Liberal Pell and Apostate Dawkins discuss evolution.

Started by Xavier, June 27, 2018, 12:39:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mono no aware

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on June 28, 2018, 02:11:19 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on June 28, 2018, 02:09:29 PMMost people who accept evolution probably aren't going to be in a confessional in the first place, and I think that's his whole point.


Are you actually that retarded?

I guess so, because I don't know what you're trying to say here.  Do you think evolutionists are largely religious?  The data says otherwise.

Are you able to have coherent disagreements with people without insult?

LausTibiChriste

Lord Jesus Christ, Son Of God, Have Mercy On Me A Sinner

"Nobody is under any moral obligation of duty or loyalty to a state run by sexual perverts who are trying to destroy public morals."
- MaximGun

"Not trusting your government doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, it means you're a history buff"

Communism is as American as Apple Pie

LausTibiChriste

#17
Data?

What data?

Who took a survey of confession frequenters and asked them their views on evolution?


I guarantee most Catholics who go to confession 'believe' in evolution because

1) most people don't give a poop
2) statistically speaking more novus ordo'ers are going to confession than Trads
3) most people don't give a poop
4) who cares about evolution when I have real problems in my life
5) most people don't give a poopo
6) most people who are against evolution are a very, very small fraction of the total population. SD is a tiny fragment of Traditionalism, let alone Catholicism and we only have one whacko railing against evolution. Do the math.



Of course, if you're lonely and live by yourself without a hope in hell, you'd care like it's the last thing stopping the world from imploding...but thankfully 99% of people aren't like that and can get on with reality.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son Of God, Have Mercy On Me A Sinner

"Nobody is under any moral obligation of duty or loyalty to a state run by sexual perverts who are trying to destroy public morals."
- MaximGun

"Not trusting your government doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, it means you're a history buff"

Communism is as American as Apple Pie

Matto

I think evolution is important but I do not worry about it much anymore. I once worried more. But I don't think anyone who believes in it cares what I think. But for some reason growing up irreligious I never really believed in evolution that strongly (I was actually once told that my not really believing in evolution even though I was taught it is school and by our society was a signal grace). And when I became a traditional Catholic it was very easy to believe the story of Adam and Eve was true and not just say it was a symbolic fable that didn't really happen or (which I find to be worse) to try to mix the two theories and try to imagine that Adam and Eve evolved from monkeys and after their evolution was complete God infused human souls into them, etc. etc. etc. I guess since I agree with Xavier I am a whacko, but I don't mind being in his company.
I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..

Mono no aware

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on June 28, 2018, 02:20:43 PM
Data?

What data?

The data is simply that acceptance of evolution correlates with either a lack of religious belief or a tepid religious belief.  Ergo, the people in the confessional (traditional Catholics and devout Novus Oro) are not likely to be struggling with the finer points of Darwin.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse.  It's true that liberal Christianity causes a decline in membership, because once you relax the rules, a lot of people will tend to stop bothering with the whole business.  The Episcopalians, for example, are a more extreme version of what happens there, and I think they're now 1 or 2% of the US populace; the Catholic Church didn't go to those extremes, but the post-Vatican II church saw a significant drop in numbers and vocations. 

What I am pointing out, though, is that liberal Christianity is a reaction to criticism.  Liberalism and modernism are concessions to things like historical criticism and evolution, both of which chip at the literal Christian narrative.  For modernism to die, these things (historical criticism, evolution, Enlightenment philosophy) must be addressed.  As far as I can make out, Xavier posts on evolution here on SD, not to "preach to the choir" and convince people here (who, indeed, need no convincing), but to give them tools in their evangelical efforts.  He usually has links, article summaries, &c.

LausTibiChriste

Quote from: Pon de Replay on June 28, 2018, 02:37:50 PM
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on June 28, 2018, 02:20:43 PM
Data?

What data?

The data is simply that acceptance of evolution correlates with either a lack of religious belief or a tepid religious belief.

Every time I start throwing around words like retard I wonder if I'm being fair...then you come back with garbage like this and I'm happily justified.

Data is a real thing. Not just whatever you think it is. Present to me some actual data and we can continue on with this conversation. Otherwise put a cork in it you lonely, sad man.


You know, PdR, you sprout a whole lot of horseshit dressed up in fancy words to make yourself look all intellectually superior. But this is the level of a 4th grader.

