Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T-Rex Bone

[CreosMary]

To VernHumphy
When a Pope defines dogma by ex-Cathedra I will of course follow. No pope has pronounced dogma on Creation since Leo XIII
I am pleased that Popes can make personal statements but we are not beholding to personal satements only Churchs Holy doctrine .
I feel you are trying to emotionally blackmail people by making them feel if they do not agree with EVERYTHING JP2 says (and I love him dearly) then they are not Catholic.
I think that is a scandalous ruse to be using and you should be ashamed.
God bless

 

[Kevin_Walker]

vern humphrey:

Hunting hippos in the long grass with a handgun. Jeff has hunted wild boar with a spear. On Guadalcanal, he hunted Japanese snipers with an '03 Springfield and an Unertel scope.

My uncle was killed on Guadacanal; they named a DE after him: the USS SHEEHAN - He was my mother’s brother and my grandmother’s son. My father was at Pearl Harbor, my two cousins were POWs in Burma by the Japanese, my cousin was an Army Nurse in Vietnam, my other cousin retired from the Navy after serving 30 years (three tours of duty in Viet Nam), and I was a 2nd Class Diver in the Navy and a medic in the National Guard.

What kind of handgun did Jeff use to shoot a hippo?

 

[vern_humphrey]

CreosMary:

To VernHumphy
When a Pope defines dogma by ex-Cathedra I will of course follow. No pope has pronounced dogma on Creation since Leo XIII
I am pleased that Popes can make personal statements but we are not beholding to personal satements only Churchs Holy doctrine .

So in your opinion, Pius XII and John Paul II are heretics?

CreosMary:

I feel you are trying to emotionally blackmail people by making them feel if they do not agree with EVERYTHING JP2 says (and I love him dearly) then they are not Catholic.
I think that is a scandalous ruse to be using and you should be ashamed.

God bless

I feel when people start calling names and attacking the motivations of others in reasoned debate, those people have ipso facto admitted logic and facts are not on their side.

 

[CreosMary]

Oh Yes the athiestic catholics amongst us just keep up the destractions with your hunting stories and your sense of intellectual superority.
Try to not to act with faith, oh sorry you are doing that quite well as it is

 

[vern_humphrey]

Kevin Walker:

My uncle was killed on Guadacanal; they named a DE after him: the USS SHEEHAN - He was my mother’s brother and my grandmother’s son. My father was at Pearl Harbor, my two cousins were POWs in Burma by the Japanese, my cousin was an Army Nurse in Vietnam, my other cousin retired from the Navy after serving 30 years (three tours of duty in Viet Nam), and I was a 2nd Class Diver in the Navy and a medic in the National Guard.

What kind of handgun did Jeff use to shoot a hippo?

He didn’t – there is a fine line between courage and foolhardiness, and Jeff is on this side. He remarked about some OTHER people hiding beside the hippo trails in the long grass with handguns.

I agree with Jeff – facing an animal that can bite you in half, armed with only a pistol is a sport that will have few takers and fewer survivors.

 

[CreosMary]

vern humphrey:

So in your opinion, Pius XII and John Paul II are heretics?

I feel when people start calling names and attacking the motivations of others in reasoned debate, those people have ipso facto admitted logic and facts are not on their side.

I think you have answered your own question
God bless

 

[vern_humphrey]

CreosMary:

Oh Yes the athiestic catholics amongst us just keep up the destractions with your hunting stories and your sense of intellectual superority.

Let me see, I try as gently as possible to tell you,

“I feel when people start calling names and attacking the motivations of others in reasoned debate, those people have ipso facto admitted logic and facts are not on their side.”

CreosMary:

Try to not to act with faith, oh sorry you are doing that quite well as it is

And you just keep doing it – calling me an “athiestic Catholic” and claiming I’m not acting with faith.

What part of Catholicism says you are supposed to get downright nasty when you talk to other people?

 

[Kevin_Walker]

vern humphrey:

He didn’t – there is a fine line between courage and foolhardiness, and Jeff is on this side. He remarked about some OTHER people hiding beside the hippo trails in the long grass with handguns.

