E
edwest2
Guest
The Word of God comes before science, any science.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
- Status
C
cpayne
Guest
Let’s make this explicit: In your view, anyone who believes that human evolution has taken place does not believe in the Bible, or does not believe the Bible is God’s Word. Correct?
E
edwest2
Guest
No. To be explicit, the propaganda that drives the desperate push here and elsewhere to get all Christians to believe in evolution is the problem. Not the science. The Propaganda.
You are an animal, NOT created in the image and likeness of God.
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator…”
You have no dignity as a human being from the moment of conception until death. Embryos can be killed, babies can be killed, suicide is OK. You have nothing and no one to answer to except yourself.
“Do what thou wilt.” Not the will of God.
Get it?
God bless,
Ed
You are an animal, NOT created in the image and likeness of God.
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator…”
You have no dignity as a human being from the moment of conception until death. Embryos can be killed, babies can be killed, suicide is OK. You have nothing and no one to answer to except yourself.
“Do what thou wilt.” Not the will of God.
Get it?
God bless,
Ed
C
cpayne
Guest
Thank you for your straightforward answer. Now let’s make it more explicit: Since the Pope has expressed his belief that human evolution has occurred, the Pope does not accept the authority of the Bible, or he does not believe the Bible is God’s Word. Correct?
Or, third option: The Pope has been deceived by the propaganda.
Or, third option: The Pope has been deceived by the propaganda.
A
abu_kamoon
Guest
"Thank you for your straightforward answer. Now let’s make it more explicit: Since the Pope has expressed his belief that human evolution has occurred, the Pope does not accept the authority of the Bible, or he does not believe the Bible is God’s Word. Correct?
Or, third option: The Pope has been deceived by the propaganda."
Or the fourth option: maybe he thinks he knows better than what the Bible says.
The Pope has not spoken Ex Cathedra in his pronouncements on evolution. What would lead one to accept his opinion concerning evolution to be correct? We all know that popes are not impeccable.
Evolution is contrary to many aspects of Genesis. To accept evolution is to consider Genesis to be a myth. If Genesis is a myth, why is it in the Bible?
If evolution is correct and Genesis is a myth, has the Church mislead Catholics for over 1800 years concerning our origins?
Our origins are the realm of religious faith, not science. That’s what so many fail to realize. Science can not explain our origins. Science can’t answer questions about the nature of God.
Or, third option: The Pope has been deceived by the propaganda."
Or the fourth option: maybe he thinks he knows better than what the Bible says.
The Pope has not spoken Ex Cathedra in his pronouncements on evolution. What would lead one to accept his opinion concerning evolution to be correct? We all know that popes are not impeccable.
Evolution is contrary to many aspects of Genesis. To accept evolution is to consider Genesis to be a myth. If Genesis is a myth, why is it in the Bible?
If evolution is correct and Genesis is a myth, has the Church mislead Catholics for over 1800 years concerning our origins?
Our origins are the realm of religious faith, not science. That’s what so many fail to realize. Science can not explain our origins. Science can’t answer questions about the nature of God.
S
steveandersen
Guest
so… if you don’t have a problem with the science then how can talking about it and/or teaching it be propaganda (which I’m assuming you’re using in its modern pejorative sense)
Germ theory is “only a theory” after all do you consider the signs in restaurants that require employees to wash their hands after using the toilet propaganda too?
What makes you think that those two statements are in any way shape or form mutually exclusive?
No I don’t “get it”. How are any of the ills you are complaining about the fault of modern biology?
People have been doing what they wilted, aborting babies, and generally running roughshod over their fellow man since there have been fellow men to do it to. Nothing you complain about is new.
Do you recall what is the first human achievement mentioned in the Bible (after eating the apple that is)? Murder!
They weren’t teaching evolution in Sodom & Gomorra after all. We did bad things in the Stone Age, bad things in the Bronze Age, and bad things in the space age.
As I said several threads ago science is descriptive not normative. Don’t blame society’s ills on science. It is a tool and nothing more. Flawed humans will use it for good or ill.
Just because you personally don’t like what you think it is being used for it is not the fault of the science.
S
steveandersen
Guest
You seem to be equating “myth” with “not true”
while some people may use it in that sense that is not the definition of the word.
The Bible mythological in that it teaches the world view and Truths of those who believe in it.
Not treating it as a science or history textbook is hardly misleading.
The Church teaches the same thing about it now as She has always taught.
Our physical origins are very much in the realm of science.
yes it can… physically at least
It is not trying to.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Because it is true, but in its own way - & not as science: unlike evolution. There is no more contradiction between them than there is between going to Mass & then having breakfast - both are necessary to us, but not in the same fashion. This is the sort of confusion between unlike things that leads people to refuse medical help, as to rely on medical science would (they believe) show a lack of faith.
