Author Topic: Biblical Commission Of 1909 (Read 8322 times)

SJB · « **Reply #90 on:** December 19, 2013, 03:02:08 PM »

Quote from: icterus

This is going nowhere. You're not even reading what I'm posting...that or your comprehension is abysmal.

Or I've read it and I don't care to comment. I've told you what I was commenting on, and it isn't what you want me to address. That's your problem.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #91 on:** December 19, 2013, 04:48:12 PM »

Quote

Chardin and the Phony Ape-Men
Adapted from The Death of Evolution by Wallace Johnson
Evolution leads logically to polygenism -- that is, a belief, not in one physically perfect first man (Adam), but in groups of brutish first men and women mutating from parents who were not human.

Quote

Two claims.

1. Evolution leads logically to polygenism

Yes, apparently, but Pius XII ruled on this already, separating out the one event, human genesis, from the rest of the issue of evolution.

2. not in one physically perfect first man (Adam), but in groups of brutish first men and women mutating from parents who were not human.

No. The insertion of 'brutish' here is not helpful. Now we have to parse this out.
What Pius XII allowed was the theology of 'special transformism' which is the idea that God ensouled an existing body (or ensouled a newly conceived baby) which was physically identical in characteristics and genome to its parents or contemporaries. I.E., if this scenario which Pius allowed researched is true, then Adam looked identical to Adam's parents or brothers, had the same genome, etc.
Special transformism says that in the reception of a soul, the preternatural gifts were given to Adam.

Nothing here about 'brutish' or 'mutating'. That's a childish musunderstanding.

I would argue that there are no evolutionary biologists working on this theory into which you state that Pius XII investigation. The only people that I see coming out of the field of evolutionary biology are devout, militant atheists.

Quote

Polygenism plays havoc with the central Christian dogma of Original Sin.

Quote

Pius XII said it was not apparent how the two could be reconciled. 'Plays havoc' is childish scare-language, not academic, and reminds us once again that this is not an academic book.

It certainly does play havoc with the dogma of Original Sin. The fact that there is no apparent way to reconcile the two, introduces an opportunity for doubt to enter the minds of those studying the theory. The unsophisticated mind might not understand that they are to proceed with extreme caution in such and instance, and judge all opinions/conclusions, based on whether they can or cannot be reconciled with Original Sin. For most people, such an undertaking is too much for their intellect. They will forget to proceed with caution. After making the mistake of trusting those, like Richard Dawkins, whose explanations rule against our supernatural origin, those individuals will begin to lose their Supernatural Faith. Why? Not because of a logical breakdown in their understanding of Christianity (although that's where it started, thus the wreaking havoc), but rather because they knowingly chose to align their thinking with a theoretical understanding of their origin which ruled out a Dogma of Our Faith.

Quote

And lately under the influence of Teilhard de Chardin's (1881-1955) evolutionary theology, all the Catholic dogmas are being turned upside-down. If we can demonstrate that the ape-men never existed, then the whole case for evolution, polygenism and Teilhardianism collapses.

Quote

No, all Catholic dogmas are not being turned upside down. In addition to being fatally imprecise, this is just silly. NO one is talking about the Trinity, for example.

I believe that the point here is that if we allow one dogma to be overturned, then all dogmas become subject to suspicion. The reasoning behind this is that if we do not accept all dogmas as true, then we do not accept that The Paraclete is watching over Christ's Church. This would mean that we hold Catholicism to be a man-constructed religion and that we reject Divine Revelation as our source of Dogma.

Quote

The average person now believes that there were strange creatures in prehistoric times, not quite men and not wholly animal. We are being told, in the name of science, that these ape-men existed, and, that we came from them.

Quote

..and for very good reason the average person believes what has been amply demonstrated. Fish-amphibian transitions existed. Reptile-mammal transitions existed. The fossil record is not a 19th century curiosity. Moving on...

But this writer has shined a light on the history of the dishonest approach that researchers have taken in providing their "evidence" to support this theory.

Quote

If this theory is wrong, then our era is really the darkest age of all. But right or wrong, the theory is successful. So much so that Adam and Eve are laughed out of court. We are witnessing the triumph of a very diabolical game, and the aim of the game is to get rid of God and undermine the veracity of the Bible.

Quote

Or, the aim of the game is discover human origins, defend those assertions against your peers, and win awards, get tenure, and gain money and respect.

In that case, why do the researchers create and hold membership in militant, atheistic associations? Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, etc.

Quote

There have been various "family trees of man" put forward for our new belief system, disagreeing and conflicting with one another. But several members of the "family" have been shown to be phony.

Quote

Ok, finally to the point. So, there are two problems in these sentences that are critical to this topic.

