M
Memaw
Guest
Well I was under the distinct impression that God made rain in the first place and HE could “pour it on” if HE wanted to. And take care of the run-off too. But I will ask HIM when I get THERE.
- Status
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Ricmat, there was nothing natural about the biblical flood – it was miracle from beginning to end. Not only was all the rain miraculously produced and disposed of, but all the animals were miraculously transported through the air to the ark, miraculously keep fed and hydrated during their 150 days on the ark, and miraculously kept from killing each other in the confined quarters belowdeck. Moreover , the elephants alone produced 462,000 pounds of manure during their confinement in the ark, so all of that – and the manure of all the other animals, totaling millions of tons – was miraculously disposed of. Then, after the flood, the animals were miraculously preserved from starvation during the many years it took for the earth to be miraculously re-vegetated, miraculously multiplied so that they overcame the genetic bottlenecks posed by reproduction form a single pairs, and miraculously transported through the air back to their home habitats on the different continents. The penguins and polar bears were miraculously preserved for thousands of years until the ice sheets re-formed over the Arctic Ocean and Antarctic.landmass. There was nothing natural about the flood or the preservation of life – it was all glorious miracle!
Petrus
I
ibetrippin07
Guest
Nice ignorance…
First off, all this rain did not just “appear”, If you were to think about it and there were to be a ring of water (no joke) because this actually makes sense if you think about it, The air, naturally would be very moistened, full of more oxygen, giving animals the ability to grow into gigantic sizes. Which we see this in almost all skeletons, humans alike. If all this water were to just “come down” and the earth to “open up” the water would cover all the earth, tectonic plate shifting would create pockets to open up, This would create a great mixing in the geologic column too. And this is the reason also the geologic column is in no order, so that my friend is evidence in itself of a world wide flood for which non more is really needed.
R
ricmat
Guest
I didn’t say that there was anything natural about it. I wasn’t restricting the “supernatural” part to only where the rain came from and where it went (although that’s all I put in my answer to Memaw for the purpose of brevity). However the event happened in detail, it was worthy enough to be put into Genesis and later the bible so that we could learn from it.
The meaning to us of this event is also supernatural, being a cleansing/rebirth of the earth and what was left of humanity via a type of baptism.
I’m not in any way looking to explain this scientifically, if that’s what you were getting at. And when I first responded to your post on this subject, it wasn’t clear to me if you believed in miracles or not.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Not the flood. The sudden appearance of enough water to cover the Himalayas (about 5 miles) and then the sudden disappearance of said water, when a plain reading of the Bible says nothing at all about a worldwide flood. It is as though God shows one hoof prints, and he concludes a unicorn has been here.
And the Church does not teach that Noah’s flood was a literal worldwide flood.
R
ricmat
Guest
Neither does the Church teach that there was NOT a literal worldwide flood. We are free to believe either. Isn’t that correct?
Just for the record, I believe that it was a local flood, but would not be surprised to eventually find out that it was global.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
You’re right, Ricmat. Noah’s Flood cannot be understood scientifically. From the points of view of biology, paleontology, hydrology, meteorology, geology, zoology, or botany, it was an impossible “event.” We can only understand it as a miraculous event from beginning to end.
Petrus
R
rossum
Guest
The word “land” does not occur anywhere in the Bible, it only occurs in English translations. The Bible has the word “eretz”, and we are discussing the allowable meanings of “eretz”. Genesis 12:1 shows that “eretz” can mean less than an entire planet. Hence is is allowable for The Barbarian to interpret the word “eretz” in the Flood story to apply to a local flood and not a global one.
rossum
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
In that the church does not teach that there is NOT phlogeston nor does it teach that there are valence electrons. We are free to believe either.
In each case, only one is correct, even if the Church hasn’t taken a stand on it. There are many things that are obviously incorrect, even if the Church makes no stand on them. BTW, the church also allows us to believe that the wasn’t a literal flood at all, and that the Flood story is a parable.
M
Memaw
Guest
Like I said before, Some people think they know more than God and can tell HIM how HE did it.
R
ricmat
Guest
My original question (in full) was:
And you continued:
continued in next post…
And your response was:
In response to my question above, “Isn’t that correct?”, I’ll take your answer above as “Yes, that is correct.”
