EVOLUTION: what about this

[PEPCIS]

You read the paper and yet you still said “Just as I thought, there is only one method of dating rocks - Radiometric Dating.”? How can that be?

Peace

Tim

Radiometric is one method that entails the use of radioisotopes and their rates of decay into other elements. That is ONE method of dating the rocks. Is there another?

 

[PEPCIS]

There is a whole section in that paper that discussed non-radiometric dating. Either he didn’t read the article or he has worse reading comprehension than he accuses me of.

Peace

Tim

Non-Radiometric dating methods are NOT USED FOR DATING ROCKS. I asked if there were more than one means for dating rocks, and you have not given me what they are. Do you have other means for dating rocks?

 

[Orogeny]

Non-Radiometric dating methods are NOT USED FOR DATING ROCKS. I asked if there were more than one means for dating rocks, and you have not given me what they are. Do you have other means for dating rocks?

Varves. Did you miss them?

Peace

Tim

 

[mpartyka]

Then that is protestantism. Christ Said we must have Child like faith, which is the simplest of all faiths. it is pretty simple. The bible’s way, which is God’s way, or changing our faith to fit the evidence of what the WORLD says, which is the Devil’s and leads to hell.

That’s easy to say, but the fact is that even before evolution hit the scene, people have had to come up with ways to reconcile contradictions raised by the Bible. For example, in the Gospel of Mark, the time of Jesus’ crucifixion is given as “the third hour”, while in Matthew and Luke the time is “the sixth hour”. St. Augustine reconciled this internal discrepancy by claiming that “the third hour” is when the Jews denied Jesus before Pilate and called for Jesus to be crucified, so that was when Jesus was crucified in a sense, but not literally. So this “fudging” the meaning of the Scriptures to fit with reality is really nothing new.

–Mike

 

[cassini]

Then that is protestantism. Christ Said we must have Child like faith, which is the simplest of all faiths. it is pretty simple. The bible’s way, which is God’s way, or changing our faith to fit the evidence of what the WORLD says, which is the Devil’s and leads to hell.

Dchsknight, I have read some of your posts and I like them. To be honest I find evolutionism so absurd I believe we insult our God given intellect even debating the subject with evolutionists, and we insult the Catholic faith associating it with evolutionism as in theistic evolutionism, the double devilry.
But back to my question for you personally. Given all you say, do you believe the Church when it defined and declared the Bible reveals a geocentric world. Having started my rescue from the devil’s ignorance (I once believed in evolution) I extrapolated backwards and found evolutionism is but a ‘natural’ development (evolution if you like) of heliocentricism. The grerat apostasy that resulted from scientism was predicted by Pope Urban VIII in his defence of the simple, literal interpretation of the Church for sixteen hundred years,

I cannot understand how creationists, blessed with a greater faith in tradition than the evolutionists, can deny their own belief system - the literal interpretation of the Scriptures - and deny geocentricism, the only defined and declared such interpretation of Scripture.

When answering please ignore the intellectual bigots prowling every thread on faith and science ready to insult any who do align themselves with the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church and reject the theories and consensus shared even by agnostics and atheists.

 

[mpartyka]

Given all you say, do you believe the Church when it defined and declared the Bible reveals a geocentric world. Having started my rescue from the devil’s ignorance (I once believed in evolution) I extrapolated backwards and found evolutionism is but a ‘natural’ development (evolution if you like) of heliocentricism. The grerat apostasy that resulted from scientism was predicted by Pope Urban VIII in his defence of the simple, literal interpretation of the Church for sixteen hundred years.

I knew there was somebody missing from this debate! Welcome aboard, Cassini!

–Mike

 

[Dchsknight]

That’s easy to say, but the fact is that even before evolution hit the scene, people have had to come up with ways to reconcile contradictions raised by the Bible. For example, in the Gospel of Mark, the time of Jesus’ crucifixion is given as “the third hour”, while in Matthew and Luke the time is “the sixth hour”. St. Augustine reconciled this internal discrepancy by claiming that “the third hour” is when the Jews denied Jesus before Pilate and called for Jesus to be crucified, so that was when Jesus was crucified in a sense, but not literally. So this “fudging” the meaning of the Scriptures to fit with reality is really nothing new.

