Jesus_lol Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='aalpha1989' date='10 November 2009 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1257925674' post='2000538'] No, but also worthy of note is that impotent men may not marry. [/quote] and that is an awesome policy i think that is one of the church's least defendable positions. not to mention, fairly pointlessly damaging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' date='11 November 2009 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1257925773' post='2000542'] Here is what you have stated thus far in response to my queries: Define Sex: Penetration with the purpose of ejaculation. Define Ejaculation: Ejaculation is the discharge of semen during orgasm. Define Semen: Semen contains sperm that is capable of producing children if combined with a female egg. So by your own admission: Sex is penetration with the purpose of 1)Orgasm & 2)Discharge of sperm capable of fertilizing an egg This is all the Catholic Church teaches. She simply states that these 2 things cannot be separated without compromising the dignity of either. [/quote] Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aalpha1989 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 November 2009 - 02:51 AM' timestamp='1257925907' post='2000545'] No, it is because Christ says so, for He speaks through the Church. I do not buy into the idea that autonomous reason can discover the truth. In fact, there is no such thing as "autonomous" reason, because the rational faculty in man is a participation in Christ's being. That is after all why He is called Logos in scripture. [/quote] This is one of my favorite posts of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 A Josephite marriage is a valid, yet unconsummated, marriage. In other words, it is spiritual marriage, like that which the Theotokos had with St. Joseph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OraProMe Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' date='11 November 2009 - 02:51 AM' timestamp='1257925898' post='2000544'] I did not use the words 'can' or 'must' in that post. You are interposing what you want to argue about with what I actually said. I simply stated a verifiable scientific fact: Male gametes have one biological function. [/quote] Right. But why must any use of them that is not their one biological function incorrect? Still haven't got an answer. I do not agree with the idea that all these things have purpose for a start. Evolution (which is how these things came about) is random and a process of natural selection, which excludes the idea of purpose or meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' date='11 November 2009 - 12:58 AM' timestamp='1257926286' post='2000554'] I do not agree with the idea that all these things have purpose for a start. Evolution (which is how these things came about) is random and a process of natural selection, which excludes the idea of purpose or meaning. [/quote] Why should I embrace your irrational position, which holds that there is no purpose in things; instead of holding to the position advocated by the Church of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='OraProMe' date='11 November 2009 - 02:58 AM' timestamp='1257926286' post='2000554'] Right. But why must any use of them that is not their one biological function incorrect? Still haven't got an answer. [/quote] Evolution FAVORS the appropriate use of biological functions. Monkeys who put their sperm in ant hills die out and the monkeys who know what sperm are for outbreed them. THAT is science. THAT is evolution. [quote name='OraProMe' date='11 November 2009 - 02:58 AM' timestamp='1257926286' post='2000554'] I do not agree with the idea that all these things have purpose for a start. Evolution (which is how these things came about) is random and a process of natural selection, which excludes the idea of purpose or meaning. [/quote] No it doesn't precisely do that. Science does not claim that Evolution is random. I have studied science far longer than you have possibly studied it. I have a degree in Biology and am in medical school currently. Science claims that the genetic mutations propelling diversity within a population is random. But the resulting selective process is even predictable based on environmental demands. This idea that things arise randomly is nonsense. The forces of nature select for variation that fulfills the niche that has energy to exploit the cheapest. Cheap exploitation of energy is favored in environmental systems for exactly one reason: so there is excess energy left at the end of the day to reproduce. Sperm serve a purpose: to fertilize eggs. The rugae in my stomache serve a purpose: to increase digestive surface area. The Hypopituitary axis serves a purpose: to maintain homeostatic setpoints of my hormones. Everything living perpetuates the purpose of maintaining its life long enough to reproduce. Evolutionary scientists of all people should recognize the centrality of fecundity in nature. Fecundity IS the only driving force in the natural world. Edited November 11, 2009 by Veridicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' date='11 November 2009 - 12:58 AM' timestamp='1257926286' post='2000554'] Evolution (which is how these things came about) is random and a process of natural selection, which excludes the idea of purpose or meaning. [/quote] Please explain, using the theory of natural selection, how the chemical mechanism of blood clotting came about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 November 2009 - 03:06 AM' timestamp='1257926812' post='2000558'] Please explain, using the theory of natural selection, how