Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Sep 7th 2013 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: The big bang can only explain how light elements came into existence not the heavy ones. This means for the big bang stars had to supernova to create the heaver elements.

The big bang can only explain how light elements came into existence not the heavy ones. This means for the big bang stars had to supernova to create the heaver elements.

You are aware that the elements that you speak of are created by protons and neutrons which are in turn composed by quarks? Big bang theory does explain how we have quarks. Some more laws of science explain how we go from quarks to protons and neutrons and then from those particles (and electrons) to atoms and then to molecules.

Again this is accomplished through supernova of stars According to modern science. Unless they found out that doesnt work and came up with a new hypothesis. You are aware that energy is necessary for that to take place and that organized matter has never ever been observed to randomly organize. Thus, my quip about supernatural natural phenomenon. If we have never observed it to happen or have not done a proven experiment that shows how it can happen then it is beyond their understanding of nature and is supernatural nature. To use a quote from them it is science of the gaps. Some questions to consider:

If new stars form as the result of exploding stars compressing nebulae, then how did the first stars form if there were no stars to compress the gases?

If it is true that when we look at objects nearly 11 billion light years away we are seeing them as they appeared 11 billion years ago, why are the galaxies that we see at great distances fully formed (mature) when the big bang model predicts they should be less organized at that early stage?

The textbook avoids discussing things like dark matter and dark energy that are not observed but assumed to exist. How is the big bang a scientific theory if it is based on the existence of evidence that has not been observed?

If the universe was created by the energy from the big bang then there would have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter created as the universe cooled. Have scientists been able to find any antimatter? How much has been found?

What caused the inflationary period in the big bang?

What evidence is there to support the inflationary period of the big bang?

Is the big bang the only way to explain the expansion of the universe?

Why is the big bang, which cannot be observed, considered scientific while supernatural creation is rejected as unscientific?

How did the natural laws of the universe come from the random big bang?

If it were natural, it would not be miraculous. Genesis indicates that the Garden was planted after the formation of the Earth. Holding that the Earth was a molten ball of lava at some point is not a contradiction.

Again yes it does because it does not just hold that the earth was a ball of lava where did the atmosphere come from? Where did plants come from? Where did oxygen come from?? That is why the two hypothesis are not separate the big bang also deals with how our Planet developed. It is not correct to say it does not. It deals with all planets not just other ones. What does the big bang says happened on the earth for 4.6 billion years? How did other planets develop atmospheres? Why is it different then earth?

I have heard this calim many times. I finally looked it up; this is what I got. My google search was "Church fathers on Genesis" and it was the first hit.

I reject your link for being unscientific biggrin. I reject your link for starting off with calling people fundamentalist before even mentioning what they say the church fathers said. That shows a clear bias. I will also quote an article with and link to it by M.A. Ph.D. Robert Sungenis. Sungenis: No, we have found just the opposite. All of them, with very few exceptions, adhered to a literal interpretation. If I had the space and time I could list a whole array of other Fathers and Medievals who adhered to the literal interpretation of Genesis, with very few deviations. Although the Fathers and Medievals vary somewhat in their interpretation of the details of Genesis, they did not deviate from a literal interpretive methodology. That much is very clear. Here is the link

So, someone is mistaken or is misrepresenting the evidence. Ill make a logical leap and commit a fallacy. By saying it is probably the people who start the article off by calling people fundamentalist, committing an ad Hominem attack even before beginning the topic. It is not what they discussed by what they believed St. Augustine believed instantaneous creation not long ages.

Science at the present time cannot do so. This does not mean that in the future it cannot. At one point, science had no explanation for why we had extremely complicated models for the planetary rotations. The exact same laws of physics exist now as then, we just don't understand them as well as we need to. Just as we do not understand God as well as we need to.

Again yes it does because science does not find anything out scientist do. There is no guarantee that science will continue in future, the world could end. There is also no guarantee the laws of the universe will apply tomorrow as today, unless you believe in God. Even then isn't time supposed to be no more at the second coming of Christ? Again youre equating science with infallibility even though science is built on wrongs that have been corrected. If science does continue, then most of what science teaches as fact today will not be fact tomorrow. Also, Newtons equation of motion had to be adjusted when accounting for infinity. Second Newtons gravitational laws might also have to be adjusted mathematically because if Im not mistaken they do have a minor error in calculating the correct orbits. Thus it will have to be adjusted to fix this problem, if they can figure out what is wrong. By the ways science is also founded on belief, since the laws of logic have to be believed to do science and they cannot be tested scientifically.

