Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[edwest2]

reggie -

Pope Benedict knows about the indifference in Western society. He knows that for some, “religion counts for nothing.” He is aware of what is referred to as a new rationalism. He has written against atheism and threats to the family. Threats to human dignity and human identity.

In the end, there will be one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. This is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. As Pope John Paul II, “Don’t lose heart.” God will not be mocked.

Peace and God Bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Verily, in great shape ?! Please return to planet Earth.

That’s where I live, and the church in our diocese is thriving! I’m sorry yours is not in as good shape. The church was packed for the bishop’s visit last Sunday, but it is in any case usually very well peopled for a small parish.

Petrus

 

[wildleafblower]

Not surprising. Very sad – tragic actually, but not surprising. I can look at this thread alone and see the Catholics defending Darwin with all the passion that they no longer have for Christ Himself. I see Catholics endorsing materials written by atheists and praising atheists without the slightest concern for the souls of those same unbelievers. As long as “Darwin wins”, all other matters are of secondary interest. [snip]

My heartfelt love for Jesus has deepened after reading DARWIN *A Life in Science by Michael White & John Gribbin and * The Dark Fate of the Man Who Sailed Charles Darwin Around the World - EVOLUTION’S CAPTAIN by Peter Nichols. I cried and smiled as I read those two books that brought to life the lives of real people whose zest for life was their work and their love for family, friends, and colleagues. If you wish to condemn me in my moment of sadness since they are no longer here then so be it Reggie. But, remember unless you have read those books you may never know why your unchristian hatred is displaced.

 

[Memaw]

Not surprising. Very sad – tragic actually, but not surprising. I can look at this thread alone and see the Catholics defending Darwin with all the passion that they no longer have for Christ Himself. I see Catholics endorsing materials written by atheists and praising atheists without the slightest concern for the souls of those same unbelievers. As long as “Darwin wins”, all other matters are of secondary interest.

I see Catholics who can fight and defend evolution daily (hourly?) but who cannot give a coherent statement about God’s role in the universe. Apparently they’re not even interested in God – not surprising because God has no real function or role in the Darwinist scheme. I see Catholics pretend that the Pope is as blindly-loyal to Darwinism as they are, and who think that the Pope has not sharply criticized evolutionary theory. I saw one Catholic Darwinist here deny a de fide teaching (material heresy at least) and repeat that denial when challenged (she has since disappeared). I see these Catholics talk about “science” in every possible way and never mention anything (of substance) about the Catholic faith in their writings (is it even a remote thought for them?). Here we are in the middle of Lent and the cute denials of the atheistic message in mainstream Darwinism go on …

So, the statistics on the loss of faith by Catholics throughout the world and especially noticed in America are not surprising. They’re just the obvious reflection of a loss of grace, a lack of prayer and a lack of trust in God, our Creator.

I see all of that tied directly to Darwinolotry and the embrace of science as “the truth” and the reduction of divine revelation to the category of “nice to have but not really necessary”.

My sentiments exactly. I think I’ll frame this statement, BUT, one thing for sure, the Catholic Church will come out of this triumphant and stronger than before. Like I said before, no one will ever get to Heaven because of all the bones they’ve found, footprints they’ve counted or how high their IQ is. Jesus said, “Take up your Cross and Follow ME,” and all I can say is, “I’m commin LORD.”

 

[Memaw]

reggie -

Pope Benedict knows about the indifference in Western society. He knows that for some, “religion counts for nothing.” He is aware of what is referred to as a new rationalism. He has written against atheism and threats to the family. Threats to human dignity and human identity.

In the end, there will be one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. This is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. As Pope John Paul II, “Don’t lose heart.” God will not be mocked.

Peace and God Bless,
Ed

BE NOT AFRAID.

 

[Memaw]

He’s back. OK, let’s take a look at what he cut and pasted this time…

Don’t worry, this won’t take long.