1.In the early days of any discipline, the rough outline of a theory is determined. It's like heliocentrism. The first decades of the discoveries were full of various models, all conflicting. Over time, observation disproves most of them, and over time, one emerged as the best fit for the data.

Any discovery works like this. If you go the early history of a field, you find exactly that - many divergent theories being winnowed by the process into few and then ultimately, one. This is how human research works. Words like 'brainstorming' are applicable to the process. If anyone has ever been part of any group process, you know how the meetings go. The first ones are all over the map, as discussion and research progress, the impractical falls away and the practical is left.

Johnson's critique of science is dishonest in the extreme. I'm sure that, at a meeting with his publishers, he made a proposal for a book, and this proposal was debated and the concept refined. If I wanted to criticize him and had the minutes I could say "Many different schemes for this book were put forward - all disagreeing and conflicting with each other!". He, being dim, would look at me and say "You idiot, that's how new ideas work!" and I'd say "Yeeeees. Exactly."

If people are trying to determine the history of something, proposing different versions and then looking for confirmation of the those versions is exactly how it works. There is no other way for it to work. This critique is so unbelievably stupid...but again, this is not a scholarly book. It's a screed that appeals only to the choir of true believers.

2.The last date in this article is 1937, and the 'bad guy' is Teilhard de Chardin.

Do you know who cares about Teilhard? Catholics and New Agers. That's it.

No one rests anything on any discoveries of Teilhard. In the heady days of the early 20th century, there was lots of excitement about finding proto-humans. Telihard was a crank. So? It has been a long, long time since those days, and of course Johnson is not dealing with anything that happened after 1937. He's gone for only the lowest-hanging fruit, because lampooning a few cranks from early in the last century is easy.

I'd like to see him deal with the endogenous retrovirus signatures in primate lines. Or in the geographic dispersion of trichromic vision in primates. Or any of a hundred other lines of reasoning linking the human ancestors with chimp and bonobo ancestors.

Look, it's a simple thing for anyone to do:

Examine your sources. Do they deal only with the scientific past? Like Neil the crazy crank here, doe he deal only with 19th century figures as if all science was done in the past? Does he ignore what is going on now? Is there discussion with and of legitimate experts in the current field?

There are, in fact, pretty darn legitimate and technical critiques of Darwinism operating today...but they are based on an Old Earth (because that is established. Solidly.) and they are based upon actual research, not fantasies. I love them. Some of them are even sort of convincing. Sadly, Catholics are being completely left out of the party. It's too bad.

I think that the implication would be that these researchers have been shown to have started their campaign with extremely dishonest strategies, and were well-funded by social elites. The writer's approach does not appear to attempt a scientific argument against the research. To do so would be to give the researchers too much credit. Until they openly disavow the work of the earlier investigators and make a public display of throwing out all the "evidence" brought onto the stage by these hoaxters, how can we take them seriously?

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #92 on:** December 19, 2013, 04:53:45 PM »

I'll edit my last post later in attempt to get the format to reflect the quotes intelligibly.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #93 on:** December 19, 2013, 05:36:17 PM »

Quote

Quote
Chardin and the Phony Ape-Men
Adapted from The Death of Evolution by Wallace Johnson
Evolution leads logically to polygenism -- that is, a belief, not in one physically perfect first man (Adam), but in groups of brutish first men and women mutating from parents who were not human.

Two claims.

1. Evolution leads logically to polygenism

Yes, apparently, but Pius XII ruled on this already, separating out the one event, human genesis, from the rest of the issue of evolution.

2. not in one physically perfect first man (Adam), but in groups of brutish first men and women mutating from parents who were not human.

No. The insertion of 'brutish' here is not helpful. Now we have to parse this out.
What Pius XII allowed was the theology of 'special transformism' which is the idea that God ensouled an existing body (or ensouled a newly conceived baby) which was physically identical in characteristics and genome to its parents or contemporaries. I.E., if this scenario which Pius allowed researched is true, then Adam looked identical to Adam's parents or brothers, had the same genome, etc.
Special transformism says that in the reception of a soul, the preternatural gifts were given to Adam.

Nothing here about 'brutish' or 'mutating'. That's a childish musunderstanding.

I would argue that there are no evolutionary biologists working on this theory into which you state that Pius XII allowed investigation. The only people that I see coming out of the field of evolutionary biology are devout, militant atheists.

Quote

Quote
Polygenism plays havoc with the central Christian dogma of Original Sin.

Pius XII said it was not apparent how the two could be reconciled. 'Plays havoc' is childish scare-language, not academic, and reminds us once again that this is not an academic book.