–Mike

Mike, you need to read the book of mark again, because your completely wrong. Mark 16 says that on the 3rd hour the Jews said Crucify him. On the 6th hour he was crucified(Mark 16:33) and there was darkness on the land until the 9th hour( also Mark 16:33) then Jesus said Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani which is my lord my lord why have you forsaken me? People mocked him and said he calling for Elijah and and he let out a loud voice and breathed his last. which is Mark16:37

Matthew 28:45-50 says the exact same thing so where is your discrepancy…

 

[buffalo]

That’s easy to say, but the fact is that even before evolution hit the scene, people have had to come up with ways to reconcile contradictions raised by the Bible. For example, in the Gospel of Mark, the time of Jesus’ crucifixion is given as “the third hour”, while in Matthew and Luke the time is “the sixth hour”. St. Augustine reconciled this internal discrepancy by claiming that “the third hour” is when the Jews denied Jesus before Pilate and called for Jesus to be crucified, so that was when Jesus was crucified in a sense, but not literally. So this “fudging” the meaning of the Scriptures to fit with reality is really nothing new.

–Mike

Tractate 117 (John 19:17-22)

1. On Pilate’s judgment and condemnation before the tribunal, they took the Lord Jesus Christ, about the sixth hour, and led Him away. And He, bearing His cross, went forth into the place that is called Calvary, but in Hebrew, Golgotha; where they crucified Him. What else, then, is the meaning of the evangelist Mark saying, And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him, Mark 15:25 but this, that the Lord was crucified at the third hour by the tongues of the Jews, at the sixth hour by the hands of the soldiers? That we may understand that the fifth hour was now completed, and there was some beginning made of the sixth, when Pilate took his seat before the tribunal, which is expressed by John as about the sixth hour; and when He was led forth, and nailed to the tree with the two robbers, and the events recorded were enacted beside His cross, the completion of the sixth hour was fully reached, being the hour from which, on to the ninth, the sun was obscured, and the darkness took place, we have it jointly attested on the authority of the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But as the Jews attempted to transfer the crime of slaying Christ from themselves to the Romans, that is to say, to Pilate and his soldiers, therefore Mark suppresses the hour at which Christ was crucified by the soldiers, and which then began to enter upon the sixth, and remembers rather to give an express place to the third hour, at which they are understood to have cried out before Pilate, Crucify, crucify him John 19:6, that it not only may be seen that the former crucified Jesus, namely, the soldiers who hung Him on the tree at the sixth hour, but the Jews also, who at the third hour cried out to have Him crucified.

more…

 

[buffalo]

That’s easy to say, but the fact is that even before evolution hit the scene, people have had to come up with ways to reconcile contradictions raised by the Bible. For example, in the Gospel of Mark, the time of Jesus’ crucifixion is given as “the third hour”, while in Matthew and Luke the time is “the sixth hour”. St. Augustine reconciled this internal discrepancy by claiming that “the third hour” is when the Jews denied Jesus before Pilate and called for Jesus to be crucified, so that was when Jesus was crucified in a sense, but not literally. So this “fudging” the meaning of the Scriptures to fit with reality is really nothing new.

–Mike

The Church defending against evolution is nothing new. It goes right back to the beginning.

 

[buffalo]

Dchsknight, I have read some of your posts and I like them. To be honest I find evolutionism so absurd I believe we insult our God given intellect even debating the subject with evolutionists, and we insult the Catholic faith associating it with evolutionism as in theistic evolutionism, the double devilry.
But back to my question for you personally. Given all you say, do you believe the Church when it defined and declared the Bible reveals a geocentric world. Having started my rescue from the devil’s ignorance (I once believed in evolution) I extrapolated backwards and found evolutionism is but a ‘natural’ development (evolution if you like) of heliocentricism. The grerat apostasy that resulted from scientism was predicted by Pope Urban VIII in his defence of the simple, literal interpretation of the Church for sixteen hundred years,

I cannot understand how creationists, blessed with a greater faith in tradition than the evolutionists, can deny their own belief system - the literal interpretation of the Scriptures - and deny geocentricism, the only defined and declared such interpretation of Scripture.

When answering please ignore the intellectual bigots prowling every thread on faith and science ready to insult any who do align themselves with the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church and reject the theories and consensus shared even by agnostics and atheists.

Let’s explore for a minute - what would happen if the world just rejected evolutionism? What would change?

 

[cassini]

I knew there was somebody missing from this debate! Welcome aboard, Cassini!