Also, God would appear a lot less powerful if he actually told them the Earth was a few billion (not million) years old.

Again this is the problem if God is less powerful than all powerful he is not God violation of laws of logic. Thus the only way this could be true is if the big bang was not the fastest, best way to create the universe. This is one reason why I reject it, it is not the fastest or best way to create the universe it is an evolution random chance way.

I would disagree with you about the Trinity not being mention in the Old Testament according to the Catholic Church creation was the work of three persons. Also, Abraham was told that God must send another to save Israel; this is why the Jewish people where waiting for a savior. I was equating God dealing with humanity, as he was not worried that we would have a problem with, he just told us the truth. I would also suggest not using infallible interpretations to interpret infallible ones.

Or the universe has cooled down. There is a theory concerning the heat death of the universe.

Again this is a hypothesis not a theory and this does not explain how the universe is the same temp. Why, because the younger parts like our part of the universe would still be hotter than the older parts. Again a scientist can say whatever he wants, it matters not if the evidence comes along to contradict him. Have you ever heard of an Oort Cloud it allows the universe to be old for without it the universe would have to be young, because of comets and space debris. Interesting fact the Oort cloud just happened to be proposed beyond scientist censor range because we have never ever detected such a thing. This is an example of a scientist can say what he wants especially if he offers no evidence to support his claim.

Most people know something about magnets, like the kind found in a compass. These magnets have two polesa north pole and a south pole. Poles that are alike repel each other, and opposites attract. A monopole is a hypothetical massive particle that is just like a magnet but with only one pole. So a monopole would have either a north pole or a south pole, but not both. Particle physicists claim that the high temperature conditions of the big bang should have created magnetic monopoles. Since monopoles are predicted to be stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable searching, monopoles have not been found. Where are the monopoles? Dr. Jason Lisle.

Umm, no. This is just wrong; the Big Bang Theory does not contradict the Flood story.

How do I apparently know more about the big bang than you? Again what happened on the earth for 4.6 billion years?? What about the atmosphere? How did we get plants if evolution and big bang are not together? Where did oxygen on earth come from if big bang and evolution are not connected? If the earth was a ball of lava it did not have its current atmosphere, no oxygen, no plants, and no life.

Lovely, we have no way to actually resolve this question.

No, because we are not bound by science. It would be up to scientists according to the Catholic Church to prove beyond reason that a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect. Because a literal interpretation of scripture is to be believed unless reason contradicts, a theory that keeps changing to accept the changes in science and in scientific understanding does not provided this. If science continues the big bang will change or a new hypothesis will be presented.

"Before you take the literalness of Genesis too far, you should be aware that prior to the development of the printing press, copying a book was an expensive process."

You cannot say this. God cannot lie. If God said anything in the Bible then it must be truth or a true allegory. It cannot be myth or half-truths. If Gods intent in Genesis was to give an account of the creation of the world than it must have happened that way by the least in allegory. It was time consuming and costly to write a book but that does not mean that the author or writer lied to save time and money. Second of all, Moses only wrote the first five books of the Bible, 224 pages if my index in my Bible is correct. The Oddessy by Homer was over 224 pages was it not. That was also before the invention of the printing press. The Egyptians had a library at Alexandria, I assume that some of those works would also have been longer than the first five books of the Bible. Thus, I reject most firmly your idea that it was that way because it cost too much or took too long. The evidence says there were other books done by humans of less importance without the printing press. This is not a logical reason to say that Genesis was allegory.

Sep 7th 2013 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: Hmm, your second link uses the natural number as the base of the exponent. The best proof it can provide of this is a reference to a pre-calc text book; this is not a serious scientific reference. Humans do not reproduce in a manner consistent with the natural exponent.

Some of the logic used in your first link can also be used to disprove that Mary is Mother of God.

Would you please provide the quote with the logic that allows your reasoning? By saying a statement like that without any reference it is a logical fallacy. You provided no quotes of logic and no logical reason which supports your statements which means that someone cannot use logic to see if your reasoning is correct or point out where your reasoning is false.

Again you use logical fallacy to help support your statements. Saying my reference is unscientific is arbitrary. I can reverse it and say the same about your reverences. It is a genetic fallacy as you are not arguing against the argument but insulting the charter of the person advancing the statement.

