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.
I do not see anything like that at all. If anything, it is the ape man myth people who act the way you outline.
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.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 02, 2018, 03:33:08 PM
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. :cheeseheadbeer:
Quote from: Heinrich on September 02, 2018, 03:36:23 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 02, 2018, 03:33:08 PM
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. :cheeseheadbeer:
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 ::)
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 02, 2018, 03:47:26 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on September 02, 2018, 03:36:23 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 02, 2018, 03:33:08 PM
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. :cheeseheadbeer:
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.
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.
Quote from: Graham on September 02, 2018, 04:07:59 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 02, 2018, 04:11:11 PM
Quote from: Graham on September 02, 2018, 04:07:59 PM
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
Quote from: Graham on September 02, 2018, 04:28:09 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 02, 2018, 04:11:11 PM
Quote from: Graham on September 02, 2018, 04:07:59 PM
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?
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 02, 2018, 04:12:28 PM
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.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 02, 2018, 05:23:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 02, 2018, 05:23:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 02, 2018, 06:51:32 PM
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.
QuoteThis 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.
Quote from: Miriam_M on September 02, 2018, 07:24:22 PM
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.
Not so. I understand it quite well, thank you. Facts and logic aren't any more on your side than the scientific evidence is for the YECs. But feel free to contribute on the thread I started on this topic.
Whatever one's opinion on Xavier's MO is, if he was able to provoke Quare into making this embarrassing bitch-post he's doing something right. lol
Quare stated:
QuoteThat'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.
St. Thomas does concede that the Incarnation could have happened without the fall; only that because of the fall, the purpose of the Incarnation was for the purpose of the redemption. I also agree with Scotus.
The main point I'd make to Catholic ("theistic") evolutionists is that they ought to step back from the scientific question for a moment, and try to take in the sheer Satanic darkness of billions of souls, made in the image of God, believing that they are spirit-less beasts, and that God's creation is actually a crudely and wastefully formed accident. It's so sick and twisted for a human soul to imagine that it's just a beast, that you have to seriously consider whether a theory which has led many into this gross error can be trusted. As my sister once said to me, "I don't believe in God, I believe in the Big Bang and Evolution," i.e. she believes life and the entire order of the cosmos are accidental effects of particle interactions, that there is no (spiritual) substance to our lives.
The lack of suspicion towards the theory of evolution on the part of Catholics shows that they have been swept up in the Enlightenment project and the momentum of human progress, and that they are embarrassed about or afraid of the Church seeming to be against this project or lagging behind its progress. At the very least, evolution should be regarded with suspicion: a theory that started with the ancient Hindus, was modified by the ancient Greeks, and was picked up again in the era of anti-Catholic revolution to cement the greatest apostasy in Church history. Do you not suspect the devil's involvement at all?
If the evolutionary account of creation is true, I cannot see why God wouldn't have put it into the book of Genesis. I find the idea that "the ancient Hebrews were ignorant, and it was written in a way adapted to their understanding" insulting. The ancient Hindus were "intelligent enough" to come up with the idea of evolution all by themselves, apparently, so why couldn't God have told the Hebrews, "I made the earth slowly over many eons"? What's difficult to understand about that? If God created the world and sent the prophets to tell us about it, why couldn't He have made his prophets tell the truth, and spare us the calamity thousands of years later of the scientists apparently discovering that the biblical cosmology is a hoax? It doesn't make sense. This is why I share with the fundamentalist Protestants the principle that the Bible should be our first text or "interpretative lens" for understanding the world and its history, and that human science ought to follow it and not the other way around. At the end of the day I trust God and His prophets more than these modern scientists, who want me to believe I'm a hairless ape and that I'm a "homophobic" bigot for thinking there's a divine & natural law.
In reality, evolution is a Hindu theory through & through. It only makes sense with a Hindu theology which posits that there are three principles in God: a creator (Brahma), a preserver (Vishnu), and a destroyer (Shiva). The universe takes billions of years to evolve because these principles are "battling" and unfolding themselves gradually in the world. The Hindus worship death and destruction under the aspect of Shiva because they deem these principles as equally divine as life and creation. This is the proper theological conclusion to evolutionism: a cult which deifies death. Modern thinkers like Hegel and Teilhard de Chardin have revived it. It's not acceptable to a Christian.
Laughable. This from the man who said Y-chromosomal Adam could have been an ape! You people assume evolution to prove evolution.
And Heinrich, you are immeasurably more scientifically literate than is GloriaPatri. Despite his grandiose claims and petulant attempts at poor insults, everyone can see for themselves on this thread, where there was a productive, engaging, interesting discussion by many posters, GloriaPatri did not even attempt to respond to simple questions asked of him that posed problems to his evolutionary assumptions, after saying he would do so. https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=20429.15
And some of this is really funny! On the Noah thread, some of you are presupposing your own views that God was this poor, passive spectator that really is prevented from taking any action to protect the one He has chosen. That's not even remotely accurate. Even if it was one of us, we would have assisted Noah in ways we could to survive and complete the trip. How much more would God have provided for Noah before and after the journey. The real question there was this - did the Himalayas form after or before the marine fossils buried there? Till recently, evolutionists used to claim the Himalayas formed 70 million years ago, if that is true, the fossils they date to 50 million and 30 million years were buried there after the flood. I don't know the answer to each and every question, that's what science is for, and that will take time to research, which I'm open to. But there are many creation science models that have attempted reasonable answers for these things. Evolutionists need to tell us a date range first and not change their story every few years. The flood happened 5000 years ago and its record has remained constant for at least 3500 years since the Prophet Moses.
(https://sixdays.org/images/Banners/Fossils%20Banner.jpg)
And here's the thing. Like John Lamb, if someone firmly believes in Intelligent Design and Creation across some period of time, I won't argue with him. But I can't help but notice some people to whom defense of evolution became more important than belief in Christianity gradually lost faith in Christ along the way. That's what evolution frequently does, it acts like a slow poison that turns man against God. The Church tolerates theistic evolution, Pope Pius XII said this, but he also told those who work in the sacred and natural sciences not to proceed as if revelation says nothing on the subject, and always to be ready to retract one's opinion and submit to the Church's judgment in the case of a future dogmatic definition. That is enough.
A young man growing into a man. That is development. An ape becoming a man or a particle becoming a person, that is evolution and it is false. Evolution is an essentially modernistic doctrine and evolution inevitably makes the mind incapable of adhering immutably to unchangeable truth. That's why evolution of doctrine itself is part of modernism and anyone who speaks of sacred doctrine being "empirically falsified" (as if the testimony of God, Who is Truth Himself, could ever be falsified) has already swallowed the modernist pill.
But at the end of the day, it's up to you. We can only warn you that the Faith is the most precious thing you have and you needlessly put it in danger when you uncritically accept evolutionary absurdities. We can try to help you to a point, but if you insist on denying God itself if necessary to support evolution, then you place your own soul in danger of eternal loss. What do we gain if you believe in creation or not? If you know and believe God created you and is your Father, you will love Him, and be filled with humility and gratitude toward Him; if you think you are the product more or less of a random unguided process over "millions of years", chances are, and experience shows, souls grow cold toward God and sometimes hate or speak temerariously against Infinite Goodness. That's why evolution is dangerous.
Prov 9:12 "If thou be wise, thou shalt be so to thyself: and if a scorner, thou alone shalt bear the evil."
A Creation Science textbook warned long ago: "So baneful has been the effect of teaching evolution as a proven hypothesis, that multitudes have been led into infidelity and atheism. Prof. James H. Leuba, of Bryn Mawr College, Pa. sent a questionnaire to 1000 of the most prominent scientists teaching sciences relating to evolution. The replies indicate that more than one-half do not believe in a personal God, nor the immortality of the soul--beliefs almost universal even in the heathen world ... A doctrine so abhorrent to the conscience, so contrary to the well nigh universal belief, and so fruitful of evil, certainly can not be true. Small wonder is it that students are fast becoming infidels and atheists, and we shudder as we think of the coming generation ... Note the steady and rapid growth of infidelity and atheism as a result of this pernicious theory ... Can a theory that is consistent with false theories, like chance and atheism be true? Truth is consistent with truth, but not with falsehood. We can judge a theory by the company it keeps. Evolution naturally affiliates with false theories rather than with the truth. It favors infidelity and atheism. A theory in perfect harmony with manifest error, raises a presumption against its truth. Evolution seems to have a natural attraction for erroneous hypotheses and manifests the closest kinship with impossible theories. This is not a mark of a true theory."
See https://sixdays.org/Fossils-Confirm-the-Biblical-Creation-and-the-Genesis-Flood and http://www.icr.org/article/did-noahs-flood-cover-himalayan-mountains/ for two possible models of the flood. Those interested can study it further. Creation Scientists have very good answers to these things. But to the modernists, this is all a game. Create sufficient doubt in simple minds for long periods of time (their fraud of Piltdown man destroyed the Faith of millions for 40 years before they admitted it was a fraud!) and after that a late meaningless admission that these things were errors by which time much of the world has already lost the Faith. The right way is to stand on the Biblical narrative, read the works of creation scientists, and know that science will fully confirm the Biblical narrative in time.
QuoteMost fossils formed because of: Rapidly burial (to preserve it).
Burial in mud or other sediment (for mineral replacement).
Fossil Rapid Burial
The worldwide flood rapidly buried millions of plants and animals, creating the right conditions for fossils to form. Typically when an animal dies, it decomposes or is scattered by scavengers over time. However, the fossils found in sedimentary layers were buried instantly. Fossils such as fish eating or giving birth appear to have been frozen in time without warning. Fossilized jellyfish must have been rapidly buried because their soft bodies float and decay within hours of death. The top mile of the Earth's surface is covered with sedimentary layers full of fossils that could not have formed by a slow and gradual process.
Jellyfish FossilJellyfish fossil from Wisconsin.
Diplomystus Dentatus with Knightia in its MouthFossil Diplomystus dentatus with Knightia fish in its mouth.
Ichthyosaur Giving BirthFossil Ichthyosaur that was buried while giving birth.
Geologic Column
Textbook Sedimentary Layers Geologic ColumnGeologic layers showing sorted fossils.
The worldwide flood would have buried plants and animals based on their habitat and sorted them based on density and mobility. The reason clams and trilobites are at the bottom is because they live at the bottom. The reason humans and birds are on the top is because they live on the top and are mobile enough to seek higher ground. Many times the evolutionary "ancestor" is found in higher strata. The "fossil record" in reality does not "record" any information on the age of a fossil, but it is evidence that there was a large amount of water.
Mountain Top Sea Fossils
Himalayan Fossil Ammonite from Langza Spiti ValleyHimalayan fossil ammonite from Spiti Valley. Image: Seemant Saxena
Genesis 7:20 says that during the flood, all the mountains were covered with water. Clams, ammonites, and other marine fossils are found in almost all sedimentary layers, including on top of the Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, and most other mountain ranges. At the end of the flood, crust movement folded the mountains, pushing the fossil layers up to 2 miles above sea level. The catastrophic flood is the reason why the majority of marine fossil layers are found on the continents, and not in the ocean basins.
Fossil Stasis
Fossils Stasis - Bat, Crayfish, Turtle, Dragonfly, Coelacanth, Horseshoe CrabBats, crayfish, turtles, dragonflies, coelacanth, horseshoe crabs and many other fossils have been found showing no signs of evolution.
