The Church's position on faith and science - any objections?

[alacoque]

cassini, my friend, I’m afraid you are mistaken. In truth, if you have studied heliocentrism and evolution as much as you claim you have, then you would not make the claim that evolution explains the origins of life. In case you haven’t read it, Darwin’s book is called “On the Origin of Species,” not life. Evolution by natural selection does not claim to explain the origin of life, just how one life form begets other life forms, and anyone who is well versed in the theory of evolution knows that. I suggest you go back to your studies before you make any more inaccurate claims.

So, cassini, how did you develop? Unless you have been miraculously created whole, you developed through natural processes (mitosis and meiosis) from a single-celled human to a fully developed baby in less than 9 months time. The thing is beyond belief! Last I checked, nothing is impossible for God. Including the development of complex biological systems using a natural process like evolution. Is it we evolutionists who are playing God, or is it you fideists who are putting restraints on God and rejecting His revelation through the workings of the natural world?

Scientists “smack of superiority” when it comes to science, because it is our area of expertise. Just like lawyers know law, theologians know theology, physicians know medicine, artists know art, athletes know sports, and so on. As for the rest of that quote, you need to read my response to reggieM above.

The world looks like God used evolution by natural selection to create the diversity of life on Earth (and anywhere else in the universe). Do yourself a favor and study the fossil record, it may help to clear things up for you. Does a fertilized human egg look like a human? No, but it is one. Does an apple seed look like something that can turn into an apple tree and bear fruit. No, but it can. Looks can be deceiving, my friend (as in the case with your geocentrism). But God not only gave us the capacity to believe by faith, but also through reason. In case you missed it, it was the Roman Catholic Church that developed the scientific method.

So let me get this straight, you claim that geocentrism is true because the world looks geocentric, but you reject evolution when the world looks evolutionary? I’m praying for you, my brother in Christ.

Great work, G, esp. with pointing out that the whole Darwin/evolution thing is about the adaptation and such of species NOT life. Do you agree that so many people either believe that we ARE talking about the evolution of LIFE (when evolution is mentioned) or are just confused ?

Also, I wonder if it would help to mention a few times, to people, that ‘evolution’ is still a THEORY. (hope that doesn’t upset the scientist part of you unduly!! ) It’s still a ‘theory’ so far as I know, although I agree with you that most observation shows beautiful changes in all elements of creation according to the times, surroundings, environment, etc. Personally, I wish science would have kept the use of the term ‘adaptation’ around longer…I think, more often than not, it aptly describes what’s happening (i.e. flora and fauna make small changes of “adaptation” far more often and in greater numbers than they make a whole/entire ‘species change’.) But, that’s a discussion for a super large Latte, I think…

For now, thanks for your reference to species vs life, itself…that was much needed.

In His love…

 

[Stephentlig]

Stephentlig said: “this is why he knew that in a few thousand years that atheistic scientists would come up with these garbage theorys,”

OTimothy, guard the truth and keep free from profane novelties in speech and the contradiction of so-called knowledge [science] , which some have professed and have fallen away from the faith. Grace be with you. I Tim 6:20

‘‘Have nothing to do with the pointless philosophical discussions and antagonistic beliefs of the ‘knowledge’ which is not knowledge at all; by adopting this, some have gone right away from the faith. Grace be with you.’’

Thank you Cassini for confirming the folliness that is evolution with this wonderful qoute from scripture, and for proving that debating such so called ‘‘knowledge’’ leads us further away from the truth.

I saw these false computations of the pagan priests at the same time as I beheld Jesus teaching the Sabbath at Aruma. Jesus, speaking before the Pharisees of the Call of Abraham and his sojourn in Egypt, exposed the errors of the Egyptian calendar. He told them that the world had now existed 4028 years. When I heard Jesus say this, He was Himself thirty-one years old.’ 1/2

1. Katarina Emmerick (1774-1823), the Augustinian nun who bore the stigmata, received many visions of past events including the above. From her recall Mel Gibson acquired details used in his film The Passion of the Christ.

1. In the Scriptures and one finds the following: Adam 5 days, Noah and the flood 1056 years (2941 BC), Abraham 1950, Exodus 2540, birth of Jesus 3997, death of Jesus 4030, fall of Jerusalem 4070, the year 2000AD 5997 and so on. Douay Catholic Bible spot on with Emmerick’s recall.

You havnt explained why you posted this to me
by the looks of it you are confirming the dates. I’d also have you beware the movie Passion of the Christ, as mel Gibson distorts the truth with the ressurecction, claiming that Jesus vanished into thin air, because we Catholics beleive he rose full body and soul into heaven, thus Mel Gibsons re-telling of the ressurecction is heretical.