the chemical mechanism of blood clotting came about. [/quote] [img]http://www.sanger.ac.uk/PostGenomics/genetrap/IGTC_MAPP/physiological_process-GenMAPP/Mm_Blood_Clotting_Cascade/_Support/Mm_Blood_Clotting_Cascade.jpg[/img] Blood Clotting is simple compared to many things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 um, the ones that bleed to death at the smallest wound die out pretty quickly? the other ones live on? not that difficult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Veridicus' date='11 November 2009 - 01:10 AM' timestamp='1257927033' post='2000560'] [img]http://www.sanger.ac.uk/PostGenomics/genetrap/IGTC_MAPP/physiological_process-GenMAPP/Mm_Blood_Clotting_Cascade/_Support/Mm_Blood_Clotting_Cascade.jpg[/img] Blood Clotting is simple compared to many things. [/quote] I am not asking how blood clotting works, but how it evolved. Without all the different chemical elements it does not work. It is an irreducibly complex system. Edited November 11, 2009 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 November 2009 - 03:17 AM' timestamp='1257927469' post='2000565'] I am not asking how blood clotting works, but how it evolved. Without all the different chemical elements it does not work. It is an irreducibly complex system. [/quote] I believe the phrase you are grasping for is "irreducibly complex". It is a point of contention which materialistic scientists "cannot" accept. I was actually highly disappointed in my senior synthesis Evolution class. I never had any doubts about evolution until I got snubbed by my PhD for asking legitimate questions about the experimental design and statistical inferences of "quintessential evolution studies". Rather than giving thoughtful answers, I was chided for challenging the status quo. I really didn't have anything to prove at the time; just uninmpressed by the data. It was really disappointing. I'll never forget the "Stone Fly" Experiment... Edited November 11, 2009 by Veridicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Veridicus' date='11 November 2009 - 01:22 AM' timestamp='1257927746' post='2000567'] I believe the phrase you are grasping for is "irreducibly complex". It is a point of contention which materialistic scientists "cannot" accept. I was actually highly disappointed in my senior synthesis Evolution class. I never had any doubts about evolution until I got snubbed by my PhD for asking legitimate questions about the experimental design and statistical inferences of "quintessential evolution studies". It was really disappointing. I'll never forget the "Stone Fly" Experiment... [/quote] Yes, it is irreducibly complex. Let me be more precise by saying that my criticism is aimed not at the theory of evolution itself, but at the so-called mechanism that causes it, i.e., "natural selection," and which I brought up only because Ora indicated that it is the cause of evolutionary changes. Edited November 11, 2009 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OraProMe Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' date='11 November 2009 - 02:14 AM' timestamp='1257923668' post='2000493'] They have no answer. If they had any substantive defense of their position on homosexuality that wasn't dependent on "sacred revelation" they would have produced it. Sorry for being delayed in getting back to you on facebook btw. [/quote] It's not a problem. November is exam month in Victoria anyway so facebook is just another distraction. Hope you had an enjoyable Halloween. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OraProMe Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' date='11 November 2009 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1257926758' post='2000557'] Evolution FAVORS the appropriate use of biological functions. Monkeys who put their sperm in ant hills die out and the monkeys who know what sperm are for outbreed them. THAT is science. THAT is evolution. [/quote] Homosexuals and heterosexuals are part of the same species. The minority of homosexuals not having procreative sex is not going to lead to the dying out of the human race. Furthermore homosexuals don't need to "breed" homosexuals. Heterosexuals breed homosexuals. [quote] No it doesn't precisely do that. Science does not claim that Evolution is random. I have studied science far longer than you have possibly studied it. I have a degree in Biology and am in medical school currently. Science claims that the genetic mutations propelling diversity within a population is random. But the resulting selective process is even predictable based on environmental demands. This idea that things arise randomly is nonsense. The forces of nature select for variation that fulfills the niche that has energy to exploit the cheapest. Cheap exploitation of energy is favored in environmental systems for exactly one reason: so there is excess energy left at the end of the day to reproduce. Sperm serve a purpose: to fertilize eggs. The rugae in my stomache serve a purpose: to increase digestive surface area. The Hypopituitary axis serves a purpose: to maintain homeostatic setpoints of my hormones. Everything living perpetuates the purpose of maintaining its life long enough to reproduce. Evolutionary scientists of all people should recognize the centrality of fecundity in nature. Fecundity IS the only driving force in the natural world. [/quote] Thanks, you're right I don't study science but was under the impression that evolution was random. That's what we learnt in my theology class when discussing the Church's response to Darwinism. I'll have a read over this when I'm less tired. Thanks for the correction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now