Posted on 08/28/2004 9:10:46 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
So what do you have to say to these statements which clearly show that evolution is INCORRECT!
In Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae Encyclical Of Pope Leo XIII On Christian Marriage 1880 sec 5 "We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.see http://www.freivald.org/~jake/library/arcanum-divinae-sapientiae_on-christian-marriage_html/arcanum-divinae-sapientiae_on-christian-marriage_documenttext.html
Vatican Council I in 1870, laid out this infallible dogmatic statement, along with an accompanying anathema, saying:"If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema."
Pius IX also approved the following teaching of the first Vatican Council :
“This sole true God by His goodness and omnipotent power, not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows upon creatures with most free volition, immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature, out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely the angelic and the mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body.”
Denziger, para.1783, English translation of 30th edition by Roy J. Deferrari,(1957). B. Herder Book Co., London.
Evolutionary theory was shown to be incorrect in 1860 when the Council of Cologne condemned the idea of human evolution in very straightforward words:
"Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that...those who...assert...man...emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith."
Epiphanius (315-403): "Adam, who was fashioned from the earth on the sixth day and received breath, became a living being (for he was not, as some suppose, begun on the fifth day, and completed on the sixth; those who say have the wrong idea), and was simple and innocent, without any other name." (Panarion 1:1, translated by Phillip R. Amidon).
Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): "In six days God made the world...The sun, however resplendent with bright beams, yet was made to give light to man, yea, all living creatures were formed to serve us: herbs and trees were created for our enjoyment...The sun was formed by a mere command, but man by God's hands" (Catechetical Lectures 12, 5).
“The Theory of Evolution Judged by Faith and Reason”(1959) English translation by John F. O’Hanlon P.P., S.T.L., published by Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., New York and by B.Herder, London, at pp. 124 et seq., Ernesto, Cardinal Ruffini, demonstrates that the Greek, Syrian and Latin Fathers, whom he names and quotes, all held the opinion that the description of the creation of our first parents in Genesis 2 is literally true.
Rev. Father Brian Harrison, in his theological treatise, “Did Woman Evolve from Beasts?”demonstrates that:
(1.) as early as 3 February, 557, in an epistle to King Childebert I and later in an epistle, “Vas Electionis”, addressed to the whole Church, Pope Pelagius I taught that Adam and Eve “were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of man” (see p. 8); and
(2.) the Council of Vienne (1312) not only affirmed the doctrine of the special creation of Eve from Adam’s side but also taught that it was a profound and beautiful foreshadowing of the mystical foundation of the Church, the immaculate Spouse of the Church, whereby it prefigured the water and blood, symbols of the principal sacraments, that flowed from the side of Christ at Calvary. See pp.8/9. (Copies of this article, sections 1 and 2, can be accessed on the website of the Roman Theological Forum, rtforum org , “Living Tradition” Numbers 97 and 98.)
And finally what does the angelic doctor have to add to the literal vs. figurative debate regarding the creation of man.
Aquinas asks "Whether woman should have been made from man?"
Objection 1: It would seem that woman should not have been made from man. For sex belongs both to man and animals. But in the other animals the female was not made from the male. Therefore neither should it have been so with man.
Objection 2: Further, things of the same species are of the same matter. But male and female are of the same species. Therefore, as man was made of the slime of the earth, so woman should have been made of the same, and not from man.
On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 17:5): "He created of him," that is, out of man, "a helpmate like to himself," that is, woman.
“I answer that, When all things were first formed, it was more suitable for the woman to be made from man that (for the female to be from the male) in other animals. First, in order thus to give the first man a certain dignity consisting in this, that as God is the principle of the whole universe, so the first man, in likeness to God, was the principle of the whole human race. “Wherefore Paul says that "God made the whole human race from one" (Acts 17:26). Secondly, that man might love woman all the more, and cleave to her more closely, knowing her to be fashioned from himself. Hence it is written (Gn. 2:23,24): "She was taken out of man, wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife."
