Posted on 08/28/2004 9:10:46 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
So to prove that evolutionists are dishonest, you link me to a page wherein an author says that he is having a book that he wrote revised due to the discovery that some of the information within was incorrect?
That teaching applies to the original autographs, not the translations.
Having said that, while there may be stylistic differences in translations, we have enough copies to compare and get back as close to the originals and their original content to have a very high degree of confidence in the substantial meaning of the entirety of Scripture.
Why can't you admit that Haeckle's drawings were fraudulent?
I agree wholeheartedly with you. Christopher Ferrara is becoming more and more like someone leading Catholics astray. Happenstance is such that I just read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on creation during lunch today. Read paragraphs 270-301. There is not one mention of evolution and the Church's teaching is as traditional in the CCC as it ever was. This article is nothing but fear-mongering.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm
Something from the BBC.
There is no theory that shows any change. There are a few publicatons that show small vanishing changes in the fine constant.
The BBC article doens't reference any publications.
I need to get back to work (I hate Mondays!) but there was something in the Discover magazine's tribute to Einstein about the speed of light having some fluctuations. I will check Discover's website when I get a chance.
Yes. The current theories in physics that light is slowing down are talking about billion-year time frames. None of this can explain why we see galaxies that are millions of light-years away if the universe is less than 10,000 years old.
"When some part of the Vatican speaks, then the pope must take responsibility. There is an implicit assumption that he agrees, unless he speaks up and clearly denies that they are speaking on his behalf."
He doesn't speak up and deny error when different Cardinals come out with contradictory theological positions (more's the pity) - so he's not likely to do so on an issue which he probably believes lies outside of his competence.
"Of all the scandalous actions he has been guilty of, those which have caused the most scandal and the most damage to the simple faith of Catholic believers have been his statements that "Hell is not a place, but a state of being," and his statement that "Evolution must now be seen as more than a theory." "
If he was really saying that evolution is an established "fact", then I would agree with you. However the statement: "Evolution must now be seen as more than a theory." is typical of the modernist ambiguity and double-speak that pervades post-conciliar theology, and is capable of a quite orthodox interpretation.
For instance I very much agree that "Evolution must now be seen as more than a theory" because it IS more than a theory - it has achieved the status of a diabolical philosophy which has become one of the pillars of modernist scientific materialism.
What exactly did the Pope mean when he used this phrase? Was he being deliberately enigmatic so that he was not seen to nail his colours to any particular mast?
"A symposium like that described in this article must be seen as part and parcel of the pope's worldview, one that is radically dialectical and non-creationist."
That may be reading far too much into how he operates and how involved he is in the various organs of Vatican beaurocracy - especially at this stage of the pontificate. If he is a "non-creationist", then he has embraced heresy.
"Often the Intelligent Design theorists will take an agnostic viewpoint for pragmatic reasons. They say, "We are only disproving evolution. We have no positive alternative to put in its place." This might be fine for debating purposes.."
Agreed.
"..but for the purpose of having a coherent philosophy by which a man can live his life, it fails utterly, and there is only one valid replacement, divine revelation."
Again I agree - but it is not the purpose, place, or within the power of science to provide man with coherent philosophy. Science is only equipped to answer basic questions about the material universe and it should be met at this level.
Science needs to be restored to its limits and neither creationists nor evolutionists should be encouraged to stray from their field into philosophy and theology when pursuing the origins question. All scientists need to be brought back down to earth and see themselves for the intellectual pygmies that we truly are.
Obviously I agree with you totally that the only place where man can find a truly coherent philosophy is from divine revelation. This includes teaching the biblical truth of God's creating Adam and Eve specifically as progenitors of all humanity.
However if the Church qua Church attempts to do this at the scientific level, it will meet with much greater credibility problems than will qualified Christian scientists who can take the fight to the evolutionists in the academic arena.
One solution is that light was carried along with the stretching of the space/time fabric so that the initial light from far away objects was present constantly from the beginning.
I can answer this. I will tonight.
They were fraudulent.
Glad to hear you admit that evilution has been inudated with fraud from the beinning, not many will admit to frauds.
Your inital claim was that current textbooks are presenting them as non-fraudulent.
The textbooks that include Haeckle's drawings and premise of each stage of embryonic development depicting evilutionary stages do indeed present them as non-fraudulent by default, simply by their inclusion of them.
Certainly you don't think there are no textbooks that don't include those fraudulent drawings and premise, do you?
With the amount of fraud in evilutionary teaching certainly you can't think that.
Ok, there are several solutions, the speed of light slowing down, and time speeding up, as it appears is the case would be one. Light being carried along with the stretch of space/time fabric is another. I'd be interested in your solution.
I would agree, but these days, it's very difficult to define a point of reference. Heck, since Klinton, there isn't even a common definition of "is".
"It's just a jump to the left! and a step to the right!"
LOL! - signs of a misspent youth?
placemarker
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.