Almost all fossils, including those in the lowest layers, appear abruptly and fully formed, showing no sign of evolution. These fossils have no transitional forms, and many of them have survived almost unchanged until today. This evidence is consistent with the Bible's account of special creation and does not support the idea that one animal changes to another over long periods of time.
Polystrate Fossils
Polystrate fossil tree. Top has been petrified, bottom has been turned to coal. Polystrate fossil tree. Top has been petrified, bottom has been turned to coal.
Trees sinking into sediment forming polystrate fossils. Trees sinking into sediment forming polystrate fossils.
Many places around the world contain polystrate tree fossils that extend through multiple layers. These layers must have formed rapidly because it is not possible for trees to remain vertical for thousands of years while layers form around them. After the eruption at Mt. Saint Helens blew down large forests, scientists observed floating logs that become water-saturated and sink in the vertical position. Large deposits of polystrate tree fossils without branches or roots are evidence that floating trees were rapidly deposited in a large flood.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 02, 2018, 07:54:39 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 02, 2018, 06:51:32 PMThis 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.
You are correct; it's a false dichotomy. Obviously there's not just a choice between the Christian narrative and agnosticism. There are thousands of available narratives, from Islam to the Vedas to Raëlism to countless others. I was merely using shorthand to get to the point. But you seem to be denying the Fall here (and correct me if I'm wrong). In that case, it would still be Eden right now, and we are currently living in paradise, in this world with all its suffering. The absurdity of that claim is self-evident. You would be going way beyond poor Duns Scotus and into something far more theologically perverse. It is, I suppose, conceivable to have Christianity without original sin. After all, liberal Christianity in all its guises seems to be nothing more than a demonstration of how many doctrines one can deny while still calling one's self a Christian. But in the end it's a meaningless pose.
I was going to say that you can't be Catholic without believing in original sin—but then again, perhaps you can. The final arbiter there would be Pope Francis, and he might be generous enough to consider you still within the fold. Yet surely you can't be a
traditional Catholic and reject original sin. Can you? That would be a bridge too far. There, too, though, the intuition is wrong. There are traditional Catholics who deny infallibility, and there are traditional Catholics who hold opposing views on
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, only one of which can be orthodox; the other of which must necessarily be heretical (and this is not something open for debate. The doctrine has been defined). The bottom line is that the only qualifications for being a traditional Catholic seem to be: liking the Latin Mass and calling one's self a traditional Catholic. Beyond that, belief is
à la carte, orthodoxy is solipsistic, and "heretic" is a label to put on somebody else (frequently the hierarchs). Everyone becomes their own pope—and their own Inquisitor as well. It would not surprise me if this fact is what you, QMR, either unintentionally or in your own clever slice of internet performance art, are trying to prove.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 02, 2018, 07:54:39 PMAnd 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.
You're correct to point out that they aren't vices strictly speaking because animals are not rational animals.
A (fellow Catholic) friend asked me about this. He brought up the example of a wasp which injects its eggs into a caterpillar, which then hatch to eat the caterpillar alive. My response was that this, indeed, is a result of the Fall. In what way?
"For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope: Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now. And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body."
That's St. Paul. I also came across a while back an ancient Chinese saying about the earth (in general) being "cursed" so that it would not bring forth its grain properly in abundance. The point is that the Fall had an effect upon all creation. So the way I explained it to my friend was that (as the ancient Chinese saying had it) the crops / plants themselves have been cursed and made less fruitful, so this wasp which injects its eggs into caterpillars originally would have injected them into a fig or some other fruit or nut that would have provided its offspring with sustenance; however, since the Fall, the plants no longer provide enough sustenance (e.g. protein), so the wasp turns to the caterpillar instead. Similarly, lions (and other carnivores) would have eaten plants that provided more than sufficient protein and so on, but since the Fall they've been forced to turn to hunting other animals instead. This is where I disagree with St. Thomas about lions or tigers being carnivorous by nature; no, by nature, they need a certain amount of protein, which since the Fall they've only been able to get from other animals (St. Thomas didn't know of the modern science of nutrition). There are cases in zoos where lions are brought up herbivorously, but obviously this is not the ideal today. If the animals could get their sustenance from the fruits of plants, there would be no need for them to turn against each other, and they would be docile. It's hunger that sets them in opposition. As for unnatural sexual practices, I think the consensus among those that study these things is that the animals do this to assert power/dominance over each other. This would also be a result of the Fall, seeing as the scarcity of resources has set the animals in relative competition with each other, such that they feel the need to maintain hierarchies of dominance where they are most likely to survive. Of course, evolutionists consider this competition to be pristinely natural, almost the very essence of the natural world.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 02, 2018, 04:12:28 PM
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.
If evolution is true, why die for a lie?
That is stupid.
Xavier argues like a complete mong. I am on his side of the argument, but he is totally blinkered to facts and hard realities. He is a total clown, much like fake 'dr' Sungenis. Frankly if he ever makes it to become a priest we will just have another clerical cretin like Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, who will do more harm than good with his moronic blatherings.
Knowing when to shut-the-hell-up is part of being an adult.
I wouldn't debate most of you on firearms or how to hunt for the good reason that I know next to nothing about them.
Quote from: Greg on September 03, 2018, 07:40:54 AMIf evolution is true, why die for a lie?
That is stupid.
Well, I guess for the simple fact that for a true believer like Xavier, evolution can
never be true and the faith cannot possibly be a lie, no matter what the evidence. Even if the entire rest of humanity to a person were to accept evolution, he would simply declare himself a mysticalist pope and the last living Catholic on earth, and he would say, "
après moi, la fin du monde." For the same reason do Muslims blow themselves up in the service of Allah and the promise of a harem and banqueting in the afterlife. Whether or not these things are true, they are nevertheless believed and died for. Faith is not taken on demonstrable proof. For you that might be the case, but if faith is something rationally arrived at, then it wouldn't be called faith, it would simply be called fact, and there would be no such thing as grace.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 03, 2018, 07:58:22 AM
Quote from: Greg on September 03, 2018, 07:40:54 AMIf evolution is true, why die for a lie?
That is stupid.
Well, I guess for the simple fact that for a true believer like Xavier, evolution can never be true and the faith cannot possibly be a lie, no matter what the evidence.
Then he is in a cult. Not a religion.
Facts matter.
At that point, it becomes an endless debate over the nature of truth. Both evolutionists and young earth creationists claim the facts are on their own side, and that the opposition is peddling either pseudo-science or scientism. (To creationists, the scientific community is a part of a Hebraic- / Freemasonic- / Illuminati-type cabal, and evolution is an instrument of Satan to lead souls to perdition. To evolutionists, biblical literalism is deemed the height of willful ignorance and unthinking cult-like devotion to a patently wrong text). It's almost impossible to make headway in these discussions because of how fiercely people cling to their assumptions and biases. "Facts" become all but subjective.
You're right, though, Greg, that the way one argues things is important. I was recently reading about the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye%E2%80%93Ken_Ham_debate), which I intend to watch. I liked this bit of review:
QuoteDaily Beast writer Michael Schulson used the Seahawks-Broncos analogy to declare Ham the resounding victor. Although Schulson agreed with Nye's underlying scientific message, and allowed that Nye "had his moments," he wrote that "it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old."
:laugh:
Wouldn't it be a kind of heresy for a person to hold the position that, even though they presently hold the Catholic faith as true, they admit the possibility of the faith, or certain doctrines of the faith, being demonstrated false? The faith, in such a circumstance, would be provisional; ergo you would be saying truth is provisional. Surely there's something cited in the Syllabus of Errors that condemns this position. So Xavier's theoretical adherence to the faith, come whatever may in terms of evidence to the contrary, would be orthodox.
It would be a heresy if one was required to believe that faith and reason can conflict, and when that happens, one has to ignore facts.
But the teaching is that faith and reason don't conflict.
So when they do, (geocentrism) I go with the observable and common sense. Planets (with less mass) orbit stars with much greater mass. Solar systems orbit the more massive galatic centre.
FACT - Pope Francis is a Peronist, apostate and a massive two-faced wanker who kept his faggot kiddy raping friends in positions of power whilst bemoaning the rot and shit in the Church. He had blocked the flush!!! Therefore, I am morally entitled to ignore everything he says and commands. If he is the legitemate Vicar of Christ then my human reason tells me that Christ must be out to lunch.
Excusing Pope Francis or saying the entire universe revolves around a fixed earth both fly in the face of reason.
Everyone has an mental anchor. For some people it is their emotional love for a random man in a white soutan who they form a virtual relationship with , oooohhh he is so humble.
For others it is just being a crazy conspiratorial outsider and following Pope Michael.
For me it is judging what I cannot see, touch, taste, smell or measure by the thing I can.
If that ain't good enough then send me to Hell. Because I think this is the best way to live an honest life and not get my children raped.
Quote from: Greg on September 03, 2018, 09:01:49 AM
It would be a heresy if one was required to believe that faith and reason can conflict, and when that happens, one has to ignore facts.
But the teaching is that faith and reason don't conflict.
As I understand that teaching, it means that in cases where reason and faith conflict (or appear to conflict), you would have to consider that the deficiency is with your reason, which is the fallible faculty of a mortal human, and not with the faith, which is divinely revealed. In other words, you're not reasoning correctly if you're conflicting with the faith.
These two condemnations from the Syllabus of Errors seem to indicate that reason is always to be kept subservient to revelation, and that a Catholic cannot go with their reason alone, or use their reason to judge or overrule doctrine.
QuoteCondemned: that all the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862, and Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, etc.
Condemned: that all the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object.—Letters to the Archbishop of Munich, "Gravissimas inter," Dec. 11, 1862, and "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 03, 2018, 08:16:59 AMTo creationists, the scientific community is a part of a Hebraic- / Freemasonic- / Illuminati-type cabal, and evolution is an instrument of Satan to lead souls to perdition.
Sort of. I would say most of the scientific community are more or less in good faith, but only inasmuch as an international community which is corrupted financially and politically can be in good faith. I think the "cabal" is an inner-circle, not the community at large. Much like the Church, which has plenty of corruption among its members and especially its inner-circle of hierarchs, but the average member is more or less of good faith.
Also, it's not only an instrument leading to perdition, but even in this life it's a tool of political control and cultural warfare.
QuoteTo evolutionists, biblical literalism is deemed the height of willful ignorance and unthinking cult-like devotion to a patently wrong text.
More than that, it's an attack upon the very principles of their naturalistic worldview. To think that there might be a source of knowledge (divine revelation) of higher importance and higher authority than their own is a scandal to them. If the world is not just matter then there is an area of study (the spirit) which is beyond them, and that's offensive to their epistemologically totalitarian attitude. They mock the Bible the way a king would mock a pauper claiming to be the true heir to the throne: not just because it appears ridiculous to them, but because it presents the greatest possible threat.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 03, 2018, 09:10:22 AM
Quote from: Greg on September 03, 2018, 09:01:49 AM
It would be a heresy if one was required to believe that faith and reason can conflict, and when that happens, one has to ignore facts.
But the teaching is that faith and reason don't conflict.
As I understand that teaching, it means that in cases where reason and faith conflict (or appear to conflict), you would have to consider that the deficiency is with your reason, which is the fallible faculty of a mortal human, and not with the faith, which is divinely revealed. In other words, you're not reasoning correctly if you're conflicting with the faith.
