Crackpot Challenge Part 2 - Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alethios
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is good to read the complete document.
I agree about reading the complete Communion and Stewardship. Paragraph 64 refers to Humani Generis and to Pope John Paul II. Paragraph 65 has some information which I may use later on. The rest, which I skimmed, seemed to deal more with creatio ex nihilo and philosophical/theological issues. The impression was “science regarding humans” was contained in the beginning of section “1. Science and the Stewardship of Knowledge”

Thus, I am still perplexed about paragraph 63, end of post 276. Were there endnotes to this document? Did I miss them?
.
 
I am still having a mental block. How can intangibles such as intentionality, freedom and creativity can be scientifically related to a mass of matter?/QUOTE]

You have to think of the brain as more than simply a “mass of matter.” It’s not as if several pounds of brain cells are equivalent to several pounds of lead, or even several ponds of muscle tissue. The brain has about a hundred billion neurons, each with thousands of connections to other neurons. It’s from this richness of neural connections that intentionality, freedom and creativity are derived.

“The human brain has a huge number of synapses. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 1014 to 5 x 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion).[14]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurons

See also http://chemistry.caltech.edu/~fucose/Neural Coonections.htm

StAnastasia
 
:rotfl:
Is there anyone, anyone at all, who can give me the actual scientific contents of this soup? This is a serious question. I’ve seen references to the first chemical substances and references to the odds of them combining into life, etc. If one can give me a link to the various recipes for this soup, it would be sincerely appreciated.😃 Note: I already checked Wikipedia which only complicated matters. Or is there some kind of scientific Wikipedia? Thank you.
 
…or you can discuss the physics of the observations in a rational way (but in that case you have to be prepared to be persuaded by the fact that the data that you have cited is not evidence for geocentrism). Which is it to be?
Perhaps you would post your derivation of the equations that show that identical centrifugal and Coriolis forces would be experienced at the earth’s surface if the earth was static and the universe rotating around it. Your first step will be to define what you mean by a static earth - ie, if you say the earth is static, you have to say static with respect to what reference, and you’ll have to define that in mathematical terms with respect to whatever 3-manifold for space you choose
.

The responses to geocentrism are where they belong - on the Copernicus Crackpot Challenge.

AMDG
 
grannymh;5335076:
I am still having a mental block. How can intangibles such as intentionality, freedom and creativity can be scientifically related to a mass of matter?/QUOTE]

You have to think of the brain as more than simply a “mass of matter.” It’s not as if several pounds of brain cells are equivalent to several pounds of lead, or even several ponds of muscle tissue. The brain has about a hundred billion neurons, each with thousands of connections to other neurons. It’s from this richness of neural connections that intentionality, freedom and creativity are derived.

“The human brain has a huge number of synapses. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 1014 to 5 x 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion).[14]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurons

See also http://chemistry.caltech.edu/~fucose/Neural Coonections.htm

StAnastasia
“neural connections…” “intentionality, freedom and creativity are derived”? You have got to be kidding. Can you cite one peer reviewed study that confirms that?

And here is the problem. We share in God’s creativity by being creative ourselves. Or, you are told to accept the purely mechanical model. The condensed primordial soup naturally gave rise to organic robots which kept upgrading themselves and upgrading themselves until, somehow, thanks to luck apparently, man appeared. Just get enough circuitry up there and boom, you are creative and intentional?

We are not biological robots.

Peace,
Ed
 
Too bad. I really like the petrified battery. How about the spark plug? Find any petrified spark plugs?

HM----No I haven’t found any spark plugs and paleontologists have not found any of the “missing links” either. 😃 Oh yes there were claims like Piltdown man, Nebraska man, “I love Lucy,” and they save the best laugher for last, cute little “Ida”

What exactly is evolution of life from rocks?

HM----Suppose you tell us, you are the expert on evolution of life from non-life [we are made up of all that good stuff that stars are made of as we evolved from the “Big Bang 15 or so billions of years ago.” I just saw it again on the history channel last night so it must be true, however I’m willing to read your version if it’s different, oh all knowing Orogeny.]