And you continued:
Yes, I agree with you that we are allowed to believe that there was a literal flood, or not.
continued in next post…
M
Memaw
Guest
There are a lot of words that are a poor translation in the English Bible but that doesn’t make the whole story a parable.Like I said before, I can’t imagine why GOD would go to all the trouble of having Noah build such a huge Ark, (they say it was bigger than the Queen Mary) and HE brought so many pr. of critters to be in it for soo many days and then have it just sprinkle a little. Just how much rain would it take to float an Ark that size for 40 days and nights?? I would imagine if the flood was just local, the water would have run off and never got deep enough to float the Ark. I will leave the explanation up to GOD.
R
ricmat
Guest
Barbarian:
An area where the Church actually has taken a stand is with regard to belief (or not) in evolution. This position is definitive enough that it has been included in the US Catholic Catechism for Adults (2007), page 60 (I added the bold & underline):
This post of yours is just one example:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3398243&postcount=648
in which you said:
You may not like the fact that people disagree with you, Barbarian. But in this case the Church says that they are allowed to do so. And that doesn’t make them cafeteria Catholics.
An area where the Church actually has taken a stand is with regard to belief (or not) in evolution. This position is definitive enough that it has been included in the US Catholic Catechism for Adults (2007), page 60 (I added the bold & underline):
Now, as it happens, our views on evolution are quite close. [note: please don’t use the previous sentence to go off in some other direction unrelated to the main body of this post. I mention this only in passing…] But you have repeatedly castigated, on religious grounds, believers in young earth creationism (and others) for not agreeing with you. Your contention being that the magesterium teaches that they must accept evolution, or they are being “cafeteria Catholics.” That’s NOT what the Catechism says, which I quoted above.
This post of yours is just one example:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3398243&postcount=648
in which you said:
In fact, the magesterium, speaking through the above quoted statement, allows belief in young earth creationism, and any number of evolutionary beliefs which are not identical with Babarian’s, so long as they meet the requirements in the quoted text above.
You may not like the fact that people disagree with you, Barbarian. But in this case the Church says that they are allowed to do so. And that doesn’t make them cafeteria Catholics.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
****MEETING WITH THE PARISH PRIESTS AND THE CLERGY
OF THE DIOCESE OF ROME ****
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
Hall of Blessings
Thursday, 7 February 2008
God is great, he knows us, so sin does not count; in the end God will be kind to us all. It is a beautiful hope. But both justice and true guilt exist. Those who have destroyed man and the earth cannot suddenly sit down at God’s table together with their victims. God creates justice. We must keep this in mind. Therefore, I felt it was important to write this text also about Purgatory, which for me is an obvious truth, so evident and also so necessary and comforting that it could not be absent. **I tried to say: perhaps those who have destroyed themselves in this way, who are for ever unredeemable, who no longer possess any elements on which God’s love can rest, who no longer have a minimal capacity for loving, may not be so numerous. This would be Hell. **On the other hand, those who are so pure that they can enter immediately into God’s communion are undoubtedly few - or at any rate not many. A great many of us hope that there is something in us that can be saved, that there may be in us a final desire to serve God and serve human beings, to live in accordance with God. Yet there are so very many wounds, there is so much filth. We need to be prepared, to be purified. This is our hope: even with so much dirt in our souls, in the end the Lord will give us the possibility, he will wash us at last with his goodness that comes from his Cross. In this way he makes us capable of being for him in eternity. And thus Heaven is hope, it is justice brought about at last. He also gives us criteria by which to live, so that this time may be in some way paradise, a first gleam of paradise. Where people live according to these criteria a hint of paradise appears in the world and is visible. It also seems to me to be a demonstration of the truth of faith, of the need to follow the road of the Commandments, of which we must speak further. These really are road signs on our way and show us how to live well, how to choose life. Therefore, we must also speak of sin and of the sacrament of forgiveness and reconciliation. A sincere person knows that he is guilty, that he must start again, that he must be purified. And this is the marvellous reality which the Lord offers us: there is a chance of renewal, of being new. The Lord starts with us again and in this way we can also start again with the others in our life.