Any religious authority is
always going to make that claim. They wish to protect their doctrine (and authority) from rational and reasoned objections to it and thus take this type of preemptive action. It's a bit of a shell game. They of course start with the perfectly fine idea that their doctrines cannot be deduced from reason alone; otherwise this would be science or philosophy, but not religion. But then they go from there to attempting to exempt their doctrines from the judgment of reason. And that simply can't be done. We simply can't be asked to believe something irrational. Yes, I know the argument will be made that it is only our fallible faculty of reason judging something irrational. It doesn't matter. We can't believe something we think irrational; we simply aren't made that way.
QuoteThese two condemnations from the Syllabus of Errors seem to indicate that reason is always to be kept subservient to revelation, and that a Catholic cannot go with their reason alone, or use their reason to judge or overrule doctrine.
It's impossible that Divine revelation should be false, granted; but it's impossible that Divine revelation (or any claimed doctrine deriving from it) should be irrational - should that be the case, the claim of doctrine or revelation is false.
And that's what the YECs don't understand. The claim is made that Biblical literalism is irrational, based on our current scientific knowledge. It is not an answer to that to thunder about the authority of the Bible and how evil the scientific community is. It is not an answer to that to thunder about "evolutionists" and man being "beasts". It is not even an answer to point out problems with the modern evolutionary hypothesis. The only answer is to attempt to show how it is in fact rational to believe in a young earth, given the data we have.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 03, 2018, 10:26:49 AMThe only answer is to attempt to show how it is in fact rational to believe in a young earth, given the data we have.
Right, so the evolutionists get 99% of the funding and backing in politics & media, and then you mock creationists for not having epistemological control over the "data". I tell you what, hand over all of the political, media, and educational institutions over to creationists, and I guarantee you that the data will show that the earth is young.
Quote from: John Lamb on September 03, 2018, 10:31:39 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 03, 2018, 10:26:49 AMThe only answer is to attempt to show how it is in fact rational to believe in a young earth, given the data we have.
Right, so the evolutionists get 99% of the funding and backing in politics & media, and then you mock creationists for not having epistemological control over the "data". I tell you what, hand over all of the political, media, and educational institutions over to creationists, and I guarantee you that the data will show that the earth is young.
All of the collected data is right at your fingertips, a mere Google search away. Go ahead, prove that the evidence actually shows that the Earth is a mere 10,000 years old. I'll be waiting.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 03, 2018, 10:26:49 AMWe simply can't be asked to believe something irrational. Yes, I know the argument will be made that it is only our fallible faculty of reason judging something irrational. It doesn't matter. We can't believe something we think irrational; we simply aren't made that way.
Of course we can; what are you talking about? "Fools for Christ's sake,"
credo quia absurdum, "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God," "the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise," &c. When the Church, however, concluded that faith and reason are actually compatible, it was the ultimate arrogant stance against the future: she was saying that not ever in the centuries to come could the philosophers (or "natural philosophers") ever falsify doctrine. And in case they somehow managed to, then the perfect escape hatch was concocted: only where reason supports the faith is it true reason.
But whichever you chose, foolishness for Christ or
fides et ratio, you make a submission of the intellect. Anything else, such as what you and Greg seem to prefer, is just secular rationalism. There is little point in religion anymore at such a juncture. Xavier, at least, has a religion which is true and revealed by God. You two appear to have a religion which, well,
may or may not be revealed by God on certain points, depending on whether things conform to your reason. There's a reason why creationists thump the bible; they must. The moment you start to reinterpret things "in light of new knowledge," it becomes immediately obvious that you (or the Church) are shamelessly making this stuff up as you go along. It's an insult to the generations who believed these things in the past, as well as an insult to the omniscient creator who somehow couldn't see the future well enough to tailor his revelation to accord with eventual discoveries.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 03, 2018, 11:24:00 AM
Of course we can; what are you talking about?
So let me get this straight; you are saying that faith can, in fact, be irrational. Or are you saying that, no matter how convinced we are it is irrational, we must simply assume that it is not.
QuoteWhen the Church, however, concluded that faith and reason are actually compatible, it was the ultimate arrogant stance against the future: she was saying that not ever in the centuries to come could the philosophers (or "natural philosophers") ever falsify doctrine. And in case they somehow managed to, then the perfect escape hatch was concocted: only where reason supports the faith is it true reason.
Well, of course. Which makes it a tautology and of little practical value.
QuoteBut whichever you chose, foolishness for Christ or fides et ratio, you make a submission of the intellect.
Of course you do. But I am denying that such a thing is really possible for an irrationality. It is the equivalent of submission to Pravda. It is not a true submission, it is a tyrannical obeisance.
This is exactly the kind of argument you gave when, while still a trad, you wouldn't follow and make a "submission of the intellect" to Francis.
QuoteAnything else, such as you and Greg seem to suggest, is just secular rationalism. There is little point in religion anymore at such a juncture.
Insofar as religion can make a claim to have the absolute truth, perhaps so.
QuoteXavier, at least, has a religion which is true and revealed by God.
Right, and part of this revealed truth is that Pope Francis has authority to make a binding judgment on the morality of the death penalty, contradicting the other binding judgments made on the matter.
QuoteYou two appear to have a religion which, well, may or may not be revealed by God on certain points, depending on whether things conform to your reason.
That's religious apologist BS lingo, sorry. As though things could conform to "my" reason without conforming to "reason", period (meaning they are rational or irrational), or as though I am incompetent of making such a judgment.
QuoteThere's a reason why creationists thump the bible; they must. The moment you start to reinterpret things "in light of new knowledge," it becomes immediately obvious that you (or the Church) are shamelessly making this stuff up as you go along.
Which is just what Francis did, and just what the Church did way back when after the Galileo affair. But wait, who are you to judge that me, or the Church, making this stuff up as we go along is "irrational" or unacceptable in some regard? You're subjecting things to your own judgment of reason, right?
QuoteIt's an insult to the generations who believed these things in the past, as well as an insult to the omniscient creator who somehow couldn't see the future well enough to tailor his revelation to accord with eventual discoveries.
So maybe, the notion of religious "truth" needs to further investigated.
Quote from: John Lamb on September 03, 2018, 10:31:39 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 03, 2018, 10:26:49 AMThe only answer is to attempt to show how it is in fact rational to believe in a young earth, given the data we have.
Right, so the evolutionists get 99% of the funding and backing in politics & media, and then you mock creationists for not having epistemological control over the "data". I tell you what, hand over all of the political, media, and educational institutions over to creationists, and I guarantee you that the data will show that the earth is young.
Until one of the students raises his hand and asks about Lake Suigetsu. Or ice cores. Or the starlight problem. Or SN1987A. Or why molecular clocks are all way off. Uh, well, this is just "data" with scare quotes will be your response. Good luck with that.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 03, 2018, 12:06:40 PMSo let me get this straight; you are saying that faith can, in fact, be irrational. Or are you saying that, no matter how convinced we are it is irrational, we must simply assume that it is not.
No, I am just pointing out that faith varies, from person to person, sect to sect, theological school to theological school, church to church. Some people clearly
can believe in a faith that would otherwise appear irrational to them, as history demonstrates. As soon as anyone has a "road to Damascus" illumination, as St. Paul did, their human rationale must necessarily pale in comparison: the
gnosis they now possess comes from heaven itself and is therefore perfect. After that, it's
the most logical thing in the world to prefer revelation to any other source—even science. Every discipline of man must, in this scheme, to some extent be fallible, so you will always plump with scripture over any competing claim.
Some people can swim with this sort of thing better than others. Obviously I myself couldn't hack it, and there came a final straw that broke the camel's back, when the cumulative mass of contradictions, problems, and clerical faggotry strained credulity so thin it snapped. But when you believe, even when it's difficult, you still believe. "
O Lord, I believe—help thou my unbelief!" Some people find their faith not even tested by the crisis, but actually strengthened. They're able to see it as "the passion of the Church," a dolorously beautiful eschatological trial of chastisement and purgation, a Catholic
kali yuga, and in spite of the mass apostasy, they are thankful to God for so far being given the grace to stay in the faithful remnant. A lot of this stuff comes down not just to rationality, but to psychology and temperament.
It's possible, I concede, to try to have it both ways. We can look to the communions that have tried to harmonize faith and science, such as the Anglicans and the
Novus Ordo Catholics. Unfortunately, they have been abject failures. It seems axiomatic that the more you try to "interpret things in light of new knowledge," it inevitably ends in rainbow sashes and theological equivocation: the kinds of things that are unlikely to convict people that you have a true religion on your hands. It's a smokescreen anyone can see through. Fundamentalism may not be a formula for success either, but at least it has its teeth. Despise them if you must, but there is a fierce and feral sublimity to the stubbornly unyielding doctrines of the Russian Old Believer, or the Jansenist—or the creationist. Even if it can't survive the science classroom, there is an inner fire: "
FEU. Dieu d'Abraham, Dieu d'Isaac, Dieu de Jacob, non des philosophes et des savants. Certitude, certitude, sentiment, joie, paix. Dieu de Jésus?Christ." But I'm not trying to criticize you too hard if your project is to re-evaluate what you mean by "religious truth." Go liberal if you must. In this day and age, religion basically comes down to whatever any individual gets out of it for themselves, from Kabbalah to Catholicism. I just want you to have peace.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 03, 2018, 01:36:38 PMUntil one of the students raises his hand and asks about Lake Suigetsu. Or ice cores. Or the starlight problem. Or SN1987A. Or why molecular clocks are all way off. Uh, well, this is just "data" with scare quotes will be your response. Good luck with that.
No, because like I said, the creationists will be in charge so the student will be lampooned and penalised for questioning creationism, you know, like evolutionists lampoon and penalise creationists now.
And if that's the best evidence there is for the old earth I'm feeling more confident about YEC.
You have too much of an active imagination Pon. For me, and I'm sure for many other creationists, it's much more prosaic than that. It may sound like we're fanatical when we're forced to defend our position, but the earth's youth is little more than a matter of fact reality, and the Bible's authority is just another fact of life like the State's authority. The trick is getting myself to see the world as created, when I've been trained to think of it otherwise. But you wouldn't know I was a "Young Earth Creationist" unless I told you; it's not like I'm standing here with a "God Hates Fags" sign.
I should qualify that not all forms of Christian fanaticism are equally compelling. Ken Ham's theme-park approach is fairly bland and embarrassing. One imagines gooey modern Christian pop music piped in. I was thinking of people more along the lines of the family that went off into the Taiga forest for forty years (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/for-40-years-this-russian-family-was-cut-off-from-all-human-contact-unaware-of-world-war-ii-7354256/#Ypjd5kTCQKHRtEQ6.14). They were most assuredly not theistic evolutionists.
Quote from: John Lamb on September 03, 2018, 02:31:07 PM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 03, 2018, 01:36:38 PMUntil one of the students raises his hand and asks about Lake Suigetsu. Or ice cores. Or the starlight problem. Or SN1987A. Or why molecular clocks are all way off. Uh, well, this is just "data" with scare quotes will be your response. Good luck with that.
No, because like I said, the creationists will be in charge so the student will be lampooned and penalised for questioning creationism, you know, like evolutionists lampoon and penalise creationists now.
And if that's the best evidence there is for the old earth I'm feeling more confident about YEC.
The difference being that there is ample evidence for both evolution and an old Earth/Universe, while the only evidence for a young Earth amounts to "the Bible says so, so it must be true!"
