S
StAnastasia
Guest
Are you and Ed and Ricmat on the same page on this issue? Or do you agree to disagree?
- Status
L
Luke65
Guest
You mean, did I know that before I saw you mention it about 1000 times?
This from a man who hides behind a woman’s name! I’m a man, baby! And a circuit board designer (amongst other things).
Well then, you should have no problem demonstrating just one thing I said about Evolution that is false. You just tried to do that and you fell flat on your face because you took my last sentence out of context from the previous sentences. Would you like to try again? No, of course not, because all you can do is huff and puff and blow smoke, and beat the pulp out of straw men, and then tell us to go get ourselves published. Throw down, StA! Let’s see one mistake I made. Pick a thread, any thread!
Et tu, Ricmat?
L
Luke65
Guest
Here’s how St. Augustine accurately described it:
“But if we should suppose that God now makes a creature without having implanted its kind (genus) in His original creation, we should flatly contradict Sacred Scripture, which says that on the sixth day God finished all His works. For it is obvious that in accordance with those kinds of creatures which He first made, God makes many new things which He did not make then. But we cannot believe that He establishes a new kind, since He finished all His works on the sixth day.” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 5, 41)
It appears that Augustine used the Latin word genus interchangeably with the generic Biblical word “kind”. And it appears that he was scientifically correct, i.e., a “kind” is closer to a genus than a species.
R
ricmat
Guest
You should just let the circuit boards evolve. I hear that it works much better than design.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I only asked that because I don’t think Ricmat rejects modern science to the same extent you do, Luke. I think he is not a Younger Earther, nor a geocentrist like Cassini. The rejection of science covers a wide range on Catholic Answers.Et tu, Ricmat?
A
Alethios
Guest
And the conclusions of the global scientific community are utterly irrelevant to us.
The demagogues of King Sci have sold out their souls for silver and gold, and abandoned the scientific method for myth-ods. The seven basic elements of the scientific world now are Time, Space, Matter, Energy, Power, Prestige, and Funding.
The naive public puts science leaders on a pedestal of objective purity, when they belong in the gutter along with the pols, lawyers and used car salesman.
How long can we ignore the fraud and fabrication of false reports in science that surround us?
Just yesterday we received this letter:
I am an “ex” scientist. I have over 100 publications in the field of materials science and physics. Many of these publications are in peer reviewed journals such as The Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Materials Research Society Journal and Journal of Applied Physics. I have sat on committees that review papers for these journals. I have worked at the following national laboratories: NIST, Oak Ridge and Brookhaven National Laboratory. I have spent 10 years living off of federally funded research. I have written winning proposals for government funding in the 10’s of millions of dollars. In short, I am very well aware of the process of getting and keeping funding and getting papers published in peer reviewed publications.
I have seen papers (perfectly good, well researched) papers rejected for publication for the following reasons:
*]The paper went against prevailing theory on a topic.
*]The paper was submitted by a company that was a competitor for government funding.
*]The paper was submitted by a government agency that was a competitor of the reviewer’s agency.
*]The author of the paper was disliked by one of the reviewers.
This is how the funding process works:
*]You determine what the latest ‘hot’ topic is (global warming, ceramic superconductivity, stealth technology).
*]You write your proposal to fund the work you’ve been doing for years in your area but you slant it towards the hot topic.
*]You almost “prove” that the above hot topic is effected in a way that is positive toward your research.
*]You write a follow-on proposal where you state that the really big break-through will occur in the next funding cycle.
*]Oh, and you try to partner with entities that always get government funding.
It works like this: You study frogs in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Nobody wants to fund the study of frogs. Why would they? So in the early 80’s you write your proposal to study the effect of the hole in the ozone layer on the frogs. In the mid 80’s you try to figure out how to write a proposal on frogs and missile defense but give up. In the 90’s you write proposals on how frog pee can help cure certain forms of cancer. You partner with NIH on this because they are getting lots of funding, being the ‘hot’ agency. You both know that the results are useless from the get-go but you do it anyway. In the late 90’s you write proposals on how frogs from South Dakota can be used to detect nerve gas as part of the Global War on Terrorism. To protect your frog proposal, as a reviewer, you routinely reject papers to the Journal of Herpetology that claim that five lined skinks can detect nerve gas by their tails falling off. In the 2000’s you are awarded grants to study the decline of frog populations in the Black Hills due to global warming, despite the fact the frogs were there through the last dozen ice ages and that they’ve survived eight periods since the last ice age where the temperature was much warmer than now. You know that the frog population is declining because the government is leasing the land to cattle ranchers and the cows are dumping their meadow muffins in the water but you don’t really care because you’re now just a few years away from retirement and you don’t want to work at Burger King.
