|
Post by redmond on Sept 30, 2008 11:56:29 GMT
You know whay Inedifix, anyone following this thread must be close to a nervous breakdown by now. Why even I cannot cope with much of the reasoning I read coming from you. trouble is that we have spread this debate so wide that it is hard to keep track of it. Og by the way, I am a one finger typer so some words come out incorrectly etc, forgive me for that.
There are just a couple of points above that I will address. You wrote Oh, dear, another logical fallacy! What your doing now is called Affirming the Consequent.' Boy am I glad you understand this 'affirming the consequent' and if I am then you have a most valid point, you win hands down. But what is a victory for the goose has to be valid for the gander. So Inedifix, when you hear this truism coming from me elsewhere against your own beliefs, please grant me the same victory. Now that said how can I present my beliefs in a different form? Is there a third option to the two scenarios, of creation or Big Bang evolutionism? Does one have a choice of if not A then B or if not B then A? Now you say your evolutionists have been producing 'empirical findings' since 1859. No they have not. They have been making discoveries that they INTERPRET as proving evolution. There is a big difference. Now there are hundreds if not thousands of creationist scientists - American mainly, but others as well, busy examining these same findings and coming to a very different conclusion. I have an endless amount of data showing this. When I was an evolutionist and was shown these findings I had no doubts that I was conned. My point is that you have nowhere else to go, I have. You make very wide statements like: 'no creationist has ever provided a single scrap of empirical peer reviewed evidence to support the theory that every single species that ever has lived and still lives was created all at once on the same day about 6,000 years ago.' The evidence lies in logic and reason. Proof for such a thing lies outside the empirical sphere but must comply with true science. For example, if the science of genetics shows that no two kinds can transfer one into the other either backwards or forwards then what other conclusion is there but that they arrived together. If all creatures are interdependent, then how could they survive without their having been together always? Could a whale be without plankton? Could flora exist without insect life?
Creation survived for two thousand years on its own, it does not need to debunk evolution to exist. Evolution came into existence on the back of a truth, the genetic ability of all flora and fauna to change within its kind to adopt to changing climatic and envirnmental conditions on earth. So, if a finch could develop different shaped beaks over time to eat different foodstuffs they still remained finches and did not go on to be turkeys as Darwin and Spenser went on to propose. It was then Non believers and anti-biblicists went on to promote this new theory as it suited their life style.
By the way a few items of interest appeared in the Catholic newspapers recently, one very good article in the Irish Catholic and other letters on the same subject. One was most interesting although I cannot confirm if it is accurate. I am reminded of it by your remark: 'For what it's worth. If a Creationist ever digs up a fossil bed laid down 6,000 years ago containing dinosaur and human fossils, I will post back here faster than you to declare myself a converted creationist.' It wrote of one of those mass fossil graves with billions of creatures buried and fossilised (as though a huge flood washed them all into a mass grave together just as the bible says). This man said one had been found that contains human bones. what I do know is true because it is so well known and documented are the human and dinosaur footprints found along the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. For years the indians dug them up and sold them until they were stopped by the authorities. I have pictures of them and are fascinating. Ant reader who wants to see them google into the above information and I'm sure they will see them.
No Inedifix, I am not stuck on one track you are. I was once an evolutionist and a theistic evolutionist, thats two tracks. After careful study my intellect completely satisfied me that all the empirical evidence complied with the literal biblical version and so I moved on to the third track, 6,000 year old direct creation. Yes it is faith based with no contradiction (or full proof I admit). So you see Inedifix, I too have been following advances in science. So how about you Inedifix, how many tracks have you been on - let me guess ONE. Oh but yes, it is a track that keeps coming up with new valid THEORIES. Isn't that still a one tracker? '
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Oct 3, 2008 16:52:09 GMT
Again Inedifix I have to hand it to you. You really do have an answer for EVERYTHING. But readers -BE CAREFUL - just because you see it written down looking so full of authority does not mean it is truth.
How then Inedifix did they expose the Paluxy footprints a hoax? Evolutionists said those human footprints were not humans but creatures whose footprints looked like human footprints. I will look up my sources and see what he says about them.
Anyway Inedifix, here is my last words on evolution. It is so absurd a theory that I waste my time trying to debunk it with believers. If there are any neutrals out there undecided then it would be worth going on. I said before, It does not really matter to me that some chose to be believers, but I will fight those Catholic theostic evolutionists till I drop. Evolutionism has devastated Catholic theology to such an extent that today's theology is RUBBISH, full of compromise and turning traditional Catholic theology into absurdity just like the theory of evolution is to reason. If I came into the world now and the pope tried to convert me with his theistic evolutionism I would run a mile from such reasoning and fraud. It is the SOULS that are being drained of any real Catholic faith that is the problem with evolutionism. I better end here before I start naming those responsible for this destruction, one of them is now being dug up to go on show as a saint I ask you.
