Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: roscoe on December 09, 2013, 08:38:51 PM
-
In another topic, it was revealed by icetrus that the Pontifical Commission of !909 proclaimed an edict rendering the age of E & the length of the 'days' in Genesis debatable.
If true this puts an end to any idea that E being 6xxx yrs old needs be taken as Dogma.
Could a source for the 1909 info be provided? :detective:
-
i am still hoping that icterus will find time to post the source of this info.
-
Response of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis -- June 30, 1909
Question 1: on the literal and historical sense of Genesis 1-3
Question 2: on whether Genesis 1-3 is purely fable or legend or "myth"
Question 3: on whether essential truths the Church has defined in Genesis can be called into question
Question 4: on opinions and interpretations of Genesis that the Church has not defined
Question 5: on words and phrases and metaphor in Genesis
Question 6: on allegorical interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis
Question 7: on the "science" of the early chapters of Genesis
Question 8: on the "six days" of Genesis 1
English Translation
Question I: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been proposed to exclude the literal historical sense of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are sustained by a solid foundation? -- Reply: In the negative.
Dubium I.: Utrum varia systemata exegetica, quae ad excludendum sensum litteralem historicuм trium priorum capitum libri Geneseos excogitata et scientiae fuco propugnata sunt, solido fundamento fulciantur? Resp.: Negative.
Question II: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the Book of Genesis does not oppose, because of the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters, because of the manifold testimony of the Old and New Testaments; because of the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and because of the traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church always held, it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls? -- Reply: In the negative to both parts. Back
Dubium II.: Utrum, non obstantibus indole et forma historica libri Geneseos, peculiari trium priorum capitum inter se et cuм sequentibus capitibus nexu, multiplici testimonio Scripturarum tum Veteris tum Novi Testamenti, unanimi fere sanctorum Patrum sententia ac traditionali sensu, quem, ab Israelitico etiam populo transmissum, semper tenuit Ecclesia, doceri possit: praedicta tria capita Geneseos continere non rerum vere gestarum narrationes, quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant; sed vel fabulosa ex veterum populorum mythologiis et cosmogoniis deprompta et ab auctore sacro, expurgato quovis polytheismi errore, doctrinae monotheisticae accomodata; vel allegorias et symbola, fundamento obiectivae realitatis destituta, sub historiae specie ad religiosas et philosophicas veritates inculcandas proposita, vel tandem legendas ex parte historicas et ex parte fictitias ad animorum instructionem et aedificationem libere compositas? Resp.: Negative ad utramque partem.
Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundation of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer? -- Reply: In the negative. Back
Dubium III.: Utrum speciatim sensus litteralis historicus vocari in dubium possit, ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis, quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt: uti sunt, inter cetera, rerum universarum creatio a Deo facta in initio temporis; peculiaris creatio hominis ; formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine; generis humani unitas, originalis protoparentum felicitas in statu iustitiae, integritatis et immortalitatis, praeceptum a Deo homini datum ad eius obedientiam probandam; divini praecepti, diabolo sub serpentis specie suasore, transgressio; protoparentum deiectio ab illo primaevo innocentiae statu; nec non Reparatoris futuri promissio? Resp.: Negative.
Question IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, but concerning which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is permitted, while preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which everyone has wisely approved? -- Reply: In the affirmative. Back
Dubium IV.: Utrum in interpretandis illis horum capitum locis, quos Patres et Doctores diverso modo intellexerunt, quin certi quippiam definitique tradiderint, liceat salvo Ecclesiae iudicio servataque fidei analogia, eam, quam quisque prudenter probaverit, sequi tuerique sententiam? Resp.: Affirmative.
Question V: Whether all and everything, namely, words and phrases which occur in the aforementioned chapters, are always and necessarily to be accepted in a special sense, so that there may be no deviation from this, even when the expressions themselves manifestly appear to have been taken improperly, or metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and either reason prohibits holding the proper sense, or necessity forces its abandonment? -- Reply: In the negative. Back
Dubium V.: Utrum omnia et singula, verba videlicet et phrases, quae in praedictis capitibus occurrunt, semper et necessario accipienda sint sensu proprio, ita ut ab eo discedere numquam liceat, etiam cuм locutiones ipsae manifesto appareant improprie, seu metaphorice vel anthropomorphice usurpatae, et sensum proprium vel ratio tenere prohibeat vel necessitas cogat dimittere? Resp.: Negative.
Question VI: Whether, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some passages of the same chapters, with the example of the Holy Fathers and the Church herself showing the way, can be wisely and profitably applied? -- Reply: In the affirmative. Back
Dubium VI.: Utrum, praesupposito litterali et historico sensu, nonnullorum locorum eorundem capitum interpretatio allegorica et prophetica, praefulgente sanctorum Patrum et Ecclesiae ipsius exemplo, adhiberi sapienter et utiliter possit? Resp.: Affirmative.
Question VII: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author to teach in a scientific manner the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather to give his people a popular notion, according as the common speech of the times went, accommodated to the understanding and capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated exactly and always in the interpretation of these? -- Reply: In the negative. Back
Dubium VII.: Utrum, cuм in conscribendo primo Geneseos capite non fuerit sacri auctoris mens intimam adspectabilium rerum constitutionem ordinemque creationis completum scientifico more docere, sed potius suae genti tradere notitiam popularem, prout communis sermo per ea ferebat tempora, sensibus et captui hominum accommodatam, sit in horum interpretatione adamussim semperque investiganda scientifici sermonis proprietas? Resp.: Negative.
Question VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes? -- Reply: In the affirmative.
Dubium VIII.: Utrum in illa sex dierum denominatione atque distinctione, de quibus in Geneseos capite primo, sumi possit vox Yôm (dies) sive sensu proprio pro die naturali, sive sensu improprio pro quodam temporis spatio, deque huiusmodi quaestione libere inter exegetas disceptare liceat? Resp.: Affirmative.
This is just the commonly available text of it. Please, please, check it out completely and don't take my word for it.
-
If true this puts an end to any idea that E being 6xxx yrs old needs be taken as Dogma.
Don't get your hopes up. I've been here before, and I have experienced the 'magical infallibility reversal (TM)' more than once. That which supports our side of the debate is infallible. That which does not support our side of the debate is merely disciplinary.
It's an amazing feature of Catholic thought.
-
Thank U :applause:
-
This has absolutely nothing to do with geocentrism, icterus, nor "reversals" of anything. Again your dishonesty shines through.
Now, there's the question of the age of the earth and the question of how long human beings have been on the earth, the latter being no longer than around 6000 years.
-
So, tell me, icterus, how long have human beings been on the earth?
-
Correct me if i am wrong.
The Biblical Commission of Pius X says that the Biblical term dies can be assumed in the improper sense of a certain space of time. How long is not stated & appears debatable.
-
So, tell me, icterus, how long have human beings been on the earth?
Nothing to do with Roscoe's topic.
Start a new thread on that if you want, I'll be happy to weigh in.
-
BTW, here's predicting this thread will be ignored by everyone who has weighed in on the age of the Earth lately.
Darn inconvenient facts.
-
Geocentrism thread gets 50 replies an hour. The thread where they bash me gets 100. This one is going to be ignored. It disturbs echo chamber.
Truth seekers. Riiiight.
-
Geocentrism thread gets 50 replies an hour. The thread where they bash me gets 100. This one is going to be ignored. It disturbs echo chamber.
Truth seekers. Riiiight.
What is it that you want to discuss about it Icterus? I will discuss it with you, perhaps from a different viewpoint than others who have engaged you on this issue. I accept the declaration of Pope St. Pius X that all are obliged to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Commission. Of course I accept that people are allowed to disagree on the age of the Earth. However, there are other issues to look at, such as the submission of the scientific investigators to the Magesterium. With regards to what is being taught and disseminated to to the masses in modern times, I don't trust any of it. That doesn't mean that all of it is untrue, but I do not trust those who control the flow of information. They mix lies with truth. I believe that all things need to be looked at with this in mind. We have been instructed to watch the fruits of labor. I pay attention to that, when forming an opinion. A lot of those who are creating the facts, come up short in a test of character, acceptance of God, submission to the Magesterium, etc. After that, anything which contradicts doctrine must be outright discarded. What else do you want to discuss about it? Do you take issue with any of the other replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission?
-
So, tell me, icterus, how long have human beings been on the earth?
Nothing to do with Roscoe's topic.
Start a new thread on that if you want, I'll be happy to weigh in.
It has everything to do with this thread. Amount of time people have been on the earth is related to the age of the earth question. In the time that it took you to write the above, you could have typed your answer.
How long have human beings been on the earth?
-
What else do you want to discuss about it?
