S
semper_catholicus
Guest
How did they (whoever “they” is/are) find out the age of said fossils?
- Status
S
SacredHeartBassist
Guest
Carbon dating. Also geology. You can estimate the age of a fossil based on where you find it. We have estimated how long it takes for rock formations to form and when there’s tens of different rock formations on top of where you found the fossil you know it can’t be that early.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Umm… I am: I’m pointing out that their statement of faith is in conflict with what the Church believes. That’s not saying “bad, bad, evil people!”, but rather “bad theology.”
The point is, none of them were scientists, and this information wasn’t yet known. Unless you want to make the claim that the Bible is a science book (which it isn’t), then there’s literally no way that anyone in the 30-400 A.D. timeframe could have known this in order to be in a position to consider taking up a position supporting it.
Precisely. Argue from the position of faith, and we’ll nod and say “we get it.” Try to wedge evidence into it, and you’ll come away looking like the folks that Augustine warned about.
Yep. I do. Especially when what Leo XIII said was “you can go beyond the ECFs, but just be diligent.”
Fair enough. But, unless you’re claiming that the translator is misrepresenting Augustine’s logic, then the translation should clue you in, sufficiently, to his train of thought.
Last edited:
G
GodSpawned
Guest
A scientific theory needs to do two things:
1- fit data that already exists (for the big bang- galaxies travelling away from us)
2- fit data for measurements that have not been taken yet (cosmic background radiation)
This article takes a question and fits the data to the desired outcome. It is theologically valid BUT it isn’t scientifically valid- what predictions does it make? The article doesn’t explain what a scientist can test to prove or disprove with measurements that don’t exist yet.
I think it was the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham (someone correct me if I am wrong) where they were asked what would change your mind. Bill Nye required proof- Ken Ham said the Bible (his current interpretation of the Bible anyway) was right and nothing would change his mind.
Edit- found the link
1- fit data that already exists (for the big bang- galaxies travelling away from us)
2- fit data for measurements that have not been taken yet (cosmic background radiation)
This article takes a question and fits the data to the desired outcome. It is theologically valid BUT it isn’t scientifically valid- what predictions does it make? The article doesn’t explain what a scientist can test to prove or disprove with measurements that don’t exist yet.
I think it was the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham (someone correct me if I am wrong) where they were asked what would change your mind. Bill Nye required proof- Ken Ham said the Bible (his current interpretation of the Bible anyway) was right and nothing would change his mind.
Edit- found the link
Last edited:
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
I’ve heard that there are problems with carbon dating; you have to start of by making estimations. Problematic.
There are also cases of fossils being found where they shouldn’t be found.
There are also cases of fossils being found where they shouldn’t be found.
S
SacredHeartBassist
Guest
Dude. I’m going to trust the scientists who peer review their work over you.
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
Nothing to say about the fossils turning up where they shouldn’t be turning up?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Semper, please do not get drawn into a discussion about evolution. It is grimly true that Creationism means nothing to most Creationists except as a bulwark against what they see as oncoming atheism, expressed as evolution. That is a terribly pity for several reasons. For a start, evolution is a perfectly acceptable Catholic stance, and does not imply atheism. For a second, whereas evolutionists tend to know their subject thoroughly, Creationists have no idea what they are talking about and are bound to flounder hopelessly. If you don’t know the answer to your question above, then stop digging. Stick to your faith, and explain why a six-day explanation for the origin of the world is theologically important.
Last edited:
A
Aulef
Guest
First paragraph: quote out of context from Pope John Paul II - mos of it is his opinion about evolution, not him speaking infallibly about dogma, so the quote is of little value in our conversation; as a matter of fact, he isn’t even an expert in biology; besides, if you read it carefully, what he said regarding evolution and doctrine of faith is related to “man and his vocation”, not whether evolution is a natural fact.