Stephentlig said: “He has not left us in the dark about his works, thats why he gave us an exact account of how he created us in the book of Genesis, He has not hidden anything from us,…anyone on planet earth…”

Slight slip of the pen here steph, Earth is not a planet, -

The rest,

Where is your evidence to prove to me that earth is not a planet? or are you gonna throw me another theory?
well, I guess my peice of bread is not toast then?

The Bible says ‘‘earth’’ so thats good enough for me.

God bless and take care
Stephen <3

 

[Stephentlig]

Sorry, you’re mistaken. Evolution does not contradict church doctrine. If it did I’m sure Pope Benedict wouldn’t endorse it.

You have not provided any evidence to support your contentions, which only further disproves your position.

Evolution is not part of of church doctrine, this is the first step to knowing about how it came from outside the church rather than from within.

there is one theory that the church looks upon in a light hearted manner and that they state could be a possibility and we know that one is adaptation to our enviorment.

now all though all three can be debated, not all three have evidence to prove their position, thus without the evidence it remains a theory…what is exactly a theory stephentlig? it is a figment of the imagination, a 'vain ( philosophical) babbling
2Tim:2:16
*16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they grow much towards ungodliness. *

vain babblings is translated into the Jerusalem Bible ( 1966) as ‘‘philosophical discussions’’

The church only accepts as a possibility one kind of Evolution but even then it does not mean its true, as there is no evidence to prove that one happened either.
its not part of church doctrine on faith and morals, because it does not come from within but from outside the church.

Of course I would love to see Pope Benedict endorse it, but he hasnt, and just because he hasnt doesnt mean its true.

the Pope is not infallible on his ideas or conduct, he is infallible on faith and morals, infact The Popes have only practiced this infallible charism twice in the history of the church, and that is with the assumption and the immaculate conception of St.Mary, and was only done to complete the doctrine and what was already beleived by the early church fathers since the beginning.

So St.Anastaisa, when it comes to faith and morals where is the doctrine of evolution then?

Stephen <3

 

[Stephentlig]

Oops I forgot to add that, Since evoltuion comes from outside the church and is not part of Her beleif on faith and morals, it contradicts church teaching because it teaches what the church does not teach as part of its doctrine.

evolution Theory=fictional fables and lies, Timothy 1 : 4:7 ‘‘Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wive’s tales.’’

Catholic Church = 1Tim:3:15 ‘‘The Church of the living God, which upholds the truth and keeps it safe.’’

God bless and take care
Stephen.

 

[StAnastasia]

Also, I wonder if it would help to mention a few times, to people, that ‘evolution’ is still a THEORY. (hope that doesn’t upset the scientist part of you unduly!! ) It’s still a ‘theory’ so far as I know, although I agree with you that most observation shows beautiful changes in all elements of creation according to the times, surroundings, environment, etc…

Of course its still a theory – so is gravity. You need to understand the relationship between “theory” and “fact.” Facts are what we observe; theories are the epistemologically higher-level constructions we use to explain them. The fact is that things fall down; the theory we use to explain this is gravity. The fact is that things show paleontological and genetic evidence of being related; the theory we we use to explain this is that they share a common evolutionary descent.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

So St.Anastaisa, when it comes to faith and morals where is the doctrine of evolution then?

Evolution is not a doctrine, and never will be, any more than heliocentrism, the speed of light, or the theory of gravity. Evolution is no more a threat to faith an morals than is any other scientific theory, such as plate tectonics and continental drift. If you think it is, you don’t understand the relationship between religion and science.

 

[Stephentlig]

Of course its still a theory – so is gravity. You need to understand the relationship between “theory” and “fact.” Facts are what we observe; theories are the epistemologically higher-level constructions we use to explain them. The fact is that things fall down; the theory we use to explain this is gravity. The fact is that things show paleontological and genetic evidence of being related; the theory we we use to explain this is that they share a common evolutionary descent.

StAnastasia

we can see that things fall down, what we cant see and did not see, is things evolve with our own eyes and how God created the world and us, why? because we were not there at the beginning to see it, so therefore God gave us the account of how he did it in the Book of Genesis, thus the theory to support evolution, is absolute atheistic fiction.

The theory to explain why things fall down, in itself does not explain why things fall down, but only proposes the possibility of how things fall down. we therefore are left with this conclusion ''The reason things fall down, is left to us a beautiful mystery, since gravity only proposes a theory explanation, it nonetheless is not the truth but just a fictional explantation.