YECs treat the statement "the Bible is inerrant" as their axiomatic premise, when it is anything but. It is a claim that relies on more fundamental premises, premises which I find to either be lacking or outright non-existent.
Quote from: John Lamb on September 03, 2018, 02:31:07 PM
No, because like I said, the creationists will be in charge so the student will be lampooned and penalised for questioning creationism, you know, like evolutionists lampoon and penalise creationists now.
And if that's the best evidence there is for the old earth I'm feeling more confident about YEC.
As I said, good luck with that. The student will know you are just running your mouth, as will everyone else in the class, and as I know you are now.
You lose the debates on the merits, so you have to resort to claiming how "unfair" everything is, how "oppressed" you are, and frankly admit you would attempt to punish anyone raising any uncomfortable questions if you were in charge. That's the m.o. of ideologues.
I'm interested to hear your explanation of why it is rational to believe in a young earth with the evidence from Lake Suigetsu. Just take that for starters. If you feel so confident, that is. Why should I believe that C-14 decay rates were much faster in the past, which coincided with lake varves being formed much faster than once per year?
Quote from: John Lamb on September 03, 2018, 02:53:50 AM
The main point I'd make to Catholic ("theistic") evolutionists is that they ought to step back from the scientific question for a moment, and try to take in the sheer Satanic darkness of billions of souls, made in the image of God, believing that they are spirit-less beasts, and that God's creation is actually a crudely and wastefully formed accident. It's so sick and twisted for a human soul to imagine that it's just a beast, that you have to seriously consider whether a theory which has led many into this gross error can be trusted. As my sister once said to me, "I don't believe in God, I believe in the Big Bang and Evolution," i.e. she believes life and the entire order of the cosmos are accidental effects of particle interactions, that there is no (spiritual) substance to our lives.
The lack of suspicion towards the theory of evolution on the part of Catholics shows that they have been swept up in the Enlightenment project and the momentum of human progress, and that they are embarrassed about or afraid of the Church seeming to be against this project or lagging behind its progress. At the very least, evolution should be regarded with suspicion: a theory that started with the ancient Hindus, was modified by the ancient Greeks, and was picked up again in the era of anti-Catholic revolution to cement the greatest apostasy in Church history. Do you not suspect the devil's involvement at all?
If the evolutionary account of creation is true, I cannot see why God wouldn't have put it into the book of Genesis. I find the idea that "the ancient Hebrews were ignorant, and it was written in a way adapted to their understanding" insulting. The ancient Hindus were "intelligent enough" to come up with the idea of evolution all by themselves, apparently, so why couldn't God have told the Hebrews, "I made the earth slowly over many eons"? What's difficult to understand about that? If God created the world and sent the prophets to tell us about it, why couldn't He have made his prophets tell the truth, and spare us the calamity thousands of years later of the scientists apparently discovering that the biblical cosmology is a hoax? It doesn't make sense. This is why I share with the fundamentalist Protestants the principle that the Bible should be our first text or "interpretative lens" for understanding the world and its history, and that human science ought to follow it and not the other way around. At the end of the day I trust God and His prophets more than these modern scientists, who want me to believe I'm a hairless ape and that I'm a "homophobic" bigot for thinking there's a divine & natural law.
As I understand Genesis, it does not make much difference how long God took to create everything. The point of the creation account is that God deliberately made everything and that He made it good.
When Genesis was first written, the surrounding pagan cultures believed that creation was random. Their myths tell of battles between gods and monsters casting drops of blood and pieces of bodies about to create the world and what it contains. Creation just happened by accident and nobody much cared.
Genesis is for letting us know how wrong the pagan understanding is. Whether the lengths of time given in Genesis are literal or figurative, God made a considered decision to create and a judgment of creation as good. This fact is equally important as a response to current secular evolution as it was as a response to ancient pagan myths. Creation is not random.
I am open to the possibility that Genesis used figurative language to make that point. I am also open to the possibility that the account is literal. I don't see this question as particularly important. The point of the story - the purposefulness and goodness of creation - is the part that matters.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 03, 2018, 03:13:51 PMAs I said, good luck with that. The student will know you are just running your mouth, as will everyone else in the class, and as I know you are now.
But that's exactly how evolutionists appear in the eyes of creationists already. For example, I was in an AI class and the professor couldn't help bringing up the theory of evolution about once every lesson. He didn't really know what he was saying, he was just running his mouth. The university accepts the evolutionist ideology and he just follows along.
QuoteYou lose the debates on the merits, so you have to resort to claiming how "unfair" everything is, how "oppressed" you are, and frankly admit you would attempt to punish anyone raising any uncomfortable questions if you were in charge. That's the m.o. of ideologues.
We don't lose the debate on merit, we lose it because we don't have enough power.
QuoteI'm interested to hear your explanation of why it is rational to believe in a young earth with the evidence from Lake Suigetsu. Just take that for starters. If you feel so confident, that is. Why should I believe that C-14 decay rates were much faster in the past, which coincided with lake varves being formed much faster than once per year?
Why are you asking me about over confidence? You're the one who thinks he can tell how old the earth is by analysing layers of dirt on the bottom of lake.
https://afdave.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/lake-suigetsu-no-help-for-old-earthers/
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/do-varves-tree-rings-radiocarbon-measurements-prove-old-earth/
http://www.icr.org/article/refuting-biologos-do-japanese-lake/
https://creation.com/national-geographic-plays-the-dating-game
http://creationwiki.org/Varve
Quote from: GloriaPatriThe difference being that there is ample evidence for both evolution and an old Earth/Universe, while the only evidence for a young Earth amounts to "the Bible says so, so it must be true!"
The evidence only shows evolution and OE if you interpret it that way.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 03, 2018, 09:10:22 AM
As I understand that teaching, it means that in cases where reason and faith conflict (or appear to conflict), you would have to consider that the deficiency is with your reason.
Which is
exactly what the leader of every false religious cult or brainwashing guru requires too.
Let's assume a time machine was invented and you went back to 33AD and witnessed the death of Jesus. You hid by the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea and found several of the apostles sneaked in at night overpowered the guards (who were drunk) and stole the body away and buried it elsewhere. The guards then lied to avoid being punished for being drunk on duty or too weak to stop some local religious lunatics.
You then returned to 2018 in the time machine.
By your logic, above, back in 2018 again you would have to consider that you had imagined the whole thing and that the time machine in your garage was a figment of your imagination. After all you (plural) are just a deficient human being and your reason only has any value in so far as it affirms your faith.
I can only judge ANY claim or creed by my own intellect. Rational thought MUST be at the root of ANY belief for that belief to be any more than an emotional response or desire for something to be true.
Cogito, ergo sum
Make rational thought play second-fiddle and you can be led to believe any old nonsense; simply with the carrot of 72 virgins or eternal bliss or drinking and whoring in Valhalla. We know, there is AMPLE evidence, that humans are very susceptible to confirmation bias.
Quote from: John Lamb on September 04, 2018, 01:24:05 AM
We don't lose the debate on merit, we lose it because we don't have enough power.
How would you know? I mean, no matter what the evidence for the old earth, you would never accept it and attempt to discredit it by any means possible. So there's no point at which you would ever admit you lost the debate on merit.
And that is the big difference here, which I do not think we will ever agree on. For you, the most important thing is religious authority. It is to be supported and upheld no matter what. It's why you react to old earth in this way and why you react to reports of atrocities committed against children in a Vermont orphanage the way you did on that thread. Its import would be weakened if these things turned out be true. Therefore, they must be false, or at least exaggerated and blown way out of proportion. The fact that very few agree with you shows that there is a "conspiracy" afoot. It simply couldn't be that "evolutionist" scientists and "sensationalist muck-raker" journalists were actually correct.
For me, truth and human well-being come first over self-serving attempts to justify authority.
QuoteQuoteI'm interested to hear your explanation of why it is rational to believe in a young earth with the evidence from Lake Suigetsu. Just take that for starters. If you feel so confident, that is. Why should I believe that C-14 decay rates were much faster in the past, which coincided with lake varves being formed much faster than once per year?
Why are you asking me about over confidence? You're the one who thinks he can tell how old the earth is by analysing layers of dirt on the bottom of lake.
IOW, you don't really have an answer, just rhetoric, and neither does anyone else. Worse yet, you don't even care that you don't have an answer.
John Lamb, you have been asked several times to provide your evidence for a young Earth. You have refused to do so, so I'm going to conclude that you have no evidence and are only talking out of your ass. You YECists are utterly incapable of an honest debate. All you have is Bible thumping, which is no evidence at all.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 04, 2018, 07:52:31 AM
John Lamb, you have been asked several times to provide your evidence for a young Earth. You have refused to do so, so I'm going to conclude that you have no evidence and are only talking out of your ass. You YECists are utterly incapable of an honest debate. All you have is Bible thumping, which is no evidence at all.
It is both reasonable and honest to adopt YEC as a theological position without any science evidence whatsoever. For those of us who believe that Scripture is inerrant, it logically follows that we can deduce truths about the world from it.
Just because you reject the underlying assumption concerning Scripture does not make your opponents dishonest.
Quote from: Jayne on September 04, 2018, 07:56:54 AM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 04, 2018, 07:52:31 AM
John Lamb, you have been asked several times to provide your evidence for a young Earth. You have refused to do so, so I'm going to conclude that you have no evidence and are only talking out of your ass. You YECists are utterly incapable of an honest debate. All you have is Bible thumping, which is no evidence at all.
It is both reasonable and honest to adopt YEC as a theological position without any science evidence whatsoever. For those of us who believe that Scripture is inerrant, it logically follows that we can deduce truths about the world from it.
Just because you reject the underlying assumption concerning Scripture does not make your opponents dishonest.
So you're going to accept the claims of any old text made about the physical world, without seeing if such claims are borne out by the physical world itself? What a load of garbage. And cultish behavior. You're just going to stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'LA LA LA' whenever anyone provides evidence that you are wrong.
Furthermore, your own scriptures command you to "test the spirits," yet none of you give any critical thought to your acceptance of those very scriptures. You just accept it on blind faith and condemn as a heretic or an apostate or an infidel anyone who thinks differently from you. A few centuries ago, your Church even had the power to execute people for thinking differently.
Say what you want about the scientific community, but they never sought to execute someone for asking questions or arriving at a different conclusion than the one most widely accepted.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 04, 2018, 08:10:23 AM
Quote from: Jayne on September 04, 2018, 07:56:54 AM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 04, 2018, 07:52:31 AM
John Lamb, you have been asked several times to provide your evidence for a young Earth. You have refused to do so, so I'm going to conclude that you have no evidence and are only talking out of your ass. You YECists are utterly incapable of an honest debate. All you have is Bible thumping, which is no evidence at all.
It is both reasonable and honest to adopt YEC as a theological position without any science evidence whatsoever. For those of us who believe that Scripture is inerrant, it logically follows that we can deduce truths about the world from it.
Just because you reject the underlying assumption concerning Scripture does not make your opponents dishonest.
So you're going to accept the claims of any old text made about the physical world, without seeing if such claims are borne out by the physical world itself? What a load of garbage. And cultish behavior. You're just going to stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'LA LA LA' whenever anyone provides evidence that you are wrong.
Science has been wrong many times on many subjects. Science does not even claim to be inerrant. I have far more trust in Scripture than I do in science and that is a completely reasonable position to take. Scripture is not "any old text". It is the Word of God.
