N
Namesake
Guest
Could you clarify for me what is a theory of evolution that is not strictly materialistic?
- Status
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
What seems to have you upset is that I accept all of it, instead of just the parts you like.
In fact, I posted it for you. And I told you I accepted it, and all of the Church’s teaching on evolution. It seems that “all of the Church’s teaching” is what gets you upset. Would you like me to show you again?
R
ricmat
Guest
In other words, you rewrote it, then accepted it.
The text from page 60 is the Church’s teaching on evolution. In a document approved for specific use in teaching Catholics. That text can be accepted without modification by any Catholic. Except, apparently, you.
I would like you to show me why you cannot accept the text as written in the Catechism.
R
ricmat
Guest
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
I’m not the only one here who’s reminded you that I’ve accepted the Church’s teaching on evolution.
Will you also accept that we are not permitted to claim that evolution is contrary to the teaching of the Church?
I and others have told you that the church permits us to deny evolution or any other science, and that we can accept any theory that does not deny the role of God.
“Strictly,” i.e. ontologically materialistic, theories are, as you know, not scientific, since they assume that the physical universe is all there is, something science cannot do. These are rejected by both science and the Church.
Will you be willing to accept all of the teachings of the Church, or will you continue to accept what you like and deny the rest?
Will you also accept that we are not permitted to claim that evolution is contrary to the teaching of the Church?
I and others have told you that the church permits us to deny evolution or any other science, and that we can accept any theory that does not deny the role of God.
“Strictly,” i.e. ontologically materialistic, theories are, as you know, not scientific, since they assume that the physical universe is all there is, something science cannot do. These are rejected by both science and the Church.
Will you be willing to accept all of the teachings of the Church, or will you continue to accept what you like and deny the rest?
M
Memaw
Guest
Maybe you should practice what you preach, Barb
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
They aren’t trolls, most of them. And I’m not writing any of them off. You never know when something you say might connect and help them find their way.
Or so I think.
The science is there when it’s needed. Sometimes, they just need to vent and think about things. Discussion can facilitate that.
P
Philipp
Guest
PHILIPP: You forgot one other important contribution Barbarian has made many additional contributions to this forum namely his many interesting books and web sites which would keep us all busy reading for the rest of our lives if we had the time. Of course they have much to do about nothing on this forum but are very interesting nonetheless. Examples: (a) Did you all know that diamonds have many colors based on the percent of trace elements in the lattice of diamonds and occasionally have a trace of N-14? (2) Coal has ~10 parts per million uranium and thorium? Ergo there must be little nuclear reactors following diamonds, coal deposits, dinosaur bones and amber around irradiating them, changing N-14 into C-14 and giving false young dates. As Barbarian said: “-----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 (One meaning of ubiquitous is omnipresent-like God).
BARBARIAN in another post says: "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.html87GeCoA…51.1227D
Well, this is just BS (baloney sandwiches) - I love to eat BS but not on CA:
- Diamonds only contain trace impurities of anything, much less nitrogen. Most diamonds have virtually no N14 . About 1 part per thousand, at most – from the first reference.
- There are 3 ways to change a diamond’s color: irradiation with high-energy subatomic particles, the application of thin films or coatings, and the combined application of high temperature and high pressure (HTHP). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_enhancement#High-temperature.2C_high-pressure
Which one seems logical for natural color change of a diamond buried deep in the earth and formed from volcanic action? - Another fantasy is the presence of neutrons . THERE ARE NO NATURAL DECAY SERIES THAT PRODUCE NEUTRONS! See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain. So neutrons producing C14 from N14 is “just making it up”
- Even if there were neutron sources, they would have to be in contact with the diamond, to keep from being absorbed externally, before reaching the diamond.
- Even if the non-existent neutrons penetrated the diamond, the odds of them hitting a C12 nucleus would be thousands of times larger than hitting a N14 nucleus. This would produce stable C13, not C14.
Bible history is
M
Memaw
Guest
Very interesting!PHILIPP: You forgot one other important contribution Barbarian has made many additional contributions to this forum namely his many interesting books and web sites which would keep us all busy reading for the rest of our lives if we had the time. Of course they have much to do about nothing on this forum but are very interesting nonetheless. Examples: (a) Did you all know that diamonds have many colors based on the percent of trace elements in the lattice of diamonds and occasionally have a trace of N-14? (2) Coal has ~10 parts per million uranium and thorium? Ergo there must be little nuclear reactors following diamonds, coal deposits, dinosaur bones and amber around irradiating them, changing N-14 into C-14 and giving false young dates. As Barbarian said: “-----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 (One meaning of ubiquitous is omnipresent-like God).
BARBARIAN in another post says: "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.html87GeCoA…51.1227D
Well, this is just BS (baloney sandwiches) - I love to eat BS but not on CA:
As the archaeologist said when he saw the dinosaur depiction [long neck, samll head, long tail like a diplodocus] on the Havai Supai Canyon of the Grand Canyon in 1924, “Facts are immutable things. If theories do not square with the facts then the theories must change, the facts remain.” Oh yes there is another one of those Diplodocus critters depicted in another National Park “Natural bridge” as well as a Triceratops. The park services even point them out in their booklets. We need a paradigm switch because Macroevolution has been falsified from paleoarchaeology, sedimentology, ichnology and RC dating to name but a few.
