My only question is: who the hell suggested we needed to apologize to Darwin in the first place?

The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species".

Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation.

Earlier this week a leading Anglican churchman, Rev. Malcolm Brown, said the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain.

Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and [Pope John Paul II] reiterated that in 1996. But Ravasi said the Vatican had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views.

The apology to Galileo, I can see some justification for. I'm becoming less convinced, as time rolls on, that it was really necessary — a simple admission that "those who came before us were in error" would have sufficed, I think — but I can understand the intent behind it. The reaction of the Church to Galileo was not just cold, but actively hostile.

Darwin's theories did receive a colder reception…but I suspect that was as much because the Church wanted time to evaluate his theories in order to see if there was anything in them which was not compatible with the extant theology concerning creation as it was because the theories themselves were new and somewhat controversial. Never in my experience of Catholicism have I discerned anything other than general acceptance of the theory of evolution — most Catholics that I have known have no problem reconciling their faith with the discoveries of the scientific community.

The Church herself has no fixed opinion or doctrines concerning evolutionary theory, however. It is left to each Catholic to decide, for him/herself, what to believe and accept about human origins.

Also, and on another topic, I like how Archbishop Ravasi thinks. More like him, please:

"Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session," he said, adding that Darwin's theories were "never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned".

Amen!

As the Reader may recall from last time, what had begun as a conversation about dinosaurs and whether or not they were mentioned in the Bible took a very wrong turn; the Young Earth Creationist with whom I was debating the point shifted gears and began to attack me on the basis of my Catholicism. I wish I could say that I was successful in returning us to the topic at hand, but as the following exchange demonstrates, I was anything but successful.

* * *

Me (from last time): As to the issue of the Pope, and my support for him meaning that I deny Jesus: how, exactly, is that the case? You claim that the Pope is not a Christian, that he is a liar and an idolater. You are engaging in an ad hominem attack here, which is typically indicative of a poor argument that you are attempting to hide behing a wall of insults.

But also…where is your evidence in support of these wild assertions? I hope you're not going to throw some Jack Chick in my face here; Chick is not a credible source.

As to your assertion that the belief that we are not supposed to refrain from marriage is not supported by Scripture: what the heck is St. Paul talking about in 1 Corinthians 7, then?

Look, I actually like you — you've got spirit. I think, along the way, you've been brought into a goodly number of falsehoods and untruths, perhaps by well-meaning people or perhaps by people who don't mean very well at all (don't know 'em, can't say). Be that as it may; I like your passion for Christ — it's a commendable trait. But why do you mar it so, with these lies you tell? You do not even know Scripture well enough to know that celibacy is a Biblical teaching, and a condition of being highly praised by Paul.

Young Earth Creationist: Here are some examples of that un-Biblical thinking. Perhaps, rather than criticize others for using Scripture, you should worry about the unbiblical and even wicked past history of the popes.

Pope Gregory VII (1073-85): "The pope cannot make a mistake."

Pope Paschal II: (1099-1118 ): "Whoever does not agree with the Apostolic See is without doubt a heretic."

Pope Innocent IV (1243-54): described himself as "the bodily presence of Christ." (presumably by a kind of transubstantiation at his election)

Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303): "Every human being must do as the pope tells him."

"It is necessary to salvation that every man should submit to the Pope." (Boniface VIII Unum Sanctum, 1303.)

Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903): "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE, (Encyclical Letter, June 20, 1894 p.304)

Pope Pius XI stated on April 30, 1922: "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth." (Revelation Four Views, A parallel Commentary, P 288 Edited by Steve Gree, Published by Nelson Publishers)

"God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution…The sentence of the priest precedes, and God ascribes to it." (Dignities and Duties of the Priest, Vol 12 Pg. 27)

"The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate Laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts Of Christ." (Decretal De Translat, Episcopal Cap)

Me: I appreciate the out-of-context quotes, but did you think I'd fail to notice that you just copy-and-pasted from an anti-Catholic resource? Not exactly original, nor very honest. Do be careful of such websites, as well; where Catholicism is concerned, their attitude is far from Christian, which is a pity.