"Data says X"
Me: "where's the data?"
you: "Data says X"


You have the IQ of a sewer rat.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son Of God, Have Mercy On Me A Sinner

"Nobody is under any moral obligation of duty or loyalty to a state run by sexual perverts who are trying to destroy public morals."
- MaximGun

"Not trusting your government doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, it means you're a history buff"

Communism is as American as Apple Pie

Mono no aware

#21
Sorry, Laus.  We had a miscommunication there; no need for the hostile macho posturing ("horseshit," "IQ of a sewer rat," &c).  I thought you were demanding the precise data for belief in evolution among people going to confession, for which (indeed) none exists that I'm aware of.  The broader data, however, does show the correlation I spoke of.  Here is the data for my own country, the United States:



As you can see, evolutionists are scarcely a third of most religious denominations.  (The only subset where they score higher is among "White mainline Protestants," and these are the same people who have womynpriests and gay bishops, so I don't know if we can even credibly consider these people believers, although they rate themselves as such).  Whereas among the unaffiliated, evolutionists constitute nearly twice the number.  So you have the greatest acceptance of evolution and the least acceptance of creation among the unaffiliated.  This correlation should hardly come as a surprise; I didn't think anyone considered it controversial or obscure.  Hence our miscommunication.

To the point of whether this matters, the unaffiliated category (where an acceptance of evolution predominates) is the fastest growing among those polled.  Of the categories that experienced the greatest decline, it was the two most liberal and with the highest acceptance of evolution: the Catholics and the mainline Protestants.






PerEvangelicaDicta

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on June 28, 2018, 01:07:51 PM
Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta on June 28, 2018, 08:37:04 AM
LTC, I respect your opinions, but in this case, this is his life - he's entering the seminary.  If he is ultimately ordained, it is his primary responsibility to assist the faithful regarding the teachings of the Church.
(not that debate should be discouraged, or questions ignored, but I don't believe he does that )

400 posts about evolution does not a priest make

You may be right about the number of posts regarding evolution, but I tend to follow threads on devotions and liturgical commentary.  In that, Xavier is stellar.  From his trend of postings, (for me) it was easy to deduce that he would announce a calling to the priesthood.  I was not surprised in the least when he did.

Some help needed here - I thought that traditional Catholicism taught great caution regarding the topic of evolution?  Perhaps I'm wrong, but Xavier and many others quote texts of Church teaching, and when I attended SSPX chapels, those particular priests were counseling the faithful with the same teachings against evolution.

My point that Xavier's life responsibility will be guiding the faithful pertains to the above, and I'm not sure I understand the hostility, or how he is / will be different than other traditional priests.

Fwiw, I endeavor to be as objective as possible.  Raised in the novus ordo, and working among atheistic scientists in the zoological/conservation community who hold evolution as dogma (vs theory),  I've always presumed it's not just true, but proven.   Once I came to tradition, and learned of countering arguments, both secular and Catholic, I began to seriously question and look for the agenda of evolutionists.


They shall not be confounded in the evil time; and in the days of famine they shall be filled
Psalms 36:19

Greg

I don't believe in evolution because it is highly speculative and a lot of it makes no sense and cannot be empirically demonstrated.  What happens inside cells and shape changing proteins is fantastically complex and ordered.   Order can't spontaneously come from chaos anymore than I can wake up tomorrow and speak and write Russian.

I do believe in the other galaxies discovered by the Hubble Space telescope, however, because those are images just like any other and I don't believe they have been faked.  I believe that light landed on the photo-capture device of the Hubble just as it lands onto my retina.  Those Galaxies are there just as my monitor is staring me in the face now.  The rest is just travel time.

I find that deep space field image mind boggling.  And while it confirms to me there is a God, (whatever made that stuff is God), I do wonder how accurate the picture we have of God is.  In a sense, and trying not to be blasphemous about it, I think of the incarnation and crucifixion and think, "so what?  Why should that impress me when the Creator makes 2000 galaxies per day before breakfast.  And for what purpose?

What is 33 years on earth or 3 hours on the cross compared to that? 

So with new knowledge people try to work out whether their old model still fits.  Let's imagine for example that Paul VI had been wrong and contraception had NOT lead to a rise in the rate of unwed pregnancies or abortion.  Would any Trads be against contraception today?  I think not.

