Author Topic: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney  (Read 4771 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline forlorn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1532
  • Reputation: +616/-928
  • Gender: Male
Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
« Reply #75 on: May 03, 2019, 10:58:23 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Right.  That's why I said it's a huge stretch.  With that logic, I fashioned a hamburger from the clay of the earth yesterday.  Ridiculous.  There's probably an overwhelming amount of Patristic consensus in favor of a literal interpretation here.
    I agree completely, but Humani Generis still allows debate regarding the evolution of man regardless. If it was dogmatic fact that Adam came straight from the matter of the earth, then how is there any room for evolution whatsoever?

    Online ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 663
    • Reputation: +126/-42
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #76 on: May 03, 2019, 02:33:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If by "evolution of the human body" one means the evolution of the human body from an ape, I cannot see how this is not heretical.  It clearly contradicts Sacred Scripture.  It must be some amazing stretch to say that when Scripture states God created Adam's body from the "clay of the earth", that this "clay of the earth" was actually an ape.
    How would you reconcile this with the fact that you've argued the ordinary magisterium can't be harmful to souls, and Pius XII pretty clearly allows this issue to be debated in an encyclical?

    How does something contradicting sacred scripture in and of itself make it heretical without an ecclesial pronouncement?

    I'll assume for the sake of argument that you're right that this clearly contradicts sacred scripture.  I think you might well be right.  But my questions remain.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18315
    • Reputation: +10165/-4820
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #77 on: May 03, 2019, 04:20:20 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • How would you reconcile this with the fact that you've argued the ordinary magisterium can't be harmful to souls, and Pius XII pretty clearly allows this issue to be debated in an encyclical?

    How does something contradicting sacred scripture in and of itself make it heretical without an ecclesial pronouncement?

    I'll assume for the sake of argument that you're right that this clearly contradicts sacred scripture.  I think you might well be right.  But my questions remain.

    While it's objectively heretical, it's true that a Catholic wouldn't be a formal heretic because of Pius XII's "permission".

    So the difference between objective heresy and formal heresy.  It's always been a dogma, for instance, that Our Lady was immaculately conceived, and it's denial objectively heretical.  But St. Thomas was not a heretic because it had not been defined yet.

    We're a similar spot with this issue (and a few others).

    Pius XII neither taught nor defined anything here.  He did lots of harm, but none of it is protected by infallibility.  If anything he's in the same boat as Honorius when it comes to tolerating heresy.

    Online ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 663
    • Reputation: +126/-42
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #78 on: May 03, 2019, 05:24:02 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • While it's objectively heretical, it's true that a Catholic wouldn't be a formal heretic because of Pius XII's "permission".

    So the difference between objective heresy and formal heresy.  It's always been a dogma, for instance, that Our Lady was immaculately conceived, and it's denial objectively heretical.  But St. Thomas was not a heretic because it had not been defined yet.

    We're a similar spot with this issue (and a few others).

    Pius XII neither taught nor defined anything here.  He did lots of harm, but none of it is protected by infallibility.  If anything he's in the same boat as Honorius when it comes to tolerating heresy.
    Right, I know he didn't teach or define anything.  He just gave permission.  So I agree that a future Pope or council could anathematize theistic evolution and that if they did Catholics would be bound to submit to it.  Pius XII agreed to that as well, by demanding that all who engage in the discussion do so with the willingness to submit to the Church.



    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +153/-220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #79 on: May 04, 2019, 12:13:15 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • I recommend (in book form): http://kolbecenter.org/creation-rediscovered/
    and http://kolbecenter.org/review-of-special-creation-rediscovered/
    I have read G. Keane's Creation Rediscovered. It contains many mistakes and misunderstandings in science, as well as some poor argumentation in theology. I would not recommend this book to anyone who wants to know clear, solid arguments.


    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6071
    • Reputation: +3327/-196
    • Gender: Female
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #80 on: May 04, 2019, 01:02:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Tell us about them! What are those "many mistakes and misunderstandings in science, as well as some poor argumentation in theology". You'd better let the Kolbe Foundation know too. 