Everything! I've been getting buried in cut and paste nonsense about 'Flood Geology' for the last 2 weeks, and the ONLY reason to engage in that weirdness would be if there was a theological concern. There's not. There's no reason to posit any of this, the embattled lone geologist who can only get his paper published in a country where they can't read the language...the cօռspιʀαcιҽs of hundreds of thousands of scientists...it's all needless!
And, this leads directly and obviously to the issue: There's no reason to oppose anything about modern Earth science. None of it. There's no reason to build a edifice in opposition to it...and edifice that, since it is opposition to the people actually doing the work of investigation, will always be just an amateurish attempt to 'sound scientific'.
It's contrary to the mission of the faith, which is to save souls by converting them to the one true faith. Augustine knew that pseudo-science turned people away - it still does. It's time to ask 'What are we doing here? Are we interested in converting people, or not? If we are, we need to stop tilting at windmills.'
How long have human beings been on the earth?
Since God breathed into Adam.
When did this happen? I don't know. As a Catholic obedient to Pope Pius XII, I can investigate the relevant anthropology. The relevant anthropology can only offer tantalizing bits of information.
So, go on...what was the question you were really asking? I've learned that nothing is ever as it seems here. You had some ulterior motive, go on and spill it. In the time it took you to phrase the false question, you could have phrased the real one...
-
If true this puts an end to any idea that E being 6xxx yrs old needs be taken as Dogma.
Don't get your hopes up. I've been here before, and I have experienced the 'magical infallibility reversal (TM)' more than once. That which supports our side of the debate is infallible. That which does not support our side of the debate is merely disciplinary.
It's an amazing feature of Catholic thought.
Sounds like you're not a Catholic. Is that the case?
Actually, you don't seem to understand infallibility, which doesn't mean you're not a Catholic but doesn't help your understanding of the entire issue either.
There's no reason to oppose anything about modern Earth science. None of it.
"Modern earth science' is presented as a dogma, or didn't you notice that?
-
Since God breathed into Adam.
Yes, about 6000 years ago. To say otherwise would be to claim that Scripture is historically inaccurate. I'm guessing that you probably believe in a metaphorical "Adam" also.
On the geocentrism thread, icterus stated that Sacred Scripture is scientifically inaccurate, an opinion which I consider to be heretical.
When it quacks like a modernist and walks like a modernist, it's usually a modernist.
-
Ladislaus wrote:
Yes, about 6000 years ago. To say otherwise would be to claim that Scripture is historically inaccurate. I'm guessing that you probably believe in a metaphorical "Adam" also.
And yet you are posting this in a thread about the PBC allowing different opinions on that very topic. So, you didn't understand it at all. Not a bit.
And, no, there can't be a metaphorical Adam. Pope Pius XII slammed the door on that good and hard. You might try some reading to go along with your typing.
On the geocentrism thread, icterus stated that Sacred Scripture is scientifically inaccurate, an opinion which I consider to be heretical.
Placing yourself at odds with the PBC, St. Augustine, Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Pius XII. Good luck with that.
When it quacks like a modernist and walks like a modernist, it's usually a modernist.
Unless you don't really have any idea what you're talking about and are just repeating words that you know will get you thumbs up. Which, I suspect, is exactly the case.
-
Ladislaus wrote:
Yes, about 6000 years ago. To say otherwise would be to claim that Scripture is historically inaccurate. I'm guessing that you probably believe in a metaphorical "Adam" also.
And yet you are posting this in a thread about the PBC allowing different opinions on that very topic. So, you didn't understand it at all. Not a bit.
Not only have you been infected with modernism, but you show no grasp of basic logic. Age of the earth and the amount of time humans have been on the earth are completely different things. You can trace back the lineages in Sacred Scripture based on known historical events to place the creation of Adam and Eve to ca. 6000 BC.
-
Placing yourself at odds with the PBC, St. Augustine, Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Pius XII. Good luck with that.
Oh, garbage. I quoted Pope Leo XIII and Pius XII (on the other thread) as solemnly condemning your heretical allegation that there can be error in Scripture.
-
What else do you want to discuss about it?
Everything! I've been getting buried in cut and paste nonsense about 'Flood Geology' for the last 2 weeks, and the ONLY reason to engage in that weirdness would be if there was a theological concern. There's not. There's no reason to posit any of this, the embattled lone geologist who can only get his paper published in a country where they can't read the language...the cօռspιʀαcιҽs of hundreds of thousands of scientists...it's all needless!
And, this leads directly and obviously to the issue: There's no reason to oppose anything about modern Earth science. None of it. There's no reason to build a edifice in opposition to it...and edifice that, since it is opposition to the people actually doing the work of investigation, will always be just an amateurish attempt to 'sound scientific'.
It's contrary to the mission of the faith, which is to save souls by converting them to the one true faith. Augustine knew that pseudo-science turned people away - it still does. It's time to ask 'What are we doing here? Are we interested in converting people, or not? If we are, we need to stop tilting at windmills.'
I would agree with you on on side and disagree on the other. I've never been very interested in protestant musings at pseudo-science. By the same token, I don't believe in evolution. I look at those who have developed the theories that modern science is built upon, and you can see pseudo-science and subjectivity throughout their efforts. That is not their right and they must be held accountable for the gaping holes in their arguments. Darwin was not a scientist. He was more of a bad pseudo-scientist with bad hypotheses, which were not supported with actual evidence. Evolutionists always hold up "micro-evolution" as evidence of "macro-evolution". The problem with that is that one does not lead logically into the other. Of course the gene pool of a group of people will change over time. That does not mean that new species will emerge from those groups, carrying a different number of chromosomes, and being reproductively viable only within this new group. There is no evidence of it. It is pure speculation. And the one does not lead logically to the other. What there is evidence for is that when offspring arise carrying a different number of chromosomes or vastly different manifestations of the genes which they carry, that those offspring are almost always incapable of reproducing. So to sign on to this hypothesis, based on the evidence presented to us in biology text books, of which I am familiar, which has been demonstrably shown to be highly suspect, would take a leap of faith which I am uncomfortable with. Especially given the character and lack of True Faith of the researchers. That does not mean that I want to go on vacation to protestant creationland with my family this summer. But I am equally turned off by the bad hypothesis of darwinian evolution.
With regards to heliocentricity, I am definitely going to purchase The Principal and watch it. I watched an hour 44 minute talk that the filmakers gave, which posits that the mathematical calculations line up just as well for geocentricity as they do for heliocentricity. Heliocentricity is not proved by the physics; it is chosen. Why? Because the scientific community finds the idea of geocentricity "unacceptible" and because scientists "want to be modest". These are real quotations. Not very scientific reasoning. These are arbitrary metaphysical choices, not based on science at best. At worst, they are not arbitrary choices, but are rather chosen specifically because they do not line up with theories which would implicate the necessary placement of the Earth at the center of the universe by Someone. Any evidence pointing to the geocentric model is systematically thrown out in order to line up with their arbitrary metaphysical choice of heliocentricity. Example - the red shift of light from all other galaxies, which implies that all other galaxies are moving away from us. Another example is the throwing out of data showing neutrinos to travel faster than the speed of light without an increase in mass.
The work that these men have done is certainly scientific and backed by as much math and data as is that of Einstein. In fact, all of these theories are taken into account and analyzed, before these physicists posit their own, equally viable model of the universe.
I agree with you that untrained individuals, such as myself, should not take it upon themselves to go off trying to explain science based on their own metaphysical beliefs. However, scientists also have no place answering metaphysical questions. The Church answers these questions. It is the Church's place to answer these questions. And when trained scientists do endeavor to explain the universe, they should subordinate their metaphysical choices to the teachings of the Magisterium. Seeing as the math and the science will readily accept either choice, it is incuмbent upon mankind to chose the answers already given to us by God. Just as the square root of 4 is either 2 or -2, but we know in the real world that -2 doesn't exist, and that we have to choose 2, we also know that the Bible was inspired by God, and that we should not set out to disprove or discredit it.
-
Soldier wrote:
Evolutionists always hold up "micro-evolution" as evidence of "macro-evolution". The problem with that is that one does not lead logically into the other.
Yes, it does.
Micro-evolution posits continuing changes in the genome of a species. These changes are subsumed into the population via genetic drift, and the population remains genetically viable across wide areas.
Now, if you isolate part of this population, the genetic changes you just agreed to as part of 'microevolution' continue, in both the parent population and the isolated daughter population. Remember, by agreeing to 'microevolution' you agreed that these change were always occurring (and they are. easily demonstrated)
There is now no mechanism to diffuse changes across both populations since they are isolated from each other. Genetic differences (remember, these changes are always occurring, that's 'microevolution') build up until these two populations are no longer viable inter-breeders. After that, it doesn't matter if they stay physically separated or not, they are genetically separated.
