Mathematics, common sense and the origin of man.

reply to post by BO XIAN

NONSENSE. You claim that YOUR BELIEFS are valid and mine aren't. THAT ITSELF is a belief.

The above statement proves my point. Your still confusing beliefs as evidence with misconceptions about the nature of evidence and the difference between fact and opinion.
I have never claimed my beliefs are valid, in fact I have never shared any of my beliefs with you.

NONSENSE. My hypotheses about cosmology etc. have been supported by at least as many observations--and probably many more of them my direct observations--than have yours. And, I'd wager . . . as objectively assessed as yours, if not more so.

It's evident you didn't arrive at your theistic beliefs by observing the Universe and then making careful, logically consistent extrapolations.
Your arguments are of post-hoc rationalizations of pre-existing beliefs and are simply invalid even after having the logical fallacies pointed out to you, you still insist otherwise. Therefor your beliefs are irrational.

Wellllllllllllllll, I'd say that your perspective has many MORE HUNDREDS of absolutely unevidenced claims than my cosmology does.

Put up or shut up. You have provided zero evidence for your beliefs, your rationalization is just an excuse to maintain belief.

reply to post by flyingfish


WRONG again.

Your BELIEFS are showing again.

I believe in God primarily because He AND HIS WORD have PROVEN TRUE

IN

MY LIFE . . . as well as the lives of many I most respect.

That's via observation, BTW.

As in a quick mother's prayer and the flying tin roofing swirling in a twister stops in virtually a straight line on 2 sides of our mud hut--a straight line about 1.5" from the walls.

And rain falling on 4 sides of drying hay in the field--hay we desperately needed to keep the homestead--but rain didn't fall on the drying hay.

And prayer that if God wanted us to go into the dairy business, fine. If not, that there would be a buyer for the herd of cows before Monday. There was a buyer the next morning before we left for church, Sunday. They wanted even our family cow. Within a month or so, the price of milk had fallen and the price of hay had gone up. We'd have lost our farm.

That's enough pearls to toss about.

You're simply WRONG and your BELIEFS about evidence, truth, reality have you in a horrific set of blinders coloring what you CAN see and what you CAN think about what you observe. It's unlikely you'll be ABLE to see or observe reality any differently regardless of the proofs that fall in your lap.

BTW, I don't recall hiring you as my editor, mentor, director, philosopher, professor, drummer, drum major, judge, jury or executioner. I don't write or shut-up at your direction or command.

You are most welcome to ignore my posts or not, as you see fit.

BTW, your rationalizations are just excuses to maintain belief.

The Church teaches a species can change within its species NEVER evolve into another species. Makes sense, God has an ordered system. A sign of maturity, when you discover something new and good, then,
accept it.

+ + +

Micro/Macro

Firstly, it is important to make the simple but crucial distinction between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution.

MICRO-evolution is a fact of science. It concerns relatively minor changes that take place within a plant or animal form, but do not change the plant or animal into anything else. The peppered moth of England is an example of micro-evolution. This little English moth was observed becoming increasingly darker as trees were darkened by soot during the Industrial Revolution. But throughout this change, the moth was still a moth. It was not on its way to becoming an iguana.

MACRO-evolution is something quite different. It is the teaching that one kind evolves into another. This has never been proven by science. But one of the key tactics used by evolutionists to supposedly "prove" their case is to point to an example of MICRO-evolution (the changes in the peppered moth) and claim this as proof of MACRO-evolution. This sort of cheap trickery shows how desperate evolutionists are to prove their false theory.

Evolution: Critical for the Atheist Agenda

Why is evolution kept alive? Why are we not told that Darwinism is dead? That there is devastating evidence against the theory of evolution? Because ___ if evolution is taken away, practically every major world view of our modern day will have nothing to support it and will come crashing to the ground. Modernism. Communism. Secular Humanism. Eugenics. The New Age Movement and even the atheistic United Nations ___ are all based upon the theory of evolution and could not survive without it. Take evolution away, and it would destroy the entire godless superstructure of our modern world in which all these erroneous ideas and institutions reign supreme.

LATERAN IV (1215)

God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.

VATICAN I (1869 - 1870)

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 (canon 5).

www.catholicapologetics.info...

reply to post by colbe


So aren’t you a heretic if you don’t embrace evolution as the catholic church teaches?
www.telegraph.co.uk...

racasan
reply to post by colbe

 

So aren’t you a heretic if you don’t embrace evolution as the catholic church teaches?
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Hi racasan,

Brother, you gotta become Catholic, God wants you to....

That old godless UK article from 2009 is about one' man's opinion and does not follow Church teaching.


