Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
I see, so you call yourself a Christian even though you reject the Bible's assertion that God created mankind and all life on earth? I mean that is not an interpretation, that is the most basic tenet of Christianity. If God is not the Creator then what's the point of Christianity? Is that not why He is called "our Father"?
The Second law of thermodynamics is the best example of an argument that sounds brilliant to those who know nothing of physics. Those of us with any significent intensive training, though, can plainly see the errors of that argument.
Other arguments, however, are substantial, most notably the argument by design. These are difficult, if not impossible to refute.
Christians are poorly served when they misrepresent scientific facts. This is why a completely above-the-board approach is vital to the message of Christianity.
--TJM
Put down the mirror.
First you break into a conversation between myself and another person claiming I'm all wet about the albedo and infrared flux evidence;
Show me where I said that. Your spam post makes it clear that the albedo data is--through some unstated goofy logic--being offered as supporting evidence of Velikovskianism. I responded to your whole post a year before in attacking that theory and I reminded you of the same more recently. I have also pointed out all of this more recently yet and you simply ignore and come back with the same dumb thing.
. . . then when you get shot down in flames on that one,
Meaning you simply wailed that I hadn't taken your albedo diversion. You can't prove Velikovsky's cosmic pinball game with Venus's albedo. There would be too many more prosaic explanations in any event. I have never been dumb enough to be suckered by your illogic and in this case did not advertise otherwise.
. . . you claim that the albedo and ir evidence has to be tossed because of the thick crust (i.e. you parrot Jim Acker's argument);
Not tossed, but it's never never never going to be even a good start to resuscitate Velikovsky. And that's what I was saying a year ago. And that's what I told you I was saying a year ago.
. . . next when you see that one also get shot down in flames,
You have delusions of grandeur when even adequacy would be a delusion. You've done nothing but make false charges, misdirect, quote-mine, and characterize those who dissect your arguments as head cases.
. . . you come back with more vague big-picture stuff.
You should take your head out and look at the big picture, too. And read your own source material. The Venus it describes is not and cannot be young. Your source authority clearly states as much.
The theory of evolution does not address the issue of creation. So how does it "reject" the Bible's assertion that God created mankind and all life on earth"?
Darwin posited that man descended from apes, that he was not created specifically by God. All evolutionists believe that else they are not evolutionists. As to all life, while not specifically stated, you will see that the evolutionists (and only the evolutionists) are on the side of abiogenesis (that life was created accidentally from inert matter) and try to prove it by numerous contortions and totally baseless assumptions. You will also note on these threads (as well as on most of the evolutionist literature) a profound hatred for religion and for Christianity in particular.
Show me where
I've already done that, several times. The ONLY thing I was talking about in post 203 of the other thread was albedo and ir flux data and you specifically claimed to have refuted that a year prior.
The monkey and typewriter probabilities have been posted elsewhere. But it's plainly logical . . . even if the first letter of a word occurred, and by some probability the 2nd and 3rd given great time lengths. . . by the time we got to the last letter of even a moderate sentence, chance would have reigned again--probably much earlier in the sentence. . . considering the time of the universe as near as it can be guessed at--about all the skill and data we REALLY HAVE would allow--a guess of unknown reliability--anyway--by the time we compare the age of the universe with the time required for a very minimal construction of a very basic sensible sequence of a fraction of the complexity of DNA--well, there's just not been remotely that much time.
Go ahead and title creationism pseudoscience if you will. As Huxley said 'We killed God off so we could screw like bunnies.'
Paraphrased
I used to allow that probably Creation and evolution had a measure of compatible overlap. Then I realized that regardless of the questionability of Creationist arguments--the science is just not there for evolution.
Evolution is the mindless religion policed by the narrow gestapo of the publish or perish nazis.
Alas, the ET's or purported ET's will seem to prove that ET's seeded our earth with their genetically designed species--and/or modified, hybridized and what not species. That too will be a trainload of crocks regardless of their 'holographic proofs' from 'history'. But at least it's MORE plausible than evolution.
I would have just quote the highlighted portions, but I didn't want to hear about how I'd cherry-picked the bits I like. So there's the whole statement. I direct your attention, however, to the parts in boldface. The Pope would appear to be saying that belief in evolution is not outside of Catholic teaching as long as the believer (in evolution), does not deny, say, a devine spark in the specific case of man.
He further states that he doesn't see that the issue of creation appears to bear on evolution from the point of view of the scientists involved. That's the part in bold italics, by the way. So where is the Pope off the beam? I'm sure he'd give worlds to know.
JOHN PAUL II
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
1. In celebrating the sixtieth anniversary of the academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research and thereby to assist him in his reflections.
He asked those whom he called the Church's senatus scientificus to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.
2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth. Moreover, to shed greater light on the Church's relations with science between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries is of great importance.
During this plenary session, you are undertaking a reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium, starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications gives rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission, she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.
3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.
In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.
For my part, when I received those taking part in your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.
4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.
Today, nearly half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.[Bodface added].
What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God willed for itself."
In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity, and self- giving with his peers.
St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created. But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity.
All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ. It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man.Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.[Boldface added]
6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable.
The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual is not the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.
7. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. This vision guided me in the encyclical which I dedicated to respect for human life and which I called precisely Evangelium Vitae.
It is significant that in St. John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude.
To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quotes the great saying of Deuteronomy: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
Even more, "life" is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God.
I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you.
Please define "science," "pseudo-science," and "pop-science."
Thank you.
Not true.
Please read this post, a certifiable copy of one posted a year earlier.
Actually, punctuated equilibrium, IMHO, has a lot in common with another favorite whipping boy found in the talk.origins types: Immanuel Velikovsky's theories of catastrophism.You clearly claim your albedo data as proof of a sweeping, silly, and impossible theory.Velikovsky had more going for him than Gould or Eldredge do.
As I see it, it's more than most people could do to try to completely run to ground more than a handful of the lines of evidences involved in the Velikovsky controversies and see where they lead, particularly for people who still have to work for a living and have limited resources for hobbies.
Nonetheless, I have made the effort to do that in a few cases and, in every instance in which I have, the raw evidence unequivocably supports Velikovsky and damns Sagan and pretty much all of Velikovsky's later-day critics.
One such case is the question of thermal balance on Venus and the various infrared flux meters andmeasurements of Albedo . . . [diving never to return into the albedo of Venus].
Your charge is baseless, a distraction. I misrepresented nothing, not a year ago, not a week ago, and not today.
I should have checked this. I forgot to allow for your combinatorial pasting, the evolution of your spam posts. The older text is longer, but it's still same stuff, same context. You were again presenting and defending Velikovskianism. I then as now rejected the silliness of defending such a theory with such a myopic approach.
"Nobody likes spam."
-- Jim Robinson, March 13, 2002 (to a medved post)
But, but ... what if you've got the TRUTH? You've GOT to get the truth out. You've GOT to!!!!
</medved mode>
Hmmm...
Piltdown_Woman or monotreme...Piltdown_Woman or monotreme...
YOU decide! ;)
I'm of two minds:
Don't go mental, stay placental!But thenMonotreme is too extreme!
For primitive lust, a mono's no bust!Never mind! It's an area where I have trouble concentrating.Mind me platypus duck, Bill . . .
Depending upon web page, either no nipples or (ugh!) hairy nipples. Take your pick.
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.