Evolution?it doesnt pose a threat, and never can change the infallible doctrine of the church, because if it did, then the gates of hell would of prevailed. It does propose a threat to the millions of Catholics walking the earth, as it proposes a teaching to them that differs from what they have been orginally given and therefore they condemn themselves in the attempt to lead astray our Lords children on faith and morals. and there are many Catholics who accept this false teaching, this is why I call it a devilish ‘‘doctrine’’. as it proposes a teaching that differs from that of the One Jesus gave us through his church. ( 1Timothy: 6:3 )

( 2 Peter:2:1 ) ‘‘As there were false prophets in the past history of our people, so you too will have your false teachers, who will insinuate their own disruptive veiws and disown the Master who purchased their freedom.’’

one of those ‘‘disruptive veiws’’ is evolution and on how creation began.
by adopting such a beleif and by whilst knowing the truth on faith and morals and how Jesus already gave us this teaching on how he created us and by abandoning this teaching to propose to us the ‘‘disruptive veiw’’ of such a theory as evolution, they disown the Master who purchased their freedom.

The theory of evolution as a whole abandons the simple teaching of Christ.

( 2John:9-11 ) ‘‘If anybody does not keep within the teaching of Christ but goes beyond it, he cannot have God with him: only those who keep to what he taught can have the father and the Son with them. If anyone comes to you bringing a different doctrine, you must not receive him in your house or even give him a greeting. To greet him would make you a partner in his wicked work.’’

(2Corinth:11:3 )’‘But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.’’

Stephen <3

 

[StAnastasia]

Evolution?it doesnt pose a threat, and never can change the infallible doctrine of the church,

You are correct. Evolution is no more of a threat to Catholic belief than is gravity. And we know more about how evolution works than we do about how gravity works.

 

[Stephentlig]

You are correct. Evolution is no more of a threat to Catholic belief than is gravity. And we know more about how evolution works than we do about how gravity works.

I never said it doesnt pose a threat to catholic beleif, I said it doesnt pose a threat to the doctrine because the doctrine doesnt change, the doctrine itself is Jesus Christ and his Catholic church ‘‘The Rock’’.

but it does pose a threat to the ‘‘belief in that doctrine’’ of the many Catholic souls on earth.

its becoming a bit of a turkey shoot now St.anastasia, when are you gonna give it up?

How can someone know how evolution works particularly when they’ve no factual evidence that it actually happened? they make it up thats how, and this ‘‘making up’’ is called ‘‘theory’’ and we are not to listen to fables. ( Timothy1:4:7 )

Evolution is a false philosophical teaching of the world that contradicts the simple teaching of what Christ gave us through his church. ( 1timothy: 3:15 )

So the beleif you have St.anastasia and whatever it is thats with you, I assure you, it does not come from God.

How do I know you and many others who believe in this devlish doctrine, carry the spirit of falsehood?

I know because of this : ‘‘Those who are not of God refuse to listen to us. This is how we can tell the spirit of truth from the spirit of falsehood’’ 1John:4:6

why do they refuse to listen to us? because 1John:4:5 ‘‘they speak the language of the world and the world listens to them.’’

God bless and take care.
Stephjen<3

 

[StAnastasia]

I never said it doesnt pose a threat to catholic beleif, I said it doesnt pose a threat to the doctrine because the doctrine doesnt change, the doctrine itself is Jesus Christ and his Catholic church ‘‘The Rock’’. but it does pose a threat to the ‘‘belief in that doctrine’’ of the many Catholic souls on earth.

No – it’s no threat to Catholic belief. The biologist and chemist and physicist priests with whom I work recite the same creed I do: “Through him all things were made.” These humble and holy men are Catholics, and priests, and scientists.

If you really regard evolution as a threat and the work of the devil, instead of making groundless allegations why don’t you earn some scientific or theological credentials and go make your professional case to these men? Of course, if that is too much work…

StAnastasia

 

[Stephentlig]

No – it’s no threat to Catholic belief. The biologist and chemist and physicist priests with whom I work recite the same creed I do: “Through him all things were made.” These humble and holy men are Catholics, and priests, and scientists.

If you really regard evolution as a threat and the work of the devil, instead of making groundless allegations why don’t you earn some scientific or theological credentials and go make your professional case to these men? Of course, if that is too much work…

StAnastasia

If you and they profess the same creed and recited those words, then you will all be willing to accept that how all things were made were given to us in the book of Genesis and take it no further than that.

I am sure they are much more humble people than I am St.Anatasia, for I am the worst sinner on earth and in need of being more humble than I actually am, and I dare not even make the claim of being a humble person

I dont accuse it of being devlish St.anastasia, The Bible and the church does.

scientific and theological credentials?

here is another lesson on me and my involvment in the church and another lesson on scripture for you.