It certainly does play havoc with the dogma of Original Sin. The fact that there is no apparent way to reconcile the two, introduces an opportunity for doubt to enter the minds of those studying the theory. The unsophisticated mind might not understand that they are to proceed with extreme caution in such and instance, and judge all opinions/conclusions, based on whether they can or cannot be reconciled with Original Sin. For most people, such an undertaking is too much for their intellect. They will forget to proceed with caution. After making the mistake of trusting those, like Richard Dawkins, whose explanations rule against our supernatural origin, those individuals will begin to lose their Supernatural Faith. Why? Not because of a logical breakdown in their understanding of Christianity (although that's where it started, thus the wreaking havoc), but rather because they knowingly chose to align their thinking with a theoretical understanding of their origin which ruled out a Dogma of Our Faith.

Quote

Quote
And lately under the influence of Teilhard de Chardin's (1881-1955) evolutionary theology, all the Catholic dogmas are being turned upside-down. If we can demonstrate that the ape-men never existed, then the whole case for evolution, polygenism and Teilhardianism collapses.

No, all Catholic dogmas are not being turned upside down. In addition to being fatally imprecise, this is just silly. NO one is talking about the Trinity, for example.

I believe that the point here is that if we allow one dogma to be overturned, then all dogmas become subject to suspicion. The reasoning behind this is that if we do not accept all dogmas as true, then we do not accept that The Paraclete is watching over Christ's Church. This would mean that we hold Catholicism to be a man-constructed religion and that we reject Divine Revelation as our source of Dogma.

Quote

Quote
The average person now believes that there were strange creatures in prehistoric times, not quite men and not wholly animal. We are being told, in the name of science, that these ape-men existed, and, that we came from them.

..and for very good reason the average person believes what has been amply demonstrated. Fish-amphibian transitions existed. Reptile-mammal transitions existed. The fossil record is not a 19th century curiosity. Moving on...

But this writer has shined a light on the history of the dishonest approach that researchers have taken in providing their "evidence" to support this theory.

Quote

Quote
If this theory is wrong, then our era is really the darkest age of all. But right or wrong, the theory is successful. So much so that Adam and Eve are laughed out of court. We are witnessing the triumph of a very diabolical game, and the aim of the game is to get rid of God and undermine the veracity of the Bible.

Or, the aim of the game is discover human origins, defend those assertions against your peers, and win awards, get tenure, and gain money and respect.

In that case, why do the researchers create and hold membership in militant, atheistic associations? Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, etc.

Quote

Quote
There have been various "family trees of man" put forward for our new belief system, disagreeing and conflicting with one another. But several members of the "family" have been shown to be phony.

Ok, finally to the point. So, there are two problems in these sentences that are critical to this topic.

1.In the early days of any discipline, the rough outline of a theory is determined. It's like heliocentrism. The first decades of the discoveries were full of various models, all conflicting. Over time, observation disproves most of them, and over time, one emerged as the best fit for the data.

Any discovery works like this. If you go the early history of a field, you find exactly that - many divergent theories being winnowed by the process into few and then ultimately, one. This is how human research works. Words like 'brainstorming' are applicable to the process. If anyone has ever been part of any group process, you know how the meetings go. The first ones are all over the map, as discussion and research progress, the impractical falls away and the practical is left.

Johnson's critique of science is dishonest in the extreme. I'm sure that, at a meeting with his publishers, he made a proposal for a book, and this proposal was debated and the concept refined. If I wanted to criticize him and had the minutes I could say "Many different schemes for this book were put forward - all disagreeing and conflicting with each other!". He, being dim, would look at me and say "You idiot, that's how new ideas work!" and I'd say "Yeeeees. Exactly."

If people are trying to determine the history of something, proposing different versions and then looking for confirmation of the those versions is exactly how it works. There is no other way for it to work. This critique is so unbelievably stupid...but again, this is not a scholarly book. It's a screed that appeals only to the choir of true believers.

2.The last date in this article is 1937, and the 'bad guy' is Teilhard de Chardin.

Do you know who cares about Teilhard? Catholics and New Agers. That's it.

No one rests anything on any discoveries of Teilhard. In the heady days of the early 20th century, there was lots of excitement about finding proto-humans. Telihard was a crank. So? It has been a long, long time since those days, and of course Johnson is not dealing with anything that happened after 1937. He's gone for only the lowest-hanging fruit, because lampooning a few cranks from early in the last century is easy.

I'd like to see him deal with the endogenous retrovirus signatures in primate lines. Or in the geographic dispersion of trichromic vision in primates. Or any of a hundred other lines of reasoning linking the human ancestors with chimp and bonobo ancestors.

Look, it's a simple thing for anyone to do:

Examine your sources. Do they deal only with the scientific past? Like Neil the crazy crank here, doe he deal only with 19th century figures as if all science was done in the past? Does he ignore what is going on now? Is there discussion with and of legitimate experts in the current field?

