Author Topic: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney  (Read 4779 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline klasG4e

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2042
  • Reputation: +1156/-165
  • Gender: Male
Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
« Reply #90 on: May 05, 2019, 12:43:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have read G. Keane's Creation Rediscovered.
    1991 version or updated and expanded 1999 version?

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1790
    • Reputation: +1003/-121
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #91 on: May 05, 2019, 01:46:28 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dear Friends of the Kolbe Center,
    Christ is risen! Alleluia!
    It is no secret that young Catholics have been leaving the Church in droves for decades. The Fellowship of Catholic University Students (FOCUS) estimates that only 15% of Catholic young people in the United States continue to practice the Faith when they leave home. One prominent researcher at Georgetown University who has conducted numerous interviews with young Catholics about their reasons for abandoning the Faith has observed that the apparent conflict between the findings of the modern science and the Holy Bible and the traditional teaching of the Church has been a major factor in the mass exodus of young Catholics out of the Catholic Church. Not surprisingly, he argues that if more teachers in Catholic schools could show the harmony between the pillars of modern science - like Big Bang cosmology and biological evolution - and the Catholic Faith, the Church would keep more of its youth. But this reminds me of Planned Parenthood representatives who attribute the large number of teen pregnancies to a lack of sex education and who assure us that if only every school in the world included sex education in its curriculum, the teen pregnancy numbers would surely come down!
    The fact of the matter is that most Catholic schools and universities have been teaching Big Bang cosmology and biological evolution for the last 60 years. Teaching more of this "science, falsely so called" will not slow the mass exodus of young Catholics out of the Church because the teaching of evolution does more to erode or destroy the faith of young Catholics than any other false teaching.   On the other hand, teaching the true Catholic doctrine of creation, demonstrating its perfect harmony with sound theology, philosophy, and natural science, and exposing the fatal flaws in the evolutionary accounts of the origins of man and the universe in their theistic and atheistic forms is a sure-fire way to shore up the foundations of the faith of Catholic young people and equip them to stand firm against the world, the flesh and the devil. Indeed, our experience with young Catholics all over the world has confirmed our conviction that the current crisis of faith could be quickly resolved if we simply taught the whole Catholic Faith to our youth on the foundation of the true Catholic doctrine of creation.
    We recently witnessed a striking example of the power of the Catholic doctrine of creation to strengthen the Faith of Catholic young people when four Kolbe scientists and I had the privilege of spending three days with students and faculty at Immaculate Heart of Mary School in Still River, Massachusetts. In addition to three consecutive days of presentations to all of the students from third through 12th grade, we were also able to give two evening presentations to parents, the first of which was made mandatory for all of the parents at the school by the headmaster, Brother Thomas Augustine. As a testimony to the good fruits brought forth from these three days, I would like to share a few excerpts from papers written by high school students highlighting the most important points they learned from the presentations.

    I hope you will join us in praying that we will soon be able to achieve our goal of ensuring that every Catholic young person in the world has at least one opportunity to hear a good defense of the true Catholic doctrine of creation, the foundation of the Holy Gospel.   If you can use your influence with the leadership at any Catholic seminary, university, chaplaincy, school, home-school co-op, or other youth centered community to obtain an invitation for us to offer a seminar or series of seminars, we will gladly go anywhere in the world - even if the hosting organization cannot afford to cover our expenses - to share this precious knowledge. We have also designed a confirmation retreat with a creation-focus, designed to be supported by the personal testimony of some of our young adult members who can testify to their slightly younger brothers and sisters as to the fundamental importance of the true Catholic doctrine of creation as the foundation of the faith and of a healthy spiritual life. We are ready and willing to go anywhere in the world to offer this confirmation retreat, as long as the local pastor is willing to give us at least one entire day with the confirmandi.
    I am happy to report that our videographer is on track to complete the final editing of the DVD series by the end of June, God willing! Once the final editing has been completed, we plan to give the DVD series to some Church leaders for their review so that we can market the series more effectively with their endorsements. If you have influence with any influential Catholic clergy or lay leaders who might be willing to review the DVD series, please let me know, and we will be happy to arrange to give them a chance to preview the series as soon as it is available.
    Finally, we have discovered that if you forward this newsletter to someone who "unsubscribes," that "unsubscription" will "unsubscribe" you! What is worse, once an email is "unsubscribed," our email server will never subscribe that email address again. It seems we have lost quite a few subscribers this way over the years! If you forward an email, it might be a good idea to ask the recipients to let you know if they don't want to receive any more forwarded emails from the Kolbe Center, but to please not "unsubscribe" lest they inadvertently "unsubscribe" you.
    Please keep the Kolbe Center in your prayers.
    Yours in Christ through the Holy Theotokos,
    Hugh Owen
    P.S. We have been granted a permit for our outreach to the public near the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., on Sunday, May 19, to expose the evolution fraud and to proclaim the truth of Creation and of Our Lord's Life-giving Passion, Death and Resurrection. If any of our readers would be willing and able to come to Washington, D.C. to participate in this project, please send me an email at howen@shentel.net If you live too far away to commute to the venue but would like to participate, we can find you a place to stay at our home in Virginia or with another family closer to Washington, D.C.
    P.P.S. Our sixth annual leadership retreat will take place at St. Anne Retreat Center in Melbourne, Kentucky, from June 16 to June 22. The retreat is open to all Catholics (and their families) who are committed to advancing the mission of the Kolbe Center in their spheres of influence. If you would like more information about the schedule, facilities, and suggested donations for the retreat, please email me as soon as possible athowen@shentel.net .