So, now you have two species, developing along their own paths. That's called 'macroevolution'.
So, in reality, it is one and the same process. Please see my signature below.
-
Soldier wrote:
So, in reality, it is one and the same process. Please see my signature below.
Wow, Icterus. You feign emotional injury from those who "are supposed to love you for Christ's sake", and then you complain when nobody will engage you in a conversation, then someone engages you, and they receive the slap in the face which I've quoted above. I'm done conversing with you. Think whatever you want to. It's all a big cathinfo conspiracy to make you feel ostracized.
-
Not only is icterus a modernist heretic, but he doesn't even know what he's talking about from a scientific standpoint.
-
Not only is icterus a modernist heretic, but he doesn't even know what he's talking about from a scientific standpoint.
Then I'm certain you'll write a technical criticism of the above. Go.
Wow, Icterus. You feign emotional injury from those who "are supposed to love you for Christ's sake", and then you complain when nobody will engage you in a conversation, then someone engages you, and they receive the slap in the face which I've quoted above. I'm done conversing with you. Think whatever you want to. It's all a big cathinfo conspiracy to make you feel ostracized.
Toughen up. I'm giving you factual information in a fast-moving environment. You said something silly, I was correcting you. I've been called a pernicious perfidious heretic here for over a week. Walk a mile in my moccasins.
-
It's an amazing feature of Catholic thought.
I notice you did't answer my question as to whether you were a Catholic or not. The above comment appears to be that of someone who isn't Catholic.
You could clear this up rather easily with an answer.
-
Well, I'm baptized by a Catholic priest, attend Mass in the Traditional Roman Rite (1962 Missal), and receive the sacraments with regularity. I am not, however, a sedevacantist. As far as I'm able and aware, I hold everything the Church proposes to be true.
So...am I a Catholic?
-
Well, I'm baptized by a Catholic priest, attend Mass in the Traditional Roman Rite (1962 Missal), and receive the sacraments with regularity. I am not, however, a sedevacantist. As far as I'm able and aware, I hold everything the Church proposes to be true.
So...am I a Catholic?
Yes, thank you for answering. Are you aware that what the Church proposes includes much more than solemn definitions?
-
What the Church proposes is vast. Like I said, I do my best to hold it, without contradiction.
If there is some specific thing you want to Inquire about, feel free.
-
Toughen up. I'm giving you factual information in a fast-moving environment. You said something silly, I was correcting you. I've been called a pernicious perfidious heretic here for over a week. Walk a mile in my moccasins.
Take some of your own advice there buddy.
What I said was logically sound and you have not provided observational evidence of a group of organisms at that point of their evolution, in which the genetic material on their chromosomes has reached a breaking point, and some of the organisms in the group are starting to show an increase in the number of chromosomes they have. Where's the evidence of this? I understand the process. Please don't try to explain it to me. Where is the observational evidence of a group of organisms at this step along the evolutionary ladder. Don't tell me to read a book. If a book contains the data, then cite the title, and page like a grown up. If a weblink contains the data, give the link.
Just how silly was what I said? Was it as silly as say quoting from a protestant Bible on a traditional Catholic forum?
-
So, go read up on the Madeira mice. Your free choice of site. I suggest 'nature', but that requires a paid subscription.
And then, take your own advice about telling me to take my own advice.
(and see my signature. your ignorance is not my problem)
(edit: Also, chromosomal multiplication or fusion is not the only form of speciation event. Some types of animals, like above-mentioned mice, appear to do this with high frequency. Others, very rarely.)
-
So, go read up on the Madeira mice. Your free choice of site. I suggest 'nature', but that requires a paid subscription.
And then, take your own advice about telling me to take my own advice.
(and see my signature. your ignorance is not my problem)
(edit: Also, chromosomal multiplication or fusion is not the only form of speciation event. Some types of animals, like above-mentioned mice, appear to do this with high frequency. Others, very rarely.)
This does not qualify as proof. What you've presented here has been presumed by scientists to have taken place over the course of the last 500 years. The groups are all separated from one another, which does not satisfy my request.
Where is the observational evidence of a group of organisms at this step along the evolutionary ladder.
What you've provided is six groups of organisms which are presumed to have already moved beyond this step. So it does not qualify as proof. It is only speculation. According to their theory, there should have been some point throughout the last 500 years, during which, one of those isolated groups, would have shown a population with a mixed number of chromosomes. Unfortunately for the theory, there remains no known group as what I've described. Perhaps this really did happen over the last 500 years, but the proof is still non-existent. What you've got is six distinct groups of geographically isolated organisms, coupled with speculation on how that came to be the case. Are there any other examples that you can provide?
-
No, that's not what you have.
You have one species, delivered to a geographically isolated area 500 years ago. That species still exists on the mainland.
In the isolated area, you have 5 or 6 new species showing exactly the kind of chromosomal variations you asked for, all on the island. They are all, on the island. They are mixed, hence the dispute about how many species are actually represented. This is ongoing.
Examples, made to order, don't get any better than that.
You specifically asked about chromosomal changes, to show you one ongoing specifically requires a species with instability in this area. Like mice. A perfect natural laboratory of mice. Madeira.
If you want other types of genetic speciation, look at Ensatina salamanders, or pizzly bears. (yes, Pizzly.)
If you want a behaviorally generated genetic speciation event, look at apple maggot flies, or American Meadowlarks and their separation into Eastern and Western species.
But, I suspect you don't want anything actually going on in the natural world. Let me know.
-
I am a convinced geocentrist and believe the earth is less than 10000 years old. But the question of the theological status of these points is still not as simple as one would like.
In my view, the Holy Office decree on Geocentrism, so far as the doctrinal decision in it is concerned, is well and truly irreformable. It is unanimously taught by theologians that although a practical decision (such as banning this or that book) of the Holy Office may be reversed, a doctrinal judgment contained therein is irreformable and subsequently enjoys the appropriate divine protection and requires religious assent.
Also, I do not see how this canon "If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God ... let him be anathema" is compatible at least with some specific forms of theistic evolution which does deny precisely this.
But then again it is clear that both the cited 1909 decision and Pope Pius XII allow free speculation on some points, so person can't be called non-Catholic who hold the contrary opinion within the prescribed bounds the Church permits.
In my opinion, the Church allows free discussion on some matters even when She knows for certain what is true and what is false when, owing to human weakness, it is not easily shown from reason alone that the contrary view is false.
This explains Her permitting speculation both on heliocentrism and evolution. She did not want to require all Her faithful to profess it at a time when from reason alone geocentrism seemed very difficult to defend.
St. Augustine says if we know something to be true from the faith, we should absolutely hold and confess it, but if we are unable to answer the objections of unbelievers, then we should strive with all our skill and understanding to do so. We may fail in this, but we should not fail in knowing what is the truth from the faith, and professing it.
Anyway, on science and religion or reason and faith in particular, the relevant canons and passages from the Church's teaching to guide our discussion are,
Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth ...
If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the Church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema.
-
Nishant wrote:
Also, I do not see how this canon "If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God ... let him be anathema" is compatible at least with some specific forms of theistic evolution which does deny precisely this.
You need to lay out your reasoning for this. The word evolution is from the Latin evolvere, which I am told by Latinists means to unroll, as a scroll. The basic idea behind theistic evolution is that God created over time, and continues to. Nothing would exist if He did not will it, and nothing existed without His will.
'Ex Nihilo' really concerns pre-existing matter. A lesser sort of God, of the variety some pagans worshipped, might be imagined to fashion something magically within the universe. By contrast, to denote the One, True, Omnipotent God, Christians note that He is the cause of everything, and nothing that exists was not caused by Him.
That is the common explanation.
Now, I'm not certain I would qualify as a 'theistic evolutionist'. I'll epxlain.
Among those who consent to an old Earth and the geologic record as it appears, and believe that God created and is the cause of everything, there are two main schools of thought.
1.God's constant guidance of creation has left visible signs.
2.God's constant guidance of creation has not left any visible signs.
#1 is normally called "Intelligent design theory" in the United States. #2 is normally called "Theistic evolution" in the United States. Note that the usages are different in Europe, most notably at the Vatican.
-
This explains Her permitting speculation both on heliocentrism and evolution. She did not want to require all Her faithful to profess it at a time when from reason alone geocentrism seemed very difficult to defend.
Herein lies the problem.
Geocentrism is much, much less viable now than at any time in the past. Bob Sungenis runs a cottage industry to convince people that the world is just about to come over to geocentrism (it's always 'just about' to) primarily by misquoting people, committing the very worst debate sins, and speaking about theoretical math which has no bearing on the issue.
Personally, I fear greatly for Bob Sungenis.