There are, in fact, pretty darn legitimate and technical critiques of Darwinism operating today...but they are based on an Old Earth (because that is established. Solidly.) and they are based upon actual research, not fantasies. I love them. Some of them are even sort of convincing. Sadly, Catholics are being completely left out of the party. It's too bad.

I think that the implication would be that these researchers have been shown to have started their campaign with extremely dishonest strategies, and were well-funded by social elites. The writer's approach does not appear to attempt a scientific argument against the research. To do so would be to give the researchers too much credit. Until they openly disavow the work of the earlier investigators and make a public display of throwing out all the "evidence" brought onto the stage by these hoaxters, how can we take them seriously?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #94 on:** December 20, 2013, 04:54:01 AM »

.

Post

Since you didn't mention who you're quoting, I went to look for it and couldn't find it.

But I found this, which maybe you missed, SoldierOfChrist:

Post

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist

Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

When the Biblical Commission of 1909 gave halting permission for exegetes to discuss the age of the earth and the real duration of the seven days of Creation recounted in Genesis, the commissioners were unaware of the fact that the so-called scientific literature at the time was hypothesizing entirely on cooked data. If they had known the truth, that is, if the MASK had been adequately removed from Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ as previous popes had announced doing (but they nonetheless were not quite capable of unmasking this particular aspect) then they would never have backed off the way they did.

We could have had a very different twentieth century, IOW.

But apparently it was to be given to the world that this Big Lie would not be exposed for the lie that it is.

But now, it has been exposed. Only now, too many scientists are rather committed to a system that presumes the fables are reliable. They're afraid of losing their 'credibility' -- which translates to honor bestowed by other men. You know, like getting elected "man of the year" and that sort of thing.

It has been exposed and perhaps, just maybe, the new movie, The Principle, will have some chapter on the exposure. If so, it's going to be a little sad that the Biblical Commission of 1909 didn't get a chance to see The Principle before they cut loose with their ANSWERS to Questions. But if they HAD seen the movie, it would have been a miracle, because there was no such thing as 'movies' like this in 1909.

If the Commission had seen this movie, they would have thought that they had seen a phantasm or a dream, because motion pictures in 1909 had no synchronized sound.

.

It would appear that the zionists bluffed and the Pontifical Commission folded. They are crafty little devils. Same can be said of the Church backing off of the copernican theory, after being given evidence which could support either geocentrism or heliocentrism; not exclusively heliocentrism which was posited to them at the time that they began to back off.

That being said, I do not think that it is right to demonize people like [jaundice], for being fooled by the same slight of hand, which caused the Church to back off, but never to reverse its stance on geocentrism and creation.

It seems to me you're being far too kind. If jaundice were really interested in learning, he would pay attention. But he thinks he knows it all because he's already 'been there' and doesn't need to be confused by any facts.

Nor does he care what you have to offer and it's a waste of time for you to show him what he's missing because he's not going to look at it -- or think about it.

That is called "pertinacious impudence." And there is no virtue in it.

Quote

The problem, as I see it, is that people like [jaundice] find it difficult to accept the overwhelming evidence that a conspiracy of immense proportion is under way.

Rather, what such ilk are all invested in, is cohabiting with the devil.

They don't want to know the truth.

These people were the ones who openly left the Church in ages past when the Supreme Pontiff defined dogma and condemned error, because in order to believe what was defined they would have to relinquish their tenacious grasp on sin.

Those who had a problem with impurity, for example, rebelled at the definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. And again, those who wanted birth control, divorce and same-sex marriage couldn't take it when the Assumption of Our Lady body and soul was defined in 1950.

It is for no small reason that Our Lady told Jacinta of Fatima that "more souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason."

Quote

He said that what causes him difficulty in believing in cօռspιʀαcιҽs, is that ultimately, they would require everyone to be involved in them, and he does not see that as a possibility.

Another smoke screen. They're not 'cօռspιʀαcιҽs' when they are factual. The demigods Charlie are worshipped in the halls of academia but nobody is willing to admit it as such, because they're either liars or they have willfully blinded themselves to the truth, just as the Jєωs in the day of Our Lord when they did not recognize the time of their visitation.

Those with eyes to see, let them see.
Those with ears to hear, let them hear.
Those who blind themselves or plug their ears: let them be anathema.

Take a look at the Virgin Mary in the Last Judgment fresco in the Sistine Chapel. She looks with stark horror at the fate of the damned, those she tried to warn, those she so desired could be saved, but those who would not see and those who would not hear, lest they be healed and saved from hell.

That's the way it is.

