Creation And Science

[mortify ii]

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Creation-Early-Seraphim-Rose/dp/1887904255/ref=sr_1_46?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397842626&sr=1-46&keywords=genesis

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Doctrines-Genesis-1-11-Traditional/dp/0595452434/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1397842652&sr=8-5&keywords=catholic+genesis

[PhuturePriest]

Church Fathers, Popes, Doctors, and Theologians all taught Adam was immediately created from the earth. 

 

Well, although I don't know exactly what you are referencing and where it was said, but just because a Saint or Pope said something, that doesn't make it infallible. There were early Church Fathers who believed in heresies but are still Saints because they didn't know they were wrong. Saint Thomas Aquinas didn't believe that the soul was immediately created the moment of conception, even though this is what the Church now teaches. Saint Augustine taught that sex is only for procreation, even though the Church now strongly teaches against that.

[Fidei Defensor]

Since you never answered my question, I'll assume you didn't study biology. I did. And there is no conflict in believing that God had his hand in creation through evolution. The Church fathers believed what they did having the best knowledge of the time. We now know more about science. If you want to condemn me for believing in what science has to say, go ahead. Fortunately, i don't answer to you.

[mortify ii]

Since you never answered my question, I'll assume you didn't study biology. 

 

Your assumption is wrong

 

I did. And there is no conflict in believing that God had his hand in creation through evolution. The Church fathers believed what they did having the best knowledge of the time. We now know more about science. If you want to condemn me for believing in what science has to say, go ahead. Fortunately, i don't answer to you.

 

 

No one is condemning you, believe as you wish. The Church Fathers unanimously taught Adam's immediate creation from the Earth, and they believed this based on revelation and an illumination from the Holy Ghost. Science can not test or even investigate the first man's origin and so they are only left to speculation. I'll stick with the Holy Fathers of our religion, you can follow the speculation of materialists if you wish. 

[mortify ii]

Well, although I don't know exactly what you are referencing and where it was said, but just because a Saint or Pope said something, that doesn't make it infallible. There were early Church Fathers who believed in heresies but are still Saints because they didn't know they were wrong. Saint Thomas Aquinas didn't believe that the soul was immediately created the moment of conception, even though this is what the Church now teaches. Saint Augustine taught that sex is only for procreation, even though the Church now strongly teaches against that.

 

You're right, the opinion of one Father or Pope does not make it infallible, but what if the Fathers are in unanimous agreement?

[Fidei Defensor]

Your assumption is wrong

 

 

No one is condemning you, believe as you wish. The Church Fathers unanimously taught Adam's immediate creation from the Earth, and they believed this based on revelation and an illumination from the Holy Ghost. Science can not test or even investigate the first man's origin and so they are only left to speculation. I'll stick with the Holy Fathers of our religion, you can follow the speculation of materialists if you wish. 

Then perhaps you could have just answered the question posed.

 

And it does sound to me like you are condemning me, pitting my belief in science against the Church Fathers and attempting to make it sound as if science is nothing more than guessing. In that you are wrong. I'm sorry you don't value science as much as I do, but evolution was the mechanism by which the diversity of life on Earth occurred. Adam is still a special creation, God still created our souls, God had a hand in every move. I don't believe, however, that God simply snapped his fingers and creation as we know it was born.

[mortify ii]

Then perhaps you could have just answered the question posed.

 

You asked me about my degree.

 

And it does sound to me like you are condemning me, pitting my belief in science against the Church Fathers and attempting to make it sound as if science is nothing more than guessing. In that you are wrong. I'm sorry you don't value science as much as I do, 

 

 

When did I say science was nothing more than guessing? I said to speak about the origin of life is nothing but speculation. Even if a researcher were to be able to produce a living cell in a test tube ex nihilo (and they have not been able to do so), that would still no prove that is what occurred on Earth, and the same issue applies to the origin of the first man. To say we came out from a primordial ooze struck by lightening is nothing more than speculation. 

 

but evolution was the mechanism by which the diversity of life on Earth occurred. Adam is still a special creation, God still created our souls, God had a hand in every move. I don't believe, however, that God simply snapped his fingers and creation as we know it was born.

 

 

Apparently God snapped his fingers at the conception of the Second Adam, but I guess for some reason that is believable more believable. Like I said, I'll stick with the Holy Fathers. 

[Fidei Defensor]

You asked me about my degree.

 

 

When did I say science was nothing more than guessing? I said to speak about the origin of life is nothing but speculation. Even if a researcher were to be able to produce a living cell in a test tube ex nihilo (and they have not been able to do so), that would still no prove that is what occurred on Earth, and the same issue applies to the origin of the first man. To say we came out from a primordial ooze struck by lightening is nothing more than speculation. 

 

 

Apparently God snapped his fingers at the conception of the Second Adam, but I guess for some reason that is believable more believable. Like I said, I'll stick with the Holy Fathers. 

