R
ricmat
Guest
Unfortunately, I think it’s still a banned topic, so we’ll have to talk about the details later.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
That’s just the point. It is a self-perpetuating fraud, intolerant of any objection and people are making money off it. So yes this charade is indeed flourishing.
E
eucharisteo
Guest
Let me begin: This thread is 6000 years old.
And when you began your sentence I just knew you would be one of those nuts that speaks of a life before this one by the way it started.
Personally I like to egg on those evolutionary Christians that can’t handle anyone that accepts the 6000 old earth theory. I’d bet that they don’t believe in the incarnation of Christ either and the Mary was a Virgin when the Holy Spirit came upon her, conceiving a child miraculously.
R
Rence
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
This one has the basics:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19861008en.html
God bless,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
To Rence -
Why is it a relief? If you look at the fine print in some of these posts, it’s admitted: science cannot know anything with absolute certainty. But I find that to be nonsense. If I’m an astronaut headed for the moon, I better be 99.99999999999 certain that those scientists know something with 100% certainty. Every time I see a red traffic signal, I stop. Every year, I do my taxes because if I don’t, I know what will happen with 100% certainty.
So what happens if it’s determined that the earth is say, 40 or 50 thousand years old tomorrow?
God bless,
Ed
Why is it a relief? If you look at the fine print in some of these posts, it’s admitted: science cannot know anything with absolute certainty. But I find that to be nonsense. If I’m an astronaut headed for the moon, I better be 99.99999999999 certain that those scientists know something with 100% certainty. Every time I see a red traffic signal, I stop. Every year, I do my taxes because if I don’t, I know what will happen with 100% certainty.
So what happens if it’s determined that the earth is say, 40 or 50 thousand years old tomorrow?
God bless,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Science Studies Goes PublicLike I wrote earlier, science has become another tool to promote an ideology. Apparently, if someone is taught the wrong age of the earth, they won’t be able to drive a car or operate a cell phone or tie their shoes. The (secular) apocalypse will be upon us.
God bless,
Ed
A Report on an Ongoing Performance
…In the Neo‐Darwinian case, the task of construction has extended from filling in inferential links between, say, phylogenetics and the fossil record to finding precedents for novel theories of evolution in Darwin’s original texts. When comprehensively and expertly done, as in Elliott Sober’s recent Evidence and Evolution (Sober 2008), the practice looks very much like biology’s own version of apologetics. It serves to tighten the claims to unchallenged supremacy that Neo‐Darwinism has over all of biology, past and present—and future.
What is strange about all this is that one would never guess that ‘evidence’ remains a contested concept within epistemology and the philosophy of science.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Buffalo, if it’s a fraud, why do 99.9% of biologists accept it and work with the theory? More importantly, if you believe it is a fraud, why aren’t you earning some credentials and working to challenge it? Change comes about only through the actions of people who want change.
B
buffalo
Guest
I have and am.
B
buffalo
Guest
Wasn’t I clear enough? If you are part of the moneymaking system then you just go along with it until the money dries up.
There is no money to be made in “God did it”. If there is show me how.
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you buffalo.
The conflict here is and will continue to be about hearts and minds. If you google “fight against creationism,” you will run across statements like, This whole battle is about all of knowledge. That is, all knowledge is connected to this one theory. And this theory must be defended at all costs and by any means necessary.
The payoff, and I say payoff, because none of this is worth the time or effort unless it produces the desired result, is to move science into a controlling position in people’s lives. It will become the truth, the healer, the guide and the leader. Religion will be reduced to rituals performed in a building. Even Richard Dawkins puts up a Christmas tree. He’s OK with acting like a surfacy cultural Christian devoid of any of the living spiritual content.
I hope that one day, scientific knowledge will simply be presented and no longer contain the Communist Witchhunt aura it has here and in so many places in the media. What I mean is, If you don’t believe it, completely, then you must be one of them. To be stamped out.
It would be nice to have friendly discussions on internet forums without the political baggage, but it’s rare. A friend of mine who taught at the University level told me many of his colleagues have abandoned the internet. They stay in touch by phone or in face to face gatherings.
God bless,
Ed
The conflict here is and will continue to be about hearts and minds. If you google “fight against creationism,” you will run across statements like, This whole battle is about all of knowledge. That is, all knowledge is connected to this one theory. And this theory must be defended at all costs and by any means necessary.
