Daily Gospel

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

1) I understand what a chemist, a researcher and a mathemetician are, but what is an evolutionist? It doesn't appear in my dictionary.

The suffix -ist is a suffix which is added at the end of a noun which corresponds to those verbs which end in the suffix -ise (which is spelt in American English as the suffix -ize) or those nouns which end in the suffix -ism. The suffix -ist is used to denote a person who either practices something or a person who is concerned with something or a person who holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.

For example, a person who writes plays is known as a dramatist, a person who works on a machine is known as a machinist, a person who believes in realism is known as a realist,,,, Etc Etc.


Evolution includes nothing like that, so I have no idea why you keep bringing it up?


I am assuming you have a grasp of what Evolution is.
 

DeletedUser

Brother Blondie, kindly take note of the word "when" in the previous Food for Thought.. :)

Nice exchange of knowledge and information between the brother Seamus, Jack, and Hellstromm.. and a good answer from brother Dub.

To whom it may concern.. "They have eyes but cannot see, ears but cannot hear..." - a passage found in the Bible, from Jesus Christ..

*******

1st OF APRIL, 2010

Gospel for today:
John 13:1-15 The Washing of the Disciples' Feet

Food for thought:
Love is more than a sentiment, it’s putting another’s needs ahead of your own..
.:indian:
 

DeletedUser

The suffix -ist is a suffix which is added at the end of a noun which corresponds to those verbs which end in the suffix -ise (which is spelt in American English as the suffix -ize) or those nouns which end in the suffix -ism. The suffix -ist is used to denote a person who either practices something or a person who is concerned with something or a person who holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.

For example, a person who writes plays is known as a dramatist, a person who works on a machine is known as a machinist, a person who believes in realism is known as a realist,,,, Etc Etc.

Does this mean in English (in a similar fashion to evolutionist) words like gravitationist, relativitist and atomist exist to describe persons who deal with respective other scientific theories?


I am assuming you have a grasp of what Evolution is.

It's not my main field of knowledge, but I guess so.
 

DeletedUser

I don't really think it needs further explanation Jack , Now your just reaching to support your own views. You know what Evolution is , and I showed you the meaning of the suffix of the word you said your dictionary did not have.

Just as you don't hold the same opinions of the possibilities of points in previous posts , are you now going to disagree on a such a minuscule level of the definition of the suffix "IST" because it is not in a dictionary you prefer to use?

These are your words and I think they fit here as well.

If you want to use anything for your argumentation, make sure you use all of it, and don't just pick the parts that suit you and ignore the parts that contradict your argumentation. While using big words may help to convince some people of your own views, this happens on a mere rhetorical level, not an educational one.
 

DeletedUser

Well, I'm sorry, but in my native language -isms usually refer to ideologies and dogmata, hence it doesn't pair with evolution or any other scientific theory. And I'm baffled as to why both words could be connected.
Michael Denton is a biochemist, Sir Fred Hoyle an astronomer and sci-fi author. Both of them disagree with the theory of evolution, so why labelling them "evolutionists"?

All I wanted is some clarification on the words used. To support my own views, I don't have to rely on rhetorics, there's plenty of evidence to link to.
 

DeletedUser

Chemist Dr. Grebe:
“That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code.”

Researcher and mathematician I.L. Cohen:
“At that moment, when the the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt. …the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today.”

Evolutionist Michael Denton:
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”

Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle:
Supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” (“Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837 (November 12, 1981), p. 105.) Note: I was making the same point here with my Lamborghini example....although apparently quite poorly :blink:)

—Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle:
"The notion that… the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."
Lol, did you verify any of those alleged quotes?
 

DeletedUser

2nd OF APRIL, 2010

Gospel for today:
John 19:25-34

Food for thought:
The cross of Christ reveals the love of God at its best and the sin of the world at its worst.
.
:indian:
 

DeletedUser

Returning to those quotes you copy/pasted from your favorite Creationist sites....