Quote

However, just as he was tricked by the zionists into accepting their "data" and "evidence", without looking into it to see if it truly was credible, the Church was also fooled into backing off, and I would say that many real scientists have never questioned the veritability [the word is "veracity"] of the foundational evidence required to even propose evolution as a likely possibility.

The whole thing is built on myth and the non-scientific dreams of hobbyists.

Quote

With regards to heliocentrism, the same people never analysed the theory in enough detail to recognize the metaphysical (not scientific) choices which were made necessarily, in order to further [their] theorization. I think that [jaundice] is a real Catholic, who has been fooled by very crafty zionists.

Or, jaundice could be a fraud who has merely succeeded in fooling you.

Quote

Far from requiring everyone to be "in on it", this conspiracy required nothing more than for individuals of unquestionable intellect and training, to be fooled into believing the reality [make that FANTASY] which was presented to them, without questioning the origin of the data, and if they did question it, to keep their mouths shut in order to avoid certain professional failure, brought on by the ostracization of the mob of believers in the new modernistic belief system. [jaundice] is one of those who still believes and I do not fault him for it. I too, once believed in evolution and heliocentrism. I once thought that the novus ordo was "regular" church, and that traditionalism was a form of protestantism, ie not Catholic. I learned the Truth by seeking it.

As Shakespeare said, "Therein lies the rub."

The difference between you and jaundice is, you sought the truth, and when someone presented to you helpful information, you did not ignore it.

You were not willfully blind and deliberately deaf.

Quote

That is what [jaundice] is doing. And I know beyond the shadow of a doubt, that if he continues to seek and to pray, that the Holy Ghost will lead him towards Truth.

Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

Keep in mind that the Protocols were recorded in the late 19th century, meaning that they were either written by prophetic frauds who knew the future of what the next 100 years would hold for mankind, or they are an authentic blueprint of what a clandestine group of evil, God-hating geniuses, planned to do in the next 100 years, and then did it.

The willfully blind and deliberately deaf will close their eyes and stop their ears and they can go to hell. (Which is what it means to be anathema.)

Quote

Quote from: The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
Protocol II

1. It is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains: war will thus be brought on to the economic ground, where the nations will not fail to perceive in the assistance we give the strength of our predominance, and this state of things will put both sides at the mercy of our international agentur; which possesses millions of eyes ever on the watch and unhampered by any limitations whatsoever. Our international rights will then wipe out national rights, in the proper sense of right, and will rule the nations precisely as the civil law of States rules the relations of their subjects among themselves.

2. The administrators, whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world. As is well known to you, these specialists of ours have been drawing to fit them for rule the information they need from our political plans from the lessons of history, from observations made of the events of every moment as it passes. The goyim are not guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results. We need not, therefore, take any account of them - let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes, or live on hopes of new forms of enterprising pastime, or on the memories of all they have enjoyed. For them let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the goyim will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.

They didn't have to specify the fact that their key principle would be the tacit worship of their demigods Charlie. They knew that, but they dared not put it down in writing. It was a spoken secret, and it would not be told, lest the one who would speak it would suddenly be found to be mysteriously missing in action -- before he could speak -- a lot like Andrew Breitbart was and Steve Bridges.

Quote

Quote
DESTRUCTIVE EDUCATION

3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism.

Quiz question: Who was it again, who arranged Darwinism, which is founded squarely on the worship of the demigods Charlie?

Quote

Quote
To us Jєωs,

Oh, right. The Jєωs. But you'll NEVER become a Freemason if you admit that you believe that. They won't even let you into the FIRST LEVEL for an ice cream social. And of THAT I can assure you, from personal experience. Been there.

Quote

Quote
..at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the goyim.

4. It is indispensable for us to take account of the thoughts, characters, tendencies of the nations in order to avoid making slips in the political and in the direction of administrative affairs. The triumph of our system of which the component parts of the machinery may be variously disposed according to the temperament of the peoples met on our way, will fail of success if the practical application of it be not based upon a summing up of the lessons of the past in the light of the present.

5. In the hands of the States of to-day there is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the Press.

Notice there isn't one sentence of this that would appear in any reputable book or report or official docuмent of any credible organization -- but perhaps something would fit in to an ExSPX interoffice memo -- that is, one that would be burned once it is received and read.

Quote

Quote
The part played by the Press is to keep pointing our requirements supposed to be indispensable, to give voice to the complaints of the people, to express and to create discontent. It is in the Press that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. But the goyim States have not known how to make use of this force; and it has fallen into our hands. Through the Press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade; thanks to the Press we have got the gold in our hands, notwithstanding that we have had to gather it out of the oceans of blood and tears. But it has paid us, though we have sacrificed many of our people. Each victim on our side is worth in the sight of God a thousand goyim.

.
.
.