Nope. “Nebraska Man” was originated when a paleontologist specializing in reptiles found a tooth that appeared to be from a large primate. When a paleontolotist specializing in mammals looked at it, he quickly showed that it was the tooth of a peccary (albeit worn down oddly and appearing to be a primate tooth). No fraud. Just an error. And quickly disposed of.

Piltdown Man was a fraud; we don’t know who planted it, but we know evolutionist debunked it.

Peking Man was actually what is known from many different specimens as H. erectus, an early human.

The evidence for that is quite extensive. Would you like to learn about it?

Let’s see… eye…eye…

**To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.** Darwin, “Origin of Species”

Yes, Darwin was right. That was a remarkably good prediction. In the late 40s, George G. Simpson showed the evolution of eyes by gradual steps in the living members of several different phyla.

It’s quite rare to find an evolutionist who is a racist, because evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. On the other hand, as late as 1991, Henry Morris, the director of the “Institute for Creation Research” was insisting that blacks were spiritually and intellectually inferior to other people:

Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
Henry Morris, “The Beginning of the World” 1991

Amazing, just amazing. While not all creationists are racists by any means, it is disturbing, the degree to which they are tolerated in positions of leadership in the creationist movement. Racism is still a severe problem with creationism.

No one actually has a count of them, but they are far more numerous than any one person could keep in mind. Would you like to see some of them? Even better, suppose I show you a fossil, and you tell me whether it’s a reptile or a mammal, and how you decided?

How could God’s Word and His creation be contradictory?

Since there’s no scriptural evidence for a worldwide flood, and no scientific evidence, you’d be discussing fairytales.

Maybe you should ask NOAH about that. Or better YET, ask GOD.

 

[Memaw]

The Deposit of Faith is the “body” of saving truth, entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and handed on by them to the Church to be preserved and proclaimed.

Doctrine is “any” truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed, (as the Real Presence) or a theological conclusion, (as the canonization of a saint), or part of a natural law, (as the sinfulness of contraception.) This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority.
Dogma is doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by the faithful as part of Divine Revelation. All are infallible and NEVER open to change or abandonment.
Limbo was never a part of any of the above, the Church has never defined the existence of Limbo. The Church does teach that unbaptized innocents do not suffer Hell. What happens to them after death is known only to God.
Devotion is the disposition of will to do promptly what concerns the worship and service to God.
Devotion is also used to describe our love for anyone or anything Holy, such as the Blessed Mother, angels and saints, etc.

Infallibility covers a lot more than “the two top tiers.”

Infallibility is freedom from error in teaching the universal Church in matters of Faith and Morals. The Pope alone is infallible. The bishops of the Catholic Church are infallible when they are assembled in a general council, or when they propose a teaching of faith and morals as one to be held by all the faithful. They are assured freedom of error provided they are in union with the Bishop of Rome and their teaching is subject to his authority.

The Holy Spirit protects the Teaching Authority of the Church and the “Gates of Hell” shall never prevail against it, not even atheistic evolution. Jesus said HE would be with HIS Church till the “END of time.” HE was there in the beginning,“creation” and will be there till the End of life on earth. Hopefully then we will all be with HIM in Heaven.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Since there’s no scriptural evidence for a worldwide flood, and no scientific evidence, you’d be discussing fairytales.

Maybe you should ask NOAH about that.

Noah didn’t say that. No where in Scripture does he say it.

Or better YET, ask GOD.

God didn’t say it, either. In the original language, “the earth” was written as “eretz”, which just means “land.” It can mean “hereabouts”, a specific region ("eretz Israele, the “land of Israel”) and various other things.

From the Catholic encyclopedia:
**The Biblical account ascribes some kind of a universality to the Flood. But it may have been geographically universal, or it may have been only anthropologically universal. In other words, the Flood may have covered the whole earth, or it may have destroyed all men, covering only a certain part of the earth. Till about the seventeenth century, it was generally believed that the Deluge had been geographically universal, and this opinion is defended even in our days by some conservative scholars (cf. Kaulen in Kirchenlexikon). But two hundred years of theological and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:
(1) The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned.

Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.**
newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

 

[The_Barbarian]

My sentiments exactly. I think I’ll frame this statement, BUT, one thing for sure, the Catholic Church will come out of this triumphant and stronger than before. Like I said before, no one will ever get to Heaven because of all the bones they’ve found, footprints they’ve counted or how high their IQ is. Jesus said, “Take up your Cross and Follow ME,” and all I can say is, “I’m commin LORD.”

We should aways find our hope in the Church, and always avoid the vice of presumption.

Always.

 

[Memaw]

We should aways find our hope in the Church, and always avoid the vice of presumption.

Always.

Do you even listen to yourself Barbarian? I have often thought it would be interesting to know why some people pick the forum names they use, (such as Barbarian,etc.) Sometimes the names fit.

 

[Memaw]

Barbarian observes:
Since there’s no scriptural evidence for a worldwide flood, and no scientific evidence, you’d be discussing fairytales.

Noah didn’t say that. No where in Scripture does he say it.

God didn’t say it, either. In the original language, “the earth” was written as “eretz”, which just means “land.” It can mean “hereabouts”, a specific region ("eretz Israele, the “land of Israel”) and various other things.

From the Catholic encyclopedia:
**The Biblical account ascribes some kind of a universality to the Flood. But it may have been geographically universal, or it may have been only anthropologically universal. In other words, the Flood may have covered the whole earth, or it may have destroyed all men, covering only a certain part of the earth. Till about the seventeenth century, it was generally believed that the Deluge had been geographically universal, and this opinion is defended even in our days by some conservative scholars (cf. Kaulen in Kirchenlexikon). But two hundred years of theological and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:
(1) The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned.

Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.**
newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

Neither sacred Scripture not universal ecclesiastical tradition tells us to believe it didn’t cover the whole earth. God said it did so guess who I believe. Would be kinda silly to take in a pair of every animal if there were plenty more out there to keep the animal population going.

 

[Philipp]

Neither sacred Scripture not universal ecclesiastical tradition tells us to believe it didn’t cover the whole earth. God said it did so guess who I believe. Would be kinda silly to take in a pair of every animal if there were plenty more out there to keep the animal population going.

PHILIPP: Here are key quotations from the bible which the church fathers and apostles taught regarding the flood. The belief in the flood lasted for 1800 or 1900 years before Darwin and Lyell’s false assumptions crept into the picture under Modernism. My sentiments exacly, Memaw. The church has been infested with heretics off and on since its beginning. We are going through another such period now. Keep the faith!

Here are some Biblical references to the Ark and worldwide Flood of Noe (Noah) which science is now in the process of confirming as actually happened in the not too distant past*:

Genesis 6: 13-21 [12-15]. 12. God saw that the earth was corrupt for all men lived corruptly on the earth. 13. And God said to Noe, The end of all creatures of flesh is in my mind; the earth is full of violence because of them. I will destroy them with the earth. 14. Make an ark out of resin wood; make it tight with fiber and cover it with pitch inside and out. 15. This is how you shall make it; the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits-----------.

Genesis 7: 1-24 [11-12], In the six hundredth year of Noe’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month, on that very day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights----------.

Genesis 8: 1-19 [4-5], And in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat. 5. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month; on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains appeared—.

Genesis 9: 28-29, Noe lived three hundred and fifty years after the flood, 29. The whole lifetime of Noe was nine hundred and fifty years; then he died.

Paul to the Hebrews 11: 7, By faith Noe, having been warned concerning things not seen as yet, prepared with pious fear an ark in which to save his household. Having thus condemned the world, he was made heir of the justice which is through faith.
Peter 2:5, Nor did He spare the ancient world, but preserved (with seven others) Noe a herald of justice when He brought a flood upon the world of the impious”.
Peter 3:3-6, This first you must know, that in the last days there will come deceitful scoffers, men walking according to their own lusts, 4. Saying, “Where is the promise or His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5. For of this they were willfully ignorant, that there were heavens long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by water through the word of God. 6. By these means the world that then was, deluged with water, perished*.
Matt 24, [36-39], 39. And they did not understand until the flood came and swept them all away; even so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Luke 17, [26-30], 26. And as it came to pass in the days of Noe even so will it be in the days of the Son of Man.