Second. Any species must reproduce at a rate of 2.0 if not the population would die out. If there were other humans why have we only found a few allegedly non-human bodies? If the non-humans existed they would also have to be fruitful and multiply that was for all things that could reproduce not just humans. Even at a minimal reproduction rate the planet would have had millions of non-humans in millions of years.



Sep 7th 2013 new
(quote) Hunter-996560 said: @Brandon:

Im glad that you reject evolution.

Do I believe in the big bang? What I believe is that how God created the universe isn't important to the salvation of the soul, just that He did. The how is a matter of debate, something which is possible to be up for debate, and I believe that the big bang is currently the best theory we have regarding the how. If we come up with a better idea for a how in the future, and it makes more sense than the big bang, I will probably believe that instead. Changing my opinion of the how does not change my belief that God did create the universe ex nihilo.

This is where we disagree you says it doesn't matter, I just attach myself to anything that works and fits current scientific understanding. Would you have also accepted a steady state universe? It was the current scientific understanding there was theological arguments from Christian that said it didnt violate ex nihilo. The thing Im trying to point out is there is no natural explanation of the universe it had a supernatural cause. Therefore it cannot be found to come to exist naturally. Another example would be the human soul. This is also the usually response of theistic evolutionist.

As a second part to the response to this point, the big bang and evolution are not two parts of one overarching theory. Neither are they different names for the same theory. One deals with the formation of celestial bodies, the other deals with the origins of life. Atheists frequently pair the two together because doing so fits their mythology of a godless universe, but the two are not the same thing. Please don't confuse the two, and please don't conflate the two.

Please then explain how our planet and other planets created an atmosphere? Where did plants come from? While they are two hypothesis they are not different they are natural explanations of creation. The big bang states that the earth was a molten ball of lava like other planets and formed the atmosphere the same way. I would says that you are not a believer in the big bang but in Theistic big bang. This means God used natural process to create the universe and then supernatural process to create life right? If Im conflating the two please Im very happy to hear how we got an atmosphere naturally and plants? They conflate themselves as the atmosphere on a lava earth was formed when life was able to evolve to create oxygen.

So yes, I do believe God used the big bang to create the universe, and I do not believe in evolution. Nice to meet you. I'm not alone.

Nice to meet you too. It seems yall have created a new hypothesis Theistic big bang.

*This leads to the interesting question of my definition of "species". Do I mean it in a broad sense - salmon; anole; frog; crow; human - or something more scientific - Rana catesbeiana; Lithobates pipiens; Andinobates bombetes?

You have to explain what happen on other planets and ours and why. Not necessarily life but big bang creates other planets with atmosphere of oxygen like Mars supposed to have had this. How did it come to be? The big bang says that during are 4.6 billion years we cooled, then rained, then life evolved from this soup. Even plants, that is how we got the current atmosphere that we have today. What happened on earth for 4.6 billion years? Is there another hypothesis of where the earth got its atmosphere from? What about other planets?

Here is a link

Moses was told 24 hours

Here is a quote from an article by Robert Sungenis, M.A. Ph.D. and link you might enjoy it is against theistic evolution.

Sungenis: The author is referring to the Hebrew word YOM, which is normally translated day in English. First, let me deal with his reference to Num 20:15. Yes, the word day is used in Num 20:15, but it is the Hebrew plural YOMIM (days), followed by the quantitative adjective RABBIM, which means many. In other words, the translation says long time because it IS a long time. It is many days in Hebrew. But that is not the word used in Genesis 1. Each reference to YOM in Genesis 1 is singular, referring to one day, with no adjectives.

As for the meaning of YOM in Genesis, the textual and grammatical evidence is quite overwhelming that it refers to one solar day of 24 hours. First, whenever YOM is used with an ordinal number in Scripture, it never refers to an indefinite or long period of time. In Genesis 1, there are six ordinal numbers enumerated: the first daythe second daythe third dayand so on to the sixth day. There is no instance in Hebrew grammar in which day preceded by an ordinal number is understood figuratively or as a long period of time. One of the most famous Hebrew grammars known to scholars, Gesenisus Hebrew Grammar, elaborates on this point (Editor E. Kautzsch, second English edition, revised by A. E. Crowley, 1980, pp. 287-292; 432-437).

