B
buffalo
Guest
Somebody help me!!! What is Isabus saying?:whacky:
- Status
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
He’s saying you have fallen into a well-known heresy. When he compares what you have posted with free-masonry, he sees points of conjunction.
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
What is it? I am not really aware of the tenets of freemasonry. What heresy have I been articulating?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I have tried to interpret his remark, as I understand it (without necessarily endorsing it.) You’ll have to ask him directly about Free Masonry – I’m not an expert there.
But look at the title of this thread. Would you say you’re arguing the affirmative? That is, you have positioned yourself in the camp of those who object to evolution because, if true, it WOULD refute Catholicism?
L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
vern humphrey:
All freemasons believe in God. They are not anti-catholic, just the Catholic Church doesn’t let it’s followers be freemason. I’m sure he’s not a freemason, if he was he’d say he is. Who would be ashamed at what they believe?
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Here are a few quotes from Albert Pike, who is called “the Godfather of Freemasonry”.
**On July 14, 1889, Pike wrote to all the 23 formal Supreme Councils: “… The Masonic religion should be by all us Initiates of the High Degree maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. Yes, Lucifer is God and the true and pure religion is the belief in Lucifer”. **
Albert Pike wrote a book called “Morals and Dogma” which is considered the “Bible” of Freemasonry. On page 321 of the book it says: **“Lucifer the light bearer. Lucifer the Son of the morning. Is it he who bears the light?… Doubt it not”. **
The reason most Masons are not aware of this is because the higher degrees do not reveal it to them. The following is taken from the same book, written by Pike:
“The blue degrees (the first three) are no more than the outer door of the Temple portal. Part of the symbols are explained here to the Initiate, but he is intentionally deceived with false interpretations. It is not intended that he understand them, but it is intended that he imagine he understands them. Their true interpretation is reserved for the Initiated Ones, the Princes of Masonry” (Pg. 819). “Masonry,” continues Pike, “like all religions, all mysteries, hermeticisms, and alchemies, hides secrets from everyone except the Initiated, Sages or Elects, and employs false explanations and interpretations of its symbols to deceive those who deserve to be deceived and to hide from them the truth, which is called LIGHT, and to separate them from it”(Quotes taken from “The Mystery of Freemasonry Revealed” pg. 33-34).
From the book, The Lost Keys of Freemasonry, by Manly P. Hall, a Masonic author, writes: “The Mason’s order is not a mere social organization, but is composed of all those who have banded themselves together to learn and apply the principles of mysticism and the occult rites” (pg. 19). He continues on page 48: "When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands… ".
**Tigrotto, one of the Alta Vendita chiefs declared, in 1822, "Catholicism must be destroyed throughout the whole world… Let us conspire only against Rome".
Now maybe we can understand why the Church has condemned Masonry so strongly, and warned Catholic not to be involved in it.
I have a friend whose dad was a Mason for many years. She is a good Catholic and tried repeatedly to warn him about it. He would not listen. One day, after she had given him a lot of things to read, he said to her “the Masons have been good to me” (they had helped him financially_. She responded by saying “yeah, but they haven’t been good for your soul”. He dropped his eyes and did not say a word.
A few years ago I was a Mass. I noticed that she was there with her father and mother (who had not been to the sacraments in years). Her father went to confession and confessed his long involvment with the Masons.
He had risen to the higher degrees and was no longer ignorant of what the Masons really represent. Fortunately, through her prayers, everything turned out alright.
**On July 14, 1889, Pike wrote to all the 23 formal Supreme Councils: “… The Masonic religion should be by all us Initiates of the High Degree maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. Yes, Lucifer is God and the true and pure religion is the belief in Lucifer”. **
Albert Pike wrote a book called “Morals and Dogma” which is considered the “Bible” of Freemasonry. On page 321 of the book it says: **“Lucifer the light bearer. Lucifer the Son of the morning. Is it he who bears the light?… Doubt it not”. **
The reason most Masons are not aware of this is because the higher degrees do not reveal it to them. The following is taken from the same book, written by Pike:
“The blue degrees (the first three) are no more than the outer door of the Temple portal. Part of the symbols are explained here to the Initiate, but he is intentionally deceived with false interpretations. It is not intended that he understand them, but it is intended that he imagine he understands them. Their true interpretation is reserved for the Initiated Ones, the Princes of Masonry” (Pg. 819). “Masonry,” continues Pike, “like all religions, all mysteries, hermeticisms, and alchemies, hides secrets from everyone except the Initiated, Sages or Elects, and employs false explanations and interpretations of its symbols to deceive those who deserve to be deceived and to hide from them the truth, which is called LIGHT, and to separate them from it”(Quotes taken from “The Mystery of Freemasonry Revealed” pg. 33-34).
