Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[hecd2]

But as I’ve mentioned many times before, I think you need an “almost infinite” amount of time for it to happen without the direct intervention of the hand of God.

Indeed you have mentioned it many times before. And if you have stated any theoretical or empirical basis for your belief, then I have missed it. Do you have a rational basis for your belief that can be tested or is based purely on personal incredulity?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[ricmat]

Indeed you have mentioned it many times before. And if you have stated any theoretical or empirical basis for your belief, then I have missed it. Do you have a rational basis for your belief that can be tested or is based purely on personal incredulity?

Alec

“Personal incredulity” is such a negative term.

I prefer to call it “gut feel”. Based on a lot of things I learned over time, but don’t recall the details for…sorry!

 

[hecd2]

“Personal incredulity” is such a negative term.

I prefer to call it “gut feel”. Based on a lot of things I learned over time, but don’t recall the details for…sorry!

So it is personal incredulity or gut feel. Nothing based on reason or evidence or theoretical analysis. A bit like astrology or homoeopathy or geocentrism or the efficacy of rabbits’ feet. Whatever floats your boat.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Let science be science, and Church be Church.

Too late. “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

Pope John Paul II

Clearly, a role and a purpose for interaction has been established already. Too many are taken in to the idolatry of worshipping the mind of man.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Philipp]

PHILIPP: The book reviews of Dr.Larry Azar’s book, “Evolution and other fairy tales” by Fr. K. Baker, S.J. and that of E. Birmingham on www.kolbecenter.org will help folks realize that this book is one of the most important Catholic critiques of Evolution ever written. It was written by a philosopher who recognized the bankruptcy of the philosophical underpinnings of the evolution hypothesis. A philosopher was needed to see the many contradictions in evolution which also will help the scientists break away from supporting it such as wehn Dr. Azar pointed out that the leading paleontologist of his day, Dr. Patterson, curator of the British Museum said regarding the absence of transitional forms in the geological column in the mid-1980’s. KC has done a great service by reviewing this book and finding a tape recording of Dr. Patterson making the above statement about the fossil record - you can go to KC and listen to that part of the tape. It’s very revealing. But some of the more famous human artifacts found in the alleged ancient geologic column include the following taken from www.earthage.com

Human Artifacts
At various times and places, man-made objects have been found encased in coal. Examples include a thimble,a an iron pot,b an iron instrument,c an 8-karat gold chain,d three throwing-spears,e and a metallic vessel inlaid with silver.f Other “out-of-place artifacts” have been found inside deeply buried rocks: nails,g a screw,h a strange coin,i a tiny ceramic doll,j and other objects of obvious human manufacture.k By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years older than man. Again, something is wrong.

Indeed, coal has been consistently radiocarhon dated in the range of 48,000 radiocarbon years with diamond between 64,000 to 80,000 RC years. Dinosaur bones and megafossils [saber tooth tigers, sloths] about 12,000 to 31,000 RC years. Some mammoths in Russia were dated in the range of 40,000 to 53,000 RC years BP.* These RC years may be 4-10 too old as well. No one knows for sure but there are some very good theories why they are indeed too old and they are very scientific.
*Vasil’Chuk, Yurij, J. M. Punning, and A. Vasil’Chuk. 1997. Radiocarbon ages of mammoths in Northern Eurasia: Implications for population development and late quaternary environment. Radiocarbon 39(1):1-18.
Conclusion: Those millions and millions of years simply do not exist.

PHILIPP continues: I’m glad to see that there is now considerable interest in Fr. K. Baker’s magazine and that the resident theologian [28 years of lecturing] is now so aware. Hopefully you all will develop an interest in what the church fathers and doctors of the church say about origins as well as aready has been said by Fr. Baker about evolution. For instance St. John Damascene was one of the 32 docters of the Catholic Church and lived in the eigth century.

