I
ibetrippin07
Guest
Anyways my friends I am goin to go for the day, have some fun n what not and as always let brotherly love continue!
God bless!
God bless!
- Status
I
ibetrippin07
Guest
one last thing, for future tense, what the pope again says has no bearing on me or my beliefs as I dont not believe in the pope as the Catholics do. I dont think hes anything special. I dont think the pope can forgive sins, I dont think he is greater than any man or lesser than any man on the earth who is a fellow in Christ.
Just keep that in mind when quoting him, because its a waste of space for you
Just keep that in mind when quoting him, because its a waste of space for you
H
hecd2
Guest
Tee hee
E
edwest2
Guest
What you think about the Pope does not change who he is or the office that he holds at all. He is the Bishop of Rome and head of the Roman Catholic Church.
God bless,
Ed
H
hecd2
Guest
Ah - that well known authority on avian anatomy, Gish.
Why don’t you discuss these:
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
Alec
evolutionpages.com
E
edwest2
Guest
Fake Chines Fossils:
paleodirect.com/fakechinesefossils1.htm
I would also like to point out the letter the Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian wrote to National Geographic when they published their unsupported dinosaurs with feathers article in 1999. It was obviously important to the Curator of Birds to point out that their haste to publish on this theory was not motivated by evidence but by a desire to popularize an idea in the minds of the average person.
God bless,
Ed
paleodirect.com/fakechinesefossils1.htm
I would also like to point out the letter the Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian wrote to National Geographic when they published their unsupported dinosaurs with feathers article in 1999. It was obviously important to the Curator of Birds to point out that their haste to publish on this theory was not motivated by evidence but by a desire to popularize an idea in the minds of the average person.
God bless,
Ed
W
Wolseley
Guest
Okay, okay. Three billiard tables. Sheesh.Wolseley:
Said by a journalist in 1981 about hominid fossils and quoted gleefully by creationists ever since. Misquoted shamefully by you. It was wrong at the time and it even more wrong now.
No, no…I really can’t take any credit for inventing the warehouse. Really. It was someone else, honest.Wolseley:
Invented by you yesterday without the slightest justification.
(shrug) I still haven’t seen anybody addressing the mountain of anomalous evidence out there. And they never will, because they can’t. Oh, they can supposedly counter some of them using the carefully-revised versions that you find on talkorigins.org and other such sites, but they still judiciously avoid the primary sources, because there’s just no way to counter the evidence against poor old Chuckie Darwin and his playmates.
(shrug) It’s just the way it is, kids.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
I will answer these, but there are more knowledgeable people in here that can take a crack at them.
<< 1. Would you agree with me when I say that Nebraska man or “Hesperopithecus haroldcookii”, pithecanthropus Erectus, Eoanthropus dawsoni, Peking man are pathetic terrible frauds poised by the evolutionary community in desperation to find evidence when there is none? and if not why? >>
No I would not agree. All of these are dealt with in detail by TalkOrigins "Fossil Hominids: Evidence for Human Evolution" pages. I will link the relevant article with documentation and give my summary.
The "Nebraska man" was not a fraud, it was simply mislabled by one paleontologist scientist (Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American Museum of Natural History) from a tooth discovered in 1917. It was never accepted as a transitional hominid. An article appeared in the June 24, 1922 edition of the Illustrated London News (a popular British magazine, not a scientific journal) constructing an entire family from the tooth, but such was never accepted by science nor published in peer-reviewed science journals of the time.
The "Piltdown man" was a fraud since it was accepted as a legitimate hominid fossil and was not caught for 40 years. Toward the end before the fraud was discovered though it was not included in textbooks as an example of transitional hominid evolution. It was eventually evolutionists themselves who exposed the fraud in the 1950s.
