Evolution sparks high level debate in Catholicism!!!

© 2004 Daniel R. Porter, Bronxville, New York

username: shroudie

full name: Daniel R. Porter

profile: I believe that all manners of reason, philosophy, science and objective history are important to understanding mankind’s belief or doubts about God. As a Christian with a modern worldview, I find the mysteries of the Shroud of Turin a major intellectual challenge to classical and contemporary theological thought. For the latest information on the images as of 2005 see my site Shroud of Turin Story 2005

Whay is this site "reputable"? Where is it revieved by the scientific community?
 
From your ABC article:

Asked why carbon-dating might have been off, Rogers contended that "the people who cut the sample didn't do a very good job of characterizing the samples," that is, taking samples from many areas of the cloth.
Click to expand...
Because they weren't fucking allowed to.

The Vatican, which does not claim that the shroud is authentic, said Saturday it had not comment on the new testing. Officials at the Turin archdiocese could not be reached for comment.
Click to expand...

Aren't you catholic?
 
sorry, i will not laugh about this. it appears that i am correct. Certain cardinals and other high levels have said that the shroud is genuine, a fifth gospel.
ABC, though it tends to be a liberal tract, found it necessary to report the findings of new-era scientists who are in the business of cleaning up after puedoscientists of the earlier eras. Now we are in a new era, no longer dominated by the atheistic communist and fascist scientist block.The official vatican position on the validity of relics is silence, since relics are a matter of personal, not public, faith.
 
Last edited:
Lapdog: sorry, i will not laugh about this. it appears that i am correct.
*************
M*W: Sorry, I will laugh about this. It appears you are deluded.
 
Since Scientists and Modernist Rationalists claim that they are devoteed to establishing the truth, why do they allow emotions to cloud their vision?

they say that it is I who should be sceptical of religion (or only in the area of Dogma and Scripture but everything that psuedoscientists cram down our throats with the help of mass media should be accepted without question)

Yet they err in this.

IN REALITY THE TRUE ORDER OF THINGS DEMANDS THE SITUATION TO BE REVERSED:

The scientist must be questioning in all areas of his feild's endeavor, not just those that fit his own comfort zone or outlook.

Likewise, in as much that a student of science should discipline his mind in that questioning posture, to that same extent in spiritual matters a person should not question the Religious Dogmas handed down from Tradition, lest he adhere to any doctrine which suites his fancy. For in this a certain distrust and hatred of God's appointed Authority is shown, and the Devil's delusion embraced.
 
Last edited:
Lawdog:

Likewise, in as much that a student of science should discipline his mind in that questioning posture, to that same extent a in spiritual matters a person should not question the Religious Dogmas handed down from Tradition, lest he <strike>adhere any doctrine which suit his fancy</strike> use his mind and discover the lie of religion.
Click to expand...

There, fixed. You're welcome.
 
Lawdog,

Is it because of your lack of willingness to question your dogma that you are afraid to learn some actual science?
 
No. That is what I have been trying to say:
I am willing to listen to Science in matters concerning the physical reality which is its proper domain.

but I differ also as to how actual science is defined, how scientific authorities are convinced of sub-logical theories, and hence their motives must be held with suspicion, and their distortion of evidence revealed.
 
Last edited:
Actual Science does NOT design a theory first and then prove it by assembling circumstantial evidence.
 
You are correct.

Science does this:

1) There is something that begs an explanation (why do things fall? What makes a rainbow, how did life get the way it is...)

2) You make a bunch of observations (Hmm. People share a lot of traits with apes. Hey, that bird is awfully similar to this one. Look! That fossil T-Rex vertebra looks just like this condor vertebra, only bigger!)

3) You make a theory (I think dinosaurs evolved into birds)

4) You test the hell out of the theory (You watch bacteria evolve in a dish. You observe actual instances of macroevolution in nature)

5) You conclude that the theory is a good approximation of what really happens.

6) You keep testing.
 
Yes. That is exactly what Paleontologists after Darwin did not do.
 
They looked at fossils in strata and used the theory of Evolution to explain the age of the strata. A circular logic.
 
My dear Lawdog, you are mistaken. Some poor folks in the past may have used that as some kind of arguement, but that was before the modern understanding of geology. You seem stuck in the 19th century.

Today, strata are dated radiometrically, and by stratigraphy based on geologic principles. Fossils are dated by the age of the rocks they are found in.

Better?
 
superluminal said:
Today, strata are dated radiometrically, and by stratigraphy based on geologic principles. Fossils are dated by the age of the rocks they are found in.
Click to expand...
To be more specific, they are dated by strata of volcanic ejecta above and below the stone we find them in. This sets boundary dates for the age of the fossil.

~Raithere
 
Lawdog said:
The official vatican position on the validity of relics is silence, since relics are a matter of personal, not public, faith.
Click to expand...
Actually, those who had the means to investigate at the time of its appearance deemed it a forgery:

"In 1389 the image was denounced as a fraud by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis in a letter to the Avignon pope, mentioning that the image had previously been denounced by his predecessor Henri de Poitiers, who had been concerned that no such image was mentioned in scripture. Bishop D'Arcis continued, "Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed." (In German: [3].) The artist is not named in the letter.

The letter of Bishop D'Arcis also mentions Bishop Henri's attempt to suppress veneration, but notes that the cloth was quickly hidden "for 35 years or so", thus agreeing with the historical details already established above. The letter provides an accurate description of the cloth: "upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Savior had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore."" - wikipedia.org

~Raithere
 
Lawdog said:
For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was "too old," according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. The story you repeat here is simply a lie. In truth no minimum age for Australopithecus ramidus has yet been determined. AR is not based upon a single find but multiple finds. The age of some finds has been determined but not of others, so that we know when AR did exist but not exactly when it began and ended. The fantasy you repeat, that scientists simply reject data out of hand is simply fallacious. Rejected data, for reasons of contamination as you provide, must be demonstrated in a primary work or it would not be accepted. In Science you are not allowed to pick and choose your data, if you make a selection you must provide cause.

~Raithere
 
Lawdog said:
Now we are in a new era, no longer dominated by the atheistic communist and fascist scientist block.
Click to expand...

good soundbite, you are consistently very very funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top