You reject one of the most basic assumptions of Catholics and then act like there is something wrong with us for believing what Catholics have always believed. If you object to Catholics being Catholics, what are you doing here on a Catholic forum?
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 04, 2018, 08:45:47 AM
Furthermore, your own scriptures command you to "test the spirits," yet none of you give any critical thought to your acceptance of those very scriptures. You just accept it on blind faith and condemn as a heretic or an apostate or an infidel anyone who thinks differently from you. A few centuries ago, your Church even had the power to execute people for thinking differently.
Say what you want about the scientific community, but they never sought to execute someone for asking questions or arriving at a different conclusion than the one most widely accepted.
If scientists had the power to execute people for thinking differently, I'm sure they would. They certainly do all that is within their power to prevent "unacceptable" ideas from spreading.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 04, 2018, 07:52:31 AM
John Lamb, you have been asked several times to provide your evidence for a young Earth. You have refused to do so, so I'm going to conclude that you have no evidence and are only talking out of your ass. You YECists are utterly incapable of an honest debate. All you have is Bible thumping, which is no evidence at all.
You misunderstand my position. I'm
not saying that I'm a YEC because I think the evidence decides in its favour. I lack the scientific expertise to interpret the evidence conclusively either way. What I'm saying is that, seeing as I am incompetent to decide it for myself, I default to YEC because it's the more obvious and consistent interpretation of the Bible, and I place greater weight in the authority of the Bible than in the authority of the scientific community. In other words, when I am in doubt and cannot rely on my own knowledge, and have to put my faith in an authority, I prefer the authority of God than of men, and it seems to me that God is saying that the earth is young. However, seeing as YEC is not the only valid interpretation of the Bible, and OEC is also a valid (though I think less probable) interpretation, I don't pretend to condemn OEC – I only say that I
favour YEC, as the most probable interpretation.
To be quite honest, in regards to the purely scientific question I don't really care. The matter is so complex that I don't find it worth my time, especially seeing as I find the subject quite dull. All I'm asserting is that the scientific community over the last couple of centuries has had an obvious and strong naturalistic bias, especially now that their reputation has been staked on theories they committed to over a century ago (i.e. they can't let go of evolution now because if they did it would be too embarrassing; that's why they talk about space octopuses while the theory is coming apart at the seams). There's an entire class of professionals trained to interpret the data in a way that conforms to the naturalistic philosophy which has a tight grip on the scientific community; to demand that I go up against this entire class of professionals by myself is an unfair demand. That's why I prefer not to challenge them in their area of expertise, and leave off simply pointing out their bias and assumptions.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 04, 2018, 08:10:23 AMSo you're going to accept the claims of any old text made about the physical world, without seeing if such claims are borne out by the physical world itself? What a load of garbage. And cultish behavior. You're just going to stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'LA LA LA' whenever anyone provides evidence that you are wrong.
The physical world does not clearly show itself to be over 10,000 years old. This is quite obvious, seeing as the best evidence being offered is layers of dirt at the bottom of a lake, and the assumption that light from the stars is millions of "light years" away.
I mean, maybe the lakes and stars do show that, but you can't pretend that this is "obvious". It relies on the judgement of a professional caste who are themselves not free of bias or corruption.
Quote from: John Lamb on September 04, 2018, 09:46:39 AM
You misunderstand my position. I'm not saying that I'm a YEC because I think the evidence decides in its favour. I lack the scientific expertise to interpret the evidence conclusively either way. What I'm saying is that, seeing as I am incompetent to decide it for myself, I default to YEC because it's the more obvious and consistent interpretation of the Bible, and I place greater weight in the authority of the Bible than in the authority of the scientific community.
That's a fair position.
However, if you're incompetent to decide the scientific evidence, and don't really care one way or another anyway and haven't really looked into it, you're also incompetent to decide that the scientific community is so warped by naturalistic philosophy as to be unable to decide it either, and that everything they do is based on assumptions pulled out of a hat.
Quote from: Greg on September 04, 2018, 03:50:36 AMI can only judge ANY claim or creed by my own intellect. Rational thought MUST be at the root of ANY belief for that belief to be any more than an emotional response or desire for something to be true.
Cogito, ergo sum
Make rational thought play second-fiddle and you can be led to believe any old nonsense; simply with the carrot of 72 virgins or eternal bliss or drinking and whoring in Valhalla. We know, there is AMPLE evidence, that humans are very susceptible to confirmation bias.
I completely concur. With your thought experiment of the time machine, you're quite right, a believing Catholic would have to consider that their own first-hand experience of a faked Resurrection must've been a demonic deception of some sort, because their faith would have to take precedence. I'm sure you could imagine the familiar objections: allegations pertaining to scientific elites, virtual reality, holograms, Satan, Jews, the Antichrist, TPTB, and everything but the kitchen sink would be hurled at the phenomenon of time machines. "We're definitely in the end times now," they'd say, until another forty years passed and something else became the signifier of the apocalypse, which always remains tantalizingly right around the corner. "The future's uncertain and the end is always near."
But my point is that if you make rational thought the sole compass of your religion, how do you expect other people to remain Catholic at all? What if they read Hume's essay
Of Miracles (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Enquiry_Concerning_Human_Understanding#Sect._X._Of_Miracles) and rationally conclude that the likelihood of the Resurrection itself being false is greater than the likelihood of its being true? It's like the young man in
The Way of All Flesh, when some old clockmaker tells him to go read all four gospel accounts of the Resurrection and see if they cohere. I don't know if it's a spoiler to say this, but he loses his faith. For those who don't lose their faith entirely, they basically end up with a checkerboard of doctrines, some of which they decide they can't believe in any more, and others which they can. The minute you reject a religious authority, you become your own religious authority, as does everyone who decides to. The endless splintering of Protestantism into myriad sects demonstrates where all this ends—with everyone becoming their own pope. As I think you yourself once joked, "maybe I should go into the business of selling white soutanes."
So I don't disagree with your decision to go by your rational thought. I just don't know how you (generic you) retain a coherent religion in that paradigm. If everything is subject to reason, then anything can get jettisoned the minute it does. As I've said, it would be a religion the truths of which are only
provisionally true. They would cease to be ultimately or irrevocably true.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 04, 2018, 12:15:05 PMThe minute you reject a religious authority, you become your own religious authority, as does everyone who decides to.
The rejection of authority is the key to the so-called "Enlightenment" and, in turn, modernism. It is the antithesis of traditional Catholicism.
It is essential to traditional Catholicism to recognize that one's intellect is limited and to accept the authority of the Church.
Quote from: Jayne on September 04, 2018, 12:24:14 PMThe rejection of authority is the key to the so-called "Enlightenment" and, in turn, modernism. It is the antithesis of traditional Catholicism.
It is essential to traditional Catholicism to recognize that one's intellect is limited and to accept the authority of the Church.
I agree with you for the most part. How can someone be a traditional Catholic if they're effectively saying "F.U." to the Syllabus of Errors? And yet, as the existence of Greg proves, you
can be a traditional Catholic and do that. Unless you want to personally excommunicate him. Get out the white soutane ...
Quote from: Jayne on September 04, 2018, 12:24:14 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 04, 2018, 12:15:05 PMThe minute you reject a religious authority, you become your own religious authority, as does everyone who decides to.
The rejection of authority is the key to the so-called "Enlightenment" and, in turn, modernism. It is the antithesis of traditional Catholicism.
It is essential to traditional Catholicism to recognize that one's intellect is limited and to accept the authority of the Church.
Except you don't practice what you preach, which is the paradox of traditional Catholicism.
Do you accept, on authority, Pope Francis' teaching on the death penalty? Or any of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar Magisterium?
No, you reject that authority using your reason, in the very name of being anti-Modernist and anti-Enlightenment and not preferring conclusions of reason to authority.
I'd consider being excommunicated by Jayne better than a plenary indulgence.
Like being awarded a brown scapular of the Westboro Baptist Church.
I might even get a tattoo to celebrate it and forgive all the people who ever worked at the HSBC call centre.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 04, 2018, 12:15:05 PM
But my point is that if you make rational thought the sole compass of your religion.
It's not the sole compass. Just the primary one. The first one.
I don't like clerical poofters but if the new springtime, introduced and run by poofters, actually produced successful outcomes like a growing church of people who actually knew what they believed, large families, less abortion a more stable and contented society, then I would have to rationally conclude that the modern church architecture, the lame masses and shitty hymns and limp wristed clergy had actually delivered a better outcome.
Results matter and there is no argument against a fact.
But there are things that
I know I don't know and can reasonably conclude that I will never know, this side of death. That is where faith comes in.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 04, 2018, 12:29:33 PM
Quote from: Jayne on September 04, 2018, 12:24:14 PMThe rejection of authority is the key to the so-called "Enlightenment" and, in turn, modernism. It is the antithesis of traditional Catholicism.
It is essential to traditional Catholicism to recognize that one's intellect is limited and to accept the authority of the Church.
I agree with you for the most part. How can someone be a traditional Catholic if they're effectively saying "F.U." to the Syllabus of Errors? And yet, as the existence of Greg proves, you can be a traditional Catholic and do that. Unless you want to personally excommunicate him. Get out the white soutane ...
I do not consider Greg a traditional Catholic and he does not identify himself as one.
I'm just glad you consider me a male Jayne.
You're learnin!
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 04, 2018, 12:35:17 PM
Quote from: Jayne on September 04, 2018, 12:24:14 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 04, 2018, 12:15:05 PMThe minute you reject a religious authority, you become your own religious authority, as does everyone who decides to.
The rejection of authority is the key to the so-called "Enlightenment" and, in turn, modernism. It is the antithesis of traditional Catholicism.
It is essential to traditional Catholicism to recognize that one's intellect is limited and to accept the authority of the Church.
Except you don't practice what you preach, which is the paradox of traditional Catholicism.
Do you accept, on authority, Pope Francis' teaching on the death penalty? Or any of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar Magisterium?
No, you reject that authority using your reason, in the very name of being anti-Modernist and anti-Enlightenment and not preferring conclusions of reason to authority.
I accept all of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar Magisterium to the extent that it is consistent with pre-conciliear teaching. When it appears to be inconsistent, I have a problem that can not be solved by merely by following authority. At no point do I reject authority. I say that I do not understand how both can be true. I wait for the answer to become clear.
Quote from: Greg on September 04, 2018, 01:03:29 PM
I'm just glad you consider me a male Jayne.
Actually, I prefer to think of you as a non-corporeal being that communicates through a computer, perhaps an advanced form of virus.
In that case you are using the wrong gender pronoun.
Quote from: Greg on September 04, 2018, 01:23:47 PM
In that case you are using the wrong gender pronoun.
You just never stop complaining about that.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 04, 2018, 12:15:05 PM
Quote from: Greg on September 04, 2018, 03:50:36 AMI can only judge ANY claim or creed by my own intellect. Rational thought MUST be at the root of ANY belief for that belief to be any more than an emotional response or desire for something to be true.
Cogito, ergo sum
Make rational thought play second-fiddle and you can be led to believe any old nonsense; simply with the carrot of 72 virgins or eternal bliss or drinking and whoring in Valhalla. We know, there is AMPLE evidence, that humans are very susceptible to confirmation bias.
