Xavier's M.O.

[Quaremerepulisti]

1.  Put forth something which supposedly "absolutely disproves" evolution and a young earth.

2.  "Evolutionists" show up and show how that something really is no difficulty at all.

3.  Call the "evolutionist" explanation "evolutionist just-so storytelling" and "absurd", without bothering to address the actual arguments.

4.  Completely ignore "evolutionist" questions about how everything fits into creationist worldview, but merely loudly proclaim that the scientific evidence "overwhelmingly" supports YEC.

5.  Make lots of arguments to consequences about how awful it would be if YEC were wrong.  For instance, it would mean that some of his favorite mystics/visionaries were wrong, and that simply couldn't be.

6.  Portray himself as the victim of evolutionist "bullying".

7.  When no one takes him seriously as an intellectually honest, or at least sufficiently knowledgeable, debater, claim their minds have been warped by "sympathy" to evolution.

[Heinrich]

I do not see anything like that at all. If anything, it is the ape man myth people who act the way you outline.

[GloriaPatri]

Xavier has long shown himself to be unable or unwilling to have an intellectually honest discussion concerning evolution and his own brand of biblical literalism. He'd rather shout his views from the roof tops and condemn anyone who disagrees with him as a modernist heretic.

Heinrich, you only think that because you too are scientifically illiterate.

[Heinrich]

Xavier has long shown himself to be unable or unwilling to have an intellectually honest discussion concerning evolution and his own brand of biblical literalism. He'd rather shout his views from the roof tops and condemn anyone who disagrees with him as a modernist heretic.

Heinrich, you only think that because you too are scientifically illiterate.

Point proven. 

[GloriaPatri]

Xavier has long shown himself to be unable or unwilling to have an intellectually honest discussion concerning evolution and his own brand of biblical literalism. He'd rather shout his views from the roof tops and condemn anyone who disagrees with him as a modernist heretic.

Heinrich, you only think that because you too are scientifically illiterate.

Point proven. 

Calling you scientifically illiterate doesn't qualify for Quare's point 6. It's a statement of fact, not an attack on anyone's character. Unless you really are that sensitive 

[Heinrich]

Xavier has long shown himself to be unable or unwilling to have an intellectually honest discussion concerning evolution and his own brand of biblical literalism. He'd rather shout his views from the roof tops and condemn anyone who disagrees with him as a modernist heretic.

Heinrich, you only think that because you too are scientifically illiterate.

Point proven. 

Calling you scientifically illiterate doesn't qualify for Quare's point 6. It's a statement of fact, not an attack on anyone's character. Unless you really are that sensitive 

At least I am not a retard like some people.

[Graham]

I find YEC basically more reasonable than the materialist big bang stuff because there is at least an attempt to satisfy the principle of causation, even if the processes seem to rely too heavily on divine intervention. So long as the latter is viewed as a respectable opinion among scientists and the supposedly educated I'm not going to be outraged by YEC theories.

[GloriaPatri]

I find YEC basically more reasonable than the materialist big bang stuff because there is at least an attempt to satisfy the principle of causation, even if it seems difficult to believe. So long as the latter is viewed as a respectable opinion among scientists and the supposedly educated I'm not going to be outraged by YEC theories.

You only find it more reasonable because it corresponds to your own bias of biblical literalism. The fact is that YEC makes God a deceiver who purposely planted evidence for an old Earth, and for what? Such a "God" is not worthy of worship. 

[Mono no aware]

Whatever one thinks about Xavier's m.o., he is quite correct in his recognition that evolution is the hill to die on.  If evolution is true, then you have to face it: game over.  More than many other Catholics, Xavier sees this fact plainly for what it's worth.  Getting him to answer questions can sometimes be like pulling teeth, but I like him.

[Graham]

I find YEC basically more reasonable than the materialist big bang stuff because there is at least an attempt to satisfy the principle of causation, even if it seems difficult to believe. So long as the latter is viewed as a respectable opinion among scientists and the supposedly educated I'm not going to be outraged by YEC theories.

You only find it more reasonable because it corresponds to your own bias of biblical literalism. The fact is that YEC makes God a deceiver who purposely planted evidence for an old Earth, and for what? Such a "God" is not worthy of worship.