The most conclusive evidence that the word day in Genesis 1 is to be interpreted literally as a 24-hour period is confirmed by the consistent use of the phrase and there was evening and morning, which appears in each of the days of Creation (cf., Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). The use of evening and morning in Scripture shows that it always refers to the sequence of darkness and light comprising a single period of a day, a 24 hour period. Outside of Genesis, there are only eight appearances of evening and morning in Scripture (cf., Ex 16:8-13; 27:21; 29:39; Lv 24:3; Nm 9:21; Dan 8:26).

There are some cases in which the words morning or evening appear separately with the word day, some of which refer to a literal solar day and some which are indefinite of time. But in Genesis, and the other aforementioned passages evening and morning are coupled together and are specified as one unit of time.

If the writer of Genesis intended to teach that YOM meant an indefinite period of time, such that he desired to convey long ages of process and change, he had numerous ways to convey such an idea. He could have used the plural YOMIM, as Mr. Young suggested of Num 20:15, or as Moses does in Genesis 1:14 (let them be for days and for years) or Genesis 3:14 (dust shall you eat all the days of your life). But even then we must interject that, of the 702 uses of the plural YOMIM in the Old Testament, literal days are always in view.

As an alternative, the writer could have connected YOM with other Hebrew words of indefiniteness, such as DOR, OLAM, NETSACH, TAMID, or any of a dozen similar words and concepts in Hebrew. But the writer of Genesis 1 chose none of these possibilities; rather, he chose the most specific phrase for a 24-hour day that one can find in the Hebrew Scriptures. END

I would also say that science says a lot of thing that get disproven later. My question to use is if the whole universe could be created in six literal 24 hours days wouldnt God do it that way? As pointed out in another post which I will respond to the hypothesis of the big bang was composed to harmonize science and the Bible. The problem I have with this is science never stops changing, and God and the truth do not change as pointed out by Holy Mother church. If God did it in literal 24 hours days science will eventually confirm this. Like the Universe now has a beginning. All science is an interpretation of the facts based on how you approach the facts. If I believe the universe is billions of years old then I will create things like an Oort Cloud. Science is not truth it is a search for knowledge but even with correct assumptions you might not get to the truth. You do realize that they still teach that the human embryo has gills right?

After reading your post, I have a question. Do you believe that the Earth is ~6,000 years old?

There is science that confirms this it is just dismissed. This is usually because the scientists get labeled a radical, flat earthy, fundamentalist and the like. They also refuse to publish work in so called scientific journals. People seem to forget that the reason for your response does not mean your arguments are invalid. Thus, it is the last thing on here not the first as you had it.



Sep 7th 2013 new
(quote) John-971967 said: Brandon,

Natural laws are affected by the dimension of time, hence there is "change" in the world we observe and as we know it, whether we like it or not.

Yes, so you cannot extrapolate backward because the laws used to extrapolate backward might work different. Uniformitarianism all the laws that apply today apply the same way back then. This is an assumption that cannot be proven.

Yes, the "big bang" is still just a theory, yet it keeps passing the muster test in the short time it's been considered where others have been disproven much more readily.

It is not a theory but a hypothesis. Really I know much evidence against the big bang. Secular and Catholic scientist do not allow dissention from other scientist of things they hold proven. Why do you have to believe in evolution to be a member of the Papal science academy?

I imagine that you know that the first scientist to propose the Big Bang Theory was actually Monsignor Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian Jesuit priest and scholar prominent in the 1920s and 1930s? Lemaitre was trying to work out the implications of an expanding universe in light of Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity (about time & space), and therefore proposed a cataclysmic, everything-springs-from-a- speck-of-almost-nothing theory that made all the fancy math work out right.

No, did not know this. As pointed out in another post this is not the only way to explain a expanding universe. Exactly Einstein did not like the big bag hypothesis even proposed a special constant out of nowhere to keep his theory from expanding. Also, Not according to PBS. the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Here is a link:

Mark Midbon, in an article first published in Commonweal and posted now at the Catholic Education Resource Center site, puts what happened next this way: Lemaitre published his calculations and his reasoning in Annales de la Societe scientifique de Bruxelles in 1927. Few people took notice. That same year he talked with Einstein in Brussels, but the latter, unimpressed, said, Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable.

Just because it could work "if the holes get fixed does" not mean it is the correct answer.

Creation has a way of working out, though. For in 1933, Einstein is reported to have said publicly in a meeting of scientists in California, regarding Lemaitre's theory, This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.

How about that? The leap (of faith?) required to accept this theory (one which also includes the possibility of a God who existed before the creation of the universe and of time, or who perhaps set the Big Bang in motion) was at first too much even for Einstein himself to make. So Lemaitre had to faithfully wait for Uncle Albert to come around to his way of thinking, which he eventually did.

