B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
If you tell me where you will be waiting I will supply the soup.
- Status
M
Magster
Guest
I’m not even sure this is relevant to this thread, but why do people speak about life as being a “random” creation? It seems that if the earth and all its contents were the result of random creation, that there would not be as many “cycles” present in nature – such as the seasons, gestation, the revolution of the Earth allowing for day and night. Cycles are not random but, rather, are established patterns. Would a random creation contain established patterns?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
None of which proves “creation science.”
The most advanced scientists of the day, Galileo among them, had hard evidence the earth orbited the sun. In fact, everyone who seriously studied it saw it was true.
What I find at such sites is the wildest pistache of half-truths and wild speculation since someone got me to read “Chariots of the Gods.”
And on no evidence.
Let me see – I could skim those crazy sites, then to on to some that have some solid science in them? Is that an acceptable alternative?
You’re missing the point – we see evolution in action. The difference between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution” is an artificial one.
We see organisms adapting under environmenal pressure to become different in critical aspects of their being. That’s evolution.
No, it’s not what you said.
The DNA molecule is very large and complex – that’s what allows natural variation in the first place.
Darwin sailed around the world and gathered specimens and fossils. His study was based on the hard evidence he found.
And it’s not chasing after every wierd idea that comes along, either. The Church doesn’t oblige us to accept Creation Science, or Intelligent Design or any other anti-scientific theory.
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
I call it adaptation. They also adapt back when the pressure is relieved. Do you believe these organisms will become a new species?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Okay:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.
Now, where in the above does it say “I reject evolution?” Where does the word “evolution” even appear?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Adaption is another word for evolution, or rather the process of evolution.
Yes – they are new species. In fact, HIV in general is a new species, as is Lyme Disease.
O
oriel36
Guest
vern humphrey:
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: “Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works.” This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year. IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES BOOK 5 p. 557
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
oriel36 said:
So in your opinion, Newton was the Antichrist?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
You need to get a grip on yourself, lad – you’re starting to decompensate.
[/quote]
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And where does the word “evolution” appear in this passage?
Irenaeus is quoting and paraphrasing Genesis – but he’s not attacking evolution, nor is he naming any group that is supporting biological evolution.
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
On the fourth day the luminaries were made; because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior cannot produce that which is prior. THEOPHILUS TO AUTOLYCUS BOOK II p. 100
Somehow I knew that you would think that.
On the fourth day the luminaries were made; because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior cannot produce that which is prior. THEOPHILUS TO AUTOLYCUS BOOK II p. 100
O
oriel36
Guest
vern humphrey:
Surely you don’t believe the Earth rotates through 360 degrees in any other figure than 24 hours exactly for Isaac chose the wrong value ?.
Oh,and as for ‘descended into hell’,that is fairly straightforward.
ccel.org/t/theo_ger/theologia17.htm
Perhaps you are better remaining at the level which best suits you because this is not an exercise in grandstanding and I have little patience for people who are cunning.Newton was one of those people,insincere with plenty of useless spindoctoring disciples like yourself.
Newton was an Arian heretic hence his works are open to scrutiny.Surely you don’t imagine that anything good can come from a guy who denies the Trinity and even if I forgive you your intellectual incapacity to go through the technical arguments,at least you should agree that without Jesus there are no gifts.
Surely you don’t believe the Earth rotates through 360 degrees in any other figure than 24 hours exactly for Isaac chose the wrong value ?.
Oh,and as for ‘descended into hell’,that is fairly straightforward.
ccel.org/t/theo_ger/theologia17.htm
Perhaps you are better remaining at the level which best suits you because this is not an exercise in grandstanding and I have little patience for people who are cunning.Newton was one of those people,insincere with plenty of useless spindoctoring disciples like yourself.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No doubt about – he’s attacking Erich Von Dannikin. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
So because you don’t like Newton’s religious ideas, that means evolution is false? Well THAT makes perfect sense!!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
B
buffalo
Guest
To me, as I meditate and consider in my mind concerning the creation of this world in which we are kept enclosed, even such is the rapidity of that creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days; on the seventh to which He consecrated it . VICTORINUS ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
All the paraphrasing of Genisis in the world won’t prove that the Church was “under attack” by and had to “defend itself from” evolution.
When you get to Martin Luther, take a break and let your buddy, Oriel36 handle those quotes.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
Ok - I’ll stop now. They were defending Creation from who? Pagans and others. If the only proof you will accept is to see the word evolution in the quotes, I won’t be able to oblige. I think it is well to look at it contextually.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
They weren’t defending Creation at all – they were advancing Christianity!
You really ought to do that – if you took these quotes you’ve offered in context, you’d see the error you made in assuming that because evolution is a hot topic with you, it was also a hot topic of the early Church.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
O
oriel36
Guest
vern humphrey:
Look at you,too afraid to criticise Newton even though he backslid from pure Copernican heliocentricity back into a geocentric mess.How does it feel to defend a concept that even the creationists would be embarrassed to believe ?.
PHEOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.
members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
%between%
Go worship before Newtonian empiricalism and his cartoon universe ,even the creationists look reasonable compared to his idea that the Sun around the Earth is the same as the Earth around the Sun.
Look at you,too afraid to criticise Newton even though he backslid from pure Copernican heliocentricity back into a geocentric mess.How does it feel to defend a concept that even the creationists would be embarrassed to believe ?.
PHEOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.
members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
%between%
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Whoa! You need to go lie down for a while.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
- Status