*Douay Rheims bible
Bible history is cool I like the one from our first Pope which applies to the scoffers and their Darwinian/Lyell assumptions and bad science of today.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Neither sacred Scripture not universal ecclesiastical tradition tells us to believe it didn’t cover the whole earth.

More to the point, neither Scripture nor the teaching of the Church tells us that it did cover the whole earth. The doctrine of a worldwide flood is the addition of those who are not satisfied with God’s word.

God said it did

As you saw, He did not say it did. Nor does the Church teach that it did.

Did you note this on the site I quoted and linked for you?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV. Published 1908. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

so guess who I believe

You should believe God, instead of adding things to His word to make it more acceptable to you.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Memaw writes:
Like I said before, no one will ever get to Heaven because of all the bones they’ve found, footprints they’ve counted or how high their IQ is. Jesus said, “Take up your Cross and Follow ME,” and all I can say is, “I’m commin LORD.”

Barbarian suggests:
should aways find our hope in the Church, and always avoid the vice of presumption.

Do you even listen to yourself Barbarian?

Constantly. Effective writing requires that one always monitor one’s words. I think it may be that you don’t know what the Church means by “presumption” and why it is a vice.

I have often thought it would be interesting to know why some people pick the forum names they use, (such as Barbarian,etc.) Sometimes the names fit.

Interesting story in my case. I was once on a board where a good number of atheists gathered. I had expressed my faith in God, when a particularly aggressive one lectured me on the “evils of religion”, and then told me that I had no idea how “barbaric” a religion Christianity is. So I told him, “just call me the Barbarian, then.”

The other atheists thought it was funny, and the name stuck. He wasn’t so pleased, and soon left the board. I keep it, remembering that no matter what the world thinks, my faith is secure in Him.

Thanks for asking.

 

[Alethios]

More to the point, neither Scripture nor the teaching of the Church tells us that it did cover the whole earth. The doctrine of a worldwide flood is the addition of those who are not satisfied with God’s word.

As you saw, He did not say it did. Nor does the Church teach that it did.

What did the Lord say? Is that not relevant?

Gen 7:19 *And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered. *
This land that wasn’t covered by the Deluge… was it higher than the high mountains under the whole heaven(surrounding the whole earth)?
Please try to be rational - and literate. This isn’t rocket science - just believing what was written, as written!

Gen 9:11 I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to destroy the earth.

The reformers and revisionists of the Cath Enc 1908 know better than the Lord; they know that He meant to say "to destroy [a part of ]the earth.

There have been many partial floods that have wasted part of the land since the Deluge. According to the modernists (and their dupes) the Lord God LIED … MANY TIMES … about never flooding the earth again!

It is also written “The Lord your God can neither deceive nor be deceived”
From this thread alone we infer that CAF members do both.

Did you note this on the site I quoted and linked for you?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV. Published 1908. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

The ‘scholars’ of the CE in 1908 were one of the targets of St. Pius X’s crusade against modernism in the Church. Too bad we ignored his saintly advice.

BTW: Does a nihil obstat and imprimatur guarantee that a work will authentically present the teachings of the Church?

In the Catholic Church, certain types of writings need a bishop’s authorization to be published for use in Catholic instruction. The nihil obstat and imprimatur signify that, in the judgment of the bishop who grants the imprimatur, the work contains nothing contrary to faith and morals. However, the nihil obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that the entire contents of a work are true. Nor do they indicate that the censor or bishop necessarily agrees with the contents or opinions of a work. The bishop’s authorization “is an essentially negative judgment of non-offensiveness.”