The others you mention are not frauds at all, but are well accepted as hominid fossils (part man, part ape, either direct line or a side branch) along with many other hominid species:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus ("Peking Man" and "Java Man")
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens (modern humans)
<< 2. What are your feelings toward the evolution of the egg or the eye. Do you agree with what Darwin had said about them? >>
My “feelings” are that Darwin lived 150 years ago. In a sense it is completely irrelevant what Darwin thought of the evolution of the egg or the eye. However, what Darwin said about the evolution of the eye has been taken out of context. TODAY the evolution of the eye is well known, well studied, well documented. Your experts on that are the Lund Vision Group in Sweden. The head scientist (Dan-Erik Nilsson) was featured on the 2001 PBS Special Evolution. On the evolution of the egg, here’s a short article from Stanford Univ, and more in a Dec 2002 article in NATURE. Neither are a problem.
<< 3. If there is a direct correlation between evolution and racism, and as a social science as a whole. What excuse gives evolution the ability to enter the scientific arena. >>
Biological evolution properly understood (common descent by gradual modification, with natural selection as the major mechanism) is purely a scientific idea based on scientific evidence and data. Because some have misinterpreted the idea as being racist does not mean we throw away all the evidence and data that supports evolution. The same can be said about Christianity in general. Because some folks have interpreted the “mark of Cain” in Genesis as being black skin (i.e. Christian “Identity” groups), or have used the Bible in a racist way, does not mean all of Christianity should be thrown out. There is “Darwinism” based on abuses of evolution from philosophy or ideology (e.g. “social Darwinism” or Richard Weikart’s From Darwin to Hitler), and there is "Darwinism" which is the evidence for evolution based purely on scientific data and observation.
<< 4. Dont you think there should be not just a few here and there “examples” of transitional fossils, but literally millions of them everywhere that directly show the existence of extinct transitionally fossils? >>
Of course there were millions and billions of species that have lived in the history of this planet since the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and life has been here about 3 billion years. The problem is fossilization is a rare event by itself. It doesn’t automatically occur with every death of an animal or plant. Fossils are only preserved through certain conditions in the environment, geology, type of death, and other factors. But we do have plenty of transitionals, they are:
– Cambrian fossils between invertebrates and vertebrates: Pikaia, Yunnanozoon, Haikouella, Conodonts, Cathaymyrus, Myllokunmingia, Haikouichthys (see James W. Valentine, On the Origin of Phyla [Univ of Chicago, 2004])
– Fish to tetrapod (amphibian) fossils:
Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Obruchevichthys, Tiktaalik roseae, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Tulerpeton, Pholidogaster, Pteroplax (see Jennifer Clack, Gaining Ground: The Origin and Early Evolution of Tetrapods [Indiana Univ Press, 2002])
– Reptile-to-Mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia: Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Permocynodon, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon, Vincelestes, Pariadens, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops (see e.g. The Beginning of the Age of Mammals by Kenneth Rose [John Hopkins Univ, 2006] or The Origin and Evolution of Mammals by T.S. Kemp [Oxford Univ, 2005])
– Dinosaur (Reptile)-to-Bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps: represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among others (see e.g. Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds by Gregory Paul [John Hopkins Univ, 2002])
There are also the land mammal to whale transitionals, and the Ape-Human hominids I’ve already mentioned above.
<< 5. I must also know if you believe the bible and evolution coincide or not. maybe a definite yes or no and why would be nice here. This would nice if we talk about the world wide flood later on! >>
YES, the Bible and modern science in general coincide. That is my position, the position of the Catechism (CCC 159, 283-284), and the position of the last few Popes (Benedict XVI to Pius XII). The “science” of the Bible was a primitive, ancient science (flat and staionary earth), not a modern science. Therefore, since I do not interpret Genesis as a modern science textbook, evolution is compatible with the Bible. God created us through evolution.
I’ll have to get back on your answers to my questions.
Phil P
<< 1. Would you agree with me when I say that Nebraska man or “Hesperopithecus haroldcookii”, pithecanthropus Erectus, Eoanthropus dawsoni, Peking man are pathetic terrible frauds poised by the evolutionary community in desperation to find evidence when there is none? and if not why? >>
No I would not agree. All of these are dealt with in detail by TalkOrigins "Fossil Hominids: Evidence for Human Evolution" pages. I will link the relevant article with documentation and give my summary.