I was converted to Catholism from the secular world in jan of 2008.
I never graduated from highschool, and I dont know anything, I am the most uneducated being on earth. what we have learned and what we know, comes not from us but from the Holy Spirit. ( if what we say does not contradict the truth of Catholic teaching that is. )

Nobody wanted to listen to Jesus either, they even said things like isnt he just the son of some poor obscure carpenter from Nazereth called Joseph? Unless you have got some scholar degree, nobody in this world wants to listen to you, its the way the world is.

but you see as scripture says 1Corinthians: 28’‘those whom the world thinks common and contemptible are the ones that God has chosen—those who are nothing at all to show up those who are everything.’’

as scripture says: ''I shall destroy the wisdom of the wise and bring to nothing all the learning of the learned, where are the philosophers now? where are the scribes?

1corinthians: 3:18-21 ‘’ Make no mistake about it: if any one of you thinks of himself as wise, in the ordinary sense of the word, then he must learn to be a fool before he can really be wise. Why? Because the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As scripture says: the Lord knows wise mens thoughts: he knows how useless they are: or again: God is not convinced by the arguements of the wise. So there is nothing to boast about in anything human.’’

there are people with phd’s in tarot cards and angel cards, but does the fact that they have these phd’s make their arguements more convincing? perhaps in the eyes of the world it does, but not in the eyes of the Bible and the Lords church.

I am just a simple person on benefits whom God took home and whom has a love for God, although my love for him is poor, I pray that I shall be able to give him more of my love everyday. I prefer to be more of a nothing as opposed to those who are everything.

remember that its not me you are disagreeing with, but the Lord and his church. ''that is, in the church of the living God , which upholds the truth and keeps it safe.

no wisdom will never make its way into a crafty soul ( wisdom:1:4 )

am I making the bold claim of having wisdom? absolutely not, it is the holy spirit who is wisdom, and I an uneducated nothing. if what you heard come from me is good and truthful and in no way contradicts faith and morals then it came not from me but from the Holy Spirit.

I shall pray for those whom you work with and I shall pray for you also.
only through prayer can we truly help one another.

God bless and take care
Stephen.

 

[cassini]

cassini, my friend, I’m afraid you are mistaken. In truth, if you have studied heliocentrism and evolution as much as you claim you have, then you would not make the claim that evolution explains the origins of life. In case you haven’t read it, Darwin’s book is called “On the Origin of Species,” not life. Evolution by natural selection does not claim to explain the origin of life, just how one life form begets other life forms, and anyone who is well versed in the theory of evolution knows that. I suggest you go back to your studies before you make any more inaccurate claims.

So, cassini, how did you develop? Unless you have been miraculously created whole, you developed through natural processes (mitosis and meiosis) from a single-celled human to a fully developed baby in less than 9 months time. The thing is beyond belief! Last I checked, nothing is impossible for God. Including the development of complex biological systems using a natural process like evolution. Is it we evolutionists who are playing God, or is it you fideists who are putting restraints on God and rejecting His revelation through the workings of the natural world?

Scientists “smack of superiority” when it comes to science, because it is our area of expertise.

The world looks like God used evolution by natural selection to create the diversity of life on Earth (and anywhere else in the universe). Do yourself a favor and study the fossil record, it may help to clear things up for you. Does a fertilized human egg look like a human? No, but it is one. Does an apple seed look like something that can turn into an apple tree and bear fruit. No, but it can. Looks can be deceiving, my friend (as in the case with your geocentrism). But God not only gave us the capacity to believe by faith, but also through reason. In case you missed it, it was the Roman Catholic Church that developed the scientific method.

So let me get this straight, you claim that geocentrism is true because the world looks geocentric, but you reject evolution when the world looks evolutionary? I’m praying for you, my brother in Christ.

geoformeo, I love the way you separated the ‘evolution’ of life, both floral and fauna from the evolution of the body’. Is that the 'missing link then? What can I say? O.K. then, give me the evolutionist version as to how life began for evolutionists.

You then compare the ‘arrival’ of the first cell with the God programmed fertilised zygote. Talk about a quantum leap. The God programmed cell however is fed by the mother. The God programmed cell is created by a living female human being fertilised by a living male human being The zygote cannot come first as the evolutionist need it to, the Chicken or the egg they ask and answer the egg when it is two chickens, a male one and a female one. The newly arrived cell on earth had no such mother, or programme. Do you know geoformeo, I can not even imagine what it could have been, that mixture of chemicals. Go on, tell us, for by your evolutionist credentials you are a kind of God, you get a cell to evolve into an elephant while God has to create things whole according to its kind. I would go as far as saying that just as God cannot make a square circle neither could he get a cell to evolve into a creature it is so absurd. Give us a brief account how the evolutionists’ gods do it.