But it certainly looks like you skipped over the more important material. Now, you don't have to warn me that jaundice is going to ignore it, as usual, because I know that he has a vested interest in not looking at the facts because if he were to look at them and think about them, it would be incuмbent upon him to act accordingly, which he WILL NOT DO, and therefore, he will not look at them:

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

The history of the bad hypothesis of evolution (it's not a theory) is rife with the self-contradictions and exposure of falsehood that you have there, S'C.

One after the other, as their contrived fables were presented to the world, they became shown for what they were: fakes. But that made no difference when the Freemasonic press and public opinion funded by atheists kept alive the fable fantasy that so-called evolution was still a viable "theory" (it's not a theory).

It's a very embarrassing history, which explains why supporters of the bad hypothesis of 'evolution' are ashamed to talk about it, like jaundice, for example.

No sooner was one "Piltdown man" shown to be a phony and another "Java man" rose up to take his place. The nefarious heretic Pierre Teilhard de Chardin ran around the world seeking pig's teeth to file down and stain with shoe polish so that the Freemasonic-Yid press could parade the news from the International Date Line to Greenwich meridian.

And so it was in America, from sea to shining sea.

Meanwhile, all of the fundamental THEORY upon which those fables relied was hidden and overlooked. What THEORY was that?

Well, what THEORY was it, anyway, that said that the age of the cosmos is measured not in thousands of years but in millions or billions or whatever?

What THEORY was it that said that the age of the earth is determined by the "observable" evidence?

What THEORY was it that said that radiometric dating of fossils is reliable because the 'established' age of surrounding rock formations and alluvial deposits was 'known'?

WHOSE THEORY was it that said we can know the age of sedimentary rocks, gneiss, feldspar, carborundum, shale, red limestone, clay, granite, metamorphic rock, conglomerate, earthquake faults, and dinosaur bones merely by inspection and consultation of revered volumes of forgotten lore?

Don't ask jaundice, because he's never heard of the guy, and he's too yellow to bother finding out.

.

SJB · « **Reply #95 on:** December 20, 2013, 10:11:32 AM »

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist

It certainly does play havoc with the dogma of Original Sin. The fact that there is no apparent way to reconcile the two, introduces an opportunity for doubt to enter the minds of those studying the theory. The unsophisticated mind might not understand that they are to proceed with extreme caution in such and instance, and judge all opinions/conclusions, based on whether they can or cannot be reconciled with Original Sin. For most people, such an undertaking is too much for their intellect. They will forget to proceed with caution. After making the mistake of trusting those, like Richard Dawkins, whose explanations rule against our supernatural origin, those individuals will begin to lose their Supernatural Faith. Why? Not because of a logical breakdown in their understanding of Christianity (although that's where it started, thus the wreaking havoc), but rather because they knowingly chose to align their thinking with a theoretical understanding of their origin which ruled out a Dogma of Our Faith.

I have an acquaintance who's high school aged child has fallen in this very way. Those who start "studying the theory" are almost never sufficiently educated and even in a position to investigate such things. They fall rather easily into naturalism and sometimes complete atheism.

icterus · « **Reply #96 on:** December 20, 2013, 12:47:50 PM »

Soldier wrote:

Quote

I think that the implication would be that these researchers have been shown to have started their campaign with extremely dishonest strategies, and were well-funded by social elites. The writer's approach does not appear to attempt a scientific argument against the research. To do so would be to give the researchers too much credit. Until they openly disavow the work of the earlier investigators and make a public display of throwing out all the "evidence" brought onto the stage by these hoaxters, how can we take them seriously?

You're following a dishonest author who is selling you a fable.

The claim is that because Teilhard de Chardin was a crank in the early years of the 20th century, all scientists are cranks. A second claim - that Teilhard is the "foundation" on which evolutionary science is based.

Wrong. Wrong.

Why do you think my signature says what it does? Because that is really what you need to do in order to have any understanding of a field - read it! If you go to a college-level textbook on anthropology, they either do not mention Teilhard, or they also lampoon him.

It is EXACTLY the same as a non-Catholic basing a lengthy critique of Catholicism on Arius. Or Nestorius. Or the life of Henry VIII. What could a modern Catholic do except to (very correctly) say "That guy was a heretic! Why don't you study ACTUAL Catholicism!".

But, unfortunately, you won't accept that sort of challenge. You want only non-technical, tinfoil-hat Traddy sources to confirm and reinforce your prejudices. Look, I'm not the one trying to stay within a narrow range for source material. I'm stumping for using the entire world as source material on secular subjects. You're the one reasoning completely from your own biases.

icterus · « **Reply #97 on:** December 20, 2013, 12:51:38 PM »

Quote

I have an acquaintance who's high school aged child has fallen in this very way. Those who start "studying the theory" are almost never sufficiently educated and even in a position to investigate such things. They fall rather easily into naturalism and sometimes complete atheism.