So, to 99% of humanity, and 100% of those humans whose job is to solve practical problems in planetary mechanics, geocentrism in completely indefensible. Note that you, very reasonably, have said that the Church did not want the faithful to profess geocentrism when it seemed difficult to defend. Back then, there was no NASA. No computers. No mars rovers. No sputnik. No geostationary satellites...
The information about geocentrism upon which reason operates always comes from outside the Church. It is scientific information.
Do you think the scientific concensus (that's what you are talking about, then and now) has really moved in any way at all toward geocentrism? So, if it was a good idea then to suppress geocentrism, it's an even better idea now.
-
Geocentrism is much, much less viable now than at any time in the past.
This is an opinion, right?
-
2.God's constant guidance of creation has not left any visible signs.
OUR KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.
A.—NATURAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.
SECT. 54. — Natural Knowledge of God considered generally.
I. The Catholic doctrine on man's natural knowledge of God was defined by the Vatican Council: “Holy Mother Church doth hold and teach that God, the beginning and end of all things, can certainly be known from created things by the natural light of reason ; 'for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made' (Rom. i. 20). … If any one shall say that the One true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason from the things that are made, let him be anathema” (sess. iii., De Fide Catholica, ch. 2 and the corresponding can. ii. I.).
Holy Scripture, upon which the council's definition is based, teaches the same doctrine in many passages.
-
No, that's not what you have.
You have one species, delivered to a geographically isolated area 500 years ago. That species still exists on the mainland.
In the isolated area, you have 5 or 6 new species showing exactly the kind of chromosomal variations you asked for, all on the island. They are all, on the island. They are mixed, hence the dispute about how many species are actually represented. This is ongoing.
Examples, made to order, don't get any better than that.
You specifically asked about chromosomal changes, to show you one ongoing specifically requires a species with instability in this area. Like mice. A perfect natural laboratory of mice. Madeira.
If you want other types of genetic speciation, look at Ensatina salamanders, or pizzly bears. (yes, Pizzly.)
If you want a behaviorally generated genetic speciation event, look at apple maggot flies, or American Meadowlarks and their separation into Eastern and Western species.
But, I suspect you don't want anything actually going on in the natural world. Let me know.
I do appreciate your providing this list of examples. As you suspected, I was actually looking for data collected outside of nature; in a laboratory to be specific. These samples taken from nature, have no control imposed on them, and can therefore be explained by a vast array of diverse hypotheses, none of which can be succinctly proven. In order to keep this discussion focused, I will stick to the example of the madeira mice, reported in 2000. Since the discovery of these mice, there has been a great amount of research conducted, and I will use this to illustrate my point, which is not that I can prove Darwin's theory of evolution to be false, but that it cannot be proven to be true, using evidence such as what you've provided.
The original report of chromosomal races speculated that the differentiation had arisen from drift in isolates in the steep valleys radiating from the old volcanoes, which rise to a height of 1862 m (Britton-Davidian et al. 1990, elaborated in Britton-Davidian et al. 2005) – a suggestion reminiscent of that made by Henry Crampton to account for differentiation in Partula populations, which he studied for almost 50 years on the Society Island of Moorea, a hypothesis comprehensively demolished by Johnson et al. (1993). More detailed studies of the Madeiran mice, extending to allozyme and mtDNA analyses, indicated no lack of diversity, implying that the colonization was by a large number of founders or that there had been more than one colonizing event (Gündüz et al. 2001; Britton-Davidian et al. 2007). The authors favoured the latter explanation, not least because the island mice allozyme comparisons showed them to be more closely related to animals from their likely source on mainland Portugal, while their mtDNA haplotypes suggested immigrants from northern Europe.
This conclusion is strengthened by a paper in this issue (Förster et al. 2009). Previous comparisons largely lacked information about variation in the genomes of Portuguese mainland mice; they were based on only nine mice from central Portugal. This new study fills this gap with 76 animals caught at 14 sites in Portugal, mainly from ports which had historical links with Madeira (Fig. 1), allowing more precise comparisons with samples from Madeira and its neighbouring island of Porto Santo. The authors found four mitochondrial (D-loop) lineages in the mainland animals, one of which dominates. The diversity of the samples in Portugal was similar to that found elsewhere (in Italy, Greece and Turkey). They concluded that there were probably multiple colonizations into Portugal, with a most likely common ancestor from the eastern Mediterranean area. Estimates of expansion time concur with zooarchaeological findings that mice reached the Iberian Peninsula at least 2500 years ago.
image
Figure 1.  Portuguese house mice, such as this one caught and photographed in Vila Franca de Xira, Portugal, have apparently contributed substantial nuclear, but not mitochondrial variation to house mouse populations in Madeira. Photo credit: Sofia Gabriel.
The island mice are very different. Only one animal had a haplotype of the dominant Portuguese clade; 99% of the mice had sequences common in Denmark, Sweden and Germany, more than half having haplotypes identical with those found in northern Europe. Estimates of the time of expansion of the Madeiran population are imprecise, but suggest a date more than 900 years ago, much earlier than 1419 ad, the traditional date of discovery of Madeira by Portuguese voyagers. However, the previous finding that the nuclear genome of the island mice is much more like the Portuguese variation than north European complicates this picture (Britton-Davidian et al. 2007). Förster et al. suggest that it might be explained by the asymmetric spread of nuclear genes following introduction of mice from Portugal into an already established ‘north European’ population, along the lines of the situation uncovered by Jones et al. (1995) in an introduction experiment on the Isle of May (Scotland).
So what you have here, originally presumed to have been a single migration event of a homogeneous group of mice, has been demonstrably shown to have been multiple migrations spanning from 500 BC until the present. One of those migrations included mice from portugal, and you now have a genetic mixed bag of mice, which are all related to the mice from Portugal, and the mice from Italy, Greece, Turkey, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany. Meanwhile, the original hypothesis of a single migration event of mice, self differentiating and changing their number of chromosomes over the course of the past 500 years has probably been printed and reprinted in biology textbooks, as proof of speciation, and most likely still remains in those textbooks, without being tempered by the most recent research, which proves that this was a vast array of species, which came here, over the course of multiple migrations, from various parts of Europe.
This is why we can't put blind faith in scientists who have no Faith in God. I agree with you that there is no reason for Catholics to put issues like this on the front burner. Prayer, study, and penance are what we do. By the same token, we are under no obligation to blindly accept the "findings" of scientists with clear bias against a supernatural explanation of our world.
-
SECT. 54. — Natural Knowledge of God considered generally.
I. The Catholic doctrine on man's natural knowledge of God was defined by the Vatican Council: “Holy Mother Church doth hold and teach that God, the beginning and end of all things, can certainly be known from created things by the natural light of reason ; 'for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made' (Rom. i. 20). … If any one shall say that the One true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason from the things that are made, let him be anathema” (sess. iii., De Fide Catholica, ch. 2 and the corresponding can. ii. I.).
Yes, but that doesn't rule on the issue I mentioned. God can be known from the orderly universe, as you referenced, but not in an infinite number of ways. It is the ways that matter.
Consider that although we have an assurance that God is the cause of all things, many of those things will not avail us if we attempt to use them to prove God's existence.
This is the meat of the question 'does the universe run according to the laws of nature' or not.
-
Soldier - Excellent work. I will not overlook your post. And, I think you and I will find mostly common ground. Pleas be patient with me, I want to concentrate on the geocentrism thread, but will not forget you. thanks.
-
Quote:
Geocentrism is much, much less viable now than at any time in the past.
This is an opinion, right?
Is it? That's the point. I was responding to a post that claimed:
In my opinion, the Church allows free discussion on some matters even when She knows for certain what is true and what is false when, owing to human weakness, it is not easily shown from reason alone that the contrary view is false.
So, what is being said here? That the Church allows free discussion on matters when it is not easily shown from reason alone which is the right teaching.
Well, we're talking about geocentrism in that post, and perhaps tangentially evolution...both ideas came from outside the Church, as matters of secular science.
So, I think the principle the poster articulated could be very reasonably re-started (and omitting an un-neccessary phrase):
In my opinion, the Church allows free discussion on some matters even when She knows for certain what is true and what is false when, it is not easily shown from reason starting from the data provided by secular science, that the contrary view is false.
Otherwise, what are we talking about? Secular science provides the claim that geocentrism is false, and that life evolved. If it's not easily shown by reason, that would be (and would only be) because the latest secular science does not support the claim.
Well...if in the case of geocentrism we are talking about the latest secular science informing the reason, then we're still talking about the same thing.
In that case, yes, geocentrism is in much worse shape today than it was at any time in the past. The measurements are the same, but to a higher degree of accuracy. The mechanical proofs of flying spaceships exist now.