–Mike

Don’t worry mpartyka, I have no intention of repeating that G/H discussion going on elsewhere. I just want to see if Catholic creationists go that one step further than anti-evolutionism when it comes to the literal interpretation of Scripture regarding creation…

 

[StAnastasia]

It is good there is a Society of Ordained Scientists but where is their voice heard? The current noise is being generated by atheists and their supporters in science.Peace,
Ed

I don’t know of a “party line” It certainly doesn’t play a significant role among my colleageus, but admittedly I teach in a Catholic university. I wonder if the strident atheism of Dawkins et al. stands out in sharper relief because we hear it against the equally shrill anti-science rhetoric of IDers and YECs.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Let’s explore for a minute - what would happen if the world just rejected evolutionism? What would change?

Bye bye antibiotics. Hello multi-drug resistance with a vengeance. Bye bye universities. Hello straw-chewing, edentulate montagnards.

 

[cassini]

Let’s explore for a minute - what would happen if the world just rejected evolutionism? What would change?

Well for a start agnostics, atheists and Modernists would no longer have a basis for their belief system. You do know that opinion polls have shown belief in ‘scientific’ evolutionism has led to more people rejecting the Catholic faith these last hundred years that any other cause and effect.

 

[mpartyka]

Mike, you need to read the book of mark again, because your completely wrong. Mark 16 says that on the 3rd hour the Jews said Crucify him. On the 6th hour he was crucified(Mark 16:33) and there was darkness on the land until the 9th hour( also Mark 16:33) then Jesus said Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani which is my lord my lord why have you forsaken me? People mocked him and said he calling for Elijah and and he let out a loud voice and breathed his last. which is Mark16:37

Matthew 28:45-50 says the exact same thing so where is your discrepancy…

You need to go back and look again. There is no Mark 16:33. In Mark 15, on the other hand, we have:

Mark 15:26,33 – And it was the third hour, and they crucified him…And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Thanks to Buffalo for the reference from St. Augustine:

What else, then, is the meaning of the evangelist Mark saying, “And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him” (Mark 15:25), but this, that the Lord was crucified at the third hour by the tongues of the Jews, at the sixth hour by the hands of the soldiers?

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Bye bye antibiotics. Hello multi-drug resistance with a vengeance. Bye bye universities. Hello straw-chewing, edentulate montagnards.

I think we’d still need universities to tell us what “edentulate montagnards” are.

–Mike

 

[buffalo]

Bye bye antibiotics. Hello multi-drug resistance with a vengeance. Bye bye universities. Hello straw-chewing, edentulate montagnards.

Oh really now!

Universities existed before Darwin, they can exist without him - unless you are suggesting that they are all foundationally atheistic and Darwin, which would prove Stein’s case quite well.

Scientists can still solve issues empirically.

 

[StAnastasia]

Well for a start agnostics, atheists and Modernists would no longer have a basis for their belief system. You do know that opinion polls have shown belief in ‘scientific’ evolutionism has led to more people rejecting the Catholic faith these last hundred years that any other cause and effect.

Well, at least the witch-burnings would return, and perhaps the Spanish Inquisition and other Catholic forms of public entertainment. Throwing books onto the bonfires flaming around scientists, theologians, and other heretics at the stake might wean our overweight kids off MTV, IPODs, Facebook, and other passive and isolating forms of entertainment. It would afford opportunities for social networking, and would help fight the ballooning obesity epidemic.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

Well for a start agnostics, atheists and Modernists would no longer have a basis for their belief system. You do know that opinion polls have shown belief in ‘scientific’ evolutionism has led to more people rejecting the Catholic faith these last hundred years that any other cause and effect.

Here is what I am getting too.

As long as the philosophy is taught for what it is, it can be like any other worldview someone would choose to have.

At the end of the day would it make a difference. Atheists are a minority and scientists are a minority.

 

[buffalo]

Well, at least the witch-burnings would return, and perhaps the Spanish Inquisition and other Catholic forms of public entertainment. Throwing books onto the bonfires flaming around scientists, theologians, and other heretics at the stake might wean our overweight kids off MTV, IPODs, Facebook, and other passive and isolating forms of entertainment. It would afford opportunities for social networking, and would help fight the ballooning obesity epidemic.

StAnastasia

What an imagination.

If they are harmless just let them be and live their own worldview.