More to the point, though: the above is not nearly so unbiblical as you think.

Okay, where to start? First, after half an hour on Google, I can't find any official source for the above statement attributed to Pope Gregory VII (the only known quotation from a "Catholic" source is from The Benedictine Network1). Indeed, the majority of sites I can find that quote this statement are anti-Catholic sites. Now, I don't necessarily doubt that the quote is legitimate, but I might point out that in the finest tradition of Uncle Screwtape, the problem is not that the quote itself is a lie. The problem is that the quote hides a lie behind a truth by betraying a probable context.

Popes rarely say anything with brevity, especially when making official statements. This would certainly have been true of Pope Gregory VII, given that he presided over a rather hectic time in the Church's history — when dealing with heretics and anti-Popes, one should speak clearly and with detail. Which means that the quote above almost certainly has been excerpted from a larger document, and has probably been taken out of context.

What do I mean by that?

Consider this article for a moment. In the middle of it, this passage appears: "This does not mean that the Pope cannot make a mistake or commit a sin or that he can teach on any subject which strikes his fancy or that he is inspired by God. It does mean that under certain conditions the Pope is preserved from error…" It would be easy enough to pick out "the Pope cannot make a mistake" from that statement and cite it as "proof" of something, but of course to do so would betray context horribly, and would in fact completely reverse the meaning of the statement. And therein is the lie behind the truth.

Is that what has happened here? Hard to say — where is the source text from which this quote was excerpted?

It should also be noted that Gregory VII was something of an early reformer in the Church. He decreed, among other things, that clerics who had obtained any grade or office of sacred orders by payment should cease to minister in the Church, that no one who had purchased any church should retain it, and that no one for the future should be permitted to buy or sell ecclesiastical rights, that all who were guilty of incontinence should cease to exercise their sacred ministry, and that the people should reject the ministrations of clerics who failed to obey these injunctions.

Let's move on to the next quote, attributed to Pope Paschal II. The problem that most non-Catholics have with this statement (it is true) is that they don't understand what heresy is. Only a baptized Catholic can be a Catholic heretic, because a heretic is one who rejects a core teaching of his or her religious denomination. To flip it around, I — being Catholic — am not a heretic to Islam, because I have never been a Muslim. Obviously, I disagree with many core teachings of Islam, but since I was never a Muslim, my disagreements are not heresies in their own right.

Now, it might also do well to point out that Paschal II also presided over some rather troublesome times in the Church's history; when dealing with severe problems in times when tensions are running high enough to lead to bloodshed, one needs to take a hard line…the same way a parent with squabbling children needs to be somewhat more of an absolutist than a parent with children who are playing together agreeably.

The point is, it's not actually un-Biblical to say that someone who disagrees with a doctrine is a heretic. It's simply a proper understanding and use of the term. And to speak in such a truthful manner is, I think, rather Biblical…wouldn't the Reader agree?

Now, as to the quote from Pope Innocent IV, I again cannot find a source for this statement apart from The Benedictine Network (not a trustworthy source, see 1) and several anti-Catholic sites. It is possible that there is some confusion here between the Catholic notion of alter Christus and what Innocent IV said, but absent the official source document for this statement, there is little to go on.

It is telling, though, that only those who already dispute the authority of the Pope are the only source for this statement, and in much the same way as the first quoted statement, one suspects that the real truth of the statement hides a sinister lie.

Now, the quote from Pope Boniface VIII is the first example of a statement which has more evidence for it. The source of this statement is a papal bull, Unam Sanctam, which was a statement on papal supremacy.