If this process the poster is describing is, in a nutshell, the prudential reaction of the Church to the state of secular science, then my point is proven. Bob Sungenis is not 'secular science'. Secular scientists are.
-
Soldier wrote:
So what you have here, originally presumed to have been a single migration event of a homogeneous group of mice, has been demonstrably shown to have been multiple migrations spanning from 500 BC until the present. One of those migrations included mice from portugal, and you now have a genetic mixed bag of mice, which are all related to the mice from Portugal, and the mice from Italy, Greece, Turkey, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany. Meanwhile, the original hypothesis of a single migration event of mice, self differentiating and changing their number of chromosomes over the course of the past 500 years has probably been printed and reprinted in biology textbooks, as proof of speciation, and most likely still remains in those textbooks, without being tempered by the most recent research, which proves that this was a vast array of species, which came here, over the course of multiple migrations, from various parts of Europe.
And, in the 3rd approximation, you still have a group of mice with chromosomal variations that have arisen on Madeira. The 99-2001 era textbooks appear to show a mono-genesis explanation from Portuguese mice, 2008-2011 textbooks show the various locations from which parent genotypes came.
So, now I have a question for you. Since there are chromosomal variations on Madeira not found on the mainland...what has changed with your added info?
I like your dilligence. But, you'll need to explain why you're not majoring in minors.
-
SECT. 54. — Natural Knowledge of God considered generally.
I. The Catholic doctrine on man's natural knowledge of God was defined by the Vatican Council: “Holy Mother Church doth hold and teach that God, the beginning and end of all things, can certainly be known from created things by the natural light of reason ; 'for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made' (Rom. i. 20). … If any one shall say that the One true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason from the things that are made, let him be anathema” (sess. iii., De Fide Catholica, ch. 2 and the corresponding can. ii. I.).
Yes, but that doesn't rule on the issue I mentioned. God can be known from the orderly universe, as you referenced, but not in an infinite number of ways. It is the ways that matter.
Consider that although we have an assurance that God is the cause of all things, many of those things will not avail us if we attempt to use them to prove God's existence.
This is the meat of the question 'does the universe run according to the laws of nature' or not.
My point was that the below appears to be heretical.
2.God's constant guidance of creation has not left any visible signs.
-
My point was that the below appears to be heretical.
I don't see that. In order for it to be heretical, the Church would have to mean 'Obvious, miraculous signs of God's active will intruding into the physical universe'.
It seems to be the difference between 'the world declares the glory of God'
and
'I can prove God's existence from physical evidence on Earth"
Catholics are bound to the one, but not the other.
-
My point was that the below appears to be heretical.
I don't see that. In order for it to be heretical, the Church would have to mean 'Obvious, miraculous signs of God's active will intruding into the physical universe'.
It seems to be the difference between 'the world declares the glory of God'
and
'I can prove God's existence from physical evidence on Earth"
Catholics are bound to the one, but not the other.
The very existence of creation is the sign. A miracle suspends the laws of nature.
-
The very existence of creation is the sign. A miracle suspends the laws of nature.
Yes. I know. I've posted that several times now.
I'm talking about evolutionary development. If one postulates that evolutionary development occurred, then there is disagreement among theists as to whether one can expect to observe that type of suspension of the laws of nature in speciation and morphological transition.
I'm not aware that the Church has ever said it's heretical to say that one doesn't expect to observe a miracle in the fossil record of speciation events.
-
The very existence of creation is the sign. A miracle suspends the laws of nature.
Yes. I know. I've posted that several times now.
I'm talking about evolutionary development. If one postulates that evolutionary development occurred, then there is disagreement among theists as to whether one can expect to observe that type of suspension of the laws of nature in speciation and morphological transition.
I'm not aware that the Church has ever said it's heretical to say that one doesn't expect to observe a miracle in the fossil record of speciation events.
I think you misunderstand what a miracle truly is and why it sometimes occurs. The created natural world isn't a "miracle" in the sense I think you mean it.
-
See attached
-
I think you misunderstand what a miracle truly is and why it sometimes occurs. The created natural world isn't a "miracle" in the sense I think you mean it.
You and I are talking at cross purposes. From my perspective, you repeat to me, what I have just posted.
Either we need to quit, or start fresh. I don't care. This will start up again soon enough anyway.
-
Soldier wrote:
So what you have here, originally presumed to have been a single migration event of a homogeneous group of mice, has been demonstrably shown to have been multiple migrations spanning from 500 BC until the present. One of those migrations included mice from portugal, and you now have a genetic mixed bag of mice, which are all related to the mice from Portugal, and the mice from Italy, Greece, Turkey, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany. Meanwhile, the original hypothesis of a single migration event of mice, self differentiating and changing their number of chromosomes over the course of the past 500 years has probably been printed and reprinted in biology textbooks, as proof of speciation, and most likely still remains in those textbooks, without being tempered by the most recent research, which proves that this was a vast array of species, which came here, over the course of multiple migrations, from various parts of Europe.
And, in the 3rd approximation, you still have a group of mice with chromosomal variations that have arisen on Madeira. The 99-2001 era textbooks appear to show a mono-genesis explanation from Portuguese mice, 2008-2011 textbooks show the various locations from which parent genotypes came.
So, now I have a question for you. Since there are chromosomal variations on Madeira not found on the mainland...what has changed with your added info?
I like your dilligence. But, you'll need to explain why you're not majoring in minors.
The change is that it's no longer even close to a controlled environment. The hybrid lineages of mice exhibit exactly what we would expect with hybridization. Genes passed from one type to another through reproduction, but certainly not through the overloading of genetic information on specific chromosomes, leading to the splitting of once singular chromosomes into two distinct chromosomes, nor does it display the fusing of chromosomes into fewer, larger chromosomes. This would mean that similar, but distinct groups of mice would have bred, and had reproductively viable offspring, to carry on the mtDNA of the one, with a combination of the nuclear DNA of both parents, the mtDNA in this case, coming from the already established population of mice on the island. I find this to be an example of micro-evolution; just a small change in the gene pool due to the mixing of populations. Nothing to suggest a change in the number of chromosomes however. I would imagine that since it was the native population of mice which supplied the mtDNA, that that was the dominant group in the genetic mixing. If samples were to be taken from northern europe, Greece, Italy, and Turkey, I suppose that we would find mice with that number of chromosomes.
-
Apparently not, but I'm not going to spend $4.95 to read to see if I understood the abstract as well as I think.
So, what do we do? Discuss other examples of chromosomal fusion? Talk about why you want it to be chromosomal fusion instead of something else?
Do something different altogether?
-
Apparently not, but I'm not going to spend $4.95 to read to see if I understood the abstract as well as I think.
So, what do we do? Discuss other examples of chromosomal fusion? Talk about why you want it to be chromosomal fusion instead of something else?
Do something different altogether?
Full paper (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04345.x/full)
Not sure which site was trying to charge you, but it's available for free at wiley.com.
I suppose that the chromosomal fusion requirement was a bit arbitrary. I simply don't find myself able to view micro-evolution as proof of macro-evolution. The reason is that micro-evolution is not really evolution; it is only genetic variation brought on by mixing of like organisms. For this reason, I find the term unfair, as it presupposes that which it aims to prove. For a reduxio ad absurdum analogy, I could posit that grown humans have webbed feet, based on the evidence of skin found in human children between their toes, which we will henceforward refer to as micro-webbing. We know with certainty that adult humans would have webbed feet, as micro-webbing logically gives rise to macro-webbing.
I don't endeavor to figure out how God created man, but I certainly reject any theory which posits that man gradually evolved from apes. Humans are so so different from primates, not just in the shape and bilogical functions of our bodies, but even more so in our deep intellects, and spirituality. That's not even to mention Revelation which tells us that God created us in His Image.
-
Humans are so so different from primates, not just in the shape and bilogical functions of our bodies
But we're not so different from Cro Magnons.
And they are not so different from Homo Erectus.
And they are not so different from Homo Habilis.
you get the drift.
but even more so in our deep intellects, and spirituality.
Yes. But this is why the Church (Humani Generis 1950) has drawn a bright line between the evolution of the body and reception of the soul direct from God.
We believe we are ensouled, and therefore are different in kind, not just degree, from any animals. This does not, however, mean that our bodies are not very much like animal bodies.
One Chromosomal fusion is the primary difference between human and chimpanzee chromosomes.
(http://www.metaprimate.com/IMG/Human-and-chimpanzee-chromosomes.png)
-
.
I simply don't find myself able to view micro-evolution as proof of macro-evolution. The reason is that micro-evolution is not really evolution; it is only genetic variation brought on by mixing of like organisms. For this reason, I find the term unfair, as it presupposes that which it aims to prove.