I completely concur. With your thought experiment of the time machine, you're quite right, a believing Catholic would have to consider that their own first-hand experience of a faked Resurrection must've been a demonic deception of some sort, because their faith would have to take precedence. I'm sure you could imagine the familiar objections: allegations pertaining to scientific elites, virtual reality, holograms, Satan, Jews, the Antichrist, TPTB, and everything but the kitchen sink would be hurled at the phenomenon of time machines. "We're definitely in the end times now," they'd say, until another forty years passed and something else became the signifier of the apocalypse, which always remains tantalizingly right around the corner. "The future's uncertain and the end is always near."
But my point is that if you make rational thought the sole compass of your religion, how do you expect other people to remain Catholic at all? What if they read Hume's essay Of Miracles (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Enquiry_Concerning_Human_Understanding#Sect._X._Of_Miracles) and rationally conclude that the likelihood of the Resurrection itself being false is greater than the likelihood of its being true? It's like the young man in The Way of All Flesh, when some old clockmaker tells him to go read all four gospel accounts of the Resurrection and see if they cohere. I don't know if it's a spoiler to say this, but he loses his faith. For those who don't lose their faith entirely, they basically end up with a checkerboard of doctrines, some of which they decide they can't believe in any more, and others which they can. The minute you reject a religious authority, you become your own religious authority, as does everyone who decides to. The endless splintering of Protestantism into myriad sects demonstrates where all this ends—with everyone becoming their own pope. As I think you yourself once joked, "maybe I should go into the business of selling white soutanes."
So I don't disagree with your decision to go by your rational thought. I just don't know how you (generic you) retain a coherent religion in that paradigm. If everything is subject to reason, then anything can get jettisoned the minute it does. As I've said, it would be a religion the truths of which are only provisionally true. They would cease to be ultimately or irrevocably true.
Everyone, and I do mean everyone, makes a judgement of reason when he submits to the conclusions of a given religion or philosophy. We are, by nature, rational animals. It's impossible for us to make true leaps of faith, in so much as faith is considered to be the absence of reason. We may not be truly conscious of the reasoning we make, but our minds still create a rational argument to itself whenever it accepts anything as true or false.
Quote from: Jayne on September 04, 2018, 01:06:54 PM
I accept all of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar Magisterium to the extent that it is consistent with pre-conciliear teaching. When it appears to be inconsistent, I have a problem that can not be solved by merely by following authority. At no point do I reject authority. I say that I do not understand how both can be true. I wait for the answer to become clear.
But you have to use your reason to determine what is and what is not consistent with pre-Conciliar teaching, and therefore to what extent you accept, and to what extent you do not. If you really preferred authority to reason, you would accept it all simpliciter.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 04, 2018, 01:39:08 PM
Everyone, and I do mean everyone, makes a judgement of reason when he submits to the conclusions of a given religion or philosophy. We are, by nature, rational animals. It's impossible for us to make true leaps of faith, in so much as faith is considered to be the absence of reason. We may not be truly conscious of the reasoning we make, but our minds still create a rational argument to itself whenever it accepts anything as true or false.
Hallelujah, brother, Praise the Lord! Feel the spirit's presence among us! Let's first praise the Lord for the beautiful weather He sent us today! Then yes, yes, Nicholas here in the first row has a message from the Spirit to share with us! What's He saying to us today, Nick?
Are you sure this is true?
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 04, 2018, 02:15:58 PM
Quote from: Jayne on September 04, 2018, 01:06:54 PM
I accept all of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar Magisterium to the extent that it is consistent with pre-conciliear teaching. When it appears to be inconsistent, I have a problem that can not be solved by merely by following authority. At no point do I reject authority. I say that I do not understand how both can be true. I wait for the answer to become clear.
But you have to use your reason to determine what is and what is not consistent with pre-Conciliar teaching, and therefore to what extent you accept, and to what extent you do not. If you really preferred authority to reason, you would accept it all simpliciter.
Everybody who accepts teaching on authority does so through use of his reason. The process of understanding what is taught by authority necessarily involves reason. It is not possible to accept any teaching without it being mediated by reason.
When a person is unaware of a teaching, that is not a rejection of the authority. Similarly, when a person cannot understand a teaching, that is not a rejection of the authority nor is it placing reason above authority.
A person who cannot understand how two different teachings can both be true is "on hold" until he can resolve the question. He has made no decision to reject authority and is accepting it to the best of his ability.
If I really preferred reason to authority, I would ascribe my inability to understand to a defect in the teaching and decide to reject it.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 04, 2018, 02:50:55 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 04, 2018, 01:39:08 PM
Everyone, and I do mean everyone, makes a judgement of reason when he submits to the conclusions of a given religion or philosophy. We are, by nature, rational animals. It's impossible for us to make true leaps of faith, in so much as faith is considered to be the absence of reason. We may not be truly conscious of the reasoning we make, but our minds still create a rational argument to itself whenever it accepts anything as true or false.
Hallelujah, brother, Praise the Lord! Feel the spirit's presence among us! Let's first praise the Lord for the beautiful weather He sent us today! Then yes, yes, Nicholas here in the first row has a message from the Spirit to share with us! What's He saying to us today, Nick?
Are you sure this is true?
I used reason (among other things) when I decided to become a Catholic. I am not going to keep second guessing that decision. I accept the teaching authority of the Church.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4kT-Td5A3Y
Quote from: Jayne on September 04, 2018, 02:55:37 PM
Everybody who accepts teaching on authority does so through use of his reason. The process of understanding what is taught by authority necessarily involves reason. It is not possible to accept any teaching without it being mediated by reason.
When a person is unaware of a teaching, that is not a rejection of the authority. Similarly, when a person cannot understand a teaching, that is not a rejection of the authority nor is it placing reason above authority.
OK.
QuoteA person who cannot understand how two different teachings can both be true is "on hold" until he can resolve the question. He has made no decision to reject authority and is accepting it to the best of his ability.
But he will still accept both teachings, because even if he cannot understand how both teachings are true, he nevertheless accepts that they are.
QuoteIf I really preferred reason to authority, I would ascribe my inability to understand to a defect in the teaching and decide to reject it.
So you admit there are no defects in Vatican II and post-Conciliar Magisterium then? You fully accept Vatican II, the New Mass, Francis' teaching on the death penalty, Amoris Laetitiae, and so on? You might not understand how they are reconciliable with pre-Conciliar Magisterium but you nevertheless accept that they are?
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 04, 2018, 03:18:51 PM
So you admit there are no defects in Vatican II and post-Conciliar Magisterium then? You fully accept Vatican II, the New Mass, Francis' teaching on the death penalty, Amoris Laetitiae, and so on? You might not understand how they are reconciliable with pre-Conciliar Magisterium but you nevertheless accept that they are?
One possible solution is that, properly understood, these teachings are reconcilable. Another possibility is that they will somehow turn out not to be authoritative teaching. I don't know.
Quote from: Jayne on September 04, 2018, 03:28:31 PM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 04, 2018, 03:18:51 PM
So you admit there are no defects in Vatican II and post-Conciliar Magisterium then? You fully accept Vatican II, the New Mass, Francis' teaching on the death penalty, Amoris Laetitiae, and so on? You might not understand how they are reconciliable with pre-Conciliar Magisterium but you nevertheless accept that they are?
One possible solution is that, properly understood, these teachings are reconcilable. Another possibility is that they will somehow turn out not to be authoritative teaching. I don't know.
As far as the bolded is concerned: They were the teachings and acts of an official ecumenical council of the Catholic Church and validly elected popes. I don't see how what they did was not authoritative.
And if some future pope come along and tries to turn back the clock he's just going to make the Church look foolish/open a huge can of worms concerning the teachings of every ecumenical council.
The best solution is to kill everyone (or a HUGE number of people). That way no explanation is necessary.
Then they can revise history to suit and cover up the truth.
Quote from: Greg on September 04, 2018, 12:53:33 PMI don't like clerical poofters but if the new springtime, introduced and run by poofters, actually produced successful outcomes like a growing church of people who actually knew what they believed, large families, less abortion a more stable and contented society, then I would have to rationally conclude that the modern church architecture, the lame masses and shitty hymns and limp wristed clergy had actually delivered a better outcome.
Results matter and there is no argument against a fact.
But going by this calculus, there wouldn't be any reason for a Roman to have converted to early Christianity, if he was looking to "successful outcomes." The Church at that point was a fringe religion being persecuted as a fanatical "nutty nutbar" Jewish heresy, and its adherents (mostly slaves and women) were routinely being fed to the lions in the arenas. At best you could admire them for their resolve, but it's not as if too many people these days admire Muslim suicide bombers for their dedication to the cause. And if our Roman was already a
pater familias of decent means with a large brood in a society he deemed contented, what would he have to gain? He would only incur suspicion, resentment, mockery, and a loss of status.
The reason to be a Christian is not for this-worldly gain, but for what it presumably offers in the next life. Otherwise anyone in any age or area where the faith was reviled would be rationally justified for not holding it. Have you ever seen the movie
Silence (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0490215/)? To my lights the most rational character in the whole thing is Father Ferreira, Liam Neeson's character, the Portuguese priest who apostatizes. Had he persisted in his evangelical efforts, he was guaranteed nothing but torture and eventual death. His solution was to renounce the faith and go native—and it's not as if that meant squatting on the earthen floor of a jungle hut for the rest of his days either, nibbling roots and surrounded by illiterate dullards; after all, this was Japan. He had a high and cultured civilization he could take to. Why not marry a nice Japanese girl, learn calligraphy, and become a scholar and translator, esteemed by the local shogun and kept in due comfort? Beats being crucified. As for the afterlife, I suppose he hedged his bets. He probably a took a look around Japan and noticed that they had fared pretty well by praying to the Buddha and the Shinto gods, so maybe he figured religion was all a crap-shoot. And why not? "
The times to come shall cover all things together with oblivion: the learned dieth in like manner as the unlearned."
A lot of the early converts were slaves. Not much to lose for them.
You get hieresses and rich kids joining cults now. How popular is Tom Cruise and his devotion to scientology? He would be better off (more respected) abandoning that cult.
In addition, in those days, death was ever present and struck fairly randonmly from infections, bad water, bad food. Think of how many people get VERY religious in their old age today because death is a near term possibility. My church is mostly old people. I don't remember any of them being middle aged Trads 30 years ago and I am very good with faces.
Why I oppose evolution can be summed up in this article: "It's often said that Britain's church congregations are shrinking, but that doesn't come close to expressing the scale of the disaster now facing Christianity in this country. Every ten years the census spells out the situation in detail: between 2001 and 2011 the number of Christians born in Britain fell by 5.3 million — about 10,000 a week. If that rate of decline continues, the mission of St Augustine to the English, together with that of the Irish saints to the Scots, will come to an end in 2067.
That is the year in which the Christians who have inherited the faith of their British ancestors will become statistically invisible. Parish churches everywhere will have been adapted for secular use, demolished or abandoned.
Our cathedral buildings will survive, but they won't be true cathedrals because they will have no bishops. The Church of England is declining faster than other denominations; if it carries on shrinking at the rate suggested by the latest British Social Attitudes survey, Anglicanism will disappear from Britain in 2033. One day the last native-born Christian will die and that will be that." This from British Catholic writer Damian Thomson.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/06/2067-the-end-of-british-christianity/ It's up to us now to turn the tide. There are 50 years left.
In the nearly 1500 years since England was fully evangelized for the Faith by Pope St. Gregory the Great and St. Augustine of Canterbury, nothing has succeeded in de-Christianizing British society as effectively as has modern evolutionary agnostic secularism.