Contrary to what Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi says, Saints Augustine and Aquinas NEVER would have held any such view, nor would they have held that one animal species could evolve into another, which is contradicted in the only true account the faithful have of creation, the Book of Genesis. No one denies microevolution, as changes within the same species is called; but macroevolution is certainly contrary to the true Faith. It makes a mockery of the inspired Genesis account of man’s creation.

reply to post by colbe


en.wikipedia.org...
www.cin.org...
or
ncse.com...
or
www.nytimes.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

so if pope John Paul 2 says evolution is ok and you say its not then you are a heretic - right?

racasan
reply to post by colbe

 

en.wikipedia.org...
www.cin.org...
or
ncse.com...
or
www.nytimes.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

so if pope John Paul 2 says evolution is ok and you say its not then you are a heretic - right?

edit on 18-12-2013 by racasan because: edit to add

Wikipedia and the New York Times are so reliable and so pro-Catholic. Pope John Paul II is in Heaven.
He agrees with the Holy Trinity. Read my post again, Pope John Paul referred to Micro evolution NOT Macro evolution.

colbe
The Church teaches a species can change within its species NEVER evolve into another species. Makes sense, God has an ordered system. A sign of maturity, when you discover something new and good, then,
accept it.

+ + +

Micro/Macro

Firstly, it is important to make the simple but crucial distinction between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution.

MICRO-evolution is a fact of science. It concerns relatively minor changes that take place within a plant or animal form, but do not change the plant or animal into anything else. The peppered moth of England is an example of micro-evolution. This little English moth was observed becoming increasingly darker as trees were darkened by soot during the Industrial Revolution. But throughout this change, the moth was still a moth. It was not on its way to becoming an iguana.

MACRO-evolution is something quite different. It is the teaching that one kind evolves into another. This has never been proven by science. But one of the key tactics used by evolutionists to supposedly "prove" their case is to point to an example of MICRO-evolution (the changes in the peppered moth) and claim this as proof of MACRO-evolution. This sort of cheap trickery shows how desperate evolutionists are to prove their false theory.

Evolution: Critical for the Atheist Agenda

Why is evolution kept alive? Why are we not told that Darwinism is dead? That there is devastating evidence against the theory of evolution? Because ___ if evolution is taken away, practically every major world view of our modern day will have nothing to support it and will come crashing to the ground. Modernism. Communism. Secular Humanism. Eugenics. The New Age Movement and even the atheistic United Nations ___ are all based upon the theory of evolution and could not survive without it. Take evolution away, and it would destroy the entire godless superstructure of our modern world in which all these erroneous ideas and institutions reign supreme.

LATERAN IV (1215)

God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.

VATICAN I (1869 - 1870)

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 (canon 5).

www.catholicapologetics.info...

reply to post by colbe


Wikipedia and the New York Time are just reporting what was said but I also included Catholic Information Network (CIN)

Pope John Paul II:

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind 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.

He never mentioned macro/micro evolution once – and is it not a sin to put words into the dead pope’s mouth?

Everybody who has looked at the theory of evolution and I guess I have to include Pope John Paul II in this thinks that the macro/micro evolution thing is hogwash

So once again I ask
If you go against what the church teaches about evolution then are you not a heretic?

racasan
reply to post by colbe

 

Wikipedia and the New York Time are just reporting what was said but I also included Catholic Information Network (CIN)

Pope John Paul II:

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind 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.

He never mentioned macro/micro evolution once – and is it not a sin to put words into the dead pope’s mouth?

Everybody who has looked at the theory of evolution and I guess I have to include Pope John Paul II in this thinks that the macro/micro evolution thing is hogwash

So once again I ask
If you go against what the church teaches about evolution then are you not a heretic?

Clarify your "everybody", tee hee.

You're stating the same untruth again. The Church does NOT teach Darwin's macro-evolution. And best stop with trying to sell Pope John Paul II believing Darwinism or ever for Heaven's sake professing it! Pope John Paul said Our Lord's mother, Mary most holy did NOT descend from the apes.


God bless you,

colbe
The Church teaches a species can change within its species NEVER evolve into another species. Makes sense, God has an ordered system. A sign of maturity, when you discover something new and good, then,
accept it.

+ + +

Micro/Macro

Firstly, it is important to make the simple but crucial distinction between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution.

MICRO-evolution is a fact of science. It concerns relatively minor changes that take place within a plant or animal form, but do not change the plant or animal into anything else. The peppered moth of England is an example of micro-evolution. This little English moth was observed becoming increasingly darker as trees were darkened by soot during the Industrial Revolution. But throughout this change, the moth was still a moth. It was not on its way to becoming an iguana.

MACRO-evolution is something quite different. It is the teaching that one kind evolves into another. This has never been proven by science. But one of the key tactics used by evolutionists to supposedly "prove" their case is to point to an example of MICRO-evolution (the changes in the peppered moth) and claim this as proof of MACRO-evolution. This sort of cheap trickery shows how desperate evolutionists are to prove their false theory.