....the human male and female are united, not only for generation, as with other animals, but also for the purpose of domestic life, in which each has his or her particular duty, and in which the man is the head of the woman.
“Reply to Objection 2: Matter is that from which something is made. Now created nature has a determinate principle; and since it is determined to one thing, it has also a determinate mode of proceeding. Wherefore from determinate matter it produces something in a determinate species. On the other hand, the Divine Power, being infinite, can produce things of the same species out of any matter, such as a man from the slime of the earth, and a woman from out of man.
Reply to Objection 3: A certain affinity arises from natural generation, and this is an impediment to matrimony. Woman, however, was not produced from man by natural generation, but by the Divine Power alone. Wherefore Eve is not called the daughter of Adam; and so this argument does not prove.
St. Thomas Aquinas The Summa Theologica Quest. 92 article 2 (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947) see http://www.stjamescatholic.org/summa/FP/FP092.html
“Whether the woman was fittingly made from the rib of man?
"Wherefore from any other matter an individual of the human species cannot naturally be generated. Now God alone, the Author of nature, can produce an effect into existence outside the ordinary course of nature. Therefore God alone could produce either a man from the slime of the earth, or a woman from the rib of man."
(Summa Question: 92 Article 4 Ibid.) Catholics are NOT fundamentalists when the take the Genesis account literally anymore than the early Church fathers were, Thomas Aquinas or past Church Councils or past Popes.
So it has been clearly demonstrated that you can’t make a “monkey’s uncle out of the Catholic Church” with false theory of macro evolution which contradicts divine revelation and has no real scientific evidence to back it up. Has anyone ever seen one kind of species evolve into a completly new and different kind of species?
As G. K. Chesterton said regarding the scientist, “ But he cannot watch the Missing Link evolving in his own backyard... For instance, I have pointed out the difficulty of keeping a monkey and watching it evolve into a man. Experimental evidence of such an evolution being impossible, the professor is not content to say (as most of us would be ready to say) that such an evolution is likely enough anyhow. He produces his little bone, or little collection of bones, and deduces the most marvellous things from it. He found in Java a piece of a skull, seeming by its contour to be smaller than the human. Somewhere near it he found an upright thigh-bone and in the same scattered fashion some teeth that were not human. If they all form part of one creature, which is doubtful, our conception of the creature would be almost equally doubtful. But the effect on popular science was to produce a complete and even complex figure, finished down to the last details of hair and habits. He was given a name as if he were an ordinary historical character. People talked of Pithecanthropus as of Pitt or Fox or Napoleon. Popular histories published portraits of him like the portraits of Charles the First and George the Fourth. A detailed drawing was reproduced, carefully shaded, to show that the very hairs of his head were all numbered No uninformed person looking at its carefully lined face and wistful eyes would imagine for a moment that this was the portrait of a thigh-bone; or of a few teeth and a fragment of a cranium. In the same way people talked about him as if he were an individual whose influence and character were familiar to us all. I have just read a story in a magazine about Java, and how modern white inhabitants of that island are prevailed on to misbehave themselves by the personal influence of poor old Pithecanthropus. That the modern inhabitants of Java misbehave themselves I can very readily believe; but I do not imagine that they need any encouragement from the discovery of a few highly doubtful bones. Anyhow, those bones are far too few and fragmentary and dubious to fill up the whole of the vast void that does in reason and in reality lie between man and his bestial ancestors, if they were his ancestors. On the assumption of that evolutionary connection (a connection which I am not in the least concerned to deny), the really arresting and remarkable fact is the comparative absence of any such remains recording that connection at that point. The sincerity of Darwin really admitted this; and that is how we came to use such a term as the Missing Link. But the dogmatism of Darwinians has been too strong for the agnosticism of Darwin; and men have insensibly fallen into turning this entirely negative term into a positive image. They talk of searching for the habits and habitat of the Missing Link; as if one were to talk of being on friendly terms with the gap in a narrative or the hole in an argument, of taking a walk with a non-sequitur or dining with an undistributed middle.” (G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting
Check out post 321 on the missing link and don't let them make a monkey's uncle out of you or a salamender.