Not real really sure I think a guy who invented a constant to disprove this ever really became that happy about it. Einstein was a firm believer in the steady state theory, he did not like the idea of the universe having a beginning. On page 14. I also do believe Einstein never accepted God but kept debating it.

Then Lemaitre had to wait a few more decades for all the unspoken but fairly apparent anti-religious or anti-Catholic sentiment to die away within the scientific community. The Big Bang was a highly and vehemently debated principle right up through 1964, when theories about background noise (in the form of microwaves observed by Bell Labs) were used as further evidence that a cataclysmic explosion and its echoes were the source of that noise, and thus the source of the initial creative event.

Lemaitre had been ill when the news of these developments first broke. But eventually he received word that his gutsy, godly logic was finally being vindicated by other proofs and corroborating evidence. Thankfully, he lived to see his 1927 work finally beginning to gain firm footing, in 1964 and 1965. Then in 1966, he passed away at age 71, probably glad for the chance to finally consult the ultimate source (God) of all creation and truth.

A review of CMB data by Dr John Hartnett was published in TJ in early 2001.1 The big picture has not changed since then. In that report Dr Hartnett showed that CMB actually poses problems for the big bang and supports creationist cosmologies. One problem is that the CMB seems to indicate a preferred frame of reference, contrary to the basic assumption behind the big bang. Another is that the total mass density of the universe inferred observationally does not agree with the mass calculated from big bang theory. And this latest NASA report even said that the stars formed earlier (by their own dating methods) than previously predicted. Then there is the fact that the CMB is very smooth, contrary to big bang predictions. And so on. Creationist cosmology models do not have these problems.

In reality, the universe is 10 to 20 giga years old, not according to General Relativity specifically, but according to one theoretical cosmic model the standard Big Bang based on General Relativity which assumes an unbounded isotropic space and abundant adjustable parameters to support the metaphysical materialism of the cosmological principle. Several simpler finite models based on General Relativity are consistent with a Biblical age and have fewer assumptions, such as those of Dr. Russell Humphreys and Dr. Robert Gentry. According to Leo XIII, as long as natural scientists with impeccable qualifications can explain the facts in front of them in harmony with the literal and obvious sense of Genesis, the burden of proof is on those who would challenge the literal interpretation. by Hugh Owen and Robert Bennett.



Sep 8th 2013 new
  • Please then explain how our planet and other planets created an atmosphere?
I believe the current prevailing theory is that the gases that eventually made up our atmosphere formed alongside the planet, that lighter gases were able to escape the gravitational field of the planet, and heavier ones stuck around. Life could not exist on the planet without the atmosphere we have, so the atmosphere had to come before any other life.

Check out this article for a fairly good explanation.

  • It seems yall have created a new hypothesis Theistic big bang.
As John said back on page 3, the big bang was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Jesuit priest, in the 1920s.

Since this was first proposed by a Jesuit priest, I submit that Lemaitre did not subscribe to an atheist view of the origin of the universe.

Also, this theory is closing in on its 90th year.

Consequently, neither were we the ones to create this hypothesis, as you put it, nor is it new.

  • it refers to one solar day of 24 hours
One solar day is not 24 hours; that's not how the term "solar day" is defined.

One solar day is measured based upon the position of the sun in the sky while a planet rotates on its axis, the time it takes the sun to return to the same point in the sky as it was the day before when the measurement began. This is almost 24 hours, but it is not exactly 24 hours. They're close, but being close does not mean you can use whichever definition you want when making use of a term. Coke and Pepsi are close, but you can't make a Jack and Coke with Pepsi.

  • If the writer of Genesis intended to teach that YOM meant an indefinite period of time, such that he desired to convey long ages of process and change, he had numerous ways to convey such an idea. He could have used the plural YOMIM, as Mr. Young suggested of Num 20:15, or as Moses does in Genesis 1:14 (let them be for days and for years) or Genesis 3:14 (dust shall you eat all the days of your life).
Ah, but Genesis tells us something infinitely more important than a precise measurement of the length of creation, and using the "many days" word/prase would have made it impossible to get this important message across.

By telling the account of creation the way it's told, we're taught many things at the same time. We're taught what God can do. We're taught the order He did things in. We're also taught something else, both directly and indirectly.