    Offline XavierSem

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1358
    • Reputation: +113/-190
    • Gender: Male
    • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #81 on: May 04, 2019, 04:48:33 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Catholics, especially Traditional Catholics, should first and foremost be firmly convinced from their Faith and from Divine Authority that Evolution is a False Theory and is Objective Heresy against Divine Revelation, which almost certainly will be struck with anathema one day. Even before Nicaea, many Fathers knew and said it is dogma that Christ is God and the opposite is heresy, based on Scripture and Tradition. Similarly, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition do not by any means give those who seriously study them leeway to believe death and destruction continued for aeons before Adam was supposedly even created, from an ape; and in practice almost all evolutionists are polygenists anyway. Polygenism is totally heresy and denies Original Sin and all of Christianity. There was that discovery of "Y Chromosomal Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve" not that long ago, which again Confirms Creation.

    Evolutionists will absurdly say "Adam never met Eve", "Adam and Eve were not the only parents", there were other persons, and other silly excuses, but they are all wrong. True Science confirms True Tradition of the Special Creation of Mankind less than 10,000 years ago.

    "Using the new, more accurate rate, Mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago ... In 2010, a comprehensive comparison was made between the DNA on the male Y chromosome of humans and chimpanzees. The differences were more than 30 percent! 13
    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ318.html#wp7074454

    Please see the link to learn more: the other absurdities evolutionists rely on to evade the truth of monogenism are answered there.

    The best way to decimate evolution once and for all is to demonstrate scientifically the Scriptural Fact that Humanity, the Earth and All of Creation is Young. If there were not millions or billions of years for the alleged evolution to take place, evolution will die a natural death.

    Creation has 101 excellent proofs that the Earth is Young. https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth I will summarize just 3 here (1) The Fact that DNA cannot survive 10,000 years, as mentioned earlier, and almost universally admitted even by evolutionists; combined with the fact that DNA has been found in some of the earth's most ancient fossils is proof that millions of years just simply never passed. (2) Tissue, Blood Cells, Haemoglobin etc being found still intact in Dinosaurs and other ancient animals is another proof of a young earth. "Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation." https://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report (3) C-14 is radioactive with a short half-life of around 5730 years. It is certain that C-14 cannot survive in ancient materials more than 100,000 years old, yet it is repeatedly found in those claimed to be several millions or even billions of years old, see this from St. Kolbe's Centre: "Carbon 14 is an isotope formed by the radioactive decay of carbon atoms, which is not supposed to be detectable in organic material older than about 50,000 to 60,000 years because of its short half life. However, it is often found in materials dated by other methods to be millions of years old, including petroleum, coal, wood, and bone, and has even been detected in diamonds otherwise dated at billions of years of age.[10],[11],[12]" Please see http://kolbecenter.org/question-of-time/ for the full article.

    Next, consider the known disproofs of the false methodology that evolutionists use: "This dating technique was recently tested for accuracy and failed.15 Three independent laboratories were sent a sample of basalt produced by an Hawaiian volcanic eruption less than 200 years ago. The testing results varied from 20 million years to 3 billion years.16, 17". So a rock of known age that was in fact less than 200 years old was "computed" to age between 20 million-3 billion years! http://archives.sspx.org/against_sound_bites/devolution_of_evolution.htm There were independent disproofs of that wrong age.
    Do make Acts of Consecration to the Twin Hearts, Spiritual Offerings of the Precious Blood of Jesus in Union with the Holy Mass, like in St. Gertrude's Chaplet, along with Spiritual Communions at least every hour. "Pray the Rosary every day to obtain Peace for the world." ~ Our Lady of the Rosary.

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1784
    • Reputation: +1001/-121
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #82 on: May 04, 2019, 12:10:36 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • It was Augustine who began the modernising of Genesis with his no light before the sun. This in spite of Genesis revealing on the first day God created Earth, space and light, and that this light separated day and night on Earth. Now light is but one effect of electromagnetism and it would light up darkness even in Augustine’s time as could be witnessed if he ever saw lightning bringing light at night lighting up the sky, or for that matter a fire lighting up a place. Would Augustine believe in street lighting, or that we could turn a dark room into a daylight room with one switch of the electric light.

    Given all the Fathers must agree on an aspect of Scripture for it to become an infallible revelation of Scripture, or a pope decreeing it as an infallible dogma, the six-day creation became the first literal wording of Genesis left an open question. All you need is one exception to point to and nothing in Genesis literal wording was safe after that.