The "Nebraska man" was not a fraud, it was simply mislabled by one paleontologist scientist (Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American Museum of Natural History) from a tooth discovered in 1917. It was never accepted as a transitional hominid. An article appeared in the June 24, 1922 edition of the Illustrated London News (a popular British magazine, not a scientific journal) constructing an entire family from the tooth, but such was never accepted by science nor published in peer-reviewed science journals of the time.
The "Piltdown man" was a fraud since it was accepted as a legitimate hominid fossil and was not caught for 40 years. Toward the end before the fraud was discovered though it was not included in textbooks as an example of transitional hominid evolution. It was eventually evolutionists themselves who exposed the fraud in the 1950s.
The others you mention are not frauds at all, but are well accepted as hominid fossils (part man, part ape, either direct line or a side branch) along with many other hominid species:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus ("Peking Man" and "Java Man")
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens (modern humans)
<< 2. What are your feelings toward the evolution of the egg or the eye. Do you agree with what Darwin had said about them? >>
My “feelings” are that Darwin lived 150 years ago. In a sense it is completely irrelevant what Darwin thought of the evolution of the egg or the eye. However, what Darwin said about the evolution of the eye has been taken out of context. TODAY the evolution of the eye is well known, well studied, well documented. Your experts on that are the Lund Vision Group in Sweden. The head scientist (Dan-Erik Nilsson) was featured on the 2001 PBS Special Evolution. On the evolution of the egg, here’s a short article from Stanford Univ, and more in a Dec 2002 article in NATURE. Neither are a problem.
<< 3. If there is a direct correlation between evolution and racism, and as a social science as a whole. What excuse gives evolution the ability to enter the scientific arena. >>
Biological evolution properly understood (common descent by gradual modification, with natural selection as the major mechanism) is purely a scientific idea based on scientific evidence and data. Because some have misinterpreted the idea as being racist does not mean we throw away all the evidence and data that supports evolution. The same can be said about Christianity in general. Because some folks have interpreted the “mark of Cain” in Genesis as being black skin (i.e. Christian “Identity” groups), or have used the Bible in a racist way, does not mean all of Christianity should be thrown out. There is “Darwinism” based on abuses of evolution from philosophy or ideology (e.g. “social Darwinism” or Richard Weikart’s From Darwin to Hitler), and there is "Darwinism" which is the evidence for evolution based purely on scientific data and observation.
<< 4. Dont you think there should be not just a few here and there “examples” of transitional fossils, but literally millions of them everywhere that directly show the existence of extinct transitionally fossils? >>
Of course there were millions and billions of species that have lived in the history of this planet since the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and life has been here about 3 billion years. The problem is fossilization is a rare event by itself. It doesn’t automatically occur with every death of an animal or plant. Fossils are only preserved through certain conditions in the environment, geology, type of death, and other factors. But we do have plenty of transitionals, they are:
– Cambrian fossils between invertebrates and vertebrates: Pikaia, Yunnanozoon, Haikouella, Conodonts, Cathaymyrus, Myllokunmingia, Haikouichthys (see James W. Valentine, On the Origin of Phyla [Univ of Chicago, 2004])
– Fish to tetrapod (amphibian) fossils:
Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Obruchevichthys, Tiktaalik roseae, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Tulerpeton, Pholidogaster, Pteroplax (see Jennifer Clack, Gaining Ground: The Origin and Early Evolution of Tetrapods [Indiana Univ Press, 2002])
– Reptile-to-Mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia: Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Permocynodon, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon, Vincelestes, Pariadens, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops (see e.g. The Beginning of the Age of Mammals by Kenneth Rose [John Hopkins Univ, 2006] or The Origin and Evolution of Mammals by T.S. Kemp [Oxford Univ, 2005])
– Dinosaur (Reptile)-to-Bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps: represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among others (see e.g. Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds by Gregory Paul [John Hopkins Univ, 2002])
There are also the land mammal to whale transitionals, and the Ape-Human hominids I’ve already mentioned above.
