you should google( 'bullshit' the religions that have only been around for 300 years or less.). But you won't do it because you don't know how to read up.

0 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

Helloandgoodbye wrote:

Yes, just as humans can create machines with sensors to automatically change based on the environment around them ....like a sunroof, or headlights on a car due to sun/rain or dark/light, likewise with Gods creation.

All your examples, and the finches too, fit into a creation model just fine. A creation model with genetic barriers.
Dog kind, cat kind, and humankind can change, but only so much.

Again, he created it vegetarian, and it has changed.
He created it without thorns even, and that has changed. (Genesis 3:18)
He created it without disease, and that has changed.

As for fossils, I have explained on previous pages and threads, that it is just WRong interpretations that lead ppl to conclude that they demonstrate cats turned into dogs, and cows into whales.
Just as ppl have the same words in the Bible, yet interpret them differently and come to different conclusions, likewise with fossils. Everyone has the same evidence, yet different interpretations.

I admire your blind loyalty (I guess), I'm just sorry you are so exceptionally deluded. How about this, can you tell me when you think the Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Quakers, Shakers, AntiBaptists and Morman religions arrived on the scene? You can google that, if you're too lazy to do real 'honest to God' research. Check out Scientology, and there a bunch of other cults......Try and smarten up....I'm not a fan of any organized religion any longer, primarily because of people like you who never question anything and believe any scammer that comes along. It's sad, and you sound a tad pitiful....I know you think you're smart but you are simply a magpie or parrot or dupe who repeats the ravings of the deluded. I'll pray for you.

[/quote]

0 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

Helloandgoodbye wrote:

Yes, but the Catholic Church teaches Many UNbiblical things. (Evolution is just one of them).
The Catholic Church is much like Mormonism, jehovah witnesses etc.

Just google: Catholicism is not biblical ....and read up

What does "not biblical" mean? The scriptures are quite obviously metaphorical wherever one looks in them. They had human authors, but they, taken together, communicated deep understanding of the human condition. Literal interpretation of them is for narrow minded fools, such as you appear to be. The Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes are very different in focus and meaning, but they were written by the same man - the first as a virile young man, the latter as he approached death. Both address truths.

"Let there be light" was the phrase in Genesis for the creation but no one thought it occurred literally in days - indeed absent the sun and earth there were as yet no such things. That said, the phrase is remarkably evocative of the contemporary description offered by Physics.

0 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

Perhaps you didn't read the last line of my previous post. I'd suggest you return and re-read it.

----------------

Quote:

Just as ppl have the same words in the Bible, yet interpret them differently and come to different conclusions, likewise with fossils. Everyone has the same evidence, yet different interpretations.

This is not a good comparison, at all. Do I really need to point out the flaws in it?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

That's what the Jesuits taught me and what I heard again years later at Cal Tech.

Yeah, they are pretty studious about avoiding scientific embarrassments after the Copernicus/Galileo affair. I think they often back away prematurely on some things though, compounding scientific error on top of moral.
Reminds me of the scripture about those "that have a form of Godliness, but deny the power thereof."

0 Replies

I think it's important to keep science and religion separate. Afterall, they emerge from different parts of the psyche, and there's no reason they should be in conflict. Science involves the intellect, and the intellect is a tool, but it can never understand the whole.

Appreciating the mystery of the whole is the realm of religion, and it transcends the intellect. Religions stumble and fail when they use the intellect are to defend themselves. Science fails if it tries to define the Ultimate Reality.

We must remember that nature evolves, but religion also evolves.

This is the best book I've ever read on the evolution of religion:

The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image

by Anne Baring and Jules Cashford

1 Reply

@coluber2001,

Quote:

Science fails if it tries to define the Ultimate Reality.

No, it does not. Science defines what our environment is. Philosophy is literally "love of wisdom" It is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is by its very definition how each person decides what is important or not important in their lives. Not all humans are able to control their desires based on the political environment in which they live. There are many other kinds of local restrictions such as economy, access to knowledge, freedom of speech and movement. Economy: Many third world countries do not have access to education. If they do have limited education, they lack the tools of education. The political environment may restrict free speech or movement. Many places may not have access to books, desks, writing instruments, and paper. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/sep/20/70m-get-no-education

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The function of the Zen koan is to show people, through experience, the hopelessness of attempting to understand the Ultimate Reality with the intellect.
The part can never understand the whole. Basically, all we can do is let our minds rest and our mouths be silent.

1 Reply

@coluber2001,

Like you're doing.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I guess it's a sort of meditation, though I've never thought of myself as a meditator as such. I keep on thinking back to basic training when we were doing close order drill. I think that was a type of meditation where you don't think at all but just follow the command. It was actually enjoyable.

2 Replies

@coluber2001,

I remember Air Force basic training very well. The primary goal was to be able to follow orders and march in sync. From that point on, I promised myself never to be the first or the last, so I usually worked hard to be somewhere in the middle. It worked out pretty well throughout my four year Air Force career. Being on my last bus ride out the front gates of Walker AFB in New Mexico is still one of the happiest days of my life. Freedom at last!

0 Replies

@coluber2001,

Quote:

I think that [close order drill] was a type of meditation where you don't think at all but just follow the command. It was actually enjoyable.

Yes, it is enjoyable. I do it too in other ways and that has been the pattern we are conditioned to seek, bland satisfaction in whatever life throws your way. It is enjoyable, so why rock the boat and start thinking for yourself. **** it, let some other asshole do it.

I know you're not say'n that's the final word but it sure as **** describes the way most people go through life, especially when it comes to finding some meaning in it. Science (as described in the halls of A2K) is a ******* failure when it comes to answering that unless you like the only one it offers - Life is Utterly Meaningless.

People attempt to solve the dilemma in several different ways. Some decide that Science and Philosophy are "Two non-overlapping Magisterium" and either pick one or the other or divide their beliefs into two separate compartments, either half a house or a house divided against itself, as it were.

If you find neither of those alternatives acceptable, you are forced to reconcile Science and Philosophy. But there is no choice but to do your own thinking if you try that.

2 Replies

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know