    Now the first dogma of the Catholic faith in Ott’s history of Dogma’s is ‘God can be known with certainty from the things that He made.’ Pagans and believers in God as Person alike found this sign of God. One of the signs that had no other explanation other than man was special, the Earth was special, and that only a God could have arranged this, was what man witnesses every day of their lives, the sun, moon and stars turning around the Earth we lived on. For centuries Pythagorean heretics tried to convince man this was an illusion and that the Earth was not special, and that many other worlds like ours exist around the stars. These heresies were suppressed for 300 years because they made nonsense of many dogmas and an understanding of the Catholic faith.

    But Satan does not give up; he was determined to rid of God out of natural things. By 1600AD the old Pythagorean theories were back, but this time under the pretence that science affirmed a heliocentric universe. Take Bruno for example; here is one of his beliefs:

    “I can imagine an infinite number of worlds like the earth, with a Garden of Eden on each one. In all these Gardens of Eden, half the Adams and Eves will not eat the fruit of knowledge, but half will. But half of infinity is infinity, so an infinite number of worlds will fall from grace and there will be an infinite number of crucifixions.”

    Perhaps now, from this one passage, we can see the damage the new cosmology could cause. HOW MANY CHRISTS WOULD BE NECESSARY TO REDEEM ALL? And that is why Cardinal Bellarmine’s Inquisition had Bruno burned at the stake lest he spread his heresies that threw Catholicism into chaos.

    After Bruno, it was Galileo who tried to make Genesis comply with human reasoning rather than divine creation. AGAIN, Bellarmine and popes of the time put a stop to it. By 1835 'Modern' popes, in spite of the 1616 decree, conceded to heliocentrism, and from then on, SCARED NOT TO MAKE ANOTHER GALILEO 'MISTAKE' AGAIN,  DARED NOT DOGMATISE ANYTHING TO DO WITH CREATION OR DECREE theories AS HERESY LIKE THEY DID IN 1616 WITH HELIOCENTRISM. Once popes conceded to a solar system they had nothing to stop furter literal dismissals at the behest of 'scientific proofs'. When the first ever evolution theory of modern science was proposed - the evolution of THEIR heliocentric solar system - it was mouth shut time. Then came evolution of everything, including man, and finally Big Bang beginning, the MOTHER OF ALL EVOLUTION BELIEFS.
    In our time, science is the dogma, and Genesis has to be made to comply with it. Faith doesn't come into it for if science can prove creation Catholic faith is not necessary.

    The literal Genesis requires faith, Catholic faith in God doing exactly what he reveals. Big Bangers, from popes down, lost this faith. But worse than that for they allowed the heresies be believed as scientific facts. So, just as they tricked Genesis out of its literal geocentruc creation, they used the same tricks to allow evolution and all its contradictions to be believed also as Catholic faith truths.

    Read Bruno's Genesis above and see what the modern Catholic are up to today.

    [font=Segoe UI, Segoe UI Web (West European), Segoe UI, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, Helvetica Neue, sans-serif]https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/02/23/catholicism-handle-discovery-extraterrestrial-life/[/url][/font][/size]


    Offline B USC90

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 60
    • Reputation: +63/-57
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #83 on: May 04, 2019, 12:33:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Big Bang" Theory was founded by a Belgian Catholic priest and physicist - the Jesuit Fr. Georges Lemaitre.
    "There is no Catholic God." ~ Ladislaus (CathInfo member agreeing multiple times with Francis the Destroyer)

    Offline homeschoolmom

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 148
    • Reputation: +101/-14
    • Gender: Female
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #84 on: May 04, 2019, 12:34:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It was Augustine who began the modernising of Genesis with his no light before the sun. This in spite of Genesis revealing on the first day God created Earth, space and light, and that this light separated day and night on Earth. Now light is but one effect of electromagnetism and it would light up darkness even in Augustine’s time as could be witnessed if he ever saw lightning bringing light at night lighting up the sky, or for that matter a fire lighting up a place. Would Augustine believe in street lighting, or that we could turn a dark room into a daylight room with one switch of the electric light.

    Would bioluminescent creatures work as examples as well? They can light up the dark ocean or a night sky. 

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +153/-220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #85 on: May 04, 2019, 10:06:30 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • Tell us about them! What are those "many mistakes and misunderstandings in science, as well as some poor argumentation in theology".
    The book gives the idea that radiometric decay rates have changed substantially. That's a testable hypothesis, and there is no evidence of significant variation - definitely not enough to change radiometric dates. The book says similar about the speed of light changing. Again, that can be checked observationally, and the evidence isn't there. The book implies that radiometric dating methods assume starting isotope ratios. Isochron methods definitely don't The book has stuff about polonium halos. At minimum, that part is out of date.