<< 5. I must also know if you believe the bible and evolution coincide or not. maybe a definite yes or no and why would be nice here. This would nice if we talk about the world wide flood later on! >>
YES, the Bible and modern science in general coincide. That is my position, the position of the Catechism (CCC 159, 283-284), and the position of the last few Popes (Benedict XVI to Pius XII). The “science” of the Bible was a primitive, ancient science (flat and staionary earth), not a modern science. Therefore, since I do not interpret Genesis as a modern science textbook, evolution is compatible with the Bible. God created us through evolution.
I’ll have to get back on your answers to my questions.
Phil P
R
rossum
Guest
You quotes are only stunning in their lack of originality. They are the usual mishmash of out of context and misunderstood quotes that creationists use to try to discredit the theory of evolution.
Here are some more quotes from a book that I think you will find authoritative:Sheep have souls:
“one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep.” [KJV - Numbers 31:28]
Jesus was a sheep:
“John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God…’” [John 1:29]
Jesus only saves Israeli sheep:
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” [Matthew 15:24]
These sheep hate their parents:
“For I have come to set a man against his father” [Matthew 10:35]
They are all atheists:
“There is no God” [Psalms 14:1, 53:1]
They eat mutton:
“he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” [John 6:54]
It is quite amazing what you can “prove” with out of context and misinterpreted quotes. Either that or a lot of humans are following a religion originally intended for a different species entirely.
So are you convinced? Have you been “stunned” by my quotes? No, I didn’t think so. Your quotes are all PRATTs - Points Refuted A Thousand Times.
rossum
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Rossum don’t forget
(1) the promiscuously deviant plowmen: “Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an donkey together.” Deut. 22:10
(2) the polyester heretics: “Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.” Deut. 22:11
(3) the righteous stroganoff haters: “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.” Exodus 23:19
Petrus
H
hecd2
Guest
Still abysmally wrong. Every natural history museum in every civilised city in the world is absolutely stuffed with fossils that support the Theory of Evolution.Okay, okay. Three billiard tables. Sheesh.
I’m not surprised you don’t want to take responsibility for this egregious nonsense, but I’m afraid the shame is yours.
So give us the primary source for anomalous evidence - let’s say an icthyhosaur and a dolphin in the same undisturbed stratum You are, as I have pointed out, long on rhetoric and short on evidence and reason.
You claim that there is a “mountain” of anomalous evidence. You claim that the evidence fills warehouses. It should be easy then to give us references to the primary sources that show that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is wrong. Over to you. Good luck.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
He’s back. OK, let’s take a look at what he cut and pasted this time…
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.
**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.
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.
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.
A
Alethios
Guest
Verily, in great shape ?! Please return to planet Earth.
The 148-page study, “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey,” was conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and based on interviews with 35,000 adults last year.
The full report: religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf
From a CN summary : catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801087.htm
Drop in number of U.S. Catholics offset by new immigrants, study says
….The study shows the Catholic Church has been hardest hit by these shifts, but that the influx of Catholic immigrants has offset the loss. So, the percentage of the adult population that identifies itself as Catholic has held fairly steady at around 25 percent, it says.
……. Its findings, released Feb. 25, show that roughly 10 percent of all Americans are former Catholics. Almost half of these former Catholics joined Protestant denominations, while about half do not have a religious affiliation and a small percentage chose other faiths.
*The bottom line of the Pew survey: the pews are empty. Not a surprise, to anyone with eyes.
10% of all [adult] Americans is about 25 million that have not just lost their faith, but lost the TRUE Faith!
Get measured for your millstones, modernist reformers, if you’re the cause …. *
“If everyone raised Catholic stayed (with their religious affiliation), Catholics would be one-third of the population,” said John Green, a senior research fellow and a principal author of the study.
Jesuit Father Allan Figueroa Deck, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat of Cultural Diversity in the Church, said he was hardly surprised by the report, which he described as “more than a gentle wake-up call.”
