Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[ricmat]

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.

Barbarian’s if’s, and’s, and but’s, except’s, qualitications, and redirections follow below:

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.

snip…

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.

snip…

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.

snip…

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.

To say “Church magesterial teaching is that Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution. Signed, The Barbarian” has nothing to do with the items directly above. It can be affirmed by itself, as a stand alone statement.

** So you still can’t make the above statement without if’s, and’s, but’s, and except’s. Why is that? Do you believe it, or not?**

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian,

I am a moderator on another forum that is filled with atheist ultra-liberals. They rail against ID. They say it’s bad science or not science at all. They go on to claim that kids, in public schools, should not be taught bad science because terrible things will happen. Like what? Biology will suffer and the country will lose its competitive edge (money), they will be overall dumb and end up on welfare, people, presumably educated people, will shun their state, etc. But when pressed further, they will give you the real reason. They fear public school kids will be exposed to religious indoctrination. Can’t have that.

When I read your writing, I do not get the sense you are in any way defending the magisterium. You get angry, like those on that other forum. For them, anyone who dares question evolution faces their immediate, united wrath. They bring out the usual names: creationist, willfully ignorant and, the worst of all, fundamentalist. Translation: filled with hate, shove religion down people’s throats, living in the Dark Ages/17th Century/15th Century and conspiring to create the Theocracy.

As I’ve quoted Human Persons Created in the Image of God numerous times, let me get to the heart of the matter, According to that document, the Church believes that random mutation and natural selection that leads to life is impossible without God. Which is in strict violation of holy, sacred and supposedly neutral science. The version of science that you and others, are pushing. A godless science.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Philipp]

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.

Validation of Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaurs by Analysis of Dinosaur bone surface scrapings for carbon

Sample typeCarbon Radiocarbon Years
Content (%) Before the Present

1. Acrocanthosaur Glen Rose strata, TX 3.3 23,750 +/- 270 AMS
   Baugh, 1984
   1a. Ibid Ibid 3.3 25,750 +/- 280 AMS

1b Ibid Ibid 3.3 >32,400 Conv. Beta
(Same specimen as 1a) System

1. Allosaur Grand Junction CO 2.7 16,120 +/- 120 Conv. Beta
   Hall, ~1986 System
2. Camarasaur Johnson County WY 5.1 11,750 +/- 150 Conv Beta
   Utterback, ~1905 System
3. Camarasaur Johnson County WY 4.3 17,420 +/- 330 Conv Beta
   Utterback, ~1906 System
   5 Unidentified Wyoming, 1.9 9.980 +/- 90 Conv Beta
   Unknown, 1990
   Hadrosaur, special Alaska, Specht et al. organic 31,050 +230/-220 AMS
   6.9 mg alkali residue Carbon
   18.8 humic acid Ibid Ibid 36,480 +560/-530 AMS
   Carbon content of Bones With and Without a Preservative – Shellac
4. Edmontosaur Wyoming, 51.8 – three coats Not dated
5. Ibid Ibid 18.1 – one coat Not dated
6. Ibid Ibid 2.7 uncoated Not dated

Conclusion: Dinosaur bone fragments 1-5 apparently were uncoated and therefore not contaminated by shellac which can promote a young age. Therefore the above dates appear to be accurate RC ages for RC dating bone apatite (no collagen). The “special case” was probable collagen but was reported as organic material. Note that both the alkali residue
from the bone is the purified organic material and the humic acid the contaminant but gave an older date. This sample was added to show that both the bioapatite of dinosaur bones and organic material give RC dates well within the range of C-14. I was privy to all these reports.

Collagen was not found in samples 1-5 so only bioapatite of these bone fragments were tested for C-14; normal lab procedure is to treat with dilute acetic acid overnight at a high temperature to remove superficial old or young carbonates. I would assume that the Un. of AZ would have performed that treatment so these dates are accurate.

The range for the conventional method can be extended to about 43,000 RC years if you ask the lab to do a more expensive long count on the conventional Beta system but certainly not much above that. The range I gave should have said Conventional AMS at up to 51,000 RC years. Sorry about that I left out the letters AMS. I hope all this is helpful to understand a little bit more about C-14 dating.

References:
Humber P. 2007. Reasons to affirm a young earth. www.crministriesphilly.com
Helfinstine, R.F., 2007. Texas tracks and artifacts: Do Texas fossils indicate coexistence of men and dinosaurs? Order from 1136 5th Ave., South Anoka MN 55303.