I agree with Jeff – facing an animal that can bite you in half, armed with only a pistol is a sport that will have few takers and fewer survivors.

I’m sorry Vern, big game hunting with a pistol has been very common for the past twenty-five years. A lot of hunters take big game: polar bear; water buffalo, elk, kodiak bear, elephant, hippopotamus, wild boar, and moose with .44 magnum and now the .50 caliber pistol for quite a while. Soldier of Fortune magazine has been doing articles on this kind of hunting for over a decade.

And I’m sure the Israeli .44 magnum Desert Eagle automatic pistol would stop a dinosaur dead in its tracks if ever those critters walked the earth again.

 

[vern_humphrey]

CreosMary:

I think you have answered your own question
God bless

If you’re claiming that Pius XII and John Paul II are heretics, you should at least have the courage to say it outright. Is that whnt you mean?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Kevin Walker:

I’m sorry Vern, big game hunting with a pistol has been very common for the past twenty-five years. A lot of hunters take big game: polar bear; water buffalo, elk, kodiak bear, elephant, hippopotamus, wild boar, and moose with .44 magnum and now the .50 caliber pistol for quite a while. Soldier of Fortune magazine has been doing articles on this kind of hunting for over a decade.

And I’m sure the Israeli .44 magnum Desert Eagle automatic pistol would stop a dinosaur dead in its tracks if ever those critters walked the earth again.

Douglas Wesson, then president of Smith and Wesson, took a polar bear with a .357 “Registered Magnum” in the '30s.

And many a head of big game has been taken with a handgun – but for dangerous game, one likes to be backed up by a good man with a big rifle.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

When you next speak with Robert K. Brown or Alex Coll, tell them Munremor MacGercinn says “Howdy.” http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[CreosMary]

vern humphrey:

If you’re claiming that Pius XII and John Paul II are heretics, you should at least have the courage to say it outright. Is that whnt you mean?

No Pope has ever been a heretic, it is impossible as they are guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals.
Once again I will try to explain, there is a difference between promulgated dogma and personal reflection. We must not try to confuse these two vital points which I feel you are trying to do
God Bless

 

[CreosMary]

I prefer to use a cross bow, it makes it more of a match
I loved duck shooting as a youngster but enjoy deer and pig hunting with the cross bow.
Never found a Hippo in Australia yet

 

[vern_humphrey]

CreosMary:

No Pope has ever been a heretic, it is impossible as they are guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals.
Once again I will try to explain, there is a difference between promulgated dogma and personal reflection. We must not try to confuse these two vital points which I feel you are trying to do
God Bless

John Paul II 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).”

Now, if the rejection of evoluion is dogma – as you seen to suggest – even to speculate personally would be heresy.

The fact is, no Pope has ever condemned heresy, and as science progresses, the Church’s positon has been more positive on this issue.

In the light of this, no Catholic can claim that one is required, de fide to reject evolution, or accuse any other Catholic of being an “athiest” for defending science with logic and facts.

 

[vern_humphrey]

CreosMary:

I prefer to use a cross bow, it makes it more of a match
I loved duck shooting as a youngster but enjoy deer and pig hunting with the cross bow.

In many states in the US (but not all) crossbows are illegal for hunting, or are restricted to disabled persons unable to use a conventional bow.

CreosMary:

Never found a Hippo in Australia yet

That’s because hippos hadn’t evolved when pangaea broke up and the present continents separated.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[CreosMary]

vern humphrey:

John Paul II 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).”

Now, if the rejection of evoluion is dogma – as you seen to suggest – even to speculate personally would be heresy.

The fact is, no Pope has ever condemned heresy, and as science progresses, the Church’s positon has been more positive on this issue.

In the light of this, no Catholic can claim that one is required, de fide to reject evolution, or accuse any other Catholic of being an “athiest” for defending science with logic and facts.