Several reasons why a Catholic would want to carefully evaluate a publication bearing the nihil obstat and imprimatur:

– A book may contain doctrinal or moral errors that the censor(s) did not notice.
– A book may present material that is technically accurate while being somewhat or even highly misleading.
– An author might state Church teaching accurately, but then put forth opinions by other theologians that call Church teaching into question.
– A publication may advance speculative theological opinions.
– There may, on occasion, be a difference of opinion as to what Church teaching is on a given subject.
– a nihil obstat and imprimatur do not guarantee that a book is well written. They do not ensure that arguments are well presented, that explanations are complete, or that topics are fully covered.

For a Catholic who wants to understand the teachings of the Church, the place to start (and to constantly refer back to) is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=268

The real bottom line:
In practice all that’s required for an imprimatur is to shop around for a modernist bishop or censor. In 1908, as now in 2008, that’s no problem at all.

You should believe God, instead of adding things to His word to make it more acceptable to you.

How about ignoring His word - like Gen 7:19, 9:11? That OK?

AMDG

 

[hecd2]

Fake Chines Fossils:

paleodirect.com/fakechinesefossils1.htm

So your argument is that all of these formally refereed papers in extremely prestigious scientific journals are based on fakes:

Ji, Q. & Ji, S. On discovery of the earliest bird fossil in China and the origin of birds. Chin. Geol. 17, 30-33 (1996). Ji, Q., Currie, P. J., Ji, S. & Norell, M. A. Two feathered dinosaurs from northeastern China. Nature 393, 753-761 (1998).
Xu, X., Tang, Z. & Wang, X. A therizinosaurid dinosaur with integumentary structures from China. Nature 399, 350-354 (1999).
Xu, X., Wang, X. & Wu, X. A dromaeosaurid dinosaur with a filamentous integument from the Yixian Formation of China. Nature 401, 262-266, 1999).
Xu, X., Zhou, Z. & Wang, X. The smallest known non-avian theropod dinosaur. Nature 408, 705-708 (2000).
Chen, P.-J., Dong, Z.-M. & Zhen, S.-N. An exceptionally well preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian Formation of China.Nature 391, 147-152 (1998).
Xu, X., Zhou, Z.-H.& Prum, R. O., Branched integumental structures in Sinornithosaurus and the origin of feathers, Nature 410, 200-204 (2001)
Norell*, QIANG Ji Q, Gao*, Yuan, Zhao and Wang. ‘Modern’ feathers on a non-avian dinosaur, Nature 416, 36 - 37 (2002)
Xu et al, Four winged dinosaurs from China, Nature 421, 335 - 340 (2003)
Norell and Clarke, Fossil that fills a critical gap on avian evolution, Nature 409, 181 - 184
Perle et al, Flightless bird from the Cretaceous of mongolia, Nature 362, 623 - 626
Forster et al, The theropodian ancestry of birds: new evidence from the Late Cretaceous of madagascar, Science 279, 1915 - 1919

Is that your considered opinion Ed? Just so we know just how much nonsense you are willing to believe and have others believe.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[goofyjim]

Evolution should not be mandatory but neither should strict creationism. Compromise says there is a God and he brought things about through an evolutionary process.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Evolution should not be mandatory but neither should strict creationism. Compromise says there is a God and he brought things about through an evolutionary process.

That’s the uncompromising position. It’s the only that is consistent with our faith and with reality. As the Pope said, truth cannot contradict truth.

 

[edwest2]

Evolution should not be mandatory but neither should strict creationism. Compromise says there is a God and he brought things about through an evolutionary process.

Compromise does not apply to this issue. And the secular biology textbook is incomplete.

God bless,
Ed

 

[goofyjim]

Well I ain’t buying that the earth has only existed for 6,000 years. I accept that the earth at one point had dinosaurs. There is plenty of evidence in favor of it. And scientists do have the ability to carbon date their findings and come up with an estimate of how old it is. Does any of that deny that God started the whole process? Of course not. We’re just interested in how He did what He did. Science does not contradict religion. It supplements it.