Science + Creation

[Cato]

So lets see, he hid Jewish people in the Vatican, arranged for emergency passports for many more, expressly condemned anti-Semitism and genocide on mutliple occasions, ordered clergy to do whatever they could to help Jewish people, and authored the very first condmenation of Nazi Germany by any major institution (at a time when he had many supporters in the US). All this while engulfed by facist Italy at the same time. And it already was a sin for Catholics to "slaughter" anyone, mind, and going against the Church results in automatic excommunication, so um....either you are being rather dishonest or whatever site you copy+pasted that from is being rather dishonest (as if it wasn't already for accusing Pope Pius XII for not speaking out at Kristallnacht, ffs) .

But, the pope never excommunicated Hitler, did he? So, how serious was the condemnation? Why does this sadly remind me of a three card monte game? Who has control of the cards?

Why should the vicar of christ be worried about his proximity to the Itallian state during WWII? Being the vicar of christ comes with revelatory power, so was he more concerned with the then current geopolitical concerns or was he doing the lord's bidding? Surely, the vicar of christ would not have to concern himself with a little local conflageration, right?

All I have to do now is sit back and wait for your 'mysterious ways' defence.

[Reforged]

So lets see, he hid Jewish people in the Vatican, arranged for emergency passports for many more, expressly condemned anti-Semitism and genocide on mutliple occasions, ordered clergy to do whatever they could to help Jewish people, and authored the very first condmenation of Nazi Germany by any major institution (at a time when he had many supporters in the US). All this while engulfed by facist Italy at the same time. And it already was a sin for Catholics to "slaughter" anyone, mind, and going against the Church results in automatic excommunication, so um....either you are being rather dishonest or whatever site you copy+pasted that from is being rather dishonest (as if it wasn't already for accusing Pope Pius XII for not speaking out at Kristallnacht, ffs) .

But, the pope never excommunicated Hitler, did he? So, how serious was the condemnation? Why does this sadly remind me of a three card monte game? Who has control of the cards?

Why should the vicar of christ be worried about his proximity to the Itallian state during WWII? Being the vicar of christ comes with revelatory power, so was he more concerned with the then current geopolitical concerns or was he doing the lord's bidding? Surely, the vicar of christ would not have to concern himself with a little local conflageration, right?

All I have to do now is sit back and wait for your 'mysterious ways' defence.

To be fair though he was kind to animals, that probably tipped the scales in his favor.
*thumbs up*

[Adjusted Sanity]

The universe being created could mesh with science, if the universe WAS created. that's a big IF though isn't it? There's so many possibilities the mind can construct, so really it's of more worth to actually find the answers.

[Aiza]

But, the pope never excommunicated Hitler, did he?

It's hardly needed, excommunication is latae sententiae in the case of heresy so Hitler was certainly excommunicated the second he went off with positive Christianity and such. Excommunication is a medicinal penalty as well, so I am not sure what you think that it would do.

Now as for the rest of your post:
1) No, the Vicar of Christ has no "revelatory power". The age of general revelation ended with the Age of the Apostles.

2) Being surrounded by fascist Italy puts the people of Vatican city in a rather precarious position because the Swiss Guard isn't exactly a modern military. That being said I think Venerable Pope Pius XII did quite a lot, I only mentioned this fact because in spite of that, he hid many Jewish people in the Vatican, arranged for emergency passports for many more, condemned anti-Semitism and genocide, ordered clergy to do whatever they could to help Jewish people, and authored the very first condmenation of Nazi Germany by any major institution.

There have been hateful and wicked Popes through history, I have no idea why some anti-Catholics are so desperate to jump on Venerable Pope Pius XII of all people. He is personally one of my favorite Popes.

3) "Mysterious ways" has nothing to do with any of it. What part of this is mysterious to you?

[downbeatplumb]

Most of the german and Italian armies were catholic.making a move against a pope would have been dangerous for Hitler or mussolini.

[Cato]

It's hardly needed, excommunication is latae sententiae in the case of heresy so Hitler was certainly excommunicated the second he went off with positive Christianity and such. Excommunication is a medicinal penalty as well, so I am not sure what you think that it would do.

Now as for the rest of your post:
1) No, the Vicar of Christ has no "revelatory power". The age of general revelation ended with the Age of the Apostles.

2) Being surrounded by fascist Italy puts the people of Vatican city in a rather precarious position because the Swiss Guard isn't exactly a modern military. That being said I think Venerable Pope Pius XII did quite a lot, I only mentioned this fact because in spite of that, he hid many Jewish people in the Vatican, arranged for emergency passports for many more, condemned anti-Semitism and genocide, ordered clergy to do whatever they could to help Jewish people, and authored the very first condmenation of Nazi Germany by any major institution.

There have been hateful and wicked Popes through history, I have no idea why some anti-Catholics are so desperate to jump on Venerable Pope Pius XII of all people. He is personally one of my favorite Popes.

3) "Mysterious ways" has nothing to do with any of it. What part of this is mysterious to you?