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.

 

[The_Barbarian]

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.

You betcha. And now you know some of the facts. Your assumptions and beliefs aren’t quite what you thought they were.

 

[Philipp]

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.

Validation of Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaurs by Analysis of Dinosaur bone surface scrapings for carbon

Sample typeCarbon Carbon Radiocarbon Years
Content (%) Before the Present

1. Acrocanthosaur 3.3 23,750 +/- 270 AMS

1a. Ibid Ibid 25,750 +/- 280 AMS

1b Ibid Ibid >32,400 Conv. Beta
(Same specimen as 1a but “pegged out” at >32,400)
2. Allosaur 2.7 2.7 16,120 +/- 120 Conv.
Beta system
3. Camarasaur 5.1 11,750 +/- 150 Conv
Beta
4. Camarasaur 4.3 17,420 +/- 330 Conv
Beta system
5 Unidentified 1.9 9.980 +/- 90 Conv
Beta system
Hadrosaur, special organic 31,050 +230/-220 AMS
6.9 mg alkali residue carbon
18.8 humic acid 36,480 +560/-530 AMS

Carbon content of Bones With and Without Preservative – Shellac

1. Edmontosaur 51.8 – three coats Not dated

Ibid 18.1 - one coat Not dated

Ibid 2.7 uncoated Not dated

Conclusion: The uncoated Edmontosaur Dinosaur bone fragment was in the same carbon % range as dinosaurs 1-5. Had they had even only one coat of shellac there would have ben about 1* % carbon in the scrapings, apparently were uncoated and therefore NOT contaminated by shellac which can promote a young age. Therefore the above dates appear to be accurate RC ages for RC dating bone apatite (no collagen). The organic carbone in the “special case” Hadrosaur sample was probably collagen but was reported as organic material. Note that both the alkali residue
from the bone is the purified organic material and the humic acid the contaminant [gave an older date]. This sample was added to show that both the bioapatite of dinosaur bones and organic material give RC dates well within the range of C-14. I have copies of all these reports.

Collagen was not found in samples 1-5 so only bioapatite of these bone fragments were tested for C-14; normal lab procedure is to treat with dilute acetic acid overnight at a high temperature to remove superficial old or young carbonates. I would assume that the Un. of AZ would have performed that treatment so these dates are accurate.

Correction for my lsat posts: The range for the conventional Beta method can be extended to about 43,000 RC years if you ask the lab to do a more expensive long count on the conventional Beta system but certainly not much above that. The range I gave should have read Conventional AMS at up to 51,000 RC years. Sorry about that I left out the letters AMS. I hope all this is helpful to understand a little bit more about C-14 dating and the fact that such dates are falsifying the thkeory of macroevolution.

References:
Humber P. 2007. Reasons to affirm a young earth. www.crministriesphilly.com - 40 some evidences.
Helfinstine, R.F., 2007. Texas tracks and artifacts: Do Texas fossils indicate coexistence of men and dinosaurs? Order from 1136 5th Ave., South Anoka MN 55303.

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.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The solution to your puzzlement is the same one you saw the first time you posted this foolishness.

You’re shocked that when fossil carbon is tested for C-14 it comes out close to the maximum age that is datable by the method. Like a candy thermometer used to measure the heat of molten metal, it will just give the maximum possible on the scale for which it is calibrated. In fact, if there was no C-14 at all in such a sample, you would get almost identical results.

But (as you just learned) that is unlikely, since radioactive elements (which are everywhere in the Earth’s crust) will be constantly converting some nitrogen-14 (which is also ubiquitous) to carbon-14.

Your trust in those guys is misplaced. They set you up.

 

[The_Barbarian]

To The Barbarian,
I am a moderator on another forum that is filled with atheist ultra-liberals.

I’m a Christian libertarian. I’m good at handling bumptious atheists. If it gets out of hand, I’d be pleased to assist for a short while.

They rail against ID.

Scientifically-literate Catholics don’t like it much, either. I’m particularly unhappy with the stuff from the Unification Church.

They go on to claim that kids, in public schools, should not be taught bad science because terrible things will happen. Like what? Biology will suffer and the country will lose its competitive edge (money), they will be overall dumb and end up on welfare, people, presumably educated people, will shun their state, etc.