This aspect of renewal, of the restitution of our being after so many errors, so many sins, is the great promise, the great gift the Church offers but which psychotherapy, for example, cannot offer. Today, in the face of so many destroyed or seriously injured psyches, psychotherapy is so widespread and also necessary. Yet the possibilities of psychotherapy are very limited: it can only make some sort of effort to restore balance to an unbalanced soul but cannot provide true renewal, the overcoming of these serious diseases of the soul. It is therefore always temporary and never definitive. The Sacrament of Penance gives us the opportunity to be renewed through and through with God’s power - ego te absolvo -, which is possible because Christ took these sins, this guilt, upon himself. I think there is a great need of this especially today. We can be healed. Souls that are wounded and ill, as everyone knows by experience, not only need advice but true renewal, which can only come from God’s power, from the power of Crucified Love. I feel this is the important connection of the mysteries which in the end truly affect our lives. We must recover them ourselves and so bring them once again within our people’s reach.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080207_clergy-rome_en.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...s/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080207_clergy-rome_en.html
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Ricmat writes:
I went further, saying that so far as the Church is concerned, one doesn’t have to accept evolution at all.
Barbarian observes:
You have a dispute with the church over the way God managed creation. And you don’t like anyone reminding you about it. But it’s not my fault. Let God be God, Ed.
Barbarian cites Pope Benedict:
We are not some, casual meaningless product of evolution…Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Pope Benedict
Barbarian observes:
We are, as he says, a product of evolution, but we are not some casual, meaningless product of evolution. Some cafeteria Catholics accept part of this teaching, but not all of it.
Don’t be a cafeteria Catholic, Ed.
Yes, I’ve mentioned that. And the fact that one doesn’t have to accept any particular theory of evolution.
I went further, saying that so far as the Church is concerned, one doesn’t have to accept evolution at all.
It doesn’t really matter, but I haven’t seen any reason to think so.
No. I have criticized them for denying the magisterium, which says that there is no conflict between evolution and the Church. By picking parts of the teaching they like, and rejecting parts they don’t like, they have attempted to create an alternative to the magisterium which rejects evolution. This selective acceptance of the Church’s teaching is cafeteria Catholicism.
No. See above.
Actually, it says that one doesn’t have to accept “any particular theory of evolution.” Doesn’t say that one is free to reject it. (Although that is the teaching of the Church)
Barbarian observes:
You have a dispute with the church over the way God managed creation. And you don’t like anyone reminding you about it. But it’s not my fault. Let God be God, Ed.
Barbarian cites Pope Benedict:
We are not some, casual meaningless product of evolution…Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Pope Benedict
Barbarian observes:
We are, as he says, a product of evolution, but we are not some casual, meaningless product of evolution. Some cafeteria Catholics accept part of this teaching, but not all of it.
Don’t be a cafeteria Catholic, Ed.
As I’ve mentioned. I merely pointed out to Ed that he had edited the text to make it appear that the Pope had denied evolution, when in fact he had endorsed it as a virtual certainty. In short, Ed was quote mining the Pope to change what he had actually said.
I doubt if anyone really does. However, I do not pretend that they said things they did not, as a remedy. I would especially avoid doing that to the words of the Pontiff.
As you see, what makes them cafeteria Catholics, is selective editing to accept some of the Pope’s teaching, but not all of it.
P
Philipp
Guest
Quote:
Why don’t those who have found collagen in dinosaur bones date them?
THE BARBARIAN response: For the same reason you don’t take the temp of a blast furnace with a candy thermometer. You’ll get 200 degrees. Likewise, if you date extremely old carbon by C-14, it will just peg out at whatever the maximum date is for that particular system.
You need to get an updated list of creationist stories. You’re recycling ones that they gave up on long ago.
PHILIPP:I gave an updated explantion in which Paleontologist Joe Taylor made a 50 foot mold of the Taylor trail combination of fossil human footprints with dinosaurian ones in a previous post. He has the orignal mold in his museum Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, TX and Glendive MT Dinosaur & Fossil Museum has a cast which can be studied by all. But of course you have your unshakeable evolutionary assumption that ICR and AIG have dumped the project when actually they requested more research before they will make a pronouncement. Meanwhile they have RC dating coal and diamond and have undercut your assumptions thataway and don’t need footprints to falsify evolution long ages.
Meanwhile you submit to this forum that extremely old carbon can’t be dated by C-14 equipment and that the ages will just “peg out at whatever the maximum date is for that particular system." I agree with you 100%; however my friend there just does not appear to be “extremely old carbon around anywhere.” If you know of some will you please advise? thanks! Everything from dinosaur bones [minimum 2 % carbon to marble to limestone [Calcium carbonate] to diamond in the geologic column has at least a trace of detectable C-14 called Percent of modern carbon-14 [PMC’s] < 1 part per trillion, when tested with the Accerated Mass Spectrometer.
