Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T-Rex Bone

[tuopaolo]

answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp
(not a catholic website but afaik there’s nothing anti-catholic on it)
Still soft and stretchy

Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of “millions of years”

 

[vern_humphrey]

answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp
(not a catholic website but afaik there’s nothing anti-catholic on it)
Still soft and stretchy

Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of “millions of years”

Precisely how does it rebut “millions of years?”

Why not look for a CATHOLIC site, instead of relying on a fundamentalist site?

 

[tuopaolo]

vern humphrey:

Precisely how does it rebut “millions of years?”

Read the article as well as the articles it references.

Why not look for a CATHOLIC site, instead of relying on a fundamentalist site?

AFAIK, it only covers the issue of creation versus evolution so heretical theology doesn’t enter into the equation. There are pro-creation Catholic organizations, but unfortunately none that I know of that have an online resource like this one.

 

[vern_humphrey]

tuopaolo:

Read the article as well as the articles it references.

I did – it basically says, “We don’t believe soft tissue could last this long, so that means it can’t.”

tuopaolo:

AFAIK, it only covers the issue of creation versus evolution so heretical theology doesn’t enter into the equation. Unfortunately I don’t think there are any Catholic sites that have similar resources online. There are definitely pro-creation Catholic organizations, but none that have an online resource like this one.

I can find you a site for “Catholics for Choice” – but that don’t make it a Catholic site.

The Church does not require us to believe literally, and accepts evolution in the same sense that scientists accept it – that is, the evidence and the provisional explanation.

Now, YOU said if DNA tests somehow “disprove” evolution, will scientists drop that theory. And I asked you, if such tests support evolution, will you drop your opposition to it?

 

[tuopaolo]

vern humphrey:

I can find you a site for “Catholics for Choice” – but that don’t make it a Catholic site.

Now you’re comparing support for creationism to support for abortion? I’m sure I am not understanding you somehow.

The Church does not require us to believe literally, and accepts evolution in the same sense that scientists accept it – that is, the evidence and the provisional explanation.

I don’t see anything in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or any other magisterial document that says that she “accepts evolution”

Now, YOU said if DNA tests somehow “disprove” evolution, will scientists drop that theory. And I asked you, if such tests support evolution, will you drop your opposition to it?

I will never drop my opposition to evolution because I will always believe the Bible and the teaching of the Church over any “tests.”

 

[Ghosty]

Science should not rule out the miraculous or assume that God does not exist or assume that if He does exist, He is a deist God – but that is what what today passes for “science” does.

Science doesn’t rule out the miraculous, I can tell you that right now. In fact, it’s through modern science that we determine whether or not a miracle has occured. The Church uses scientists to verify all purported miracles, and it’s now a requirement for such miracles to be verified through science in the cases of making someone a Saint.

Those of us who work in medicine, a science if there ever was one, definately believe in miracles. Some few deny them, and we differ about what causes them, but we see tons of miracles *all the time. *Heck, we’re in the business of replicating them when at all possible.

 

[tuopaolo]

I found a good Catholic organization with a website that supports creation. I think I knew about them before but I didn’t know they had a website.

kolbecenter.org/

Kolbe Center Mission Statement

The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation is a Roman Catholic lay apostolate dedicated to glorifying the Most Holy Trinity by proclaiming the truth about the origins of man and the universe. The Kolbe Center seeks to educate the public, particularly within the Catholic Church, in the truth of creation as revealed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and as confirmed by the findings of modern science. With the help of experts in the fields of theology, philosophy, and natural science, the Kolbe Center also seeks to show the superiority of special creation over all forms of molecules-to-man evolution as an explanation of the origins of man and the universe. According to the molecules-to-man, or macro-evolutionary, theory of origins, all living things are descended from non-living matter. During billions of years, this non-living matter changed into all of the different kinds of living organisms. According to the special creation model of origins on the other hand, God created the various kinds of living things, including man, by divine fiat and later, after the Fall, engineered a global flood that produced most of the “fossil record.”

The Kolbe Center is committed in a special way to defending the Catholic teaching that “the literal and obvious sense of Scripture” as intended by the sacred authors must be believed unless reason or necessity force us to reject that teaching in favor of an exclusively figurative interpretation. Pope Leo XIII emphatically upheld this teaching in his encyclical *Providentissimus Deus, *which has never been overruled by any subsequent magisterial teaching. From the middle of the nineteenth century until the middle of the twentieth century, the apparent evidence for Darwin’s molecules to man evolutionary theory seemed to contradict the literal and obvious sense of the author(s) of Genesis, chapters 1-11, as consistently understood and taught by the Fathers, Popes, and Councils. The modern “anti-culture of death” grew out of the macro-evolutionary theory whose fundamental principles have since been contradicted by the discoveries of modern science.

