Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The RCC is nowhere near the original Christian faith. Catholicism didn't exist until Constantine. Christians were "first called Christians at Antioch".
The rcc also didn't "give protestants the NT", the apostles did. It was given to all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work at the cross.
The term Catholic was first used in 107.
I agree that at the onset the church was not as organized but it became powerful enough that the Roman Empire decided to back the Catholic Church.
The Apostles wrote, but it was the RCC came up with the concept of creating the New Testament out of the writings. Furthermore, they decided which books went in and which books were left out. This was done by Catholics and not by Protestants.
Say what you want to say, but the RCC gave Christianity to the Protestants that emerged 1500 years later.
Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, (French: [ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.
Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe. The Catholic Church believes in the Big Bang and in fact has an academy of sciences:
Since the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859, the attitude of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has slowly been refined. In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God.
The RCC is the original Christian church and in the middle ages made a lot of errors by following the Bible in a very strict manner. For example they went after Galileo citing the Bible.
When is the Protestant church going to enter the 21st century?
The geocentric view of the universe was science and a view held by most of the scientists of the time, in other words the geocentric view was analogous to the theory of evolution. Actually, the geocentric, to my understanding, provided more mathematically predictive powers than the theory of evolution which can provide at best probability odds.
You can get just about anyone to believe anything by yapping at them while simultaneously looking shocked at their comments or doubt too. Atheists have convinced others to do this.
Imagine 40 people being in a room with you and looking like this -> when you tell them you think grown men and women ought wear underwear. What is your human reaction? It's to eventually become like this -> and when you do speak only parrot what everyone else around you is saying is dogmatic truth.
In today's world looking "smart" is like super cool, and looking "dumb" is looked upon kind of on par with pedophilia. If you're Miley Cyrus then you can probably promote the sexual moral corruption of prepubescent children because you're "smart" and yap on about "evolution." You don't actually have to understand anything about the theory of evolution. You just have to yap on about it being dogmatic truth. That makes you smart and cool.
The heliocentric model, to my understanding, simplified that mathematical process of making accurate predictions of where celestial bodies will be positioned at from the vantage point of observation from the earth. Bot both the geocentric and heliocentric models provided accurate mathematical predictions--at least that's my understanding of it.
I don't know much astronomy or physics, so, I don't know all that much about the geocentric and heliocentric models. Although, my understanding is that we know the sun is not the center of the universe as the heliocentric model proposed. or so we think. ("Geo" I believe means "earth" and "helio" I believe means sun--so, geocentric = earth centered and heliocentric = sun centered.)
To me... science is much like building a house.
By that I mean one should expect humans using their intelligence to eventually move from this:
To this:
Without the geocentric model I'm not sure the heliocentric model would have come about, or at least gained mathematical strength by having an opposing view to falsify.
If I were so smart without need of previous generations in the building trades or sciences then why haven't I by my own sheer brilliance figured out to build an environmentally friendly home as light as feather but as strong as steal, and why am I not using a hover-craft fueled from water or by my own urine (the H2O in my urine) to transport me all around Milwaukee?
Because I'm not that naturally brilliant. And apparently neither are most other people.
The RCC is nowhere near the original Christian faith. Catholicism didn't exist until Constantine. Christians were "first called Christians at Antioch".
The rcc also didn't "give protestants the NT", the apostles did. It was given to all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work at the cross.
I'm named after an Early Christian martyr that lived before Constantine.
And this food is called among us Ευχαριστια [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;†and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;†and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
So, historical writings of a saint, martyr, of the Early Church during the 1st Century before the birth of Constantine the Great, stating a Catholic belief in the real presence of the Eucharist.
The Apostles may not be the authors of much of the New Testament, not even the Gospels, except for the Gospel of John. Paul's letters are from Paul though. Revelations may have come from the hand of John too.
The geocentric view of the universe was science and a view held by most of the scientists of the time, in other words the geocentric view was analogous to the theory of evolution.
The geocentric view was erroneous and was not analogous to evolution because Darwin had not been born during those days.
Quote:
Actually, the geocentric, to my understanding, provided more mathematically predictive powers than the theory of evolution which can provide at best probability odds.
Evolution is difficult to predict. At most we can make educated guesses that are not mathematical. However, we can make a ton of observations. The genome of the chimp and man is quite similar. This indicates a common ancestor.
This is the x-ray of the hand of a chimp:
This is the hand of a human:
Quote:
You can get just about anyone to believe anything by yapping at them while simultaneously looking shocked at their comments or doubt too. Atheists have convinced others to do this.
