James02
Member
Gender: 
Posts: 6,912
|
|
« Reply #160 on: May 08, 2012, 09:35:PM » |
|
Here's some modern creationism. By the way, these are primordial basic structures. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"God's Wrath is Glorious, and I have a front row seat"
"We can not guarantee success. We can only deserve it."
"And who do you say that I Am?"
"That one simple question, whether Jesus of Nazareth was God Incarnate, becomes increasingly decisive between people, as history moves forward. .... The answer to this question cuts into human ties and seems to reflect even on the nature of inanimate things. What if: all that is folly in the eyes of the Greeks, and scandal in the eyes of the Jews, ... is Truth?"
And there was no doubt about it -- towards Him we had been running, or from Him we had been running away, but all the time He had been in the center of things.
|
|
|
James02
Member
Gender:
Posts: 6,912
|
|
« Reply #161 on: May 08, 2012, 10:18:PM » |
|
More. This is an evolutionist giving a presentation. It gets good at 3:30. Pay close attention at 7:30 which shows an example of supervisory control. This is the most basic part of the cell, the DNA. At some point common sense has to come in. Evolution is dead. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"God's Wrath is Glorious, and I have a front row seat"
"We can not guarantee success. We can only deserve it."
"And who do you say that I Am?"
"That one simple question, whether Jesus of Nazareth was God Incarnate, becomes increasingly decisive between people, as history moves forward. .... The answer to this question cuts into human ties and seems to reflect even on the nature of inanimate things. What if: all that is folly in the eyes of the Greeks, and scandal in the eyes of the Jews, ... is Truth?"
And there was no doubt about it -- towards Him we had been running, or from Him we had been running away, but all the time He had been in the center of things.
|
|
|
NOtard
Member
Gender:
Posts: 366
|
|
« Reply #162 on: May 08, 2012, 10:52:PM » |
|
Also, Jayne, these are not some atheists claiming that the bread and wine cannot become the Body and Blood of Christ because there is no God and miracles are not possible. These are not some Protestants who have a different understanding of sacraments in general. These are self-identified Catholics, who literally consider themselves more Catholic than the Pope, saying that the Eucharist may or may not actually be the Body and Blood of Christ.
Mind you, as I'm sure you'll point out, they're not saying that ALL Catholic Masses are dubious, only ones celebrated according to the Novus Ordo. But, if they're right, then how do we know that ANY Catholic Mass is valid? Maybe it's true that Catholic Masses have not had a valid epiclesis for the last thousand years, and so NONE of them have actually effected transubstantiation for the last thousand years. You can't say that God wouldn't let that happen, because the whole argument is that God WOULD let that happen. So, if you can't trust the Church, then how DO you know?
Maybe the whole transubstatiation thing was made up all along? How do you know we haven't all been fooling ourselves? How can you tell?
Well, you have some declarations from the Church teachings about what the essential elements of the sacrament are, but according to those, a Novus Ordo Mass IS valid. So, going back a step, maybe Aquinas and the fathers of Trent and Paul V's catechism were mistaken. Remember, we are coming at this not excluding the possibility that the post-Vatican-II Church is mistaken, so how do you know when the error began? Was it when they adopted the Filioque? Was it some other time? Remember, at any Ecumenical Council there were those who thought the Church had gone off the rails and embraced heresy and novelties. The Old Catholics felt that this happened at Vatican I. But it goes all the way back to Chalcedon! If the Church can go that seriously off the rails at the second Vatican council, how do we know it didn't happen first at the council of Chalcedon? There are certainly groups who do think that.
And then, if you start wondering about this sort of thing, you start wondering if ANY of it is true. So then the question comes back to "how do you know?" If the Catholic Church might be mistaken on something as basic as transubstiation, how do you know what else they're mistaken on?
And so it continues. You come back to the question of "how do you know?"