From the book, The Lost Keys of Freemasonry, by Manly P. Hall, a Masonic author, writes: “The Mason’s order is not a mere social organization, but is composed of all those who have banded themselves together to learn and apply the principles of mysticism and the occult rites” (pg. 19). He continues on page 48: "When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands… ".
**Tigrotto, one of the Alta Vendita chiefs declared, in 1822, "Catholicism must be destroyed throughout the whole world… Let us conspire only against Rome".
Now maybe we can understand why the Church has condemned Masonry so strongly, and warned Catholic not to be involved in it.
I have a friend whose dad was a Mason for many years. She is a good Catholic and tried repeatedly to warn him about it. He would not listen. One day, after she had given him a lot of things to read, he said to her “the Masons have been good to me” (they had helped him financially_. She responded by saying “yeah, but they haven’t been good for your soul”. He dropped his eyes and did not say a word.
A few years ago I was a Mass. I noticed that she was there with her father and mother (who had not been to the sacraments in years). Her father went to confession and confessed his long involvment with the Masons.
He had risen to the higher degrees and was no longer ignorant of what the Masons really represent. Fortunately, through her prayers, everything turned out alright.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Here are a few quotes from Albert Pike, who is called “the Godfather of Freemasonry”.
**On July 14, 1889, Pike wrote to all the 23 formal Supreme Councils: “… The Masonic religion should be by all us Initiates of the High Degree maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. Yes, Lucifer is God and the true and pure religion is the belief in Lucifer”. **
Albert Pike wrote a book called “Morals and Dogma” which is considered the “Bible” of Freemasonry. On page 321 of the book it says: **“Lucifer the light bearer. Lucifer the Son of the morning. Is it he who bears the light?… Doubt it not”. **
The reason most Masons are not aware of this is because the higher degrees do not reveal it to them. The following is taken from the same book, written by Pike:
“The blue degrees (the first three) are no more than the outer door of the Temple portal. Part of the symbols are explained here to the Initiate, but he is intentionally deceived with false interpretations. It is not intended that he understand them, but it is intended that he imagine he understands them. Their true interpretation is reserved for the Initiated Ones, the Princes of Masonry” (Pg. 819). “Masonry,” continues Pike, “like all religions, all mysteries, hermeticisms, and alchemies, hides secrets from everyone except the Initiated, Sages or Elects, and employs false explanations and interpretations of its symbols to deceive those who deserve to be deceived and to hide from them the truth, which is called LIGHT, and to separate them from it”(Quotes taken from “The Mystery of Freemasonry Revealed” pg. 33-34).
Now maybe we can understand why the Church has condemned Masonry so strongly, and warned Catholic not to be involved in it.
I have a friend whose dad was a Mason for many years. She is a good Catholic and tried repeatedly to warn him about it. He would not listen. One day, after she had given him a lot of things to read, he said to her “the Masons have been good to me” (they had helped him financially_. She responded by saying “yeah, but they haven’t been good for your soul”. He dropped his eyes and did not say a word.
A few years ago I was a Mass. I noticed that she was there with her father and mother (who had not been to the sacraments in years). Her father went to confession and confessed his long involvment with the Masons.
