H
Hope1960
Guest
What does that have to do with the topic?
- Status
E
edwest211
Guest
Poor dodge. -10 to strike.
B
buffalo
Guest
Primary theological message - the unity of man and woman. He didn’t deny it.
I
IWantGod
Guest
No, really. What does it have to do with this topic?
B
buffalo
Guest
Evolution’s Blunders, Frauds and Forgeries (New 2017)
While most people might be able to name one or two, few are aware of the sheer number of embarrassing deceptions used to prop up evolutionary theory. This book highlights multiple examples that have misled generations. Some, like the famous Piltdown Man fraud, took many decades to uncover while leading evolutionists kept singing its praises to an increasingly indoctrinated public. How many of us know about how a misidentification of the chemical reaction between alcohol and the calcium carbonate in seawater, something chemists at the time were certainly aware of, led leading evolutionists to breathlessly proclaim incipient life covered the ocean floor? Who knows that genera and species were invented to support the fact of evolution? The countless fakes and mistakes are not mild aberrations in a self-correcting march to truth. In fact, evolutionary theory itself comes under severe pressure from the evidence in this book. For instance, diagrams of developing embryos, from a supposedly expert academic, were so useful in persuading people that evolution was unquestionably true that their exposure as fraudulent was ignored. It took over 100 years for this fraud to be re-exposed, and textbook publishers have still been very reluctant to drop it. More recently, National Geographic triumphantly proclaimed a hybrid fossil as an ideal intermediate between birds and dinosaurs. Their forced retraction of this glued-together monstrosity was barely noticeable. Disturbingly, the author also highlights secular work showing that, especially in the life sciences, we are presently in the grip of an unprecedented epidemic of scientific fraud. This eye-opening work should cause many to question their belief in evolution as scientific fact and encourage everyone to critically examine all future evolutionary claims.
https://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Blunders-Frauds-Forgeries-Bergman/dp/1942773595
While most people might be able to name one or two, few are aware of the sheer number of embarrassing deceptions used to prop up evolutionary theory. This book highlights multiple examples that have misled generations. Some, like the famous Piltdown Man fraud, took many decades to uncover while leading evolutionists kept singing its praises to an increasingly indoctrinated public. How many of us know about how a misidentification of the chemical reaction between alcohol and the calcium carbonate in seawater, something chemists at the time were certainly aware of, led leading evolutionists to breathlessly proclaim incipient life covered the ocean floor? Who knows that genera and species were invented to support the fact of evolution? The countless fakes and mistakes are not mild aberrations in a self-correcting march to truth. In fact, evolutionary theory itself comes under severe pressure from the evidence in this book. For instance, diagrams of developing embryos, from a supposedly expert academic, were so useful in persuading people that evolution was unquestionably true that their exposure as fraudulent was ignored. It took over 100 years for this fraud to be re-exposed, and textbook publishers have still been very reluctant to drop it. More recently, National Geographic triumphantly proclaimed a hybrid fossil as an ideal intermediate between birds and dinosaurs. Their forced retraction of this glued-together monstrosity was barely noticeable. Disturbingly, the author also highlights secular work showing that, especially in the life sciences, we are presently in the grip of an unprecedented epidemic of scientific fraud. This eye-opening work should cause many to question their belief in evolution as scientific fact and encourage everyone to critically examine all future evolutionary claims.
https://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Blunders-Frauds-Forgeries-Bergman/dp/1942773595
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Intelligently designed
Study sheds light on bacterial propeller assembly
As single-celled organisms, bacteria have devised elegant methods to move around their environment. The flagellum consists of a microscopic motor, which provides torque, and a long, rigid, spiral-shaped filament that drives propulsion. The motor and filament are connected by a flexible hook, which allows the bacteria to “steer.” Much like any other motor, the parts of the flagellum have to be put together in exactly the right order.
