Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
My larger concern is with the food supply.  Most people live no where near fertile land, and their existence is highly dependent upon the ability for monocrops to be grown in nutrient-dead soil fertilized with petrochemicals and then trucked at low cost across the country to megabox retailers, all just-in-time to be eaten.

All land becomes nutrient-dead.  It was a common problem before we discovered modern chemistry.  You can kind of do stuff with nitrogen.  Grow a legume and then plow it back into the soil.  Even if you do this, you just cut output in half, as you waste a year growing the legume.  So half the human population dies in that case.  The bigger problem is phosphate and potassium.  Good luck doing that without diesel.

An interesting case to see this, check out the price differential between organic eggs and regular eggs.  Now imagine what happens to the price if you remove diesel equipment and cheap electricity.  Another thing, a lot of organic produce that uses "natural" fertilizer trace back their nitrogen to natural gas.  If you spread manure, the cows that crapped that manure were fed corn  that was fertilized.  Use chickens on your pasture?  The feed you give them was fertilized.  If you remove natural gas derived nitrogen, diesel, and cheap electricity, more than half the population starves.  Heck we might lose 90%.  Starving people also spread disease epidemics.

I think we start seeing problems in about 50 years.  A sensible plan would be to remove hurdles for nukes, get serious about thorium, and remove hurdles for coal gasification.  You can get jet fuel, diesel, and nitrogen fertilizer from coal.

Luckily China and India are working on the nuke side out of necessity.  So hopefully we'll get more and more breakthroughs.
Can we get rid of this clown already plz

Aw come on, this topic really isn't THAT different from what a few around here normally say whenever economics is brought up.

The topic at hand is not the issue
I often mediate upon the waters of the womb possibly acting as a baptism in some scenarios.
  About the only thing plausible as the parents provide the Faith in Christ.  I'm dubious about it, but pray if you want.

Aborted babies whom the mother wants to kill?  No dice.

Also, why are we talking about "Baptism"?  We're talking about praying people into heaven.  This is the Mormon heresy.
Arts and Leisure / Re: What are you currently reading?
« Last post by MilesChristi on Today at 01:18:02 PM »
Antony and Cleopatra
Job Postings / Sales Job in London. 80K basic salary
« Last post by Greg on Today at 12:57:34 PM »
150 OTE.  Have to be 30 ish and a grafter.  Not a particularly complex product,  firm of 50 employees.

Office based in City of London.  Possible to work from home by 2019
Greg stated:
I agree, but a straight forward reading of scripture is hardly par for the course with the Church.
The Church teaches that in interpreting S.S. The literal meaning should generally be followed, unless there is sufficient reason to depart from this meaning; an example would be Our Lord telling His disciples that they must take up their cross and follow Him; or that we have to hate the members of our family in order to be His disciples. What are the compelling reasons to depart from the Genesis narrative? Macro evolution is impossible. Nature has no power to produce a spiritual, rational and immortal soul.

Yet if God makes men from slime then why make them similar biologically very similar to apes?

Why tempt man to think they must have a common ancestor?  Seems slight agent provacteur to me.  Like he is throwing chairs for me to fall over.

He certainly didn't pull out all the stops to make men very different.  If the closest beast was a lion, then evolution would be no accepted by a vast majority.
General Catholic Discussion / Re: New SSPX superior general!!
« Last post by Miriam_M on Today at 12:46:42 PM »
I hear you, Miriam, and believe me, I would be happy with Bp. Athanasius Schneider, or even someone like Cardinal Ejik, Ranjith or Sarah - neither of them perfect, I know. I'm not happy with the status quo, and I don't think you are either. At least the election of one of those mentioned above would be a step forward. I'm not saying Cardinal Burke will be the Angelic Pastor or anything like that but the election of someone like him would be a big step forward. He'd probably make Bp. Schneider the first Cardinal, so there's that. And then the rest can continue from there.

I want to make it clear that I am not a "purist" in the sense that some others are:  that is, those who demand public white martyrdoms of traditionalists among the hierarchy -- being "in your face" to the mainstream Church, including to Francis.  That is political suicide.  (Look what happened to +Burke earlier?  He was exiled for his public statements.)  And the trad apostolates who are in communion with Rome walk a fine line.  They announce token support for the modern Church on their websites, etc., while doing absolutely nothing about that on the ground (no modern teaching, preaching, liturgy, devotions).  That's the way they handle the impossible dichotomy.  And they make nicey- nice to the local bishop -- in some cases gritting their teeth and offering it as a penance -- because only through his approval are they allowed to function in his diocese, period.  I mean there really is no choice for these men; if they did otherwise, they would have to become materially Sede Vacante, if not formally. 