The Kolbe Center aims to equip Catholic evangelists with a decisive advantage in the third millennium by rooting their apologetics in an intellectually respectable, and true, teaching on creation. Once persuaded of the bankruptcy of molecules-to-man evolution and of the reasonableness of special creation, the practical atheist will be able to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the claims of the Catholic Church. Children will be free to know their God as an almighty, all knowing, and all loving Creator, rather than as a distant, impersonal First Cause. The Catholic evangelist, too, will be liberated from the impossible task of trying to present the Gospel within a framework taken from a materialistic theory. And, in doing so, he will be following in the footsteps of St. Paul, who evangelized the pagans, agnostics, and practical atheists of Athens by speaking of creation (cf. Acts 17:22-31).

The Kolbe Center seeks to carry out its mission through publications, mass media, seminars, and conferences in the United States and throughout the world. Its conferences provide a forum for prominent Catholic theologians, philosophers, and natural scientists who defend the Magisterium and the inerrancy of Scripture and who present the evidence from their respective disciplines in favor of special creation and against molecules-to-man evolution. The Kolbe Center has an Advisory Council made up for the most part of experts in theology, philosophy, and natural science, most of whom have at least a master’s degree in their areas of expertise. (See attached list.)

The Kolbe Center was incorporated in the State of Virginia as a non-profit educational corporation on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, in the Year of Jubilee 2000. The directors of the Kolbe Center are members of St. John Bosco Parish in Woodstock, Virginia. The Episcopal Advisor of the Kolbe Center is Bishop Roman Danylak. The Kolbe Center’s Theological Reviewer is Fr. Victor Warkulwiz, and its Spiritual Advisor Fr. Robert Ruskamp, chaplain of Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia. (. . .)

 

[vern_humphrey]

tuopaolo:

Now you’re comparing support for creationism to support for abortion? I’m sure I am not understanding you somehow.

Now, THERE’S a typical fundamentalist tactic – when you run out of arguments, pretent you’ve been insulted.

A “Catholic” site is one that actually represents the Church, not a site put up by people claiming to be Catholics.

tuopaolo:

I don’t see anything in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or any other magisterial document that says that she “accepts evolution”.

**Pope John Paul II

**Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences **
**October 22, 1996 **
**
**
**

To the Members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences taking part in the Plenary Assembly

With great pleasure I address cordial greetings to you, Mr President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I offer my best wishes in particular to the new academicians, who have come to take part in your work for the first time. I would also like to remember the academicians who died during the past year, whom I commend to the Lord of life.

1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Academy’s refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.

He asked those whom he called the Church’s Senatus scientificus to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will all be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science (cf. Address to the Academy of Sciences, n. 1, 28 October 1986, L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 24 November 1986, p. 22).

**Science at the dawn of the third millennium **

1. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since Revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of Revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church’s relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance.

During this plenary session’ you are undertaking a “reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium”, starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity’s future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications gives rise to new questions. The better the Church’s knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will. be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.

1. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the Magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.

In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).

tuopaolo:

I will never drop my opposition to evolution because I will always believe the Bible and the teaching of the Church over any “tests.”

By rejecting the position of two Popes, you have already rejected the teaching of the Church.

 

[tuopaolo]

vern humphrey:

A “Catholic” site is one that actually represents the Church, not a site put up by people claiming to be Catholics.

So are you saying kolbecenter.org/ is not a Catholic site?

By rejecting the position of two Popes, you have already rejected the teaching of the Church.

So now those who support creationism are rejecting the teaching of the Church? This is insane!

 

[vern_humphrey]

tuopaolo:

So are you saying kolbecenter.org/ is not a Catholic site?

Does it have the Imprimateur or the Nihil Obstat? Are it’s pronouncements and positions sanctioned by bishops?

Remember, this is the CATHOLIC Church – laymen do not have the authority to lay out positions for the Church.

tuopaolo:

So now those who support creationism are rejecting the teaching of the Church? This is insane!

The present Pope said:

“In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).”

Do you accept or reject that?

 

[tuopaolo]

vern humphrey:

Does it have the Imprimateur or the Nihil Obstat? Are it’s pronouncements and positions sanctioned by bishops?

It looks like it is “sanctioned” to me since they have a Bishop on their Advisory Council as their Episcopal Advisor.
kolbecenter.org/KCAdvisorsforWeb6.htm
kolbecenter.org/missionstatement.htm

Remember, this is the CATHOLIC Church – laymen do not have the authority to lay out positions for the Church.

They have a number of priests, including one bishop, on their Advisory Council so it’s not just laymen. The priests include priests that I’m sure many here would respect including the chaplain of Christendom College.

The present Pope said:

“In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).”

Do you accept or reject that?