See below
Which is why evolution does not clash with Genesis 
E
edwest2
Guest
Where did he express this? What did he say? I watched the apparent glee of the unGodly all over the internet when John Paul II said “evolution is more than a hypothesis” See, see, see, YOUR POPE believes it, why don’t you?
Pope Benedict, in a more recent statement, said that Pope John Paull II “had his reasons” for saying what he did but Pope Benedict did not reveal those reasons. Also, Pope Benedict, in the same article, referred to evolution as a scientific theory that cannot be proven.
In their desperate hope to at least confuse the faithful, those who live in darkness only chose to read those statements in a way that suited their goals.
God bless,
Ed
H
hecd2
Guest
This from a person who gets his science from Kent Hovind. For those of you don’t know Kent Hovind, he is a fundamental evangelical creationist, who claims to have a doctorate which, in fact, he obtained from a degree mill. He no more has a doctorate than I have four heads. ‘Dr’ Hovind and his DrDino website contains some of the most egregious examples of shoddy arguments against evolutionary biology and an old earth that it has been my privilege to ridicule. (Oh, and by the way, Kent has recently been jailed for tax evasion - apparently Kent thinks that being chosen of God means he doesn’t have to pay taxes.) What did Koru (Cole) get from Kent? Koru got Kent’s nonsensical notion (admittedly handed down from the modern father of young earth creationism, Henry Morris) that carbon 14 is 1/3 of the way to equilibrium in the atmosphere so the earth can only be 10,000 years old.The post in which I pointed out these silly errors, the post that Koru didn’t reply to, presumably because he has no reply, was an embarassment for him. Koru is very easily duped in scientific matters. And yet he still presumes to lecture us on what and what does not constitute science.
Well, no, that is precisely what science shouldn’t do. When it comes to investigating natural processes (and that includes the historical sciences - Koru is by no means the first creationist who attempts, impotently, to limit science to laboratory experimentation) science is much much bigger than any one religious point of view - great science is done by people from every religion and from none. Science’s power comes from the fact that it refuses to allow supernatural explanations for observations. Thankfully, those who know so little science that they confidently build their rhetoric on the sands of Kent Hovind’s laughable nonsense, are themselves in no position to say what does and does not constitute science.
No - this is just Koru exhibiting, yet again, his lack of knowledge and his prejudice. The statement above is no truer than his absurd claim that the C14 concentration in the atmosphere is 1/3 the way to equilibrium.
Someone who calls a well-respected scientist a liar, had better have reason to do so, if they do not want to lose all credibility themselves. So let Koru tell us, with respectable supporting references (NB Dr Dino is not respectable), what evidence he has in support of his disgraceful calumny against Charles Lyell - let us hear exactly what facts and information Lyell allegedly lied about to refute a young earth (which refutation, by the way, is supported by all modern professional geologists). It’s all very well attempting to take the high moral ground, as Koru tries to in his posts, but if his assumed superiority is built on scientific sand and unevidenced slander against great scientists, then we are entitled to ask why we should take account of anything he says. Scriptural fundamentalism and self-righteousness are not in themselves guarantees of intellectual or spritual competence.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Superb job Alec! You have an exceptional ability to grasp the ‘spritual’ focus of the matter and intellectually move it in the right direction. 
Even students in 12th grade should know -
Scientists can bring information, insights, and analytical skills to bear on matters of public concern. (The Scientific Enterprise #6.)
sciencenetlinks.com/benchmark_sub.cfm?Grade=9-12&BenchmarkID=1
http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/benchmark_sub.cfm?Grade=9-12&BenchmarkID=1
Nature of Science in public schools provides an outline of what is being taught to youth.
project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/ch1/ch1.htm
http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/ch1/ch1.htm
**What is the relationship between Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the National Science Education Standards? **
Although distinct sets of standards, Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the National Science Education Standards share similar content. The National Research Council drew heavily on SFAA and Benchmarks when developing their content standards, and has stated that Benchmarks and National Science Education Standards share about 90% of the same content recommendations. Additionally, a survey conducted by SRI International of 43 state curriculum documents revealed that many of them cite Project 2061 and its publications as key sources in their bibliographies, quote directly from Project 2061 publications to describe their vision of science literacy and reform, or organize their own recommendations according to topics in SFAA and Benchmarks.sciencenetlinks.com/benchmarks.htm
http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/benchmarks.htm
A big thanks to the American Association for the Advancement of Science for allowing me to share these links with the public. AAAS publishes the crème de la crème peer-reviewed journal Science. And a sincere thank you and hello to Peter Raven for his ongoing involvement with AAAS, National Geographic, and the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee. He is a wonderful Catholic gentleman.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(journal
en.wikipedia.org
M.