"The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation. The pope further emphasizes the higher position of the spiritual in comparison with the secular order. From these premises he then draws conclusions concerning the relation between the spiritual power of the Church and secular authority. The main propositions of the Bull are the following: First, the unity of the Church and its necessity for salvation are declared and established by various passages from the Bible and by reference to the one Ark of the Flood, and to the seamless garment of Christ. The pope then affirms that, as the unity of the body of the Church so is the unity of its head established in Peter and his successors. Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the dominion of Peter and his successors. When, therefore, the Greeks and others say they are not subject to the authority of Peter and his successors, they thus acknowledge that they do not belong to Christ's sheep. "

Now, how unbiblical does that sound? There is some expansion available on the above statement; let's take a look at it:

"- Under the control of the Church are two swords, that is two powers, the expression referring to the medieval theory of the two swords, the spiritual and the secular. This is substantiated by the customary reference to the swords of the Apostles at the arrest of Christ (Luke 22:38; Matthew 26:52).

- Both swords are in the power of the Church; the spiritual is wielded in the Church by the hand of the clergy; the secular is to be employed for the Church by the hand of the civil authority, but under the direction of the spiritual power.

- The one sword must be subordinate to the other: the earthly power must submit to the spiritual authority, as this has precedence of the secular on account of its greatness and sublimity; for the spiritual power has the right to establish and guide the secular power, and also to judge it when it does not act rightly. When, however, the earthly power goes astray, it is judged by the spiritual power; a lower spiritual power is judged by a higher, the highest spiritual power is judged by God.

- This authority, although granted to man, and exercised by man, is not a human authority, but rather a Divine one, granted to Peter by Divine commission and confirmed in him and his successors. Consequently, whoever opposes this power ordained of God opposes the law of God and seems, like a Manichaean, to accept two principles."

The declaration, then, that it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman pontiff stems from the belief that the authority given to Peter was of divine origin, and that this divine authority is conferred on each successor to Peter as the head of the Church. To stand in opposition to this is to stand in opposition of the divine mandate imposed by Christ, and in a sense is to put worldly concerns over the concerns of faith2.

Is this un-Biblical teaching? St. Peter was the rock on which Christ founded the Church, the Church that the gates of hell cannot prevail against. Christ commissioned Peter to feed His lambs, tend His flock, and feed His sheep. Catholicism follows in apostolic succession (see: the Nicene Creed) from Peter, and the Catholic pontiff is charged with no less a responsibility than was Peter. How can this be disputed, without disputing the very commission Christ gave to Peter, and thus disputing the Bible itself?3

Now, let's look at the quote from Pope Leo XIII. Here again we see that Uncle Screwtape is at work, for this is indeed a most grevious example of ripping a quote clean out of its context and turning a truth into a vehicle for a lie.

Here is the complete text of Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (The Reunion of Christendom), one of many encyclical letters published by Pope Leo XIII. And here is the proper context of the quoted text above:

"A great deal, however, has been wanting to the entire fullness of that consolation. Amidst these very manifestations of public joy and Reverence Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude of those who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts: some because they lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the name of Christians.

This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were, from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment of innermost grief.

But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us. And as this Divine Prayer and Supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the Unity of Divine Faith."

The statement "we hold upon this Earth the place of God Almighty" is a confession of the Church's mission to spread the Gospel and Truth of Christ, its mandate of evangelism, and its desire that all might come to know Christ and be saved through Him. It is not a statement declaring that the Church usurps the authority of Christ, but rather an acknowledgement that, as humanity was made stewards of Creation, so too has the Church been made the steward of Christ's Truth and Word in the world. Her mission is to see that all might be saved and know whatsoever is True, and her desire is unity with all her fellow Christians in Christ Jesus, to be an unblemished bride and a seamless cloak for the Lord.

The quote from Pope Pius XI is highly dubious; the only recorded source for it that I can find online is the website of "a former Catholic priest" who is now an ardent anti-Papist. Such entities are a dime a dozen on the internet, and I note that this one does not cite any sources for his wild claims about what various Popes have taught.

To be fair, the first three parts of the statement are all true — it is only the conclusion which is false. Of course, to this, we must ask whether this statement was uttered infallibly or not; if not, it is of no particular concern: the Pope is not immune from error in his normal speaking, nor even in his encyclicals (which are not statements of doctrine).