I’m sure if he were here to discuss origins he would still repeat what he said then, “The earliest formation (of man) is called creation and not generation. For creation is the original formation at God’s hands, while generation is the succession from each other made necessary by the sentence of death imposed on us on account of the transgression” (St. John Damascene – On The Orthodox Faith 2:30, p. 43).— The word generation might be considered evolution in the modernist sense. Death did not enter the world until after the transgression is what I read. JD was also well versed in the natural sciences of the day - observation; and spoke of “dragons” (dinosaurs) as real and not “ghosts” creationism.org/crimea/engl/al1.htm

Fast forward to 1496 and Catholic Bishop Bell’s resting place.
DINOSAURS IN THE CATHEDRAL! [a British report] “Put away all preconceived ideas. In 1994 I had written something for the local paper, “The Cumberland News” about dinosaurs. Shortly afterwards I received a telephone call from Mr Ray Hancock, a guide in Carlisle Cathedral. Would I come and look at some dinosaurs on Bishop Bell’s tomb? They were puzzled by them. Bishop Bell’s tomb is located in the central isle of the Carlisle Cathedral under a carpet square placed over it in 1992 for protection. The carpet is loose but now alas, they can only be viewed after obtaining permission from the Dean in writing. You will see around the edge on the brass engravings of dinosaurs.” [photo of brass carving on web @
http://www.enlightened.org.uk/ev08-truth.html
Other dinosaur depictions from the Hava Supai Canyon of the GC, Peru, Mexico and Cambodia can be seen on creationism.org/swift/Acambaro/index.htm

Dennis Swift of the second web site has been investigating the US and Mexican dinosaur depictions as well as Peruvian depictions for 20 years. They were discovered and investigated long before he started his investigations by such persons as Hapgood including C-14 dating of the clay figurines [clay contains straw which is datable-~2000 AD.]. He also has a book on his many visits to Peru etc. His major discovery was when he was flying around over the NASCA lines in Peru when he asked the pilot to visit all the valleys he could fly too. There they discovered giant depictions of several dinosaurs. That photo is in his book and the photograph has been shown on the History Channel. The truth will out — watch out you who believe in long ages.

The Camboidan Stegosaur supposedly left the scene 180 million years ago [bones found in China above Cambodia] but there it was as a limestone carving from 1200 AD along with other well known animals.
unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/08/stegosaurus-in-cambodia.html

So what we have now are all these anomalous hard data [C-14 dating of dinosaur bones and many other fossils, archaeological discoveries world wide of dinosaur depitctions and sedimentology discoveries by many modern authors] and they are ignored, the discoverer rediculed as a “kook or a nut case” or his or her research considered unworthy a full study by academia [to avoid losing their jobs? Who wants to be the first to be canned for blowing the whistle on the evolution fairy tale as Dr. Marie Claire Van Oosterwyck went through — lots of examples out there].

However you ET’s/TE’s can’t escape the many web sites on the Internet as long as there are Christians who are willing to dig up the hard data in support of the church fathers like Damacene.

BACK TO THE CATHEDRAL REPORT: "Now the important thing here is that no one disputes that Bishop Bell died in 1496 and that he was put down in his tomb and sealed with brass which was then engraved. No one disputes the engravings were made in 1496, it is a matter of Carlisle Cathedral record. The engravings obviously represent things that were important to Bishop Bell during his lifetime, for example a hunting dog, foliage of various kinds and three different kinds of dinosaurs. Two of one of the kinds involved are pictured as if doing some courting or perhaps fighting. Either way there is simply no mistaking they are dinosaurs and were obviously quite familiar to Bishop Bell during his life time! — “Bill Cooper has dug up some interesting legends. It certainly looks like we have coexisted throughout most of history with dinosaurs. In Canterbury Cathedral there is a chronicle which tells that on Friday, 16th September 1449 (when Bishop Bell was alive in Carlisle - remember?) A fight took place near the village of Little Conrad on the Suffolk-Essex border. It was between two giant reptiles in a field which is still called Sharpfight Meadow.”]

“The obvious question evolutionists have to answer is: How can this be? No one knew about dinosaurs then - or did they?”

Bible history is cool.

 

[The_Barbarian]

So what we have now are all these anomalous hard data [C-14 dating of dinosaur bones and many other fossils,

You can’t date fossils with C-14, for the same reason you can’t take the temperature of a blast furnace with a candy thermometer. It just pegs the reading to the highest possible setting for that instrument.

(on illustrations of big animals that look like dragons or lizards or dinosaurs)

"The obvious question evolutionists have to answer is: How can this be?

