M
Memaw
Guest
Good advice, if I were you, I’d listen to your Mom.
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
I am not sure what your source is trying to say. The word “Creator” is present in the sixth edition:There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Source: Origin, 6th Edition, Chapter Fifteen
rossum
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
My Mom used to say that people who didn’t know what they’re talking about, are pretty much limited to spite.
Wise lady, my Mom.
My Mom used to say that people who didn’t know what they’re talking about, are pretty much limited to spite.
Wise lady, my Mom.
It is. Now why don’t you go learn something about the subject so you can offer more than spite?
Yes, you would, if you were me. But obviously, you aren’t me. But it’s not too late to go find out what you’re talking about.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Cardinal Ratzinger not only chaired the committee that made this report, he signed off on it, and the Pope approved it. It is the official Vatican statement on the subject. You know this. So does everyone else. Why bother spinning it otherwise?
(Barbarian regarding Wolseley inventing things for him to say)
Another Wolseley moment, um?
Yes, Wolseley has those moments where he insists on identifying who actually said something, instead of attributing statements to someone who didn’t directly make them. I’m funny that way.
Barbarian asks:
Are you going again to tell us to go buy a book by the people who are promoting “Krishna Consciousness?” How exactly does Hare Krishna fit into Roman Catholicism?
Yes, I know, back in the 60s, they used to say, “Oh, we believe Jesus is God. We are Catholics, too.”
**In 1993, Cremo and Richard Thompson published Forbidden Archaeology (FA), a voluminous exposé of “anomalous archaeological artifacts” that suggested modern people possibly lived on earth almost as long as the world existed, some 4.3 billion years ago.
Like Christian creationists who accommodate science to the Bible, Cremo and Thompson are Hindu creationists that harmonize science with their sacred Vedic scriptures. The Bhagavata Purana says that men and women have lived on earth for a vast period of time called the Day of Brahma, which is composed of a thousand yuga cycles.**
tinyurl.com/2nbcym
You really, really wanted us to “read the book” didn’t you? Truthfully now, did you or did you not know that the book espouses the doctrines of “Krishna Consciousness?”
It’s just stories people wrote to get you to accept their religion. Cremo is a tireless advocate for his faith in Hinduism. The fact that you wouldn’t expose any of those stories here for examination tells us a great deal.
That’s a testable claim. Present some of Cremo’s stories, and we’ll take a look at them.
Barbarian observes:
I know it infuriates you when people show you what Cardinal Ratzinger said about evolution.
I read your denial, but your behavior is more eloquent.
They actually said that it is “virtually certain.”
Barbarian observes:
Given these facts, it’s understandable that you’re trying to make the best of it.
I forgave you. But I’d like you to avoid misrepresenting what I say in the future.
Funny then that it is heavily promoted here:
krishnatube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=89729412
So…
**"It’s Anti-evolutionism, but Is It Creationism?
I think so, as the title of this article suggests. The authors state that they are followers of Vedic philosophy and aim to explain the history of the human race according to information preserved in Vedic texts and religion. They inform the reader that their religious affiliation should not matter if their ideas are solid (p. xxxvi), and I agree. Any person’s work should be regarded on its merits. …He writes, “Like fundamentalist Christian creationists, they [Cremo and Thompson] avoid talking about the religious content of their perspective, so we can only guess at it.” Feder tells us of the concept of the Vedic world cycle ( manvantara ) of 300,000,000 years in which the world with its humans is created and then destroyed in cycles. This concept is in keeping with Forbidden Archaeology ’s thesis of modern-type humans existing throughout antiquity. Feder says, “We all know what happens when we mix a literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian myth with human paleontology; we get scientific creationism. It seems that we now know what happens when we mix a literal interpretation of the Hindu myth of creation with human paleontology; we get the anti-evolutionary Krishna creationism of Forbidden Archaeology , where human beings do not evolve and where the fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans dates as far back as the beginning of the current manvantara .” **
I think I’m familiar enough with Vedic theology. Apparently you know more of it than I do. I would suggest that you spend more time learning what the Church has to say about it.
I can only imagine.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
No, no one said that. I merely pointed out that Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, said that common descent is “virtually certain.”
He did. The other part, you just made up. BTW, when are you going to show us those stories from your Krishna writer that proves evolution is false?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
In the sense that when a roof is installed, the nails are driven by a purposeless hammer that did not have the roof in mind.
You’ve confused efficient and final causes here.
E
Ender
Guest
This is untrue; the “virtually certain” comment pertained to common descent, not Darwinism. Wolseley’s statement is correct.
This is a bit disingenuous. Clearly the debate is whether man was purposely created or is nothing more than an accident of undirected physical forces. In your example it asks whether the hammer is wielded by an intelligent agent or is merely bouncing around on its own.
W
Wolseley
Guest
To pin down who actually said it, B. Evidently that’s not important to you—it might be to everyone else.
The Barbarian said:
I’m not the least bit interested in what a website review of the book has to say, and if you were honest (which you aren’t), you wouldn’t be, either. What does the book itself say? Apparently, you’re never going to know, because you’re afraid of reading it, and it’s eaiser for you to depend on what somebody else tells you about it, isn’t it?
The Barbarian:
Yes, I really, really do. You might not agree with what’s in it, but you should at least be aware of what’s in it, instead of depending on “tinyurl.com” to do your thinking for you.