By using the word "day" (rather than "many days"), God is essentially telling us, "Okay, you kids can work as much as you want for six straight days, but every seventh day everyone has to take a break and set it aside for Me. I know how you kids operate; I made you, remember? If you stop doing something, you'll forget about it. And forgetting about Me would be bad for you."

If Genesis used the "many days" term, then the importance of keeping the Sabbath holy would have been lost in the over-precision of detailing exactly how long creation took. By using "day" as a variable, a placeholder, a demarcation line dividing specific events in the act of creation, we not only get to see the creation of the universe, but also the importance of setting aside a day for God.

  • My question to use is if the whole universe could be created in six literal 24 hours days wouldnt God do it that way?
He could, certainly. But history has shown us that God will often use tools to do the job, (whether those tools be humans, animals, or natural phenomena), rather than use a miracle.

  • There is science that confirms this it is just dismissed. This is usually because the scientists get labeled a radical, flat earthy, fundamentalist and the like. They also refuse to publish work in so called scientific journals. People seem to forget that the reason for your response does not mean your arguments are invalid. Thus, it is the last thing on here not the first as you had it.
I'll take that as a yes.
Sep 9th 2013 new
(quote) Hunter-996560 said: This audio is nothing but Luddite propaganda.

Here are just the few problems I noticed on one listen-through. (Quotes from the speaker are in italics.)

1. "The greater the redshift, the further away the galaxy." Second claim: "[Redshift] is related to the apparent brightness of a galaxy."

No, that's not right. Neither of those are right. Both of those claims are very, very wrong. The Doppler effect - which you've probably most frequently heard of in meteorological reports, yet are most familiar with from sirens on emergency vehicles (or train whistles) - deals with the change in a wave's frequency relative to the observer. If something emitting waves - an ambulance's siren, for example - is traveling towards you, the sound waves emitted from the siren will be compressed, leading to a higher-pitched siren. When it passes you and moves away from you, the sound waves are "stretched", leading to a lower-pitched siren. This is the Doppler effect, and this is where redshift and blueshift comes from. (The higher-pitched siren is a blueshifted sound wave, the lower-pitched siren is a redshifted sound wave. And yeah, blueshift is a thing, too. I have a theory as to why he didn't mention it in his speech.)

Light also travels in a wave, so it can also have a Doppler effect. This is how we can measure whether distant galaxies are moving away from the Milky Way - by measuring their redshift - or if they're moving towards the Milky Way - by measuring their blueshift. (Heads up: the Andromeda galaxy will collide with the Milky Way in about 4 billion years.)
2. The speaker has a problem with numbers. He keeps repeating an age of 15 billion years for the universe. Our best measurement for the age of the universe is 13.798 billion years, give or take 0.037 billion years. If you're going to try to debunk someone else's arguments, then you should do some research beforehand to make sure your facts are right. Also, at another section, he rounds 95.4% to 96%. In every math class I've ever taken, doing something like that would result in the teacher marking it wrong. Are we supposed to believe his commentary on the higher, more difficult sciences when he can't even display a solid grasp of basic mathematics?

3. "'If that's what the scientists tell us what happened, what's wrong with that?' What's wrong with that? There's plenty wrong with that." I guess we should ignore the Church's teaching of Christ, then, since we obviously should never listen to experts speaking about their area of expertise.

4. The dark matter topic. "Nobody [has] ever even seen cold dark matter or dark energy, they don't even know where to look for this stuff." Of course not! We haven't been able to build tools to help us see it yet. But this is how science works. We look at what we can see, and we see things that don't make sense but can't figure out why. So we throw together some theories as to why the strange thing happens, and then we build tools to test those theories. If all of those early theories fail, then we use those failures as the building blocks of new theories. There have been plenty of things that we've never been able to see but have concluded their existence through empirical experimentation - protons, neutrons, and electrons, for example. (Oh, and hey, look: we've finally managed to capture an image of an electron orbiting an hydrogen atom. It only took us about 250 years from hydrogen's discovery to be able to see its electron. )

5. On the cosmological constant topic, he attempted to claim that a 118-order-of-magnitude difference between expected values and measured values means science is wrong. He didn't even try to dispute anything, he just used this as a way to mock science and scientists. Actually, what this does is reinforce how science actually works. Scientist 1: "Based on what we know, the cosmological constant should be this value." Scientist 2: "Well, after taking a close look at it, it's actually this other value." Scientist 1: "How peculiar. Obviously there's something were were ignorant of and failed to take into account in our calculations. Let's find out what it was. To the Batcave!" (Okay, I'm kidding a bit there. Most scientists don't have a Batcave.)