“Scientists “smack of superiority” when it comes to science, because it is our area of expertise” Well Pratchett, Stewart & Cohen say differently.

‘Every so often, you have to unlearn what you thought you knew, and replace it by something more subtle. This process is what science is all about, and it never stops. It means that you shouldn’t take everything we say as gospel, either, for we belong to another equally honourable profession: liar-to-readers.’ —Pratchett, Stewart & Cohen, The Science of Discworld, p.39.

The fossil record. Ah yes, The evolutionist version goes according to Lyell and Hutton’s uniformitarian theory where all the sedimentary rocks with their fossils were laid down in layers over billions of years. What bothers me is where did each deposit come from? Is there a big hole somewhere on earth from which the sediments came each time as the earth was covered with such sediments? Then there are all those mass graves with millions of dinosaurs etc.
Then there are those who actually believed what the Bible and Christ told us, that there was a universal chastisement by God on the WHOLE human race and that for their pounishment He brought about a UNIVERSAL flood to kill them all bar Noah and his family. Now if such a flood came along we would find different creatures in different layers as they fled the waters. We would find huge floods of water washing many creatures into mass graves as the land was filled with the waters. And that is EXACTLY what we find in the fossils. Millions of dinosaurs in mass graves with no gigantic holes only a completely covered earth. .
Yes geoformeo I have thought a lot about the two different scenarios and prefer the one Jesus talked of with Noah.

It was you who said the world is as you see it. I agree. All see it is geocentric. But you say God deceived everyone, including those who wrote the Scriptures. You say nobody could interpret the Bible properly until the antichrist Newton showed the Church how to read it. I believe the world is geocentric because the Church defined it was revealed in the Scriptures.

For the life of me I do not know how the world is supposed to look evolutionist. I see a world in complete harmony, an eco system in which everything is COMPLETE - NOT EVOLVING into something else, - PROOF= no half and half things like a dog with a fish tail.

 

[StAnastasia]

I dont accuse it of being devlish St.anastasia, The Bible and the church does.scientific and theological credentials?..I was converted to Catholism from the secular world in jan of 2008.I never graduated from highschool, and I dont know anything, I am the most uneducated being on earth. Stephen.

The Bible and the Church do not accuse evolution of being “devilish.” The Bible was written long before the theory was developed, and Pope Benedict himself endorses it.

And if you proudly claim no education, then what puts you in a position to judge tens of millions of people who are educated? What puts you in a position to judge Catholic priests who work as evolutionary biologists, or as chemists and astronomers?

StAnastasia

 

[geoformeo]

Alacoque,

Glad to have you back on the thread, amigo. From my experience, using the word “theory” when dealing with non-scientists is troublesome. In the scientific world, a theory is not something “made up” or a blind guess, but is an explanation for a series of observations that best fits the evidence, and is still undergoing testing. We use the word hypothesis when dealing with “guesses” that have no evidential backing. Yes, theories can be discredited or modified, but it is erroneous to disregard a scientific theory as “just a theory,” because scientific theories (of evolution by natural selection, of plate tectonics, of relativity, etc.) have considerable observational and experimental support.

The important thing to understand about scientific theories is that, for the most part, while they may get modified, they don’t get dropped. For instance, the theory of plate tectonics explains so much of the physical landscape and the forces at work in generating volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and the like, that should a future theory supplant plate tectonics, the future theory would by necessity need to include plate tectonics as part of a more comprehensive theory. The same holds true for evolution by natural selection. It is supported by such a large body of evidence, that should it be superceded in the future, it would need to be incorporated into a grander, more comprehensive theory for the development of life.

We will have to discuss adaptation and micro vs. macroevolution someday over a latte (or hot chocolate, for me)

“Evolution is not a doctrine, and never will be, any more than heliocentrism, the speed of light, or the theory of gravity. Evolution is no more a threat to faith an morals than is any other scientific theory, such as plate tectonics and continental drift. If you think it is, you don’t understand the relationship between religion and science.”

St. Anastasia,
Excellent post. That is, unfortunately, where I’m afraid many of the anti-evolution/science posters on this thread are. They don’t understand the relationship between religion and science. If they did understand it, they would know that there is nothing revealed by science that could ever contradict God.

Cassini,
The point of a discussion forum is to discuss and counter different points. You have yet to address a single question I have posed for you. I can find far more challenging and worthwhile posters to debate with on this forum who actually use it for what it is for. I’m afraid I’m not intelligent enough to understand the vast majority of your most recent post. The one thing I did get out of it is that you obviously did not read my post that you were responding to.