"Flagellar assembly is a complex process involving more than 70 genes," lead author Naoya Terahara explains. “First, the basal motor is assembled, followed by the hook, and finally the helical filament. Each structure is built by sending a unique set of proteins to the site of assembly. The cell can somehow sense when each structure is complete, triggering a switch to export the next series of proteins. We wanted to develop a more detailed picture of how this switching occurs.”
phys.org
Study sheds light on bacterial propeller assembly
As single-celled organisms, bacteria have devised elegant methods to move around their environment. The flagellum consists of a microscopic motor, which provides torque, and a long, rigid, spiral-shaped filament that drives propulsion. The motor and filament are connected by a flexible hook, which allows the bacteria to “steer.” Much like any other motor, the parts of the flagellum have to be put together in exactly the right order.
"Flagellar assembly is a complex process involving more than 70 genes," lead author Naoya Terahara explains. “First, the basal motor is assembled, followed by the hook, and finally the helical filament. Each structure is built by sending a unique set of proteins to the site of assembly. The cell can somehow sense when each structure is complete, triggering a switch to export the next series of proteins. We wanted to develop a more detailed picture of how this switching occurs.”
Study sheds light on bacterial propeller assembly
Many bacteria are equipped with a flagellum, a helical propeller that allows bacteria to travel. The flagellum is assembled in a highly organized manner involving the stepwise addition of each of its internal parts. However, there are many open questions as to how this orderly construction is...
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
But you and @buffalo are?
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
The Pope still hasnt’t explained in clear detail how he ended up with a bellybutton.
I’m writing a Dubia.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
It’s confusing, because @buffalo, @edwest211, @chunkmonk, and others are all over the place. At times it seems they are saying NO Catholic can accept ANY evolution whatsoever. At other times, they say only micro-evolution is allowable. Still other times, they admit that the Popes DO allow for evolution of the human body, but they are just “ignorant” or are manipulating/diminishing Scripture. And then, again, sometimes the Church is merely allowing discussion and research — but not the findings of evolution itself (a rather strange concession. Talk about beating around the bush).
STILL other times, they are offering massive amounts of references and quotes from Popes and the Church that really are only critiquing certain aspects of evolution — especially evolution as a philosophy (e.g., materialism or atheism) — or are setting certain limits, like monogenism and the human soul. And these quotes often have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
At other times, they are merely offering scientific critiques, as if the thread is talking about the scientific evidence for or against evolution. That’s not the relevant discussion. Science aside, can a Catholic accept that evidence FOR evolution?
And too often, they are forming straw men, implying that those Catholics who would hold to evolution are denying God, or at least God’s providential design, or are rejecting the inerrancy of Scripture, or are rejecting Man’s spirit, or are casting aside a literal first couple.
All in all, the conversation is all over the place, and really it comes down to this. @edwest211, @buffalo, and @chunkmonk, please answer:
Is a Catholic who accepts biological evolution of organisms (macro-evolution) and the prior evolution of the human body AT ODDS WITH the Magisterium? Don’t tell me it’s not scientific, or it implies contradicting Scripture. That’s your opinion. But tell me: Can a Catholic be FAITHFUL to the Church’s teaching authority and still accept biological evolution as the means God used to create his wonderful diversity, including the formation of the human body?
STILL other times, they are offering massive amounts of references and quotes from Popes and the Church that really are only critiquing certain aspects of evolution — especially evolution as a philosophy (e.g., materialism or atheism) — or are setting certain limits, like monogenism and the human soul. And these quotes often have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
At other times, they are merely offering scientific critiques, as if the thread is talking about the scientific evidence for or against evolution. That’s not the relevant discussion. Science aside, can a Catholic accept that evidence FOR evolution?
And too often, they are forming straw men, implying that those Catholics who would hold to evolution are denying God, or at least God’s providential design, or are rejecting the inerrancy of Scripture, or are rejecting Man’s spirit, or are casting aside a literal first couple.
All in all, the conversation is all over the place, and really it comes down to this. @edwest211, @buffalo, and @chunkmonk, please answer:
Is a Catholic who accepts biological evolution of organisms (macro-evolution) and the prior evolution of the human body AT ODDS WITH the Magisterium? Don’t tell me it’s not scientific, or it implies contradicting Scripture. That’s your opinion. But tell me: Can a Catholic be FAITHFUL to the Church’s teaching authority and still accept biological evolution as the means God used to create his wonderful diversity, including the formation of the human body?