This is only a projection, it's not inevitable by any means. But it is what may happen if evolution is left unopposed. Evolution causes slow death to Faith. We see it all the time.
Christians are already perfectly assured God is One, He is the Lord Jesus Christ, and He rose from the dead. Some of you skeptics can read in the history subforum the testimonies of Josephus, Gamaliel, Pilate, Philo, Pliny, Tacitus and others, notwithstanding the fact that St. Paul and other former skeptics were directly converted to faith in the Risen Christ is itself demonstrative that the Lord truly rose and converted him. What can explain his life, and the life of the other Apostles and eyewitnesses, who testified that they had seen Christ rise after being crucified under Pilate, and lived holy and heroic lives that attest it completely? Only the fact that Christ rose from the dead.
So Christians already know without doubt that the Faith is true. What we wish to inquire here is whether the theory of evolution and its old earth claims are compatible with that Truth. IMHO, ID and old creation are fine if they stop evolutionists from sliding into atheism, agnosticism and indifferentism. Sometimes, however, doubt about the creation doctrine leads to doubt or disregard of much of Scripture, even the New Testament.
Dr. Walt Brown has a really nice theory, Hydroplate theory, that seems like a perfect explanation of the science of creation and the flood. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html All these things will take years if not decades to study and master, the evolutionists rely precisely on that. In the meanwhile, they try to create doubts and uncertainties about fundamentals of the true Faith. For Christians, it is enough to know eminently well-qualified scientists have excellent responses to evolutionary claims.
The problem is that Evolution undermines the first book of the Bible (Genesis), and by undermining the first it undermines the whole lot. No Original Sin? No need for a Redeemer – Jesus was just a nice guy at best. The way many Catholics get out of this is by more or less mythologising (allegorising) Genesis. This is a slippery slope, however. Soon Christianity, and religion in general, comes not to be seen as a way to understand reality, but at best as a system of symbols and rituals which provide comfort to those psychologically too weak to face reality without them. Christianity no longer has a "truth claim." It's just a nice form of therapy at best, and at worst an evil and backwards institution – but certainly not something that can tell us the way the world works, like "science" can.
This is the situation in modern Britain. The average British person will look down on Christianity condescendingly as therapy for the weak, or as a dark ages institution that ought to be outright abolished. Those that want to tell us how to live our lives based on what the Bible or the Catholic Church says are simply madmen.
The only way around this is to get Christianity to have a plausible "truth claim" again, and the only way to do that realistically is to get rid of the Evolutionist cosmology which has made a myth out of the Bible. If it came out today in the media that scientists had wholly abandoned Evolutionism as a plausible theory to explain the origins and diversity of life, it wouldn't cause an instant conversion back to Christianity, but there would certainly be a sudden upswing in the public's interest in religion.
Assuming an alternative scientific explanation to evolution could be found, how would the Church deal with the problem of its entire hierarchy staying silent on child rape and predatory/compulsive sexual abuse over nearly a century? (at least. It might be a lot longer).
Public retribution.
I cannot see that that is enough, frankly.
Once it has been THAT corrupted who is going to trust it again?
It's one thing to take your wife back after a fling with her boss or even the milkman. But who is going to take their wife back when she has whored herself with every man in town and had sex with the horses in the stable as well. The betrayal and the cover up is so complete and so disgusting that it makes Windswept House read like a seminary welcome pack.
We will need to burn Rome to the ground just to have enough ashes. Lord knows where we will get the sackcloth.
As Bishop Steven Lopes just said. "We all knew".
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/08/30/bishop-lopes-i-dont-believe-bishops-who-plead-ignorance-of-mccarrick/
If we ONLY go on what we know, it is an appalling state of affairs. Abomination is not too strong a word. But now the cat is out of the bag after 80 years (at least), imagine what else is going to come out in the wash. There's probably video. That's going to find its way onto the internet and still exist in 500 years from now.
Quote from: Xavier on September 04, 2018, 10:20:44 PM
Why I oppose evolution can be summed up in this article:
...
In the nearly 1500 years since England was fully evangelized for the Faith by Pope St. Gregory the Great and St. Augustine of Canterbury, nothing has succeeded in de-Christianizing British society as effectively as has modern evolutionary agnostic secularism.
This is only a projection, it's not inevitable by any means. But it is what may happen if evolution is left unopposed. Evolution causes slow death to Faith. We see it all the time.
That's all fine. But you have to deal with reality, and realize that reality is not going to conform itself to your desires. You have to make intelligent arguments grounded in reality. Otherwise you simply will not succeed, nor will you deserve to succeed. Everyone will write you off as a crackpot, and they will be correct.
First of all, your diagnosis that "evolution" is THE cause for the current malaise is completely off base. The entire conflict is being played out on a battlefield where religion cannot hope to win, and this is religion's fault. It may win a few minor skirmishes, but it will lose the war. This would be happening with or without evolution. You could find a pre-Cambrian rabbit which would disprove evolution tomorrow and you would still lose. Scientists would give up evolution and say (rightly) they were being scientific by doing so, just like they gave up phlogiston, Ptolemaic cosmology, and Newtonian physics (in the microworld). Creationists would gloat about finally "evolutionist" myths were shattered once and for all, while scientists would say, look see science is actually self-correcting, contrary to the myths of how "dogmatic" we were. But would everyone flock to Church the next day? No. Because, you see, religion (or philosophy) has to be actually right, not just prove science wrong on this or that thing. And all it can do is talk about a God who fashions everything according to the dictates of His will, demands obedience from His creation, punishes severely those who fail to give it (or maybe not for the few lucky ones to whom He is merciful), and punishes the entire human race for the sin of one man, and so on, and should we dare complain about our situation, we are told it is because our intellects are so darkened that we cannot see clearly. IOW, the entire debate has been completely contaminated with nominalism and voluntarism. Even Protestants like Craig who make the fine-tuning argument, Kalam argument, etc., don't really believe in God. They say they do, but they don't. They believe in an ultra-powerful entity, indeed, but not the ipsum esse subsistens of St. Thomas. Once you give in to nominalism, materialism follows as a direct consequence, evolution or no. If it isn't materialism it is the absurd Cartesian "ghost-in-the-machine" idea of a spirit and the only question is how far you can go in eliminating that as a necessity.
Second, get actually acquainted with the scientific evidence. I did, both before and after becoming Catholic, and I have an advanced degree in science. Maybe I know some of what I am talking about. Some of it supports your case, but not all of it. There's ample evidence that biology is not reducible to physics (e.g. that mere physical processes will not produce life out of inert matter), and that physical constants are in the very narrow range they need to be for life to form. But there's also ample evidence that the earth is very old, that there was no global flood several thousand years ago, and that at least some of the different species on earth today descended from a common ancestor. This is not a case of "interpretation" with "evolutionist" assumptions. It is the case, period, and the first two of these were known in fact before Darwin. If you refuse to admit this you are denying reality just as much as materialists. You would like it to be the case, but it isn't, and pretending it is is mere wish-fulfillment. Moreover, I wouldn't say it's absolutely absurd to believe in descent from a single pair of humans, but the weight of the genetic evidence is definitely not on that side of the issue.
Now, you might not care what the evidence actually says, but your intended audience does, and they will realize you are talking out of your a** when you tell them the evidence strongly supports a global flood. They will dismiss you out of hand. You, of course, will stomp away saying how they are biased by "evolutionary assumptions". But tell me, exactly what assumptions are those and exactly are you going to convince them that they are wrong?
By analogy, quantum mechanics in physics is used by some to deny causality; it has virtual particles just popping in and out of existence in Feynman diagrams, and has radioactive decay events also proceeding without a physical cause, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and subsequent developments (Bell's experiment, etc.) seem to suggest a real ontological randomness in nature. So let's also oppose quantum mechanics as just another tool invented by evolutionary, secular, materialist scientists to deny God. Except you have to deal with the fact that quantum mechanics (electrodynamics anyway) is a spectacularly successful theory in terms of making predictions. It can't be completely wrong. But Thomistic philosophy doesn't really have a whole lot of convincing arguments against this. All it can say is, causality must exist because it must, because it is a first principle. It can't actually explain why an apparently acausal physical theory does such a good job of making predictions. It pats itself on the back but hasn't answered the question. That's because it, too, has succumbed to the idea of a "dictator" God.
QuoteDr. Walt Brown has a really nice theory, Hydroplate theory, that seems like a perfect explanation of the science of creation and the flood. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html All these things will take years if not decades to study and master, the evolutionists rely precisely on that. In the meanwhile, they try to create doubts and uncertainties about fundamentals of the true Faith. For Christians, it is enough to know eminently well-qualified scientists have excellent responses to evolutionary claims.
How do you know this response is "excellent"? (It isn't.) You want something to hand-wave so you don't have to deal with the actual evidence.
Quote from: John Lamb on September 05, 2018, 05:05:09 AM
The problem is that Evolution undermines the first book of the Bible (Genesis)..
And the response is, "too bad". Reality sucks sometimes. Deal with it.
QuoteThe only way around this is to get Christianity to have a plausible "truth claim" again, and the only way to do that realistically is to get rid of the Evolutionist cosmology which has made a myth out of the Bible.
And how are you going to do that? By telling scientists they don't know what they're talking about when they say can estimate the date of a lake?
QuoteThat's all fine. But you have to deal with reality, and realize that reality is not going to conform itself to your desires.
That's all fine. But you have to deal with the reality that God created, and realize that reality formed by His desire is not going to conform itself to one's desires.
Look, Quare, mate, this is the fundamental area of disagreement between Christians who believe in creation and evolutionists - Christians consider the testimony of the Prophet Moses, whom God made an eyewitness of His creation, to be a real and the primary source for our knowledge of His creation. It's very clear from what you said above that they have a very different methodology. It considers even the dogma of two human parents to be open to doubt, question, change and perpetual flux. That is unfortunately a modernistic methodology and leads ultimately to unbelief in divine revelation. We believe without wavering that God created the whole human race from two first parents, because He has testified to it, and we know a priori before any scientific investigation, that the evidence, rightly interpreted, will confirm that conclusion. I notice you skipped over the parts explaining why Christians give an unwavering assent to all Christ testified to, knowing He is God.
John and Jayne said something similar, and they are right. That's why any other methodology will necessarily end in an impasse.
And btw, the petty insults of worldlings who have self-professed scorn or contempt for Christ matters less than nothing to me. It will be a mark of honor before the throne of God.
QuoteHow do you know this response is "excellent"?
Because it covers very many ID arguments in depth and very convincingly in the first part. Did you even read it? Dr. Walt Brown is a very well qualified scientist and believes in creation. Why should I trust the evolutionists over him? I'm going through the second part now, and hydroplate theory shows much promise, is amply supported by evidence, and most important of all, appears to be in full conformity with the testimony of the Prophets and the Apostles, and that of God Himself. Why don't you write a detailed critique of it, if you find it lacking, especially the second part, which deals with flood science? We can discuss it in a new thread.
Also, some of the best scientists in history have been creation scientists, and historically long before the case of Galileo which secularists misunderstand, the great universities of Christian Europe, with the enthusiastic support of the Papacy, built the most scientifically minded civilization snd the monasteries contributed the most to rapid technological advancement. There is no conflict between true religion and true science. Evolution is false science and also a false heathen religion that claims monkeys are responsible for our existence. God has testified He did not need monkeys to create us. He said it. We believe it. That settles it.