"If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema."
I confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing.
I further confess massive ignorance as to exactly how God did that. It appears to me that he did it in a way that accounts for the fossil record.
I'm sorry if I seem shallow, prejudiced or shortsighted.
You're right that you can find scholars for any point of view on the scriptures.
But may I offer one more argument: Luke 1:1-4 gives a statement by its author indicating it is third-hand in nature: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. It is clear that Luke is writing as a reporter; he worked hard to verify his sources to tell as complete and correct an account as he could. But I very much doubt Luke would have claimed to have produced an inerrant account!
Let me please conclude our friendly debate by saying what I think we both agree on: Jesus died, Jesus is risen, Jesus will come again! I base my faith in part on my own experience of the Holy Spirit, convicting me of sin and leading me away from it. But I also base my faith on the Scriptures. For example: All scholarship agrees 1 Corinthians is genuine. Paul wrote this wonderful epistle in the mid to late 50s. In it he affirms that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to certain followers (Chapter 15). Paul was converted to Christianity only several years after Jesus, so from this it becomes absolutely clear that belief in the resurrection was present at the very beginning of the church.
Thanks for the clarification. Contemporary Catholic scholarship doesn't appear to teach inerrancy. (E.g., I browse through my copy of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary -- which has the Imprimatur -- and it discusses the pastoral epistles as not being written by Paul, and it discusses Daniel as being a product of the second century before Christ instead of the sixth century.) Hence my misunderstanding.
I'm sorry that you didn't see my answer as straight enough. Let me clarify for you.
I believe in oil.
I believe in the A-Bomb.
I can't believe in either of those and believe that every single word in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. Both are proof of a very old world, a world much older than the few thousand years that a literal interpretation of the Bible requires.
And no, I don't believe that God would place a false record if he really loved us and wanted us to seek knowledge and understanding of our world. Deceit and trickery from the Allmighty? I don't think so. Lies are the province of the devil, not God.
So no, I don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible that you seem to. The facts just don't support it.
***I don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible that you seem to. The facts just don't support it.***
What do you believe the Bible contains that IS true?
(if anything)
A little off-topic, no?
Unless you intend to try to use my religious views to try to discredit me, to say that because I don't believe the world is 6,000 years old that I'm not Christian PC enough to take seriously. But you'd never do that, would you?
***A little off-topic, no?***
Vatican, religion, belief, Bible, veracity, historicity...
I'd say no, it's on toipic.
*** try to use my religious views to try to discredit me***
Not looking to discredit, just interested...
***But you'd never do that, would you?****
I am committed to the idea that people have the right to believe whatever they want to.
***because I don't believe the world is 6,000 years old that I'm not Christian ***
One is not a Christian solely because of what one believes, but because of a miraculous transformation that happens to a person when they turn from sin and seek to whole-heartedly follow Jesus as Lord.
Having said that, it is my belief that one can not be a spiritually healthy, profitable or effective follower of Jesus Christ and distrust or dismiss any of his statements in the Bible.
Lyman Alpha Forest,
There is one spectral line that stands out above all others: the transition between the ground state of hydrogen and its first excited state. This is called the Lyman Alpha line.
This energy difference corresponds to a photon with a wavelength of 1216 angstroms.
Because the clouds lie at different distances, they are travelling at different relative velocities, because of the expansion of the universe. This means that their Lyman Alpha lines, as we see them, lie at different places in the spectrum, because of the Doppler effect. This means that there will be many more Lyman Alpha absorption lines--and at larger redshifts--for a distant object than for a nearby object.
For example, this also allows us to plot the positions of the intervening neutral hydrogen between a quasar and us.
Gravitational Lensing
How light is affected by massive gravitational objects in the universe.
Supernova 1987a
Shows that the universe is at least 170,000 years old.