He had risen to the higher degrees and was no longer ignorant of what the Masons really represent. Fortunately, through her prayers, everything turned out alright
**On July 14, 1889, Pike wrote to all the 23 formal Supreme Councils: “… The Masonic religion should be by all us Initiates of the High Degree maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. Yes, Lucifer is God and the true and pure religion is the belief in Lucifer”. **
Albert Pike wrote a book called “Morals and Dogma” which is considered the “Bible” of Freemasonry. On page 321 of the book it says: **“Lucifer the light bearer. Lucifer the Son of the morning. Is it he who bears the light?… Doubt it not”. **
The reason most Masons are not aware of this is because the higher degrees do not reveal it to them. The following is taken from the same book, written by Pike:
“The blue degrees (the first three) are no more than the outer door of the Temple portal. Part of the symbols are explained here to the Initiate, but he is intentionally deceived with false interpretations. It is not intended that he understand them, but it is intended that he imagine he understands them. Their true interpretation is reserved for the Initiated Ones, the Princes of Masonry” (Pg. 819). “Masonry,” continues Pike, “like all religions, all mysteries, hermeticisms, and alchemies, hides secrets from everyone except the Initiated, Sages or Elects, and employs false explanations and interpretations of its symbols to deceive those who deserve to be deceived and to hide from them the truth, which is called LIGHT, and to separate them from it”(Quotes taken from “The Mystery of Freemasonry Revealed” pg. 33-34).
Now maybe we can understand why the Church has condemned Masonry so strongly, and warned Catholic not to be involved in it.
I have a friend whose dad was a Mason for many years. She is a good Catholic and tried repeatedly to warn him about it. He would not listen. One day, after she had given him a lot of things to read, he said to her “the Masons have been good to me” (they had helped him financially_. She responded by saying “yeah, but they haven’t been good for your soul”. He dropped his eyes and did not say a word.
A few years ago I was a Mass. I noticed that she was there with her father and mother (who had not been to the sacraments in years). Her father went to confession and confessed his long involvment with the Masons.
He had risen to the higher degrees and was no longer ignorant of what the Masons really represent. Fortunately, through her prayers, everything turned out alright
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Led Zeppelin75:
“In view of these several reasons Catholics since 1738 are, under penalty of excommunication, incurred ipso facto, and reserved to the pope, strictly forbidden to enter or promote in any way Masonic societies.”
Freemasons are anti-Catholic. From the same article:
“The peculiar, “unsectarian” (in truth, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian) naturalistic character of Freemasonry, by which theoretically and practically it undermines the Catholic and Christian faith, first in its members and through them in the rest of society, creating religious indifferentism and contempt for orthodoxy and ecclesiastical authority.”
I leave it to others to analyze freemasonry. But a Catholic who becomes a freemason is excommunicated. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“In view of these several reasons Catholics since 1738 are, under penalty of excommunication, incurred ipso facto, and reserved to the pope, strictly forbidden to enter or promote in any way Masonic societies.”
Freemasons are anti-Catholic. From the same article:
“The peculiar, “unsectarian” (in truth, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian) naturalistic character of Freemasonry, by which theoretically and practically it undermines the Catholic and Christian faith, first in its members and through them in the rest of society, creating religious indifferentism and contempt for orthodoxy and ecclesiastical authority.”
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Vern is right. Here are a few quotes from the Popes regarding Freemasonry:
Pope Clement XII decreed: *“We command to the faithful to abstain from intercourse with those societies [Masons] …in order to avoid excommunication, which will be the penalty imposed upon all those contravening to this, our order…” Pope Leo XIII spoke thus: [Freemasons] " are like those to whom, according to St. John, the Apostle, hospitality and greetings should be denied. ‘If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: Godspeed you. For he that saith unto him, Godspeed you communicateth with his wicked works’ (1st John 1:10-11). They are the same men whom our Fathers without hesitation, termed the first-born of the devil." *
Pope Leo XIII told the Bishops of his day to “tear the mask off of Freemasonry and show what it really is”.
Pope Leo XIII said, “… The sect’s [Mason’s] purpose is to reduce to naught the teaching and authority of the Church… their proclamation that the moment has come to suppress the Roman Pontiff’s sacred power and to completely destroy the Papacy which was divinely instituted”.