No revelation. In this case at least catholics are honest regarding the infallibility of their leader in matters of faith; meaning that it is just the opinion (considered or whim) of the guy that was politically powerful enough to attain the post.

The latae sententiae defense is a poor attempt to save face. Hitler goes about trying to exterminate an entire race and the pope maintains a ricdiulous policy of neutrality, yet Margaret McBride was excommunicated for allowing an abortion at 11 weeks when the death of the mother was almost certain (pulmonary hypertension).

I did not claim mysterious ways, I was anticipating it as an argument since it is commonly roled out when someone of faith is defending the indefensible.

[Godscreated]

Thanks for linking me to that apophenia. I'll have a look at the 5 parts when I get the time.

I just watched the first 50 seconds of that one and I agree with what it's saying about the speed of light. The thing with the video my friend showed me is that their argument is that time wasn't constant in the beginning.

Because the simple explanation of why the universe is so old relies on the equation

time = distance/speed

it means that if time wasn't constant then that changes the outcome of the equation to a possibly wrong answer, just like if the speed of light wasn't always constant (which I think it always has). Either way I'll check out the 5 videos and see what their arguments are.

The long age big-bang idea has a problem of it's own with light-travel-time. Seems there are points in the distant universe which are today all the same temperature, yet they are so far apart that there has not been anywhere near enough time for energy travelling at the speed of light to cross that distance to equilibrate the temperature. Even with the billions of years the big-bang model shows, the big-bang model needs billions of more years than that. :Carl Wieland
So if the speed of light which is the speed limit of the universe is a problem with the big-bang, why do you allow for the big-bang and yet dismiss creation for the same reason.

[Zen Badger]

Thanks for linking me to that apophenia. I'll have a look at the 5 parts when I get the time.

I just watched the first 50 seconds of that one and I agree with what it's saying about the speed of light. The thing with the video my friend showed me is that their argument is that time wasn't constant in the beginning.

Because the simple explanation of why the universe is so old relies on the equation

time = distance/speed

it means that if time wasn't constant then that changes the outcome of the equation to a possibly wrong answer, just like if the speed of light wasn't always constant (which I think it always has). Either way I'll check out the 5 videos and see what their arguments are.

The long age big-bang idea has a problem of it's own with light-travel-time. Seems there are points in the distant universe which are today all the same temperature, yet they are so far apart that there has not been anywhere near enough time for energy travelling at the speed of light to cross that distance to equilibrate the temperature. Even with the billions of years the big-bang model shows, the big-bang model needs billions of more years than that. :Carl Wieland
So if the speed of light which is the speed limit of the universe is a problem with the big-bang, why do you allow for the big-bang and yet dismiss creation for the same reason.

You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about, do you...

Imagine two kettles on opposite sides of the Earth. When they reach 100 deg they are going to be at the same temperature and they don't need to be in communication with each other to do that.

Do try to learn some real science instead of spouting the inane drivel that the cretinists vomit up.

[Anomalocaris]

The claim that bible account reflects without contradiction such reality as revealed by scientific fact is itself unreasonable.

How so? Where's the flaw in the claim if the facts (science) and the account (the Bible) are in agreement?

The facts of bible only agrees with facts of science in very trivial ways, meaning only on things any bronze age idiot can see for themselves, such as wines make people drunk, hacking at people causes them to become dead.

In anything that requires knowledge from an more advanced age than the iron ages, the bible is not only wrong, even given apologists' kuma sutra's worth of contortions in trying to argue otherwise, but randomly wrong. This means not only did the author of the bible make mistakes, but the basis of their mistakes is genuine total ignorance disguised with overreaching bullshit.

I just watched the first 50 seconds of that one and I agree with what it's saying about the speed of light. The thing with the video my friend showed me is that their argument is that time wasn't constant in the beginning.

Because the simple explanation of why the universe is so old relies on the equation

time = distance/speed

it means that if time wasn't constant then that changes the outcome of the equation to a possibly wrong answer, just like if the speed of light wasn't always constant (which I think it always has). Either way I'll check out the 5 videos and see what their arguments are.

This is a nonsesnical argument. Time is nothing more than the fundamental rate at which things happen, one of which is menifested in the rate at which light covers distance in a vacumn. Based on the well tested E=MC^2 formula, the speed of light is not just a coincidental property of light, it is a basic property of the universe governing the foundational relationship between fundamental particles of matter and energy. If this constant speed of light were C were to change throughout history of the universe, the fundamental properties of matter would change, and that would menifest itself in the behavior of matter such as their how atomic nucleii undergo nuclear fusion. If how matter undergo nuclear fusion changes, how star shine would also change. This we can observe by looking at distant stars.

The fact that stars now and those all the way back12 billion years ago can be observed to carry on thermal nuclear reaction exactly consistent with equations of physics as they apply now. This shows C has not changed. Those light that appear 12 billion years old are indeed 12 billion years old and have traveled 12 billion light years at the same constant C during all those time.

[downbeatplumb]

Doesn't the big bang theory itself postulate that space expanded at greater than light speed for a fleeting moment before settling down.