Meanwhile I’m just delighted that about 80 % of the American people want to see the evidences against evolution taught as well as the propaganda for it. Do others on the thread feel that both should taught including the “dating Game”? In any event, I submit to this forum that the evidence is overwhelming that there was a universal flood for which others have offered reasonable evidences. [ICR has several books on the Ark and flood which can answer the challenges from the resident universal flood and ark dissenters on this thread www.icr.org ]. Such evidences should at least be taught in CCD religion and science classes in Catholic schools. In addition I offer C-14 dating of fossils as a major support [fossils have to be buried rapidly in sediments to survive as fossils - google Burgess shale for example] as does arguments provided by others on this thread.
The dinosaur bones [10,000 to 31,000 RC years using both conventional and AMS systems at Licensed labs], burnt wood [12,800 RC years in the Paluxy River bottom Cretaceous strata river bottom carbonized wood from the upper clay layers [37,500 RC years] are well within the accuracy of both the conventional
C-14 method ~43,000-51,000] and the much improved and more sensitive AMS method [upwards to 15 half lives or 80,000 +/-1000 RC years. It’s the evolutionists on this thread that don’t seem to understand the method of RC dating discovered by Dr. Libby in the late 1940’s.
For example it was Berger/Libby* and their group that discovered that the saber tooth tigers from the LeBrea Tarpits of Los Angeles were only 1000’s of years old and the assumption of 3 M years old or older needed refinement. The RC ages for 12 different femur bones for extracted bone collagen ranged from 12,650 +/-160 to 28,000 +/-1400 RC years BP on the conventional system used in 1968 at the University of California at Los Angeles. This same University, with the same lab director, Rainer Berger, reported in 1979, 11 years later aafter the Libby team study of the saber tooth tiger that the burnt wood from the Paluxy River bottom was 12,800 RC years BP, well withinthe acceptable dating range of C-14 systems. I have both technical reports; I would be happy to send these short papers to anyone desiring to review them. The Radiocarbon Journal is now on line so the Berger/Libby report may be viewed there [references listed below]
Good scientists search for the truth not rattle off philosophical beliefs, assumptions and false statements to support their deeply lheld religious beliefs.when discussing origins
Berger, R., A.G. Horney, and W.F. Libby. 1964. “Radiocarbon dating of bone and shell from their organic components,” Science, Vol. 144, 22 May, 1964: pp. 999-1001.
*Berger, R. and W.F. Libby. 1968. La Brea Tar Pit series. Radiocarbon 10(2): 402-403.
The RC ages for extracted bone collagen (Berger, 1968) ranged from 12,650 +/-160 to 28,000 +/-1400 RC years BP (Before the Present) using the conventional system – the same ages as for dinosaur bones from Texas to Alaska. I can provide the paper for the dinosur bone testing if interested. They were just the beginning of many such tests which CAN NOT be published in secular technical journals because only evidences that can be twisted to support the “Sacred Cow” [perhaps Moses might prefer “The Golden Calf”] of macroevolution are acceptable. Bible History is cool and is confirmed by cutting edge modern scientific lab and field research.
Again I ask, yea plead, Why don’t those who have found collagen in dinosaur bones like the T-Rex from Montana date the collagen?
St. Lawrence of Brindisi ~1575 AD, who explained the six days of Creation imcluding the details of the flood of Noah so that all could understand Genesis 1-11 just a little more, please pray for our discerment.
R
ricmat
Guest
But there is conflict between the church and those evolutionary theories which reject God. It was obvious to everybody that this is what Ed was talking about. And which you continued to argue about…, and which you continue to forget about frequently, like in your paragraph directly above.
When you post on this subject, you seem to edit out the parts you don’t like. and then accuse others of doing just that.
Yes, the first sentence above is the teaching. By adding your next sentence (I added bold), you seem to be trying to convince Catholics that we are not free to reject evolution in any form or all it’s forms. Why add that sentence at all? And it’s not clear whether you intend the sentence which follows in parenthesis to refer to only the first previous sentence, or only the second sentence, or both.
