Is the Church creating new doctrine with regards to origins?
#11
(06-18-2014, 07:24 PM)salus Wrote: Until (and they never will) they can prove with Science Facts not science theories that the Book of Genesis is false scientifically , read it as factual accurate historically and scientifically  as God gave it to Mankind!

Which parts do you think have not been disproven with science facts?  As just one example, let's take the flood.  There is no physical evidence for a worldwide flood.  Perhaps we should say, when the book of Genesis can be said to coincide with actual, tangible evidence to support it, then read it as factually accurate, historically and scientifically.  You're essentially saying one should accept the Bible as 100% true until it can be proven to be 100%.  It doesn't matter that it has already been proven to be 97% false on questions of science.  Even assuming that most of science's disagreements with the Bible were merely theories, that does not then equate to no sound argument against the Bible.  If true science supports the BIble, then Biblical scholars should have no problem producing evidence that contradicts modern scientists.  They haven't.
Reply
#12
(06-18-2014, 09:34 PM)ThomasTheDoubter Wrote: I disagree. Most of the assertions of materialists today are based on philosophical assumptions. When they say earth is just another insignificant planet in the remote recesses of space, they are assuming the Copernican principle is true. When they say that macro-evolution is true they are assuming that there is only one essential substance and that explains any accidental similarities between species. I think that the reason they're wrong is because they assumed the wrong principles. They simply assert things, not even consciously aware of the assumptions that make them convinced their ideas are true.

I see what you mean, and it is true that a lot of it is assumption.  But it is educated assumption, it's not baseless assumption.  We know that we are similar in construction as a planet to the other planets.  While we haven't physically taken samples of the sun, we can clearly see that something is going on there wholly different from any other object in our solar system.  We also see that small objects orbit larger objects, not vice versa.  So we know the moon orbits us, and we know that we have the calculations correct because we can predict its orbit accurately, we can predict lunar eclipses years, decades, centuries in advance and we're right every single time.  We know that the other planets orbit the sun, relative to us, just as the moon orbits us.  We can predict planetary alignments exactly well into the future, and we are right every single time.  This should not happen if our understanding of the local universe is wrong.  Yes, we cannot get out to the sun and demonstrate that it sits motionless in relation to us.  However, we know that smaller bodies orbit larger bodies, and given what we can measure and can know to be true based on the accuracy of our predictions, it is an extremely educated assumption that we orbit the sun as well.  While it may be an assumption, it is so much stronger than saying the sun must orbit us because the Bible says so.  There is no evidence to corroborate the geocentric model.  The geocentric model is not able to accurately describe the actions we see in the universe and make the same accurate predictions.  There is nothing that can be submitted as evidence for the geocentric model other than a fundamentalist blind belief in the accuracy of the Bible.  That alone is not sufficient evidence.  We're not talking about two equal but different theories.  We're talking about one theory that has a tremendously large body of evidence to support it, and another that has nothing but religious hysteria.

As far as evolution goes, we can trace genes back to a time where our genes diverge from those of other species.  We can literally map evolutionary mutations like a family tree.  The evidence has already been found.  If we are to believe that evolution is not the way that God created life, then simple creationists have to provide an alternative theory that sufficiently explains why we see what we are seeing.  So far, they've provided nothing but "uhhhh.....the Bible says so."  Sorry, not good enough.
Reply
#13
If the universe is rotating and the earth is still the math works out the same. The rotating universe generates the same effect as the Corolis force of a rotating Earth. If the universe is finite rather than infinite, Mach's principle is also an educated guess. Geocentricism does not require the affirmation of time travel as modern cosmology requires. The only way that geocentricism is unobservable is if you subscribe to the idea that the motionless earth you walk on everyday is a an illusion. "You think you are still and at the center, but it's an illusion." Maybe the idea that it's an illusion is the real illusion, since the equations work out the same either way. Maybe things are what they appear to be.