Big long-necked beasties were not unknown to the ancients, as least as fossils. The Greeks found one long-necked “dragon” that
was displayed in a museum…



Fossil giraffe. It looks sorta dragonlike, um? long necked, reptilian beasty, they thought. So that’s the “dinosaur”.

No one knew about dinosaurs then - or did they?"

The griffin story seems to have come about because people in Central Asia knew of dinosaurs. More specifically fossil remains of protoceratops, which looks sort of like the classical griffin.
http://dinodaytona.tripod.com/Images/Protoceratops2.jpg

No magic, no recent dinosaurs (which solves the knotty problem of why no one in ancient times thought their presence was worth mentioning).
[/quote]

 

[ricmat]

So it is personal incredulity or gut feel. Nothing based on reason or evidence or theoretical analysis. A bit like astrology or homoeopathy or geocentrism or the efficacy of rabbits’ feet. Whatever floats your boat.

That’s the nicest thing you’ve ever said to me! You must be mellowing in your old age…

 

[jphod]

What the new research is doing, is predicting the form that resistance will take so that we can take steps to deal with it.

Could you give a specific practical instance of this, for instance a specific antibiotic developed based on these resistnace models.

 

[drpmjhess]

St. John Damascene was one of the 32 doctors of the Catholic Church and lived in the eighth century. I’m sure if he were here to discuss origins he would still repeat what he said then, “The earliest formation (of man) is called creation and not generation.

I’m sure St. John Damascene would not repeat what he’d said in the 8th century, as he was a really bright guy. That’s like saying a 70-year old with a doctorate would hold the same opinions about the world he’d held as a kindergartener, despite sixty-five years of education and life experience. As humans mature we learn a lot about the world; as Western civilization has progressed through the Renaissance and scientific and technological revolutions we have learned a lot more about how the world works.

Petrus

 

[rossum]

You sort of lost me here. I think we’re both saying that the description offered by drpmjhess does not support evolution in general, since nothing evolved in response to the antibiotic.

I agree with drpmjhess, bacterial resistance is a perfectly good example of evolution. Evolution starts from the fact that populations vary within themselves. We know that populations of bacteria vary within themselves, as shown by the Luria-Delbrück experiment. Those variations are then sorted by natural selection acting within the particular environment resulting in a long term change in the population. The example that drpmjhess gave showed this process exactly, an initial variation being selected in a changing environment.

And that his post offers a good explanation rather, of natural selection in action.

No, it is a perfectly good example of evolution as a whole - natural selection acting on variation within the population.

rossum

 

[Philipp]

As she stated concerning the matter, "The archaeologist in charge of the Hueyatlaco dig (where they had found well made stone tools) rejected our geologic dates of a quarter-million years because, according to her belief, modern man, the maker of those tools, had not yet evolved 250,000 years ago. He evolved only 100,000 years ago and that was in the Old World, not the New. A classic case of arguing from theory to data, then tossing out the data that don’t fit. The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of `Enigmatic Data’, data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking…not being an anthropologist, I didn’t realise the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period."

Back to the Hare Krishna stuff?

In fact, the strata were extremely confused in this location, including tilted strata, with ancient volcanic deposits, and the area had at one time been underwater, further confusing things.

It was not a great place to do a radioisotope sampling.

PHILIPP: Date the fossils stupid, not the rocks. C-14 date wood and shell associated with the tools not the magma. Sigh! You evol guys will never learn anything from these threads. Me thinks yoiu have lost the power to reason or more likely you have an agenda that you can not abandon because of your evolutionary religious faith. You are trying to convert us to YOUR religion.

Another debate is ongoing now with regards footprints in Mexico. Again the radioisotopic dating method is out of site like 1.3 million years BP vs 27,000 to 40,000 for the fossils. Again man and tools can’t be more than 12,000 years in Mexico by accepted religious ferver. And you try and convince the poor gullibles that the earth is 4.5 billion years old using a faulty system that rarely gets it right for any historical event?? That ain’t science that’s “evolutionism.” Again I point out that even RC dating is too old but the point is you got to have it your way — everyone else is censored.