He told Catholic News Service Feb. 27 that the trend of adult Catholics leaving the church points to the “lack of a more vigorous engagement” with the church’s diverse membership. “We can’t sit on our laurels,” he said, stressing the need to promote lay leaders, encourage vocations and also think of creative ways to evangelize and reach out to members.
*Perhaps Fr. Deck S.J. might also consider the evangelical impact of the Vatican II liberal interpreters in the Amchurch clergy, episcopate and the USCB on this exodus of Catholic adults. Or the effect of training “in the Jesuit tradition” which has received legions of innocent and faithful young Catholics into their colleges since the ‘70s and returned them in four years to their parents as surly agnostics and cynics – certainly not just my children alone. *
…… Figures relating to the Catholic Church show that 31.4 percent of adults in the United States said they were raised Catholic while only 23.9 percent of them identify with the Catholic Church today, giving the church a net loss of 7.5 percent.
16.1 percent are unaffiliated with any religion, which the survey described as the fastest-growing religious category in America.
The respondents who said they were not affiliated with any particular faith today are more than double the number who said they weren’t affiliated with any particular religion as children. Among Americans ages 18-29, one-quarter say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion.
*We seem to need a classification beyond atheist and agnostic… how about the apathetic?
Religious choice in America is like the World Series of Poker:
when the religious cards are dealt –
the atheist pushes away from the table, the agnostic can’t even read the cards, and the ‘unaffiliated’ demurely bids - ‘Pass’.
What about those who ‘go all in’? These are headed to extinction – those whose primary focus in life is their religion. *
………Mark Gray, a research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, called the Pew report a “great study” but said much of the media coverage of it could be misleading.
For example, he told CNS, one aspect of the study that has been overlooked is that, despite the number of adults leaving, the Catholic Church continues to have a 68 percent retention rate of members who have been Catholic since childhood.
*Sixty eight per cent retention is one third apostasy! 10 % of all American adults are Catholic apostates, which is, apparently, 32 % of all adult Catholics.
Devastating. Could the Arian heresy have been worse? *
……According to the survey, Latinos already account for roughly one in three adult Catholics overall and may account for an even larger share of U.S. Catholics in the future. It said Latinos represent roughly one in eight U.S. Catholics age 70 and older and account for nearly half of all Catholics ages 18-29.
“There is no question that there has been a transition in the Catholic Church for few decades,” Father Deck told CNS. He said the U.S. Catholic Church has been “moving from a base that is primarily European to a Latin American and Asian base” and needs to be able to minister to these groups that have different issues and different ways of doing things.
“There is a tremendous amount of work to be done, not that we haven’t made progress,” he said.
*Progress? The loss of 25+ million Catholics – is that the progress? Or was the flood of Hispanic and Asian immigrants to America primarily generated by an USCB immigration campaign? Or were they irresistibly motivated by a desire to join the Amchurch? Please. *
He called the increased number of Hispanics joining the U.S. Catholic Church a “blessing,” but added, “We need to continue to adequately integrate new groups in the church, creating a church with a new feel, a new rhythm.”
*Just what we need: another ‘new’ Mass with all the touchie-feelie bells and whistles, drummin’ and strummin’, that was so successful in post Vat II.
What is keeping the Amchurch afloat – the ballast that maintains Catholicism at the 25% level - is the infusion of young Latino blood that compensates for the indigenous loss over the past decades.
But how is this a ‘blessing’, if the long term prospect is that – after assimilation into the American melting pot – the immigrants will become part of the Catholic fallout statistics?
The only observed form of evolution is devolution => extinction.
With the modernists in charge of the Church, that will be the fate of our Fathers’ faith.
“But when the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on earth?”*
AMDG
M
Memaw
Guest
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.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.
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.
Barbarian-worship?
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.
I won’t belabor the point with you, especially since I have no conflict with you (
For a better explanation than I can give, see David Currie, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic (Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1996), pp. 84-87.