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
UPDATE.
Only 3% of the more than 150 responses so far say that a Catholic MUST adhere to a literalistic interpretation of Genesis.
Less than 5 of 150 responses so far seem to think that the Church requires creationism, in the sense of no evolution. You’d think if it were the other way around, more people — especially on CAF — would know better.
A poll does not prove the truth of the matter, but the poll’s results do advance my objective for it: To determine how Catholics understand what the magisterium teaches.
Again, even the Creationist-Only folk want to refer to the magisterium too. So since both sides use the magisterium, a poll helps to see what, in fact, is the most obvious impression the magisterium gives. And like the poll, the greater Catholic world in general – as evidenced by such organizations as Catholic Answers – also understands that the magisterium allows for evolution, even of the human body!
Only 3% of the more than 150 responses so far say that a Catholic MUST adhere to a literalistic interpretation of Genesis.
Less than 5 of 150 responses so far seem to think that the Church requires creationism, in the sense of no evolution. You’d think if it were the other way around, more people — especially on CAF — would know better.
A poll does not prove the truth of the matter, but the poll’s results do advance my objective for it: To determine how Catholics understand what the magisterium teaches.
Again, even the Creationist-Only folk want to refer to the magisterium too. So since both sides use the magisterium, a poll helps to see what, in fact, is the most obvious impression the magisterium gives. And like the poll, the greater Catholic world in general – as evidenced by such organizations as Catholic Answers – also understands that the magisterium allows for evolution, even of the human body!
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Theory of Evolution Judged by Reason and Faith,
Though published in 1959, this work is more important than ever in our times since the question of evolution is central to the errors of Modernism. A scholarly study, Cardinal Ruffini (1888-1967) expounds what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject, and then ably demonstrates how modern science contradicts the theories of evolutionists.
https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Evolution-Judged-Reason-Faith/dp/B001O1I61Y
Though published in 1959, this work is more important than ever in our times since the question of evolution is central to the errors of Modernism. A scholarly study, Cardinal Ruffini (1888-1967) expounds what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject, and then ably demonstrates how modern science contradicts the theories of evolutionists.
https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Evolution-Judged-Reason-Faith/dp/B001O1I61Y
L
LoyalViews
Guest
I believe in it. There’s nothing wrong with it. If it’s wrong, then, I’ll be delighted to believe in whatever new theory comes about. I just know that the soul doesn’t evolve. At some point, as BXVI used to explain, as God “pulled us toward our human state” a soul was infused. From that point onward, humanity existed.
B
buffalo
Guest
Call me surprised. No Catholic should believe in a literalistic interpretation of Genesis…
B
buffalo
Guest
He did not need a belly button. Neither did Eve.
H
Hope1960
Guest
Since you say that no Catholic should believe in a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, I sent you an invite to another thread on Moses and The Exodus.
B
buffalo
Guest
NAS report on “The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science”
The National Association of Scholars (NAS) has long been interested in the politicization of science.
We have also long been interested in the search for truth—but mainly as it pertains to the humanities and social sciences. The irreproducibility crisis brings together our two long-time interests, because the inability of science to discern truth properly and its politicization go hand in hand.
and
Outright Fraud
Actual fraud on the part of researchers appears to be a growing problem. Why do scientists take the risk of making things up when, over the long term, it is almost certain that the fraud will be detected? No
doubt in some cases the researchers are engaged in wishful thinking. Even if their research does not support their hypothesis, they imagine the hypothesis will eventually be vindicated, and publishing a fictitious claim now will help sustain the research long enough to vindicate the original idea.
and
A reproducibility crisis afflicts a wide range of scientific and social-scientific disciplines, from epidemiology to social psychology. Improper use of statistics, arbitrary research techniques, lack of accountability, political groupthink, and a scientific culture biased toward producing positive results together have produced a critical state of affairs. Many supposedly scientific results cannot be reproduced in subsequent investigations.
This study examines the different aspects of the reproducibility crisis of modern science. The report also includes a series of policy recommendations, scientific and political, for alleviating the reproducibility crisis.