As has been mentioned before, The Holy Father would be referring to micro-evolution not macro "blobs to man: theory
So I think once again the issues have been confused.
Macro vs Micro evolution
Promulgated dogma vs personal statements.
I do not know what you mean by “no Pope has condemned heresy” heresy by its own definition is an attack on the Role of the Church and therefore on the Pope.* It is an unusual thing for you to say. *
As has been stated Science is working in all fields of mans origins INCLUDING literal creation. It depends on which science you wish to run with I suppose
God bless

 

[CreosMary]

— whether there are theological reasons why human evolution cannot become part of the Deposit of Faith

     It       is submitted that in the first place human evolution       cannot become the basis of any doctrinal teaching       because it is “new doctrine” within the meaning of       *Pastor Aeternus*, a document of the first       Vatican Council (Vatican l, 1870). This document (*inter       alia*) states:

     .       . . The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the       conditions of the time and affairs advised, sometimes       by calling ecumenical councils, or by examining the       opinion of the Church spread throughout the world,       sometimes by particular synods, sometimes employing       other helps which divine Providence has supplied, have       defined those matters must be held which with       God’s help they have recognized as (being) in       agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic       tradition. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to       the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they       might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they       might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted       through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and       might faithfully set it forth. . . . (emphasis       added)

     (The       above is taken from the English translation by Roy       Deferrari of *Denziger* 30th edition, 1957, B.       Herder Book Co. at paragraph 1836, the full text of       which explains that the “affairs advised” are       matters that have arisen which bishops have referred       to Rome for decision.)

     The       “new doctrine” referred to is obviously doctrine       that is completely outside of divine revelation:       that is, it cannot be said to have been founded upon       the divine revelation contained in Sacred Scripture       and/or the ApostolicTradition, or in a logical       development of doctrine contained in those sources,       which has become part of the Deposit of Faith.       Examples of the latter are Our Lady’s perpetual       virginity, Her immaculate conception and Her       assumption, original sin and purgatory.

    *Lumen       Gentium*, a document of the Second Vatican Council       (Vatican II, 1965), states (with a footnoted reference       to *Pastor Aeternus*) that the Roman Pontiff and       the bishops “do not admit any new public       revelation as pertaining to the divine deposit of       faith.”[8](http://www.kolbecenter.org/butel_dof.htm#sdfootnote8sym)       What else is human evolution in terms of the       Catholic religion but a new public doctrine       that can never become part of the deposit of       faith

 

[CreosMary]

Moreover, as shown below, the literal and historical meaning of the passages in Genesis, Chapter 2, concerning the special creation of our first parents, are upheld (a) in Sacred Scripture itself, (b) in the opinions commonly expressed by the Holy Fathers, and (c) in the Magisterium teachings of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X. It is therefore further submitted that for each and every one of these reasons human evolution must be rejected by all Catholics. These will now be elaborated.

     **(a)**       **Sacred Scripture.** *Genesis* 2:7 states that God made man from “the dust of the ground” (RSV Catholic Edition). The molecules of the dust of the ground, being non-living matter, are said to be symmetrical and two directional, whereas the molecules of living matter are said to be asymmetrical and right-handed only. In *Genesis *3:19 God told Adam “In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” (same version). It should be noted that when once living human remains decay to dust, that that dust reverts to the molecular structure and direction of non-living matter.

     *Genesis* 2:21 tells us that God took a rib from Adam’s side and “closed up its place with flesh” (RSV Catholic Edition). That flesh would have been the periosteum, the membrane in which bones are enclosed. It is a well-known medical fact that rib bone is frequently removed as a repair substance in the cases of treatment of accident victims and that after the membrane is “closed up” the rib bone grows again. (The preceding statements reflect the historical accuracy of Sacred Scripture.)

     The fact that Adam was created from “dust taken out of the ground” is re-affirmed not only in Genesis 3.19, but also in *Genesis *3:23, *Ecclesiastes*       12:7, *Wisdom* 7:1, *Ecclesiasticus* 17:1       and 33:10 and *1 Corinthians* 15:47.

     **(b)**       **The Common Opinion of the Holy Fathers.** In his       book, *The Theory of Evolution Judged by Faith and       Reason*,[9](http://www.kolbecenter.org/butel_dof.htm#sdfootnote9sym) Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini, demonstrates that the Greek, Syrian and Latin Fathers, whom he names and quotes, all held the opinion that the description of the creation of our first parents in *Genesis* 2 is literally       true.

