Creation or Evolution theories

Definitely a point scored by you here against Webster (though not against Valtorta per se) - so well done on this piece of research, Jose! Would be interesting to contact him about it.

However ... his case really rests on the 29 places marked CONF. in blue. Looking at the list as far as M, you've caught a couple of them, but certainly not all. In some cases, e.g. Ajalon (which you have), what Webster is pointing out is that although the place name may have been known, Valtorta identified ruins whose presence was only subsequently verified. And it's not merely a question of the names, either, but the depth and accuracy of geographical description in the 'Poem' which is really inexplicable from a bed in Italy but consistent with an eye-witness report.

 

Only just saw this, Jose - sorry I missed it earlier today. A couple of comments:
- you're certainly right about the domino effect (which is one reason why this discussion is important)
- you actually concur with me that if we conclude that the remarks on evolution aren't of divine origin, that compromises the rest.
We just come out at different end-points here ... as for the remarks on 'mutation', I really think a different reading of the passage is possible (remember that he is talking to Maria Valtorta, not a scientific congress!). I don't see 'Jesus' as making a blanket pronouncement about the nature of genetic mutation. That's not the point of the dialogue at all. I interpret what 'Jesus' is saying as that by taking monkeys out of their natural habitat and trying to make human beings of them with 'all your methods and instruments' scientists would do them more harm than good. Which is a general comment about bioethics (remember this is being written in the age of eugenics and Josef Mengele!), our contempt for creation, and the consequences of human pride, not about whether beneficial mutations exist or not. In other words, this sort of conversational dialogue has to be interpreted in its context, otherwise the essential point is missed. The more I read this passage on a spiritual level for its pedagogical content, the more sense it makes to me... But each reader has to judge for her/himself.

Grace,

Peter

 

[.[/quote]

What about Sr. Magdalena of the Cross? -now that's a story that'll put hairs on your chest!

 

What about Sr. Magdalena of the Cross? -now that's a story that'll put hairs on your chest![/quote]
Yes it would indeed Bartimaeus. But he didn't manage to give her a baby. It was claimed, but never witnessed.

 

There are known examples in the history, especially royal, of false pregnancies, I do not know if devil was involved in those, but they are well documented and the desire and need to have a child was the reason all the manifestations of pregnancy occurred - including the belly.

The story of the Magdalena of the Cross is very remarkable.

But for me the most astonishing in the whole story was the verdict of the Church court in her case - the part which considers the devil's part
http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2011/12/sister-magdalena-of-cross-nun-who-made.html
Yet the trial’s conclusions about this are very interesting. The outcome of the long and detailed trial by the judges concludes that in the end the only real dupe in this affair is the devil, himself. His subterfuges have turned against him: by intimidating and perverting Magdalena, he has in the end only reinforced the faith of the people, and she who had been submissive to him for so long, gloriously escapes from his wicked rule in the end, through the power and mercy of God. And Truth overcomes the devils lies and the deceptions that he inspires through his demons.

 

Fr Paul of Moll wrote of the devil, 'He is kept on a tight leash'. I think making woman pregnant would be beyond him, he being a Spirit.

But what I think he MGHT be able to do is involve himself in a conception between two humans ..with their full permission so that the baby born would be fully evil right from the moment of conception. Not to be the Father of the child in a biological sense , but in a sense to be the Father of the child in that the child is formed as much as possible in his own image.

Hence the old stories of the anti Christ. Born as part of a mega Satanic Rite. I don't know if this could really happen but certain Catholic Prophesies say it will happen and I certainly don't close the door on this.

It wouldn't surprise me.

"As in Christ dwells the fullness of the Godhead so in Antichrist the fullness of all wickedness. Not indeed in the sense that his humanity
is to be assumed by the devil into unity of person ..., but that the devil by suggestion infuses his wickedness more copiously into him than
into all others." -St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa III:8:8)
"Yet many Christians will remember that this was all foretold of Antichrist for centuries past and perceive the fraud of Satan and refuse to be deceived. They will stand firm and enlighten the faint-hearted and console them." -Bernadine Von Busto

 

As to their being an actual Garden of Eden with an actual Adam and Eve. Well the word 'Adam' for Hebrew actually means , 'A' first and 'Dam' man so you get . 'First Man' which tends to indicate that here we are referring to a general prototype, the First Man rather than an actual historical incident taking place in an actual garden.

However I am open to this story being real, actual and historical, in either case the truth of what is written is Scripture is carried forward.

If it undercuts peoples faith to not believe in an actual garden and tow actual people I am fine with believing in it.

If it happened tomorrow that someone proved the existence of an actual Garden of Eden I would be fine with this too. I can happily go along with either account.

 

THANK YOU PETER!!!