HM—I know that you can hardly wait Tim for the publication of the data and conclusions but be patient; it’s on the way with a preview in a recent issue of Radici Christiane, in Italian, and the full paper with 50 some technical references with regards the geologic strata, identification of dinosaur femur bones and full discussion of C-14 dating methods that were used to extract and purify bone collagen and bone bio-apatite to show that dinosaurs lived contemporaneously with man. 😉 Even the contaminants were eliminated, extracted and C-14 dated so that everyone would know that correct protocols common to dating of bones and other associated fossils were followed which show that: There are NO 65 million years between man and dinosaurs. You see, I was thinking of you when I had the contaminant C-14 dated. 😛 The evolutionists could have C-14 dated the soft tissue, bone collagen and bone bio-apatite they found in their T-Rex and Hadrosaur femurs but didn’t; why??? :eek:🤷

You know, Hugh, I really love it when you come around. I always get a really good chuckle reading your posts.

HM—Feelings mutual pal. And those Cat-Scaned fossil human footprints with dinosaur ones and their counterpart pristine fossil human hand and footprints in alleged 108 million year old Cretaceous limestone rock; and, the dinosaur depictions World Wide, observed and documented by archaeologists, confirm the 2000 times younger ages noted by C-14 dating dinosaur bones.:cool:

Publish or perish, pal. Piece of cake if your evidence is so slam dunk.What, the concept of geologic time has changed (dare I say evolved?) in 90 years? Since before we had good radiometric dating techniques? I’m shocked! Next thing you will tell me is that we no longer use steam engines to power riverboats!So you admit that it is all about faith and not science. At least you are honest about that, even if your notion of faith is flawed.

HM—I use reliable field and lab research tests as do the sedimentologists, physicists, geophysicists, educators, theologians whose papers will be published with mine to support our faith in Christ and the church fathers; but, you Tim rely on the long age, erratic and questionable radiometric dating methods to try and support those long ages required for your belief in the fairy tale of evolution of life from the “rocks.” Again I repeat: “Moses sizzles while Darwin fizzles.” I would further add a word of praise and respect for the church fathers from St. Peter to St. John Damacene (AD ~725) to St. Lawrence of Brindisi (AD~1575) to St. Pius X whose body remain incorruptable :cool:: Blessed are they who have not seen [the science] yet believe. 🙂

Peace [HM—pacem]

Tim
 
40.png
hecd2:
In other words, you are prepared to cite papers that you have misunderstood in the hope of persuading the naive, but when someone comes along who knows what they are talking about and points out your errors, you admit that no evidence will persuade you to change your mind. That’s hypocritical and does not show that respect for the truth that you were lecturing me about.
Well that was a bit of nastiness.
Not nastiness, simply a fact that you don’t like and would rather not face up to, which is that you are trying to persuade others by quote mining and misrepresenting scientific papers that you don’t understand, whilst not being open to persuasion by scientific data yourself - that is, I am afraid, hypocritical.
Unfortunately, I won’t have a full response until tomorrow, but let me just give you a quote from Longo to demonstrate what I have said:

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) studied the cosmic microwave background
(CMB) radiation (G. Hinshaw et al. 2006). Their results for the angular power spectra
have been analyzed by Schwarz et al. (2004) and many others. Schwarz et al. show that: (1) the
quadrupole plane and the three octopole planes are aligned, (2) three of these are orthogonal to
the ecliptic, (3) the normals to these planes are aligned with the direction of the cosmological
dipole and with the equinoxes. The respective probabilities that these alignments could happen
by chance are 0.1%, 0.9%, and 0.4%. This alignment is considered to be so bizarre that it has
been referred to as “the axis of evil” (AE) by K. Land and J. Magueijo (2005). Their nominal
AE is at (l, b) ! (–100°, 60°), corresponding to (RA, δ) = (173°, 4°). The alignment with the
ecliptic and equinoxes is especially problematic because this would suggest a serious bias in the
WMAP data that is related to the direction of the Earth’s spin axis, which is highly unlikely.Of course, if the universe is geocentric this is not “highly unlikely”!