The modern science establishment has abandoned their standards for their own brand of symbolism: speculation …evidence was stated in prior posts.
Wherever modern science rejects the scientific method of Aristotle and Bacon and Popper, we reject their evidence as invalid.
This thread uses Sacred Tradition as a valid theological rule of evidence. The belief of the Fathers was that Genesis was to be read primo ad litteram.
The opinions of Biblical revisionists and modernists are not part of Sacred Tradition and so not a valid base of evidence.
AMDG
R
reggieM
Guest
Our “quaint opinions” suddently become very relevant when they’re looking for government funding. See Jerry Coyne’s “dirty little secret” where he admits to lying in order to promote the quaint idea that evolution is actually compatible with religious belief.
R
reggieM
Guest
Insect wings were already present before wings supposedly evolved independently in unrelated species of dinosaurs. Perhaps the dinos looked at insects and decided to grow wings like those.
The first known cellular life is as (vastly and incomprehensibly) complex as cellular life is today. Evolution shows nothing at that level. After trillions of trillions of mutations, bacteria remains bacteria. There should be an endless supply of multicellular organisms evolving out of bacterial pools – at an observably rapid rate. But none do.
R
reggieM
Guest
Atheists make up evolutionary theories.
R
reggieM
Guest
Interesting question. We can be 100% certain that none of the evolutionary promoters here on CAF have personally tested every evolutionary claim that they adhere to and promote. They accept the claims based on trust in the scientists.
So, it is an argument of authority. We have to trust the claims of the scientists and the peer-review. If there is bias, ideological blindness, politics anti-religious motives and downright lying (as admitted) – then the trust breaks down.
If scientists make fraudulent claims in some areas to support non-scientific motives, then it is reasonable and legitimate to doubt claims made in other areas – especially where they cannot be defended logically.
R
reggieM
Guest
That is quite amazing. It definitely rings true – a nice explanation of the various incentives and motives that go behind scientific research. The politically and ideologically skewed claims that come out of the science culture should also be obvious to anyone.
This is basically the foundation and core of the evolution-industry itself. Many scientitsts make a name and good income on absurd and useless conjectures presented as evolutionary theories. Proof of this can be found in the news on nearly a daily basis.
The most recent I found – Baldness in men is an evolutionary adaptation providing survival advantage – why? Because younger women are attracted to men with receeding hairlines.
Actually, this is not evolutionary science, but the evolutionary entertainment industry. Mr. Dawkins is the top stand-up comic among them.
It really should be hilarious if so many souls were not lost to atheism as a result. That is a very serious price to pay.
E
edwest2
Guest
I think the science needs to be looked at from its obvious social impact. We are called to evangelize the world. God, in the flesh, lived, died and rose again for us. This gift is to our eternal benefit, both here and in the life to come. God will give us what our hearts desire.
But what are the implications of a young mind being shown a process that works all by itself, like a machine?
You are just another animal. This is reinforced by the media referring to chimps as our evolutionary cousins. Men are compared to animals regarding our behavior.
Men are reduced to biological devices whose primary purpose is successful reproduction. We became smarter, we’re told, because our always mutating genetic material just kept improving on its starting design. And now that we’re on Man v 2.0, we are running around telling each other how smart we are.
And God? Pfft! Just sitting around, useless. My brothers and sisters in Christ, we are, or should be, in a relationship with the Living God. However, the god Science is saying, you shall have no other gods besides me. And its followers are going around evangelizing for this god. Evolution is a fact! Really? Then it’s obvious why that needs to be repeated over and over and it has nothing to do with science. Keep your God out of public schools so that we can teach kids about our secular god. The devil works through deception and by convincing us to accept an imitation instead of the real thing.
The Church tells us that God was a direct causal agent in the process of developing life in the universe. “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
That is why evolution supporters come here. They refuse to mix religion and science but they do not hesitate to claim that science shows that this or that part of the Bible is wrong, which shows that their claims are false. If science cannot comment on the supernatural then they should not comment on the work of God or say things like, Well, you must not have interpreted your holy book right because science says this. Unless there is a Science of Interpreting Holy Books, and there isn’t, or peer reviewed papers doing the same, or commenting on God, and there aren’t, there is no way they can use ‘science’ to comment on the Holy Bible.
Peace,
Ed
But what are the implications of a young mind being shown a process that works all by itself, like a machine?