That happened in the Soviet Union, when they made Darwinian evolution officially crimethink. But I’m not sure we can blame all of it on the suppression of Soviet Science. However, Andrei Sakharov, the great Russian physicist who defied the Kremlin in his crusade for freedom, publicly accused Stalin and Lysenko of ruining Soviet science by injecting psuedoscience into the schools.

When I read your writing, I do not get the sense you are in any way defending the magisterium.

Maybe you should stop trying to read my mind, and just read what I write. Whenever you’ve dissented from the magisterium, I’ve pointed it out to you. I’ve repeatedly showed you the teaching of the Church in this matter.

You get angry,

Sounds like projection to me, Ed. I’m not those other guys who make you so angry. If you truly believe in God, I’m on your side, in the most important way. I’m just concerned that you are driving people away from the Church by your strident objections to science.

As I’ve quoted Human Persons Created in the Image of God numerous times, let me get to the heart of the matter, According to that document, the Church believes that random mutation and natural selection that leads to life is impossible without God.

Which is in no way in conflict with evolutionary theory, which (like all of science) can’t say anything at all about God or what part He plays in the world.

Which is in strict violation of holy, sacred and supposedly neutral science.

Not in the least. Nothing in science denies (or can deny) the role of God in this world.

The version of science that you and others, are pushing. A godless science.

Plumbing is godless, too. But neither plumbers nor scientists have to be.

The offer, BTW, is sincere; I’d avoid evolutionary theory and focus on the atheism being promoted.

And I’m good at it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

To say “Church magesterial teaching is that Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution. Signed, The Barbarian” has nothing to do with the items directly above. It can be affirmed by itself, as a stand alone statement.

Since I posted that here, some time ago, I’m wondering why you want me to jump through that particular hoop. Do you have a bet you can make the Barbarian say it again?

If it is, I’ll do it, if you promise to split the winnings with me. Fair?

Or is there some formula you’re thinking of that makes my earlier point that the Church allows Catholics to accept or reject evolution (or indeed any science) invalid for your purposes?

What we cannot say and remain with the Church’s teaching is:

1. Catholics must accept evolution (or any other science)

or:

1. Evolution is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

If this is unacceptable to you, perhaps you should check with the Management.

 

[ricmat]

To say “Church magesterial teaching is that Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution. Signed, The Barbarian” has nothing to do with the items directly above. It can be affirmed by itself, as a stand alone statement.

** So you still can’t make the above statement without if’s, and’s, but’s, and except’s. Why is that? Do you believe it, or not?**

Since I posted that here, some time ago, I’m wondering why you want me to jump through that particular hoop. Do you have a bet you can make the Barbarian say it again?

1. I have yet to see you say this simple statement, without if’s, and’s, but’s, and except’s. It stands by itself as something we can believe without if’s, and’s, but’s, and except’s.
2. There is no bet with anyone.
3. It is not a hoop. It is a simple statement that you should be able to agree with. It puzzles me why you don’t just say it. The only reason I can think of is that you don’t actually agree with it.

Or is there some formula you’re thinking of that makes my earlier point that the Church allows Catholics to accept or reject evolution (or indeed any science) invalid for your purposes?

See, here you go again. You need to add the "if, and, and but "about “indeed any science”. The statement I propose that you agree with addresses only evolution, not “any science.”

What we cannot say and remain with the Church’s teaching is:

1. Catholics must accept evolution (or any other science)

or:

1. Evolution is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

If this is unacceptable to you, perhaps you should check with the Management.

Again, more if’s, and’s, and but’s. In this case, you add that we cannot say that evolution is contrary to the teaching of the church. In fact, depending on the specific type of evolution being proposed, we can say EXACTLY that it is in fact contrary to the teaching of the Church.

Until I see you say the above statement without if’s, and’s, but’s, and except’s, there is no reason to think that you actually believe it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’m really intrigued now, why it’s necessary to recite what I’ve already told you, in your particular formulation.

What’s with that? The only reason I can think for someone wanting me to state one part of the Church’s stand on evolution, but not the rest, would be to quote-mine me later. You don’t seem the sort to do that, which makes it even more puzzling.

Why isn’t it acceptable for me to affirm all of it? It’s very puzzling.

Church magisterial teaching is that Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution, or any other science for that matter. They are not free to assert that the church denies evolution in particular or science in general.

Do you deny this?

 

[ricmat]

I’m really intrigued now, why it’s necessary to recite what I’ve already told you, in your particular formulation.

