I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(09-21-2019, 11:41 PM)Stanis Wrote:
(09-15-2019, 11:45 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: And thus the most interesting passage from St Thomas is Prima Pars, Question 96, Article 1, in his response to the second objection (my emphasis):

Quote:In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals.

"But this is quite unreasonable" seems a rather weak translation for the Latin "Sed hoc est omnino irrationabile".

In article 4 of the same question the term "irrationalibilibus" means the non-rational animals - those which lack reason entirely.

Agreed. A bit weak.

St Thomas isn't one to set up straw men, or drift towards ad hominems. I do chuckle on the few occasions, though when St Thomas seems to subtly take some dig at the objector. It makes him a bit more human, because I can only imagine he must have had some fun during some of those lectures he gave. I can only imagine what a sense of humor he must have had.

Which translation would you prefer, Stanis :

1. "But this is completely irrational."
2. "What a bovine idea!"
3. "Only a brute beast would come up with an idea like that!"
4. "Your mom."
5. None of the above.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102
Reply
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

'Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes: vanity of vanities, and all is vanity.' - Ecclesiastes 1:2

My blog: https://slavetothesacredhe.art.blog/
Reply
(11-13-2019, 12:30 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [Video]

I'm not a proponent of Theistic Evolution or Progressive Creationism, but to already see after watching only 7 minutes of the video:

1. A blatant mischaracterization of the position of Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creationists

2. Sophistry : calling his own view the "traditional" view of Creation, and failing to mention that the Fathers themselves were widely split on their interpretation

3. Red herring : That Pope Innocent III was Pope during Lateran IV and one document he issued was contradicted by Pope Francis has nothing to do with Lateran IV and its interpretation and Progressive Creationism. That's classic Protestant-style argumentation, to feed in red herrings that make it sound like they have a case.

4. Circular argumentation - Owen quotes a Vatican I anathema, but leave open what was defined, implying that his view is the dogma that is being denied by his opponents, despite that Pius XII and the PBC in 1909 explicitly allow what he seems to suggest is heretical.

5. Contradiction - He quotes Pius XII who does allow for study of evolution as he admits, and then says that Lateran IV does not. And in doing this pits the Church against itself. Either Pius XII is correct and study is allowed (thus a non simultaneous creation is, whether true or not, possible) or Lateran IV insists on a simultaneous Creation and Genesis 1 must be interpreted only as St Augustine insists (so no 6-day Creation), or Pius XII and the 1909 PBC decision was permitting heresy.

6. Plain falsity - Most who subscribe to a less-than-literal interpretation of Genesis 1 start from Magisterial documents like Providentissimum Deus, Humani Generis, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, as well as theologians and Scripture scholars who support, or at least allow these ideas. It is hardly "speculation".

And that's just 7 minutes in ...

I think we can see the problem with people who have no background in theology doing theology.

I'd point out again, a point I made higher up on the page much earlier :

Quote:The sad problem that I've seen with Owen and the Kolbe Center is something I think many of us fall into : Confirmation Bias. We convince ourselves of the truth of a proposition, then we look for the evidence of it, and we begin dismissing anything contradictory of it, even if only by failing to look for it. We all do it, and it's a problem, and that's why having critics who are willing to cite sources, deal with one issue at a time, etc. are very good for us.

This video is a perfect example of this in this first 7 minutes. 

Owen has decided that anything but a 168-hour Creation process is heresy. He therefore tries to search out for data and quotes to find this. In doing this he misses major facts and references from the magisterium which undermine his interpretation, or at least undermine his ability to claim such dramatic things about his enemies.

The more I hear from Owen, though, the more I think he is not of good will, because he's not just missing easy retorts and his bad argumentation.

I get the sense he knows that the Church has allowed Progressive Creationism and Thestic Evolution, but he thinks these false. Since he cannot quote the Church directly against them since they are permitted, he has to find some back door than Pius XII and Pius X and Leo XIII must have missed, so it's Red herrings, and suggestions of heresy, and infallible statements, and Pope Francis changing this ... 

In short that he knows he cannot prove his thesis from the Magisterium or the Fathers, but he can suggest enough that people will think he's proven his case. If that's correct, then that's an even more important reason to stay far away.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • antiquarian, Augustinian, jovan66102
Reply
(11-13-2019, 11:01 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: 3. Red herring : That Pope Innocent III was Pope during Lateran IV and one document he issued was contradicted by Pope Francis has nothing to do with Lateran IV and its interpretation and Progressive Creationism. That's classic Protestant-style argumentation, to feed in red herrings that make it sound like they have a case.

That was one thing that gave me pause when I was listening to it, how he brought up the changes regarding capital punishment out of literally nowhere.

Lol I figured that posting Hugh Owens would be like blood in the water for you. Good analysis.  Big Grin
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

'Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes: vanity of vanities, and all is vanity.' - Ecclesiastes 1:2

My blog: https://slavetothesacredhe.art.blog/
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
(11-14-2019, 12:07 AM)Augustinian Wrote:
(11-13-2019, 11:01 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: 3. Red herring : That Pope Innocent III was Pope during Lateran IV and one document he issued was contradicted by Pope Francis has nothing to do with Lateran IV and its interpretation and Progressive Creationism. That's classic Protestant-style argumentation, to feed in red herrings that make it sound like they have a case.

That was one thing that gave me pause when I was listening to it, how he brought up the changes regarding capital punishment out of literally nowhere.

Lol I figured that posting Hugh Owens would be like blood in the water for you. Good analysis.  Big Grin

I've met Owen, and at least early along I thought him a decent Byzantine Catholic who was well meaning, but just a little off. I do think he probably is good-willed, but I also that the friends he pulled in, like Bob Sungenis were a really bad choice, and as a result he's become much more militant.