    All of this is explained in other books. Keane's book doesn't show much awareness of counterarguments.

    If someone really wants to know the truth on this topic, that someone should read widely from a range of views. We don't need to defend poor arguments.


    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +153/-220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #86 on: May 04, 2019, 11:07:50 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • C14 .... has even been detected in diamonds otherwise dated at billions of years of age.[10],[11],[12]"
    Um, about this.

    One of the links points to an Answers in Genesis page, which has links to other creationists, and this one, which I think is the paper this claim is based on:

    R.E. Taylor, and J. Southon, Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259:282–287, 2007.

    Notice the title - use of diamonds in AMS instrument backgrounds. They were testing background C14 readings.

    A background reading is a low-level reading due to sources and effects other than what is being tested. In this case it could come from several things. Small amounts of contemporary CO2 (due to imperfect vacuum) and left-over residue in the test tube, even from the cleanser, add some C14. These and various other sources are all small but contribute to a background reading that has nothing to do with the sample tested.

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1532
    • Reputation: +616/-928
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #87 on: May 05, 2019, 08:51:24 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!2
  • The book gives the idea that radiometric decay rates have changed substantially. That's a testable hypothesis, and there is no evidence of significant variation - definitely not enough to change radiometric dates. The book says similar about the speed of light changing. Again, that can be checked observationally, and the evidence isn't there. The book implies that radiometric dating methods assume starting isotope ratios. Isochron methods definitely don't The book has stuff about polonium halos. At minimum, that part is out of date.

    All of this is explained in other books. Keane's book doesn't show much awareness of counterarguments.

    If someone really wants to know the truth on this topic, that someone should read widely from a range of views. We don't need to defend poor arguments.
    No idea why you're getting downvoted. Catholics should be lovers of the Truth, even if it means convenient "facts" must be discarded. 

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4701
    • Reputation: +4119/-1439
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #88 on: May 05, 2019, 09:20:18 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • In the practical realm, regardless of what related issue was brought to me (6 days/24 hours, helio v geo, local v universal flood; light on 4th day; etc), my universal advice to any and all inquirers would be:

    "Read the Sungenis book.  The answers are there."
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1784
    • Reputation: +1001/-121
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #89 on: May 05, 2019, 11:14:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The book gives the idea that radiometric decay rates have changed substantially. That's a testable hypothesis, and there is no evidence of significant variation - definitely not enough to change radiometric dates. The book says similar about the speed of light changing. Again, that can be checked observationally, and the evidence isn't there. The book implies that radiometric dating methods assume starting isotope ratios. Isochron methods definitely don't The book has stuff about polonium halos. At minimum, that part is out of date.

    All of this is explained in other books. Keane's book doesn't show much awareness of counterarguments.

    If someone really wants to know the truth on this topic, that someone should read widely from a range of views. We don't need to defend poor arguments.

    I knew Gerry well and he gave me his book to read before publishing it. I myself was writing a similar book on the absurdity of a Big Bang world as we find it today. Then out came Pope John Paul II saying 'evolution was more than a hypothesis.' That's enough I said, putting my book into the bin. When one has to try to compete with popes and their Big Bang evolution, then the devil has won hands down on that subject.

    At that time a man called Paul Ellwanger had also contacted me to say that evolution is but an offspring of the Copernican theory, and that the creation account offered to Catholics for 200 years has long departed from the ex nihilo dogma of Catholic theology. That creation theology is simplicity itself, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, God creating all in perfection (that is finished) at the beginning of time, just as Genesis said, understandable to the simplist of minds.
    So, in order to understand why a pope like Francis will get up and tell the flock God is not a magician, and receive such applause from Professor Queres in the front row

    https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/royal-baby-watch-prince-harry-cancels-official-visit-to-the-netherlands-58819653917

    one has to know that long history from Faith to fiction. Without a return to the dogma of biblical geocentrism, Catholic creation doctrine can never return to a faith based doctrine. I told Gerry Keane if he went along with the story of Galileoism as put out for 200 years by Churchmen, then you are really wasting your time. Gerry said it was hard enough to get Catholics today to believe no such evolution took place without asking them to accept geocentrism. When he published, he walked into it, quoting a Protestant to dismiss the authority of the 1616 decree and every other trap set up to undermine the faith. His paragraph on Galileo did a lot more harm that his arguments against evolution achieved.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16