You're unwise to even stoop to using the term, "micro-evolution," because it's just a myth. There is no such thing. The usurpers of science came up with that stupid term to try and help make peace with the heretics who believe in their demigods Charles, and put the creeping things and birds and four footed beasts above divine revelation, and put the likeness of their image (fossils) in place of the likeness of God. It comes down to breaking the First Commandment: "I Am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before Me."
Well, the false scientists of the past 140 years have upheld their demigods Charles doing just that.
They are the ones who put their strange gods before God,
"Who changed the truth of God for a lie; and worshipped
and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is
blessed forever. Amen" (St. Paul, Rom. i. 25).
.
-
Humans are so so different from primates, not just in the shape and bilogical functions of our bodies
But we're not so different from Cro Magnons.
And they are not so different from Homo Erectus.
And they are not so different from Homo Habilis.
you get the drift.
but even more so in our deep intellects, and spirituality.
Yes. But this is why the Church (Humani Generis 1950) has drawn a bright line between the evolution of the body and reception of the soul direct from God.
We believe we are ensouled, and therefore are different in kind, not just degree, from any animals. This does not, however, mean that our bodies are not very much like animal bodies.
One Chromosomal fusion is the primary difference between human and chimpanzee chromosomes.
I would just have this to say, Cro Magnons would appear to just be human beings, as would neanderthals. Homo Habilis has the cranial capacity of a gorilla at best. At worst, it would be in the chimpanzee/orangutan range.
As far as Homo Erectus, I find this history of its "discovery" from Salvemariaregina (http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-152/Chardin.htm) to be quite alarming:
Peking Man: Dr. Davidson Black, in 1914, had helped put together the Piltdown skull. In 1926 while Piltdown Man still reigned in England, Black and Chardin were in China looking for fossils.
In 1927 a molar tooth was found. Black pronounced that it was part ape, part human, and Peking Man was born. The press welcomed a new ancestor based on one tooth. Next, in 1929, something of a skull was found. Teilhard at first reported that it "manifestly resembles the great apes closely." Experts agreed that it was a baboon or large monkey.
The theology of man.(Image at right: Teilhard contemplates the "theology of man" in this "skull" -- real or fake.) Dr. Black wanted his ape-man, however. He made a model of a skull, falsely described by Chardin as a cast, and gave it a brain capacity of 960 c.c. -- far in excess of the skull earlier described by Chardin.
Later the two announced that they had found "traces of fire" amongst more fossils; that Peking Man walked upright, lived in caves, etc. Evidence was twisted and suppressed to fabricate Peking Man; the press cooperated, and the world fell for it.
Then the eminent anthropologists, Professor Breuil and Marcellin Boule were invited to the site. Breuil found that the "traces of fire" were actually the remains of industrial furnaces run by humans. Boule found the same thing; he added that the skulls were of monkeys eaten by the humans. Near the end of 1933, human skulls were unearthed at the site, supporting the findings of Breuil and Boule. But their voices were scarcely heard. The world was systematically deceived, and Peking Man grew stronger on the diet of deceit. So also did Dr. Black's stature. By 1934, he had received the honor of Fellow of the Royal Society of London. But in March of that year, he was found dead in his laboratory, among the human fossils.
Dr. Franz Weidenreich (Image at left: Dr. Franz Weidenreich) Teilhard reported that human remains had been found, but, without going to investigate the site, he dismissed them as being of a later date. When Dr. Franz Weidenreich took charge, he proceeded to make his own model of Peking Man. He used parts of four different skull pieces, then had a sculptress mold them into a female skull, with a whopping 1200 c.c. brain capacity!
In 1937, Teilhard contradicted his earlier report and published an article which conveyed that no human remains had been found. Instead he spoke of a "great male" ape-man to refute Boule's view that real men were needed to work the industry.
But why not examine the actual fossils to get to the truth? This cannot be done, because every fossil bone originally claimed to be of Peking Man has disappeared. All that is left are the imaginative models. No one knows what happened to the fossils, but Father Patrick O'Connell, who investigated the affair, wrote: "The skulls were therefore destroyed, in order to remove the evidence of fraud on a large scale."
Java Man: (Image at left: a helmeted Chardin helps out at Java.) In 1891, Dr. Eugene Dubois of Holland gave up his career and went to Java to search for the missing link. Later he presented to the world his Pithecanthropus Erectus, or Java Man. Java Man became a hero, talked about in the same way as were Pitt and Napoleon. Popular histories published detailed portraits of him. G. K. Chesterton commented that no uninformed person looking at his carefully lined face would imagine that this was a portrait of a thigh-bone, a few teeth, and a fragment of cranium. How did it happen? In 1895, when Dubois returned to Europe, he showed to an International Congress of zoologists what he had found in a river bed in Java: a skullcap and a tooth, which both appeared to belong to an ape. He also showed them something that had been found a year later and about 50 feet distant, namely, a thigh bone that seemed to be human.
Dubois insisted they belonged together and scientists let him say so, because it was believed that man had only recently migrated to Java. So, assuming there had been no humans in Java, they allowed the ape's skullcap to belong to the human thigh bone, and there was the "missing link" which they wanted to find.
However, Dr. Dubois had not told the whole truth. He had not told the most important part of the story -- he had also found two human skulls in the same stratum as the skullcap. To have told this would have spoiled his case because those human skulls showed that real human beings did live in Java at the same time as the supposed ape-men. And that would have meant that there was no need to link the thigh bone with the skullcap 50 feet distant.
In addition to the exploits of Dubois, there were two later expeditions to Java. The Selenka expedition, 1907-8, was conducted with strict scientific discipline. It found evidence indicating human existence in the same stratum as the supposed ape-man. It found no evidence supporting the Dubois ape-man. These findings were a setback to the "missing link." Then around 1921, Dubois revealed his secret about the human skulls. Something had to be done to save Java Man; so a third expedition was begun.
In 1931, G. H. R. von Koenigswald was sent to search the area. He found a number of human skulls, but no "missing links." Because of the Great Depression, von Koenigswald lost his funding. But in 1936, through Teilhard de Chardin's influence, he was granted considerable funds through the Carnegie Foundation in America. One writer observed: "One has the impression of a vast web, of which Teilhard held in part the threads, where he served as liaison agent, or better still, as chief of staff, able, like a magician, to make American money flow, or at least to channel it for the greatest good of palaentology."
Thus von Koenigswald returned to the quest. By 1938 he had found fragments of jawbones, some teeth, fragments of skulls and a skullcap. From these he produced Java Man II, III and IV. But these fossils had the same characteristics as the Dubois Java Man I. Several experts judged them to be "very similar to those of chimpanzees and gibbons."
By this time, Dubois was repudiating his own Java Man. He declared that, after long study, he was of the opinion that "we are here concerned with a gigantic gibbon." Ironically, now that he was trying to make amends, he was dismissed as unreliable. He was not allowed to kill off his own Java Man, which came to be enshrined (together with Peking Man) as "Homo Erectus," the beginning of man.
-
.
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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php), 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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php), because he's never heard of the guy, and he's too yellow to bother finding out.
.
-
.
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.
.
-
I think you misunderstand what a miracle truly is and why it sometimes occurs. The created natural world isn't a "miracle" in the sense I think you mean it.
You and I are talking at cross purposes. From my perspective, you repeat to me, what I have just posted.
Either we need to quit, or start fresh. I don't care. This will start up again soon enough anyway.
No, I just see your future attempt to say evolution is fact, but since I believe it's a miracle, I can still claim I'm a good Catholic while I corrupt others.
-
.
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 Icterus, 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. The problem, as I see it, is that people like Icterus find it difficult to accept the overwhelming evidence that a conspiracy of immense proportion is under way. 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. 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 of the foundational evidence required to even propose evolution as a likely possibility. 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 there theorization. I think that Icterus is a real Catholic, who has been fooled by very crafty zionists. 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 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. Icterus 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. That is what Icterus 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 (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/protocolsofsion.shtml#4)
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.
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.
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. To us Jєωs, 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. 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.
-
It would appear that the zionists bluffed and the Pontifical Commission folded.
Well, that's insane.
However, as long as trads are honest and consistent enough to judge the 1909 decree heretical, I feel like the point of the thread is made. I just worked my way through the awful and long-winded and essentially un-edited (or edited by a ten-year-old) creation book published by Kolbe and written by Warkulwiz. In it, he goes on about 1909 as if it assists their case. As long as that myth is put to rest, I figure the thread has done its job.
So, the modernist takeover is rolled back to 1908....
-
It would appear that the zionists bluffed and the Pontifical Commission folded.
Well, that's insane.
However, as long as trads are honest and consistent enough to judge the 1909 decree heretical, I feel like the point of the thread is made. I just worked my way through the awful and long-winded and essentially un-edited (or edited by a ten-year-old) creation book published by Kolbe and written by Warkulwiz. In it, he goes on about 1909 as if it assists their case. As long as that myth is put to rest, I figure the thread has done its job.