As a background, I thought I would repost some background information prior to my next post tonight:
1. THE STANDARD MODEL:
The best description of how matter and energy interact (sans gravity) is called “The Standard Model” It describes the organization of all of the particles and how they interact. The elementary particles are divided into two families called quarks and leptons. Each family consists of six particles and three of each of the particles in each group are acted on by a force carrier.
Quarks: Six called, up charm, top, down, strange, and bottom. All six quarks are acted upon by gluons and photons. This is because all of them carry electromagnetic charge (u,c,t have a charge of +2/3 e, while d,s,b have a charge of -1/3 e), and all of them carry a color charge. There are three kinds of color charge, which are commonly written as red, green and blue. Every quark in the universe has one of these charges. Each flavor of quark can have any color charge.
Note: Because there is one kind of EM charge, there is one photon, but since there are three kinds of color charge, there are eight gluons. Gluons themselves carry both a color charge and an anti-color charge, so you'd think that there would be nine gluons, but the combination red-antired + blue-antiblue + green-antigreen is colorless, so if you define a red-antired gluon and a blue-antiblue gluon, a green-antigreen gluon can be described as a superposition of the other two. Only eight gluons are needed to span the color space.
Leptons: Six called: e neutrino, u neutrino, t neutrino, electron, muon, and tau. All quarks and leptons couple to both W and Z bosons. A W, for example, transforms an electron to an electron neutrino, or a t-quark to a b-quark.
Gravity is not included in the standard model, however it is believed that is exchange force is a graviton.
THE FOUR FUNDEMENTAL FORCES OF NATURE:
Strong force
Weak force
Electromagnetism (EM)
Gravity
All of the fundamental forces are considered Exchange Forces. In other words the force involves an exchange of one or more particles.
The exchange particles are as follows:
Strong – The pion (and others)
Note: The pion does mediate the inter-nucleon force. That force isn't fundamental, however. The fundamental force is the inter-quark force that binds the quarks into hadrons (such as protons, neutrons and pions), and that is what we usually mean by the strong force, nowadays. The force between hadrons is a residual color dipole interaction that is analogous to the Van der Waals force in electromagnetism.
Lets explore this a bit further:
First, lets take a look at Van der Waals Forces:
Atom and molecules are attracted to each other by two classes of bonds. The Intramolecular bond and the Intermolecular bond.
The Intermolecular bond is divided into these categories; Van der Waals Forces, Hydrogen Bonds, and molecule-ion attractions.
The Intramolecular bond (which are much stronger than the Intermolecular bond) is divided into these categories; Ionic bonding, covalent bonding, and metallic bonds.
We will only concentrate on the Van der Waals Forces.
Van der Waals Forces arise from the interaction of the electrons and nuclei of electrically neutral atoms and molecules. How is this possible if these are considered electrically neutral I hear you ask. What is going on here is that the electrons and nuclei of atoms and molecules (for this description: from here out called particles) are not at rest, but are in a constant motion. Since this is the case, there arises an electrical imbalance (called an instantaneous dipole [another term is a temporary polarity]) in this electrically neutral particle. Two “particles” in this dipole state will attract. Also this dipole action in one particle can cause a dipole in an adjoining (nearby) particle. So the dipole-dipole attraction is what is known as Van der Waals Forces. If these “particles” kinetic energies are low enough (anc close enough together), the repeated actions of the instantaneous dipoles will keep them attracted together.
One of the interesting things about this that the more electrons are in play the greater the Van der Waals Force. This is why the noble gas Krypton liquefies at a higher temperature than the noble gas Neon.
Back to the Standard Model.
A brief background: How does a nucleus stay together when it is packed with positively charged protons? Since “like” charges repel, you would think that the nucleus would fly apart. The force that keeps this from happening is the Strong Force. One of the things that was discovered is that the mass of any nucleus is always less than the sum of the individual particles (called nucleons) that make it up. The difference (residual) is due to the “Binding Energy” of the nucleus. This binding energy is directly related to the strength of the strong force. "Binding energy" is a negative energy. This binding enery folows a curve called the Nuclear Binding Energy Curve. The lighter elements from Hydrogen up to Sodium exibit an increase in the binding energy and there is a stable area from Magnesium thru Xenon. Iron is the most tightly bound element.
