Your argument is a hybrid of â€œpost hoc ergo propter hocâ€� + â€œstraw manâ€�. Look at your key ingredient: "Catholic Evolutionary Biologist) showed that..." Can't you see the fallacy of your argument? The Catholics are the ones that thwarted Galileoâ€™s attempt to advance science beyond an antiquated Aristotelian Universe. Now you are heralding this Catholic Evolutionary Biologist as a savior of science! If Catholics distorted the truth 3500 years ago, what makes you think their testimony can be trusted in a Dover trial? Aristotle thought that mice came from dirty hay just as do modern-day evolutionists. The only difference is that Aristotle overlooked the fact that he needed to wait 2 million years before the mice appeared. I am also astounded that you appeal to the American judicial system to determine the fate of "science". The ultimate decision in the case of the Dover trial rested in the hands of a judge. What credentials did the judge possess beyond a law degree that empowered him to judge matters of science? (Click here to find out for yourself) From your logic, we are assured that evolution theory stands firm on American lawyers, judges not trained in science, and the Catholic Church. The U.S. judicial system with the assistance of the ACLU has stooped to levels unseen in the history of this country. I have been a U.S. citizen for 56 years, so I know what Iâ€™m talking about. The icing on the cake is that the Dover trial judge, John E. Jones, was appointed by George W. Bush. Bush himself exhibits the same lack of discernment when trying to separate true and false. There is indeed one God, but when a Catholic petitions Mary, this in no way validates that she is one-in-the-same with the Creator of the Universe, nor does it validate that all religions pray to the same God.Scotracer wrote:Ah, I wondered where my old friend "Irreducible Complexity" had gone. This is something championed by Dr Behe and he got his proverbial butt slapped at the Dover trial when Ken Miller (a Catholic Evolutionary Biologist) showed that the concept of irreducible complexity with regards to the Bacterial Flagelum was wrong.
Evolutionâ€™s Dream Team
- 1) Catholics who hindered science in Galileo's day.
2) Catholic who hindered science at Dover trial.
3) U.S. judge, trained only in law, who hindered science at Dover trial.
"Dream Team" Superstar Emits Howl, Proving
Ancestral Link To Old World Monkeys
Quiz: Which monkey is â€œNew Worldâ€� and which is â€œOld Worldâ€�?
Click links [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] for clues before viewing answer here.
The picture is becoming ever clearer. You construct the best possible straw man by utilizing the worst possible corrupted religions of the world, and then try to link all of Christendom to it. You will need to perform additional tasks before your illogical junk flying machine will ever take off. Since you are debating with Alan Clarke, a non-Catholic, Bible-based YEC, you will need to discount my argument by convincing others that Iâ€™m actually a Mary-worshipper, stuck in purgatory, with indulgences stuffed in my back pocket. Have you ever noticed that I like to quote from the Bible? Was it not the Catholic church that dissuaded everyone from interpreting and translating the Bible, and from making their own interpretations apart from priests and church tradition? This is what gave birth to Protestantism, which I proudly endorse. I LOVE science when it is founded in TRUTH. I am on the side of Galileo. Man is fallible so I choose my heroes, Newton and Pascal, with reservation. Poor old Darwin embraced the idea of â€œblendingâ€�, so he probably thought that Christianity was nothing more than a homogenous solution of Catholicism and Anglicanism. He rightly decided to dump his self-made concoction of religious perceptions and indoctrination and looked (unfortunately) to the Greek-based philosophy of materialism.
Names may change but central ideas do not (ex: spontaneous generation becomes â€œabiogenesisâ€�). Modern philosophical materialists extend the old definition of â€œmatterâ€� to include other scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces, and the curvature of space. [ref.] Do you see how the foundation is the same? Continuing from the same reference: â€œMany current and recent philosophersâ€¦ and Richard Dawkinsâ€¦ operate within a broadly physicalist or materialist frameworkâ€¦, producing rival accounts of how best to accommodate mindâ€”functionalism, anomalous monism, identity theory and so on.â€�
A materialist believes that the â€œultimate truthâ€� lies in matter, so the search for truth will always be confined to matter. The idea that the ultimate source of truth could reside in a man seems preposterous to an evolutionist. Jesus said, â€œI am the way, the truth, and the life.â€� Even the â€œfirst causeâ€� must lie in matter. There is nothing scientific about this belief whatsoever since it is based on a non-empirical pre-supposition. Darwin attempted to abide by this principle after his Beagle voyage. His idea of ultimate truth or â€œgoodâ€� is revealed in this writing:
1873 letter to George Darwin, Charles Darwin wrote:Real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks [on Christianity]. (source)
Einstein taught us that observations are contingent upon a reference. Applying the same principle, and using Earth as the reference, the planets and stars indeed orbit the Earth. Even quantized redshift supports geocentricity. The important question to ask is not, â€œAm I in the center of the Universe?â€�, but â€œIs God in the center of me?â€� (god â‰ God).Grumpy wrote:350 years ago the official interpretation of the church was that the sun, planets and stars orbited the Earth.
History is written by the victors. Fortunately, those attempting to revise history by placing revisionist pamphlets on every automobile are not going to succeed while Bible-based Christians are living.Grumpy wrote:Galileo was tried by the Inquisition for daring to look because he found out that the official interpretation was false. Today's interpretation, as represented here by Alan, is just as false, but the church no longer has the power to prosecute(persecute) those who find that out. Our world is better off for all the scientist's discoveries made by men who would not, and will not accept such a stupid answer.
Does it not seem contradictory that Catholic Churchâ€™s endorsement of an Aristotelian Universe was also an endorsement of Aristotle who believed that aphids, fleas, mice, and crocodiles came from plant dew, decaying matter, dirty hay, and rotting sunken logs respectively? This compromise is identical to modern-day Christians who think that God uses evolution to create species. The Bible couldnâ€™t be clearer in articulating a line of demarcation between â€œkindsâ€�. The phrase is repeated so often that only the most indoctrinated, belligerent, die-hard evolutionist could miss it:A non-evolutionist historian wrote:The lesson to be learned from Galileo, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough. It allowed the Greek philosophy of Aristotle to influence its theology and held to tradition rather than to the teachings of the Bible. Click to read whole story.