You seem to have trouble just saying “Church magesterial teaching is that Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution. Signed, The Barbarian.” without qualification, and without redirection, and without if’s, and’s , but’s and except’s?
If you were to make such a statement, it might help tone things down a bit on these evolution threads.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
*Common marmosets display what researchers in Zurich call “unsolicited prosociality”—that is, they will slide a tray of food to a marmoset in a nearby cage even if there’s no chance of getting something in return, and even if the other animal is unrelated. So far, they’re the only animals other than human beings known to be so altruistic. Whether they say “Please” and “Thank you” is unknown."*B]Science & Nature Wild Things Life as We Know It By Amanda Bensen, Jess Blumberg, T.A. Frail, Megan Gambino and Laura Helmuth Smithsonian magazine, February 2008
smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/wild-things-200802.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/wild-things-200802.html
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/966/55048781.JPG
Other-regarding preferences in a non-human primate: Common marmosets provision food altruistically **
Judith M. Burkart, Ernst Fehr, Charles Efferson, and Carel P. van Schaik -*Anthropological Institute, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland; Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich, Blumlisalpstrasse 10, 8006 Zurich, Switzerland; Collegium Helveticum, Schmelzbergstrasse 25, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland; and Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501
Communicated by Sarah B. Hrdy, University of California at Davis, Winters, CA, October 30, 2007 (received for review October 7, 2007)
Human cooperation is unparalleled in the animal world and rests on an altruistic concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated strangers. The evolutionary roots of human altruism, however, remain poorly understood. Recent evidence suggests a discontinuity between humans and other primates because individual chimpanzees do not spontaneously provide food to other group members, indicating a lack of concern for their welfare. Here, we demonstrate that common marmoset monkeys (Callithrix jacchus) do spontaneously provide food to nonreciprocating and genetically unrelated individuals, indicating that other-regarding preferences are not unique to humans and that their evolution did not require advanced cognitive abilities such as theory of mind. Because humans and marmosets are cooperative breeders and the only two primate taxa in which such unsolicited prosociality has been found, we conclude that these prosocial predispositions may emanate from cooperative breeding. (PNAS | December 11, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 50 | 19762-19766 )
pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/50/19762
[SNIP]
St. Lawrence of Brindisi ~1575 AD, who explained the six days of Creation imcluding the details of the flood of Noah so that all could understand Genesis 1-11 just a little more, please pray for our discerment.
Response:
smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/wild-things-200802.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/wild-things-200802.html
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/966/55048781.JPG
Other-regarding preferences in a non-human primate: Common marmosets provision food altruistically **
Judith M. Burkart, Ernst Fehr, Charles Efferson, and Carel P. van Schaik -*Anthropological Institute, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland; Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich, Blumlisalpstrasse 10, 8006 Zurich, Switzerland; Collegium Helveticum, Schmelzbergstrasse 25, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland; and Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501
Communicated by Sarah B. Hrdy, University of California at Davis, Winters, CA, October 30, 2007 (received for review October 7, 2007)
Human cooperation is unparalleled in the animal world and rests on an altruistic concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated strangers. The evolutionary roots of human altruism, however, remain poorly understood. Recent evidence suggests a discontinuity between humans and other primates because individual chimpanzees do not spontaneously provide food to other group members, indicating a lack of concern for their welfare. Here, we demonstrate that common marmoset monkeys (Callithrix jacchus) do spontaneously provide food to nonreciprocating and genetically unrelated individuals, indicating that other-regarding preferences are not unique to humans and that their evolution did not require advanced cognitive abilities such as theory of mind. Because humans and marmosets are cooperative breeders and the only two primate taxa in which such unsolicited prosociality has been found, we conclude that these prosocial predispositions may emanate from cooperative breeding. (PNAS | December 11, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 50 | 19762-19766 )
pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/50/19762
]. Such evidences should at least be taught in CCD religion and science classes in Catholic schools. In addition I offer C-14 dating of fossils as a major support [fossils have to be buried rapidly in sediments to survive as fossils - google Burgess shale for example] as does arguments provided by others on this thread.
[SNIP]
St. Lawrence of Brindisi ~1575 AD, who explained the six days of Creation imcluding the details of the flood of Noah so that all could understand Genesis 1-11 just a little more, please pray for our discerment.
