DarwinCatholic : History's Expiration Date
As to this debate, my last comment there still stands, but he has not answered it. He deleted a lot of other ones, including my last two on the above, but not the last one here (so far), oh, sorry, was wrong:
DarwinCatholic : Did Augustine and Aquinas Believe In A Literal Interpretation of Genesis
In case it's not obvious from this morning's clean sweep, I've decided not to let you use my comment boxes to air your opinions further. All further comments will be deleted.
I try to allow a wide range of opinion here, but I don't think there's any point in maintaining conversation with someone who thinks that our most recent popes are probably anti-popes, goes off on bizarre rants about "Illuminati Jew bankers", etc.
I hope that, in time, God's grace will help to bring you closer to the source of all Truth, which is Christ.
The implication that I am far from truth and far from Christ is so sweet, isn't it?
The profession - and quite in public - he makes of caring about my spiritual welfare after socially insulting me is of course not the least hypocritical, is it?
Well, I would say one of us is not a real Catholic. We are not behaving as if belonging to one and the same Church of Christ.
To me, it is clear, that he has a hysteric sacralisation of things not sacred to Catholicism going on. Modernism. Darwinism and Heliocentrism. Jewry even at its most hysterical and hateful, like when no Jew protested at Trotsky getting a plane from New York (and they think they are in a position to complain when Pius XII thought he had already exhausted diplomatic means with Hitler and preferred aiding Jews by secrecy!)
Now, here is the last comment, the one he deleted:
"Hans-Georg Lundahl said..." [Yes, I did, so you know I started the copy from its beginning, but it is not given in blockquotes, only where I quoted his last one I have blockquotes for that:]
The Church has accepted the teaching of the heliocentric model of the solar system as fact since 1820.
No, not quite.
It has accepted as licit or as not forbidden to teach it as a fact since then. But if Anfossi was forbidden to put Settel's book on the index, he was nevertheless NOT required to become a Heliocentric himself.
Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI all wrote about how not only the "old earth" understanding of natural history enjoyed great scientific support, but how the evolutionary account of biological history did as well -- and how it is not incompatible with the faith.
For Pius XII I hope you are wrong.
The often missed but nevertheless very clear upshot of Humani Generis was teach the controversy - within a restrained circle.
This does not amount to preach the evolutionary version and to everyone.
If some people give an inch, some certain denizens of nether regions like to take an ell.
That is what I can make of your take on Anfossi-Settele affair.
As to JP-II and B-XVI, I might even on other grounds consider them as Antipopes.
But even supposing they were Popes: an encyclical or allocution which includes no condemnation of anything presented as heresy or error does not have canonical dignity to impose either Evolution or Heliocentrism on a Catholic believer.
Proof** Anfossi affair is old news to me, item Humani Generis, and you missed one pointed out by Dimond Brothers: In praeclara summorum.
I remain confident that just as Augustine and Aquinas adopted the cosmology which was the best science of their day (with a round earth rather than a flat one)
Has since been confirmed by Vasco da Gama, right?
they would if presented with modern science be among the great majority of educated Catholics who see no conflict between the faith and the findings of modern cosmology
Which has similarily been confirmed in a far far galaxy, long ago, by Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, right? Oh, wait, would your practical confirmation of the da Gama type still be lacking? You mean George Lucas was doing fiction? *shocked, shocked, shocked!*
OK, Eratosthenes was confirmed by never being refuted all over the 1500 and even more years since St Augustine accepted him.
And Galileo has been confirmed for how long? Even not. His version of Heliocentrism is not even accepted by Heliocentrics.
Evolution requires fission of Chromosomes, right?***
not among the few cranks who insist on supporting an overly literal view of Genesis
If of St Augustine's De Genesi ad Litteram you knew not only the one quote you like to towt on all occasions against litteralists, but the very first words a man opening book one can read, by the way it is one work conspicuously lacking on the newadvent collection of patristic texts, then you might have been somewhat queezy about assuming he would reject "an overly literal reading of Genesis".
no matter what bizarre glosses on the scientific evidence are needed to make it appear to work.
Oh, appealing to the possibility of angels actually doing something on a regular basis in creation is to you a "bizarre gloss on the evidence"?
My, my, my ... *why don't they teach logic in these schools?*
So far the comment I adressed to his last one this morning, before he deleted it.
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Patrick of Armagh
* This he did not adress, as you see.
** in the links
*** I was anticipating to reply to his reply on "what does that have to do with it", with my refutation of P Z Myers. No, I do not consider myself a super scientist who can be better than every scientist, I only consider PZM had some very low ebbs as a scientist where even I can beat him. Obviously, on the theory that Evolution is wrong, that is bound to happen once in a while to scientists who embrace Evolution. Here is the link to a main index post linking to the other ones:
Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
By the way, Nature Genetics did not publish.
I posted (outside profile, which is blocked), this comment for resumption of debate: HGL said...
Oh, btw, how do you feel about Hornerstown Formation?
The Hornerstown Formation is a Paleogene or latest Mesozoic geologic formation. The age of these deposits have been controversial. While most fossils are of animals types known from the earliest Cenozoic era, several fossils of otherwise exclusively Cretaceous age have been found. These include remains of the shark Squalicorax, the teleost fish Enchodus, several species of ammonite, and marine lizards referred to the genus Mosasaurus. Some of these remains show signs of severe abrasion and erosion, however, implying that they are probably re-worked from older deposits. Most of these fossils are restricted to the lowest point in the formation, one rich in fossils and known as the Main Fossiliferous Layer, or MFL. Other explanations for the out-of-place fossils in the MFL is that they represent a time-averaged assemblage that built up and remained unburied during a time of low sediment deposition, or that they were stirred up from deeper in the sediment and deposited together during a tsunami.
Does very much NOT sound as if the Cretaceous beasts had been found at a deeper level than the Palaeogene ones.
Because in that case they would not be groping for explanations like that.
Unless of course those words were like a trap for me to see if I would fall for it. I mean, on wikipedia that is technically possible and some people agreeing with you would have a motive.
Just another little fossil find, which I do not think is supporting your story. You can of course say "gotcha, were you stupid enough to believe a wiki" ....
Wonder if he deletes or answers .../HGL