The payoff, and I say payoff, because none of this is worth the time or effort unless it produces the desired result, is to move science into a controlling position in people’s lives. It will become the truth, the healer, the guide and the leader. Religion will be reduced to rituals performed in a building. Even Richard Dawkins puts up a Christmas tree. He’s OK with acting like a surfacy cultural Christian devoid of any of the living spiritual content.
I hope that one day, scientific knowledge will simply be presented and no longer contain the Communist Witchhunt aura it has here and in so many places in the media. What I mean is, If you don’t believe it, completely, then you must be one of them. To be stamped out.
It would be nice to have friendly discussions on internet forums without the political baggage, but it’s rare. A friend of mine who taught at the University level told me many of his colleagues have abandoned the internet. They stay in touch by phone or in face to face gatherings.
God bless,
Ed
I
itinerant1
Guest
There is no natural science in 'God did it". “God did it” is a theological statement. Theological statements do not answer scientific questions.
B
buffalo
Guest
I believe you missed my point.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I suppose you consider that the Catholic Church is also perpetuating fraud and making a buck off of it.
Consider what COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP has to say. Note that the reference to “a discredited concordism” points to the errors of any concordist interpretations of Genesis 1 in which interpreters attempt to find a concordism between a literal reading with cosmological facts or scientific facts about the world. This eliminates as unacceptable or discredited any creationist readings of the Six Days.
+++
1. Science and the stewardship of knowledge
62. The endeavor to understand the universe has marked human culture in every period and in nearly every society. In the perspective of the Christian faith, this endeavor is precisely an instance of the stewardship which human beings exercise in accordance with God’s plan. Without embracing a discredited concordism, Christians have the responsibility to locate the modern scientific understanding of the universe within the context of the theology of creation. The place of human beings in the history of this evolving universe, as it has been charted by modern sciences, can only be seen in its complete reality in the light of faith, as a personal history of the engagement of the triune God with creaturely persons.
63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996).
R
Rence
Guest
It’s a relief because I have the freedom to research on my own and come up with my own conclusions rather than being told what to think, what to believe, how to feel and what to do. Because I don’t believe the world is only 6000 years old. Therefore it is a relief to me that there is yet again, not another Church teaching I have to
about.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Possibly, since I am reading and posting on the fly…
So, what is you point, may I ask?
B
buffalo
Guest
C’mon, you know how this works. The PAS tells the Church what science has come up with to keep them abreast. I don’t think the church is making money, however, as you well know the Church has heretical problems right now. There is much disbelief even in the Vatican.
Pope JPII said -
“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”
For anyone to make an argument that science is pure is an absurdity. We need to demand facts and truth from science without ideology (evolutionary spin). They need to be put to the test. Guess where ID fits in?
B
buffalo
Guest
Read it again, slower.
E
eucharisteo
Guest
The 2 are not comparable. One is something that can be tested with the scientific method, the other can not be tested, for you would have to be God to do it or have access to a different universe and be able to live long enough to recreate it. Do you remember high school biology and then many years later take biology in college like I did. It changed and in brief the scientists claim to now know certain things that they can not see or can now see with modern methods. In another 20 years they’ll have to make other adjustments to fine tune what takes place on a microscopic level.
Recreating a primordial soup the way scientist propose in the most accepted evolution theory would be astronomically not possible, thus the clockmaker must exist. It’s interesting to read some of the phenomena that I’ve read just on the statistics that are actually against the possibility of creation. But I’ve read many different theories. What really ticked me off was discovering some of the mess ups that scientist “assumed” too much and later other scientist discovered that the first scientist was wrong. It’s like the evolution charts of men. Most people don’t realize that the character of the rendition drawings are not in chronological order for example and that there is a lot of assuming gong on with artistic perception or renderings.
But whether or not evolution is being represented correctly or not is not as interesting as knowing that as long as scientist stand to gain notoriety for their “discoveries” as well as the money backing that follows I have my doubts about what any atheistic evolutionist portrays as truth. And having worked in the academic field I know that many of the professors tend to still play the one upsmanship game and belittle the others around them. It’s a power game.
G
grannymh
Guest
I’m all ears waiting for your theological implications of the age of the earth…
Blessings,
granny
Isaiah 55
- Status