As much as creationists want to say otherwise, there isn't any difference between macro and micro evolution. When enough micro changes occur over a long period of time, it becomes macro evolution.

Macro-evolution has been proven just by looking at the human fossil record. We can trace our evolution all the way back to single celled organisms. Timeline of human evolution

Evolution: Critical for the Atheist Agenda

Evolution doesn't rely on atheism being true, this is another misconception of Creationists. God (or gods) could easily have used Evolution as a means to develop life.

Why is evolution kept alive? Why are we not told that Darwinism is dead? That there is devastating evidence against the theory of evolution? Because ___ if evolution is taken away, practically every major world view of our modern day will have nothing to support it and will come crashing to the ground. Modernism. Communism. Secular Humanism. Eugenics. The New Age Movement and even the atheistic United Nations ___ are all based upon the theory of evolution and could not survive without it. Take evolution away, and it would destroy the entire godless superstructure of our modern world in which all these erroneous ideas and institutions reign supreme.

This is a bunch of nonsense, our modern social constructs do not rely on a scientific theory being true.

LATERAN IV (1215)

God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.

VATICAN I (1869 - 1870)

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 (canon 5).

www.catholicapologetics.info...

Neither of these bible passages disprove evolution. All they are saying is that God created everything. They aren't saying HOW God created everything. There is a key difference there that you are willfully ignoring.

Besides the bible was written by men, who are easily corrupted. The bible is a terrible source of evidence.

Krazysh0t

colbe
The Church teaches a species can change within its species NEVER evolve into another species. Makes sense, God has an ordered system. A sign of maturity, when you discover something new and good, then,
accept it.

+ + +

Micro/Macro

Firstly, it is important to make the simple but crucial distinction between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution.

MICRO-evolution is a fact of science. It concerns relatively minor changes that take place within a plant or animal form, but do not change the plant or animal into anything else. The peppered moth of England is an example of micro-evolution. This little English moth was observed becoming increasingly darker as trees were darkened by soot during the Industrial Revolution. But throughout this change, the moth was still a moth. It was not on its way to becoming an iguana.

MACRO-evolution is something quite different. It is the teaching that one kind evolves into another. This has never been proven by science. But one of the key tactics used by evolutionists to supposedly "prove" their case is to point to an example of MICRO-evolution (the changes in the peppered moth) and claim this as proof of MACRO-evolution. This sort of cheap trickery shows how desperate evolutionists are to prove their false theory.

As much as creationists want to say otherwise, there isn't any difference between macro and micro evolution. When enough micro changes occur over a long period of time, macro evolution occurs.

There sure is, you deny God who can keep His systems and species separate. Darwin's brother was quoted
as knowing his brother's theory was a lie.

Macro-evolution has been proven just by looking at the human fossil record. We can trace our evolution all the way back to single celled organisms. Timeline of human evolution

Evolution: Critical for the Atheist Agenda

Darwin's macro-evolution is theory to this day. Why would you want to come from apes? Give God some credit. Oh right, that's the reason. Humanity is separate, higher than the animals, we have an eternal soul.

Evolution doesn't rely on atheism being true, this is another misconception of Creationists. God (or gods) could easily have used Evolution as a means to develop life.

Evolution is from atheists, look who sells it. They do not want to accept God is smarter, we are not animals or descend from them. Prideful, so called intellectual, science is my God, accept coming from the apes.

Why is evolution kept alive? Why are we not told that Darwinism is dead? That there is devastating evidence against the theory of evolution? Because ___ if evolution is taken away, practically every major world view of our modern day will have nothing to support it and will come crashing to the ground. Modernism. Communism. Secular Humanism. Eugenics. The New Age Movement and even the atheistic United Nations ___ are all based upon the theory of evolution and could not survive without it. Take evolution away, and it would destroy the entire godless superstructure of our modern world in which all these erroneous ideas and institutions reign supreme.

This is a bunch of nonsense, our modern social constructs do not rely on a scientific theory being true.
Tee hee, you just said it "theory" is just a wondering and can be wrong

LATERAN IV (1215)

God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.

VATICAN I (1869 - 1870)

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 (canon 5).

www.catholicapologetics.info...

Neither of these bible passages disprove evolution. All they are saying is that God created everything. They aren't saying HOW God created everything. There is a key difference there that you are willfully ignoring.
God isn't Bible Alone, He has made it clear, He keeps His species, His systems separate, you can see the same in all of His creation.

Besides the bible was written by men, who are easily corrupted. The bible is a terrible source of evidence.

edit on 18-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

Then why did you care to comment, your last? Who has corrupted you in calling God's Word a terrible source of anything? You don't have to answer, I know who, do not be mad at God, just pray.


God bless you,


colbe

colbe


Clarify your "everybody", tee hee.