Listen, if someone wants to promote some theory of this, great. I, personally, don't care for any of them, because I don't think any of them really capture the whole truth of the matter, and a great deal of this is mystery. Thus, I'd be fine with Hugh trying to promote a Young-Earth Creation theory if it were theologically sound and were far less loaded with epithets towards those with whom he disagrees.

He seems, like so many Protestant Creationists (e.g. Kent Hovind) to be a Catholic reworking of these. Early along when trying to figure out how to teach science classes and Biology I was very intrigued by those types. After seminary studies, especially Patrology, and Scripture, I have a very different view of them.

I recall at a conference I attended that after some between-lecture discussions with some seminarians and a priest Hugh had to clarify that he was not saying that Theistic Evolution was heretical or against the Catholic Faith, and that the Church did allow it to be taught. He explained why he thought it wrong, and that was the reason for his work. From just the first few minutes of this video, though, it certainly sounds like he's bought Sungenis' view that those who the literal reading of Genesis 1 (and non-geocentrists) are heretics.

If Hugh were just to present the evidence for his case instead of seeking to try to label his opponents directly or indirectly as heretics, I would have some respect for him, and really would not feel the need to interject. But because he does seem to want to do that, and he is good at making it sounds very theologically sounds and erudite, thus my reaction.
Reply
(12-20-2018, 06:16 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote:
(09-24-2018, 03:56 PM)nolte Wrote:
(07-22-2018, 09:18 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: Indeed and my apologies. I would recommend reading just the sections that most interest you. When I was growing up it was tonsils, everyone was having them taken out. All my cousins and we were raised in a devout catholic family.  Luckily they never got around to me as planned.

It was never the case - anywhere - that people were just having their tonsils out.

Your honesty is as suspect as your ability to copy-paste from YEC websites.

perhaps I imagined it. Maybe it was a dream. Maybe evolution is true and the earth is flat. Or maybe they took people tonsils out because they thought them useless and the cause of strept throat.

Yes - you did either imagine it or just made it up because you are an uninformed creationist.
Nobody thought tonsils caused "strept throat".  More idiocy from a dishonest creationist.
Reply
(12-20-2018, 06:13 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: “It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16
I never said it was a lie - I said you are a liar for doing what you've done.  That or you are spectacularly incompetent.

Your child-like spelling is the least of your problems.

Quote:This quote was not used to say what the % is, only that the 98% is a lie, and it is. But to show you believe a lie you suport a 98% similarity.
It is not a lie.  It is dependent upon what specifically is being compared.

Are you this dense?  or this dishonest?

I am going to omit your wall of plagiarized quotes, because you are clearly too dense to understand most of them.


Quote:
Jeff Tompkins ARJ “Genome wide only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to Human under most optimal sequence slice conditions” https://answersingenesis.org/answers/res...romosomes/


and he concluded “therefore the total similarity should be below 70%”  Plus it is now said that humans can vary by 4.5% yet chimps are claimed to be only 2%.
http://www.icr.org/article/dna-variation-widens-human-chimp-chasm/
Tomkins is a hack - if you had ever paid attention to the replies you get on the forums where you spam your child-like lies, you might have learned that Tomkins' methods were shown to be unreliable and perhaps even 'fixed' to produce lower level returns.  

But you are not about learning, you are about preaching your ancient mythology.

https://www.reddit.com/r/junkscience/com...ns_did_it/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution...ils_again/

"[color=var(--newCommunityTheme-bodyText)]Former YEC, geology student
[/color]

AFAIK Tomkins originally said it was 70 percent due to a glitch in the software. He threw a tantrum over it for a year before conceding and didnt address the other errors.
Tomkins is such a fraud its not even funny."

On to your fallacy of appeal to false authority:

Quote:Embroyo


Yes many today have fixed the lie since creationist made it well known, but it is still in many. My kid a few years ago came home with it in his book. SO yes creationist have forced evolutionist to be more honest in some areas, but the lie does continue. And Haeckel  lied on purpose, he manipulated the images to try and prove evolution, does not matter about technology. 




Because humans is where the lie is applied to. It does not matter of other organisms and he just proves what randy and creationist say, "hey are not even really "folds" as such - they contain bundles of primordia that are 'encased' in a thin layer of tissue, and this produces the appearance of folds "



"What?  The embryo IS growing there, too. When one looks at other vertebrate embryos, one sees something very similar, hence the connection."
Are you drunk?  Or just a creationist?
Quote:What is growing? not a tail that is the point. You have missed the lie. 



And yet no tail, once more you have missed the lie. 
What is all that child-like gibberish about?

Was my demolition of Guzzo's nonsense too much for you to handle?

You sound like a dimwit.
Quote:As to his credentials

B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute, an M.D. from the University of Minnesota, and a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University.
https://store.icr.org/brands/dr-randy-guliuzza/
WOWEEEE!!!  I guess he is an EXPERT on embryology (even though I documented his lies and ignorance)!

Your dopey hero-worship says much about your mental capacity.
Quote:So in conclusion you might have some issues with Randy's  article, but nothing factual with my op. I would recommend emailing Randy [he does debates all the time on universities] 
if you have issues with his article.

Um....  So you didn't actually read what I wrote...
That much is obvious.
Religious nuts are all the same - ignorant and dishonest.
Reply
(10-01-2018, 01:51 PM)cassini Wrote: Excellent scholarly rebuttal of evolution 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont.

LOL!!!!!![/quote]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)