Maybe in some circles. In academia most people require much more than that.
Quote:
The heliocentric model, to my understanding, simplified that mathematical process of making accurate predictions of where celestial bodies will be positioned at from the vantage point of observation from the earth. Bot both the geocentric and heliocentric models provided accurate mathematical predictions--at least that's my understanding of it.
The move of celestial bodies was mathematically described by Sir Isaac Newton and further refined by Eintein's theory of general relativity. Albert showed the world Newton was wrong, but his numbers still work.
Quote:
I don't know much astronomy or physics, so, I don't know all that much about the geocentric and heliocentric models. Although, my understanding is that we know the sun is not the center of the universe as the heliocentric model proposed. or so we think. ("Geo" I believe means "earth" and "helio" I believe means sun--so, geocentric = earth centered and heliocentric = sun centered.)
Helium was first discovered in the sun (Helios) and hence was named Helium.
The center of our galaxy (The Milky Way) is a black hole. The sun orbits the back hole every 225 million years.
The geocentric view was erroneous and was not analogous to evolution because Darwin had not been born during those days.
The geocentric view is analogous to the theory of evolution in that the majority of scientists--in their respective eras of each theory--held (hold in the case of today pertaining to evolution) these views to be true. The date of Charles Darwin's birth is not relevant. I might remind you that Charles Darwin was not Jesus Christ by the way.
And the geocentric view held the earth as the center of universe (Copernicus and Galileo held that the sun is the center of the universe--according to scientists this is not necessarily correct). A cosmologist online told me any point--be it earth, the sun, the moon, or a planet in another galaxy--can be the center of the universe if you pick it as the point in which you want to define your center.
It was also once believed that the earth was stationary while the sun revolved around it. Now, the apparent speed of the earth's rotation and revolution seems to move at a snails pace to me, but supposedly both move at warped speed. I take it at faith because I don't know, I don't comprehend, the physics otherwise to accept this knowledge any other way than on faith.
Quote:
Evolution is difficult to predict. At most we can make educated guesses that are not mathematical.
My major is biology. We don't predict anything with evolution in terms of descent with modification or that is to say the birth of a new species. What we can attempt predictions with in terms of probability (which you are incorrect, it uses math, it's mathematical probability) with respects to genetic inheritance are traits expressions. But it can not deliver the accurate mathematical predictions the geocentric model could as to celestial bodies positions.
Here: a lecture outline posted from some instructor at Miami University:
Explanation: The title of this lecture refers to my belief that sometimes we tend to think that ancient astronomical ideas were stupid because today we know that they are wrong. I hope that you will come to realize that while these models may be wrong, many were scientifically sound given the facts that were known at the time. It's not that we are any smarter than Ptolemy; it's just that we have more facts in the form of better observations.
Quote:
Geocentric Model of Aristotle (c. 350 B.C.)
This model places the Earth at the center of the Universe, and the heavens are composed of eight concentric spheres that idependently (at slightly different speeds) rotate around the Earth.
This gives the Prograde Motion of the Planets:
Quote:
Modifications of Ptolemy (c. 140 A.D.)
To explain Retrograde Motion of the Planets, Ptolemy invented the Epicycle. How does an Epicycle explain Retrograde Motion?
Quote:
The Ptolemaic Model gave fairly accurate predictions of planetary motion, and it was later accepted by the Church, and thus was The Model of the Universe for more than a thousand years. In fact, when Harvard University opened in Boston in the seventeenth century, the Ptolemaic Model was taught in the natural philosophy classes!
However, as observations of the locations of the planets got better and better, the Model had to modified (e.g. more epicycles had to be added and the Earth had to be moved slightly from the center); the model got more and more complicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
However, we can make a ton of observations. The genome of the chimp and man is quite similar. This indicates a common ancestor.
Okay, there is an abundance of evidence (not proof) for evolution in terms of descent with modification and part of it are anatomical similarities between apes and humans. Actually, anthropologist regard humans as apes.
Let's understand something. Biological ife does not exist outside the genome. Humans have genetic similarity to Chimps in part because there is a genome of life. And because there is a genome of life humans are genetically similar to bananas and every life form on earth including ants earth worms, roses, and bacteria.