And yet, Pope Pius IX lamented at the failure of the hierarchy to speak out: *“Venerable Brethren, We feel deep sorrow and bitterness, when We see that when, according to the Constitutions of our Predecessors, action is necessary to condemn this Masonic Sect, many of those whose functions and sacerdotal duty should make them ultra vigilant and ardent over such an important cause have, alas! shown themselves INDIFFERENT and as though ASLEEP”. *
Pope Clement XII: "We have resolved and decreed to condemn and forbid such Societies, assemblies, reunions, conventions, aggregations or meetings called either Freemasonic or known under some other denomination. We condemn and forbid them by this our present constitution, which is to be considered VALID FOREVER" (Papacy & Freemasonry).
Pope Clement XII decreed: *“We command to the faithful to abstain from intercourse with those societies [Masons] …in order to avoid excommunication, which will be the penalty imposed upon all those contravening to this, our order…” Pope Leo XIII spoke thus: [Freemasons] " are like those to whom, according to St. John, the Apostle, hospitality and greetings should be denied. ‘If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: Godspeed you. For he that saith unto him, Godspeed you communicateth with his wicked works’ (1st John 1:10-11). They are the same men whom our Fathers without hesitation, termed the first-born of the devil." *
Pope Leo XIII told the Bishops of his day to “tear the mask off of Freemasonry and show what it really is”.
Pope Leo XIII said, “… The sect’s [Mason’s] purpose is to reduce to naught the teaching and authority of the Church… their proclamation that the moment has come to suppress the Roman Pontiff’s sacred power and to completely destroy the Papacy which was divinely instituted”.
And yet, Pope Pius IX lamented at the failure of the hierarchy to speak out: *“Venerable Brethren, We feel deep sorrow and bitterness, when We see that when, according to the Constitutions of our Predecessors, action is necessary to condemn this Masonic Sect, many of those whose functions and sacerdotal duty should make them ultra vigilant and ardent over such an important cause have, alas! shown themselves INDIFFERENT and as though ASLEEP”. *
Pope Clement XII: "We have resolved and decreed to condemn and forbid such Societies, assemblies, reunions, conventions, aggregations or meetings called either Freemasonic or known under some other denomination. We condemn and forbid them by this our present constitution, which is to be considered VALID FOREVER" (Papacy & Freemasonry).
N
Newman60
Guest
buffalo said:
Thank Hugh!
Especially the part: “…to assert what is not known as known…”
That unfortunately has been going on in this thread for far too long.
Newman60
D
dcdurel
Guest
I agree totally with your quote from the wise Pope. First, the Church teaches no theory of how creation happened. Thus, the Church cannot support any specific theory of creationism. All the Church teaches is that God created the earth, Adam and Eve, etc., and we are allowed to believe it was created in 6 literal days or not in literal days but in periods of time.
Second, the Church has never in ever supported any theory of evolution. I used to believe the theory, but when I looked into it is very very contradictory. It is sort of like Protestantism. The separate arguments appear plausible, but when put together they contradict each other. The only unifying part is the foundation of a non-thiestic creation. In other words, some “scientists” only believe in evolution because it alone can explain a world without God.
Two examples of contradiction. First all present day animals appear also as fossils. Therefore all past animals should appear as fossils. Yet there are big gaps in the fossil record. Noted evolutionist S. J. Gould was forced to come
out with the " punctuated equilibrium" theory in which a dinosaur laid an egg and a mammal hatched out.
This contradicts genetics. But it fits the fossil record. Yet school books teach natural selection alone. But this contradicts the fossil record. For example, there are no links between reptiles and birds. And natural selection could not possibly explain such an evolution at all. So we have the fossil evidence pointing to punctuated equilibrium, which contradicts natural selection, which both contradict genetics.
Yet, **by themselves, **they each sound plausible. S. J. Gould is very convincing when listening to his reasons. Natural selection sounds very convincing when only considering its reasons. But both contradict genetic science, and both contradict each other.