Regarding evolution I invite you to consider both sides of the argument. Not just the one-sided arguments presented in schools and the media, but both sides. Go out and read up both sides and evaluate for yourself what makes more sense. The history of evolution is filled with fraud to keep the theory alive. Here's one to start: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Reply
#14
(06-19-2014, 05:25 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-18-2014, 09:34 PM)ThomasTheDoubter Wrote: I disagree. Most of the assertions of materialists today are based on philosophical assumptions. When they say earth is just another insignificant planet in the remote recesses of space, they are assuming the Copernican principle is true. When they say that macro-evolution is true they are assuming that there is only one essential substance and that explains any accidental similarities between species. I think that the reason they're wrong is because they assumed the wrong principles. They simply assert things, not even consciously aware of the assumptions that make them convinced their ideas are true.

I see what you mean, and it is true that a lot of it is assumption.  But it is educated assumption, it's not baseless assumption.  We know that we are similar in construction as a planet to the other planets.  While we haven't physically taken samples of the sun, we can clearly see that something is going on there wholly different from any other object in our solar system.  We also see that small objects orbit larger objects, not vice versa.  So we know the moon orbits us, and we know that we have the calculations correct because we can predict its orbit accurately, we can predict lunar eclipses years, decades, centuries in advance and we're right every single time.  We know that the other planets orbit the sun, relative to us, just as the moon orbits us.  We can predict planetary alignments exactly well into the future, and we are right every single time.  This should not happen if our understanding of the local universe is wrong.  Yes, we cannot get out to the sun and demonstrate that it sits motionless in relation to us.  However, we know that smaller bodies orbit larger bodies, and given what we can measure and can know to be true based on the accuracy of our predictions, it is an extremely educated assumption that we orbit the sun as well.  While it may be an assumption, it is so much stronger than saying the sun must orbit us because the Bible says so.  There is no evidence to corroborate the geocentric model.  The geocentric model is not able to accurately describe the actions we see in the universe and make the same accurate predictions.  There is nothing that can be submitted as evidence for the geocentric model other than a fundamentalist blind belief in the accuracy of the Bible.  That alone is not sufficient evidence.  We're not talking about two equal but different theories.  We're talking about one theory that has a tremendously large body of evidence to support it, and another that has nothing but religious hysteria.

As far as evolution goes, we can trace genes back to a time where our genes diverge from those of other species.  We can literally map evolutionary mutations like a family tree.  The evidence has already been found.  If we are to believe that evolution is not the way that God created life, then simple creationists have to provide an alternative theory that sufficiently explains why we see what we are seeing.  So far, they've provided nothing but "uhhhh.....the Bible says so."  Sorry, not good enough.

I'm sorry if this is a silly question, but how does that work?
Can you really take samples of genes from the past to make such a map?
Also, one should be very careful when one says that from mutation to mutation one species becomes other, precisely because of all those claims that we hear: we have like 99% genes in common with chimps or mouses. That in no way tells us we are basically the same thing, it only indicates how a species cannot be reduced to genes; that would be the most obvious conclusion.
Besides, I have the impression biologists are just not taking the objections seriously (and these are objections I made at school, so I imagine how more sophisticated the issues have gotten). They have to deal with the non-directionality of mutation and how acquired characteristics are not inherited: thus all those claims that “we see how this species changed to adapt” are incoherent. And also with the probabilistic issue: most mutations end up in cancer, not in some neat ability. So, to have all these massive changes with an apparent direction (or at least more “adapted” to the environment) would be virtually impossible.

On a separate note, I tend to view the more literal readings of Scripture as a Protestant phenomena. One doesn't see that in the Fathers and Doctors. This is a reaction to scienticism.
Reply
#15
I myself don't believe in evolution but then I don't really see how believing in it could threaten somebody's salvation.
By the way, I've never quite understood it: why can't we assume that evolution regarding animals is true but that humans - though externally very much akin to apes - were created immediately with body and soul by God? Can one prove it weren't so? Why couldn't God create, without the use of evolution, a species with 96% DNA similarity to chimpanzees just like that? Or am I being too simplistic?
Reply
#16
(06-20-2014, 03:54 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: I myself don't believe in evolution but then I don't really see how believing in it could threaten somebody's salvation.
By the way, I've never quite understood it: why can't we assume that evolution regarding animals is true but that humans - though externally very much akin to apes - were created immediately with body and soul by God? Can one prove it weren't so? Why couldn't God create, without the use of evolution, a species with 96% DNA similarity to chimpanzees just like that? Or am I being too simplistic?