I.L.Cohen --- a pen name. Actual author unknown. Wrote "The Secret of Stonehenge" in 1982 and "Urim and Thumim: The Secret of God" in 1983 before writing, "Darwin was Wrong: A study in probabilities" in 1984. Various Creationist internet sites claim he was an officer of the Archeological Institute of America, but I bothered to contact AIA and they have no record of an I.L. Cohen ever being an officer. These same Creationist sites claim he was a member of the New York Academy of Sciences and, again, there is no evidence to substantiate. The Creationist sites also claim he was a mathematician, researcher and author. Well, one out of three ain't bad, right?

Besides the author not having no education in biology, not having actually studied RNA/DNA, and showing a rather weak comprehension of evolutionary theories, as another person noted, the author used reverse examination to determine probabilities, as opposed to timeline analysis. I.e., a skewed presentation of data, wherein he started with the here and now, and worked backwards to show how unlikely it was for us to be where we are now. This particular path of reasoning is not scientific, and it is not acceptable by even the lowest grade mathematician, so even if this guy was a mathematician, his faith was interfering with his analysis. Finally, this book he popped out with in 1984, over 25 years ago when the amount of information on DNA/RNA was at its fledgling state of comprehension and research.

Want me to continue with this? Takes a bit of work, but I can probably rip through the rest of your quotes, although this one was rather obvious, for the mere fact his alleged credentials were false.
 

DeletedUser

3rd OF APRIL, 2010

Gospel for today:
Luke 21:1-12 The Resurrection of Jesus
Food for thought:
God took the worst deed of history and turned it into the greatest victory.
.
:indian:
 

DeletedUser14280

Food for thought:
God took the worst deed of history and turned it into the greatest victory.

I'd just like to say:

Food for thought:
Man took the worst deed of history and turned it into the greatest bestseller.

I refer to the written gospels that contain the account of Jesus's crucifixion (I assume that's what you refer to?),
and were incorporated into the Bible, which is the best selling book in the world, no?
 

DeletedUser

L3 ive got a problem with my church and was wondering who you would recommend speaking to.
in my church (Catholic Church, that is why im asking you)we have this sister (religious sister) who is a "sister of Saint Joseph" (SSJ) now the SSJ have been in the community for ages (at least 30+ years) and a few months ago this sister has been saying the homily at our Children's Mass (im not a fan of this mass) with the priest (who should be doing the homily, or deacon) just sitting in the back listening. well now during our good Friday service she did the homily then as well. is this sister going too far and doing things under church law that she shouldn't do? who should my family speak to about this matter.
 

DeletedUser

The church has no right to make law, only God through his word, The Bible.
 

DeletedUser

Returning to those quotes you copy/pasted from your favorite Creationist sites....

I.L.Cohen --- a pen name. Actual author unknown. Wrote "The Secret of Stonehenge" in 1982 and "Urim and Thumim: The Secret of God" in 1983 before writing, "Darwin was Wrong: A study in probabilities" in 1984. Various Creationist internet sites claim he was an officer of the Archeological Institute of America, but I bothered to contact AIA and they have no record of an I.L. Cohen ever being an officer. These same Creationist sites claim he was a member of the New York Academy of Sciences and, again, there is no evidence to substantiate. The Creationist sites also claim he was a mathematician, researcher and author. Well, one out of three ain't bad, right?

Besides the author not having no education in biology, not having actually studied RNA/DNA, and showing a rather weak comprehension of evolutionary theories, as another person noted, the author used reverse examination to determine probabilities, as opposed to timeline analysis. I.e., a skewed presentation of data, wherein he started with the here and now, and worked backwards to show how unlikely it was for us to be where we are now. This particular path of reasoning is not scientific, and it is not acceptable by even the lowest grade mathematician, so even if this guy was a mathematician, his faith was interfering with his analysis. Finally, this book he popped out with in 1984, over 25 years ago when the amount of information on DNA/RNA was at its fledgling state of comprehension and research.

Want me to continue with this? Takes a bit of work, but I can probably rip through the rest of your quotes, although this one was rather obvious, for the mere fact his alleged credentials were false.