What is the only common bond between these various theories of evolution? The only thing they have in common is a need to explain creation without God. We must face facts and admit that scientists have sins, and especially the sin of pride, which blind them to the obvious truth. It took a scientist who believed in God, Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest to develope the theory of the Big Bang. Other scientists, like Einstein and Hawking would not accept it at first, because it favored the idea of God who had to create. The favored a steady state universe which existed from eternity thus which excluded God. If one studies the history of the acceptance of Father Lemaitre’s theory, one can see the overwhelming rejection of God by leading scientists, and how their rejection of God influenced their theories and blinded them to the truth for decades. They are still jumping through hoops trying to fit this idea of a creation of the universe at a point in time with the idea of no God. Some are finally accepting a God, but not a God of the bible, but only some “force” out there.
D
dcdurel
Guest
Thus, if physicists were blinded to the truth because of their rejection of God, even though physics does not have anything in its nature that requires a rejection of God, then how much more will Darwinian evolutionists be blinded, because the theory itself is based on a rejection of God. Can we really trust people who put their faith in a theory, in which even they cannot agree on the basics of this theory, in which there are very serious contradictions of the fundamental parts of the theory and with the rest of science?
I think the best solution is not to postulate theories of creation, which are impossible to do, but to explain the leading theories of evolution AND then to teach clearly and openly, and not hide, the obvious and serious contradictions which make the theory impossible (in my opinion). Then leave it at that. And that should be taught in school. But the evolutionists want to hide the contradictions of their theory. **They don’t want objections of other reputable scientists to be taught in school textbooks. **They refuse to publish all the evolutionary hoaxes of the past in school texbooks. They are not open to the truth. They want to force their theory on others, without admitting to the well known and documented contradictions to their theory. When questioned about these contradictions, they gloss over them and simply spout more complex theory which they hope will confuse the listener into forgetting about the contradictions. This turns me off to the idea of evolutionists being objective and scientific. The day an evolutionist admits problems of their theory, that is the day I will read what he writes. That is one reasonl I liked S. J. Gould. He admitted the problems of evolution, and he came up with crazy theories to reconcile evolution and the contradictions. But he was honest and admitted that he still believed in it because the idea of a creating God was not acceptable to him. He was honest.
I think the best solution is not to postulate theories of creation, which are impossible to do, but to explain the leading theories of evolution AND then to teach clearly and openly, and not hide, the obvious and serious contradictions which make the theory impossible (in my opinion). Then leave it at that. And that should be taught in school. But the evolutionists want to hide the contradictions of their theory. **They don’t want objections of other reputable scientists to be taught in school textbooks. **They refuse to publish all the evolutionary hoaxes of the past in school texbooks. They are not open to the truth. They want to force their theory on others, without admitting to the well known and documented contradictions to their theory. When questioned about these contradictions, they gloss over them and simply spout more complex theory which they hope will confuse the listener into forgetting about the contradictions. This turns me off to the idea of evolutionists being objective and scientific. The day an evolutionist admits problems of their theory, that is the day I will read what he writes. That is one reasonl I liked S. J. Gould. He admitted the problems of evolution, and he came up with crazy theories to reconcile evolution and the contradictions. But he was honest and admitted that he still believed in it because the idea of a creating God was not acceptable to him. He was honest.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
durel << Second, the Church has never in ever supported any theory of evolution. I used to believe the theory, but when I looked into it is very very contradictory. It is sort of like Protestantism. >>
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers…
Pope John Paul II:
“…new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.” (October 22, 1996 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences)
Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth, a Catholic Perspective
durel << The only unifying part is the foundation of a non-thiestic creation. In other words, some “scientists” only believe in evolution because it alone can explain a world without God. >>
God and Evolution FAQ
durel << First all present day animals appear also as fossils. Therefore all past animals should appear as fossils. Yet there are big gaps in the fossil record. >>
Transitional Fossils short answer
Transitional Fossils FAQ long answer
durel << Noted evolutionist S. J. Gould was forced to come out with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory in which a dinosaur laid an egg and a mammal hatched out. This contradicts genetics. >>
Punc Eq FAQ for anti-evolutionist dummies
Gould on the fossil record: “Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled ‘Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax’ states: ‘The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.’” – Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory” (May 1981 reprinted in Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes)
Evolution as Fact and Theory (full article)
“But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy.” – Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History (May 1994)
END OF PART 1
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers…
Pope John Paul II:
“…new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.” (October 22, 1996 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences)
Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth, a Catholic Perspective
durel << The only unifying part is the foundation of a non-thiestic creation. In other words, some “scientists” only believe in evolution because it alone can explain a world without God. >>
God and Evolution FAQ
durel << First all present day animals appear also as fossils. Therefore all past animals should appear as fossils. Yet there are big gaps in the fossil record. >>
Transitional Fossils short answer
Transitional Fossils FAQ long answer
durel << Noted evolutionist S. J. Gould was forced to come out with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory in which a dinosaur laid an egg and a mammal hatched out. This contradicts genetics. >>
Punc Eq FAQ for anti-evolutionist dummies
Gould on the fossil record: “Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled ‘Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax’ states: ‘The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.’” – Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory” (May 1981 reprinted in Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes)
Evolution as Fact and Theory (full article)
“But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy.” – Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History (May 1994)
END OF PART 1
P
PhilVaz
Guest
durel << For example, there are no links between reptiles and birds. And natural selection could not possibly explain such an evolution at all. >>
Links between dinosaurs (reptiles) and birds: Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others.