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.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Actually, several paleontologists told them to hold off before they published. If they had listened to the scientists, they would have saved themselves considerable embarrassment.
Feduccia was selling his own pet theory that birds came from thecodonts. Nat. Geographic is just a popular magazine, and they wanted to scoop the scientists. Good for circulation, you know.
Oops.
P
Philipp
Guest
PHILIPP:
Well if science is so indifferent [namesake] and all those Academy of sciences listed by drmpjhess, the resident modernist theologian are so sure that evolution is a “fact” why haven’t one of those fabulous and wealthy scientific organizations radiocarbon dated fossils like dinossaur bone collagen, or bone apatite either of which would give a thumbs up to those long ages or a thumbs down. Those poor dumb creationists have dated dinosaur bones (Fields, 1990 w/ supplement) and even RC dated coal and diamond Baumgardner and detected PMC’s of C-14 where none should be. Why haven’t they participated in excavations for fossil human footprints with dinosaur ones when asked? Fr. Baker sees through the facad of evolution as did philosopher Larry Azar as noted in his book “Evolution land other Fairy Tales”
When some scientists allegedly developed “Cold Fusion” there was a rush to prove or disprove the experiment performed in an electrolyte. There have been many papers written on the subject of “Cold Fusion” for the past 10-15 years after the first paper and the papers challenging the original one. But, when someone challenges the “Sacred Cow” of Macroevolution the ivory tower boys sit at their desks and write nasty articles about those “Creation pseudoscientists.” That isn’t how science works but that’s the way evolutionism works and that’s why the science of origins is not progressing. Creationists love science; evolutionists love scientism: Duh, just fill in Darwin’s empty pages but please — NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED; NO COMPETITON ALLOWED, NO CUTTING EDGE RESEARCH ALLOWED.
Fields, W. and H.R. Miller, J. Whitmore, D. Davis, G. Detwiler, J. Ditmars, R. Whitelaw, and G. Novaez, 1990, The Paluxy footprints revisited, in Walsh, Robert E. and Christopher L. Brooks, editors, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Volume II, Technical Symposium Sessions and Additional Topics. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, p. 155-175.
Baumgardner, J. et al. 2003. Measurable C-14 in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-model. www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf,
Baugh, C., and C. Wilson. 1991, Dinosaur, scientific evidence that dinosaurs and men walked together, (pages 1-52 with photos). Creation Evidence Museum, Box 307, Glen Rose TX 76043. Promise Publishing Co., Orange CA
Beierle, F. P., 1979, A new kind of evidence from the Paluxy, CRSQ 16: 87-88, 131. [12,800 RC age for burnt wood imbedded in Cretaceous limestone]
R
reggieM
Guest
That was almost 10 years ago so it doesn’t count any more.
R
reggieM
Guest
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”.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
You are not obliged to assent to any scientific theory. That’s sort of an unwritten “rule” of science…every theory is provisional. That kind of approach to theoretical science helps scientists look at the world in new and various ways that may have not been thought of in the past.
From my perspective, you should ask yourself whether assenting to or dissenting with a particular scientific theory will have an effect on your practical life. Theoretical science is very lofty, whereas practical or applied science has a more practical impact on our daily lives. If the science behind building a bridge, for example, does not “jive” with reality, we’ll have major practicalproblems. However, there are many theoretical postulates that really have no impact on your daily life now or in the immediate future, so stressing over whether they correspond to reality or not seems a bit misplaced.
BTW, this is true of every field of study. The ones most concerned about championing the “cause” of some postulate of theoretical science are those academics who are working to further the boundaries of that field of study by discovering new breakthroughs. The errors or breakthroughs in theoretical sciences rarely have a practical impact on the average joe other than slowing down or speeding up developments in that science that really wont be realized in practical applications until years or more likely decades later.
In short, don’t worry about it unless you happen to work as a scientist in that particular field. I don’t think the Blessed Virgin Mary’s assent or dissent with theoretical science of her day had any impact on the way she lived and loved God, her husband, or her son.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
- Status