125 Million-Year old Dinosaur feathers remarkably similar to modern bird feathers

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So do you think evolution is completely unguided (except by nature)?

Nothing is truly random and evolution is no exception. Natural selection is called that because the traits that allow a creature to pass on its genetics are selected for.
To ask if it's guided or not is stepping outside of science and into philosophy, and definitly religion in your case.

 

[Estrid]

There are a zillion theories of the supernatural. So I don't know how anyone could do that.

Sure you forgot the quotation marks?
Like "theories"?

 

[Estrid]

The Catholic church sees that as a feature, while you appear to see it as a bug. When someone claims to have experienced a miracle, scientifically trained priests will investigate and only declare a miracle has happened after they've eliminated all natural explanations.

That is very sketchy "science".

 

[USincognito]

That is very sketchy "science".

It's better than "well, it seems like a miracle, so that's good enough".

 

[Estrid]

It's better than "well, it seems like a miracle, so that's good enough".

No, it's not.

That would be honest.

There's neither science nor honesty in
abandoning science, deciding that
every possibility has positively been
eliminated, and that what was hoped for is
the Answer.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There should be a theory of the supernatural, then.

I could formulate one. A universal theory of the supernatural that is consistent with the data and it's pretty simple:

There is no supernatural.

That's it, nothing more.

This is not theory of the phenomonology of the "supernatural", but rather of the mechanism. It is consistent with all serious investigations of supernatural and paranormal phenomena. The inductive case for this theory keeps building. If a detailed examination of one supernatural effect "X" showed that it did exist and how it worked, then the universal theory of the supernatural might become "There is no supernatural except X." plus the theory of X. If that list grew to include Y & Z and then someone figured out how Y & Z worked to make a unified theory of XYZ, then the original "no supernatural" theory would have to be abandoned. This has definitely not happened yet, but this is how science works.

 

[Landon Caeli]

No, it's not.

That would be honest.

There's neither science nor honesty in
abandoning science, deciding that
every possibility has positively been
eliminated, and that what was hoped for is
the Answer.

How's it "abandoning science"..? I think you're wrong to say what you're saying.

 

[Estrid]

How's it "abandoning science"..? I think you're wrong to say what you're saying.

Does the church, for lack of info or imagination
declare that a miracle has been proved?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Does the church, for lack of info or imagination
declare that a miracle has been proved?

Never, no.

Science is always respected by the Church. The farthest they'll go is to say something is "safe' and not harmful to be thought of as a miracle... After all the sciences have been exhausted. And that would be extremely rare and hard to do.

 

[Estrid]

Never, no.

Science is always respected by the Church. The farthest they'll go is to say something is "safe' and not harmful to be thought of as a miracle... After all the sciences have been exhausted. And that would be extremely rare and hard to do.

Would you like to quote the catholic
definition of miracle and indicate how
that is different from " proof"?

There's two other issues with what you've said but one at a time will do.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Would you like to quote the catholic
definition of miracle and indicate how
that is different from " proof"?

There's two other issues with what you've said but one at a time will do.

I would, but I'm opposed to religious conversations in the Physical and Life Sciences forum. This area should be strictly for science, as that's what the SOP states, but nobody seems to follow it... I'd recommend reporting all posts here by Christians who use their religious beliefs to denigrate science.

...I'm not really into apologetics anyway, to begin with.

 

[Estrid]

I would, but I'm opposed to religious conversations in the Physical and Life Sciences forum. This area should be strictly for science, as that's what the SOP states, but nobody seems to follow it... I'd recommend reporting all posts here by Christians who use their religious beliefs to denigrate science.

...I'm not really into apologetics anyway, to begin with.

Look it up for yourself then and observe that there is no difference, since it mattered enough to for you to comment in the first place.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Look it up for yourself then and observe that there is no difference, since it mattered enough to for you to comment in the first place.

 I know about my own religion, thanks. It's the difference between Public and  Private Revelation, if you're that interested. You can look it up.

...We're not required to believe in any new miracles or apparitions. They can only be deemed safe or unsafe, by the Church, for those who want to believe.