And that a human can be in error is not un-Biblical — indeed, it is a part of the reason the Bible exists!

As to the quote which reads, "God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution…The sentence of the priest precedes, and God ascribes to it," I think the best way to respond to this would be to turn to Scripture.

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Christ gave His authority to the disciples, who have passed that authority on to their successors through the tradition of apostolic succession. The above teachings are actually very Biblical, especially in light of a certain teaching in John 20:

[21] Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Here, Christ is explicitly commissioning his apostles (and, by extension, those who follow in the authority of the apostles) to forgive sin (by the power of Christ), and to lead His Church on Earth. If the apostles retain any sin of any person, Christ obligated Himself to consider that sin retained, because it is by His power that the sin is retained. Likewise, if the apostles forgive the sin of any person, Christ obligated Himself to consider that sin forgiven, because it is by His power that it is forgiven. On this verse rests the entire doctrine of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (or, as it is more commonly called, Confession). And from this same statement, the Church derives her authority, for it is an authority which Christ gave to her.

It is odd that supposedly biblical Christians fail to notice that the parallelism of the first sentence in the supposedly un-Biblical quote follows — directly — the parallelism of Christ's own teaching. The concept itself is Biblical, and in this case the speaker made it really easy to pinpoint the exact Scriptural origin for the teaching. But evidently, some people are too blinded in their hatred to remember the truth.

Now, the last quote, ostensibly from something called Decretal De Translat, is one I've seen thrown around a fair bit in the past, and I note that — again — the only online mentions of "Decretal De Translat" that I can find are from anti-Catholic sites. I cannot find the source document itself in any form, and so cannot adequately analyze the context of the quote. This should give the Reader pause, of course, as to the validity of the statement as a condemnation of Catholicism as un-Biblical.

Of course, it's also probable that the author of this statement was simply in error; the above is certainly not a statement of Catholic doctrine, and so is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Catholicism is un-Biblical.

So let's review: of the few statements above which can even be verified, none express opinions which are ultimately against what is taught in the Bible. And yet, you present them as though they were evidence of exactly that, and so express something which is patently false. Don't you grow tired of telling lies at any point?

* * *

1) the Benedictine Network is a group of Catholics who identify as neither orthodox, Western, or Eastern. They don't exactly seem to be fully faithful Catholics (having penned articles like "Zen Christ") and I wonder at whether they are in full communion with Rome. And they actually have a bit of an anti-Papist streak of their own; they take some issue with the Church's structured authority.

What an interesting development this is! So desperate are some evangelical Christians to condemn Catholics that they would turn to the documents of liberal-minded, "ecumenical" Catholics to find statements. One wonders when Richard Dawkins will be cited to likewise further the cause of their misguided arguments??

2) Now isn't that almost the most concise history of the Reformation ever written?

3) And one notes that many evangelicals do exactly this, turning to arguments which dispute the authority given to Peter in plain contradiction of Scripture. Even the watcher is not innocent in this regard.

Me: Dinosaurs and man did not co-exist.

You're welcome to claim that I'm an unbeliever because of that, but I might point out something: I know my heart and my thoughts (you do not know my heart and my thoughts). I know the level of my devotion to Christ (you do not know the level of my devotion). I know what I believe (you do not know what I believe).

And if you want to debate the history, I'm game.

Young Earth Creationist:"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feed on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..." Job 40:15-19 (NIV)

Me: What is the behemoth? Is it concretely identified as a reptile (which the dinosaurs were)? No, it is not. It is identified as a herbivore, muscular and sinewed, and as a creature which lives near a swamp/water. So it could be a dinosaur,but it could also be a hippopotamus, or an elephant, or perhaps even a rhinoceros. Arguably, the description of the tail might argue against this, but it should be noted that the word could be a euphemism for genitals -- and in fact, in the original-language manuscript of Job, this is the more sensible interpretation of the passage.

In other words, behemoth might be any number of animals apart from a dinosaur. Why rush to the least-obvious conclusion and insist that it was a dinosaur?