I prefer simple statements, not statements with a lot of if’s, and’s, and but’s.

For example: “I believe that God exists. Signed, Ricmat.”

You’ll note that there was no need to add if’s, and’s, and but’s.

Certainly, you could do the same thing for the quote I provided. Unless you actually disagree with it.

PS: see post 764 for answers to your other items, which you keep repeating.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’m still curious as to why it has to be that specific formulation, with only part of the Church’s teaching, or why including more of it ruins everything. Particularly when I’ve already told you all of it.

Very odd, and you have yet to explain it. Guess we better get back to the subject at hand.

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian,

I’m seeing the usual evasiveness. You don’t seem to want to accept the fact that science is what’s at issue here. That the so-called culture war is all about science. I suggest everyone reading this read a copy of Human Persons Created in the Image of God. It states that random mutation and natural selection do not produce life without God stepping in. Period.

Hold up your Biology textbook like the Bible all you want. It will not erase that fact. Tell everyone reading this again about how science is neutral. Read Humani Generis and note the careful concern mentioned in it. You come off as some kind of authority but Church documents that I can link to clearly prove you are wrong.

A lawsuit was brought in California recently. The issue? The public school system was using “evolution is good” statements from religious leaders to convince students that “evolution is OK.” Now why would they do that? Any thoughts? It’s because Godless evolution is an atheist concept. And Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution (link on request).

You can choose to deal with that or ignore it, but if you do ignore it, it will not go away.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

  			Originally Posted by **ricmat** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3405126#post3405126) 				
  		*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.*

I’m still curious as to why it has to be that specific formulation, with only part of the Church’s teaching, or why including more of it ruins everything. Particularly when I’ve already told you all of it.

Very odd, and you have yet to explain it. Guess we better get back to the subject at hand.

So by your theory above, you couldn’t even say “I believe that God exists. Signed, The Barbarian.” Because that’s not the whole story of God, only part of it.

I like this formulation because I know what it means, and so does everybody else. If’s, and’s, and but’s make things confusing.

Certainly we can discuss only part of the Church’s teaching, and not the whole thing at one time, if we desire. We do that all the time on other subjects, and then bring in other teachings as the discussions progress.

So long as you have no disagreements with what is actually contained in “my formulation”, why wouldn’t you agree to it? The only answer is that you disagree with it. Why do you disagree with it?

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’m seeing the usual evasiveness.

Well, let’s test that idea. Will you make this statement?

“I recognize that the teaching of the Church allows us to deny evolution or any other science, but does not allow us to assert that evolution or any other science is incompatible with the teaching of the Church.”

You don’t seem to want to accept the fact that science is what’s at issue here.

And, of course, your refusal to accept the teaching of the Church in regard to it.

That the so-called culture war is all about science. I suggest everyone reading this read a copy of Human Persons Created in the Image of God. It states that random mutation and natural selection do not produce life without God stepping in.

It also says that common descent of all living things on Earth is virtually certain. Do you accept this also, or are you picking an choosing what you will believe?

Hold up your Biology textbook like the Bible all you want.

It is always astonishing to me that people equate science and religion. No scientist would hold up any science book “like the Bible.” Science depends on evidence, and no science book can be more authoritative than the evidence.

Tell everyone reading this again about how science is neutral.

Has to be. It has no way of saying anything about the supernatural. Of course, scientists can. They don’t have to be scientific all the time.

Read Humani Generis and note the careful concern mentioned in it.

It says what I’ve told you more than once; that it’s foolish and wrong to attempt to evaluate God with science.

You come off as some kind of authority but Church documents that I can link to clearly prove you are wrong.

So far, you’ve mentioned ones that support what I’ve told you.

A lawsuit was brought in California recently. The issue? The public school system was using “evolution is good” statements from religious leaders to convince students that “evolution is OK.” Now why would they do that?

Beyond me. I don’t think of evolution as particularly “good,” other than in the sense that creation is good.

Any thoughts?

There should be a clear separation between religion and government. This, if it is what you’ve described, would be illegal.

It’s because Godless evolution is an atheist concept.

And theistic evolution is a Catholic concept. And evolution by itself, is a science.

And Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution

Fortunately, Catholics are free to accept the scientific one. The Pope, for example, does. Neither atheistic nor theistic evolution are scientific. They are religious doctrines.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
I’m still curious as to why it has to be that specific formulation, with only part of the Church’s teaching, or why including more of it ruins everything. Particularly when I’ve already told you all of it.