 

[Memaw]

If that were true—if science was really “unemotional and objective”, then you wouldn’t have had Ales Hrdlicka of the Smithsonian Institution barging into Louis Leakey’s office and accusing Leakey of “teaching heresy” after Leakey had examined the eoliths from the Calico site in California and pronounced that man had been in the New World for at least 15,000 years, nor would you have had one of Leakey’s biographers stating that “for many colleagues who felt admiration [for Leakey], the Calico years were an embarassment and a sadness”.

If science was really “all about evidence”, you wouldn’t have had scientists working so hard to cover up evidence produced from the Sheguiandah site in Canada, and doing their best to discredit Thomas Lee, the anthropoligist who excavated the site. Lee dated the tools he found at about 30,000 years old; the geologists working with him dated them at about 150,000 years old. For his discovery, Lee was hounded from his Civil Service position, he was unable to publish or to find employment; Dr. Jacques Rosseau—the Director of National Museum of Canada—who defended Lee, was also fired and driven into exile; Lee’s artifacts were seized and packed into crates in the National Museum, never to be seen again; and his notes and submitted papers mysteriously were “misfiled and lost”.

All of this for uncovering evidence that suggested that man was in North America prior to the “accepted” date of 12,000 years ago. As Lee observed, “Sheguiandah would have forced embarassing admissions that the Brahmins didn’t know everything. It would have forced the re-writing of almost every book in the business. It had to be killed. It was killed.”

If science was really “all about evidence”, you wouldn’t have precisely the same thing happening at the Hueyatlaco site in Mexico, where artifacts were dated at 250,000 years ago. The “unemotional and objective” scientists refused to publish the date, even after numerous tests had been made. Virginia Steen-McIntyre, the USGS geologist on the site, met the same fate as Thomas Lee: she was hounded from her position, lost her job, was publicly labelled by the “unemotional and objective” scientists as “incompetent”, “a news monger”, “an opportunist”, “dishonest”, and “a fool”. She has not worked professionally in her field since, again finding it impossible to get any of her papers published.

As she stated concerning the matter, “The archaeologist in charge of the Hueyatlaco dig (where they had found well made stone tools) rejected our geologic dates of a quarter-million years because, according to her belief, modern man, the maker of those tools, had not yet evolved 250,000 years ago. He evolved only 100,000 years ago and that was in the Old World, not the New. A classic case of arguing from theory to data, then tossing out the data that don’t fit. The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of `Enigmatic Data’, data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking…not being an anthropologist, I didn’t realise the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period.”

If science were “all about evidence, not belief”, then you wouldn’t have ancient human skeletal remains found in New Jersey, Illinois, California, Missouri, Britain, France, Brazil, Italy, and Argentina rejected because they “didn’t fit” with the accepted theory of evolution, while finds such as Java Man and “Lucy” are accepted wholesale, even when they don’t offer as much paleontological evidence as the rejected finds.

Science is “all about the scientific method”? “Isn’t at all emotional”? “Is objective?” Science “isn’t about belief, it’s about evidence”?

Absolute balderdash.

You’re using the wrong term, Namesake. Dogma is a defined teaching, promulgated by either an ecumenical council or a reigning Pontiff; but in either case, the teaching is both infallible and binding upon all Catholics.

Doctrine can change. Discipline can change. Devotion can change. Dogma cannot. So whatever it was that the Church may have had to revise views on, dogma was not one of them.

Just thought I’d point that out before you make the same error twice.

CORRECTION!

Doctrine CANNOT change, Doctrine is any TRUTH taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. Dogma’s are those Doctrines which the Church proposes as formally revealed by GOD. They may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life. Dogma’s are clearly defined Doctrine, and both are infallible.

 

[Philipp]

Ed, I have numerous friends and collegues who are priests and nuns, and at the same time they are scientists. The attend what you derisively refer to as “anachronisitc ceremonies,” lightihg candles and praying. They also work in their physics and biology laboratories. They understand the difference between religion and science. I wish that were possible for you as well.

PHILIPP: No wonder the church is in such as sad state of attendence, hardly any priests left, seminaraies closed, abortion is rampant, confusion abounds. It would appear that the elitists have taken over — No intelligence allowed. Perge those who support the church fathers; allow only those who support modernism. Down with tradition up with Darwin is obviously your MOS.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Date the fossils stupid, not the rocks.

