Nihil Obstat Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='philothea' date='21 October 2009 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1256181774' post='1989410'] Honestly, there won't be any big revolutionary changes where people in the future look back and think we're all idiots for our present-day science. Scientific theories nowadays are just that: theories based on experimentation and the scientific method. There's constant refinement and increases in accuracy and understanding, but no big reversals. For example, Newton wasn't considered wrong when Relativity came about. Relativity is just more accurate across a wider range of values. It's likely that future scientific progress will continue in the same manner. [/quote] Theoretical physics may be coming up to a significant development in the next few hundred years. At least that's my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='21 October 2009 - 06:57 PM' timestamp='1256165837' post='1989249'] In my opinion young-earth creationism involves misguided faith in private biblical interpretation at the expense of reason. [/quote] it's ridiculous, if not next to ridiculous... that anyone would have to say 'in my opinion' on this. the young earth stuff isn't even formidable enough to mean anything other than rationalizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Has anyone heard of the Crocoduck argument before? It's truly an embarrassment to Christians everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 no i haven't, go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Jesus_lol' date='21 October 2009 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1256183785' post='1989428'] no i haven't, go on? [/quote] In its most basic form: If evolution is true, then a duck and crocodile (for example) would interbreed to create a newly evolved Crocoduck. Crocoducks do not exist. Therefore evolution is not true. Yes, this was seriously argued. On national television in the US. [img]http://freethoughtpedia.com/images/Crocoduck.jpg[/img] [url="http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/crocoduck"]Know Your Meme- Crocoduck[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Bone _ Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 October 2009 - 09:55 PM' timestamp='1256183721' post='1989427'] Has anyone heard of the Crocoduck argument before? It's truly an embarrassment to Christians everywhere. [/quote] What's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 See above. Click the link, there's videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Bone _ Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 you have to be kidding me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='T-Bone _' date='21 October 2009 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1256185053' post='1989444'] you have to be kidding me... [/quote] I sincerely wish I was. Like I said, it's embarrassing for rational Christians everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 He claims that evolution states that all animals have to have transformed from another animal. Thus, for there to be crocodiles and ducks, there at one point had to be a mix, i.e., crocoduck. Sorry for the big gap, it took me a good 4 seconds to walk back to my keyboard after being blown away by the ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormstopper Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='21 October 2009 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1256174547' post='1989337'] Catholics are free to hold a more or less "creationist" position, or they may accept - with proper safeguards - any one of the more modern theories of evolution. [/quote] Apo...it is extremely difficult to respect the Catholic position when they basically say, "just accept whatever form of creation or evolution you desire with certain safeguards". No, God is not going to be sending anyone to hell because they held to a certain age of the earth.....BUT.....He expects you to examine the evidence found in His word---something you appear not too interested in doing based on your previous comment on another post that you follow the traditions of the east and follow this, that and the other thing. Those "things" should be secondary! I stated above a fact that should be an excellent starting point for anyone looking into this issue and everyone has ignored it, most likely because no one ever told you and it was a shock to the system. Namely the irrefutable truth that the Holy Spirit of God who inspired the Scriptures has utilized the word "DAY" to mean a 24 hour "SOLAR" (I stand corrected) DAY. And He does it no less than 350 times! Thus, the first item on the agenda to be rejected for me was the idea that the word "DAY" [i]could [/i] mean "long ages" of time. The Bible simply will not permit it, and therefore one must conclude the Lord would be quite angry with the Catholic Church's suggestion that we interpret that word to mean long ages simply to accomade the primarily atheistic theory of evolution (Why don't you rent, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" at your local video store). Let's face it, John the Baptist said God could of these very stones, make children of Abraham. But if He did, they would be MEN, whole and entire, not partially formed through a million year process. And as a matter of fact, He did just that---by breathing into life a whole army of men, using a bunch of dry bones, right before the eyes of Ezekial (37:1). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 02:15 AM' timestamp='1256188533' post='1989492'] Apo...it is extremely difficult to respect the Catholic position when they basically say, "just accept whatever form of creation or evolution you desire with certain safeguards". No, God is not going to be sending anyone to hell because they held to a certain age of the earth.....BUT.....He expects you to examine the evidence found in His word---something you appear not too interested in doing based on your previous comment on another post that you follow the traditions of the east and follow this, that and the other thing. Those "things" should be secondary! I stated above a fact that should be an excellent starting point for anyone looking into this issue and everyone has ignored it, most likely because no one ever told you and it was a shock to the system. Namely the irrefutable truth that the Holy Spirit of God who inspired the Scriptures has utilized the word "DAY" to mean a 24 hour "SOLAR" (I stand corrected) DAY. And He does it no less than 350 times! Thus, the first item on the agenda to be rejected for me was the idea that the word "DAY" [i]could [/i] mean "long ages" of time. The Bible simply will not permit it, and therefore one must conclude the Lord would be quite angry with the Catholic Church's suggestion that we interpret that word to mean long ages simply to accomade the primarily atheistic theory of evolution (Why don't you rent, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" at your local video store). Let's face it, John the Baptist said God could of these very stones, make children of Abraham. But if He did, they would be MEN, whole and entire, not partially formed through a million year process. And as a matter of fact, He did just that---by breathing into life a whole army of men, using a bunch of dry bones, right before the eyes of Ezekial (37:1). [/quote] You conclude wrong. And I assume by this you take the entire Gospel of John literally as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormstopper Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Jesus_lol' date='21 October 2009 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1256181366' post='1989400'] no it wasnt aimed at you, somebody else downvoted me. which isnt a big deal. in today's society yes, it is truly thought of like that. and honestly after i have objectively looked at the available information and my own deduction, i think it is a completely false belief. So much so am i sure about this, that i doubt i could believe in YEC if i was still in possession of anything more than half of a functioning brain stem. however, not everyone has the same access or exposure to the processes or facts, or holds the same proofs in as high regard as me. so while i cant concede that the earth could ever possibly be 6,000 years old, i can concede that you and others think it is so. so carry on [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img] I've never heard of the "Metal Church". Is that defined on this website? So I have no idea where you're coming from. i would still like to see any thoughts or responses you have to the points i listed in my most recent post. (i particularily like the idea of T rexs' with stone bones.) [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/lol_grin.gif[/img] [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormstopper Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Jesus_lol' date='21 October 2009 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1256181366' post='1989400'] no it wasnt aimed at you, somebody else downvoted me. which isnt a big deal. in today's society yes, it is truly thought of like that. and honestly after i have objectively looked at the available information and my own deduction, i think it is a completely false belief. So much so am i sure about this, that i doubt i could believe in YEC if i was still in possession of anything more than half of a functioning brain stem. however, not everyone has the same access or exposure to the processes or facts, or holds the same proofs in as high regard as me. so while i cant concede that the earth could ever possibly be 6,000 years old, i can concede that you and others think it is so. so carry on [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img] [quote/] I've never heard of the "Metal Church". Is that defined on this website? So I have no idea where you're coming from. Edited October 22, 2009 by Stormstopper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1256189132' post='1989500'] I've never heard of the "Metal Church". Is that defined on this website? So I have no idea where you're coming from. [/quote] That's a useless tangent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now