YEC: "His tail sways like a cedar" -- it has to be big. Nothing exists now meets that description; "behemoth" usually means it is just humongous. Come on man, it is as if you don't want to believe dinosaurs were in the Bible...why not? I doubt the elephant ranks first, plus dinosaurs at least started out as herbivores.

Me: You're ignoring what I said -- I already addressed that objection. But a little expansion on the point can't hurt.

Firstly...yes, some dinosaurs were herbivores. Some, however, were carnivores. We can tell as much by looking at their teeth. A herbivore has teeth rather like that of a human molar -- flat, built for crushing. A carnivore has teeth rather like the human canine, or like the fangs of any number of modern predators -- sharp, pointed, made for piercing and tearing.

I read some rather whimsical comments, in the past, suggesting that T-Rex was a herbivore -- what a fantastic lie that is! Even looking at a Tyranosaur skull demonstrates that T-Rex was a carnivore -- its teeth would be almost useless for chewing on plants, but they'd be excellent for latching on to prey. Small forearms don't really enter into it -- most predators eat their food on the ground, and few indeed use their claws/paws as an integral part of the eating process.

It's not that I don't want to believe that there were dinosaurs in the Bible -- it's that there aren't dinosaurs in the Bible, plain and simple. Those reptile species died out long before humanity ever began writing down its histories and legends; indeed, the dinos died out long before humanity even appeared on the scene.

If dinosaurs and man really co-existed, then we'd see indications of it in different archaeological sites that we've found the remnants of early human civilization in. We've learned from looking at the history of the Native Americans, especially, that people who live an early, tribal lifemake use of the world around them for tools and other things; we would expect to find examples of tools, weapons or jewelry made with dinosaur bones. Especially weapons! Some dinosaur leg bones are massive, and were likely very strong -- they'd make excellent spears, don't you think? And let's not forget that a massive dinosaur leg bone would make a very excellent piece of building material, say...for a house's roofing strut?

But we see no examples of any of this. Nor do we find depictions of dinosaurs alongside human beings in early cave paintings. And if one looks at historical depictions of Behemoth, one sees that Christians certainly made no connection between behemoth and a giant reptile throughout much of the time that there has been a Church.

More to the point, the term "sways" is a bit of a mis-translation. The relevant Hebrew word is more accurately translated as "extend". In fact, in the original Hebrew, the description of the beast doesn't seem to be describing its tail at all -- given that we see mentioned the sinewy "stones" of the creature (read: testicles), the text would actually seem to be referring to the beast's penis Don't forget that English-language Bibles are translations of the original text of Scripture; the word "tail" is likely a euphemism.

At any rate, you didn't answer my question: why is it so important to think that behemoth must be a reference to a dinosaur?

YEC: Because it is in the bible,

http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-trex.html

Enough said. What are you gonna believe: some wise crack in a school, or a Christian source? You are Christian, right?

Wait, you support the Pope...that pretty much denies Jesus right there. There is nothing Christian about the pope; he is an idolater, he lies, and he is a deceiver. Catholics have made up lies like Purgatory and Baptism (of infants?), and have even started wars (the First and Second World Wars). Additionally, the reason why so many Catholic priests have become pedophiles is because they are not allowed to marry, which is a falsehood. People are supposed to marry.

Me: Dinosaurs are nowhere mentioned in the Bible, not by name nor by "kind" (if you prefer the use of that term).

God fashioned me a handy brain in the process of making me, and He does delight in my use thereof. To that end, I am able to learn, to perceive, and to reason based on the arguments and evidences presented to me.

Now, as it so happens, I used to be quite the little dinosaur buff, and my knowledge of these fascinating creatures extends far beyond some "wise crack in school". My home province, Alberta, has a large expanse in its southern regions called "The Badlands", wherein numerous dinosaur skeletons -- some near-complete -- have been found. In addition to numerous trips there, I've studied many different resources and scientific journals on the subject -- this is an area of natural scholarship that fascinates me, and while I'm no paleontologist, I believe I can speak to the issue of dinosaurs with some authority.