I’ll give you one last chance to actually address some simple questions. Regarding your geocentric position, explain to me: why is there observed 1) retrograde motion of planets, 2) stellar parallax, and 3) meteor showers? Regarding the fossil and rock record, I’ll ask you a couple easy ones (yes or no answers): 4) Have you ever taken a geology course? 5) Have you ever been part of a fossil excavation project?

I do sincerely hope that you respond directly to the questions I have posed.

 

[cassini]

Alacoque,

Cassini,
The point of a discussion forum is to discuss and counter different points. You have yet to address a single question I have posed for you. I can find far more challenging and worthwhile posters to debate with on this forum who actually use it for what it is for. I’m afraid I’m not intelligent enough to understand the vast majority of your most recent post. The one thing I did get out of it is that you obviously did not read my post that you were responding to.

I’ll give you one last chance to actually address some simple questions. Regarding your geocentric position, explain to me: why is there observed 1) retrograde motion of planets, 2) stellar parallax, and 3) meteor showers? Regarding the fossil and rock record, I’ll ask you a couple easy ones (yes or no answers): 4) Have you ever taken a geology course? 5) Have you ever been part of a fossil excavation project?

I do sincerely hope that you respond directly to the questions I have posed.

geoformeo, Having read this piece above I reread my posted reply to you again just to see how many questions you asked I left unanswered. I could find NONE. What I do find however is that like Galileo, you take the high ground of ‘science and truth’ and others have to prove their case, not you. As we are all debating these matters in the light of Catholic faith, reread again the opening letter on this thread that states for Catholics the dogmas and doctrines are divine truths, while human reason is prone to error, exaggeration and misunderstanding. So. given the TRADITIONAL understanding of these things in the Catholic faith were/are direct creation 6,000 years ago, of a geocentric world, and that the earth’s topography was as a result of a world-wide flood some 4,5000 years ago, it is heliocentricism, uniformitarianism and evolutionism that must PROVE the traditional understanding wrong, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

However, I will show that the faith of our fathers cannot be faulted by giving you your answers anyway. Before I do however, I fear that you and many others have shown me that you do not have the GRACE to be objective. So entrenched are you in Satan’s intellectual trap you are psychologically unable to see objective reason from a biased heretical mind.

Now let me prove it to you.

In a geocentric frame of reference, all phenomena will concord with geocentricism. In a heliocentric frame of reference all phenomena will concord with heliocentricism. It is this objective set of facts that needs grace to get around, not intelligence, for you all have that, it is the WILL to see things without a bias that blinds you.

1)“explain to me: why is there observed 1) retrograde motion of planets,”
In the Tychonic geocentric model the planets are seen from earth in exactly the same way as with the copernican model.
2) "2) stellar parallax.
As the universe rotates with the sun once a year the stars will show the very same parallax as in a heliocentric model.
3) meteor showers?
Just like rain, meteors will fall to earth whether it is H or G.

Regarding the fossil and rock record, I’ll ask you a couple easy ones (yes or no answers): 4) Have you ever taken a geology course?
Ans. No, they are all uniformitarian based.
5) Have you ever been part of a fossil excavation project?
No, but I’ve seen them on TV, all millions of years old, or so they say. It makes them famous to guys like you and fossil seekers love fame.

 

[Stephentlig]

The Bible and the Church do not accuse evolution of being “devilish.” The Bible was written long before the theory was developed, and Pope Benedict himself endorses it.

And if you proudly claim no education, then what puts you in a position to judge tens of millions of people who are educated? What puts you in a position to judge Catholic priests who work as evolutionary biologists, or as chemists and astronomers?

StAnastasia

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=270&pictureid=1814

actually no your right, the bible and the church do not ‘‘accuse’’ it, they actually ‘‘confirm’’ it to be devilish, the very fact that the theory was developed outside the mind of the church, only further proves it to be of the world and devlish and you have given me nothing to disprove what Sacred scripture and tradition has said, your just repeating yourself. none of the theorys are consistent with faith and morals, and you have not shown me any evidence that it doesnt contradict, yet I have explained to you how it does ( proverbs 12:1 )