Wrong. I stated why I find it more reasonable - because, unlike the socially acceptable materialist big bang theory, it makes an attempt (however difficult to believe) to satisfy the absolutely fundamental principle of causation. The counterargument you adduce is far more logically remote

[GloriaPatri]

I find YEC basically more reasonable than the materialist big bang stuff because there is at least an attempt to satisfy the principle of causation, even if it seems difficult to believe. So long as the latter is viewed as a respectable opinion among scientists and the supposedly educated I'm not going to be outraged by YEC theories.

You only find it more reasonable because it corresponds to your own bias of biblical literalism. The fact is that YEC makes God a deceiver who purposely planted evidence for an old Earth, and for what? Such a "God" is not worthy of worship.

Wrong. I stated why I find it more reasonable - because, unlike the socially acceptable materialist big bang theory, it makes an attempt (however difficult to believe) to satisfy the absolutely fundamental principle of causation. The counterargument you adduce is far more logically remote

Big Bang cosmology is literally built upon causation. In what way do you think it's not?

[Quaremerepulisti]

Whatever one thinks about Xavier's m.o., he is quite correct in his recognition that evolution is the hill to die on.  If evolution is true, then you have to face it: game over.  More than many other Catholics, Xavier sees this fact plainly for what it's worth.  Getting him to answer questions can sometimes be like pulling teeth, but I like him.

All I can say is, if the arguments aren't going to be any better than Xavier's, prepare to die...

Besides, the game is already over as regards indefectibility.

I would say, though, that this seems to assume the Thomist version of the Incarnation rather than the Scotist.  The argument is "well if evolution is true, then original sin is a myth, which means the Incarnation wouldn't have happened".  Scotists would deny the consequent.

[Mono no aware]

All I can say is, if the arguments aren't going to be any better than Xavier's, prepare to die...

Besides, the game is already over as regards indefectibility.

I would say, though, that this seems to assume the Thomist version of the Incarnation rather than the Scotist.  The argument is "well if evolution is true, then original sin is a myth, which means the Incarnation wouldn't have happened".  Scotists would deny the consequent.

Duns Scotus did not deny original sin, though.  His point was theoretical: that Christ would've been made incarnate even if the Fall hadn't occurred.  But if Christianity is true, then original sin had to have happened.  Otherwise the gospels are meaningless.  If the Word was made flesh, if Jesus Christ was God incarnate, then his purpose was to redeem us from original sin.  He did not come to frolic with us in an earthly paradise.  This is observably a messed-up world.  It's that way for one of two reasons.  It's either the result of the Fall, or God is remote and no one's in charge.

[Miriam_M]

Besides, the game is already over as regards indefectibility.

Far from it.  It's simply that you have your own definition of indefectibility, which is faulty -- i.e., not the Catholic orthodox understanding of it.  You begin with a fallacy.

Most modernists and many sedevacantists also have false understandings of the term.  Although I have always known this fact, it was reinforced for me recently in one of Fr. Ripperger's sermons -- three separate talks on the three theological virtues, and thus I am finding those sermons (which I am listening to again) helpful and necessary to me.  Poor knowledge of the foundations of Catholicism impairs the theological virtue of faith.  Insufficient hope leads to discouragement and despair when men in power in the Church disappoint.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Duns Scotus did not deny original sin, though.  His point was theoretical: that Christ would've been made incarnate even if the Fall hadn't occurred.  But if Christianity is true, then original sin had to have happened.  Otherwise the gospels are meaningless.  If the Word was made flesh, if Jesus Christ was God incarnate, then his purpose was to redeem us from original sin. 

That's a contradiction, if Scotus is right.  If Christ would've been made incarnate even without a Fall, then you can't say His purpose (absolutely and simply) was to redeem us; otherwise He would not have come, as the Thomists say.

This is observably a messed-up world.  It's that way for one of two reasons.  It's either the result of the Fall, or God is remote and no one's in charge.

And that's a false dichotomy.  How is it that many of our human vices are also seen in animals?  Sure, you can say they aren't vices in the strict sense because those animals aren't rational.  Still, you see barbaric cruelty, brutish lusts and sexual practices, even animals devouring their own children.  Sure, I know Protestants will say that that, too, is the result of the Fall, but c'mon.