And yet you do not, or can not, refute the point that he is making concerning the implications of DNA/RNA. Despite your attempted dismissal of Cohen's quote via character assassination, the point he is making is validated by a host of other credible resources. I will give 1 example. Experts Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen (and yes they are experts, Doctorates in Physical Chemistry, etc.) posit the following:

"An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence."

[Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), pp. 211-212.]

There is evidence for advanced design, that's been my point from the beginning. Look up March 10, 2008 Science Daily, an article on the electronic structure of DNA. " In nano-bioelectronics, which is the advanced research field devoted to the study of biological molecules (to produce electrical nanocircuits, for example), it has been suggested that DNA, or its derivatives, may become used as possible conducting molecular wires in the realization of molecular computing networks which are smaller and more efficient than those produced today with silicon technology.".

Hellstrom, you really have not conversed here on any of the actual implications of that which is indeed observable and testable, other than to just say God is an idea and has nothing to do with facts. Jack stopped trying a while ago, resorting to picking on perceived labels like "Evolutionist", a complete non-issue. I understand what the implications of admitting design are, and I understand why you may be so adverse to ever considering the possibility. I do appreciate that you researched what I put up, or I guess I should say "who" I put up. I welcome conversation on the ideas, but it's really not happening here, so maybe it's all been enough now.

Here is a small summary of what I think my point has been all along. It is written by someone I have read, Roger Oakland. Roger was an atheist Biology teacher, who started taking an honest look at what is currently being propagated as science, and changed his mind on the subject. Respond to it if you like (warning, the following contains "-ists). Very simply:



"When it comes to the subject of the origin of life, there are two basic views. Either life has arisen from the “goo” by some spontaneous process shaped by chance and time, or there is an intelligent Creator God who brought life into existence according to a plan and by His design.

While evolution claims that the “non-life to life view” is true, no one has ever observed this process happening. In fact there is a law of biology that refutes it – all life that has ever been observed, comes from life that already exists.

The Law of Biogenesis

Further, as every scientist understands, for a theory to be scientific, there has to be physical evidence and repeatable experimentation to back the idea up. What has been a mystery to me is the fact that when it comes to the origin of life from non-life, evolutionists change the rules regarding what science is and what it isn’t.

For years creationists have been pointing out the fact that no one has ever observed non-life becoming life spontaneously. Perhaps this is why evolutionary scientists are now boasting non-life can become life in the lab with a bit of “applied intelligence” to help the process along.

For example, pay close attention to the following statement from an article titled “Creating First Synthetic Life Form” posted on the Internet, December 23, 2005:

The University of British Columbia is working on the first human-made species -- a microbe made from scratch. The project is being spearheaded by Craig Venter, who gained fame by completing a privately-owned map of the human genome in 2000. Several groups are trying to make synthetic genes in hopes of constructing microbes that perform useful tasks, such as producing industrial chemicals, clean energy or drugs. The Columbia team is pushing the technology to its limits by trying to put together an entirely synthetic genome.
A number of evolutionists were very enthusiastic about this “first human-made species” assembled by the University of British Columbia team. It seemed this achievement had provided conclusive evidence that the origin of life by some spontaneous chance process had now irrefutably proven the origin of life.

Evolutionists Claim Life Came from Non-life

However, the article did say that “scientists” at the University of British Columbia were responsible for the engineering of the first “human-made species.” Further, we were told that this “scientific team” was “pushing technology” to its limits by trying to put together an entirely synthetic genome.
Now, please think about this carefully, critically and scientifically. If evolution only requires matter, time and chance for life to originate from non-life, why would a team of intelligent scientists pushing technology to its limits be necessary? I thought the point evolutionists are trying to make is that no intelligence is required.
Recently an American judge ruled that the teaching of intelligent design in Pennsylvania schools was unconstitutional because it was not scientific and nothing more than "a religious view."

However, stop and think! Isn’t there something wrong with this explanation? How can design initiated by intelligent scientists prove that design in nature is the product of unintelligence?

Am I missing something?"


We no longer live in a society where scientists are able to follow the evidence wherever it leads, it must fit into that which is acceptable, and that is only the evolutionary framework.