To that end, I have my doubts about your "Christian" source, not the least of which is that it fails to cite even one passage from Scripture in its supposedly Christian defence of several glaring errors (the most minor of which, I think, is that the author cannot tell the difference between the Albertosaur and the Tyranosaur).

For example: the arms of the T-Rex were indeed short. If you look at the pictured skeleton on the site, and try and imagine how the head and arms might move, there is no way that the T-Rex would have been able to reach, with its mouth, any item held in its hands. It would not have done well had it attempted to use those hands to manipulate branches, since their reach was so small. No, the T-Rex (not unlike the giraffe) would use its mouth and the length and articulation of its body to find food with.

Which brings us again to its teeth. Those are not the teeth of a plant-eater. If you want to see a herbivore's teeth, look at the molars in the back of your own mouth; they are blocky, and more or less flat on top. If you want to see a carnivore's teeth, look at the teeth of a lion. Now...which animal has teeth that more closely resemble those of a T-Rex? Your "Christian" source claimss that the teeth would wear down if the T-Rex were constantly biting through flesh and bones...but this too is false, and we can observe as much in nature today. Alligators, crocodiles, and some species of predatory mammals all have jaws that are easily capable of biting through bone, and yet even into old age do not show measureable signs of tooth degradation. In many cases, that is because their teeth -- unlike ours -- are constantly growing; they periodically gnaw on things to sharpen and hone them.

Is not God's design marvelous?

Your source also claims that "true" meat eaters are "smooth and sleek". This is kind of a logical fallacy (look up "No True Scotsman" if you're curious), and is also something of a patent falsehood. Alligators and crocodiles are not particularly sleek. Nor are they particularly fast -- they rely on stealth and the murky water in catching their prey. In fact, many predators are not as fast as their prey; they either attempt ambushes and surprise to catch their prey, or else they prey on the sick and the elderly in the herd (which are slower or have less stamina with which to flee).

As to the issue of the Pope, and my support for him meaning that I deny Jesus: how, exactly, is that the case? You claim that the Pope is not a Christian, that he is a liar and an idolater. You are engaging in an ad hominem attack here, which is typically indicative of a poor argument that you are attempting to hide behing a wall of insults.

But also...where is your evidence in support of these wild assertions? I hope you're not going to throw some Jack Chick in my face here; Chick is not a credible source.

As to your assertion that the belief that we are not supposed to refrain from marriage is not supported by Scripture: what the heck is Paul talking about in 1 Corinthians 7, then?

Look, I actually like you -- you've got spirit. I think, along the way, you've been brought into a goodly number of falsehoods and untruths, perhaps by well-meaning people or perhaps by people who don't mean very well at all (don't know 'em, can't say). Be that as it may; I like your passion for Christ -- it's a commendable trait. But why do you mar it so, with these lies you tell? You do not even know Scripture well enough to know that celibacy is a Biblical teaching, and a condition of being highly praised by Paul.

The Virgin Mary's special protection from sin does not make her far from the rest of humanity, but rather draws her closer to us, Benedict XVI says.

The Pope affirmed this today from Lourdes, where he is marking the 150th anniversary of the apparitions of Our Lady to Bernadette Soubirous. In his address before praying the traditional midday Angelus, the Holy Father said the privilege of the Immaculate Conception, "which sets [Mary] apart from our common condition, does not distance her from us, but on the contrary, it brings her closer."

He explained: "While sin divides, separating us from one another, Mary's purity makes her infinitely close to our hearts, attentive to each of us and desirous of our true good. You see it here in Lourdes, as in all Marian shrines; immense crowds come thronging to Mary's feet to entrust to her their most intimate thoughts, their most heartfelt wishes.

"That which many, either because of embarrassment or modesty, do not confide to their nearest and dearest, they confide to her who is all pure, to her Immaculate Heart: with simplicity, without frills, in truth. Before Mary, by virtue of her very purity, man does not hesitate to reveal his weakness, to express his questions and his doubts, to formulate his most secret hopes and desires."