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/NAS_irreproducibilityReport_preface.pdf
The National Association of Scholars (NAS) has long been interested in the politicization of science.
We have also long been interested in the search for truth—but mainly as it pertains to the humanities and social sciences. The irreproducibility crisis brings together our two long-time interests, because the inability of science to discern truth properly and its politicization go hand in hand.
and
Outright Fraud
Actual fraud on the part of researchers appears to be a growing problem. Why do scientists take the risk of making things up when, over the long term, it is almost certain that the fraud will be detected? No
doubt in some cases the researchers are engaged in wishful thinking. Even if their research does not support their hypothesis, they imagine the hypothesis will eventually be vindicated, and publishing a fictitious claim now will help sustain the research long enough to vindicate the original idea.
and
A reproducibility crisis afflicts a wide range of scientific and social-scientific disciplines, from epidemiology to social psychology. Improper use of statistics, arbitrary research techniques, lack of accountability, political groupthink, and a scientific culture biased toward producing positive results together have produced a critical state of affairs. Many supposedly scientific results cannot be reproduced in subsequent investigations.
This study examines the different aspects of the reproducibility crisis of modern science. The report also includes a series of policy recommendations, scientific and political, for alleviating the reproducibility crisis.
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/NAS_irreproducibilityReport_preface.pdf
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
cont’d
For all that, The Irreproducibility Crisis deals with only part of a larger problem. Scientists are only human and are prey to the same temptations as anyone else. To the extent that American higher education has become dominated by ideologies that scoff at traditional ethical boundaries and promote an aggressive win-at-all-costs mentality, reforming the technical and analytic side of science will go only so far towards restoring the integrity of scientific inquiry. We need a more comprehensive reform of the university that will instill in students a lifelong fidelity to the truth.
This report, therefore, is just one step towards the necessary renovation of American higher education. The credibility of the natural sciences is eroding. Let’s stop that erosion and then see whether the sciences can, in turn, teach the rest of the university how to extract itself from the quicksand of political advocacy
For all that, The Irreproducibility Crisis deals with only part of a larger problem. Scientists are only human and are prey to the same temptations as anyone else. To the extent that American higher education has become dominated by ideologies that scoff at traditional ethical boundaries and promote an aggressive win-at-all-costs mentality, reforming the technical and analytic side of science will go only so far towards restoring the integrity of scientific inquiry. We need a more comprehensive reform of the university that will instill in students a lifelong fidelity to the truth.
This report, therefore, is just one step towards the necessary renovation of American higher education. The credibility of the natural sciences is eroding. Let’s stop that erosion and then see whether the sciences can, in turn, teach the rest of the university how to extract itself from the quicksand of political advocacy
Last edited:
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
If they reject the Scripture and the literal history of Genesis than they are at odds with the Magesterium.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
See this is a bit of a trick, isn’t it? Because you don’t seem to care at all about the actual Magesterium. You’ll quote three Popes who gave private comments, over and over, and ignore or outright reject the entire 1900 years of Magesterial teaching that genesis is literal history. That isn’t you “caring about the Magesterium” that is you deciding that you’ll follow the “Magesterium” when it confirms your preconcieved notion and rejecting it when it doesn’t. To be perfectly honest, I have very littke doubt that if Francis called a council tomorrow and they universally agreed that Genesis was literal history, you would still be on here saying “the Magesterium allows me to believe in evolution; Genesis is mythology” and I have little doubt that you would do this because we’ve already given you authoritative documents from Popes and Councils saying just that and you ignored some and then just ourright rejected others. To be perfectly honest, I’m starting to think if God came down and wrote in the sky in big fiery letters: “I created the world in six literal days” you would shrug it off and say “well haha, what does he mean by literal? He obviously means mythological”
The 81% don’t care what the “Magesterium” says. They can’t find a single authoritative document that supports their theory. For some of them, they are ignorant. The others? Their real god is evolution so if God tells them it isn’t evolution they reject God.
E
edwest211
Guest
Thank you. The more they find out the less any of it could be formed by chance. Sensors and switches? Great stuff. Guided design works. Infallibly.
- Status