R
Riseof_Rome
Guest
Buffalo-Evolution clearly does not contradict any dogma. Why are you so determined to disprove something that can coexist with faith?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
We will start here. Please read and then discuss: Pay close attention to the citations and references.
**DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART I **
**DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART II **
**DID THE HUMAN BODY EVOLVE NATURALLY?
A FORGOTTEN PAPAL DECLARATION **
D
dixieagle
Guest
Bottom line (from the third essay): “For the truth that comes to us via God’s word can never contradict the truth to be discovered in His works - the created universe.”
That really says it all and explains why I don’t get my knickers in a twist about all of this. Truth is Truth, and will always come to the fore, in the end.
G
greg_b
Guest
Red flags went up as soon as I saw the word “traditional”. The site didn’t look like a total sedevacanist dumping ground, but I only saw a few brief articles
B
buffalo
Guest
** Aims of the Roman Theological Forum **
Oblates of Wisdom, P.O. Box 13230, St. Louis, MO 63157 U.S.A.
Email: jfm@rtforum.org
*]**To promote Catholic theology consistently in keeping with the authentic Magisterium of the Church, including the role of Our Lady in the Church.
**
*]**To promote a concept of science, including historical science, philosophical science, and theological science, based on a realist metaphysics and which is thoroughly aware of its own scientific medium of thought.
**
*]**To foster an historical method based upon clear concepts and aimed at the whole of reality, both natural and supernatural.
**
*]**To promote an approach to Divine Revelation which includes both the historical reality of the deeds and words recorded in Sacred Scripture and their transhistorical truth.
**
*]**To promote a neo-Patristic approach to Sacred Scripture, that is, an updated method of interpretation, rooted faithfully in the perennial tradition of the Fathers of the Church, which takes into account the Four Senses of the Inspired Word of God (cf. the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 115-119) and which upholds its complete inerrancy.
**
*]**To promote in general the method and teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, and, as regards Sacred Scripture, including the metaphysical dimension of his teachings.
**
*]**To analyze for both positive and negative content from a Catholic and Thomist point of view the outlook of “modern man” by means of thoroughgoing critiques of the philosophical and theological works that have produced it.
**
*]**In all Christian charity to restore Catholic apologetics to its pristine vigor.
**
*]**To update and promote the best Catholic manuals of philosophy and theology.
**
*]**To approach the study of liturgical reform from a viewpoint that is fully in keeping with the latreutic and mystical dimensions of Catholic liturgical tradition. **
D
dixieagle
Guest
dinosauri.info/eng/dinosaur.html
Average, is problematic, as that varied from era to era; however, they ranged from about 2 feet long (microraptor) to about 130 feet (supersaurus), and from less than 1 lb. to about 120 tons.
B
buffalo
Guest
Thanks. Now how about juveniles?
E
Eucharisted
Guest
You have a good eye, Greg
B
buffalo
Guest
I think he would prefer the words liberal and modernist.You have a good eye, Greg
As you can see by the aims he is dead wrong.
D
dixieagle
Guest
G
greg_b
Guest
I see we have a Vatican II denierI think he would prefer the words liberal and modernist.
As you can see by the aims he is dead wrong.
B
buffalo
Guest
Huh? explain.
E
edwest2
Guest
I was there for Vatican II. I saw the Latin mass become English and an altar was added to face the people. Nothing else changed. Nothing.
Peace,
Ed
G
greg_b
Guest
your right, but some people missed that message
W
wapsi
Guest
Greg, I see you are new member of CAF and I wanted to welcome you. You are already engaged in spirited discussion, so maybe a welcome isn’t necessary. Still, I am glad you joined us!
Although I generally support your positions, may I suggest that you lay off the personal attacks against members you disagree with? CAF is somewhat unusual in that it is a Christian site and expects its members to discuss with charity. You’ve made quite a few uncharitable comments in this thread regarding other members. Such comments are self-indulgent, unnecessary, and out of keeping with the tenor of CAF. Please tone it down - I would hate to see your membership suspended or banned.
C
Coleski
Guest
There is a certain mentality borne by bad education that equates speculation on ultimate matters such as the orgin and history of life on Earth as equivalent to a proven scientific facts, such as the Earth revolving around the Sun, as espoused here by Greg B who declares that anyone who doesn’t believe the macroevoltionary myth, might as well believe that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun. Dear Mr. B., the mathematical theory and experimental evidence are beyond doubt in the case of proving the Earth revolves around the Sun. We have sent satelites into space to collect the evidence for irrefutable proof of this fact with 100% certainty. You are badly educated if you think that macroevoltionary speculation, an idea that holds that life popped into existense spontaneously from lifeless matter, and no one can explain how, some billions of years ago and then through a process of random mutation and adaptive advantage evolved. If you have so much confidence in this theory, then give the degree of probability that it has been proven true. The answer to that question is that you can’t. It hasn’t been proven even to a 0% probability, in a word it’s not even wrong! I’m not talking about intraspecies adaption here as with breeding dogs, or fruit flies, I’m talking about the grand Godless theory of blind chance and necessity. This theory was first proposed by the ancient Greek Epicurus who declared that all things emerged from atoms randomly bouncing into each other. The essiential idea has remained the same. It remains philsophical speculation not proven scientific theory. Those who claim otherwise are woefully ignorant.
W
wapsi
Guest
Coleski, I think your post is a bit misleading. Scientific facts are past observations. Collectively, those facts are assembled into theories to make predictions about future observations.
I’m not sure that anyone has observed the Earth actually revolving around the Sun. But I do agree that we have ample evidence, drawn from astronomical observations (including satellites) which support the Heliocentric theory. Still, this doesn’t mean that the Heliocentric theory is a fact. Commonsense may tell us it is, but science doesn’t work that way.
I think there is also ample evidence to support the theory of evolution as an explanation of speciation, enough that in the commonsense view (but not the scientific view) it can be accepted as fact. Of course, any speculation about the origin of life is just that… speculative.
R
ready
Guest
Thanks for the feedback.
A
a_priori
Guest
Who here is suggesting that?
S
space_trojan
Guest
greg, ad hominem is uncalled for and i agree with wapsi entirely, there’s no need to be obnoxious, your ideas are welcome and well regarded, so what’s your problem?..if i may, i would like to suggest that we exercise democracy and vote, and if my vote would say anything, it would be for your membership suspension or be banned…
- Status