Conference on Evolution

[StAnastasia]

Are you asserting did not possess Divine knowledge and that He is not the 2nd person of the Trinity?

There is a coherence problem with this question.

 

[buffalo]

There is a coherence problem with this question.

Are you asserting Jesus did not possess Divine knowledge and that He is not the 2nd person of the Trinity?

Fixed. Now that you can cohere the question, answer it.

 

[agbasinger]

PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION – 1-2009AD.

1. The administrators, whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world. As is well known to you, these specialists of ours have been drawing to fit them for rule the information they need from our political plans from the lessons of history, from observations made of the events of every moment as it passes. The GOYIM are not guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results. We need not, therefore, take any account of them - let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes, or live on hopes of new forms of enterprising pastime, or on the memories of all they have enjoyed. For them let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the GOYIM will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.

DESTRUCTIVE EDUCATION

3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism. To us, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM.

Really? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

 

[StAnastasia]

Are you asserting Jesus did not possess Divine knowledge and that He is not the 2nd person of the Trinity? Fixed. Now that you can cohere the question, answer it.

Tricky – you’ve asked two questions in one!

 

[buffalo]

Tricky – you’ve asked two questions in one!

Take them one at a time then.

 

[rossum]

Since Christ was Divine He certainly was familiar with His creation. First off, the Bible is not the total words and works of Jesus. He as the Bible states did and said so much more than can be written. Therefore we do not know for certain whether or not He spoke of this and other things. Second, He is under no obligation to tell us everything.

Third, he saw them when he was taken to the top of the mountain while being tempted and saw “all the kingdoms of the world”.



rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

Take them one at a time then.

Buffalo, I would be delighted to delve into a Christological discussion some day, but my editor has just emailed me that he needs my chapter by Monday, so I’m going to have to defer that intriguing conversation!

Ciao,
StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

Third, he saw them when he was taken to the top of the mountain while being tempted and saw “all the kingdoms of the world”.



rossum

Hey, thanks rossum. :bowdown:

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, I would be delighted to delve into a Christological discussion some day, but my editor has just emailed me that he needs my chapter by Monday, so I’m going to have to defer that intriguing conversation!

Ciao,
StAnastasia

I wish there was an smiley for " chicken".

 

[StAnastasia]

I wish there was an smiley for " chicken".

“an” smiley?

 

[buffalo]

“an” smiley?

the fungrs hav truble toodae

 

[grannymh]

the fungrs hav truble toodae

Your fungrs must be having a coherence problem.

 

[buffalo]

Your fungrs must be having a coherence problem.

If StA has been paying attention she will have notice my random mutations. The loss of information caused a loss of meaning and she had to ask questions.

 

[ricmat]

Buffalo, I would be delighted to delve into a Christological discussion some day, but my editor has just emailed me that he needs my chapter by Monday, so I’m going to have to defer that intriguing conversation.
Ciao,
StAnastasia

Buffalo! You need to “get with the program.” StA’s message above is what’s called a “put down.” Whenever he/she directly or indirectly mentions a publisher, that means that StA is publishing a book, and you’re not. When he/she mentions that he/she had dinner with Fr. Coyne of the Vatican observatory, that means that he/she is on a first name basis with somebody famous, and you’re not. When he/she wraps up a message with an Italian word, that’s supposed to remind you that he/she has just been to Rome (or maybe speaks Italian), and you have not. And so, Buffalo, WHO ARE YOU? Especially compared with StA? Hmm. Nobody, that’s who. How dare you ask questions or make comments under these circumstances. How dare you post opinions without having them “peer reviewed” first (or maybe that was EdW2). Put downs are intended to put you in your proper place. Remember your place Buffalo.

Perhaps we should accumulate a list of StA’s put downs for future reference so that the rest of us will know when we’re being put in our place.

Sarcasm mode = off.

Too bad the Rome conference didn’t require any humility classes.

 

[hecd2]

I have disappeared indeed. I am a very busy man. Maciej

Well you shouldn’t have appeared in the first place making assertions that you weren’t prepared to back up.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

If he [Alec] had taken the trouble to read the url on Prof. Giertych’s talk at the Sapienza conference November 3, last he would have all the evidence necessary to refute evolution theory from molecular biology.

If you, James (you’re not Peter Wilders or POG, are you?) had ever taken the trouble to read and understand just one undergraduate text book on evolutionary biology you would have all the evidence necessary to know that Maciej’s claims are indefensible.

Well, if you insist on the argument from authority rather than the argument from evidence, I will have to point you to the fact that the vastly overwhelming majority of biologists accept the fact of evolution.

I would like readers to examine this ironic statement in which he accuses someone of arguing from authority by using himself the most classic argument from authority one could imagine.

Note that I said if you insist on the argument from authority then I have to point out that my argument from authority trumps yours. I was making the point that the argument from authority is a very dangerous one for a creationist to use, because you will always be trumped. You are the one who introduced the argument from authority by complaining about people disagreeing with Maciej because he is a “geneticist of repute” and because he has “professional knowledge in biochemistry and genetics”. I don’t give two hoots whether he is a geneticist of repute or not - if his arguments are nonsense then they are nonsense whether he is a scientific ignoramus or a Nobel Laureate.

Guy Berthault took time out to reply to his web critique by email of December 4, 2007. Berthault wrote in French and to facilitate the exchange for MacAndrew it was translated into English. He requested MacAndrew to have the courtesy of publishing the rebuttal on his site.