The Pontiff said that Mary thus shows man the way to come to God. "She teaches us to approach him in truth and simplicity," he said. "Thanks to her, we discover that the Christian faith is not a burden: It is like a wing which enables us to fly higher, so as to take refuge in God's embrace."

Benedict XVI went on to note that the grace of the Immaculate Conception is not given to Mary as a merely "personal grace," but is rather "a grace for all, a grace given to the entire people of God."

"In Mary," he continued, "the Church can already contemplate what she is called to become. Every believer can contemplate, here and now, the perfect fulfillment of his or her own vocation. May each of you always remain full of thanksgiving for what the Lord has chosen to reveal of his plan of salvation through the mystery of Mary: a mystery in which we are involved most intimately since, from the height of the cross which we celebrate and exalt today, it is revealed to us through the words of Jesus himself that his Mother is our Mother.

"Inasmuch as we are sons and daughters of Mary, we can profit from all the graces given to her; the incomparable dignity that came to her through her Immaculate Conception shines brightly over us, her children."

(*)

Because I like yanking his chain: three hours, tops, before an anti-Marian rebuttal goes up.

Update: bitter disappointment. Not a peep.

Some brave soul/poor schmuck (I haven't decided which, yet) asks the deadly question: Is being Catholic really that bad?

This is one of those situations where the possibility of the entire internet exploding looms large. This is like that last fateful moment before they turn on the Large Hadron thingy, uncertain if in the next instant a strangelet or black hole will turn us all into an expanding cloud of gas or a scrunched-up ball of infinity (respectively).

I'm gonna go get some popcorn.

Update: Arrrrrrgh!

I'm sorry, I never really knew Catholisism was so wrong until SegaGenesisfan started talking about it.

Never underestimate the damage a reckless and incompetent expounder of Holy Scripture can do.

...don't argue against something which is true.

This sort of thing is, I think, exactly what Augustine was talking about when he speculated about the immeasurable damage that "reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture" can do when they attempt to preach their ignorance to those who are wiser than they about the working of the natural world.

Okay, I'll bite. I've been gently chiding another user about the way his blog posts seem to follow mine, topically speaking. I post "X", he posts "rebuttal to X" within three hours.

It's cute, if somewhat unnerving.

But I just had to say something about this, since physics constitutes a large part of my education.

Let's be up-front: the Earth's magnetic field most certainly does not imply, or support the conclusion of, a young Earth. Granted, the dipole strength of the field has been decreasing since 1835 (a drop of about 7% has been noted). Granted, if we extrapolate back in time using the assumption of an exponential rate of field decrease, we observe that 10,000 years ago, the Earth would have been unable to support life because of its too-strong magnetic field.

Of course, that's a heck of an assumption right there, isn't it? How do we know that prior to 1835 -- hundreds, or even thousands, of years prior, perhaps -- the magnetic field did not strenghten any at all? We know that Earth's climate tends to move in cycles, which are partly dependent on sunspots, and that the average global temperature of the world has, in the past, fluctuated up and down by several degrees. Is it not possible that the magnetic field of the Earth also fluctuates, based on factors internal or, possibly, external?

There have been two key proponents of what could be called "Young Earth magnetism," "Dr." Thomas Barnes (honorary doctorate) and, after his death, Russell Humphreys. Barnes is the one who formulated the above theory, and in doing so he made one (well, several, but bear with me) critical mistake: he assumed that the Earth's core only generates the dipole component of the Earth's magnetic field. This is incorrect, and when you factor the non-dipole component into the calculations, the results change rather drastically: the decrease in the dipole component has been balanced out by an increase in the non-dipole component; the net effect is almost constant (there's still a slight decrease, but this has only been observed from about 1970 on).

(Although it's nice to see that Humphreys has updated his work to account for this; he's more honest than was his predecessor.)

Also, the assumption of an exponential rate of field strength decrease is incorrect...or, at least, unsupported by solid evidence.