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Parmandur
Member
Gender:
Posts: 3,360
|
|
« Reply #163 on: May 09, 2012, 12:03:AM » |
|
The fact that He seems to have used natural processes, including genetic mutation and natural selection, over billions of years, is not inconsistent with Him being the Creator and, in fact, creating every human soul directly, just as the fact that our children were conceived and born through natural processes is not inconsistent with the statement that our children were given to us by God. There is a difference between "Old Earth" and "Evolution". There is evidence of "Old Earth". I do not have the training to determine if it is conclusive. But evidence exists. Evolution has been blown sky high. What came first, the DNA or the protein? DNA needs protein to function. Protein is produced by DNA. But the production involves other proteins like Ribosomes, which themselves come from DNA. But the DNA also needs m-RNA to make the proteins, which needs protein. Science is blowing up evolution sky high. Catholics would do well to learn the basics in this argument. The videos on YouTube of cellular machines are incredible and a good place to start. Well, materialistic evolution is ludicrous. But with formal causality and God, it is not so hard. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Stubborn
Member
Gender:
Posts: 5,017
|
|
« Reply #164 on: May 09, 2012, 05:17:AM » |
|
Also, Jayne, these are not some atheists claiming that the bread and wine cannot become the Body and Blood of Christ because there is no God and miracles are not possible. These are not some Protestants who have a different understanding of sacraments in general. These are self-identified Catholics, who literally consider themselves more Catholic than the Pope, saying that the Eucharist may or may not actually be the Body and Blood of Christ. NOtard, it is not that people literally consider themselves more Catholic than the Pope, and, with all due respect, people who say such things, literally do not know what they are talking about and are probably just too lazy to look into the matter with sincerity - or because of the subject matter and the ramifications, they simply don't want to know the truth of the matter. Sorry if that comes across as disrespectful to you - don't take it that way because that is not my intention. Speaking for myself, I do not believe that the NO Transubstantiation is always invalid, I believe it's validity is always doubtful. This belief is based on the traditions and clear teachings of the Church before V2, not on my personal opinion or a misguided belief in papal infallibility. I think this is how most people think in regards to papal infallibility - have you seen this 3 minute vid - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS8zqQREg88&feature=youtu.be ~ what are your thoughts about it? (I know it's corny but I think it's message is clear) For now, I won't ramble on any further, but I am interested in your thoughts regarding the above video before commenting on the rest of your post. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It is the Mass that matters.
But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. -Apocalypse 3:16
|
|
|
|
|
Nic
Knight of the Cruciform Sword
Member
Gender:
Location: near Rolla, MO
Personality type: ...strange
Posts: 2,134
In Hoc Signo Vinces.
|
|
« Reply #165 on: May 09, 2012, 05:23:AM » |
|
I'm not sure if the Fathers could really be called "creationists" in the modern sense of that term anyway. Most ID advocates describe God's relationship with creation in essentially deistic terms. The Fathers certainly didn't.
Which is why the Young-Earthers can't exclusively clai mthe title "Creationist." Whether the universe is 6000 years old, 15 billion, or eternal, God is the Creator, and Genesis is literally true. That is the teaching of the Fathers and the Doctors. 99% of the Fathers who commented on the age of the earth stated that Genesis was literal and the earth was around 6000 years old. The 1% was a man who stated that creation could have happened instantly but always held to a literal Creation event besides. What is truly illogical, for a claimed Catholic anyway, is to favor the consent of atheistic science over the consent of the Fathers. The scientific evidence largely supports the Biblical account and a very young earth over molecules-to-man macro-evolutionism and the "old-earth" theory. Evolutionism creates a system of belief that is devoid of a Creator - THAT is why the system was furthered along during the time period when man first began to worship himself. "Theistic Evolutionism" is one of the best examples - if not THE best example - of trying to mix good and evil to appease the world. It is the most bogus theory of them all. Scientific evidence is force-fed through the filter of evolutionism. That is why the bogus theory operates on thousands of assumptions. If modern scientists would actually see the evidence for what it truly is - then they would be overwhelmingly Creationist (and many are leaving evolutionism because of this). But unfortunately most scientists are now committed to the folly - they will remain evolutionists despite all of the evidence that keeps pouring in that condemns it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."
