outdated dinosaurs and the ice age

[qfnol31]

Now that would be Darwinian. I go back a little further than he.

[Resurrexi]

Then what do you believe?

[qfnol31]

I'll find it for you either tonight or tomorrow.

But it all boils down to I think God can intercede at conception and as far as animals go, he does there.

I'm not sure what I believe about man's creation, though I do believe that was most definitely direct Divine intervention in creation.

[Snarf]

If a juvenile (in the literal definition) holds that Popes were only infallible until some arbitrary date, my guess is that he assumes that science is only plausible to a much earlier one. Say, when they shifted their focus away from turning lead into gold.

What I love to see people forget is that the Old Earth theory predates Darwin by several decades, in its modern incarnation. Saying that scientists use faulty dating methods is like saying the Pythagorean Theorem is proved with questionable logic. You could argue against one case example until you're blue in the face (and probably just be wrong on all counts) and there'd still be countless more case examples to face.

[Maria]

How come The Everlasting Man hasn't been brought up yet?
[url="http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/part1c2.htm"]http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ches...ing/part1c2.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/part1c2b.htm"]http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ches...ng/part1c2b.htm[/url]

[shortnun]

I'm just enjoying "listening" to this thread...

[quote name='MC IMaGiNaZUN' post='956543' date='Apr 21 2006, 05:11 PM']
Since when was Holy Mother Church afraid of Science?

We are not fundamentalists are we?
[/quote]
AMEN!

[quote name='Snarf' post='956906' date='Apr 22 2006, 03:46 AM']
If a juvenile (in the literal definition) holds that Popes were only infallible until some arbitrary date, my guess is that he assumes that science is only plausible to a much earlier one. Say, when they shifted their focus away from turning lead into gold.

What I love to see people forget is that the Old Earth theory predates Darwin by several decades, in its modern incarnation. Saying that scientists use faulty dating methods is like saying the Pythagorean Theorem is proved with questionable logic. You could argue against one case example until you're blue in the face (and probably just be wrong on all counts) and there'd still be countless more case examples to face.
[/quote]
Great points, Snarf.

[avemaria40]

I believe God could have used evolution. The point of Genesis was not to be a scientific account but to say that God made the world, that He created us and He found us to be very good. That's the heart of the message.

[blovedwolfofgod]

actually, my protestant heritage is coming to the front here...

i tend toward strict Creationism, and the prots make a good case for it. i forget the one ministerial service that came to talk at the "christian" fellowship when i used to go (before they found out I was Catholic and NOT converting or convertable). There are actually a lot of really good points for Creationism...