O
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Buffalo, why do you not fault the convenors of mathematics conferences for not inviting numerologists? Why do you not fault the American Chemical Society (portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content) for not creating conference space for alchemists to talk about transmutation of lead into gold? Why do you not fault the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for excluding flat-earthers from geography sessions? (I mean, the earth looks flat from my window).
StAnastasia
E
edwest2
Guest
You should read Communion and Stewardship. The Church does not give a blanket approbation to all theories of evolution and rejects any theory that denies God as a truly causal agent for development of life in the universe. That appears to include neo-Darwinism as presented here, which is self-sustaining and self-operating, and by purely ‘natural’ means which precludes the need for outside, i.e. supernatural, intervention. The current atheist dogma is based on evolution. Prior to Darwin, it was just, I don’t believe. After Darwin, it was, see, see, it works without God.
Peace,
Ed
A
Annie39
Guest
I don’t plan to argue in this forum with the modernist anti-Catholics but I will instruct. Please read what follows slowly. There are SCIENTISTS who want a seat at the table to discuss SCIENCE. They are NOT Creationists who attempt to use the bible to argue against evolution. These SCIENTISTS are chomping at the bit to counter the evolutionary ideologues with SCIENTIFIC truth. Those ideologues are frightened to near apoplexy at even the thought of such encounter.
H
hecd2
Guest
You are the person who claimed that Teilhard was implicated in the Piltdown fraud and I pointed out that he wasn’t. The decent thing to do would be either to produce some compelling evidence in support of your claim or withdraw it - not to attempt to libel him again.
You obviously know very little about Teilhard as a scientist. His paleaontological and geological work extended over thirty years and his collected published scientific work (these are scientific papers in serious scientific journals) covers over 4,500 pages in 11 volumes.
As for Peking Man, Teilhard joined the team (led by Davidson Black) excavating the Zhoukoudian cave during part of the time that the human fossils were being discovered. Peking Man is the popular name for the Homo erectus fossils found in Zhoukoudian cave, between 1928 and 1937.
The primary publication is Weidenreich, The skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis; a comparative study of a primitive skull, Palaeontologia Sinila.
A recent paper in Nature using the 26Al/10Be dates Peking Man to 680,000 to 780,000 years BP: Shen et al, Age of Zhoukoudian Homo erectus determined with 26Al/10Be burial dating, Nature 458, 198 - 200 (2009)
Was there anything else you’d like to know know about Peking Man?
And when are you going to apologise for accusing a decent of fraud without having a scrap of evidence? It’s not a very charitable or Christian attitude you know.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
B
buffalo
Guest
Did you miss my quote about the Church “being in fruitful dialogue with ID”?I think the Church has. That’s why ID wasn’t part of the conference.
Peace
Tim
M
mpartyka
Guest
If I’m understanding you correctly, your objection to evolutionary theory is not based on the evidence, which speaks to the fact that evolution did indeed occur, but is rather based on the presumption that being able to explain humanity’s rise from out of the animal kingdom through natural processes alone excludes (or renders unnecessary) the direct supernatural intervention of God. Sort of like, “If we can explain via natural processes how this occurred, then God’s involvement was unnecessary, and therefore we are free to believe that God was not involved, which in turn opens the door for us to believe that God does not even exist.” Is this an adequate interpretation of your views?
–Mike
O
Orogeny
Guest
The Church is in fruitful dialogue with Muslims and Jews, but I don’t think that the Church will say that either is the correct path to heaven.
Peace
Tim
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Annie, lying is not recommended by the Church. You shouldn’t lie, not about Teilhard, and not about “ideologues are frightened to near apoplexy at even the thought of such encounter.”
Now, if you’re not deceiving us, who are these “ideologues” about whom you speak vaguely? Who are the scientists who want a place at the table to counter evolution? What have they published that earns them the right to have a place at the table of conversation? Remember, some of them–like Michael Behe-- have already had their minutes in the sun, and even their day in court, and their work has been tried and found lacking.
StAnastasia
M
mpartyka
Guest
A
Annie39
Guest
Well Mike, I may surprise you here. I recommend that you send that book to the address below along with a note saying why you are sending it. For followup there is a telephone number and an email address. Try that.
Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation
952 Kelly Rd., Mt. Jackson, VA 22842
Tel: (540) 856-8453 E-Mail: howen@shentel.net
O
Orogeny
Guest
The Kolbe Center is not a scientific organization. They are an apologetics organization.
Peace
Tim
M
mpartyka
Guest
Is this the contact info for the second scientist whom you contacted to discuss the five points I listed earlier?
–Mike
E
edwest2
Guest
My objection is partially based on the evidence because it excludes other relevant material. This includes fossilized trees passing through many strata of rock and easily recognizable depictions of dinosaurs on historically recent pottery and metal. These things have never been adequately addressed here.
Second, evolution evangelism is ongoing here as if there was a deadline. There is no such deadline, which points to another reason: the promotion of atheism worldwide.
My view is not just my view. Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schoenborn have already been approached by scientists saying the same thing, i.e. look, this works without God or anything supernatural, which prompted them to write books.
Science is the tail of man’s knowledge, God is the head. Intellectual integrity has value, but it means little without spiritual integrity. The fantasy that human beings have entered an age where certain questions can be answered without reference to philosophy and Divine Revelation is only an ardent wish.
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
The fruitful dialogue is to bring them to truth. So either the Church will bring the IDer’s to truth, or the Ider’s will reinforce the truth. Now right from the beginning the Church understood the universe to be intelligible. It taught that we could recognize it. Re - cognize it.
B
buffalo
Guest
Oregeny is right, use raw papers where you can. Avoid both the evolutionary or creationist apologetics sites. Pure science sites void of philosophy are hard to find though.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Well, I guess we can be looking for IDers to come back to their senses at any time.
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
HeHeHe!Well, I guess we can be looking for IDers to come back to their senses at any time.
Peace
Tim
I am content to wait on this a bit. 
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Ed, your slandering is wrong to engage in, even for a Catholic. Most of us who are arguing for science are devout Catholics, not the fearsome atheists you imagine us to be.
B
buffalo
Guest
So what - even “devout” Catholics can be wrong.
- Status