Even students in 12th grade should know -Scientists can bring information, insights, and analytical skills to bear on matters of public concern. (The Scientific Enterprise #6.)
sciencenetlinks.com/benchmark_sub.cfm?Grade=9-12&BenchmarkID=1
http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/benchmark_sub.cfm?Grade=9-12&BenchmarkID=1
Nature of Science in public schools provides an outline of what is being taught to youth.
project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/ch1/ch1.htm
http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/ch1/ch1.htm
**What is the relationship between Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the National Science Education Standards? **
Although distinct sets of standards, Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the National Science Education Standards share similar content. The National Research Council drew heavily on SFAA and Benchmarks when developing their content standards, and has stated that Benchmarks and National Science Education Standards share about 90% of the same content recommendations. Additionally, a survey conducted by SRI International of 43 state curriculum documents revealed that many of them cite Project 2061 and its publications as key sources in their bibliographies, quote directly from Project 2061 publications to describe their vision of science literacy and reform, or organize their own recommendations according to topics in SFAA and Benchmarks.sciencenetlinks.com/benchmarks.htm
http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/benchmarks.htm
A big thanks to the American Association for the Advancement of Science for allowing me to share these links with the public. AAAS publishes the crème de la crème peer-reviewed journal Science. And a sincere thank you and hello to Peter Raven for his ongoing involvement with AAAS, National Geographic, and the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee. He is a wonderful Catholic gentleman.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(journal
Science (journal) - Wikipedia
M.
S
steveandersen
Guest
Which is precisely true
But it sounds like HH is using the term theory in its correct sense
And not in the way that those who oppose evolution often use it.
A theory is a model that conforms with the preponderance of the data.
You know, if I said that your posts were your desperate attempt to hold onto our personal worldview and sow confusion amongst the faithful you would take offense. So think about what you are saying about the motivations of others.
I object to your notion that faithful and technically savvy Catholics are either conducting some sinister plot or are dupes.
C
cpayne
Guest
Well, yeah. But you WOULD say that, Plotmeister!
S
steveandersen
Guest
Yeah I suppose that I would.
E
edwest2
Guest
My notion, as you call it, is easily provable by going to any other Christian forum. My observations are consistent with post after post after post, all clearly showing a “Evolution - you religious people MUST believe it” bias. At first, I simply assumed good will on the part of those pushing evolution as a fact. Then I realized, over time, that this was not a friendly exchange, a “here’s the evidence, you decide” type thing, because if anyone “decided” “incorrectly,” there was hell to pay. The Bible was trampled, God was trampled, and the name calling: IDiot, cretard, the list goes on, began. Apparently, “disagreeing” with the evidence was not an option. Because if it were, everyone could go on with their lives in peace.
Instead I’m seeing the earmarks of a psychological warfare program.
God bless,
Ed
A
abu_kamoon
Guest
If evolution were science, we would all believe it. Evolution is not a product of the Scientific Method. It is a theory based on the preponderence of evidence to substantiate the idea that life in all its variation, is the product of natural forces - with or without the help of God.
Evolution is not science because it attempts to explain the unexplainable. The creation of life is a miracle. It cannot be created in the laboratory. How could it have possibly occured naturally?
If we look at the fossil record of automobile in an auto graveyard, we see a Model T Ford, some Buicks from the Thirties. A 1941 Chevy coupe. Then we see a Plymouth from 1949, a '56 Chevy, a '59 Chevy, and a '65 Mustang. Also, a 68 Cadillac, a '72 Pinto and an '89 Skylark. Finally, a 2000 Volvo. Does the preponderence of evidence indicate that one car evolved into another? I guess some people might believe that.
Evolution, unlike science is dogmatically defended. It’s missionaries heap scorn on any who fail to believe in it. We are not talking about science, we are talking about religion. A religion that contradicts the Bible.
Evolutionists insist that Genesis is a myth. Genesis, they tell us is a make believe story to teach us some lesson. But what is that lesson? For thousands of years, Jews, Christians and Muslims have believed what they read. Today, evolutionists are telling us that they were wrong. They took Genesis literally. Today, we are much more sophisticated. We know the truth.
If that isn’t pride and arrogance, I don’t know what is.
Evolution is not science because it attempts to explain the unexplainable. The creation of life is a miracle. It cannot be created in the laboratory. How could it have possibly occured naturally?
If we look at the fossil record of automobile in an auto graveyard, we see a Model T Ford, some Buicks from the Thirties. A 1941 Chevy coupe. Then we see a Plymouth from 1949, a '56 Chevy, a '59 Chevy, and a '65 Mustang. Also, a 68 Cadillac, a '72 Pinto and an '89 Skylark. Finally, a 2000 Volvo. Does the preponderence of evidence indicate that one car evolved into another? I guess some people might believe that.
Evolution, unlike science is dogmatically defended. It’s missionaries heap scorn on any who fail to believe in it. We are not talking about science, we are talking about religion. A religion that contradicts the Bible.