Also, it should be noted that rock samples from the sea bed on either side of the Mid-Atlantic Rift are examined, a curious pattern emerges: magnetic "striping" can be observed in the samples, and samples taken from opposite sides of the Rift (but from related geological formations) mirror each other. As plate tectonics disturbs the crust, pushing new layers of rock into the open, metallic particles therein become magnetized, and become polarized according to the magnetic field they emerge in. Because this is an ongoing, gradual process, a pattern of different magnetic strengths emerges as one progresses through a geological formation.

Observing multiple geological strata reveals something interesting, pace what I said above: at times, the Earth's magnetic field has, in fact, reversed...about 170 times throughout history. This of course suggests that periodic decreases and increases in the dipole strength of the Earth's magnetic field are to be expected.

Knowing this, we can actually date rocks in part by their magnetic signature (and by comparing it against known samples); this is called paleomagnetic dating. Some paleomagnetic samples have been dated back as far as 76 million years.

Objection: could not the local rocks near the Rift have undergone magnetic reversal, thus producing the described pattern?

Response to Objection: No; that sort of reversal would have most likely left a random pattern of magnetic signatures, not the orderly, mirrored striping which is observed.

One other curiosity: Humphreys postulates that the initial state of the Universe was water (which just happens to be strongly magnetically polar). Though certainly consistent with a literal reading of Genesis 1, this assumption is not supported -- in fact, it is defeated -- by the observed and calculated evidence concerning the early stages of the Universe's development.

Also, it's a case of "begging the question." Creationists, who so often like to attack scientists for things like "circular reasoning," would do well to avoid the use of logical fallacies in their own postulations.

(*)

What do you figure: I'm thinking "next five hours," myself.

And we have a winner: just over one hour this time.

Epic WIN: off the deep end. Man, what a collection...of strawmen and near-total scientific ignorance (what does astrophysics/The Big Bang have to do with evolution, again?)

This one goes in a bit of a different direction:

Taken from here, a gallery of Star Trek, Star Wars, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fans dressed up in various related costumes…and then photographed artistically.

...this does not mean what you think it means (thanks again, Inigo Montoya).

Yes, there are some inaccuracies being discovered in carbon dating methodoligies, specifically pertaining to the 12C/13C (carbon isotopes) ratio in oceanic sedimentation layers.

No, this does not mean that all carbon dating is bunk. The inaccuracies only begin to apply when what is being analyzed is older than about 150 million years.

Put plainly, open sedimentation layers containing organic material can be found which date back about 150 million years, using the 12C/13C ratio as the principle for determining the age of something. Obviously, because we are dealing here with ratios of radio-isotopes, there will be some variance in the results. One recalls the rather trite assertion made by some Young Earthers that a chicken which died two days previously will register as being 2200 years old according to carbon dating.

That is, of course, a silly assertion for a few reasons, but it should be noted that for a method which can identify things as old as 150 million years, a variance of 2200 years is well within experimentally acceptable error levels (in fact, it's remarkably good: it represents an error of about 0.001467%).

But I digress.

The issue, it seems, is that while the 12C/13C dating method works for stuff dating things going back those first 150 million years, sedimentation layers older than that tend not to have significant 12C/13C ratios (given the nature of radio-isotopes, this doesn't really surprise). In the past, scientists have attempted to use carbonate platforms in lieu of this, but it would seem now that this is not a sound method, based on recent observations.

So: for things dating back no more than 150 million years, 12C/13C carbon dating is the cat's meow. Beyond that point, it's not the cat's meow. Fortunately, there are other dating technologies which step in to cover the gap.

And at any rate, this news certainly doesn't advance the Young Earth cause at all, does it (and it won't, unless someone can conclusively demonstrate that 6000 > 150,000,000).

Exit Question: rebuttal article from the usual suspect...within four hours of the posting time below?

Update: taking it in a bit of a different direction, I see...but amazingly, his timing is still remarkably consistent. Two hours and eleven minutes.