Sorry I meant everybody but American protestants – they are about the only people I every see who still try to use the macro/micro evolution error

You're stating the same untruth again. The Church does NOT teach Darwin's macro-evolution. And best stop with trying to sell Pope John Paul II believing Darwinism or ever for Heaven's sake professing it! Pope John Paul said Our Lord's mother, Mary most holy did NOT descend from the apes.


God bless you,

Now I gave you a quote from Pope John Paul II saying he goes along with the theory of evolution and you said
Pope John Paul referred to Micro evolution NOT Macro evolution.

Show me where he made it clear that was what he was referring to this macro/micro evolution heresy and not the church accepted and widely understood theory of evolution

Search your feelings my child – do you really want to stand in jeopardy with the American protestants against the teachings of the true church?

colbe
There sure is, you deny God who can keep His systems and species separate. Darwin's brother was quoted
as knowing his brother's theory was a lie.

So what does that have to do with anything? How is Darwin's brother an authority on anything? Is he even a scientist? Don't answer that, I've got wikipedia.

Erasmus Alvey Darwin

oh and this from the article:

As the reaction to Darwin's theory began following publication of The Origin of Species at the end of 1859, Erasmus thought it "the most interesting book I have ever read", and sent a copy to his old flame Harriet Martineau who at 58 was still reviewing from her home in the Lake District. In 1863 he was on the Council of the abolitionist Ethnological Society of London which at the time of the American Civil War was engaged in debate with the breakaway pro-slavery Anthropological Society.

By the way, if you are going to quote mine, how about actually you know providing a quote... (even though quote mining is bad at least that is something)

Darwin's macro-evolution is theory to this day. Why would you want to come from apes? Give God some credit. Oh right, that's the reason. Humanity is separate, higher than the animals, we have an eternal soul.

I really don't care where I came from. If it was apes, then so be it. It doesn't drastically change my life to know that information. What is wrong with apes? Do you consider them lesser beings? They are to me some very interesting animals and display and share many traits with humans. Also, humans are animals, the only thing separating us from other animals is our intelligence and ability to reason. But that is just a characteristic of our species, it doesn't make us any more special than say a shark.

As to the soul, I'm not entirely sure it exists, but if it does then it could have easily evolved just like our intelligence.

Evolution is from atheists, look who sells it. They do not want to accept God is smarter, we are not animals or descend from them. Prideful, so called intellectual, science is my God, accept coming from the apes.

This is a bunch of malarkey. Darwin wasn't an atheist. He was a Christian. Not all scientists are atheists either. The Catholic church has accepted evolution. You. are. wrong.

BTW, I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't worship science like you are implying. I don't worship anything. I also don't NOT believe in God or gods either. If proof were to actually surface of a supreme being's existence, I'd believe in it. HOWEVER, If it was the Christian god, I don't think I could ever worship Him (again, I used to be Catholic). He is an evil asshole who readily admits to carrying the human sins of jealousy and wraith (and some could argue pride).

Tee hee, you just said it "theory" is just a wondering and can be wrong

*Sigh* Another Creationist who doesn't know the difference between the layman's definition of theory and the scientific one.

What is a Scientific Theory?

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

The only thing funny here, is your gross misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is.

God isn't Bible Alone, He has made it clear, He keeps His species, His systems separate, you can see the same in all of His creation.

Uh... what...? This doesn't make any sense. EVERYTHING in existence came from a singular source, living and non-living. There is no separation here. The Big Bang occurred and spread matter throughout the universe which in turn became the first galaxies and stars. The stars eventually went supernova and spread heavier elements into space which became new stars and planets. Then life developed somehow (possibly abiogenesis, it is a hypothesis so cannot confirm) as single celled organisms. These in turn evolved to what we have today.

Then why did you care to comment, your last? Who has corrupted you in calling God's Word a terrible source of anything? You don't have to answer, I know who, do not be mad at God, just pray.


God bless you,


colbe

Again, the bible was written by men, NOT God. We know this for a fact, it is inarguable. Men are corruptible. In order to take the bible as true, we need more than JUST the bible to corroborate its stories. There are many inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible. Not to mention, it can easily be shown that God is NOT infallible and is NOT all powerful just by analyzing passages in the bible describing His actions.

colbe
You're stating the same untruth again. The Church does NOT teach Darwin's macro-evolution. And best stop with trying to sell Pope John Paul II believing Darwinism or ever for Heaven's sake professing it! Pope John Paul said Our Lord's mother, Mary most holy did NOT descend from the apes.


God bless you,

The Catholic church has acknowledged the fact of evolution. It's amazing how us non-believers often know more about religions than their followers

reply to post by rhinoceros


Nt only do they accept evolution as an observable process the Vatican Observatory has also come out supporting the Big Bang based on their own observations.