Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 53 of 53
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Since you are quoting, I think you do realize that Jesus gives "this gift" to Peter, and not to the pope.... that Peter is the first pope is merely the interpretation of the Catholic church, used to prove their view that they are the one and only real thing, and totally different from the interpretation of other Christian denominations - but hey, what do I care, that is up to you to settle.
    So do you feel that Jesus wanted to Peter to be the first pope and after his death, that he intended for nobody to be the leader of the church and not be able to teach "infalliably"? That's a bit shortsighted, and I don't believe God is "shortsighted".
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Full of grace maybe, but that's about it. Intellectually and/or emotionally not capable of e.g. becoming a priest, no matter how graceful... again, what do I care, if you like this view, go ahead.
    "That's about it"? It seems real convenient how you talk down the importance of Mary to help your argument that women are not as important. I guess the females Saints are unimportant too then?
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I feel no hostility, and nobody ever did any wrong to me. I just don't understand how people can accept some of the things the present pope and the rest of the Catholic church does.
    Fair enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That's very kind of you, but let me assure you that I already did the research myself, before I posted my first post about the Catholic Church forcing others to believe that the sun is circling earth.
    That's very kind of you as well for assuring me that this data is accurate. But your interpretation and arguments are largerly skewed towards the anti-catholics so I'd have to take anything you say with a grain of salt.
    back at ya.

    So, you probably don't want me to do this, but I will anyway. When Saint Augustine was young, his mother (Saint Monica) asked a bishop to come and talk to him about Catholicism. The Bishop said he can't learn now and advised her to pray for him. He later become a doctor of the Catholic Church. Well, I'll have you in prayers to Saint Rita, patron saint of impossible cases (a woman) so that the "fire" may grow inside you again. The main reason I'm praying to Rita now is because of my brother (whom yesterday I was informed has a tumor running up his spinal column). And your soul also fits the bill a bit. God Bless!
  2.    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Interesting that you mention the three major groups of life. There are indeed three, the Bacteria, the Archaea, and he Procarya (including e.g. plants, animals and fungi), though I am not sure these are the three you meant.
    Same three (I presume). I took that from one of the references you provided. I do actually read some of that stuff
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoM
    The main reason I'm praying to Rita now is because of my brother (whom yesterday I was informed has a tumor running up his spinal column). And your soul also fits the bill a bit. God Bless!
    Sorry to hear about your brother, I wish him and his/your family all the best.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  4.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoM
    I will say that the Catholic church has made mistakes (it's 2000+ years old and humans are in charge of it...inspired by the directional guidance of God, but still managed by humans, to think it would have a perfect track record is a bit naive)...
    I intentionally have remained silent on this portion of the conversation. However, I opted not to let this statement pass, namely because the "we're human" defense does not provide a lot of support for "infallibility" given that the Pope too is human.
  5.    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    ...Some scientists believe in god, others (the majority, actually) don't. Regarding abiogenesis, there is simply no reason to assume that a "creator" was taking influence. This does not mean there isn't a creator - there is no proof that gods don't exist or influence things (be it evolution, abiogenesis, or the results of the latest NBA match). But, on the other hand, why believe in something for which we have no indication (in my view). I don't KNOW there is no god, I just don't think/believe there is.
    In your view, what type occurence or observation would be an indication of the existence of god(s) and/or the influence of such?
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Sorry to hear about your brother, I wish him and his/your family all the best.
    Thank you, I appreciate that.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    In your view, what type occurence or observation would be an indication of the existence of god(s) and/or the influence of such?
    Anything that cannot be explained without the help of supernatural powers.

    "Anything" meaning anything reasonably well documented and checked against e.g. fraud, exaggeration, illusion, etc. ... things only written down in an old book don't count, for instance, as long as there is no further evidence for the key facts. (I know there is some limited historic evidence for the existence of Jesus, for instance. However, there is no evidence about him having risen from the dead etc., apart from hearsay written down decades or centuries later.)
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I intentionally have remained silent on this portion of the conversation. However, I opted not to let this statement pass, namely because the "we're human" defense does not provide a lot of support for "infallibility" given that the Pope too is human.
    One thing to note is that everything that the Pope says is not automatically infallible. There are certain criteria/conditions in which the pope has to provide before he speaks infallible.

    Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

    So this doesn't mean that the Pope is perfect, nor that the Pope does not sin.

    And I will also say that this is not something that is done very often...it's actually quite rare that the church makes an absolute statement.

    And as a side-note....sorry for hijacking your thread I honestly didn't intend to do that!
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Same three (I presume). I took that from one of the references you provided. I do actually read some of that stuff
    Oops, I just realize there was a "typo" in my statement. It should read bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes, of course.... Sorry for the confusion!
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10.    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Anything that cannot be explained without the help of supernatural powers.
    Would not the statistical odds of just that right conditions being met for abiotic generation and survival of life fit that bill?

    I can see that given _illions of years, it is possible that the right combination of factors would align allowing the spontaneous generation of a basic molecue. And, again, given _illions of years, such conditions could occur more than once (i.e. at least three times, if the three basic types of life require separate and distinct origination -- not counting how many additional distinct life forms may not have survived).

    However, once the first event (the genesis) occurs within a life form, we are no longer dealing with unlimited time. Now, the basic molecule must survive. And, during its life span it must replicate. But that replication must also occur under precise conditions, with no detrimental conditions occuring prior to that.

    But then, the molecule must not only replicate, it and/or its replicas must also replicate. And they must replicate many times, each under the precise conditions, to generate a sufficient population so as to survive "natural selection" as mutation (evolution) begins to occur.

    Not even counting life as we know it today, there would be required a significant number of progressive mutations to "evolve" to even the RNA level. Again for of these progressive mutations we are talking about the precise conditions being met for each component of this string of possible events.

    Now, all of this is based on individual aspects of the theory being demonatrated under controlled circumtances in laboratories. However, to date, no one has been able to string together, even under these controlled circumstances, the series of events to go from primordial soup to viable life form. Yet, the theory assumes, and in reality takes for granted, that in an uncontrolled environment such has occured?
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Would not the statistical odds of just that right conditions being met for abiotic generation and survival of life fit that bill?

    I can see that given _illions of years, it is possible that the right combination of factors would align allowing the spontaneous generation of a basic molecue. And, again, given _illions of years, such conditions could occur more than once (i.e. at least three times, if the three basic types of life require separate and distinct origination -- not counting how many additional distinct life forms may not have survived).

    However, once the first event (the genesis) occurs within a life form, we are no longer dealing with unlimited time. Now, the basic molecule must survive. And, during its life span it must replicate. But that replication must also occur under precise conditions, with no detrimental conditions occuring prior to that.

    But then, the molecule must not only replicate, it and/or its replicas must also replicate. And they must replicate many times, each under the precise conditions, to generate a sufficient population so as to survive "natural selection" as mutation (evolution) begins to occur.

    Not even counting life as we know it today, there would be required a significant number of progressive mutations to "evolve" to even the RNA level. Again for of these progressive mutations we are talking about the precise conditions being met for each component of this string of possible events.

    Now, all of this is based on individual aspects of the theory being demonatrated under controlled circumtances in laboratories. However, to date, no one has been able to string together, even under these controlled circumstances, the series of events to go from primordial soup to viable life form. Yet, the theory assumes, and in reality takes for granted, that in an uncontrolled environment such has occured?
    I suggest your read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It is highly entertaining, written for the general public, and deals with the questions you have been asking.

    To make a long story short: Yes, this is more or less what happened. Life originating and surviving on a planet is certainly a rare event, but it did take place on this one, obviously. The conditions which have to be met are quite specific (not too hot, not too cold, a stable orbit around a sun, not too much radiation, not too many asteroid impacts, liquid water, an athmosphere, etc.), but by no means miraculous or supernatural.

    There are about 200 billion suns/solar systems in our galaxy (the Milky Way) alone, and more than 100 billion galaxies, so maybe about 200.000 billion billion solar systems - it is really not unexpected to happen, and why not here? And: if it would not have happened here, we would not be here to ask the question...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12.    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    conditions which have to be met are quite specific (not too hot, not too cold, a stable orbit around a sun, not too much radiation, not too many asteroid impacts, liquid water, an athmosphere, etc.), but by no means miraculous or supernatural.
    Certainly those are the conditions for life as we know it. However, the conditions for abiotic genesis require more specification ... But of course you know this
  13.    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I suggest your read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins
    Looking it up now
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions