R
reggieM
Guest
That’s a prediction that ID makes – that it will not happen. That prediction has been proven true.
- Status
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Sorry. Not plausible. I’ve been reviewing textbooks for a long time, and no such thing appears. Of course, if someone tells me that their geology teacher told them that the earth is supported by a giant turtle, I guess it’s possible. But it’s not what scientists say about it, and it’s not what textbooks say.
Well, weird thing are harder to believe than thing that actually are known to happen, yes.
Modern biology textbooks use photos, which also show how embryos of vertebrates are similar.
Not as silly as accusing the Pope of promoting atheism. (He accepts common descent as “virtually certain.” Since evolutionary theory was proposed by two Christians, it’s pretty goofy to argue that it is to advance atheism.
YE creationism, as noted earlier, is a highly effective atheist maker:
**But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,”
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist."** Glenn Morton
home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
This is certainly the most pernicious effect of creationism.
Most of us think He was necessary for the universe itself. But we recognize that it is not necessary to cite God in explaining how evolution works. In the same way, it is not necessary for a plumber to cite God in explaining how your pipes function. Why is that surprising to you?
As usual, ignorance is the enemy.
The idea of a God so great that He could make the whole universe work with a few simple rules, scares creationists. They like a smaller, more managable God, I suppose.
Just ask any plumber whether there is any point at which you must believe in God for your plumbing to work. That should give you a pretty good idea of what’s wrong with your thinking.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
As far back as Darwin, the evidence began to accumulate. This includes:
- Numerous transitionals in the fossil record
- Living transitional forms
- DNA evidence, showing the same phylogenies as fossil information
- Immunological evidence, showing dinosaur hemoglobin is most like bird hemoglobin
- Conserved molecules like cytochrome c, which show the same phylogenies.
See above. If you’d like some detail on any of it, pick one and I’ll show you.
Which is why scientists have generally ignored ID. It doesn’t work. And if it doesn’t work, what good is it?
R
reggieM
Guest
Here’s a gem from Ken Miller’s science textbook used to indoctrinate high school students in atheism …
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Miller didn’t write that, of course, and he later convinced Levine that it wasn’t an accurate assessment of Darwin’s theory. It’s been removed from later versions of the textbook.
Nice try.
Nice try.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Why is a Catholic attempting to refute evolution when the PAS contains nothing but evolutionists and NO creationists? HUH? If its so terrible and all, why is it that this view isn’t being expressed except by creationists? Have you read anything about the members of the PAS or the interviews with the newest president?
[ncronline.org/ma(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/cabibbo.htm](http://ncronline.org/ma(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/cabibbo.htm)
It is time to explain exactly why those of you who are so against evolution tell us why it matters that evolution is not true. The truth for once…don’t waste any more time telling us that it is faulty and its not proven…tell us why you don’t want to believe it, given that the Church certainly does and most of the world…the Truth please.
[ncronline.org/ma(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/cabibbo.htm](http://ncronline.org/ma(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/cabibbo.htm)
It is time to explain exactly why those of you who are so against evolution tell us why it matters that evolution is not true. The truth for once…don’t waste any more time telling us that it is faulty and its not proven…tell us why you don’t want to believe it, given that the Church certainly does and most of the world…the Truth please.
R
reggieM
Guest
Interesting that he had to remove that. It appeared in the book for the first four editions spanning over 7 years of publication and republication. Then he eventually removed it.
Of course, Miller lied about this event as it is easily seen.
But more importantly, the book he co-wrote had this support for atheism in it. This is a very serious sin, in the Catholic understanding of it. How many souls were corrupted by this false teaching?
Perhaps even you won’t think you have to take any responsiblity for defending the promulgation of atheistic texts as you smugly defend such things on a daily basis.
Perhaps you believe that God really won’t mind that you give tacit and sometimes open support for atheistic teaching which sends impressionable souls to Hell.
Well, at least Miller finally had that false text removed from his book — thus proving yet again how much has been wrong and dangerous in evolutionary teaching.
For a sin as serious as Miller committed, by approving the outright evil teaching that is found in that book … well, he seems to walk away without an apology and without any sense of repentance.
That is not the way of the Saints – far, far from it.
R
reggieM
Guest
If anybody bothers to read these conversations you will see something like this:
It’s for this reason that I’m glad that some good people I know have stopped trying to read this thread.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
(Barbarian notes that Miller eventually convinced his co-author to remove a statement from the book that was not consistent with evolutionary theory)
His co-author eventually agreed with him and removed it.