6. "We don't have enough time to treat this theory with the contempt that it so richly deserves." Contempt for science. What did I say earlier? Luddite propaganda. I rest my case.There's more that I could comment on, after about the 18' mark, but this is getting too long as it is. I'll wrap it up here.

On a personal level, I'm very bothered by his constant repetition of the "bunko/malarkey" line. All I can think is that he's addressing people with no higher learning whatsoever, and he believes that they'll never actually understand his argument, so he must resort to sophomoric terminology in order to sway them emotionally towards his anti-science agenda. (And then there's his constant use of the term "close quotes" without ever citing who he's quoting at the start, or giving any indication that he's about to quote someone.)

In closing, I'd like to say one more thing. This speaker began his speech with a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas: "It is absolutely false...that what we believe regarding Creation is of no consequence so long as one has an exact conception concerning God, because an error regarding the nature of Creation always gives rise to a false idea of God." I suggest, then, using this quote that the speaker chose, that this person has a false idea of God. He has raised strawmen in the forms of inaccurate science, blatantly wrong science, and false representation of science. If he actually believes the nonsense he spoke, then he most certainly has errors regarding the nature of Creation.

St. Thomas Aquinas also said "To apply human intelligence to understand the world is not an affront to God but is pleasing to Him." The speaker in this recording is not using his intelligence to understand the world. He is using his intelligence to lead others astray - using the quote he chose, by leading others astray as regards the nature of Creation, he is giving them false ideas of God. As human beings, we produce experts for a reason. We need experts - people to focus on a given area of life - because not everyone can do everything. We produce experts in construction so that buildings can be made to endure earthquakes. We produce experts in the arts so that we can have beautiful images to look at and to raise our minds to God. We produce experts in farming so that we can have larger, healthier yields in crops. We produce experts in theology - by allowing those people to answer the calling that God is giving them - so that we can better know, love, and serve God in this life. And we produce experts in the sciences so that we can understand what God created for us to live in, and then, perhaps, to have an even greater awe towards Him. By completely dismissing scientific claims simply because those minds are blinded by their own intellects and refuse to believe in God, we do all of us a disservice, and we do God a disservice by refusing to make use of a method to honor Him - a method He chose to give us.

The big bang theory is our scientists' best explanation for how the universe came into existence. If this is the tool that God chose to use, who are we to say that He didn't? How can anyone say that His Fiat lux was not the reason the singularity exploded and became what we see today?
Wow. That priest has highly educated --- focusing in natural moral law and Thomistic theology. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick in more places than one here.
Sep 9th 2013 new
(quote) Brandon-854380 said:

After reading your post, I have a question. Do you believe that the Earth is ~6,000 years old?

There is science that confirms this it is just dismissed. This is usually because the scientists get labeled a radical, flat earthy, fundamentalist and the like. They also refuse to publish work in so called scientific journals. People seem to forget that the reason for your response does not mean your arguments are invalid. Thus, it is the last thing on here not the first as you had it.




Like Hunter, I also take that as a yes.

As an aside, I was just reviewing your profile as was about to begin preparing a response to your post, but was struck with something you wrote in it. Simply this:

You present to be a traditionalist (nothing wrong with that); you present that you do attend the Novus Ordo (ok); but you later present that you DO NOT accept the Church's teaching on papal infallibility.

My first question to self was: is he Old Catholic? Are you? If not, then could you share with us why you don't believe in the Church's teaching?

Do you know the definition, or do you reject Vatican I's dogmatic teachings defining papal infallibility.

Ok, I hope to get a direct answer, then we will get back on topic again.
Sep 10th 2013 new
Father Ripperger, although I guess his heart is in the right place, is a bit of an idiot, and I would not believe a word the man says. I've read some of his stuff and believe he is obsessively confused.

One of my pet peaves is Catholics who elect willful ignorance in denying the vision of their own eyes and senses and the results of scientific inquiry. Don't get me worng: many such people are good people and many of them will likely be in heaven before me: I am not saying that they are bad people. But since the Good Lord gave us brains and reason and senses, to totally deny the data provided by reason and our senses and choose, despite evidence to the contrary, to take a literalist, fundamentalist (essentially Protestant) view of the world is pure folly to me.