- Diamonds only contain trace impurities of anything, much less nitrogen. Most diamonds have virtually no N14 . About 1 part per thousand, at most – from the first reference.
- There are 3 ways to change a diamond’s color: irradiation with high-energy subatomic particles, the application of thin films or coatings, and the combined application of high temperature and high pressure (HTHP). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_enhancement#High-temperature.2C_high-pressure
Which one seems logical for natural color change of a diamond buried deep in the earth and formed from volcanic action?- Another fantasy is the presence of neutrons . THERE ARE NO NATURAL DECAY SERIES THAT PRODUCE NEUTRONS! See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain. So neutrons producing C14 from N14 is “just making it up”
- Even if there were neutron sources, they would have to be in contact with the diamond, to keep from being absorbed externally, before reaching the diamond.
- Even if the non-existent neutrons penetrated the diamond, the odds of them hitting a C12 nucleus would be thousands of times larger than hitting a N14 nucleus. This would produce stable C13, not C14.
R
ricmat
Guest
I have never claimed that all forms of evolution are contrary to the teachings of the church. Never. I follow the teachings of the church which are:
“Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him.”
Which quite clearly states:
- Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
- Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
- Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.
Which item do you have a problem with, or is it more than one item?
E
edwest2
Guest
To my fellow Catholics,
It is clear that all The Barbarian cares about is promoting evolution. Words like “God,” “Church” and “magisterium” are just tacked on so we, as Catholics, can relate to it.
Nothing other than evolution is important to this person. Nothing.
God bless,
Ed
It is clear that all The Barbarian cares about is promoting evolution. Words like “God,” “Church” and “magisterium” are just tacked on so we, as Catholics, can relate to it.
Nothing other than evolution is important to this person. Nothing.
God bless,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian asks:
Will you also accept that we are not permitted to claim that evolution is contrary to the teaching of the Church?
Will you also accept that we are not permitted to claim that evolution is contrary to the teaching of the Church?
Well, I’m pleased to hear that. But I’m still mystified as to why you wouldn’t affirm it.
Actually, as I pointed out to your earlier (and not just me) I accept all of it. What I’m puzzled about is why you resisted the teaching that the church has no difficulty with evolution, only with theories of evolution that deny God’s role.
As you have been reminded, (and not just by me) I accept all of them. lndeed I supported them here. The primiary difference between you and me is, I support all of the Church’s teaching in this regard. Why you don’t, is very puzzling to me.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Ed, get over yourself, get an education, and join the world! It’s not scary to be educated – it can be exhilarating.
R
ricmat
Guest
So I want to be clear about this. Your posts are sometimes difficult to navigate, and it’s not clear sometimes what you are referring to when you say you agree with something. I just want to have it all on the same page so there is absolute clarity in the matter.
I interpret your above statement as saying that you accept all of the following:
“Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him.”
Which quite clearly states:
- Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
- Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
- Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.
Please include my entire post in your response.
B
buffalo
Guest
Very charitable indeed.
R
ricmat
Guest
Barbarian, I affirmed it every time I posted the above items, which I affirmed very early on. Item 3. Read it. You are trying to make something out of nothing here.
Barbarian, read item 3 above.
You are apparently puzzled because you didn’t see item 3 above. Read item 3.
Again, you are trying to make something of nothing here.
E
edwest2
Guest
As a Catholic, I’m taught that though I am in the world I should not be of the world. The world does not recognize me and I understand why.
My primary interest is the history of technology. It is usually used to kill people or harm them indirectly. New invention? Got military potential? Get funding.
God bless,
Ed
My primary interest is the history of technology. It is usually used to kill people or harm them indirectly. New invention? Got military potential? Get funding.
God bless,
Ed
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Thanks. I’m just defending the brilliant Barbarian who has been barbarically and uncharitably attacked by the simple Ed. Not that the Barbarian needs defending.Very charitable indeed.
Watching the Barbarian handle the attacks of the scientifically uneducated on this forum reminds me of Sor Juana Inez de la Cruz in the 17th century, about whom it was said (during her interrogation by rather simple Dominican theologians) that “it was like watching a mighty warship being attacked by canoes.”
Petrus
E
edwest2
Guest
“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” Pope John Paul II
I am against the idolizing of science and false absolutes.
God bless,
Ed
I am against the idolizing of science and false absolutes.
God bless,
Ed
A
Alethios
Guest
from PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X ON THE DOCTRINES
OF THE MODERNISTS
“The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. , There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things” (Acts xx. 30), “vain talkers and seducers” (Tit. i. 10), “erring and driving into error” (2 Tim. iii. 13). Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ’s kingdom itself. Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office.”
This statement is ‘virtually certain’ to be that of St. Pius X, the last papal saint (Edited).
Written just over a century ago, could it still apply today?
Yea, verily.
To this very thread?
You betcha. * A fortiore.*
AMDG.
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X ON THE DOCTRINES
OF THE MODERNISTS
“The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. , There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things” (Acts xx. 30), “vain talkers and seducers” (Tit. i. 10), “erring and driving into error” (2 Tim. iii. 13). Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ’s kingdom itself. Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office.”
This statement is ‘virtually certain’ to be that of St. Pius X, the last papal saint (Edited).
Written just over a century ago, could it still apply today?
Yea, verily.
To this very thread?
You betcha. * A fortiore.*
AMDG.
- Status