--Ephesians 6:12
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
--St. Athanasius
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
--Darth Vader
-- God Bless the SSPX.
|
|
|
JayneK
Gold Fish
Gender: 
Personality type: INTJ
Posts: 14,431
|
|
« Reply #166 on: May 09, 2012, 06:02:AM » |
|
What if? Why? How do we know? I'm constantly thinking of this kind of thing. I wouldn't WANT to be the kind of person who decides what he thinks and ignores all evidence to the contrary.
People on the internet can and do say anything about anything. The fact that one reads an opinion on the internet does not mean that there is any evidence for it. In general, the posters who cast doubt on the validity of the NO do not make sense and have no credibility. There is no reason to pay attention to them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ADORABLE Saviour, consider my many wants, and grant me those graces which Thou knowest I stand in need of to do Thy will in all things.
|
|
|
Stubborn
Member
Gender:
Posts: 5,017
|
|
« Reply #167 on: May 09, 2012, 06:26:AM » |
|
What if? Why? How do we know? I'm constantly thinking of this kind of thing. I wouldn't WANT to be the kind of person who decides what he thinks and ignores all evidence to the contrary.
People on the internet can and do say anything about anything. The fact that one reads an opinion on the internet does not mean that there is any evidence for it. In general, the posters who cast doubt on the validity of the NO do not make sense and have no credibility. There is no reason to pay attention to them. Hey JayneK! I almost completely agree lol I disagree with your last sentence. There is reason to pay attention - - to disprove them with sound Catholic teaching, not unsubstantiated opinion and not because the pope is infallible. What are YOUR thoughts on that video I posted above? I thought of you first time I saw it - in a good way though. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It is the Mass that matters.
But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. -Apocalypse 3:16
|
|
|
JayneK
Gold Fish
Gender:
Personality type: INTJ
Posts: 14,431
|
|
« Reply #168 on: May 09, 2012, 07:08:AM » |
|
People on the internet can and do say anything about anything. The fact that one reads an opinion on the internet does not mean that there is any evidence for it. In general, the posters who cast doubt on the validity of the NO do not make sense and have no credibility. There is no reason to pay attention to them.
Hey JayneK! I almost completely agree lol I disagree with your last sentence. There is reason to pay attention - - to disprove them with sound Catholic teaching, not unsubstantiated opinion and not because the pope is infallible. What are YOUR thoughts on that video I posted above? I thought of you first time I saw it - in a good way though. Most of these people do not recognize sound Catholic teaching and it is of limited value to argue with them. Papal infallibility has nothing to do with status of the Novus Ordo Mass. Papal authority, however, does. The pope has the authority to promulgate new liturgies (within limits - the liturgy could not be heretical). So, it is very simple. A liturgy that is promulgated by the pope is a Catholic liturgy. In general, people who deny the validity or Catholicity of the NO are so ignorant of theology that they do not understand the difference between what I am saying and an argument from papal infallibility. I cannot take such people seriously. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ADORABLE Saviour, consider my many wants, and grant me those graces which Thou knowest I stand in need of to do Thy will in all things.
|
|
|
Stubborn
Member
Gender:
Posts: 5,017
|
|
« Reply #169 on: May 09, 2012, 07:11:AM » |
|
Most of these people do not recognize sound Catholic teaching and it is of limited value to argue with them.
Papal infallibility has nothing to do with status of the Novus Ordo Mass. Papal authority, however, does. The pope has the authority to promulgate new liturgies (within limits - the liturgy could not be heretical). So, it is very simple. A liturgy that is promulgated by the pope is a Catholic liturgy.
In general, people who deny the validity or Catholicity of the NO are so ignorant of theology that they do not understand the difference between what I am saying and an argument from papal infallibility. I cannot take such people seriously.
And the video? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It is the Mass that matters.
But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. -Apocalypse 3:16
|
|
|
|