You can’t date fossils. They are rocks. And being sedimentary rock, they cannot give accurate dates.

C-14 date wood and shell associated with the tools

You can’t C-14 date shells, since mollusks get most of their carbon from geological sources, and thereby give false and very ancient dates. And wood that has been covered by groundwater is very suspect, since ancient carbon can then contaminate the wood. It’s not magic, and not everything can be tested.

And even if you could do this, the limit of C-14 analysis is at best 50,000 years. Wouldn’t help you at all.

Sigh! You evol guys will never learn anything from these threads.

I’m always amazed at the arrogance of people who know nothing at all about the subject, who presume to know more than the scientists who spend a life working with it.

Me thinks yoiu have lost the power to reason or more likely you have an agenda that you can not abandon because of your evolutionary religious faith.

Or, as in this case, I know a few things about dating you didn’t. Ignorance is curable. Arrogance is harder to fix.

You are trying to convert us to YOUR religion.

Ranting, calling names, and making foolish accusations isn’t going to help you, Phillipp. Get some knowledge. That will help.

No one is censoring you. You can carry on as you will. But you have to understand the impression you are making.

 

[Memaw]

PHILIPP: No wonder the church is in such as sad state of attendence, hardly any priests left, seminaraies closed, abortion is rampant, confusion abounds. It would appear that the elitists have taken over — No intelligence allowed. Perge those who support the church fathers; allow only those who support modernism. Down with tradition up with Darwin is obviously your MOS.

Never Fear, Philipp, The Church will be standing, strong and HOLY, LONG after all these things fade into history, and I intend to be right in there with HER. Either in this world or in the next.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Could you give a specific practical instance of this, for instance a specific antibiotic developed based on these resistnace models.

"2000-2003 I developed a method for experimentally predicting the evolution of antibiotic resistance genes and a method for detecting cryptic antibiotic resistance genes in ghe genomes of antibiotic-sensitive microorganisms. A patent has been awarded for the former method, and the latter is the subject of a pending patent application. During the same period I published phylogenies of several antibiotic resistance genes. Those phylogenies are posted to this web site."
homepage.mac.com/barryghall/BarryHall.html

Both of these discoveries (note one was useful enough to get a patent, and the other has a patent pending) will greatly improve our ability to predict and head off new forms of antibiotic resistance.

It’s not in getting new antibiotics, it’s in prolonging the useful life of the ones we have. And it all depends on evolutionary theory.

 

[ricmat]

I agree with drpmjhess, bacterial resistance is a perfectly good example of evolution. Evolution starts from the fact that populations vary within themselves. We know that populations of bacteria vary within themselves, as shown by the Luria-Delbrück experiment. Those variations are then sorted by natural selection acting within the particular environment resulting in a long term change in the population. The example that drpmjhess gave showed this process exactly, an initial variation being selected in a changing environment.

No, it is a perfectly good example of evolution as a whole - natural selection acting on variation within the population.

rossum

OK - then I’m a bit baffled at why this experiment received so much publicity (I actually read about it in the MSM a while ago). The spin I got from that article was that a new strain of bacteria had evolved in response to the presence of the anti-biotic. Actually, they were already there to begin with, and the others got killed off. So there was nothing new, only the relative numbers changed.

This is no different e.g. than a new strain of human flu killing off a small segment of humans (from a large population with a lot of variation).

In your opinion, why was this considered such a big deal?

 

[rossum]

OK - then I’m a bit baffled at why this experiment received so much publicity (I actually read about it in the MSM a while ago). The spin I got from that article was that a new strain of bacteria had evolved in response to the presence of the anti-biotic. Actually, they were already there to begin with, and the others got killed off. So there was nothing new, only the relative numbers changed.

This is no different e.g. than a new strain of human flu killing off a small segment of humans (from a large population with a lot of variation).

In your opinion, why was this considered such a big deal?