Second paragraph: scientific theory - a fact is a fact, and a theory is a theory; It is a fact that animal and plants features can be manipulated by breeding or in laboratory, because it has been done many times for thousands of years; on the other hand, it is a theory to state that complex animals came from simpler forms, because it has never been observed (nor it is philosophically logical)
Third paragraph: examples of evidence you cited - they all are important things, but none of them prove evolution; to say otherwise is pure faith.
Last paragraph: yes, I have studied evolution; I have three books by Dawkings, I have works by Darwin, I used to read scientific american magazine, I have a close relative who has masters in biochemistry and whose work I watched closely, especially the mass spectrometry experiments (potential drug development from certain frogs)
Second paragraph: scientific theory - a fact is a fact, and a theory is a theory; It is a fact that animal and plants features can be manipulated by breeding or in laboratory, because it has been done many times for thousands of years; on the other hand, it is a theory to state that complex animals came from simpler forms, because it has never been observed (nor it is philosophically logical)
Third paragraph: examples of evidence you cited - they all are important things, but none of them prove evolution; to say otherwise is pure faith.
Last paragraph: yes, I have studied evolution; I have three books by Dawkings, I have works by Darwin, I used to read scientific american magazine, I have a close relative who has masters in biochemistry and whose work I watched closely, especially the mass spectrometry experiments (potential drug development from certain frogs)
A
angel12
Guest
Such as . . . ?
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
I knew the answer, I was just making sure I knew what we were talking about. Being prudent.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Oh. please, Aulef. Don’t try to fool us. You have no books by Dawkings, and clearly know vanishingly little about science, let alone evolution. Stick to your faith, work on its relevance, and don’t confuse theology with science.
S
SacredHeartBassist
Guest
The only sources I can find for fossils appearing outside of their strata is from creationist websites.
Provide me with a peer reviewed source
Provide me with a peer reviewed source
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
Obviously, because people who aren’t creationists aren’t going to talk about those cases.
S
SacredHeartBassist
Guest
So science is fake news to you
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
That’s a terribly feeble response, Semper. If you have a problem with evolution, may I suggest you just ignore it. If you must engage, be very careful. Don’t ask questions which simply expose ignorance; and don’t quote websites whose Christian foundation has completely sunk under mean-spirited, deliberately dishonest, and wholly unnecessary swiping at a scientific discipline which is entirely compatible with Catholicism.
A
angel12
Guest
So, you can’t give an example of fossils “turning up where they shouldn’t be turning up?”
S
SacredHeartBassist
Guest
I’m saying this with all honesty. You said yesterday that women should stay at home and not work. Now you’re basically saying there’s a conspiracy to cover up facts bout the fossil record
You don’t need to worry about your wife working. You need to worry about the stuff you believe in because this is unattractive. It’s one thing to believe in YEC but another to believe in conspiracy theories. If you want a wife and a family but girls don’t like you I’m telling you why they might not
You don’t need to worry about your wife working. You need to worry about the stuff you believe in because this is unattractive. It’s one thing to believe in YEC but another to believe in conspiracy theories. If you want a wife and a family but girls don’t like you I’m telling you why they might not
C
CoeurRempli
Guest
I am not saying that the Church teaches that evolution is fact. We were discussing whether or not it is possible to be a faithful Catholic and accept evolution. If evolution were incompatible with the Faith, the Church should clearly speak out against it, shouldn’t she? Pope John Paul II would not make this statement.
I agree that when it comes to scientific theories, faith is involved. Everything in the natural sciences is just “a theory” then because you cannot really prove anything in the strictest sense. But this faith is not blind, it is based on compelling evidence.
Or are you saying that faith results in something less certain or less objective than knowledge?
Great. So do you find the scientific evidence supporting young earth creationism to be more compelling than the evidence for evolution? And if so, what is this evidence? Is it something, that, unlike evolution, can be proven?
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Apparently not, but he does have a pretty impressive tinfoil hat…semper_catholicus:
So, you can’t give an example of fossils “turning up where they shouldn’t be turning up?”
- Status