    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6080
    • Reputation: +3328/-196
    • Gender: Female
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #92 on: May 05, 2019, 04:56:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    P.P.S. Our sixth annual leadership retreat will take place at St. Anne Retreat Center in Melbourne, Kentucky, from June 16 to June 22. The retreat is open to all Catholics (and their families) who are committed to advancing the mission of the Kolbe Center in their spheres of influence. If you would like more information about the schedule, facilities, and suggested donations for the retreat, please email me as soon as possible athowen@shentel.net .
    The email address should read howen@shentel.net

    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6080
    • Reputation: +3328/-196
    • Gender: Female
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #93 on: May 05, 2019, 05:00:57 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • I was hoping that you would weigh in, Cassini. Thank you for your explanation of Gerry's reticence on the theological side of Forlorn's comments. I vaguely remember this reasoning, whether from Gerry himself or from you, I don't recall.

    Offline XavierSem

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1366
    • Reputation: +115/-192
    • Gender: Male
    • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #94 on: May 06, 2019, 01:30:08 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stanley
    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.

    Hi Stanley. Thanks for your objection. Creation Scientists are well aware of this explanation of the test resulted and have answered it: "Because radiocarbon decays relatively quickly, fossils that are even 100,000 years old should have virtually no radiocarbon left in them.1 But they do ... The CRSQ study authors tested seven dinosaur bones, including a Triceratops from Montana, hadrosaurids, a cartilaginous paddlefish, a bony fish, and fresh-looking wood and lizard bones from Permian layers in Canada and Oklahoma. Five different commercial and academic laboratories detected carbon-14 in all the samples, whether from Cenozoic, Mesozoic, or Paleozoic source rocks. How did that radiocarbon get there?

    The team also compared the results to several dozen published carbon-14 results for fossils, wood, and coal from all over the world and throughout the geologic column. Comparable amounts of radiocarbon showed up in almost 50 total samples.2

    Defenders of evolutionary time scales will have to assert that the radiocarbon all came from some sort of contamination, where recent or modern carbon somehow crept into all these samples. This has been argued before, but the testing process itself is loaded with procedures that rigorously remove contaminants. [so all 5 academic laboratories failed to account for contaminants?]

    Secular researchers routinely detect radiocarbon in carbon-containing materials like coal, oil, marble, and diamond—materials they would like to use as "carbon dead" standards. If contamination is really to blame for these results, then why does it appear in such supposedly old material as well as in every single fossil in the CRSQ report? Broad-brushed claims of contamination weaken with every new documented carbon date from really old material." https://www.icr.org/article/carbon-14-found-dinosaur-fossils/

    The presence of collagen remaining in "ancient fossils" is another proof that those fossils are only several thousands of years young.

    Abstract: The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005 that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum, Hugh Miller asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for C-14 testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for the Triceratops and 23,170 ±170 RC years for the Hadrosaur were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS). Total organic carbon and/or dinosaur bone bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna." http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

    Can collagen survive millions of years, Stanley? Can DNA? Surely you will not appeal to "external contaminants" here, I hope.

    God bless.
    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 XavierSem

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1366
    • Reputation: +115/-192
    • Gender: Male
    • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #95 on: May 06, 2019, 01:43:19 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Please see some demonstrably baneful effects of the false theory of evolution on Faith and Morals. What is true cannot bear evil fruits.