You will have to ask MSN that. Science reporters are a lot more interested in headlines like “Old Theory has to be Rewritten” than “Old Theory was Right all Along”. A part of their job is to generate advertising revenue so they are looking for an angle on stories to maximise publicity. Excitement and change are a lot more publicity-worthy than same-old, same-old.

rossum

 

[ibetrippin07]

I feel the need to say, evolutionists don’t even believe in their own argument…so why do any evolutionists here do? the following are some stunning quotes i have decided to dig up as to demoralize the other side
“Evolution of the animal and plant world is considered by those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed. But in spite of nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard to the details of the means of evolution.”
-geneticist Richard Goldschmidt

“Today we are less confident and the whole subject is in the most exciting ferment. Evolution is … nagged from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery-specitation itself.”
Keith S. Thomson

“Indeed, to make the statement even stronger, imperfections are the primary proofs that evolution has occurred, since optimal designs erase all signposts of history.”
Dr. Stephen Jay Gould! chief advocate of punctuated equilibrium!

“No paleontologist worthy of the name would ever date his fossils by the strata in which they are found … Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur.” sure with circular reasoning that works
Derek Ager
two other quotes supporting this, if you really want them i can type them out too
heres a good one
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition”
S.M. Stanley of John Hopkins
“Evolution happens rapidly in small localized populations, so were not likely to see it in the fossl record.”
S.M. Stanley of John Hopkins.
so wait, the fossil record proves evolution but it occurs in small areas so its not likely to be seen? convenient to date the fossils at random really.

Modern geologists say
"Furthermore, much of Lyell’s uniformitarianism, specifically his ideas on identity of ancient and modern causes, gradualism, and constancy of rate, has been explicitly refuted by the definitive modern sources as well as by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that, as substantive theories, his ideas on these matters were simply wrong.

'I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The ‘others’ are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for a long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles…It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern mathematical miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics."
-Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the worlds top mathematical astrophysicists!

More quotes coming! just absorb these!

 

[Wolseley]

"The Barbarian:

Back to the Hare Krishna stuff?

If you say so. None of what I put into that post came from Cremo, but since you’re always right, the sources I used must be affiliated with Krishna Consciousness.

Would it help if I repeated the same sources eleventy-five billion times, adding the words “virtually certain”? It seems to work for you.

Date the fossils stupid, not the rocks. C-14 date wood and shell associated with the tools not the magma. Sigh! You evol guys will never learn anything from these threads.

It won’t do any good to argue with him, Philipp. Barb exists in a seamless world of his own perfection, where he alone is right, and all others, unless they bow down to his conclusions, are wrong.

Philipp:

Me thinks yoiu have lost the power to reason or more likely you have an agenda that you can not abandon because of your evolutionary religious faith. You are trying to convert us to YOUR religion.

Barbarian-worship?

Philipp:

Another debate is ongoing now with regards footprints in Mexico. Again the radioisotopic dating method is out of site like 1.3 million years BP vs 27,000 to 40,000 for the fossils. Again man and tools can’t be more than 12,000 years in Mexico by accepted religious ferver. And you try and convince the poor gullibles that the earth is 4.5 billion years old using a faulty system that rarely gets it right for any historical event?? That ain’t science that’s “evolutionism.” Again I point out that even RC dating is too old but the point is you got to have it your way — everyone else is censored.

I agree, Phil; Barb would have made a good Darwinian-evolutionist paleontologist. “Accept what I say, and if you come up with contradictory evidence, I will supress it and destroy your reputation.” Completely impartial about the evidence that’s found, the whole lot of them.

Memaw:

CORRECTION!

Doctrine CANNOT change, Doctrine is any TRUTH taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. Dogma’s are those Doctrines which the Church proposes as formally revealed by GOD. They may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life. Dogma’s are clearly defined Doctrine, and both are infallible.

I won’t belabor the point with you, especially since I have no conflict with you ( ) but only the two top tiers of Catholic teaching are infallible, being Deposit and Dogma. Deposit is what was passed on by the Apostles, and Dogma is a defined teaching by a council or a Pope. Doctrine is a concept or teaching that is open to change, or even abandonment—limbo is a prime example. Discipline and Devotion are the two lowest levels, and are also not infallible.

For a better explanation than I can give, see David Currie, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic (Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1996), pp. 84-87.