Peace be with you. Since it is not a matter that affects our salvation, I humbly withdraw from any further argument on the topic.

[Guest]

Biocentrism and tacos...

[GregorMendel]

So natural selection, genetic variation, and reproduction explain it all. Guess I'm just really dense then, I don't see how an unguided process produced everything we see. I think of the all the complex physiological processes like that millisecond electrical signal between the SA and AV nodes in your heart that makes blood properly flow between chambers. or the mind blowing physics involving in neuronal processes in your brain, endocrinology, etc. Amazing what some natural forces and a few million years can do! Oh well, I'll put on my duns cap and go back to meditating in the corner.

I don't want to start a higher education flame war, especially since the best you can give us is that you studied something at least related to biology, but as a medical student I need to call you out on illuminating simple electrophysiology as evidence of the hand of a higher power. There is nothing special about the human body other than its ability to comprehend itself and utilize that knowledge in the recovery and maintainence of healing. Our anatomy and physiology is exactly the result of evolutionary pressures.



The best middle ground I can give you is that, much like others have been saying, I hold that a higher power of some sort initiated natural selection on earth (much like the lightning striken ooze reference previously made), as well as the fact that natural selection shouldn't be worshiped in its own right (the cells receiving light in the eye are Behind the cells which transmit that info, as well as that a multitude of completely illogical responses our heart and kidneys have in pathological states).



...But then again such things to me say that a higher power either wasn't involved in natural selection, selected for such poor physiological and pathophysiological traits himself, or just didn't think much of humanity beyond a capacity for self-comprehension, so I'll let you come to your own conclusions with that data :D

[Guest]

A "higher power of some sort?"

[Guest]

In biocentrism the fallin earth and universe doesn't even exist till Adam and Eve observe it and by doing so give it it's laws and properties (that btw are fine tuned for life).......Before the fall most likely earth was similar to how the new earth will be.......No sun and no darkness everything is illuminated by the light of God.......Instantly at the fall Adam and Eve are thrown into the fallin world and this universe and realize they are naked........At this moment where ever they enter the time line is where time and events unfoil backwards until the big bang.......This includes evolution and all that entails as well as the cosmos.....Any beings that "existed" in the fallin earth and universe prior to Adam and Eve entering the universe at the specific spot on the time line did not have souls and really did not exist at all or experience consciousness. ......Until Adam and Eve observed this universe with consciousness it did not exist.......That's hard to grasp if you ignore the convincing evidence of biocentrism and new quantum physic experiments and look at everything only from a physical aspect and leave the mystery of consciousness out of the picture........Although this is foolishness because without consciousness there is no universe to be observed.......It also sheds a tiny microscopic light on how "scientifically" the miracles Jesus performed would actually be possible........Jesus being God could manipulate the laws of physics by his Divine consciousness.......Experiments in the quantum physics world show that this would be possible........Particles act different depending on if they are being observed or not.......And it wouldn't surprise me at all if further down that rabbit hole they act even more differently depending on who (what consciousness) is observing them..........Sorta like when Jesus says we can move the mountain with only a mustard seed of faith........I imagine in Heaven in a resurrected glorified body even the least among Heaven will be able to move mountains.........And not by magic either but by science which at the end of the day is only insight in to how God gets things done.....

Edited April 19, 2014 by Guest

[Guest]

Although it mise well be magic because God will always be so far ahead of the curve and impossible to figure out......

Edited April 19, 2014 by Guest

[Guest]

Does the Past Exist Yet? Evidence Suggests Your Past Isn’t Set in Stone














Recent discoveries require us to rethink our understanding of history. “The histories of the universe,” said renowned physicist Stephen Hawking “depend on what is being measured, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has an objective observer-independent history.”

Is it possible we live and die in a world of illusions? Physics tells us that objects exist in a suspended state until observed, when they collapse in to just one outcome. Paradoxically, whether events happened in the past may not be determined until sometime in your future – and may even depend on actions that you haven’t taken yet.

In 2002, scientists carried out an amazing experiment, which showed that particles of light “photons” knew — in advance — what their distant twins would do in the future. They tested the communication between pairs of photons — whether to be either a wave or a particle. Researchers stretched the distance one of the photons had to take to reach its detector, so that the other photon would hit its own detector first. The photons taking this path already finished their journeys — they either collapse into a particle or don’t before their twin encounters a scrambling device. Somehow, the particles acted on this information before it happened, and across distances instantaneously as if there was no space or time between them. They decided not to become particles before their twin ever encountered the scrambler. It doesn’t matter how we set up the experiment. Our mind and its knowledge is the only thing that determines how they behave. Experiments consistently confirm these observer-dependent effects.

More recently (Science 315, 966, 2007), scientists in France shot photons into an apparatus, and showed that what they did could retroactively change something that had already happened. As the photons passed a fork in the apparatus, they had to decide whether to behave like particles or waves when they hit a beam splitter. Later on – well after the photons passed the fork – the experimenter could randomly switch a second beam splitter on and off. It turns out that what the observer decided at that point, determined what the particle actually did at the fork in the past. At that moment, the experimenter chose his history.