Pope Benedict only recognised the possibility of it, this does not automatically make it truth or part of church doctrine, the church stands strong on its faith and morals and on having everyone accept the way creation of was as it comes from Genesis. Like I said before the Pope is infallible on faith on morals not on his ideas, which gives catholic apologists the right to challenge what he says in God fearing manner. Obedience must always be shown to God not man, ( acts:5:29 )

the very fact the Bible was written long before the theory was developed even further disproves the theory, as Saint John said that if anyone were to go beyond the teaching of Christ that he cannot have God with him, and that only those who keep to what he taught can have the father and the Son with him, evolution is not something we were taught, and is not consistent with church teaching on faith and morals, its a heretical novelty of the 20th century alongside the Jehovah witnesses and the rest of those false teachers. Are you perhaps making the bold claim or at least alluding to the possibility that the archaic writing of the Bible has no place in modern society? if so then your undoubtedly part of that group of heretics called ‘‘modernism’’, who rationalise everything and do their level best to explain away the reality of excorcism and the devil and Jesus Miracles by giving a rationlistic explanation for it, people who have lost the faith and that kiss of betrayal by Judas is something thats no doubt lasted centuries, Lay people, bishops, priests, who have abandoned the simple teaching of Christ, and accepted a rationlistic second hand false teaching, they have handed their king over to the world and eclipsed him with evolution and rationlism, like Peter before the break of dawn you deny the Master who purchased your freedom.
rationlism?such as, the devil wasnt real in Jesus time, when Jesus cast out the devil it wasnt really a devil it was just someone with a sickness. if you are part of this sect called Modernism, then you are in my prayers.

I am not judging the persons of these people just their actions, it is not me who tells these educated people they are in the wrong, the Bible and the Catholic church does that for me. so yes I am proud of my weakness, as saint paul said in scripture that he is proud of his weakness too, for its when we are weak that Christs power is most strong over us.
I am simply repeating and boasting of whats already there, ‘‘as scripture says: if anyone wants to boast, let him boast about the Lord.’’

Evolution Theory = Fiction and inconsistent with Church teaching on faith and morals, and your friend Geo has given no evidence to disprove this claim either.

Matthew:18:15-17 ''If your brother does soemthing wrong, go and have it out with him alone, between your two selves. If he listens to you, you have won back your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you: The evidence of two or three witnesses is required to sustain any charge. But if he refuses to listen to these report it to the community: ( the community of the brothers ( the church ) )and if he refuses to listen to the community ( the church ) treat him like a pagan or a tax collector.

1John 4:5-6 ‘‘as for them they are of the world, and so they speak the language of the world and the world listens to them. But we are children of God, and those who know God listen to us; those who are not of God refuse to listen to us. This is how we can tell the spirit of truth from the spirit of falsehood.’’

Bible and Church = Truth and nothing will ever knock it.

Grace be with you.
Stephen <3

 

[Stephentlig]

Alacoque,

Glad to have you back on the thread, amigo. From my experience, using the word “theory” when dealing with non-scientists is troublesome. In the scientific world, a theory is not something “made up” or a blind guess, but is an explanation for a series of observations that best fits the evidence, and is still undergoing testing. We use the word hypothesis when dealing with “guesses” that have no evidential backing. Yes, theories can be discredited or modified, but it is erroneous to disregard a scientific theory as “just a theory,” because scientific theories (of evolution by natural selection, of plate tectonics, of relativity, etc.) have considerable observational and experimental support.

The important thing to understand about scientific theories is that, for the most part, while they may get modified, they don’t get dropped. For instance, the theory of plate tectonics explains so much of the physical landscape and the forces at work in generating volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and the like, that should a future theory supplant plate tectonics, the future theory would by necessity need to include plate tectonics as part of a more comprehensive theory. The same holds true for evolution by natural selection. It is supported by such a large body of evidence, that should it be superceded in the future, it would need to be incorporated into a grander, more comprehensive theory for the development of life.

We will have to discuss adaptation and micro vs. macroevolution someday over a latte (or hot chocolate, for me)

“Evolution is not a doctrine, and never will be, any more than heliocentrism, the speed of light, or the theory of gravity. Evolution is no more a threat to faith an morals than is any other scientific theory, such as plate tectonics and continental drift. If you think it is, you don’t understand the relationship between religion and science.”

St. Anastasia,
Excellent post. That is, unfortunately, where I’m afraid many of the anti-evolution/science posters on this thread are. They don’t understand the relationship between religion and science. If they did understand it, they would know that there is nothing revealed by science that could ever contradict God.

Cassini,
The point of a discussion forum is to discuss and counter different points. You have yet to address a single question I have posed for you. I can find far more challenging and worthwhile posters to debate with on this forum who actually use it for what it is for. I’m afraid I’m not intelligent enough to understand the vast majority of your most recent post. The one thing I did get out of it is that you obviously did not read my post that you were responding to.

I’ll give you one last chance to actually address some simple questions. Regarding your geocentric position, explain to me: why is there observed 1) retrograde motion of planets, 2) stellar parallax, and 3) meteor showers? Regarding the fossil and rock record, I’ll ask you a couple easy ones (yes or no answers): 4) Have you ever taken a geology course? 5) Have you ever been part of a fossil excavation project?