Given this link I'm going to post is not an academic source I won't cosign the percentages given as very accurate, however, I'll hazard a guess the percentages are precise or close to precise ("precision" in terms of how the term is mathematically used in chemistry to connote mathematically close to accurate but not quite there). Gene Cuisine: Human DNA similarities to chimps and bananas, what does it mean?
Quote:
I'm sure you've heard it before; humans and chimpanzees are about 98.8% similar. What does that really mean though? This number refers to comparing single nucleotide changes in the DNA, or changes in the sequence of the A,C,G,T code.
Quote:
Comparing genetic duplications in genes, the number lowers to 96%. What's a duplication? As Even Eichler of University of Washington says, if we consider the genetic code as a book, entire pages will be repeated in one species but not the other. So conservatively, we are 96% alike with out closest cousin. Here's some other common animals and our genetic similarites (these numbers are consistent across all reliable sources):
(Bananas are not animals of course, so, you have to forgive the blogger)
Quote:
This is the x-ray of the hand of a chimp:
This is the hand of a human:
That's not the only anatomical similarity between chimps and humans. I've taken more than one physical (biological) anthropology course. I took a 300 level physical anthropology course that had a skeleton of an adult chimpanzee and an adult human hanging up in the lab class room the entire semester. I have a pictorial atlas required for that class, of all sorts of creatures in it from opossum, Capuchin monkey, lemur, to P. boisei.
I know about nuchal lines, occiptal buns, sagittal crests, diastemas, dental formulas, neocortex, foramen magnum, arboreal living/mobility, bipedal mobility, opposable thumbs, zygomatic arch, post orbital constriction, prognathism, the hyoid bone and so on. I'm aware of the diet of early humans pertaining to cooked meat, theorized as the cause for the growth/large size of the human brain. And yeah... we had exam questions the different cc sizes of brains in various primates skulls.
And I'm aware of the taxonomy pictures and taxonomical similarities that given evidence of evolutionary descent with modification.
So, we went over carpals, tarsals, arms and leg bones etc. We had to observe the differences and similarities in the Chimps pelvis from the human's too.
I'm aware of these things. I'm no expert, but I'm aware of the differences and similarities.
But there is a maxim in science: Correlation does not equal causation.
In other words, as applicable to this, similarities between chimps and humans does not mean humans evolved from a shared ancestor of chimps, and just because bananas and humans have some genetic similarity does not mean one came from the other.
Quote:
Maybe in some circles. In academia most people require much more than that.
Eh... not really. Enough 50 year old people with the letters Ph.D. behind their names tell 19 year old kids they came from cross dressing monkeys, and look askance at any of the kids that doubt them or suggest otherwise, and eventually all the 19 year old kids trying to get their bachelor degree are going parrot what their professors say. What are they going to do on an exam, mark the "wrong" answer? I don't think so.
And they'll go into graduate school looking for evidence of cross dressing monkeys that gave rise to humans. And that's all they'll look for. If any evidence contradicts it they'll discard it or interpret the evidence to fit their belief (what they're looking for), so their belief can never be wrong. They won't look for what they weren't taught to look for. Only Mavericks like Copernicus and Galileo do that.
Quote:
The move of celestial bodies was mathematically described by Sir Isaac Newton and further refined by Eintein's theory of general relativity. Albert showed the world Newton was wrong, but his numbers still work.
Helium was first discovered in the sun (Helios) and hence was named Helium.
The center of our galaxy (The Milky Way) is a black hole. The sun orbits the back hole every 225 million years.
Not sure what any of that had to do with my points.
The geocentric view is analogous to the theory of evolution in that the majority of scientists--in their respective eras of each theory--held (hold in the case of today pertaining to evolution) these views to be true. The date of Charles Darwin's birth is not relevant. I might remind you that Charles Darwin was not Jesus Christ by the way.
The geocentric view cannot be analogous to evolution because the geocentric view was proven to be incorrect.
Quote:
And the geocentric view held the earth as the center of universe (Copernicus and Galileo held that the sun is the center of the universe--according to scientists this is not necessarily correct). A cosmologist online told me any point--be it earth, the sun, the moon, or a planet in another galaxy--can be the center of the universe if you pick it as the point in which you want to define your center.
It was also once believed that the earth was stationary while the sun revolved around it. Now, the apparent speed of the earth's rotation and revolution seems to move at a snails pace to me, but supposedly both move at warped speed. I take it at faith because I don't know, I don't comprehend, the physics otherwise to accept this knowledge any other way than on faith.