Why should I publish it? Guy Berthault has a web site of his own - let him publish it there. But be sure, if he does so that it will get a robust response.

In fact the rebuttal addressed each item of his “key” criticisms on a numbered basis.

His points and questions were numbered - and I answered every single one of them on a numbered basis. But they did not answer my criticisms of his claims. He ignored most of them.

Having been taken short by Berthault’s experimental research being published by Academies of Science, no less, he resorts to the impossible task of attempting to decredibilise the publishers.

Decredibilise? I am incredibilised by the ugliness of that neologism. As I have said before, as far as the Russian publications go, I do not mean to denigrate Russian sedimentologists who, I am sure, are fine scientists, but the fact remains that Berthault’s Russian publications are of extremely poor quality and would not even get to peer review in high impact western journals. That is a problem for the editors of those Russian journals - not for me. If that means I am denigrating this particular Russian journal, so be it - the decision to publish these papers was very misguided.

And my criticism of the Russian and Chinese papers is supported by the fact that in spite of Berthault using all of the resources of the Kolbe Center and his creationist colleagues, such as you, to trumpet them, they have been utterly ignored in the professional geological community. None of them has a single citation as far as I know.

He does this, I imagine, on the basis that the texts do no flow in terms of grammar, syntax and vocabulary as they do in journals where the native language is English. The simple and well-known reason, accepted by scientific academia everywhere, is the inevitable lack of precision in translating foreign languages, especially from Russian, through French into English. I suggest he obtains the original Russian text and bases his criticism on that.

No - I am basing my criticism on the content of those poor papers.

An attentive reader will note the words “recent papers”. This allows earlier papers published by the French Geological Society and Academy to be overlooked.

Indeed, I have no criticism of the content of the French papers, but nor do I overlook them. I say in my article: All the experimental work on which he bases his claims was carried out fifteen years ago or more, and reported at the time in French journals (4), (5), (6). He was careful, in those papers not to make the radical claims that he and his followers have become known for. The assertion that his work has fundamental implications for geology was made later, in informal presentations and communications, on his website and by his creationist colleagues, quite outside the scientific peer review process.

I would remind you and others that his principle co-author in the French papers, Pierre Julien, a professional sedimentologist of immensely greater reputation and a much larger publication record than Berthault, disagrees fundamentally that the French papers support the absurd claims that Berthault later attached to them.

The fact is that the answer to the rhetorical question that I posed in the title of my article “The work of Guy Berthault: Revolutionary Geology or Extravagant Hubris?” is - extravagant hubris.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

 

[StAnastasia]

Would you please do me a favor? Please PM me some names of the Bishops who work with questions at the interface between science and religion and where they are located.Blessings,granny

Grannymh, An excellent book is God and Evolution (2006), by Jozef Zycinski, Archbishop of Lublin in Poland.

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver published an important address on religion and science a couple of years ago. Retired Bishop John Cummins of Oakland (whom was at the Rome conference) is establishing some sort of center for Catholic studies that will include a focus on religion and science. Most bishops I assume are deeply enmeshed in running their dioceses, but there are scholars among them. In fact, Archbishop John Quinn regularly held “bishops and scholars” colloquia in his diocese in the 1980s and 1990s; I’ll see if I can dig up any of the topics they discussed.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh, An excellent book is God and Evolution (2006), by Jozef Zycinski, Archbishop of Lublin in Poland.

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver published an important address on religion and science a couple of years ago. Retired Bishop John Cummins of Oakland (whom was at the Rome conference) is establishing some sort of center for Catholic studies that will include a focus on religion and science. Most bishops I assume are deeply enmeshed in running their dioceses, but there are scholars among them. In fact, Archbishop John Quinn regularly held “bishops and scholars” colloquia in his diocese in the 1980s and 1990s; I’ll see if I can dig up any of the topics they discussed.

StAnastasia

Thanks so much. Your mentioning of the Committee on Science and Human Values sounded like it would be hands-on interface. Also the retired Bishop who was at the Rome conference sounded interesting.

In your original post 282, you said: “I know personally a number of the bishops who work with questions at the interface between science and religion.” I was curious about these particular men. What you have given me is a start. It is appreciated.

 

[cassini]

Really? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

Yes, really. What matters is that everything in the book has come to pass. More than that. We can see for ourselves that the zionists can dictate to Rome that denying 3,000,000 Jews were gassed MUST be held as a DOGMA in the Church and any who do not believe must be EXCOMMUNICATED. There was another who spilled the beans about freemasonry and the Devil before the protocols called Diana Vaughan. The boys did a similar job on her and never again did a pope warn the flock about Luciferian masonry. That too was another attempt to get the likes of you and others to tow the line and do their work for them.

Heliocentricism and evolutionism are crucial in destroying faith in God.

 

[Namesake]

Yes, really. What matters is that everything in the book has come to pass. More than that. We can see for ourselves that the zionists can dictate to Rome that denying 3,000,000 Jews were gassed MUST be held as a DOGMA in the Church and any who do not believe must be EXCOMMUNICATED. There was another who spilled the beans about freemasonry and the Devil before the protocols called Diana Vaughan. The boys did a similar job on her and never again did a pope warn the flock about Luciferian masonry. That too was another attempt to get the likes of you and others to tow the line and do their work for them.

Heliocentricism and evolutionism are crucial in destroying faith in God.

Oh my, what a vast conspiracy that is!