    "So baneful has been the effect of teaching evolution as a proven hypothesis, that multitudes have been led into infidelity and atheism. Prof. James H. Leuba, of Bryn Mawr College, Pa. sent a questionnaire to 1000 of the most prominent scientists teaching sciences relating to evolution. The replies indicate that more than one-half do not believe in a personal God, nor the immortality of the soul--beliefs almost universal even in the heathen world. So pernicious is this doctrine of evolution that more than one-half of the professors who teach it and kindred subjects, are infidels and atheists and farther from God than the ignorant heathen ... A doctrine so abhorrent to the conscience, so contrary to the well nigh universal belief, and so fruitful of evil, certainly can not be true. Small wonder is it that students are fast becoming infidels and atheists, and we shudder as we think of the coming generation [written in 1920. Can someone say this hasn't really happened today]. A great responsibility rests upon the authorities who employ such teachers. The answers of the students in seven large representative colleges and universities to Prof. Leuba's questionnaire, show that while only 15% of the Freshmen have abandoned the Christian religion, 30% of the Juniors and over 40% of the Seniors have abandoned the Christian faith. Note the steady and rapid growth of infidelity and atheism as a result of this pernicious theory ... Most of the writers who advocated evolution became atheists or infidels; most of the professors who teach it, believe neither in God nor the immortality of the soul; and the number of students discarding Christianity rose from 15% in the Freshman year to 40% in the Senior. What more proof is needed?"

    This book by Williams written around 1920 also exposes the hoax that was "Piltdown Man" which deceived evolutionists (assuming many of them were not deceivers themselves) for 40 years as a "missing link". It was a fraud. After 1953, this was admitted by all.

    Another two simple disproofs of evolution are (1) the extraordinary number of missing intermediate forms. If thousands and millions of apes allegedly gave birth and evolved to thousands and millions of men over millions of years, we would find millions upon millions of intermediate ape-men. This is how Williams knew Piltdown man was a fraud, "There are countless relics of apes, but none of ape-men. Even Wells says: "At a great open-air camp at Solutre, where they seem to have had annual gatherings for many centuries, it is estimated there are the bones of 100,000 horses." Would we not expect as many bones of ape-men? While Wells says the bones of 100,000 horses were found in a single locality, Dr. Ales Hrdlicka says that the bones of 200,000 prehistoric horses were found in another place. Why should we not find, for the same reason, the bones of millions of ape-men and ape-women in 750,000 years? Instead of mullions we have the alleged fragments of 4, all of which are of a very doubtful character."

    And (2) The example of living fossils, which shows evolution either will not take place even in the supposed millions and billions of years timeframe, which means the whole sorry theory is moot anyway. Or that the millions of years never passed, and Genesis stands. A more detailed examination of Living Fossils can be read here: https://creation.com/werner-living-fossils

    Those who are interested can consult "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and its recently updated follow up "Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis" by British Australian Bio Chemist Prof. Michael Denton. Prof. Denton is more an ID type than a young earth Creation Scientist.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/633004.Evolution But his book on evolution is a thorough demonstration of its utter falsity.
    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 Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +153/-220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #96 on: May 06, 2019, 07:38:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hi Stanley. Thanks for your objection. Creation Scientists are well aware of this explanation of the test resulted and have answered it:
    ...
    Defenders of evolutionary time scales will have to assert that the radiocarbon all came from some sort of contamination, where recent or modern carbon somehow crept into all these samples. This has been argued before, but the testing process itself is loaded with procedures that rigorously remove contaminants. [so all 5 academic laboratories failed to account for contaminants?]
    Hello Xavier.

    My post was specific to the paper about AMS and diamonds, and you respond with a shotgun approach about "7 different dinosaur bones", wood, coal, and even collagen! I would ask you to stick to one point, but my sense is you are copy-pasting these texts from somewhere else and you don't really have much background in the science.

    The Taylor and Southon paper is not saying the diamonds have intrinsic C14, and gives reasons for taking the readings as background, not intrinsic. I find it rather curious that the groups "citing" this paper don't seem to understand this when it should be obvious from the title and abstract.

    Background is anything that would cause the testing process to appear to say the sample has C14 that it doesn't have. That's not exactly "contamination" in the way you're suggesting. Yes, the examples I gave for background - for simplicity of explanation - were a sort of low-level contamination. Labs work to limit this but it is impossible to completely avoid with current technology. But the instruments and AMS process itself are a source of background. One effect is called "ion source memory", in which radiocarbon sticks to the ion source and gets transferred to another sample. Another issue is that non-C14 ions can sometimes be identified as C14. Every lab has some background and knows about it. Decent labs do regular testing to monitor and correct for it.

    For more info see: https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.pdf

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18392
    • Reputation: +10197/-4834
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #97 on: May 06, 2019, 08:40:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Please see some demonstrably baneful effects of the false theory of evolution on Faith and Morals. What is true cannot bear evil fruits.

    What does this say about "Baptism of Desire", the chief fruit of which is religious indifferentism?


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #98 on: May 06, 2019, 08:56:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What does this say about "Baptism of Desire", the chief fruit of which is religious indifferentism?
    Hello Ladislaus-
    Would you disagree with an extremely limited implicit baptism of desire, for example, as described by my two short posts here:
    https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/prayers-for-jewish-people-who-were-attacked/msg653131/?topicseen#msg653131
    I don’t want to argue.  Just curious.