Stuff has to make sense.  Or be a complete unknowable mystery like the Trinity.  Looking at the images of those galaxies, there is one thing I know for sure.  And that is I will never comprehend the power that made all of that stuff.
Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

Prayerful

Quote from: Kaesekopf on June 28, 2018, 01:22:43 PM
Quote from: Xavier on June 28, 2018, 01:17:00 PM
I wish more Christians would seriously study the horrors that evolution caused and why it is the greatest heresy of recent times, that must be fought, destroyed and crushed. I'm very happy the SSPX is unflinchingly firm on opposing evolution. I know former SSPX seminarians who are, too.

Evolution is far worse than Modernism?   

Please.

Certainly isn't, although Modernist schools of the Nouvelle Theologie or post-Modern tendency turn on the idea of doctrine and dogma evolving, perhaps wilfully distorting idea of Bl Cardinal Newman's development of doctrine, where the Church grows in understanding of something fixed for ever.

Pius XII in Humani Generis neither condemned nor supported biological evolution understood in a theistic sense, as some something Divinely guided, provided that in no possible sense can be idea be extended to doctrine, which is the essence of the post 'Enlightenment' poison of Modernism. Biblical literalism certainly isn't Catholic, as the heretics who deal in that generally subtract and add to the bible so it does not clash with their emotional rebellions.
Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.

Xavier

You're a very intelligent man, Pon. It's a shame we lost you. May God bless you always.

I also recommend a certain someone peruse this book, by a certain Fr. Chad Ripperger: "In his encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII stressed the importance of preserving the traditional Catholic approach to philosophy. In his work The Metaphysics of Evolution, Fr. Chad Ripperger demonstrates that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the metaphysics of the Catholic tradition." https://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Evolution-Fr-Chad-Ripperger/dp/3848216256

And "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"

I. Now, back to scientific proofs: Most creation scientists hold it is very easy, even apart from revelation, (1) to demonstrate that human history is less than 10,000 years old and (2) that the earth is demonstrably less than a 100,000 years old at most.

I posted some simple proofs of the falsity of evolution on this thread, https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=20156.0 let me post Demonstration #5 here, if anyone wants to discuss it further: A highly professional paper from Science vs Evolution,

Abstract: The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005 that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum, Hugh Miller asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for C-14 testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for the Triceratops and 23,170 ±170 RC years for the Hadrosaur were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS). Total organic carbon and/or dinosaur bone bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna." http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

2. I like that the SSPX link mentions Potassium argon dating "was recently tested for accuracy and failed.15 Three independent laboratories were sent a sample of basalt produced by an Hawaiian volcanic eruption less than 200 years ago. The testing results varied from 20 million years to 3 billion years.16, 17" So a rock known to be less than 200 years old is really 3 billion years old, guys!

But seriously, for those who wish to study further, there are some reasons Potassium Argon dating fails: "As the simulation of the processing of potassium-argon samples showed, the standard deviations for K-Ar dates are so large that resolution higher than about a million years is almost impossible to achieve. By comparison, radiocarbon dates seem almost as precise as a cesium clock! Potassium-argon dating is accurate from 4.3 billion years (the [evolutionary] age of the Earth) to about 100,000 years before the present."http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/stsmith/classes/anth3/courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html

3. So the evolutionists fail to show the earth is more than 100,000 years old, something already practically falsified by the discovery of C14, collagen, soft tissue, bone marrow, white blood cells and other such things in fossils alleged to be 65-500 million years old. One doesn't need to know much about decay rates to know the evolutionists are not seriously engaging with the ramifications of these discoveries for their theory: http://kolbecenter.org/question-of-time/

"For example, Carbon 14 is an isotope formed by the radioactive decay of carbon atoms, which is not supposed to be detectable in organic material older than about 50,000 to 60,000 years because of its short half life. However, it is often found in materials dated by other methods to be millions of years old, including petroleum, coal, wood, and bone, and has even been detected in diamonds otherwise dated at billions of years of age.[10],[11],[12] Additionally, the surprising discovery of soft tissue in fossils presumed to be millions of years old brings radiometric dating into direct contradiction with currently observed decay rates of organic materials.  In 2005 and 2007, evolutionary scientist Mary Schweitzer reported on the discovery of what appeared to be blood cells in 65 million years old tyrannosaur bones.[13],[14] This presented a quandary for scientists, because organic material is not supposed to last that long based upon present decay rates.[15] When her work was called into question, Dr. Schweitzer obtained similar tissue in 80 million year old hadrosaur bones, went to extraordinary lengths to prevent contamination and perform rigorous tests on her samples, and defended her discovery in an article in Science that appears to have satisfied her detractors.[16] But nobody, including Dr Schweitzer, has called into question the high improbability of blood surviving 65-80 million years."