So, the modernist takeover is rolled back to 1908....
Please don't put words in my mouth. This strawman tendancy of your's is very discouraging for the hopes of future arguments.
As long as Icterus keeps intentionally bearing false witness against his neighbors, then my point is made, that he is a willfull, public sinner. [I'm not actually saying that, but it's just as fair as your above statement.]
-
So, the modernist takeover is rolled back to 1908....
Ok, then how about "The capitulation to Zionists is rolled back to 1908".
:smoke-pot:
-
Icterus, since you've now returned to the table, how about a comment on all of the demostrated hoaxes of evidence regarding man's "evolution" from ape to man? If you've forgotten the link, here it is Evidence for man's ascendance from monkeys (http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-152/Chardin.htm)
-
Yes, I'll be glad to do that. I ask your patience. We are hosting clerics for dinner tonite, and I have to keep the new dog isolated from clean cassocks.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=28848&min=55#p3)
.
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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php)], 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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php) 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.
The problem, as I see it, is that people like [jaundice (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php)] 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."
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.
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.
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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php)] is a real Catholic, who has been fooled by very crafty zionists.
Or, jaundice (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php) could be a fraud who has merely succeeded in fooling you.
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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php)] 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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php) 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.
That is what [jaundice (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php)] 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 (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/protocolsofsion.shtml#4)
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.)
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.
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?
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.
..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.
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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php) 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:
.
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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php), 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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php), because he's never heard of the guy, and he's too yellow to bother finding out.
.
-
.
As Shakespeare said, "Therein lies the rub."
The difference between you and jaundice (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php) 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.
And when you told someone that you would read some material, or watch a video or check out a website, you would do it, unlike jaundice, (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php) who is FAR MORE LIKELY to be this type of troll, fake and liar who goes, "LET'S NOT AND SAY WE DID."
.
-
Neil wrote:
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.
Neil, you're going on ignore. I think most likely you are not responsible for what you're typing.
In addition, you seem to be hopelessly attached to an idea that is even crazier than most of the others floating around here, that all of modern geology was penned by one untrained man, and everyone who has come after has not done any actual work, but just built on an edifice so shoddy that you, one lone untrained man, can pull it all down.
That's so stupid it does not deserve any time, research, or response. I have serious criticisms for a lot of the ideas and personalities here, but you are so far beyond the pale that I am not going to dignify your craziness with any responses.
Bona fortuna, mate. I think you'll need it.
-
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
-
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.
When one dogma is "overturned," it matters little which ones remain untouched.
-
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.
Not all conclusions are actually factual however. Your faith in man is unshakable.
-
SJB wrote:
Not all conclusions are actually factual however. Your faith in man is unshakable.
Non sequitur...and silly. I'm pointing out that the criticism offered by Johnson is nonsensical.
Do you disagree?
If so, why?
If not, then be a man and say you agree and quit calling down doom over every single thing I post. You come off like a nutcase, when I suspect you are not.
-
When one dogma is "overturned," it matters little which ones remain untouched.
Nonsense statement. Nothing in your sentence has any content. Dogmas cannot be overturned. Ergo, 'when' in your statement is a hypothetical, a condition that cannot exist and which mankind has no experience with, and therefore to say anything about such a condition is fatuous.
If you mean to say "In the mind of the heretic" then again, nonsense. You have no idea how disbelieving one dogma as opposed to another will affect the heretic. If disbelieving in the resurrection, he may never again be convinced of it. If disbelieving in the Trinity, he may stumble across De Trinitas in the library and become re-converted. Who knows. Quit typing nonsense.
-
SJB, I'm calling you to a better class of posts. You could be discussing the actual matter at hand. Instead, you are just junking up threads with nonsense. I know you can do better. I call on you to do so.
-
When one dogma is "overturned," it matters little which ones remain untouched.
Nonsense statement. Nothing in your sentence has any content. Dogmas cannot be overturned. Ergo, 'when' in your statement is a hypothetical, a condition that cannot exist and which mankind has no experience with, and therefore to say anything about such a condition is fatuous.
If you mean to say "In the mind of the heretic" then again, nonsense. You have no idea how disbelieving one dogma as opposed to another will affect the heretic. If disbelieving in the resurrection, he may never again be convinced of it. If disbelieving in the Trinity, he may stumble across De Trinitas in the library and become re-converted. Who knows. Quit typing nonsense.
If you notice, the word "overturned" is in quotes. Do you have any idea what the quotation marks might signify?
-
Quit being coy. It's not attractive.
-
Quit being coy. It's not attractive.
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jєωs; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval.
[...]
In fact the long list of heresiarchs contains the name of only one who came to resipiscence: Berengarius.
Does it matter which one you corrupt?
-
I was trying to comment substantively on the article Soldier linked. That was just not going to be allowed here, was it.
-
When one dogma is "overturned," it matters little which ones remain untouched.
Nonsense statement. Nothing in your sentence has any content. Dogmas cannot be overturned. Ergo, 'when' in your statement is a hypothetical, a condition that cannot exist and which mankind has no experience with, and therefore to say anything about such a condition is fatuous.
If you mean to say "In the mind of the heretic" then again, nonsense. You have no idea how disbelieving one dogma as opposed to another will affect the heretic. If disbelieving in the resurrection, he may never again be convinced of it. If disbelieving in the Trinity, he may stumble across De Trinitas in the library and become re-converted. Who knows. Quit typing nonsense.
The denial of one dogma puts one outside the Church, which should strike fear into the heart of a Catholic. You seem to think one can merely stumble across something and become re-converted.
This is why I say you have no Catholic sense.
-
The denial of one dogma puts one outside the Church, which should strike fear into the heart of a Catholic. You seem to think one can merely stumble across something and become re-converted.
Of course one can be reconciled to the Church, even after manifest heresy.
This is what makes me think you have a screw loose.
-
Oh, and this thread is apparently now just for SJB's weird nit-pickings. I'll put up with that for about 2 more posts, then I'm leaving it. If Matthew allows, I'd like to post a fresh thread specifically about human evolution.
-
The denial of one dogma puts one outside the Church, which should strike fear into the heart of a Catholic. You seem to think one can merely stumble across something and become re-converted.
Of course one can be reconciled to the Church, even after manifest heresy.
This is what makes me think you have a screw loose.
I think that this brings us to a central point. Faith is a supernatural Gift from God. It is Knowledge of Him. It is not the same thing as belief, which would imply arrival at a conclusion based on evidence and argument. As Faith is a Gift, we cannot get It back just by seeing better evidence or a better argument of His Existence. You could put the best logical proof imaginable in front of a person who has no Faith. They might agree with you and believe that God exists, but they will still be filled with doubt, as they have no supernatural Knowledge of Him. The only way for them to get the Gift back, is for God to give It back to them.
-
You oversimplify a mystery of the faith.
"Seek and ye shall find"
Remember, the Church is not Calvinist, and has remained on the horns of the debate for over a thousand years, never veering too far in that direction, or toward pelagianism.
So, yes, even after being heretical, a person may be reconciled to the faith if they recant, and this has happened.
Now...will everyone quit picking at one small issue that was not my point at all? You asked for a critique of your linked article. I took the time to do that. If you have lost interest, at least let me know so I can move on. Thx.
-
The denial of one dogma puts one outside the Church, which should strike fear into the heart of a Catholic. You seem to think one can merely stumble across something and become re-converted.
Of course one can be reconciled to the Church, even after manifest heresy.
This is what makes me think you have a screw loose.
I never said a true heretic couldn't repent and be reconciled to the Church. I do think this is very difficult, as the history of heretics suggests.
-
You oversimplify a mystery of the faith.
"Seek and ye shall find"
Remember, the Church is not Calvinist, and has remained on the horns of the debate for over a thousand years, never veering too far in that direction, or toward pelagianism.
So, yes, even after being heretical, a person may be reconciled to the faith if they recant, and this has happened.
Now...will everyone quit picking at one small issue that was not my point at all? You asked for a critique of your linked article. I took the time to do that. If you have lost interest, at least let me know so I can move on. Thx.
Sorry to leave you hanging Icterus. I won't be available tomorrow at all, but I will respond to your critique on Thursday if that works for you.
-
I miss SS :smoke-pot:
-
I never said a true heretic couldn't repent and be reconciled to the Church. I do think this is very difficult, as the history of heretics suggests.
So why are you wasting my time? I suggest that if you don't care about a real critique of the Johnson article, or have anything further to say about the PBC, get out.
Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to [a true belief in] Christ's passion, which is our resurrection. - St. Ignatius of Antioch.