The Barbraian:
Truthfully now, the book has absolutely nothing to do with either Hinduism or Krishna Consciousness. I can say that confidently, because I’ve read it and you haven’t. And if you say that it has, B, you’re full of something, and I don’t mean sugar beets. And until you have read it, you’d really be better off keeping your mouth closed about it, rather than embarass yourself further.
The Barbarian:
If we were dealing with a book that was trying to proselityze people into accepting Hinduism, I would. Forbidden Archeology doesn’t do that, a fact which, again, utterly escapes you, because you haven’t read it. I would have thought that libel was beneath you, but I guess not.
The Barbarian:
No, B, I already told you I’m not going to do your work for you. You go find a copy of the book, and you read it for yourself.
The Barbarian:
And I would suggest that you stop trying to derail the thread with red herrings and straw men and deal with the issues at hand. It’s comforting to you to know that as long as you keep railing about Hinduism, then you don’t have to confront what’s in this book, but that doesn’t change the issues.
Tell me, O Great And Enlightened Sage Of All Wisdom, when a Catholic evolutionist writes a science book about evolution, do you rant and rave about how he’s a Catholic, how his Catholicism has influenced what he’s written, or how he should be ignored because he’s obviously incapable of writing a science book, biased as he is with Catholicism?
Or do you think it possible that a Catholic is capable of writing a book which is utterly neutral where his religion is concerned? If the answer is yeas, then the question becomes, “Why can’t a Hindu also write a book which is utterly neutral where his religion is concerned? Or a Muslim? Or a Buddhist? Or even an atheist?”
Oh, that’s right, I forgot----this has nothing to do with Hinduism, this is just a way for you to throw up a smokescreen about somewthing totally unrelated so you don’t have to deal with the real issue. Gotcha.
I think we’re about done here, B. Your agenda is about as subtle as a five-ton earthmover, and it’s clear to anyone reading this thread that instead of dealing with the issues at hand, you’d rather throw up inaccurate accusations and then run away and hide. That’s your choice, and if you can’t handle dealing with evidence that contradicts His Holiness Lord Darwin, maybe it’s healthier, mentally, for you, so I can’t blame you for that. But until you’ve actually read the book and are capbale of intelligently discussing what’s actually in it, instead of spewing out reams of fables about it, further discussion on the topic is more or less pointless.
So get back to me after you’ve actually read it, okay?
E
edwest2
Guest
To The Barbarian,
The biology textbook is lacking critical information. Only the Catholic Church has the whole answer, the correct answer, the right answer. Evolution does not work by itself. God’s intervention is necessary.
But you, your only concern is promoting atheistic mantras. Darwin is not God. Only God is God.
God bless,
Ed
The biology textbook is lacking critical information. Only the Catholic Church has the whole answer, the correct answer, the right answer. Evolution does not work by itself. God’s intervention is necessary.
But you, your only concern is promoting atheistic mantras. Darwin is not God. Only God is God.
God bless,
Ed
T
Thing
Guest
We’re saying the same thing. He exists before matter, laws, and time.
They are formed as they were so that the Word could could take flesh as it did. In that sense everything was created through Him - like light has to pass through the lens of your eye to form an image.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Spoken from personal experience?
M
Memaw
Guest
And just what do you think would have happened if Adam and Eve had NOT disobeyed God, And the WORD had not become flesh
Light passing thru the lens of an eye forms just an image, no a real object. Are we just an image??? I don’t think sooo.
M
Memaw
Guest
Nope.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Precisely – and I think The Barbarian would agree. That’s why there are many excellent books by Catholic theologians treating the intiguing philosophical and theological issues raised by an evolutionary world view.
Petrus
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Remember the importance of mythologies in every culture:
(1) A Universe as complicated as ours cannot possibly have arisen by mere chance; only a Giant and a Cow can account for this. (Norse Mythology)
(2) A Universe as complicated as ours cannot possibly have arisen by mere chance; only a God, a snake, and a miraculous six-day creation can account for this. (Hebrew Mythology)
(3) A Universe as complicated as ours cannot possibly have arisen by mere chance; only a creating spirit and a diving muskrat can account for this. (Cherokee Mythology)
E
edwest2
Guest
Are you an atheist? What does mythology have to do with the revealed Word of God?
Only God is worthy of worship, not science.
God bless,
Ed
Only God is worthy of worship, not science.
God bless,
Ed
D
drpmjhess
Guest
No, I’m a Catholic theologian, working in the mainstream tradition of biblical hermeneutics. Study Old Testament in a Roman Catholic seminary sometime and you’ll see what I mean. They tend not to be biblical literalists there.
Petrus
M
Memaw
Guest
Like I said before: My Mom always said, “Some people like to talk, just to hear their head rattle.”
Wise Lady, my Mom.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
As the Pope says, biology textbooks have the information they need to convey what science can convey. Common descent, natural selection and evolution are scientific concepts.
For your salvation. The Catholic Church, does not have the answer as to the way fitness works in the environment. And shouldn’t. Christianity is about God and man and our relationship, not about the workings of the physical universe.
No sign of that. All the evidence indicates that He set the rules up and follows them strictly, unless He’s trying to teach us something.
Maybe you’ve confused me with Wolseley. And he’s promoting Krishna, not atheism.
Or maybe you’re just angry enough to make that kind of false accusation against me. If so, you should be ashamed of yourself.
So far as I remember, you’re the only one who brought up that idea.
Then let Him be God and do it His way.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
I’d agree, although I haven’t kept up with all the issues. I don’t know as much of theology as I’d like. My interest has focused on how science and faith intersect. So much to read. And I’m still getting the jargon down.
- Status