4. That will do for evolution, one word on evolution and dogma - evolution is the core of modernism, and its unopposed promotion is part of the reason why "the whole world has groaned to find itself" modernist. Evolution believes anything can change into anything else, a particle to a person, a monkey to a man and anything to anything else. Everything is mutable and changeable, can evolutionists believe in immutable truth? It will be very hard for them at the least. I know some sincerely try to reconcile evolution and Christianity, but many after finding they're not able to do that, just give up on Christianity, instead of giving up on evolution. Anyway, I feel confident in the next decade or so, as more of these discoveries are published and studied in mainstream journals - especially the soft tissue in millions year old fossils, which even many serious evolutionists find very disturbing for their ideas - evolution will slowly die a natural death.

And Pon's observation on what is imo wrongly called "higher criticism" of the Gospels is also spot on - these people used to "date" the Gospel of St. Luke to the 150s, and that of St. John to the 200s. If those theories are taught in seminaries, a whole generation of Christians will suffer for it. It was an Oxford educated skeptical archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, a former skeptic, who did the most in turning the tide. He expected everything recorded in the Gospel accounts to be hopelessly inaccurate. A lifetime of study convinced him the Gospels and Acts were incredibly accurate, and written by eyewitness historians of the first rank. He ended up becoming a Catholic Christian, and had an audience with the Holy Father Pope Leo XIII. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay

Wiki: "William Ramsay was known for his careful attention to New Testament events, particularly the Book of Acts and Pauline Epistles. When he first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in Acts had no known location and almost nothing was known of their detailed history or politics. The Acts of the Apostles was the only record and Ramsay, skeptical, fully expected his own research to prove the author of Acts hopelessly inaccurate since no man could possibly know the details of Asia Minor more than a hundred years after the event—this is, when Acts was then supposed to have been written. He therefore set out to put the writer of Acts on trial. He devoted his life to unearthing the ancient cities and documents of Asia Minor. After a lifetime of study, however, he concluded: 'Further study ... showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement' (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 85). On page 89 of the same book, Ramsay accounted, 'I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment...'When Ramsay turned his attention to Paul's letters, most of which the critics dismissed as forgeries, he concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters that claimed to have been written by Paul were authentic."

This is how errors are fought against, and truth ultimately prevails in the end. It doesn't happen overnight, but takes a lifetime of study and effort on the part of many. The same thing will happen to the current evolutionary "dates" of "3 billion year old" rocks known to be 200 years old.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on June 28, 2018, 02:55:57 PM
You have the IQ of a sewer rat.

Can you be any ruder?

Pon doesn't deserve that sort of treatment. We're all guitly of losing our temper every now and then but let's try to keep some sort of evangelical decorum. "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace to the hearers." (Eph. 4:29)
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

Jayne

Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 11, 2018, 09:16:35 AM
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on June 28, 2018, 02:55:57 PM
You have the IQ of a sewer rat.

Can you be any ruder?

Pon doesn't deserve that sort of treatment. We're all guitly of losing our temper every now and then but let's try to keep some sort of evangelical decorum. "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace to the hearers." (Eph. 4:29)

And even if there were a good reason to insult Pon, why not say something true about him?  He is obviously quite bright.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: Jayne on July 11, 2018, 10:01:02 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 11, 2018, 09:16:35 AM
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on June 28, 2018, 02:55:57 PM
You have the IQ of a sewer rat.

Can you be any ruder?

Pon doesn't deserve that sort of treatment. We're all guitly of losing our temper every now and then but let's try to keep some sort of evangelical decorum. "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace to the hearers." (Eph. 4:29)

And even if there were a good reason to insult Pon, why not say something true about him?  He is obviously quite bright.

Refreshingly bright, I might add.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

Mono no aware

#29
The real trick, of course, is to not say anything about your opponent at all, and to stick to the topic at hand.  Very few people are able to do this.  I have a hard time doing it myself, but I try to use insults sparingly because they're usually more effective that way.  In a barrage, the sting is muted by the overkill, and it frequently backfires on the person unleashing it, making them look like they're having a meltdown or a temper tantrum.  People being flustered are funny (see: George Costanza).  In fact, one of my favorite templates of comedy is when a serene protagonist irritates an uptight antagonist, from the early Warner Bros. cartoons (Bugs & Elmer, Bugs & Yosemite Sam) to one of my favorite Bill Murray comedies, What About Bob?