I do sincerely hope that you respond directly to the questions I have posed.

St. Anastasia,
Excellent post. That is, unfortunately, where I’m afraid many of the anti-evolution/science posters on this thread are. They don’t understand the relationship between religion and science. If they did understand it, they would know that there is nothing revealed by science that could ever contradict God.

And you do not understand the relationship between truth and Fiction

theory = fiction

Bible and church= Truth.

 

[rossum]

actually no your right, the bible and the church do not ‘‘accuse’’ it, they actually ‘‘confirm’’ it to be devilish, the very fact that the theory was developed outside the mind of the church, only further proves it to be of the world and devlish and you have given me nothing to disprove what Sacred scripture and tradition has said, your just repeating yourself. none of the theorys are consistent with faith and morals, and you have not shown me any evidence that it doesnt contradict, yet I have explained to you how it does ( proverbs 12:1 )

Erm, how do I break this to you gently. Your immortal soul is in imminent danger because you are using a devilish computer. Your computer relies on the devilish theory of electronics, which was of course developed outside the mind of the church. You should stop using any and all electronic devices immediately!

rossum

P.S. Please do not respond to this post, I do not want to put you into any more danger than you already are.

 

[Stephentlig]

Erm, how do I break this to you gently. Your immortal soul is in imminent danger because you are using a devilish computer. Your computer relies on the devilish theory of electronics, which was of course developed outside the mind of the church. You should stop using any and all electronic devices immediately!

rossum

P.S. Please do not respond to this post, I do not want to put you into any more danger than you already are.

No, the computer was built and is factual.

God is ominipotent and therfore God is the computer for God is everything ( wisdom:1:3 ) ''Omnipotence, put to the test, confounds the foolish. )

therefore both the computer and the theory on how to build the computer one is fact (computer ) and the explanation of it ( theory ) is fiction and theory is mans mistake not Gods mistake and has no relation to the material, if thats the case then I might as well throw out my bible, because there are 30,000 denominations of Christians in the world and all have their own devlish interpretation on the bible, does this mean the bible is devilish?

The very fact that the church teaches us that God is omnipotent shows that knowledge of how the material came into being can only come from only one source and thats Jesus and Jesus teaches is this through his Catholic church.

the theory on how it came into being ( without hardcore evidence ) is fictional.

we thus conclude that the computer I am using is not devlish, but it is God in his omnipotency, I am in no way taking in part of the theory of how it came together.
all things good are created by God. and the lap top I am using, can be used for both Good and evil, just like science. same goes for a lump of wood, I can create fire with it to keep my family warm or I can sharpen it into a deadly tool. in this case I am using the lap top as a tool for Good.

it does not relie on the explanation to keep it running, it relies on God and his wisdom.

how can a fictional theory keep a computer running? or even build one? only God can keep things running. the explanation by human wisdom on how he does it is their own mistake not his. Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts .

 

[rossum]

No, the computer was built and is factual.

Ladies and gentlemen, the sound you can hear in the background is the sound of the goalposts moving.

I used your previous criterion to show that electronics was “developed outside the mind of the church”. So now the criterion has suddenly, and without any explanation, changed from “developed outside the mind of the church” to “was built and is factual”. Once I showed the ridiculousness of your previous position with the example of electronics you silently dropped that position, without acknowledging that you were shown to have been in error, and picked a new unrelated position to try and wriggle out of your mistake. This does not show you in a good light. If you make an error then it is polite to recognise that you were mistaken; that way you will be better able to learn from your mistakes and avoid repeating them in the future.

Your first criterion, “developed outside the mind of the church”, is obviously ridiculous as you would have realised if you had thought about it for a few minutes. The great bulk of modern science was “developed outside the mind of the church”. Albert Einstein was not a member of the Catholic Church. Isaac Newton was a Unitarian heretic and so forth. I will grant you that Georges Lemaître was a Catholic Priest and that the Curies were (nominal) Catholics but your original criterion excludes a great deal else.

how can a fictional theory keep a computer running? or even build one?

How can a supposedly fictional theory allow bacteria to evolve immunity to antibiotics? How can a supposedly fictional theory allow mosquitos to evolve immunity to insecticides? How can a supposedly fictional theory allow some humans to evolve responses to malaria? How can a supposedly fictional theory allow some humans to evolve the ability to digest milk? How can a supposedly fictional theory allow a few humans to evolve the ability to deal with a fat-rich western diet?

Evolution is not fictional - it happens. It happens in the wild. It happens in the laboratory. We can observe it and we can repeat it. The theory of evolution is the best explanation we currently have for the evolution that we observe.

rossum