I do understand that many of the Church fathers believed in literalist interpretations of Genesis because they had no evidence to the contrary and Science had not yet been invented. They had invincible ignorance. But there is no excuse for the modern Catholic who has 300 years of scientific development before him, at least if he has benefitted from a high school education or more.

Thus, I have little patience for people who believe the world was created in 6 literal days and that Adam and Eve were two people walking around in a garden with lions loving lambs, and that Methusalah lived to be 680 years or however many was claimed. OK, if you've had only an 8th grade education from a Third World country I can accept it. But if you've been exposed to the knowledge since the Scientific Revolution and you still think the world is flat, you
are just Willfully Ignorant in my view. And that is a shame because you are throwing away the gift of intelligence given you by God. Saying that some saint or some pope hundreds of years ago held this view is no excuse because knowledge is cumulative and progresses. Human nature may or may not be improving, but knowledge is certainly improving.

For me, I need a spouse with more intelligence than to believe that Genesis was meant to be taken literally. I'm not saying a person who buys into that is a bad person or a bad Cathloic. If you believe those myths that is your choice and your right, but just that I require someone with more intelligience to be my spouse.
Sep 10th 2013 new
It's a great offense to profess the Fathers of the Church to have ignored what they ought to know. It is also a great offense to profess that the evolution of knowledge changes truth in time.

The First Vatican Council met both such professions with opposition:

Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Ch. 2 On Revelation

5. Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, as declared by the sacred Council of Trent, is contained in written books and unwritten traditions, which were received by the Apostles from the lips of Christ Himself, or came to the Apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us.

6. The complete books of the Old and the New Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as Sacred and Canonical.

7. These books the Church holds to be Sacred and Canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their Author, and were as such committed to the Church.

8. Now since the decree on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, We renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy Mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.

9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

Ch. 3 On Faith

7. And so faith in itself, even though it may not work through charity, is a gift of God, and its operation is a work belonging to the order of salvation, in that a person yields true obedience to God Himself when he accepts and collaborates with His grace which he could have rejected.

8. Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the Word of God as found in Scripture and Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal Magisterium.

9. Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of His sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end.

Ch. 4 On Faith and Reason

5. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.

6. God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

7. Therefore We define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false.

8. Furthermore the Church which, together with its Apostolic Office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has by divine appointment the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit.

9. Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.

10. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.

11. Hence, so far is the Church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the Lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of His grace.

12. Nor does the Church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method: but while she admits this just freedom, she takes particular care that they do not become infected with errors by conflicting with divine teaching, or, by going beyond their proper limits, intrude upon what belongs to faith and engender confusion.

13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.

Canons. 2. On Revelation.

3. If anyone says that a human being cannot be divinely elevated to a knowledge and perfection which exceeds the natural, but of himself can and must reach finally the possession of all truth and goodness by continual development: let him be anathema.

4. If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired: let him be anathema.

3. On Faith

4. If anyone says that all miracles are impossible, and that therefore all reports of them, even those contained in Sacred Scripture, are to be set aside as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of the Christian religion be proved from them: let him be anathema.

5. If anyone says that the assent to Christian faith is not free, but is necessarily produced by arguments of human reason; or that the grace of God is necessary only for living faith which works by charity: let him be anathema.

6. If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the Church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema.

4. On Faith and Reason.

1. If anyone says that in divine revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles: let him be anathema.

2. If anyone says that human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that they may not be forbidden by the Church: let him be anathema.

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

If you're looking for a woman who is anathema, you're not looking for a Catholic.
Sep 10th 2013 new
Beautifully said Chelsea!

As I casually read through your lengthy post (and I thank you for it) I have to applaud you for the opening statement. It is very important. The breadth of the rest of the post resonates true to me too. In other words, I find no need to pick at it, if I dare to do it at all. But for contemplative purposes, it will be a good revisit at a future date.

One thing that is a pet peeve of mine, with liberals, especially the "progressive" minded is that they think because of scientific or technological advances (and in some I am well versed) that the world is in truth "progressing" and disproving long held certainties in Traditional (capital "T") Catholic teaching especially. So not true. A simple knowledge of history proves the progressives of our day to be wrong and shows their current works to often be deceptive tactics; humanity has not "progressed" in the last 100-some years. If anything, we have become overindulged, selfish, inconsiderate, and hurtful although we TEMPORARILY (very temporarily) live a much easier life because that is what they want now (having no faith in "later"). Progressives have taken many off the true path.
Posts 31 - 40 of 167