-
I never said a true heretic couldn't repent and be reconciled to the Church. I do think this is very difficult, as the history of heretics suggests.
So why are you wasting my time? I suggest that if you don't care about a real critique of the Johnson article, or have anything further to say about the PBC, get out.
Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to [a true belief in] Christ's passion, which is our resurrection. - St. Ignatius of Antioch.
You've been wasting everybody's time with these types of responses. I'm not interested in "the Johnson article," I was commenting on your lack of a Catholic sense.
-
I was commenting on your lack of a Catholic sense.
Going ALL the way back...no one here is denying any dogmas of the faith. The author in question (the one you don't care to discuss) made claims about it. I said they were silly. I still think they're silly. I think you get confused easily and don't have much of substance to say. You seem fascinated by me, one can only wonder why.
-
I was commenting on your lack of a Catholic sense.
Going ALL the way back...no one here is denying any dogmas of the faith. The author in question (the one you don't care to discuss) made claims about it. I said they were silly. I still think they're silly. I think you get confused easily and don't have much of substance to say. You seem fascinated by me, one can only wonder why.
Your response is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The Catholic Faith isn't about simply never denying "a dogma of the faith" when it is clear that you believe the only truths are those who have been the subject of a solemn definition.
-
This is going nowhere. You're not even reading what I'm posting...that or your comprehension is abysmal.
-
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.
-
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 investigation. The only people that I see coming out of the field of evolutionary biology are devout, militant atheists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
-
I'll edit my last post later in attempt to get the format to reflect the quotes intelligibly.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=28848&min=60#p4)
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 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=28848&min=55#p3)
.
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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php)], 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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php) 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.
The problem, as I see it, is that people like [jaundice (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php)] 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."
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.
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.
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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php)] is a real Catholic, who has been fooled by very crafty zionists.
Or, jaundice (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php) could be a fraud who has merely succeeded in fooling you.
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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php)] 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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php) 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.
That is what [jaundice (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php)] 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 (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/protocolsofsion.shtml#4)
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.)
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.
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?
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.
..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.
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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php) 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:
.
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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php), 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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php), because he's never heard of the guy, and he's too yellow to bother finding out.
.
-
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.
-
Soldier wrote:
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 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.
-
.
From the 4th post on p. 19 -- could you explain who you're quoting in that post? It's very confusing to read.
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.
.
-
.
From the 4th post on p. 19 -- could you explain who you're quoting in that post? It's very confusing to read.
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.
-
Soldier wrote:
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
“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.
-
“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.
-
… there is nothing for us to learn from them.
Do you ever use zeros when you're trying to calculate the tax on your Whopper Jr. and shake? I still have a headache from the last time I tried to figure out how much VIII-point-V percent of IX dollars and XXXVII cents was on the new Gladiator III model of my Labienus brand tablet with IV-G wireless. When I flip the switch to Greek mode, things get even worse.
Besides being grateful to Arabs, Saracens, Almoravids, and similar Mohammedan nasties and polygamists for giving me Arabic numerals, I tip my hat to them for naming many of the stars the Greeks couldn't be bothered with naming or perhaps simply couldn't see in their humid, overcast homeland. Think of Alcor and Mizar for starters, and we've barely begun our trip down Ursa Major Avenue. Call me vehemently suspected of heresy if you like, but I'm glad we have stars with permanent Arab designations. Otherwise you can bet they'd be named for Aunt Zeituni, Uncle Omar, and Archhero Mandela.
More seriously though, Soldier,* how do you read the Parables of the Unjust Steward and the Wheat and the Tares, if not as Our Lord's formidable dismissal of a Catharist lifestyle as possible or desirable and frank encouragement to learn what we can wherever we can while we hew, as best we can, to the line of right He has laid out for us?
__________________
*Commissioned officer? Enlisted man? Warrant officer? DoD-contracted mercenary with a License to Kill Error? Just asking. Merry Christmas.
-
… there is nothing for us to learn from them.
Do you ever use zeros when you're trying to calculate the tax on your Whopper Jr. and shake? I still have a headache from the last time I tried to figure out how much VIII-point-V percent of IX dollars and XXXVII cents was on the new Gladiator III model of my Labienus brand tablet with IV-G wireless. When I flip the switch to Greek mode, things get even worse.
Besides being grateful to Arabs, Saracens, Almoravids, and similar Mohammedan nasties and polygamists for giving me Arabic numerals, I tip my hat to them for naming many of the stars the Greeks couldn't be bothered with naming or perhaps simply couldn't see in their humid, overcast homeland. Think of Alcor and Mizar for starters, and we've barely begun our trip down Ursa Major Avenue. Call me vehemently suspected of heresy if you like, but I'm glad we have stars with permanent Arab designations. Otherwise you can bet they'd be named for Aunt Zeituni, Uncle Omar, and Archhero Mandela.
More seriously though, Soldier,* how do you read the Parables of the Unjust Steward and the Wheat and the Tares, if not as Our Lord's formidable dismissal of a Catharist lifestyle as possible or desirable and frank encouragement to learn what we can wherever we can while we hew, as best we can, to the line of right He has laid out for us?
__________________
*Commissioned officer? Enlisted man? Warrant officer? DoD-contracted mercenary with a License to Kill Error? Just asking. Merry Christmas.
So Arab equates with heretic apostate now? I don't even know how to respond to this. Not only did the zero exist in Arab culture before the advent of mohammedanism, but it existed in other cultures before that. Merry Christmas.
-
.
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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php), 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 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/165749.php), because he's never heard of the guy, and he's too yellow to bother finding out.
.
-
Damnit, man. Learnt he definitions of 'theory' and 'hypothesis' before using them.
-
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.
Well, that's not what happened at all. Evolution was presented as coming from natural science ( the only science that was truly interested in the truth) and the Faith conflicted with the "truth" of that science, and thus associated with error.
For this very reason, I wouldn't let you anywhere near my children. It's not "my false dichotomy" that caused this, it was those who taught evolution who did it.
-
.
If the Church in 1909 had known then what we know today the commission would not have come out with the answers that it did then. All they did was to allow discussion to take place, which was a very risky move, really. The problem with "discussions" is, like on this forum, for example, when certain participants tenaciously adhere to falsehood as the basis of their argument, if they persist in a most unrelenting way, they might be able to garner some ostensible credibility, but it will be artificial and contrived, due to the fact that its foundation is in falsehood.
Since so-called evolution has just such a basis, in falsehood, it cannot be a theory, but is merely a bad hypothesis. The truth is, there is nothing true about it, and it is ALL LIES. Its only consistency is in its consistent falsehood.
It is not a theory.
It is a bad hypothesis.
And it has no basis in truth.
.
-
.
...
Evolution was presented as coming from natural science (the only science that was truly interested in the truth) and the Faith conflicted with the "truth" of that science, and thus associated with error.
...
The deceivers who pander their lies as 'evolution' take a special pleasure in corrupting innocent minds. They're eligible for the "millstone necklace treatment" according to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
It has always been this way, and it always will.
This so-called 'evolution' doesn't come from natural science.
It comes from the depths of hell.
Like all lies, it is ultimately from the father of lies who was a liar from the beginning and there is no truth in him.
If anyone hangs on tight to evolution to his consequent loss of faith in divine revelation, it will take him (or her) straight to hell. And hell is without end.
To reject God's revelation and the truth that the Church infallibly transmits to us in Tradition (which BTW includes the Bible) is the worst of all sins, because it is a sin against faith, and there is no greater sin than the sin against faith. It is the definition of separation from God, and it is the essence of eternal damnation, as such.
Maybe the commission of 1909 was a little confused or overwhelmed with conflicting data, but under a Pope Saint, it had what it needed to be cautious, nonetheless, it was not cautious, but opened the doors to discussion instead. So what did we get but two world wars, Communism, atomic warfare, government corruption, AIDS, Vat.II, the abominable Newmass, the stupid Newcode of Canon Law, 5 apostate popes in a row (or perhaps 6 but we really don't know about JPI), corruption in the highest levels of the Church that now even threatens to proclaim Modernists as "saints," and the openly indifferentist Assisi's I, II and III.
For it's Assisi I, II, III, what are fightin' IV?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Viet-Nam.
And it's V, VI, VII, open up the pearly g-VIII-s.
No time to wonder why,
Whoopie! ---------
We're all gonna fall into hell with the evolutionists if we believe like they do!
.
-
If true this puts an end to any idea that E being 6xxx yrs old needs be taken as Dogma.
Don't get your hopes up. I've been here before, and I have experienced the 'magical infallibility reversal (TM)' more than once. That which supports our side of the debate is infallible. That which does not support our side of the debate is merely disciplinary.
It's an amazing feature of Catholic thought.
You mean Prot thought........ :confused1: