Catholic View on Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter scameter18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mystic_Banana said:
Thing is, doesn’t most of the geomorphological evidence in support of evolutionism in the case of anomalous data assume something coming along to ‘shake things up’, despite a lack of evidence for the same?
Click to expand...
What? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.
Mystic_Banana said:
I’m not really saying the calculations are necessarily wrong - it’s simply that they are based on theories and causal assumptions which themselves can’t really be verified, something you point out in an earlier post - all calulations of age are based around the same assumption, based on relativity, aren’t they?
Click to expand...
No, we calculate ages using different methods. The underlying assumption is that half life is actually a half life. Unless that gets proved to be variable, there are several different methods that all agree with a good degree of accuracy and precision.
Mystic_Banana said:
Yes, but the principle is the same, isn’t it?

CDs were tested according to assumptions of general wear and tear, and found to vitually indestructable. Experience finds they are not - anything but.
Click to expand...
No, not at all. Radioactivity has pretty much nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.
Mystic_Banana said:
But we can’t really test how long it actually takes for things to decay over millions of years, or prove whether the theories for geological ageing and fossilization are true - not for a long time, anyway…
Click to expand...
As I said, this is based on half life… something very very well understood and accepted.
Mystic_Banana said:
It’s not simply an idiological aversion - it’s the extent to which Dawkins’ reasoning is ludicrously (perhaps literally) twisted according to his particular prejudices. See my earlier arguments on the “Dawkins makes sense” thread.

Yes, but I know a number of metalheads who are quite evangelistically devout followers of Dawkins… This bloke is clearly somewhat partial as well, but there you go, I suppose we all are. Anyway, which ones of these deals with the issues in hand?
Click to expand...
All of them, they’re a series. I haven’t watched them all actually, as I find his videos a little dry.
Mystic_Banana said:
I’ve read up on quite a lot of this stuff - I think perhaps you fail to realise it’s the whole assumption and theory and the way that influences satisfaction (or not) with the interpretation of evidence that is my issue. You’ve not really dealt with my core concern at all - specifically, that evolution does feed into geological dating, which is then fed back to ‘prove’ evolution, and that such considerations look to be only applied where the findings are found to contradict the (un)holy scripture of (the incidentally generally unqualified) Darwin…
Click to expand...
Maybe some… The earth was thought to be at maximum a few million years old in Darwins day… and only came to be thought of as billions of years much later. Evolution wasn’t widely accepted until about the 1800’s or so - Darwin’s work was largely rejected and forgotten during that time.
Mystic_Banana said:
Yes - but, again you’re missing the point! I’ll try and be clearer - you say I shouldn’t comment outside my qualification, then point to someone who does just that - regularly…anyway, I’ve already mentioned this, but I’ll emphasize it again - his arguments don’t make sense. Rational sense. That he’s a bit of a fascist doesn’t help, but his lopsided interpretation of history and possibility makes me hope that he departmentalises his reasoning ability from his fervant dogmas only outside his chosen speciality… but given how daft he is in a lot of his anti-theological arguments, I find it hard to believe!
Click to expand...
Lopsided interpretation of history… great video on that here, you’ll like this one.

wimp.com/popculture/
 
Bummer - firefox just crashed, mid reply! :crying:

OK - to the pertinant points:

So is geomorphology held to be an influence upon radiometrically detectable age?

Or is it independant of factors which relate to degree of material preservation?

Do ‘remarkably well preserved’ fossils date radiometrically differently or not?

Yes, this video (or the portions I watched) seems to relate fairly well to my view…👍

On the other hand, you’re best pointing me at text based pages for evolutionist stuff - the metalhead pro-evolutionist is almost as annoying as Dawkins… there’s no way I could sit through 2 hours of him! :takethat:
 
Mystic_Banana said:
Bummer - firefox just crashed, mid reply! :crying:

OK - to the pertinant points:

So is geomorphology held to be an influence upon radiometrically detectable age?

Or is it independant of factors which relate to degree of material preservation?

Do ‘remarkably well preserved’ fossils date radiometrically differently or not?

Yes, this video (or the portions I watched) seems to relate fairly well to my view…👍

On the other hand, you’re best pointing me at text based pages for evolutionist stuff - the metalhead pro-evolutionist is almost as annoying as Dawkins… there’s no way I could sit through 2 hours of him! :takethat:
Click to expand...
Aww… I hate when that happens! At least it’s not IE? 😉

No. Geomorphology does indeed lend to an old earth, but is only accurate back to certain ages due to the changing of the continents. Also, the oldest rocks on Earth are only about 3.5 billion years old due to the recycling of the rocks in the mantle too and from the crust (the oldest I believe are found in Greenland and Australia IIRC). However, it’s still evidence of a very very old earth, even if it doesn’t match exactly with the 4.5 billion years that we measure in multiple asteroids using multiple techniques.

I don’t know why “well preserved” fossils would date differently honestly. A more interesting question would be if they date differently than the rock around them. I’m not familiar with the specifics of such data though, so I can’t really say.

Glad you liked the one video. Haha, I warned you the other guy was dry. I’m afraid those are the only youtube videos I’ve watched on the subject though, as I generally don’t like that method of knowledge transfer, so I can’t recommend any others. The one book I can recommend that I think you’d honestly like is this one (really good read actually):

amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/0767908171

It goes through the history of just about every physical science, explaining how we know what we know.
 
edwest2 said:
I suggest you take off your rose colored glasses and realize that the data cannot be hijacked. It is what it is. Evolution, as advertised, is looking less and less credible.
Click to expand...
Ed, you’d better convey this news to the 100,000 or so biologists who work with and assume the accuracy of the theory every day!
 
buffalo said:
Is this an argument from popularity?
Click to expand...
No. Hundreds of millions of people brush their teeth daily because they find it works in preventing tooth decay. If Ed declared that there is no connection between brushing and cavity protection, and I said “Tell that to the hundreds of millions who brush every day,” I would not be engaging in an argument from popularity.
 
StAnastasia said:
No. Hundreds of millions of people brush their teeth daily because they find it works in preventing tooth decay. If Ed declared that there is no connection between brushing and cavity protection, and I said “Tell that to the hundreds of millions who brush every day,” I would not be engaging in an argument from popularity.
Click to expand...
Actually that is EXACTLY what argument from popularity is.
 
StAnastasia said:
False.
Click to expand...
Care to elaborate? The article on Argumentum ad populum that I linked to clearly gives examples and explains that the fallacy is usually committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular theory is true. Your example of refuting a link between brushing and cavity protection by stating that many people brush their teeth is clearly in that category. Had you refuted it with an actual study with evidence instead of demonstrating that belief in the link was widely believed you would not have a problem. Also, perhaps more than a one word reply would be taken as less arrogant.
 
liquidpele said:
Care to elaborate? The article on Argumentum ad populum that I linked to clearly gives examples and explains that the fallacy is usually committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular theory is true. Your example of refuting a link between brushing and cavity protection by stating that many people brush their teeth is clearly in that category. Had you refuted it with an actual study with evidence instead of demonstrating that belief in the link was widely believed you would not have a problem. Also, perhaps more than a one word reply would be taken as less arrogant.
Click to expand...
Read post # 145 again – carefully this time! (there – that’s seven times less “arrogant”!)
 
edwest2 said:
To Mystic Banana,

Your concerns about evolution are well founded. Yes, soft tissue was found in a T-Rex bone supposedly millions of years old. One commentator just brushed it off as if he expected it to be there. Yes, yes, Well, let’s just all move along now.

The politics of evolution pervade this forum and all Christian forums. The goal is to give science the title of new belief system for all mankind. There is no other reason for expending the time and energy devoted here and elsewhere to recruit new ‘believers’ to the cause. Here is a perfect example:

youtube.com/watch?v=F5QzQtwBseQ&feature=related

Thos who do not believe are the villains - the army of unreason that will swallow up this country and prevent it from becoming the secular paradise on earth that the scientific atheists are looking forward to. “Religion? God? Pfft. Anyone who disagrees with us is bad, and worse! Science will rule. Keep your religion in your buildings and out of “our” government.”

That was why I had to stop saying the following in school in the 1960s:

“One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

They’ve worked so long to get God out of schools, God out of public buildings, God out of Christmas music played on loudspeakers in front of stores.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
The story surrounding the T-rex soft tissue is fascinating - especially so because Mary Schweitzer, who made the discovery, is a thoroughly committed Christian…and a scientist who accepts evolution. She is appalled that her work has been “hijacked” by young earthers. Here is an excellent story about her and the discovery:

smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=1

Dr. Schweitzer is apparently among the first to apply molecular biology to paleontology, which may account for the fact that this seems such an astounding discovery. It actually may be more common than believed (perhaps Hell Creek in Montana is a milieu that contributes to soft tissue preservation.)

Interestingly, this discovery also seems to solidify the evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.
 
dixieagle said:
The story surrounding the T-rex soft tissue is fascinating - especially so because Mary Schweitzer, who made the discovery, is a thoroughly committed Christian…and a scientist who accepts evolution. She is appalled that her work has been “hijacked” by young earthers.
Click to expand...
dixieagle, lying and hijacking are what YECs and IDers do best. As one of them said, sometimes you need to tell a lie for the kingdom of God.
 
StAnastasia said:
dixieagle, lying and hijacking are what YECs and IDers do best. As one of them said, sometimes you need to tell a lie for the kingdom of God.
Click to expand...
I just don’t understand attempts to try to get God and His methods to conform to our puny, limited understanding.

Truth cannot contradict truth.
 
dixieagle said:
The story surrounding the T-rex soft tissue is fascinating - especially so because Mary Schweitzer, who made the discovery, is a thoroughly committed Christian…and a scientist who accepts evolution. She is appalled that her work has been “hijacked” by young earthers. Here is an excellent story about her and the discovery:

smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=1

Dr. Schweitzer is apparently among the first to apply molecular biology to paleontology, which may account for the fact that this seems such an astounding discovery. It actually may be more common than believed (perhaps Hell Creek in Montana is a milieu that contributes to soft tissue preservation.)

Interestingly, this discovery also seems to solidify the evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.
Click to expand...
“evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds”? That’s unlikely:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

Apparently, after centuries of studying birds, scientists have just noticed a fundamental difference in skeletal arrangement.

Peace,
Ed
 
dixieagle said:
I just don’t understand attempts to try to get God and His methods to conform to our puny, limited understanding.

Truth cannot contradict truth.
Click to expand...
Oh, but can’t it? If a colorblind person and one who sees color argue about the color of the sky, are they not both right in their own way?
 
edwest2 said:
“evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds”? That’s unlikely:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

Apparently, after centuries of studying birds, scientists have just noticed a fundamental difference in skeletal arrangement.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
A “link” does not mean one evolved from the other. It means they are related in some way. For instance, humans are not very related to fungi, but we are to chimps. From your article…
“This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed.”
Click to expand...
So essentially instead of birds evolving from dinosaurs, they evolved at the same time, but likely from a common ancestor.
 
Evolution - the theory that is always changing but always the same. No criticism can hurt it. :rolleyes:

“likely”? It’s looking less likely all the time.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top