Very odd, and you have yet to explain it. Guess we better get back to the subject at hand.

So by your theory above, you couldn’t even say “I believe that God exists. Signed, The Barbarian.” Because that’s not the whole story of God, only part of it.

No. You, for example, have done so. I’m curious as to why you aren’t satisfied with me telling you that Catholics are free to reject evolution or any other science.

When I was in college, the Krishna guys would always try to get you to say their sacred chant. Apparently, they thought it would do something mystical. Deja vu.

I like this formulation because I know what it means, and so does everybody else. If’s, and’s, and but’s make things confusing.

So you think people here would be confused if someone said that Catholics could reject any science they wanted, but were not free to say that evolution (or any other science) was contrary to the teaching of the church? I think most people here are sharper than you think.

It seems to be an obsession for you. Frankly, I’m intrigued enough to let it run to see how far you will go to get me to say it just the way you said it, instead of the way it was said (for example) in imago dei.

 

[ricmat]

No. You, for example, have done so. I’m curious as to why you aren’t satisfied with me telling you that Catholics are free to reject evolution or any other science.

Ricmat hereby states that he agrees with Barbarian that Catholics are free to reject evolution or any other science. Signed, ricmat.

Now, why can’t you say “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?

Unless you don’t believe it?

 

[ricmat]

What’s with that? The only reason I can think for someone wanting me to state one part of the Church’s stand on evolution, but not the rest, would be to quote-mine me later.

So you can’t say “I believe in God” without reciting the whole creed, because it is only part of the Church’s belief. And someone might quote mine you later?

Quote-mining: So what if, a month from now someone were to say “Aha, Barbarian, in post XXX you said ‘Church magesterial teaching is that Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution. Signed, The Barbarian’. I GOT YOU NOW!!”

So long as you say “But that’s what I believe”, why would that be a problem?

 

[edwest2]

Well, let’s test that idea. Will you make this statement?

“I recognize that the teaching of the Church allows us to deny evolution or any other science, but does not allow us to assert that evolution or any other science is incompatible with the teaching of the Church.”

And, of course, your refusal to accept the teaching of the Church in regard to it.

It also says that common descent of all living things on Earth is virtually certain. Do you accept this also, or are you picking an choosing what you will believe?

It is always astonishing to me that people equate science and religion. No scientist would hold up any science book “like the Bible.” Science depends on evidence, and no science book can be more authoritative than the evidence.

Has to be. It has no way of saying anything about the supernatural. Of course, scientists can. They don’t have to be scientific all the time.

It says what I’ve told you more than once; that it’s foolish and wrong to attempt to evaluate God with science.

So far, you’ve mentioned ones that support what I’ve told you.

Beyond me. I don’t think of evolution as particularly “good,” other than in the sense that creation is good.

There should be a clear separation between religion and government. This, if it is what you’ve described, would be illegal.

And theistic evolution is a Catholic concept. And evolution by itself, is a science.

Fortunately, Catholics are free to accept the scientific one. The Pope, for example, does. Neither atheistic nor theistic evolution are scientific. They are religious doctrines.

Religious doctrines? You clearly believe that science is over there and the Church is over here. Wrong answer. You clearly believe that when the Church is talking about science, it is not talking about science!? Give me a break!

You clearly refuse to accept the authority of the Church. If the Church combines science with Church teaching and teaches Catholics, “embryonic stem cell research is wrong” then it is not combining science with God given truth!?

Your constant “virtually certain” mantra is all you care about.

“Neither atheistic nor theistic evolution are scientific.”? Your love, no, worship, of science is all you care about. When the Church tells me I can’t believe in atheistic evolution, it is a scientific statement and the only statement I will accept. Pope Benedict clearly believes in theistic evolution. To be blunt, it does not matter that you think this is not scientific.

Or do you believe that the god of science is greater than the Catholic Church?

You can repeat yourself as often as you want, the Church has the final say about science. The final say. Science is a tool used by men, only the Church is competent to interpret science as it concerns this issue, correctly. Only the Church.

Science is not a tangible object.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

So maybe it’s time to tell us why you want me to tell you just that one part of it, but not all of it.

It’s very peculiar. And since I’ve already told you that same thing several times, why is it so important to say it according to your wording?

Some kind of mantra? Just want to make the Barbarian jump through a hoop? What?