Archaeopteryx FAQ
durel << Can we really trust people who put their faith in a theory, in which even they cannot agree on the basics of this theory, in which there are very serious contradictions of the fundamental parts of the theory and with the rest of science? >>
Project Steve FAQ
“Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.”
Read this article on genetics and evolution
In short, plagiarism proves common descent.
You keep going, I’ll keep going too. Are we shooting for 300 or 400 posts this time?
Phil P
Links between dinosaurs (reptiles) and birds: Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others.
Archaeopteryx FAQ
durel << Can we really trust people who put their faith in a theory, in which even they cannot agree on the basics of this theory, in which there are very serious contradictions of the fundamental parts of the theory and with the rest of science? >>
Project Steve FAQ
“Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.”
Read this article on genetics and evolution
In short, plagiarism proves common descent.
You keep going, I’ll keep going too. Are we shooting for 300 or 400 posts this time?
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
durel << The day an evolutionist admits problems of their theory, that is the day I will read what he writes. >>
That day is today. You may now begin. There are plenty of debates about the mechanism for evolution and the problems associated, as I understand that was the reason for the “modern synthesis” of the 1930s and 40s.
Phil P
That day is today. You may now begin. There are plenty of debates about the mechanism for evolution and the problems associated, as I understand that was the reason for the “modern synthesis” of the 1930s and 40s.
Phil P
L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
Okay guys, here’s what we must do to have an intelligant debate on creationism and evolution:
- No more quoteing popes, Catechicm, bible, ect…
- No more assuming you’re right just because the Church or bible favors your position (lack of open-mindedness).
- No more holding sceintists to a higher accountablity just because they are theists.
- Last but not least, be open-minded. If you never look at anything past the Church you’ll never discover anything past the Church.
There we go, now who wants to start an INTELLIGANT debate. :tsktsk:
L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
Now, does anyone want to have a debate?
D
dcdurel
Guest
Gould would call you a Darwinian Fundamentalist.
Face facts. These are not even near links. They are either outright birds, or reptiles. Even most evolutionists admit there are no links between birds and reptiles. Furthermore, no one can possible explain natural selection could explain such a transition. Even the developement of feathers is an impossible dream. Feathers are extremely complicated, with millions of hooks on each little strand. They don’t work at all unless the bird preens the feathers. Thus, not only would they have to miraculously evolve with the millions of hooks that fit perfectly, the bird would have to miraculously evolve the desire and the know how to preen these feathers at the same time. Natural selection cannot even explain why a reptile would develop flight feathers, since these feathers are useless until the whole animal is designed for flight, that is, the necessary muscles, bones, and the extremel complicated flight coordination of the brain and nervous system that is necessary for flight. None of these by themselves could be explained by natural selection. And the fact that they would all have to come together at the same time makes it an impossible dream. The whole scenario is a hopeless cause.