Of course, we live in the same world. Particles have a range of possible states, and it’s not until observed that they take on properties. So until the present is determined, how can there be a past? According to visionary physicist John Wheeler (who coined the word “black hole”), “The quantum principle shows that there is a sense in which what an observer will do in the future defines what happens in the past.” Part of the past is locked in when you observe things and the “probability waves collapse.” But there’s still uncertainty, for instance, as to what’s underneath your feet. If you dig a hole, there’s a probability you’ll find a boulder. Say you hit a boulder, the glacial movements of the past that account for the rock being in exactly that spot will change as described in the Science experiment.

But what about dinosaur fossils? Fossils are really no different than anything else in nature. For instance, the carbon atoms in your body are “fossils” created in the heart of exploding supernova stars. Bottom line: reality begins and ends with the observer. “We are participators,” Wheeler said “in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past.” Before his death, he stated that when observing light from a quasar, we set up a quantum observation on an enormously large scale. It means, he said, the measurements made on the light now, determines the path it took billions of years ago.

Like the light from Wheeler’s quasar, historical events such as who killed JFK, might also depend on events that haven’t occurred yet. There’s enough uncertainty that it could be one person in one set of circumstances, or another person in another. Although JFK was assassinated, you only possess fragments of information about the event. But as you investigate, you collapse more and more reality. According to biocentrism, space and time are relative to the individual observer – we each carry them around like turtles with shells.

History is a biological phenomenon — it’s the logic of what you, the animal observer experiences. You have multiple possible futures, each with a different history like in the Science experiment. Consider the JFK example: say two gunmen shot at JFK, and there was an equal chance one or the other killed him. This would be a situation much like the famous Schrödinger’s cat experiment, in which the cat is both alive and dead — both possibilities exist until you open the box and investigate.

“We must re-think all that we have ever learned about the past, human evolution and the nature of reality, if we are ever to find our true place in the cosmos,” says Constance Hilliard, a historian of science at UNT. Choices you haven’t made yet might determine which of your childhood friends are still alive, or whether your dog got hit by a car yesterday. In fact, you might even collapse realities that determine whether Noah’s Ark sank. “The universe,” said John Haldane, “is not only queerer than we suppose,

Edited April 19, 2014 by Guest

[mortify ii]

I don't want to start a higher education flame war, especially since the best you can give us is that you studied something at least related to biology, but as a medical student I need to call you out on illuminating simple electrophysiology as evidence of the hand of a higher power. There is nothing special about the human body other than its ability to comprehend itself and utilize that knowledge in the recovery and maintainence of healing. Our anatomy and physiology is exactly the result of evolutionary pressures.



The best middle ground I can give you is that, much like others have been saying, I hold that a higher power of some sort initiated natural selection on earth (much like the lightning striken ooze reference previously made), as well as the fact that natural selection shouldn't be worshiped in its own right (the cells receiving light in the eye are Behind the cells which transmit that info, as well as that a multitude of completely illogical responses our heart and kidneys have in pathological states).



...But then again such things to me say that a higher power either wasn't involved in natural selection, selected for such poor physiological and pathophysiological traits himself, or just didn't think much of humanity beyond a capacity for self-comprehension, so I'll let you come to your own conclusions with that data :D

 

Ok, so I'm sure by know you've taken a human physiology course before going to medical school. I'm rather amazed that you would describe the human body as "nothing special" given the mind-blowing processes operating within us. I'm sure you're well aware of the utter complexity that is our heart, not just the amazing electrical system, governed by signals being transmitted over a millisecond to propel blood from the right atrium to the ventricle, then to capillary beds where oxygen exchange occurs near the lungs, back to the left atrium, and then to the left ventricle where it is propelled through our body. Valves exist between the chambers to prevent back flow of blood. Cardiac cells, unlike the cells in our biceps do not tire, and thank god otherwise we'd be dead! The composition of arteries differs from vessels, the former being more elastic to help propel forward, and the latter since dealing with a lower pressure have valves to help propel blood back tot he heart. Now I've given an extremely bare and quick glance of just one particular system in our body. I didn't go into depth on the conduction in the heart, other organs system that help control bp such as the kidneys (eg angiotensin), etc. What I want to know from an MD candidate such as yourself, is exactly how natural selection can explain this one process. How many mutations did the heart have to undergo to create never tiring cardiac cells? Or a four chambered heart where blood is properly propelled via electrical conduction? How about something basic yet fundamental like ensuring that veins but not arteries have valves to propel blood? You see, it's a complete system, it's not something where parts can evolve at certain times, it has to come complete. So give me your thoughts doc, I'm sure it will be easy for a fellow who sees the body as "nothing special."