 

[CreosMary]

Pius X. In 1909 Pope Pius X approved decisions of the first Pontifical Biblical Commission concerning the historical character of the first three chapters of Genesis. The answer to question No.3 can be seen to conform precisely to the teachings of Pius IX and Leo XIII. Not surprisingly, because it is said by the Commission to convey the fundamental or foundational teachings of the Christian religion, and it also agrees with the unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers. Irrespective of the status Pius X gave to the teachings of the PBC in general in his Motu Proprio of 18 November 1907, it would seem that this particular teaching, by virtue of what is stated above, already had the protection of the Holy Spirit.

     Stated       in a positive form, the decree teaches that Catholics       may not bring into question the literal and       historical meaning of *Genesis* 1-3, where those       chapters touch upon the fundamental or foundational       teachings of the Christian religion, including (*inter       alia*):

     (a)       the creation of all things wrought by God at the       beginning of time;

     (b)       the special creation of man;

     (c)       the formation of the first woman from man;

     (d)       the unity or oneness of the human race;

     (e)       the original happiness of our first parents in the       state of justice, integrity and immortality.

     Some,       while admitting that human evolution cannot become       part of the Deposit of Faith, might argue that       nevertheless it is part of the valid conclusions of a       genuine scientific theory, which, being valid, cannot       be held to be against faith. However, as shown above,       whatever may be a Catholic’s personal beliefs, faith       requires acceptance of the *Genesis* account of       human creation as being literally and historically       true. Since the majority of Catholic hierarchy       today, who appear to know very little about the case       against evolution, accept it as scientific fact, it       becomes necessary (1) to deal with the second       threshold issue and show why evolution is not a       genuine scientific theory; and (2) to show why, in any       event, it is contrary to the evidence of nature.

 

[CreosMary]

The Second Threshold Issue

     —       **whether       the scope of genuine natural science covers historical       hypotheses**

     This       issue is concerned with the true scope of natural       science. Looked at from a traditional theological       point of view it can be seen that God’s creation of       material things, both animate and inanimate, as       described in *Genesis*, Chapter 1, was a once and       for all creation. However, together with those       material things, He also created laws of nature that       would ensure the continuity of His creation. He not       only provided living things with the ability to       nourish themselves in order to ensure their growth but       He also endowed them with a genetic system that would       enable them to re-produce offspring or other forms of       successive life.

     **It       is submitted that God’s creation insofar as it       involved bringing into existence out of nothing the       first animate and inanimate things, involved       unrepeatable acts and so lies beyond the investigative       powers of natural science. On the other hand, the       operation of natural laws that ensure the continuity       of both organic and inorganic created systems are       repeatable and can therefore become the subject of       testable scientific theories.**

     Secular       science actually agrees with the necessity of repeatable       observations for the application of the scientific       method, of which the penultimate step is the       experimental testing of a theory.[14](http://www.kolbecenter.org/butel_dof.htm#sdfootnote14sym)       Quite inconsistently, however, the propagandists for       atheistic naturalism claim that only science through       the application of the scientific method can discover       the past history of the universe, the earth and life       on earth, even though their hypotheses aimed at doing       so are based upon observations that are unrepeatable.       This situation can be seen to have arisen because the *Genesis*       doctrine of creation was rejected by       “enlightenment” philosophy and was later replaced       by a fallacious “positivism”.

…I hope this clarifies things a little
God Bless

 

[vern_humphrey]

CreosMary:

As has been mentioned before, The Holy Father would be referring to micro-evolution not macro "blobs to man: theory
So I think once again the issues have been confused.
Macro vs Micro evolution

Scroll up and you’ll see that particular argument has already been refuted.

CreosMary:

Promulgated dogma vs personal statements.
I do not know what you mean by “no Pope has condemned heresy” heresy by its own definition is an attack on the Role of the Church and therefore on the Pope.* It is an unusual thing for you to say. *

As has been stated Science is working in all fields of mans origins INCLUDING literal creation. It depends on which science you wish to run with I suppose
God bless

Typo – it should read “The fact is, no Pope has ever condemned evolution as heresy, and as science progresses, the Church’s positon has been more positive on this issue.”