However, for nuclei above iron, the binding energy becomes less and less; the strong nuclear force creates stable minima in which very heavy nuclei can exist, but these are but local minima sitting high on the electromagnetic hill. A uranium nucleus is heavier than thorium plus helium.
So just what is this Strong Force anyway? The Strong force has an effect on quarks, anti quarks and gluons. Oh my, another term, QUARKS! After much research, it was discovered that the protons and neutrons in the nucleus were made up of smaller particles called quarks. It turned out that two types of quarks were needed to “produce” a proton or a neutron. However, there are six types of quarks in normal matter. The strong force binds these quarks together to form a family of particles called hadrons which include both protons and neutrons.
To simplify this discussion, quarks have a “color charge” (red, green, and blue). BTW, this was a convenient way of describing the charge, it is not referring to color as we commonly use it). Like colors repel and unlike colors attract. There are also antiquarks. If it is a quark/antiquark (same color) it is called a meson. If it’s between quarks it is called a baryon (protons and neutrons fall in this category). Here is the rub, baryonic particles can exist if their total color is neutral (colorless); i.e. have a red green and blue charge altogether. Both mesons and baryons are "colorless" with respect to the outside world. In baryons red + blue + green = colorless. In mesons, for example, red + anti-red (or, if you like, red - red) = colorless.
Without getting into too much more detail, quarks can interact, changing color, etc. so long as the total charge is conserved.
The quark interactions are cause by exchanging particles called gluons. There are eight kinds of gluons each having a specific “color” charge. The symmetry group of Quantum Chromodynamics is SU(3). In the minimal representation of SU(3), there are three generators...the color charges. In the non-minimal representation, there are 3²-1 generators...the eight gluons! This was spookily mirrored by Murray Gell-Mann's original (1964) quark theory, which also exploited the SU(3) symmetry. Only this time, the minimal representation was the three light quark flavors (up, down, strange), and the non-minimal representation was Gell-Mann's famous Eightfold Way, which correctly(!) predicted the properties of all the light hadrons, including some that had not yet been discovered.
So back to the original paragraph: Neutral (all three colors) hadrons (which include protons and neutrons) can interact with the strong force similarly to the way atoms an molecules react via the Van der Waals forces.
Electromagnetic (EM) – The photon
Weak – The W and Z
Gravity – The graviton
So to sum this up:
The Strong Force:
It is a force that holds the nucleus together against the repulsion of the Protons. It is not an inverse square force like EM and has a very short range. It is the strongest of the fundamental forces.
The Weak Force:
The weak force is the force that induces beta decay via interaction with neutrinos. A star uses the weak force to “burn” (nuclear fusion). Three processes we observe are proton-to proton fusion, helium fusion, and the carbon cycle. Here is an example of proton-to-proton fusion, which is the process our own sun uses: (two protons fuse -> via neutrino interaction one of the protons transmutes to a neutron to form deuterium -> combines with another proton to form a helium nuclei -> two helium nuclei fuse releasing alpha particles and two protons). The weak force is also necessary for the formation of the elements above iron. Due to the curve of binding energy (iron has the most tightly bound nucleus), nuclear forces within a star cannot form any element above iron in the periodic table. So it is believed that all higher elements were formed in the vast energies of supernovae. In this explosion large fluxes of energetic neutrons are produced which produce the heavier elements by nuclei bombardment. This process could not take place without neutrino involvement and the weak force.
Electromagnetism:
The electromagnetic force is the forces between charges (Coulomb’ Law) and the magnetic force which both are describe within the Lorentz Force Law. Electric and magnetic forces are manifestations of the exchange of photons. A photon is a quantum particle of light (electromagnetic radiation). This particle has a zero rest mass The relativistic mass of a photon is also zero. Gravity couples to energy density, which is typically dominated by mass. But even in Newtonian gravity, massless light particles will bend in a gravitational field (the trajectory of a test particle doesn't depend on mass). The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant and is unobtainable by baryonic matter due to the lorentz transformation. Electromagnetism obeys the “inverse square law”.