Transitory fossils Inedfix, show me the billions of in between fossils, the MISSING LINKS?
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Oct 3, 2008 22:14:51 GMT
I should probably let you know that we do have another, rather larger audience over on atheist.ie, who have been following your adventures in literalism with some amusement. Not all that much larger, if you count our drop-ins. And I have met one or two of your own fundamentalists over in your excellent forum, as you know.
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Oct 3, 2008 22:50:53 GMT
You must be joking Inedifix, a whole site full of Inedifixs, I'd be slaughtered. I'll have the last laugh however, or so I believe.
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Oct 6, 2008 20:46:12 GMT
Dear friends, I have been betrayed and so I am now taking my leave from this forum. I have just noticed that at the top of my thread THE POPE WEARING FUR there has appeared an add for an organisation called PETA. If you read what I said of them in my opening remark on this thread you will see that they are not CATHOLIC and should not have been put on the top of this thread to make a propaganda tool out of my discussion forum. As a measure as to how sinister these people are, ask the moderator how they got to know of this thread and how did they get on to it.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 20, 2008 6:30:16 GMT
I have been following this thread and have to say that the following sentence is 100% true. anyone following this thread must be close to a nervous breakdown by now. Why even I cannot cope with much of the reasoning I read coming from you. I have to say that of course Redmond finds it difficult to follow his reasoning and of course people reading along will be close to breakdown. I will explain why. The point here is that the theory of evolution as described by redmond here IS as he says "absurd". More absurd a theory I never did see I can tell you and I have read some pretty weird theories in my time. If you are coming from a position where you think fish have become cats directly.... that humans are directly descended from monkeys.... or that whales evolved either before or after the food which they eat.... or that bees evolved before or after modern flora and fauna.... then you are right when you say THIS theory of evolution is false. Everything Redmond has said therefore here is 100% correct. We cannot fault him. The theory he has refuted IS rubbish. Well done that man. Keep refuting nonsense!However nothing that redmond has espoused here is actually what the theory contains. The claims in the previous paragraph are not claims that are made. I have read every one of his posts in this thread at least 3 times now trying to find something he is refuting which is actually something that is currently claimed and I failed to find one. In fact when looking for an example of this Redmond provides me with the perfect one when he quoted the line "Are the monkeys on your fathers side or your mother's side" in response to "No biologist has ever suggested that people evolved from monkeys". This quote came not from a scientist who understood the theory being proposed, but from a bishop who failed to understand the theory at all. He used a quote from a bishop to make it look like a scientist had made a claim that no scientist ever did. This error is indicative of the level of accuracy of the points he has espoused here. Of course it is possible to go back to Darwins time and point out things that he espoused that have since been proved false. Darwin would scarcely recognise his own theory were he reanimated and allowed to view it today. So even if Redmonds quote wasn’t so totally wrong, but was in fact even made by Darwin himself, you would STILL only be refuting very old science. It should be noted that there has not been one scientist EVER how has been 100% correct in 100% of the things he has said. Even the biggest names like Einstein and Newton would be shame faced today at some of the mistakes they made. Nothing, I repeat nothing, Redmond has espoused here is based on currently held science. It is a mix of misunderstandings of the theory, misplaced quotes, and rebuttals of old and now replaced scientific theory. For any catholic who is having trouble reconciling their faith with Evolution Science I heartily recommend a book by a biologist and devout catholic which greatly helped me in my learning. Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwins God".
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 27, 2008 9:17:31 GMT
Again you have terrible trouble with the QUOTE function. Can you please learn how to do this? It makes your posts even harder to read than they are anyway. No one else here has trouble. They all had the politeness to learn how it works before using it. Is it too much to expect at least the same level of cordiality from you? One post isn’t bad, but when reply after reply happens like on the other thread I mentioned this, it becomes a pointless chore to read anything you have written.
I think you will note also that in science there is NEVER a certainty. You cannot show one. You talk here of a “probability“ as opposed to a „certainty“. It is a false distinction. ALL science is probability. Currently accepted science is based on the most likely interpretation of the facts at any given time.
For example not one person on this planet can, at this time, prove that when you wake up tomorrow morning that Gravity will still be in effect. Not one. However all of science experimentation, data and experience will tell you that it will be there tomorrow the same as it is there today. There is no certainty, its just highly probable that this is the way it will be.
The problem with evolution is that people accept one area of science and not another. When there is science they do not like they change the standards of proof. Move the goal posts so to speak. They demand a higher standard of proof for evolution than they do of… for example…. Electronics.
Evolution is, to this day, the most tested, the most questioned and the most data-full area of biological science there is. By the standards of modern science it is as “true” as any other part. To reject evolution therefore is to reject all of biological science and the scientific method itself.