Evolutionists insist that Genesis is a myth. Genesis, they tell us is a make believe story to teach us some lesson. But what is that lesson? For thousands of years, Jews, Christians and Muslims have believed what they read. Today, evolutionists are telling us that they were wrong. They took Genesis literally. Today, we are much more sophisticated. We know the truth.
If that isn’t pride and arrogance, I don’t know what is.
W
WhoSays
Guest
So all science is automatically believed after it’s introduced? What about the first person to say the Earth was round? What about the first person who said the earth revolves around the sun? They were ridiculed and not believed for many many years. Now it’s common knowledge .
Are you serious? Science is only practiced to attempt to understand what is believed to be unexplainable. It wouldn’t be science if it just kept reaffirming the same thing. How many scientists are still doing experiments to prove that the earth is round? No one! That’s because science is only around to try and explain what we don’t understand, not what we already know.
I was pretty sure that this wasn’t a thread about the origin of life. They are two separate things, you know. As for life being created in labs, have you been asleep for the last twenty years? They clone animal life all the time in labs now.
This example is completely and totally flawed and is a perfect example of a straw man argument. Evolution deals with life and life deals with cells. Cars do not have cells, are not alive, and are therefore completely independent from any comparisons with evolution.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Yeah, well I’ve been called an atheist, a liar, evil, misguided, tricked, etc… by fundamentalists who insist that the Genesis story, contrary to Church teaching, MUST be read literally. Doesn’t mean that creationists are engaged in psychological warfare.
What at joke.
Peace
Tim
K
Koru
Guest
I don’t remember mentioning anything about your Kent Hovind. You make some extreme assumptions. The information I get are from CATHOLIC Apologists such as Patrick Madrid, Bill Marshner, and a lot from Robert Sungenis. Besides, you seem to place a lot of mudslinging tactics saying “oh, he’s a protestant” and “he’s in jail for tax evasion” and “his pHD isn’t good enough”. You’re simply saying that since he’s a protestant, he doesn’t have logic and use good science? I remember PhilVaz listing MANY protestant theologins and scientists to support his theories, but did I make a fuss about them? NO, because just as he said, there are protestants out their defending the theories better than a lot of Catholics (on both sides). On that issue, you can grow up. Secondly, you simply are stating he’s a sinner. Are YOU perfect? Do YOU sin? Being a hypocrite is what all people are, so what makes you special? Using tax evasion and him being in jail for it to make him seem any less credible for information that has NOTHING TO DO WITH being a sinner is just plain pathetic.
Lastly, his accreditations… Why don’t you research who it was that founded the majority of all the senior sciences and even lots of sub-sciences? Catholic monks, did they have pHD’s? NOPE, but they sure did know their stuff… what does a pHD prove nowadays anyways. They show that you’ve been taught and you passed the classes required to achieve the piece of parchment entitling you with the suffix. They do NOT provide proof that you know the subject the best over somebody that doesn’t have a pHD.
You want to see what I basically believe in, I’m not going to sit here and argue over such simple logics, go to catholicintl.com/ for much of what and why I believe in special creation among other things. I’m not 100% sure about geocentrism, but I think it’s something that needs further study… and if geocentrism is true, then evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
Lastly, his accreditations… Why don’t you research who it was that founded the majority of all the senior sciences and even lots of sub-sciences? Catholic monks, did they have pHD’s? NOPE, but they sure did know their stuff… what does a pHD prove nowadays anyways. They show that you’ve been taught and you passed the classes required to achieve the piece of parchment entitling you with the suffix. They do NOT provide proof that you know the subject the best over somebody that doesn’t have a pHD.
You want to see what I basically believe in, I’m not going to sit here and argue over such simple logics, go to catholicintl.com/ for much of what and why I believe in special creation among other things. I’m not 100% sure about geocentrism, but I think it’s something that needs further study… and if geocentrism is true, then evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
W
WhoSays
Guest
Catholic Monks?
Biology - Robert Hooke - Developed the Cell Theory. Was the only brother in his family NOT to work in the clergy. Never worked as a monk.
Physics - Isaac Newton - Worked as a mathematician, astronomer, philosopher, and alchemist. Was religious but never a monk.
Chemistry - Was first studied in the Middle East by muslims, most notably Geber. Never worked as a monk.
Astronomy - Nicolaus Copernicus - Worked to develop astronomy and turned down an offer to be a bishop. Never worked as a monk.
The men stated above are considered by many to be the founding fathers of their fields. None of them lived as monks. Where did you read that catholic monks invented science?
So you’re saying that if a person with a PhD in physics and a random person on the street were given a 100 question test on electrical resistance in superconductive materials, they would both get approximately the same score? Call me a dreamer, but I think the guy with the PhD would do a bit better.
Please explain how geocentricism and evolution are related.
- Status