He seems to be perhaps using “evolution” in the sense of micro-evolution. I have no problem with some degree of micro-evolution. And note the part I highlighted – this means that evolution ideology is incompatible when it comes to those points. Also if you read what the pope said carefully you’ll see that he is only talking about potential incompatibilities between evolution and certain specific doctrines (namely doctrines about the vocation of man) He doesn’t say that there aren’t other incompatibilities, i.e. incompatibilities between evolution and other doctrines (i.e. doctrines other than those which are about the vocation of man)

 

[vern_humphrey]

tuopaolo:

It looks like it is “sanctioned” to me since they have a Bishop on their Advisory Council as their Episcopal Advisor.
kolbecenter.org/KCAdvisorsforWeb6.htm
kolbecenter.org/missionstatement.htm

They have a number of priests, including one bishop, on their Advisory Council so it’s not just laymen. The priests include priests that I’m sure many here would respect including the chaplain of Christendom College.)

And you have all these bishops agreeing that evolution is unacceptable to the Church?

tuopaolo:

It He seems to be perhaps using “evolution” in the sense of micro-evolution. I have no problem with some degree of micro-evolution. And note the part I highlighted – this means that evolution ideology is incompatible when it comes to those points.

.

How? I will freely admit that “evolution ideology” is your term, you invented it, and can define it as you wish.

However, I don’t see mainstream science as violating the points the Pontiff stressed.

tuopaolo:

Also if you read what the pope said carefully you’ll see that he is only talking about potential incompatibilities between evolution and certain specific doctrines (namely doctrines about the vocation of man) He doesn’t say that there aren’t other incompatibilities, i.e. incompatibilities between evolution and other doctrines (i.e. doctrines other than those which are about the vocation of man)

And he didn’t say pigs can’t fly – so does it mean that they can?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Ghosty]

He seems to be perhaps using “evolution” in the sense of micro-evolution. I have no problem with some degree of micro-evolution.

No, he’s talking about macro-evolution. Check out the Encyclical that he’s refering to. Now he’s not saying that you HAVE to believe in evolution, only that the Church does not oppose it, and it’s perfectly orthodox for a Catholic to believe in it within a Catholic perspective.

Originally Posted by tuopaolo
I will never drop my opposition to evolution because I will always believe the Bible and the teaching of the Church over any “tests.”

By rejecting the position of two Popes, you have already rejected the teaching of the Church.

He’s not refering to your belief in creationism, but to your opposition of evolution. Church teaching simply does not oppose evolution. Feel free to be a Young Earther, but you must accept that those of us who believe in the physical evolution of the body are orthodox in our beliefs according to the Church, and don’t oppose us from a theological position.

 

[tuopaolo]

Ghosty:

He’s not refering to your belief in creationism, but to your opposition of evolution.

But how can you believe in creationism while not at the same time opposing evolution? If you believe in creationism you will naturally believe evolution is false.

Feel free to be a Young Earther, but you must accept that those of us who believe in the physical evolution of the body are orthodox in our beliefs according to the Church, and don’t oppose us from a theological position.

Maybe the Church tolerates some kind of belief in evolution but that doesn’t she has declared it to be true or orthodox. Since creationism is based more on theology than it is on natural science, naturally opposition to things, like evolution, which contradict it, will be opposition from a theological position.

I am 99.999% sure that the Church in no way condemns opposition, theological or otherwise, to evolution.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ghosty:

No, he’s talking about macro-evolution. Check out the Encyclical that he’s refering to. Now he’s not saying that you HAVE to believe in evolution, only that the Church does not oppose it, and it’s perfectly orthodox for a Catholic to believe in it within a Catholic perspective.

He’s not refering to your belief in creationism, but to your opposition of evolution. Church teaching simply does not oppose evolution. Feel free to be a Young Earther, but you must accept that those of us who believe in the physical evolution of the body are orthodox in our beliefs according to the Church, and don’t oppose us from a theological position.

Thank you for making that plain. A Catholic can choose to accept or reject evolution – but cannot demand others reject it on religious grounds.

It is in demanding adherence to creationism on religious grounds that one goes against the teachings of the Church

 

[vern_humphrey]

tuopaolo:

Maybe the Church tolerates some kind of belief in evolution but that doesn’t she has declared it to be true or orthodox. Since creationism is based more on theology than it is on natural science, naturally opposition to things, like evolution, which contradict it, will be opposition from a theological position.

And that theology is not Catholic theology. And there’s your problem. You cannot as a Catholic demand others accept creationism based on theology.

 

[tuopaolo]

vern humphrey:

And that theology is not Catholic theology. And there’s your problem. You cannot as a Catholic demand others accept creationism based on theology.