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +153/-220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #99 on: May 06, 2019, 09:36:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 1991 version or updated and expanded 1999 version?
    1991. Does it really matter?

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2042
    • Reputation: +1156/-165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #100 on: May 06, 2019, 10:27:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 1991. Does it really matter?
    Thanks for your reply Stanley.  I think that if you compared them you would certainly agree that it does matter.  Big improvement in the laler TAN edition!


    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1790
    • Reputation: +1003/-121
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #101 on: May 06, 2019, 11:19:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I was hoping that you would weigh in, Cassini. Thank you for your explanation of Gerry's reticence on the theological side of Forlorn's comments. I vaguely remember this reasoning, whether from Gerry himself or from you, I don't recall.

    Indeed Nadir. I took out Gerry's 1991 300-page edition this morning to read.
     
    At the moment I am on day 13 after having had my two knees replaced. Swelling, pain and discomfort 24 hours a day. I am best walking around, its when one sits down that the cementing takes place.

    Anyway, Gerry's book covers every aspect of evolution one could think of as a student or Catholic. He introduced me to Gentry's book and it does challenge those 'proofs' for long ages claimed by the evolutionists. I will let Gentry argue his point.

    As I read through I came across 'planet Earth,' the first evolution theory (the Nebular theory-1735-96) Gerry was told by me to avoid in his book. This of course led on to his description of the Galileo case when he wrote his chapter on The Sense of Scripture. Poor Gerry hadn't a clue and regurgitated the usual tripe that the Church banned the helio system until it could be proven. he hail;s the 'scholars Kepler and Isaac Newton. he then quotes the humanist koestler saying the 1616 decree was 'a judicial opinion, without papal endorsement.' Knowing nothing about the Holy Office at the time, he did not refer to Bellarmine telling Galileo that 'on order by the Pope' stop spreading heresy. He ends by saying Pope urban VIII 'was not directly involved in the trial of Galileo. In fact Urban VIII directed every move of the Inquisition during Galileo's trial.

    As I said, you cannot write a book or give a lecture on evolution and creation without taking in the influence of the Galileo U-turn of 1741-1835 on the matter.Gerry did as much to promote heliocentrism as anyone, but in his case, while trying to dismiss evolution, shot himself in the foot.

    I recall having a similar problem with the Kolbe Center, like Gerry, thinking that geocentrism would undermine their efforts to protect literal creation and their anti-evolution efforts. Thankfully Hugh saw the problem and accepted geo but did not make it part of their ongoing programme.

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2042
    • Reputation: +1156/-165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #102 on: May 06, 2019, 12:27:53 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  •  Thankfully Hugh saw the problem and accepted geo but did not make it part of their ongoing programme.

    I am very glad that Hugh has so openly incorporated much of the work of Robert Sungenis.  I believe Robert to have been instrumental in having Hugh accept geo.  Hugh has even said that he  believes Robert will actually one day be named a Doctor of the Church!  Surely, the army of Sungenis' detractors will scoff at this notion.  That said, I imagine many of the Doctors of the Church would have been ridiculed in their own time if the notion of them one day being named a Doctor of the Church was raised.

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1790
    • Reputation: +1003/-121
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #103 on: May 06, 2019, 01:34:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The SSPX I believe, take the Oath against Modernism.

    In 1910 Pope Saint Pius X, in an effort to prevent further evolution of Catholic dogmas and teachings, introduced by way of motu proprio the ‘Oath against Modernism,’ to be sworn by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries. Hereunder a few selected paragraphs .

     I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated….I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality, that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticisms the one and supreme norm.’

    Any yet they tolerate the likes of Fr Robinson and Fr Laisney denying the geocentrism all the Fathers (and I am sure DOCTOR'S) upheld as revealed in Scripture and papal decree of 1616. 


    Online ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 681
    • Reputation: +131/-43
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
    « Reply #104 on: May 06, 2019, 01:56:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What does this say about "Baptism of Desire", the chief fruit of which is religious indifferentism?
    Even if baptism of desire didn't exist, you could still have denominational indifferentism.  TBH I don't really understand this mentality.  I saw it all the time when I was in Protestantism, whatever issues were deemed "non-essential" were also often considered pretty much indifferent.  But I never really understood why this should be the case.  Shouldn't maximizing glory of God in all things be pursued *even if* someone could be saved deficiently?  Not every sin against a marriage completely destroys the relationship, but we wouldn't say lesser sins are OK.  And even if Feeneyism is wrong, and someone *could* be saved through baptism of desire, that shouldn't lead to religious indifferentism.  I'd say this even if it was the case that being non Catholic didn't endanger the soul (which of course is obviously false.)

    To be clear, this isn't an argument for the theology of BOD, I just don't see how BOD and not being an indifferentist are at odds.

     

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