Warmest regards to you guys, and Happy Easter.

-Seamus
 

DeletedUser

The church has no right to make law, only God through his word, The Bible.

I think that's what Gizmo meant, i.e. "church law" or "what the Bible teaches".

Gizmo, you're only avenue in the Catholic church is to speak to a priest, or head priest in your diocese. I would have no problem, nor do I think does the Scripture, with a Nun teaching a children's mass in the presence and under the authority of a Priest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution said:
3.Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

I'm always astounded, that people, who disagree with evolution, don't even know what evolution is about.
Origin of life? That's not evolution, that's abiogenesis and this is indeed not a scientific theory, but there are some hypothesises and models.
In order for evolution to take place it is irrelevant how life orginated. Whether your parents or a god created you, doesn't affect the fact that you age and grow old.

"An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence."

Do you mind to explain how that is related? You just put it out there without a comment. What's the similarity of a radio signal and DNA? And why does it imply design?
DNA gets altered by mutations and selected by nature. Neither radiation, mutagens nor climate, prey, predators and whatnot are known to be directed by intelligence, so how is DNA made by intelligence?

There is evidence for advanced design, that's been my point from the beginning. Look up March 10, 2008 Science Daily, an article on the electronic structure of DNA.

I read the article twice and couldn't find "evidence for advanced design". What's your point?

In fact there is a law of biology that refutes it – all life that has ever been observed, comes from life that already exists.

The Law of Biogenesis

Uhm, no. The law of biogenesis says that organisms don't appear fully formed and disproved thereby an older theory, spontaneous generation.
If you leave your sandwich for a while on its own you'll notice strange things happen. However mold and maggots aren't the result of a spontaneous creation, but the result of previous life. That's what the law of biogenesis is about. Life (maggots, mold) cannot come from non-life (a sandwich). It does not adress the origin of life at all [which isn't part of evolution anyway, see above]



Can I assume your silence on 2LOT as your intellectual capitulation?
 

DeletedUser

I think that's what Gizmo meant, i.e. "church law" or "what the Bible teaches".

Gizmo, you're only avenue in the Catholic church is to speak to a priest, or head priest in your diocese. I would have no problem, nor do I think does the Scripture, with a Nun teaching a children's mass in the presence and under the authority of a Priest.

I have done a little research on it which I have found stuff on wikipedia
Ordinarily the priest celebrant himself gives the homily, but he may entrust it to a concelebrating priest or, occasionally, to the deacon, but never to a lay person.

a nun is considered a lay person
 

DeletedUser

Brother Gizmo, If I am to give my honest thought on it; I find nothing wrong in such. For a sister (nun) has also answered to vocation to give her life in service of the Lord.
It has always, or almost always (speaking of us Catholics) been a practice that the priests give us the homily. However, it is not only priests who are given the right to impart what he understands. It may be beneficial to a certain point that women may more relate to the homily she shares.
In a way, the deacon of the church you attend to would not permit such if he does not see any sort enlightenment or capability of addressing the homily.
It may be that you, or even the others have been used to the tradition that priests give the homily which make you a bit uneasy on the matter. But that is just a possibility.
Let the heart perceive what our senses limit us to. I would recommend looking to, at , and through the message, and not focus on who delivers it. Just in my opinion, brother Gizmo..

But to the question on who to speak to; you may try conversing with the priest in charge of your Mass why he permits such..


*******

4th OF APRIL, 2010

Gospel for today:
John 20:1-9 The Empty Tomb
Food for thought:
Our sin is great – God’s grace is greater.

:indian:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

5th OF APRIL, 2010

Gospel for today:
Matthew 28:8-15 The Report of the Guard


Food for thought:
No matter how much you give, you can’t outgive God.
:indian:
 

DeletedUser14280

Food for thought:
No matter how much you give, you can’t outgive God.
There is going to be some good samaritan, somewhere, that will take that as a challenge.
Ever heard of the Make-A-Wish Foundation? I bet they're giving outgiving God a good try.
 

DeletedUser

can they create a planet and inhabit it with life, if not, then they will never out give God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top