"Pius IX. The year after the publication of Darwin's evolution thesis, the Provincial Council of Cologne issued the following canon, which was approved by Pope Pius IX:
"Our first parents were immediately created by God (Gen.2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy Scripture and the Faith the opinion of those who dare to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived by spontaneous transformation from an imperfect nature, which improved continually until it reached the present human state." [10]"
http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/cbutel/humanevo.html
Here is the problem Xavier. A lot of people with your types of views are demonstrably idiots. They refuse to consider rational, well reasoned, counter arguments and objective evidence because they think they have access to some secret knowledge or the truth is much simpler than it actually is. They don't know, what they don't know.
They repeatedly demonstrate that they don't think very deeply at all, and once that is demonstrated, then nothing they say is take too seriously. Just as we don't take some Californian airhead/bimbo seriously. Nobody has the time to waste time on the cretinous ramblings of people who don't know what they are talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDGyPRr9-AE
We know from well conducted studies that many stupid people think they are clever. They are not objective at judging how little they actually know. Clever people tend to underestimate their cleverness whilst stupid people substantially overestimate theirs.
I will give you a real life example of this. The owner of another Traditional Catholic website/forum had a Traditional Catholic education and then self-trained as a computer developer. He has very strong opinions on things. For example, he has "examined the evidence" and claims that the moon landings were faked by NASA.
One day he posted on his Internet forum about how a water supply pipe had burst and he was facing a water bill for tens of thousands of dollars. Since he was responsible for the supply pipe from the road and lived on his smallholding and the water had leaked onto his land, he was liable to pay and the water company (he had called a rep) said there was little they could do.
I think he claimed $90,000 but it was enough money to really send him into a terrible panic and he might have to sell his family home. The other forum members all started saying prayers for him and sympathizing and claiming how evil and unforgiving big corporations were.
I wasn't unsympathetic. Sudden bills like that are horrible and he is a father of a Catholic brood like myself.
But I turned a piece of paper over on my desk and worked out what $90,000 of leaked water would look like over a month or two period. Find the volume of water and then calculated the cube root of it. It took me about 2 mins and 1 more minute to check my decimal points were in the right place. My 13 year old could do this.
Turns out it is a fairly large and deep lake as my instinct told me it would be. Like 6 Olympic swimming pools in size and depth. That much water could not possibly leak unnoticed onto his relatively small piece of land in Texas. Somewhere on his property between his home and the road, would be terribly flooded, unless he lived on porous soil over some giant cave system, but then he would have a huge hole on depression in his yard. Besides that, the flow rate from a domestic water supply is simply is not fast enough to supply that much water in the time he claimed that the pipe was broken.
This is basic common sense and basic arithmetic and googling free and easy to find data about water prices in Texas.
Once he looked like a complete prick, he deleted the thread, because he is like that. He deletes lots of threads over there. I was pretty merciless in mocking him for panicking like an old woman and not being able to read his own water meter, but suffice it to say, I solved the problem for him. His real water bill was a few hundred dollars more than he thought it was. Annoying, but nothing that needed a begging letter.
Now... does such a person have anywhere near the intellectual, mathematical, scientific or engineering knowledge to decide that NASA is incapable of sending manned missions to the moon, and rather it faked them?
I would say no. Because I don't have that knowledge, not even close, and yet I am a lot smarter than that dumbass and had the intelligence and common sense to understand that $90,000 of water was a huge amount of water.
Here is his "reasoning".
While we're on the topic of Science, allow me to ask: Did we land on the moon?
We did not. I find the pro-hoax arguments to be extremely convincing. Especially the fact that no advanced nation has done anything on the Moon, or even anything beyond Low Earth Orbit, for the past 50 years. That evidence speaks volumes to me. NASA claiming they lost the technology to go there is just the icing on the cake. I believe the Van Allen Belts surrounding the Earth are an impenetrable obstacle for human flesh. That is why we never venture beyond Low Earth Orbit. In the entire history of man going into space, the "Moon landings" of the early 1970's stand out as a statistical aberration. If they want to convince the doubters that we landed on the Moon, having any advanced nation send a man beyond Low Earth Orbit would be a start.
This is a man with no scientific education, who cannot read his own water meter, and yet knows enough to believe that the Van Allen Belts are "an impenetrable obstacle for human flesh".
It's just silly to believe that his opinion on the matter is more valuable than her's below.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww[/yt]
Here is a nice, easy and accessible video that explains how NASA solved the problem. Seems very reasonable to me and I believe it. Simply put, the astronauts were not exposed to radiation for long enough. People visit Chernobyl's reactor today, but nobody is foolish enough to camp there by ground zero for 6 months. If they did they would have serious health issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNiscigIgBc
If you, or anyone else, could give me an answer as to how "The Church" had not defected or how JP2 and J23 can be saints who that same indefectible Church has declared and defined to be saints and in Heaven, then please do so. I am all ears.
Don't, however, throw emotional accusations at me of wanting to lapse, lie in on Sundays, quit, throw in the towel, make up my own religion or get a girlfriend and sniff coke of her tits free of guilt, because none of those things are my motivators. I simply want rational answers to reasonable questions. I want to understand what I believe and why I believe it, not simply believe it because some cleric (probably a poofter) told me to or threatened me with hellfire.
If asking those questions threatens your faith, then your faith is pretty worthless. Why would I want more of it?
If you don't know the answer, say, "I don't know". That is fine.
Quote from: Xavier on September 06, 2018, 06:06:36 AM
QuoteThat's all fine. But you have to deal with reality, and realize that reality is not going to conform itself to your desires.
That's all fine. But you have to deal with the reality that God created, and realize that reality formed by His desire is not going to conform itself to YOUR desires.
It should, however, conform to the evidence, since that is also the result of His creation. If it doesn't, what you claim is the reality God created isn't the real reality He created. And the reality is that it doesn't, and that fact isn't going to conform itself to your desires. You don't want to accept this, which is why you go running after the latest crackpot creationist theory you can find, just like you go running after the latest apparition. Walt Brown's been around for a while, you know. He's already been debunked numerous times.
I asked you specific questions on another thread about fossil layering, mother-daughter isotope ratios, Lake Suigetsu, the genome, and so on. You completely punted on all of them. You don't actually have anything resembling a sensible answer as to how all this can be if YEC is true. (And there's plenty more evidence the earth is old, I just started with this.) And the reason why there isn't one is because YEC is false.
QuoteLook, Quare, mate, this is the fundamental area of disagreement between Christians and evolutionists - Christians consider the testimony of the Prophet Moses, whom God made an eyewitness of His creation, to be a real and the primary source for our knowledge of His creation.
The same argument was made for geocentrism and the previous "fundamental area of disagreement" between Christians and astronomers and physicists - the testimony of Solomon, "who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God", was cited according to Cardinal Bellarmine to be the "real and primary source" for our knowledge of the cosmos. In fact pretty much every single argument you posit can and was made for geocentrism.
First of all, while I'm not a Scripture expert, I doubt very much Moses wrote the Pentateuch (at least not the entire Pentateuch), and again what "Christians consider" is going to take a backseat to whether the evidence supports or not that he actually was the author.
Now, apparently Genesis I was written because God replayed creation to Moses like he was sitting in a movie theater, and that Adam really looked for a companion among the animals before God created Eve, and there is literal firmanent over the earth, and so on? If THIS is what you think Christianity is all about, then "evolutionists" are right that Christianity is absurd and stupid, and that Christians are idiots. Even Pius X's Pontifical Biblical Commission admitted that "day" in Genesis need not mean literal 24-hour day, but could mean an indefinite period of time.
QuoteIt's very clear from what you said above that they have a very different methodology. It considers even the dogma of two human parents to be open to doubt, question, change and perpetual flux. That is unfortunately a modernistic methodology and leads ultimately to unbelief in divine revelation. We believe without wavering that God created the whole human race from two first parents, because He has testified to it, and we know a priori before any scientific investigation, that the evidence, rightly interpreted, will confirm that conclusion. I notice you skipped over the parts explaining why Christians give an unwavering assent to all Christ testified to, knowing He is God.
Obviously exactly what He has testified to is exactly what is under question.
QuoteAnd btw, the petty insults of worldlings who have self-professed scorn or contempt for Christ matters less than nothing to me. It will be a mark of honor before the throne of God.
That's the bravado of one who knows he is losing the argument.
QuoteBecause it covers very many ID arguments in depth and very convincingly in the first part. Did you even read it? Dr. Walt Brown is a very well qualified scientist and believes in creation. Why should I trust the evolutionists over him?
Because it isn't a question of trust, but evidence. That's the fundamental thing you fail to understand. Dr. Brown's theory is preposterous and has been debunked numerous times, as I said.
Quaremerepulisti
Since you are definitely much smarter than me when it comes to science, I am interested what you make of the Hubble deep space field and ultra-deep space field images.
We are surrounded by a trillion galaxies. They are everywhere we look.
I find that both unsettling and exciting at the same time.
Unsettling because they would appear to have a purpose and there are so many that I cannot think of a purpose that doesn't make what has gone on on this little planet, small by comparison. Exciting, because there is a lot of stuff out there to explore. It's like discovering the New World, but much much bigger.
I can't help but feel that this has to change man's perspective of his place as it enters the common mind of people from all over the world.
What do you wonder about when you pause to consider it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg
Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 03, 2018, 08:24:59 AM
You're right, though, Greg, that the way one argues things is important. I was recently reading about the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye%E2%80%93Ken_Ham_debate), which I intend to watch. I liked this bit of review:
QuoteDaily Beast writer Michael Schulson used the Seahawks-Broncos analogy to declare Ham the resounding victor. Although Schulson agreed with Nye's underlying scientific message, and allowed that Nye "had his moments," he wrote that "it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old."
:laugh:
I recently watched this debate, and even though it's long, it's worth watching. Personally, I didn't see a clear winner. I disagree with the above review that Ken Ham was easily the smarter man on the stage, but he was definitely the more adept debater. Bill Nye made his strongest points on the age of the earth and the distance of the stars (true to form, I guess, his presentation was the more educational), but Ken Ham employed the better rhetoric, was abler on his feet, and counter-punched more effectively. Bill Nye lost a ton of ground by continually returning to the trope that a society has to accept evolution in order to remain technologically competitive, even though Ken Ham had roundly won that point early in the debate, by challenging him to "name one widely-used technology in our modern world that could only have been invented by an evolutionist." (Oddly, Bill Nye never responded, even though I would've offered "forensic DNA" and "DNA modelling"). Left unanswered, Ken Ham knew he'd won this, so he wisely left it alone and let Bill Nye voluntarily look desperate by continually stressing it.
Ken Ham had the better graphics, too. He had a particularly good one that illustrated the depravity of the pre-lapsarian "theistic evolution" scheme. He was probably the better-prepared, although to be fair he's been hacking away on this topic for decades and has really refined his presentation to a razor sharpness. He even beat Bill Nye on the creationist contention that lions were pre-lapsarian vegetarians. Ham simply said, "sure, lions have sharp teeth, but so do bears, and they can subsist on berries and vegetables." Bill Nye failed to counter by making the distinction between omnivores and obligate carnivores, and consequently lost on that point. Nye lost almost consistently on matters of biology, but was much more at home (and won nearly every squabble) on geology and astronomy.
I'm not sure why the video archivist at Answers in Genesis put the program up with thirteen minutes of dead time leading into it. It's actually 2 hrs 30 mins, not 2:45.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI[/yt]