You are just another animal. This is reinforced by the media referring to chimps as our evolutionary cousins. Men are compared to animals regarding our behavior.
Men are reduced to biological devices whose primary purpose is successful reproduction. We became smarter, we’re told, because our always mutating genetic material just kept improving on its starting design. And now that we’re on Man v 2.0, we are running around telling each other how smart we are.
And God? Pfft! Just sitting around, useless. My brothers and sisters in Christ, we are, or should be, in a relationship with the Living God. However, the god Science is saying, you shall have no other gods besides me. And its followers are going around evangelizing for this god. Evolution is a fact! Really? Then it’s obvious why that needs to be repeated over and over and it has nothing to do with science. Keep your God out of public schools so that we can teach kids about our secular god. The devil works through deception and by convincing us to accept an imitation instead of the real thing.
The Church tells us that God was a direct causal agent in the process of developing life in the universe. “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
That is why evolution supporters come here. They refuse to mix religion and science but they do not hesitate to claim that science shows that this or that part of the Bible is wrong, which shows that their claims are false. If science cannot comment on the supernatural then they should not comment on the work of God or say things like, Well, you must not have interpreted your holy book right because science says this. Unless there is a Science of Interpreting Holy Books, and there isn’t, or peer reviewed papers doing the same, or commenting on God, and there aren’t, there is no way they can use ‘science’ to comment on the Holy Bible.
Peace,
Ed
A
Alethios
Guest
Not so. As already posted:
- The Cologne Magisterium rejected evolution a year after Darwin’s pub. date.
- In the 4 decades after 1859, the Holy Office of Rome rejected several books on evolution by wayward clerics.
Was the pupose to create mass confusion among the faithful for 60 years?
Whatever the intent, that is surely the result.
AMDG
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What were those books?
R
reggieM
Guest
Excellent point. I do find that to be an amazing fact. We get commentaries on the meaning of the Divine Word by evolutionary atheists – and of course, they lecture on the meaning of their own evolutionary-religion also.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Not true.
G
grannymh
Guest
**Rekindling Eucharistic Amazement **
“Let our adoration never cease!”
Pope John Paul II
*The Real Presence of Jesus Christ **
in the Eucharist
is the greatest, unique, ***
and incomparable “Miracle”
**beyond the realm **
of human sensory experience.
“Let our adoration never cease!”
Pope John Paul II
*The Real Presence of Jesus Christ **
in the Eucharist
is the greatest, unique, ***
and incomparable “Miracle”
**beyond the realm **
of human sensory experience.
R
ricmat
Guest
In about every third or fourth post, you suggest that someone present a paper to a scientific conference. It seems that it really is important to you. If it is not, perhaps you should stop suggesting it.
R
ricmat
Guest
I reject bad science. You should too. There is a lot of bad science going around. Global warming is a good example. The role of gravity in cosmology to explain almost everything (even when it doesn’t explain it) is another example.
The TOE offers a simple and very appealing explanation for some people of how things might have occurred. But it is far short of what I personally consider “good enough” to fall in the category of a sure thing, or proven, or a fact (which seems to be the default position of many here). But then, as an engineer, I always had to “make it work” - not just theorize about how it was supposed to work. So I guess my standards are just higher than average.
I’m not a young earther, nor a geocentrist (although that depends on the definition of geocentrism).
Something that all scientists (especially) should be aware of is something that St. Thomas Aquinas said. A small error in the beginning leads to a big error in the end (or something like that). There is a huge impulse to fit new data into the existing framework of “what we know.” That may sometimes be a good idea, but if what we know is wrong, then a house of cards is just being built.
And no, I’m not going to submit a paper on this subject, thank you.
L
Luke65
Guest
Come on, StA, surely you know that I (we) don’t reject science. I’ve just come to love science in the last few years. Its the Godless assumptions that mainstream science has chosen to employ when studying God’s creation that I reject. They rule out the truth before they even look at the evidence. Its the height of stupidity and arrogance. And God will not be mocked. But tell me, StA, do you reject this science:
Ooh, the axis the universe rotates on is “evil”! Of course, this is because the universe having an axis explodes the standard model of the Big Bang, which says that the universe has no center or edge and thus no axis. But, of course, Geocentrism predicts that the universe rotates on an axis, and that we would find that axis “roughly along that of our Galaxy”, in fact, right through the earth! Pretty good prediction, eh? I wonder what the odds are that the universe’s axis would run right through our own backyard - almost as if we’re in a “special place” in the universe! And, btw, there are other lines of evidence:
- Status