The cosmic microwave radiation, the residual from the Big Bang is very uniform in all directions, therefore it is impossible to find the center of the observable universe.
If you are in constant motion (with no acceleration) you will not know you are moving (no matter how fast). To feel the motion we must have acceleration.
Quote:
My major is biology. We don't predict anything with evolution in terms of descent with modification or that is to say the birth of a new species. What we can attempt predictions with in terms of probability (which you are incorrect, it uses math, it's mathematical probability) with respects to genetic inheritance are traits expressions. But it can not deliver the accurate mathematical predictions the geocentric model could as to celestial bodies positions.
This is very rewarding, thanks!
Quote:
Let's understand something. Biological ife does not exist outside the genome. Humans have genetic similarity to Chimps in part because there is a genome of life. And because there is a genome of life humans are genetically similar to bananas and every life form on earth including ants earth worms, roses, and bacteria.
Exactly! I didn't want to bring the banana example because it would seem outrageous. But, all living things have a common primordial ancestor. If we go back in time we are all related. The banana is your distant cousin.
Quote:
[/i]In other words, as applicable to this, similarities between chimps and humans does not mean humans evolved from a shared ancestor of chimps, and just because bananas and humans have some genetic similarity does not mean one came from the other.
[/b][/color]
OK! What is your explanation?
Last edited by Julian658; 08-29-2013 at 06:04 AM..
Evolution is difficult to predict. At most we can make educated guesses that are not mathematical. However, we can make a ton of observations. The genome of the chimp and man is quite similar. This indicates a common ancestor. /QUOTE]
Or simply a common DESIGNER for a similar FUNCTION, The ASSUMPTION by evolutionists is that the similarities "indicates" (erroneously concluding as some absolute FACT of certainty) a common ancestor to promote their evolving humanist RELIGION.
If you are bound to actually believe that your great great grandpa was a monkey so be it. That is a very SAD position of FAITH. Certainly NOTHING in the Scriptures authenticates this ridiculous theory.
The god of evolution uses DEATH, randomness, and a LOT of SPECULATED TIME to bring Man into existence.
The God revealed in the Bible created all GOOD and by MAN through Sin brought death into the world.
Those that adhere to the chimp grandpa theory are not Christian no matter how you slice it because to come to God we must believe that he is and a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
All TRUTH will be revealed shortly. ALL LIES and those that promulgate then will be a thing of the past and not even come into remembrance.
Last edited by Mikelee81; 08-29-2013 at 07:03 AM..
The geocentric view cannot be analogous to evolution because the geocentric view was proven to be incorrect.
The cosmic microwave radiation, the residual from the Big Bang is very uniform in all directions, therefore it is impossible to find the center of the observable universe.
If you are in constant motion (with no acceleration) you will not know you are moving (no matter how fast). To feel the motion we must have acceleration.
This is very rewarding, thanks!
Exactly! I didn't want to bring the banana example because it would seem outrageous. But, all living things have a common primordial ancestor. If we go back in time we are all related. The banana is your distant cousin.
OK! What is your explanation?
Professing themselves to be wise they became fools. The fool puts Man's faulty scientific conclusions before God's divine revelation in His Word. Are eggs good for you this week? How often does Man's FACTS change?
What FAITH are you building YOUR house on? A Rock or sinking sand? JESUS says those who hear His words AND DO THEM are likened unto the wise man who built his house upon a rock.
Evolutionists are building their house in quicksand. Their house will sink when the storm comes.
Do you really believe a banana is your distant progenitor? That's what your Faith is based on?
How's that for praying for the dead?
The further we get from worshipping the living God through Jesus Christ the more FOOLISH we become. Nebucchanezzar was eating grass out of a field. This is what happens when people forsake the living God. Start worshipping and serving vanity becoming reprobate in mind.
We better repent and maybe God in His goodness will grant clarity of mind. This way our "Science" can truly EVOLVE and start telling people the TRUTH. Evolution is a FAITH-BASED RELIGION. One that embraces a LIE to please itching ears that do not want to hear the necessity of salvation through JESUS CHRIST and JUDGEMENT for our sin.
Last edited by Mikelee81; 08-29-2013 at 07:02 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
when you tell them you think grown men and women ought wear underwear. What is your human reaction? It's to eventually become like this -> 
and when you do speak only parrot what everyone else around you is saying is dogmatic truth. 
You don't actually have to understand anything about the theory of evolution. You just have to yap on about it being dogmatic truth. That makes you smart and cool. 