Gravity:
Gravity is the weakest of the forces and also obeys the inverse square law. The force is only attractive and is a force between any two masses. Gravity is what holds and forms the large scale structures of the universe such as galaxies.
I added this as further background for your reading enjoyment: :-)
Noise Temperature
Astronomers use temperature to represent the strength of detected radiation. Any body with a temperature above -273 deg C (approximately absolute 0) emits electromagnetic radiation (EM). This thermal radiation isn't just in the infrared but is exhibited across the entire electromagnetic spectrum. (Note: it will have a greater intensity (peak) at a specific area of the EM spectrum depending on its temperature). For example, bodies at 2000 K (Kelvin), the radiation is primarily in the infrared region and at 10000 K, the radiation is primarily in the visible light region. There is also a direct correlation between temperature and the amount of energy emitted, which is described by Planck's law.
When the temperature of a body decreases, two things happen. First, the peak shifts in the direction towards the longer wavelengths and second, it emits less radiation at all wavelengths.
This turns out to be extremely useful. When a radio astronomer looks at a particular location of the sky and exclaims that it has a noise temperature of 1500 K, he/she isn't declaring how hot the body (nebulae, etc) really is, but is providing a measurement of the strength of the radiation from the source at the observed frequency. For example, radiation from an extra solar body may be heated from a nearby source such as a star. If this body is radiating at a temperature of 500 K, it exhibits the same emissions across all frequencies that a local test source does. The calculated noise figure will be the same across all frequencies. (Note: this does not take into account other sources of radiation such as synchrotron radiation).
A problem for radio astronomers is that not only the observed source emits thermal radiation; the local environment (ground, atmosphere, etc) and the equipment (antenna, amplifiers, cables, receiver, etc) being used to make the measurements also emit thermal radiation. To accurately observe and measure the distant sources, the radio astronomer must subtract all of the local environment and detection equipment noise additions.
Back in 1963, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were working with a horn antenna trying to obtain the high efficiency possible for the Telstar project. This antenna was also going to be used for radio astronomy at a later date. They pointed it to a quiet part of the sky and took measurements. When they subtracted all of the known sources of noise, they found approximately 3 K left over. They worked very diligently to eliminate/describe this noise source and were unable to. This mysterious source of noise seemed to be there no matter where they pointed the antenna. What they had discovered was the microwave background produced from the Big Bang. This 3 (closer to 2.7) K microwave background originated approximately 300,000 years after the Big Bang itself had occurred. It has been determined that when these signals originated, the universe had already cooled down to around 3000 K.
The Interstellar Medium
Between the stars and galaxies is mostly empty space. However, this space is not entirely empty. It is filled with a diffuse medium of gas and dust called the Interstellar Medium (ISM). The ISM primarily consists of neutral hydrogen gas (HI), molecular gas (mostly H2, ionized gas (HII), and dust grains. Even though this considered a very good vacuum, the ISM in our galaxy comprises about five percent of the mass of the visible part (stars etc) of our galaxy.
Neutral Hydrogen Gas:
Our own galaxy is filled with a diffuse distribution of neutral hydrogen gas. This gas has a density of approximately one atom per centimeter cubed. One of the features of the neutral hydrogen is the radio wave production at 21 centimeters due to the spin properties of the atom. This neutral hydrogen is distributed in a clumpy fashion with cooler denser regions called “clouds”.
Molecular Clouds:
Denser than the surrounding regions, clouds of molecular hydrogen and dust are the birthplace of stars. We are unable to detect molecular hydrogen directly, however we can infer its characteristics from other molecules present (usually CO). There have been over 50 different molecules detected in these clouds including NH3, CH, OH, CS, etc. Some molecular clouds can be as large as 150 light years in diameter. There are thousands of these clouds in our galaxy, usually situated in the spiral arms and concentrated towards the center of the galaxy.