Breaking News: Maria Valtorta's Beatification cause was accepted in the Congregation of Saints January 12, 2012. Father José Antonio Fortea Cucurull (a well-known exorcist from the Diocese of Alcalá de Henares in Madrid, Spain) told Michael Brown of Spirit Daily that he was informed in Rome that Maria Valtorta is up for Beatification: "Her cause was accepted in the Congregation of Saints."

In an interview with Attorney Jan Connell of the Pittsburgh Center for Peace on January 27, 1988, Connell asked the visionary Vicka Ivankovich if there were any other books Our Lady had told her about. Vicka replied:

"Yes. The Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta, ten volumes. Our Lady says The Poem of the Man-God is the truth. Our Lady said if a person wants to know Jesus he should read Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta. That book is the truth."

WONDERFUL! WONDERFUL! WONDERFUL! WONDERFUL! ​

 

I know very well (although not personally) JA Fortea. He was finishing his Dr. Thesis in Rome. Is there really no other source (official one) to confirm this information, or is this just a rumor?

 

Dear Peter,

I think what he says is that the places marked ** were no listed in the bibliography of the time and he marked as CONF in blue what HE THINKS is a confirmation. I showed you a number of places that could be quickly find in the ATLAS OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE HOLY LAND (1915). Some other places could be found in The library of the Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society (1885). What he marks as CONF is some subjective things like ruins has been found now or the position has been exactly located or that there was no information until now and this sort of things.

A rigorous examination of those claims show that this is not the case. I already showed that with an example refuting Jean-François Lavère and Webster who claimed that MV knew the position of the city Alexandroscene, when this exact information can be found in ancient archives. A description of a fortress is also found in those ancient archives. Interestingly, this two things: the 5 miles from Tyre and the presence of a castle is what MV was writing in her book.

I also provide a list of places that "were not listed" in the bibliography of the time and that can be found quoted in old maps of the region.

You say that is a case against those people but not against MV. Well, I say that this is a refutation of claims about this as "proofs" for the supernatural origin of the writings.

Peter, you are an educated and intelligent person and you know that one could build logical arguments against whatever fact in order to discredit them. Take as an example man landing on the moon. I am sure that using your arguments we could refute that this ever happened. there are thousand of conspiracy theories about this (actually it is the strategy used by creationist against evolution) But this is not the case with MV writings.

You say that "Jesus" talked about biology in a general way and not literally and rigorously, but on the other hand you claim that "He" was talking accurately about geographical and archaeological places. Why do you apply different criteria to analyze the writings about biology and history? How can "Jesus" talked in a general way about biology and offering to prove himself true by using wrong scientific method and basic mistakes in biology?

I demand here intellectual honesty. A this point I do not see any reason to think that those writings have a supernatural origin and, on the contrary, I think they contain classical views and mistakes against evolution that were typical for the time when they were written. By the way, the Church did not find neither any reason o prove to declare those writing as dictated by Jesus.

It is very easy to get convinced by the "proofs" offered in books and use the authority argument. But in this case we could see that this does not hold true.

 

Sorry for insisting with some other examples

By Webster:

You can find both cities clearly positioned ( Jotapata is actually in this map located north from Sephoris) in the ATLAS OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE HOLY LAND (1915)


View attachment 959

 

About Micro and Macroevolution

It is easy to understand if one makes an analogy with the Plate tectonics theory. Due to gradual movement continents has became isolated and separated from each other. We DO NOT SEE this gradual movement or, if any, just small seismological evidences (microevolution) but the fact that the continents are separated (macroevolution) but they were once together is not doubted by anybody now days. The difference with evolution is that the continental drift or the Theory of Plate Tectonics does have anything to do with religion.

 

And the last one today

I do not understand why creationists are always asking for transitional fossils that could help to understand evolution and do not accept the ones presented by science. It is remarkable that they do not accept ANY fossil as transitional. Why? There are clear examples starting with Archaeopteryx showing characteristics of transition from dinos to birds.

Here there is a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

And... breaking news in Science with a series of articles about the characterization of the Austrolopithecus sediba found in 2011. Another evidence of transition?

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/extra/sediba/index.xhtml

 

Whichever view you take. I just want to know how these first species etc survived? How did they form outside of a womb? Who looked after them?

This is what leads me to think that adult forms must of been first?

 

Mary's Child,
First species did not appear suddenly. This is a gradual process. Individuals did not form outside of a womb.
I think you could read a bit about how sexual reproduction evolved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

 

To clarify, I am not claiming that 'Jesus' spoke accurately about geographical locations. The claim by supporters of MV is quite different, i.e. that by internal mystical perception, Maria Valtorta actually SAW those locations and the action she describes in the 'Poem'. So you have two things going on here - an auditory element (the words of 'Jesus' and the other Biblical characters) and a visual one (the landscape, architecture etc.). You can dismiss this, of course - many people have - but that's the claim being made, i.e. that the 'Poem' is only explicable as eye-witness testimony.