Yep. But he got it done.
Nope. It’s gone.
No, it merely said that science did not support religion. Which is true, but it said it in a way that suggested it refuted religion.
You get kinda mean when your back is to the wall, um? In fact, as you saw earlier, your position has been responsible for many people seeing atheism as the only reasonable conclusion. In my years of teaching, I have seen that creationism is a powerful atheist-maker. Did you not see the testimony of Glenn Morton, a former creationist, who almost fell into atheism because he thought creationism was part of Christian doctrine?
You might be upset and angry, Reggie, but try to at least be honest with yourself. When you put that kind of false witness on the board, you not only corrode your soul a little more; everyone here sees it, and draws conclusions about you.
For which you assailed him as a liar. Shame on you.
More to the point, he eventually persuaded the publisher to remove it.
E
edwest2
Guest
I
inthecloud
Guest
Go to certain forums like the crevo part of some forums and you will discover that most of the militants atheist that push evolution were raised as “Bible Believing Christians” ™ and of course as YEC.
When some of them grew up and dicovered they were feed lies about the world, they turned their anger towards toward their childhood beliefs. Some of the luck ones kept their faith in Jesus and remined in their old churches keeping their beliefs on evolution private, some of them converted into the CC or the EOC or the AC or Lutheranism. But most of them became rabid militant atheists.
Is not casual that the new brand of militant atheists come from english speaking countries were fundies push creationism.
Creationism is inmoral because involves liying to children. And risking loosing their faith in God.
R
reggieM
Guest
Go to certain places and you will discover that most of the militants atheists were raised as Catholics.
When some of them grew up and thought they were feed lies about the world, they turned their anger towards toward their childhood beliefs.
Some of the more balanced ones kept their faith in Jesus and remined in their old churches keeping their beliefs, some of them converted into the CC or the EOC or the AC or Lutheranism. But most of them became rabid militant atheists.
Is not casual that most militant atheists come from Catholic countries.
Catholicism is inmoral because … risking loosing their faith in God.
???
When some of them grew up and thought they were feed lies about the world, they turned their anger towards toward their childhood beliefs.
Some of the more balanced ones kept their faith in Jesus and remined in their old churches keeping their beliefs, some of them converted into the CC or the EOC or the AC or Lutheranism. But most of them became rabid militant atheists.
Is not casual that most militant atheists come from Catholic countries.
Catholicism is inmoral because … risking loosing their faith in God.
???
A
anthony022071
Guest
W
wildleafblower
Guest
I read the article in 2005 but thanks for placing here. Professor Nicola Cabibbo has been the President of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Vatican:Holy See for many years.
SpiritMeadow, you seemed to have read my message from the Topic: ** ID in public schools ** (1) prior to posting on this topic.
[Topic: ID in public schools (msg. 129 ]ED, you only have to review my provided resources within the topic National Academies book on evolution(1) starting with my message 79 to know for a fact that ID has been debunked by peer-reviewed scientific articles that have and continue to provide evidence that proponents of the ID movement lack intelligence due to their unscientific claims.The ID movement is defunk. END OF STORY! ABOVE ALL ELSE, NO WHERE IN THE VATICAN: HOLY SEE does it mention as you state ED," God is the Intelligent Designer." I’m absolutely flabbergasted by such a remark nor is it noted that God is omnipresent in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church so Ed that shoots down your remark Ed, " The only kind of evolution that works is the God intervened kind." The Catholic Church does wish for us human beings to be rational which you are negleting to do in my opinion.
Now, as miracles go, I’ve provided in another topic what is the course of action of the CHRUCH. (You and others can scrample through my previous postings in my on-line messages to other topics and find it.) All that I can say is that the Church does have a Medical Commission that reviews the claim along with other commissions of the Church.
edwest2;3210560:
Ed, you should be aware of the fact that Roman Catholics who are in good standing with the Vatican: Holy See and those members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences(P.A.S.) aren’t creationists. And should know by now that Science and Theology aren’t one and the same though it is important to remind yourself that *Sciences *is listed under the Pontifical Academies which is part of the The Roma Curia Pontifical Commissions. I’ve highlighted in blue the mission of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences below:
HISTORY OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is international in scope, multi-racial in composition, and non-sectarian in its choice of members. The work of the Academy comprises six major areas: Fundamental science; Science and technology of global problems; Science for the problems of the Third World; Scientific policy; Bioethics; Epistemology.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE HOLY SEE
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is an independent entity within the Holy See. Although its rebirth was the result of papal initiative, and though it is placed under the direct protection of the reigning Supreme Pontiff, the Academy defines its own goals with regard to its statuted aim:
“…to promote the progress of the mathematical, physical and natural sciences and the study of epistemological problems relating thereto” (Statutes 1:2). . . .
Since the deliberations and studies which it undertakes are not influenced by any one national, political or religious point of view, the Academy constitutes an invaluable source of objective information upon which the Holy See and its various bodies can draw. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...s/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_10121999_history_en.html
The scientists of the Vatican are the creme de la creme!
1,** National Academies book on evolution **
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209575&page=6
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209575&page=6
(p.s. I’m going on vacation so be back later.)
R
reggieM
Guest
Evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense is not true.
Neo-Darwinism denies the overwhelming evidence of design in biology.
Neo-Darwinism is not science.
The evidence of design in biology is overwhelming.
Neo-Darwinism denies the overwhelming evidence of design in biology.
Neo-Darwinism is not science.
The evidence of design in biology is overwhelming.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
Men were always human beings. We just evolved from other animals.
Barbarian observes:
Can’t. It’s a scientific question; God has given the Church no way to put a date on the Earth.
Barbarian observes:
I’m pleased to hear you now accept common descent of all living things.
Barbarian observes:
The hook, of course, is that in order to make any changes in the theory, you have to understand it first. And for that, you have to be a scientist, or at least know as much as we do.
Men were always human beings. We just evolved from other animals.
No. There were other species of humans before us.
It would have been impossible for science to progress if scientists could not reason. The scientific method is one of the most effective ways to reason.
Barbarian observes:
Can’t. It’s a scientific question; God has given the Church no way to put a date on the Earth.
Because scientists aren’t limited to science. (Obviousman to the rescue)
No kidding.
Barbarian observes:
I’m pleased to hear you now accept common descent of all living things.
Indeed. The primary difference between us and creationists, is we accept the way He did it.
Barbarian observes:
The hook, of course, is that in order to make any changes in the theory, you have to understand it first. And for that, you have to be a scientist, or at least know as much as we do.
Good example. If you knew what a theory was, you’d not say that. “Theory” is as high as it goes in science.
You’ve been snockered on that one. It was first proposed by two Christians.
Specifically, it has five of them. Do you know what they are? If you don’t, what makes you think you can criticize the theory?
It’s called “uniformitarianism.” And no, that doesn’t mean gradualism. It means that the rules by which things work in this world have been the same since the beginning.
You might as well assail chemistry for not explaining how atoms came to be. How silly.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
You know they’re on the run, when they don’t even try quote-mining any more, and just make unsupported assertions.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Got some checkable numbers that show most militant atheists were raised as Catholics?
Or is this just some more imagineering?
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Hi ya Barbarian! See ya above me. What are you playing angel?
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0060.html
Ed, now you were addressing that message to SpiritMeadow and though I’m not SpiritMeadow, I can’t resist replying here is the TRUTH:
A response to Cardinal Schönborn’s attack on science
by Alec MacAndrew
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm
(Ah…the tides coming in. Beautiful; tippy toeing toward the waves in the moonlight… )
Ed, your url takes us to a very old article Finding Design in Nature by CARDINAL CHRISTOPH SCHONBORN which wasn’t approved by the VATICAN. I should mention that Schonborn has in the past taken a more Orthodox approach toward evolution only because he doesn’t really understand the methodology behind science which is apparent in the article.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0060.html
Ed, now you were addressing that message to SpiritMeadow and though I’m not SpiritMeadow, I can’t resist replying here is the TRUTH:
A response to Cardinal Schönborn’s attack on science
by Alec MacAndrew
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm
(Ah…the tides coming in. Beautiful; tippy toeing toward the waves in the moonlight…
)
W
wildleafblower
Guest
I can’t fully understand what you are attempting to convey but please allow me to make one simple comment that comes right off the tip of my mind. No wonder public schools for youth shouldn’t be teaching religion! Parents should educate their children as far as which religion and let the public schools teach SCIENCE.
- Status