Now you are saying that creationism is not Catholic theology. I don’t demand others accept anything. That’s their choice. But I believe what God teaches through the Bible and the Church is clear and that evolution is incompatible with it. Do you believe Christ is descended from a monkey? I think to believe that is sacrilegous/blasphemous. Christ is the Son of Mary, the Son of David, and the Son of the Father. He is not the son of any monkey! And neither is Mary the daughter of any monkey.

I just realized I made a typo in an earlier post. Here’s the corrected sentence:

Maybe the Church tolerates some kind of belief in evolution but that doesn’t mean she has declared it to be true or orthodox.

Sorry about that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

tuopaolo:

Now you are saying that creationism is not Catholic theology. .

Creationism AS YOU DEFINE IT, with its rejection of science is not Catholic theology. You have seen the ope’s own words on that.

tuopaolo:

I don’t demand others accept anything. That’s their choice. But I believe what God teaches through the Bible and the Church is clear and that evolution is incompatible with it…

The Pope most assuredly beileves that evolution is compatible with the Bible – and cites a previous Pope who held the same position. You cannot therefore be a Catholic hold that the Church believes evolution is incompatible with the Bible.

tuopaolo:

Do you believe Christ is descended from a monkey? I think to believe that is sacrilegous/blasphemous. Christ is the Son of Mary, the Son of David, and the Son of the Father. He is not the son of any monkey! And neither is Mary the daughter of any monkey.

Typical.

NOBODY believes humans descended from monkeys. This false statement on your part shows that you either are ignorant of what science actually says about the ancestry of Man, or are deliberately making an inflamatory statement.

tuopaolo:

Maybe the Church tolerates some kind of belief in evolution but that doesn’t mean she has declared it to be true or orthodox.

Sorry about that.

She most certainly – through the Popes – has said that evolution has strong evidence, and that the Church does not take a position that science is opposed to the teachings of the Church. Those who pretend that there is a theological reason for rejecting evolution are therefore not taking a Catholic position.

 

[Ghosty]

Now you are saying that creationism is not Catholic theology.

He’s actually correct, it’s not. At least not in the sense that it is held up as the official Church explaination of the origins of the Universe. Creationism and theistic evolution both hold the same place as the much of the Summa Theologica; they’re pious and worthy opinion, but only opinion.

Church theology demands that we accept that:

1. All things were made by God.
2. The human soul is specially and immediately created by God.
3. Adam was a very real human, and the first “true man” in that he was the first homonid to have a human soul.
4. Eve was a very real human, and the first “true woman”, and Adam’s wife.
5. All true humans claim descent from this original pair; no one is alive today who can not trace their lineage back to them.

These are the dogmas we must accept as Catholics. Any opinion which embraces these dogmas is orthodox, meaning both creationism and evolution can be orthodox. You’ll notice that there is no dogma about how the human body was formed, and that’s where evolution and creationism are free to disagree. What we are not free to do is deny the orthodoxy of the opposing viewpoint, though we are free to debate it. So when we say that you’re not free to oppose it, we’re saying that you’re not free to oppose its presence in the Church.

A similar example would be the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist. There are Eastern Catholics who use leavened bread, and they have theological reasons for their preference. We, as Western Catholics, are free to disagree with their preference, and possibly even debate why one is better than the other, but we are NOT permitted to oppose the use of leavened bread as unorthodox; the Church has already spoken on what constitutes the proper bread for Transubtantiation to occur, and both leavened and unleavened bread fall within that definition.

 

[tuopaolo]

vern humphrey:

Creationism AS YOU DEFINE IT, with its rejection of science is not Catholic theology.

I don’t reject science; I reject pseudo-science.

Typical.

NOBODY believes humans descended from monkeys. This false statement on your part shows that you either are ignorant of what science actually says about the ancestry of Man, or are deliberately making an inflamatory statement.

It doesn’t matter whether you want to call it “monkey” or “ape” or “chimpanzee” or whatever. The point is that evolution claims that men are descended from savage beasts, i.e. non-rational animals, animals without rational souls. To say that Christ is the son of a savage beast – whatever name you happen to give it – is blasphemous/sacrilegous.

Those who pretend that there is a theological reason for rejecting evolution are therefore not taking a Catholic position.

I believe you are misinformed about a lot. Let’s consider something else about which there has been some debate like whether Our Lady died before being assumed into Heaven. Those who argue that she did OF COURSE argue that there is a theological reason to reject that she didn’t and also vice versa: those who argue that she didn’t likewise OF COURSE argue that there is a theological reason to reject that she did. Now, whether Our Lady died before being assumed into Heaven is not a Catholic dogma. But that doesn’t mean that there cannot be or cannot be argued to be theological reasons to hold one or the other position and reject the other See what I mean? That’s where you are going all wrong in your pro-evolution fanaticism.