Because they are presented with your false dichotomy of scientific knowledge versus biblical literalism. That is not orthodox Catholicism.

It's EASY for the world to take people away from the faith when the faith is presented in these terms. It's been working on the children of Proetstant fundamentalists for 100 years, and now it will work again on the children of Traditional Catholics.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #98 on:** December 20, 2013, 02:38:01 PM »

.

From the 4th post on p. 19 -- could you explain who you're quoting in that post? It's very confusing to read.

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist

I believe that the point here is that if we allow one dogma to be overturned, then all dogmas become subject to suspicion. The reasoning behind this is that if we do not accept all dogmas as true, then we do not accept that The Paraclete is watching over Christ's Church. This would mean that we hold Catholicism to be a man-constructed religion and that we reject Divine Revelation as our source of Dogma.

This is the nature of dogma.

Regarding the dogmas of the Church, you either have all of them intact and in place, or you don't have any. If any one dogma is broken, you lose the entire chain.

Think of it as your anchor, and you're on a ship, with an anchor chain connecting the anchor, which is overboard. Every link of the chain is essential. If any one link is broken, the anchor falls away and is lost.

Each link is like a dogma of the faith, and as each link is necessary, so too each dogma is necessary. If one is broken, you lose the object of the faith, which is your anchor. And just as a ship without an anchor is at the mercy of the waves and the wind, so too, the Church without her anchor in the One True Faith is adrift in the winds of heresy.

.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #99 on:** December 20, 2013, 02:57:07 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

From the 4th post on p. 19 -- could you explain who you're quoting in that post? It's very confusing to read.

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist

I believe that the point here is that if we allow one dogma to be overturned, then all dogmas become subject to suspicion. The reasoning behind this is that if we do not accept all dogmas as true, then we do not accept that The Paraclete is watching over Christ's Church. This would mean that we hold Catholicism to be a man-constructed religion and that we reject Divine Revelation as our source of Dogma.

This is the nature of dogma.

Regarding the dogmas of the Church, you either have all of them intact and in place, or you don't have any. If any one dogma is broken, you lose the entire chain.

Think of it as your anchor, and you're on a ship, with an anchor chain connecting the anchor, which is overboard. Every link of the chain is essential. If any one link is broken, the anchor falls away and is lost.

Each link is like a dogma of the faith, and as each link is necessary, so too each dogma is necessary. If one is broken, you lose the object of the faith, which is your anchor. And just as a ship without an anchor is at the mercy of the waves and the wind, so too, the Church without her anchor in the One True Faith is adrift in the winds of heresy.

.

For all of the quotes that I used, the inside quote was salvemariaregina, and the outside quote was icterus's criticism.

I like your analogy of the ship and the anchor.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #100 on:** December 20, 2013, 03:14:48 PM »

Quote from: icterus

Soldier wrote:

Quote
I think that the implication would be that these researchers have been shown to have started their campaign with extremely dishonest strategies, and were well-funded by social elites. The writer's approach does not appear to attempt a scientific argument against the research. To do so would be to give the researchers too much credit. Until they openly disavow the work of the earlier investigators and make a public display of throwing out all the "evidence" brought onto the stage by these hoaxters, how can we take them seriously?

You're following a dishonest author who is selling you a fable.

The claim is that because Teilhard de Chardin was a crank in the early years of the 20th century, all scientists are cranks. A second claim - that Teilhard is the "foundation" on which evolutionary science is based.

Wrong. Wrong.

Why do you think my signature says what it does? Because that is really what you need to do in order to have any understanding of a field - read it! If you go to a college-level textbook on anthropology, they either do not mention Teilhard, or they also lampoon him.

It is EXACTLY the same as a non-Catholic basing a lengthy critique of Catholicism on Arius. Or Nestorius. Or the life of Henry VIII. What could a modern Catholic do except to (very correctly) say "That guy was a heretic! Why don't you study ACTUAL Catholicism!".

But, unfortunately, you won't accept that sort of challenge. You want only non-technical, tinfoil-hat Traddy sources to confirm and reinforce your prejudices. Look, I'm not the one trying to stay within a narrow range for source material. I'm stumping for using the entire world as source material on secular subjects. You're the one reasoning completely from your own biases.

