Creation And Science

[mortify ii]

It's not about spontaneous generation. It requires certain chemical precursors and other circumstances. 

 

If only Thomas Aquinas had known about the chemical precursors, surely his First Rule would have fallen! But all kidding aside, I am a bit amazed at just how effective the naturalist establishment has been able to convince people that life spontaneously arising is an easy thing. Strangely, it has not happened since, but I'm sure there's a clever reason why that's so! 

[Guest]

In the biocentric universe God could of created a perfect earth with Adam and Eve on it.......When the fall occurred this is when everything "happened" and things could be measured if you will.....The events proceeding the big bang unfolded backwards into time as well as everything else that is in this realm we inhabit.....And it did it in an instant......So yes the big bang happened just not in the order we think it did.......It took consciousness to first observe for the universe and it's laws to even exist and unfold.....So Adam and Eve came before the big bang and this is possible in a biocentric universe......In biocentrism time isn't linear.....Quantum physic experiments demonsrtate past behaviors and outcomes can be changed by what happens in the present moment.....

Edited April 17, 2014 by Guest

[Eliakim]

Here's how almost all Church fathers saw it, and many faithful Catholics today:

 

http://www.kolbecenter.org/

 

You can still be a Catholic and believe God used evolution; it's not necessary for salvation.  The popes though warn about not believing mankind came from 2 parents, so be careful. 

 

May He bless this outstanding center!

 

E

[Guest]

What are space and time? http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bc44f_3QfwE#

Edited April 17, 2014 by Guest

[Guest]

Quantum Physics double slit experiment : consciousness creates reality http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gq8tczp3Qz0#

[Fidei Defensor]

If only Thomas Aquinas had known about the chemical precursors, surely his First Rule would have fallen! But all kidding aside, I am a bit amazed at just how effective the naturalist establishment has been able to convince people that life spontaneously arising is an easy thing. Strangely, it has not happened since, but I'm sure there's a clever reason why that's so! 

Might I ask what your degree is in?

[Basilisa Marie]

Aquinas' first rule still stands, of course.  At some point, matter had to come into being from nothingness. All we're doing is pushing that first point back a few billion years. :) 

[Guest]

The allusion of time: past present and future all exist together http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks

[Guest]

Quantum Physics and microscopic universe http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PpQdMM6Vr70

[mortify ii]

Might I ask what your degree is in?

 

I have a doctorate, does that make me more eligible to discuss these topics in your opinion? 

[mortify ii]

Aquinas' first rule still stands, of course.  At some point, matter had to come into being from nothingness. All we're doing is pushing that first point back a few billion years. :)

 

Yes but we're discussing the creation of man and life in general, not the creation of the universe which may very well be tens of billions of years old, so far I don't think anyone has disputed that. The issue here is that some Catholics do believe something (life) can arise from nothing, all you need are a few chemical precursors and a long period of time, and wah-lah! Life sprouts! 

[Fidei Defensor]

I have a doctorate, does that make me more eligible to discuss these topics in your opinion? 

Just wondering what your area of study was.

[Basilisa Marie]

Yes but we're discussing the creation of man and life in general, not the creation of the universe which may very well be tens of billions of years old, so far I don't think anyone has disputed that. The issue here is that some Catholics do believe something (life) can arise from nothing, all you need are a few chemical precursors and a long period of time, and wah-lah! Life sprouts! 

 

But...that's our best theory about how life does come to be. Atoms forming molecules forming structures forming cells forming tissues and organs and systems and living beings. Something being "alive" from a scientific standpoint can be a cell. Life at its most basic material level is a bunch of atoms interacting with each other and chemical reactions. So what if lightning struck some primordial ooze to get things going? I don't understand what the problem is. Are you concerned about the soul? The special place humans hold in the cosmos? God's special relationship to humanity? What? 

Edited April 18, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[mortify ii]

But...that's our best theory about how life does come to be. Atoms forming molecules forming structures forming cells forming tissues and organs and systems and living beings. Something being "alive" from a scientific standpoint can be a cell. Life at its most basic material level is a bunch of atoms interacting with each other and chemical reactions. So what if lightning struck some primordial ooze to get things going? I don't understand what the problem is. Are you concerned about the soul? The special place humans hold in the cosmos? God's special relationship to humanity? What? 

 

Is it really our theory? Going back to a point I made earlier about scientism, I think most people are unaware of the over-arching materialism underpinning the scientific establishment of our day and naively assume it's unbiased. So sure, what you describe above may be the best theory according to a materialist paradigm, in fact it's probably the only theory, but I would hardly call it the best explanation over all, in fact I find it quite lacking and rather stupid. You see, I'm one of those backward folk that recognize themselves to be contingent and accept the existence of what is called "God," and no I'm not referring to the 'bearded man sitting on a heavenly throne' that Dawkins and Hitchens speak of, rather I refer to the Absolutely Simple Infinite Existence that St Thomas Aquinas et all spoke of. And I know this will probably shock you and you will think of me as incredibly stupid and unscientific, but I actually don't believe any natural process can account for the beginning of life, and now the big shocker, I believe God is responsible for it! So yea, my problem with the above is that it's a pathetic materialist attempt to explain the origin of life. 

[Fidei Defensor]

Is it really our theory? Going back to a point I made earlier about scientism, I think most people are unaware of the over-arching materialism underpinning the scientific establishment of our day and naively assume it's unbiased. So sure, what you describe above may be the best theory according to a materialist paradigm, in fact it's probably the only theory, but I would hardly call it the best explanation over all, in fact I find it quite lacking and rather stupid. You see, I'm one of those backward folk that recognize themselves to be contingent and accept the existence of what is called "God," and no I'm not referring to the 'bearded man sitting on a heavenly throne' that Dawkins and Hitchens speak of, rather I refer to the Absolutely Simple Infinite Existence that St Thomas Aquinas et all spoke of. And I know this will probably shock you and you will think of me as incredibly stupid and unscientific, but I actually don't believe any natural process can account for the beginning of life, and now the big shocker, I believe God is responsible for it! So yea, my problem with the above is that it's a pathetic materialist attempt to explain the origin of life. 

I believe in God, but I also believe in science. I believe that God created the laws of the universe, and then used to them to create us. This includes, for reasons we don't know, evolution from the lowest forms.