Your point against the factual accuracy of Webster's contention on the subject of Jotapata is well-taken. But even if it could be conclusively demonstrated that none of his 29 alleged confirmations really stand up, the only logical conclusion that could be drawn would be that the Valtorta 'Poem' could not be declared 'supernaturaliter' on the basis of Webster's work alone. That would absolutely not be a logical refutation regarding the 'Poem' itself, because the technical possibility that Maria V. could have constructed everything on the basis of historical sources (which would obviously be a gigantic act of deliberate fabrication) is no proof that she actually did so. Why anyone would actually want to go to the effort of spending several years writing 10,000 pages in full knowledge that they had concocted them, especially knowing that this would be a grave deception with serious and perhaps eternal spiritual consequences, is not clear to me.

As I see it, the principal question that won't go away is one of literary structure: how is it to be explained that MV could receive hundreds of locutions in apparently random order (as is clear from the dating in her diaries) that could then be assembled years later with perfect coherence as a sequence despite the huge intricacy of the dramatis personae? What is the statistical probability of that coming unaided from a paralytic with little education and no access to outside research materials?

So, in summary, what logical basis in terms of epistemology do I have for judging that the case against Maria Valtorta is not conclusive? I have no knock-down proof that everything she has written is true, of course. There is simply no way of judging that: the degree to which her writing is coloured by her own subjectivity is more or less impossible to determine (and she may not even have known herself), because the border between 'direct' Divine inspiration and an imagination from which God is not necessarily absent is far from clear in any case. This is a methodological problem for mystical theology in general.

Given that I have no unassailable logical proof, and no means of inductive testing, my evaluation might be described as hypothetical-deductive (I'm not convinced by the alternatives), or abductive - i.e. inference to a best explanation. For me the evidence in favour of the 'Poem' weighs more heavily than the objection from biology given what I believe to be the current state of research on the question of human origins and my personal interpretive approach to reading the text, which is primarily meditative/devotional. You take a different view as you've weighed the evidence differently, which is absolutely your right to do. So I guess it's 'agree to disagree' time!

 

There is no way to demonstrate whether a person is copying locations from some sources or just having them as locutions. I agree. Only looking at the mistakes by "Jesus" I see conclusive the case against MV . This could be done, for instance, by analyzing the names of all these places, if there are mistakes of using modern names for those places or spelling mistakes in the names in the same way that could be found in the literature it would make the case clear and it would point to a fraud. In my case, I found the mistakes in the biology. Yes, I agree. We are not going to find never an agreement on this point.

 

Jose, I shall read this and yes, I am very unlearned in these matters I hold my hands up to that.

I just fail to see how anything could have survived of it's own when we all (even birds) need our mothers to feed us once we are born. I don't think fish or frogs etc have this problem. But it is a huge question for me

 

How do we know that the fossil is transitional and not just an extinct species with similar traits? Also, as to the missing link - wouldn't there be a series of links and some still here today? Evolution is continuous, no?

 

I think I was posting enough today. But my brain cannot stop thinking and looking for arguments to show why, we biologist, think as we do and I want to share with you.

It has been doubted here about he possibility of macroevolution that is, the possibility for nature to generate new species by gradually changing their genetic material.
We do not have to go to the fossils to see that this is indeed possible ( transitional fossils). We could just study the species living today. We could start with insects or plants but the easiest way (and more didactic) to start is looking at the different species of birds. They are all related morphologically and genetically and by using molecular genetics we could compare them all.

In the article by Hackett et al. 2008. A Phylogenomic Study of Birds Reveals Their Evolutionary History. Science 320:1763-1768. They did this kind of studies. Find, please, attached an evolutionary tree based in morphological and genetic data. This kind of analysis shows that there are not big "jumps" between the species. Hawks and Eagles share a big deal of genetic material and are group together and close to the New World Vultures. And they can be classified as members of a bigger group (green) where also Falcons and Parrots are genetically related.This is a fact.

What is the mechanism used by nature to "produce" these vast number of different species? Gradual genetic modification that we can track back when we analyze their genomes. So, if we can see this in nature, why do we have so many problems in accepting the evidence? There are three possibilities, either:

A) God made all species separately and gave them genetic material that differs in a way that we could trace as if them would have evolve (why so?)
B) Evolution by means of mutations, recombinations, modifications of the genome and natural selection did it (if no God here that is the position by Dawkins et al..)
C) God uses B) as a natural law (as He does with Physics and Chemistry) to allow the unfolding of life on earth in such a wonderful way.

As I think God exists, I go for C), but I cannot deny B) as a mechanism, and this independently of the existence or not of God.

(Peter, there is a really interesting aspect of this related to determinism and with the convergence of evolution shown by Conway Morris worth to study and I really would like to know your opinion. But I leave this for other occasion).


View attachment 960



I promise, I do not post anymore today.