At least Gould was honest enough to admit there are holes in the fossil record. Holes which cannot be there, since according to evolution, there must be millions and millions of years for small changes to occur, thus there must be thousands of fossils for every single small transition. There should be a constant continuum. There is none. Furthermore, there must be a continuum today. There are none. For example, in this country we have whitetail deer. According to the theory, this animal should be constantly mutating, and the natural selection of the enviroment should select for the most survivable form for the enviroment. Thus, the deer up north in Canada where it is cold should be different from those in Louisiana. Those in the east where it is wet and forested should be different from those in the west where it is dry and open. And its anestors should still exist in the conditions for which they were adapted. There should be a continuum of totally different deer for all these different enviroments. There are none. The deer in Florida are a little smaller. That is all.
S. J. Gould at least would admit these facts of the giant holes in the fossil record. Thus he came out with the hopeful monster theory. But his theory is preposterous. Nothing in genetics could explain it. So that leaves evolution as a hopeless cause.
The only thing that can save evolution is the idea of a God who intervenes in the universe. That is the only thing that could explain the universe today as physicists are beginning to realize. .
D
dcdurel
Guest
Evidently you even didn’t know that Archaeopteryx was a hoax.
It was even on television a few months ago in which National Geographic admitted they were fooled, and they showed the X-Rays proving the fossil was a hoax.
This is one article on the hoax. There are many more.
apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2001/r&r0105a.htm
The author writes:
“While the “Piltdown Man” hoax was able to fool evolutionists for more than 40 years, the Archaeopteryx hoax appears to have lasted far longer—and continues in some quarters to this very day, in spite of such admissions as this one from evolutionary ornithologist Allan Feduccia who wrote in Science almost a decade ago: I conclude that Archaeopteryx was arboreal and volant BH/BT], considerably advanced aerodynamically, and probably capable of flapping, powered flight to at least some degree. Archaeopteryx…was, in the modern sense, a bird (1993, 259:792). And so, once again, it is not merely the “link” that’s missing in evolutionary theory—it’s the entire chain! Given all the facts about the origin of birds, it is little wonder that Charles Darwin remarked in a letter to his American friend, Asa Gray, on April 3, 1860: “[T]rifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!” (as quoted in MacBeth, 1971, p. 101). Mr. Darwin, considering the paucity of the fossil record, and the elegance of the design inherent in a single feather, we certainly can understand why.”
Code:
Phil, why don't you try searching for the problems with evolution. You are not being fair to yourself when you only read what evolutionists write. That is why you were fooled by the *Archaeopteryx *hoax.What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead—by definition.) If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? But then if it were a bad leg, how could the theory of natural selection explain it?
D
dcdurel
Guest
Led Zeppelin75:
You are making the same assumption. If you exclude God, then you are not being open minded. You are being closed minded.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church has never taught error. The Church has always claimed that truth. Yet, you have obviously blindly believed the Chuch taught error in regards to Galileo, etc. If you were more open and investigated the Church’s claims, you would see the Church taught nothing about Galileo.
For the only teaching authority in the Catholic Church is the Pope and those few bishops in union with the Pope. And the Pope never taught a thing about Galileo, when using his divine teaching authority as head of the Church.
It was some theologians who had errors about Galileo. Theologians are not part of the teaching authority of the Church.
Unfortunately that was the problem with Einstein and other famous physicists who would not accept the expanding universe for years and years. It was only because the inventor of the big bang theory, a Catholic priest, accepted God that he came up with the theory. It was only because Einstein and others rejected God at first that they would not accept the theory. It was resisted for years and years, despite the overwhelming evidence, because of their prior assumption that one must exclude God.
You are making the same assumption. If you exclude God, then you are not being open minded. You are being closed minded.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church has never taught error. The Church has always claimed that truth. Yet, you have obviously blindly believed the Chuch taught error in regards to Galileo, etc. If you were more open and investigated the Church’s claims, you would see the Church taught nothing about Galileo.
For the only teaching authority in the Catholic Church is the Pope and those few bishops in union with the Pope. And the Pope never taught a thing about Galileo, when using his divine teaching authority as head of the Church.
It was some theologians who had errors about Galileo. Theologians are not part of the teaching authority of the Church.
- Status