I don't listen to heretics, apostates, or atheists. Anyone who denies Christ has already embraced the spirit of falsity. They can be expected to be dishonest in the extreme, mixing truth with falsehood, so that you become lost very quickly in separating the two. I recently wanted to revisit the story of what happened to the Jєωs during WWII, because I do not hold to the official story. I'm sure that some of it is truthful and other parts of it are pure lies. How to know which is which??? While hunting for info, I came upon some guy who is considered to be the best, most academic, "h0Ɩ0cαųst denier" around. I spent 20 minutes reading something of his online. I was not impressed with his analysis. Then he outright denied a dogma of Faith, as part of his argument. I think that he said that the Devil doesn't exist. Can't remember exactly. Anyway, I had no more use for his argument, after I read that lie. So I don't read things written by heretics and apostates, unless the point of it is to tear them down. There is absolutely nothing that can be learned from them. They are liars.

To follow your analogy, you are likening Catholic apologetics (salvemariaregina) to the works of heretics (Arius, Nestorius). Basically saying that they are as useful as each other in forming an argument. Then you are likening the works of atheists (Richard Dawkins et al.) to the teachings of the Church (Roman Catechism, Papal Encyclicals, etc.) I see that you are trying to illustrate that a person on the outside cannot criticize from that vantage point. I do not see it that way. The Church is the inside and everyone else is the outside. If they cannot understand our criticism because they lack Catholic Sense, then we do not have to bow to their rules and pose our arguments according to their framing of reality. They deny Christ. They deny Revelation. They deny the Infallibility of the Pope and the Magesterium. From their vantage point, they cannot understand Truth, and there is nothing for us to discuss with them. Certainly, there is nothing for us to learn from them.

icterus · « **Reply #101 on:** December 20, 2013, 03:25:53 PM »

Quote

Certainly, there is nothing for us to learn from them.

And yet, the Scholastics read the Greeks, by way of the Saracens.

So, you're wrong.

And, no, you didn't understand what I wrote, at all.

I give up. That's right. I give up. I'll wait around a few days to see PereJoseph embarrass the hell out of himself trying to explain physics, because that is going to be too funny.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #102 on:** December 20, 2013, 03:47:48 PM »

Quote from: icterus

And yet, the Scholastics read the Greeks, by way of the Saracens.

The Greeks couldn't be classified as heretics or apostates, because they were never given the Gospel. Were the Scholastics reading the Greeks or were they reading the Saracens? Did the Saracens provide the authentic texts or did they corrupt them? Were the Scholastics reading what the Saracens had to say about the Greeks? Were they reading how the Saracens interpreted what the Greeks really meant in those texts?

The fact that the Scholastics studied the Greeks proves nothing. The Scholastics studying the Saracens, now that would really surprise me. But of course they didn't. Because what would they have to learn from heretic apostates?

icterus · « **Reply #103 on:** December 20, 2013, 03:50:06 PM »

Quote

“Averroes’ greatest influence was as a commentator. His doctrines had a varying fortune in Christian schools. At first they secured a certain amount of adherence, then, gradually, their incompatibility with Christian teaching became apparent, and finally, owing to the revolt of the Renaissance from everything Scholastic, they secured once more a temporary hearing. His commentaries, however, had immediate and lasting success. St. Thomas Aquinas used the “Grand Commentary” of Averroes as his model, being, apparently, the first Scholastic to adopt that style of exposition; and though he refuted the errors of Averroes, and devoted special treatises to that purpose, he always spoke of the Arabian commentator as one who had, indeed, perverted the Peripatetic tradition, but whose words, nevertheless, should be treated with respect and consideration. The same may be said of Dante’s references to him. It was after the time of St. Thomas and Dante that Averroes came to be represented as “the arch-enemy of the faith”.” – The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Averroes”.

Read a book.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #104 on:** December 20, 2013, 04:20:07 PM »

Quote from: icterus

Quote
“Averroes’ greatest influence was as a commentator. His doctrines had a varying fortune in Christian schools. At first they secured a certain amount of adherence, then, gradually, their incompatibility with Christian teaching became apparent, and finally, owing to the revolt of the Renaissance from everything Scholastic, they secured once more a temporary hearing. His commentaries, however, had immediate and lasting success. St. Thomas Aquinas used the “Grand Commentary” of Averroes as his model, being, apparently, the first Scholastic to adopt that style of exposition; and though he refuted the errors of Averroes, and devoted special treatises to that purpose, he always spoke of the Arabian commentator as one who had, indeed, perverted the Peripatetic tradition, but whose words, nevertheless, should be treated with respect and consideration. The same may be said of Dante’s references to him. It was after the time of St. Thomas and Dante that Averroes came to be represented as “the arch-enemy of the faith”.” – The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Averroes”.

Read a book.

Right, so he read it and tore it down. That's what I said I would read heretics with the purpose of doing. I've read many books icterus. I'm sure that I've read more than you. I find your lack of decorum offensive. If this were a face to face meeting, you would not get away with speaking like you do.