I think there's an error here. Do we say that because both dogs and rats are 4 legged, they come from each other? At the heart of evolution is the assumption that there is only one substantial essence, and the variations we see are changes to this one substance. On the other hand there is the view that there are a multitude of essences, all created differently in the beginning. For if all essences we see did not spring from one essence, then they had to be created seperately at once. If there is no common descent creation has to be true.
Reply
#17
St. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:
Quote:In the beginning, then, as the Holy Scripture says, it was hidden beneath the waters, and was unwrought, that is to say, not beautified. But at God's bidding, places to hold the waters appeared, and then the mountains came into existence, and at the divine command the earth received its own proper adornment, and was dressed in all manner of herbs and plants, and on these, by the divine decree, was bestowed the power of growth and nourishment, and of producing seed to generate their like. Moreover, at the bidding of the Creator it produced also all manner of kinds of living creatures, creeping things, and wild beasts, and cattle. All, indeed, are for the seasonable use of man: but of them some are for food, such as stags, sheep, deer, and such like: others for service such as camels, oxen, horses, asses, and such like: and others for enjoyment, such as apes, and among birds, jays and parrots, and such like. Again, amongst plants and herbs some are fruit bearing, others edible, others fragrant and flowery, given to us for our enjoyment, for example, the rose and such like, and others for the healing of disease.

I do not think the resemblance of apes to humans is simply happenstance or the product of evolution. It is intended by God, perhaps to show us our dignity over such beasts by virtue of our rational soul. In apes, one sees a creature in a form very similar to man, but lacking the deliberative faculties of the intellect, so we can justly say that a man who is ruled by carnal passions, failing to live in accord with reason, conducts himself as though he is an ape.

Man also takes a great joy in apes, and they provide much amusement, as demonstrated by the perennial use of apes in traveling circuses and, more recently, in films. Historically, apes were luxury goods that delighted the rich and they were imported at great expense from distant countries. King Solomon was among the great men who procured apes, as we are told in 1 Kings 10:22:
Quote:For the king's navy, once in three years, went with the navy of Hiram by sea to Tharsis, and brought from thence gold, and silver, and elephants' teeth, and apes, and peacocks.

[Image: QPX1gBQ.jpg]
Reply
#18
It's a bit sad that Melkite is the only person here who makes sense.

I may be a scientist, but I can't "prove" evolution to you. It is not my specialty and neither is it helpful to spend time trying to argue it here on this forum

You want to find out whether or not it's true? Look it up yourself. Seek out all the LEGITIMATE information possible written by credible sources. When you do, get rid of all your ideological biases and your conspiracy theories about science. Once you do that, the picture will start to clear up.

Honestly, finding out all the wacko ideas about the traditionalist "party line" against any science that "offends" them has been extremely frustrating.

I've always believed that the Conflict Thesis between science and religion was nothing more than a lie but the more I know about how "Traditional Catholicism" views biblical exegesis, the more I wonder how much nonbeliever celebrities/scientists, whom I hate, are correct.

I thought you guys were better than that...  :((
Reply
#19
There is no conflict between science and religion. There is a conflict between many scientists and religion. Materialists do not like the idea of God, so they do not hesitate to believe in and proclaim the absurd. If you believe that slime can become man there's nothing you won't believe so long as the majority of people do. Don't dismiss conspiracy theories because there clearly is one if something so crazy is so wildly believed with such vigor given the paltry evidence.

You talk about legimate sources, but if they are biased you're just getting a one-sided picture. You tell me how far in an academic setting you'll get if you disbelieve what your peers do. And whether or not they are "legimate sources", it doesn't mean that their points can just be ignored.Otherwise the only reason you'll believe something is based on authority or popularity. You'll just dismiss any other opinion as irrelevant. I thought science is about using reason and being open to critical inquiry, not dogma and doctrine as most people pin on religion.
Reply
#20
How come only Melkit makes sense? What is wrong with my simpleton's objections?
Please, let's stop idolizing scientists – “legitimate sources”, I guess then scientists are always neutral, they never have ideologies, they never already assume a philosophical background, eh.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)