Rome is going to get its ounce of flesh, if not its pound.  It is not totally unlike the formal homage that had to be made to the Roman Empire in ancient times if you knew what was good for you, regardless of how you actually felt about the emperors and their armies.  The Vatican is a powerful political tool, and it is prepared to quash rebellion in the provinces (dioceses) in order to maintain its iron grip on its empire.  I don't think that's too dramatic a way to put it.  "Little rebellions" threaten them. They keep a close eye on them and send out their governors and spies.  I have experienced this myself fairly recently -- but in a good way, I suppose -- from a Monsignor checking up on an ultra-left parish in the diocese by attending one of its Masses, which had been reported on.  But as all trads have seen, Rome is far more interested in subduing and controlling Tradition than in keeping liberalism in check.  And Rome, ancient or modern, Takes No Prisoners.

So I do not criticize +Burke for being prudent enough to save his hide for the purpose of saving Tradition, if that's his purpose, but it is not necessary to revert to modernism in preaching in order to save one's hide.  Priests of the various apostolates don't mention the Council, or JP2 (which Burke does), or the other modern "saints" at Mass.  It's not necessary, and it confuses and dismays flocks who are at a TLM and are there for Tradition, not modernism.  It's unnecessary pandering on +Burke's part.  Honesty and fidelity in teaching and preaching is the least I ask of anyone who claims to support the traditionalist movement and the Restoration.  If his purpose in doing this is to be elevated to pope by the modernistic cardinals (slyly pretending to be in communion with them), then I suppose he will be looked on more favorably by the hierarchy, but it's disheartening to laity and casts doubt upon his authenticity as someone in a position of power leading the Restoration.
Who knows, in the future you might have a personal nuke, or one in every town.  At that point EVs make sense.  Walmart might have their own pebble bed reactors, or Mighty mite Fusion reactor at each distribution center, and use electric trucks.
I believe in abiogenic oil.  Thermodynamically at the pressures and temperatures of the crust you get natural gas and coal, not oil.  Furthermore biogenic natural gas will contain about 50% CO2.  We don't see that. 

As far as running out soon, not going to happen, except due to politics.  Shale wells in the US are break even at $50 due to better fracking techniques (still improving).  Argentina has MASSIVE oil reserves in the West by the Andies.  The problem there are the libtard policies.  Venezuela has massive reserves they've barely touched.  Eastern Colombia also has massive reserves.  There's an elephant field just discovered off the coast of Guyana.

From the report above:
with investment in public charging infrastructure being a necessary prerequisite to EV uptake globally.
Those pesky details.  IF enough people start taxing the grid at night with EVs, you'll see tiered pricing from utility boards.  You start sucking down megawatts and you'll pay big.  I think there is still slack at night and you'll see more EVs, but they aren't replacing gas/diesel.

Australia right now has a joke of a grid.  They have gone big time to wind, and that causes major headaches for them.  They already are having brown outs and black outs.

One more thing, the push for EVs is not about economics.  It's about the Climategate hoax.  Trump just put a bullet in that.  Climategate is dead until at least 2024.  They are already revolting against carbon taxes in Canada.
The approach to theistic evolution described by Greg seems consistent with the classical/scholastic understanding of humans as "rational animals".  We are not "just hairless apes".  We have souls like angels have in bodies like animals have.  Recognizing that we share common physical features with animals, while being significantly different from them, has always been part of Catholic thought.  I see no reason for this idea to suddenly start confusing people about the seriousness of sexual sins.

The problem is that it's difficult to see in the smooth transition from one primate to the next primate where "reason" magically comes in. The infusion of a rational soul by God? Most evolutionists do see the need for that so they assume that man is not any more a "rational animal" than a chimpazee, just one with a higher-functioning brain. Seeing as we are not "rational animals", there is no shame in fornicating like the other beasts; in fact, as Freud argues, it would be more damaging to us to not fornicate because that is "sexual repression". Can there be any denying that this is how evolutionists tend to think?

That very well may be the way that secular evolutionists think, but the whole point of theistic evolution is that it recognizes God as Creator.  God uses the process of evolution as a tool to create the physical form He wishes for humans  and then infuses the soul.  There is no reason to think that theistic evolutionists would reject the traditional concept of man as a rational animal or embrace a Freudian understanding of sex.

You are rejecting theistic evolution on the grounds that its proponents will make the same errors that secular evolutionists do, but this is highly unlikely because theistic evolution is significantly different.

Also, I don't think it agrees with the classical/scholastic understanding, because the classical/scholastic understanding is that the soul is the substantial form of the human body, not something stuffed into the body at some arbitrary point in its evolutionary line. The human body was made to live in union with the human soul; it did not have a kind of pre-existence as a spirit-less primate body.

As I understand the view of theistic evolution, it also posits that the human body was made to live in union with the human soul.  God created this human body over time rather than in an instant, exercising His Providence through the process of evolution.  Man was not ensouled at "some arbitrary point" but when the physical aspect matched the soul intended for it.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10