Response:
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
For the same reason you don’t take the temp of a blast furnace with a candy thermometer. You’ll get 200 degrees. Likewise, if you date extremely old carbon by C-14, it will just peg out at whatever the maximum date is for that particular system.
Sorry, even the YE creationists no longer buy those stories.
The fact is, those tracks are on the AIG list of “Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use:”
**Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artifacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. **
The Institute for Creation Research admits that your use of these stories is not warrented:
Even though it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution, in the light of these questions, there is still much that is not known about the tracks and continued research is in order.
icr.org/article/255/
Nope. Here’s why:
Carbon-14 is formed when Nitrogen-14 (which is found almost everywhere, including coal beds and the blue earth of diamond deposits) is struck by ionizing radiation. So it can form anywhere you have nitrogen plus any radioactive materials that emit neutrons. The reaction involves a neutron striking an atom of nitrogen-14, which produces one atom of carbon-14, plus a proton.
Carbon-14, which is unstable, will then slowly degrade back to nitrogen-14, by beta decay. About half of it will decay in a little over five thousand years.
As you probably know, coal is from living tissue, which is rich in nitrogen. And diamonds commonly have nitrogen inclusions in their crystal lattices.
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987GeCoA…51.1227D
So the question is, “do we have radiation sources in these deposits?” Turns out, we do:
tinyurl.com/yo46g4
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html
Turns out that ash from coal-burning plants is often more radioactive than many radioactive wastes!
tinyurl.com/2ceggh
Your examples sure look like it. Do you realize that different equipment will have different sensitivities, and thus give different ages when they max out?
Do you understand how this is measured? I would be pleased to explain in more detail if you don’t see why this happens.
Dinosaur bones are frequently more carbon than anything else. They are typically fossilized into calcium carbonate. And, of course, they were mostly calcium phosphate when fresh.
As you see, because of envirionmental radiation, there should be a bit of C-14 in any carbon source.
Fortunately, such as in Dover, Plano, Texas, and other places, when parents see what it actually entails, they rise up and vote out the miscreants who try to impose it on their kids.
That’s wrong. For example, in anoxic lake bottoms, dead fish can exist for decades or longer, being gradually covered by sediment. There are polystrate tree fossils being made near my house, as the trunks of trees flooded by a lake are being gradually buried.
[/quote]
You betcha. And now you know some of the facts. Your assumptions and beliefs aren’t quite what you thought they were.
[/quote]
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
No. I have criticized them for denying the magisterium, which says that there is no conflict between evolution and the Church. By picking parts of the teaching they like, and rejecting parts they don’t like, they have attempted to create an alternative to the magisterium which rejects evolution. This selective acceptance of the Church’s teaching is cafeteria Catholicism.
And which you continued to argue about…, and which you continue to forget about frequently, like in your paragraph directly above.
Barbarian on cited quote:
Actually, it says that one doesn’t have to accept “any particular theory of evolution.” Doesn’t say that one is free to reject it. (Although that is the teaching of the Church)
No. I have criticized them for denying the magisterium, which says that there is no conflict between evolution and the Church. By picking parts of the teaching they like, and rejecting parts they don’t like, they have attempted to create an alternative to the magisterium which rejects evolution. This selective acceptance of the Church’s teaching is cafeteria Catholicism.
As several people hear have pointed out to the creationists, “theories which reject God” are not theories at all. As the Pope agrees; he points out that anyone who tries to use science to make determinations about the supernatural, have departed from science.
I’m not sure he knew he was walloping a straw man. Science doesn’t do that kind of thing. Some foolish people try to make it so, but it won’t work. The supernatural is out of the reach of science.
And which you continued to argue about…, and which you continue to forget about frequently, like in your paragraph directly above.
Barbarian on cited quote:
Actually, it says that one doesn’t have to accept “any particular theory of evolution.” Doesn’t say that one is free to reject it. (Although that is the teaching of the Church)
Nonsense. I said that the church teaches that one is free to reject evolution (or any other science). It’s just that your quote doesn’t say so.
Because, even if the quote you offered doesn’t say that one is free to reject any scientific theory, the Church does teach that elsewhere.
I think, many times, creationists are so full of the “us vs. them” mentality, they often ignore what scientists are saying. This seems to be one of those cases. At any rate, I’ve more than once pointed out that you don’t have to accept science to be a Catholic, and that anyone who tries to use science to address the supernatural is simply wrong.
- Status