This of course has nothing to do with the point I actually made, which you quoted (with a bad use of the quote function) but failed to actually discuss. My point was that the theory of evolution talked about and rejected by Redmond has NO RESEMBELENCE to the theory as it actually is. He is rejecting and disproving science that doesn’t actually exist.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 28, 2008 8:37:28 GMT
Can someone maybe draw him a diagram of how to use the Quote function? Maybe pictures are the way to go? I think it would greatly assist him and the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by faithful on Oct 28, 2008 15:11:26 GMT
I don't think the forum software allows for graphs or a diagram. Maybe a link to a file would be a better way. Anybody a wizz with graphics and charts?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 28, 2008 16:10:56 GMT
Just as a matter of curiosity - Redmond hasn't explained why he is a young-earth creationist rather than an old-earth creationist.
|
|
|
Post by faithful on Oct 28, 2008 16:36:22 GMT
I don't think the forum software allows for graphs or a diagram. Maybe a link to a file would be a better way. Anybody a wizz with graphics and charts? Hi Faithful. There are buttons above the reply box which allow you to insert pictures from websites or insert tables and modify your text. Just do the following: 1. take the http address of the picture you want to appear in your post (find the picture you want on the internet - right click on the picture with your mouse - go to properties - copy http information), 2. paste the http info into your reply box, 3. highlight the http information 4. click on the "insert Image" button. Your picture should appear in your response. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 29, 2008 17:47:44 GMT
Redmond may also have patristic reasons for doing so - some of the Church Fathers believed the earth was 6000 years old because of the line in the Bible that "a thousand years in His sight are as a day" and thought the seventh thousand would be the millennium of Christ's earthly reign (though Augustinian amillennialism was the dominant view). This view has been revived by present-day American evangelicals who are premillennialists. Old-earth creationists I think would be prepared to accept a world billions of years old; they equate days with geological eras. I believe creation took place but that Genesis is not a literal account of it, so I'm neither an OEC or YEC as the terms are generally used. I'm with Cardinal Newman - he said evolution could be reconciled with Christianity and that the big problem was not whether God exists but whether God loves us and communicates with us. Belief in a remote creator who stands above creation dissociated from us is just as deadly to Christianity as outright disbelief. The problem which atheism poses is whether the pain and suffering it involves is compatible with a just and loving creator, and that question goes back before Darwin -it's already being asked in the Book of Job. I can't prove suffering is not meaningless and pointless - I just make an act of faith and try to inflict as little suffering as I can. BTW Redmond's objection that human descent from monkeys is unworthy of God's dignity could just as well be applied (and was applied in the first centuries of the Christian era by neoplatonists like Celsus) to the Incarnation. Why, they said shoudl the Absolute grow in a woman's womb, the Infinite be a child, the Highest Good be hungry and thirsty, cold and hot, the Creator be flogged and beaten before a provincial judge and suffocated to death? God's ideas of dignity differ from Redmond's.
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Oct 29, 2008 23:18:35 GMT
Why am I a young-earther? Well because I now fully accept the geneology of the Bible, that which the Fathers of the Church believed in. I am also satisfied that like evolution, a false interpretation was placed on the discoveries of science, on the strata of rock. I am also satisfied that all other dating methods have been forged to look as though the world is billions of years old. I fully accept the falsification of uniformitarianism by the Mt St Helens Volcano that produced millions of years of strata in 24 hours. I am satisfied that Guy Berthault showed that sediments do not form as the evolutionists need them to. Sediments form sideways, not one on top of the other. I also reject long-ages because evolution needs long ages to work. If evolution is absurd then long ages has to be an associated absurdity. Creation does not need long ages. Catholic theology makes more sense if it is within human comprehension. The population of the world would be a million times greater if man was around as long as they say.
Again, the evolution of life from inorganic matter is impossible. If anyone can reproduce this event I will eat my bible. If anyone can give me a simple answer as to how an impossible cell can then become a viable self-sufficient creature I will eat a few more bibles. Telling me to read Dawkings book will not wash with me. Show me one example of evolutionary progress at work today and I will eat nothing else but bibles for a month. As for Newman, show me how evolution and Original Sin can be reconciled and I will join that new religion.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 4, 2008 10:09:17 GMT
Atheist do not take up their cross, rather they throw it down and cry that God is unjust. Or more accurately they deny that the cross holds any value of note and describe the character of God in the bible as being an unjust one in the same way as they discuss characters in any work of fiction. Your continued error that atheists need to believe that the god is real to discuss its character is one that still baffles me.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Nov 4, 2008 10:17:42 GMT
Atheist do not take up their cross, rather they throw it down and cry that God is unjust. Stephen, so as not to misrepresent anyone or any group, before you make a statement like the one above, you should probably insert the following caveat: " It is my opinion/belief that..........atheists do not take etc etc" Otherwise it appears that you are making a statement of fact, when this is not always the case. You also leave yourself wide open to rebuttal that is extremely hard, if not impossible, to defend.
|
|