Ionized Hydrogen Regions:
The ionized hydrogen (HII) is the remnants left from the formation of the younger hotter stars. These produce the more visible nebula such as the Orion Nebula. O and B class stars recently formed in molecular clouds ionize the gas left over from their formation. This results in the gas being heated to a temperature of about 10,000K causing it to fluoresce producing emission line spectrums. Hydrogen atoms absorb photons and are ionized from the “extra” energy. This and other features such as collisions produce the emission features of both the hydrogen and helium in the visible nebula.
Interstellar Dust:
Around one percent of the ISM is in the form of tiny grains of dust. These grains are approximately the size of a particle of cigarette smoke. This dust blocks the plane of our Milky Way galaxy form our view. We can determine the composition of these dust clouds by the way if affects different frequencies of photons. One of the affects of these dust clouds is that they dim the light from distant objects. This dimming is called interstellar extinction. It also reddens the color (interstellar reddening) due to the fact that red light is not scattered as efficiently as blue light is. The characteristics for the dust particles vary throughout the galaxy. However, a typical grain of dust is composed of carbon mixed with silicates. Almost all of the elements such as carbon and silicon found in the ISM are found in the dust particles.
"Contemporary Catholic scholarship doesn't appear to teach inerrancy. (E.g., I browse through my copy of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary -- which has the Imprimatur -- and it discusses the pastoral epistles as not being written by Paul, and it discusses Daniel as being a product of the second century before Christ instead of the sixth century.) Hence my misunderstanding."
"Contemporary" Catholic scholarship very often has little to do with Catholic belief or doctrine.
The authors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary were/are liberal heretics who dispense much error in their tome. It is a tragic sign of the times that this work received an imprimatur - this no longer counts for anything as so many diocesan chancellors who issue them are just as ignorant of Catholic teaching as are the authors they are vetting.
Ray Brown was a disciple of Rudolf Bultmann more than he was a Catholic.
Ping for later read.
Ping for later
You are free to believe what you wish. Free country. I don't recall off the top of my head where Jesus said that the dinosaurs were planted to fool humanity into thinking the Earth was much older than it actually was....
Again, the Council of Cologne worded their statement very clearly and carefully, anathematizing those who claim we "emerged from spontaneous continuous change" (emph. added). The word "spontaneous" is what makes the assertion they are denouncing atheistic. God is the author of Man and the universe. Again, what is at issue is whether is not whether God created the universe, but the manner in which he did so. How you think Epiphanius and the Council of Jerusalem add anything to the argument beyond the literal reading of Genesis escapes me.
***Jesus said that the dinosaurs were planted to fool humanity into thinking the Earth was much older than it actually was....****
No, but you may remember when he said...
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,"
Jesus is treating the written account of Genesis as literally true and the basis of moral action.
In addition, he states that humans were created male and female frome the BEGINNING - a concept that evolution would utterly reject.
So you an't have it both ways. Either the evolutionists are right and Jesus is wrong or Jesus is right and the evolutionists are wrong. BTW, did you know that the Bible claims that Jesus himself was present at creation and was the agent through whoom God acted to create the world?
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"
Go ahead and pray to the gods of evolution, Darwin, Gould, whoever they are. See if they answer you from the grave. As for me, I'll pray to Jesus Christ - I know he has the power to answer.
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,"
In evolution, there is a moment when one species has changed enough to be distinct from its predecessor. When humans became fully human, they were in fact already male and female. They had been of two sexes for millions of years before that. So I don't see any contradiction of evolution in the quote you posted.
Go ahead and pray to the gods of evolution, Darwin, Gould, whoever they are. See if they answer you from the grave. As for me, I'll pray to Jesus Christ - I know he has the power to answer.
See, that's where you're wrong. Scientists aren't looking for someone to pray to. They're looking for information about the physical world.
Pray to whomever you want. More power to you. But keep it in perspective - while the Bible is a wonderful guide to living a moral life, it makes a lousy Advanced Physics textbook.
Religion is a wonderful thing, until you start to believe that it is the only thing.
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.