Really?? Your problem is that you don’t understand what you are reading. First of all, Longo goes on to say: “On the basis of the 3-year WMAP data (ILC123), Copi et al. (2007) find the normal to the plane defined by the quadrupole moments to be at l = –128.3°, b = 63.0° in Galactic polar coordinates. In equatorial coordinates this corresponds to RA = 166°, δ = 16°” . Secondly, the measurement is made at L2, not at the earth. Perhaps you would enlighten the reader by explaining how a very subtle alignment of l=2 and l=3 in the CMBA 16 degrees from the equatorial plane (ie, 74 degrees from the celestial pole) is any sort of evidence for the universe rotating once per day around the earth. Show us how a geocentric universe would give rise to subtle alignments of large scale ansiotropies in the CMB with the measured orientation. Basically, what you are doing here is grasping desperately at everything that possibly be interpreted by the naive as evidence for geocentriity, while not understanding the papers yourself nor being able to explain how any of this stuff could possibly be evidence for what you believe.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Paragraph 64 is more relevant.

Peace,
Ed
Ed, you are absolutely right about Paragraph 64.

However, I have chosen to view the possibility that the current human species evolved separately from its cousin chimps or other shirttail animal cousins from the position of a non-scientist evolutionist and if you wish to consider that position the same as a non-theist, that is all right for the time being.
 
:rotfl:
Is there anyone, anyone at all, who can give me the actual scientific contents of this soup? This is a serious question. I’ve seen references to the first chemical substances and references to the odds of them combining into life, etc. If one can give me a link to the various recipes for this soup, it would be sincerely appreciated.😃 Note: I already checked Wikipedia which only complicated matters. Or is there some kind of scientific Wikipedia? Thank you.
We know it is packed with potential.
 
We know it is packed with potential.
Buffalo, I appreciate your help in the past. Potential is the operative word. When there is potential, there is also the possibility that the current human species evolved separately from its cousin chimps. At this point, I cannot guess when the separation actually took place. But as far as I am concerned, potential is not limited by a time frame. Thus, I still need explanatory links.

Here is one of those thought questions. What happens when “randomness” is combined with “potential”?
 
“neural connections…” “intentionality, freedom and creativity are derived”? You have got to be kidding. Can you cite one peer reviewed study that confirms that?
Me too. I’m looking forward to an answer to your question.
We are not biological robots.
I flat out deny that I am a biological robot.
 
This article fully supports my prior claims about adaptation and epigenetics and the power of the DNA language. The guppies were still guppies, though.
Then they have the article mistitled. If you’re right it should read “Guppy study supports anti-scientific YEC viewpoint.”
 
To Hugh Miller,

I would be interested in seeing photographs of human and dinosaur footprints together. Can you point me to a reference?

Thank you,
Ed
 
But I thought for C14 to be truly, truly accurate 32,000 years had to pass. Given the earth is 6,000 years old according to revelation and Christian Martyrology then C14 dating methods must take account of this. Can you correct me if I’m wrong please.
Definitely confusion here. At one time C14 was measured by direct decay counts; the limit was about 6 half-lives, or 32 Kyrs. This was the limit of accuracy then; we think this is what you mean…??
Now the tech. advance to AMS equipment allows detection of virtually each C14 atom in a sample - the detection limit has been claimed to be as high as 100,000 yrs for large sample sizes… more than 15 half lives.

We use the Magisterium and Scripture as the Catholic standard of thread evidence here.
The Martyrology is neither.
The Magisterium has never defined the age of the earth - the time back to Adam - for Catholic belief.
Revelation does not directly describe the time back to creation, but does define the generations of patriarch ages in several places. The list of generations can contain two types of relationships: Paternal: father-son and Patriarchal: ancestor-descendant

If all the lists are Paternal, then creation occurred ~ 6000 years ago.

If there’s even one patriarchal link (generation gap), then the exact creation age is unknown.

The Magisterium has not defined all the links to be paternal. This has led to many debates (and books) regarding the correct exegesis of the generation lists.

We note that two of the lists are identical, except for one extra patriarch - Cainan - in one list. To be inerrant, then, the Bible must have at least one gap in the patriarchal chain, in the absence of another explanation.
Also, the Jewish use of father and son is often ancestral:
The Jews told Christ, " Abraham is our father".
The blind man called out to Jesus, " Son of David, have pity on me."

Naturally we are all frustrated by the inability to declare the Biblical age of the earth, but if this is a deliberate omission in Scripture by God, then we can be sure that we will never know the revealed age.

All we can say now is that the minimum revealed age is ~6000 years; the exact maximum is unknown.

AMDG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top