S
StAnastasia
Guest
Of course not!
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
Ed, I have long been a fan of your writing so I feel comfortable in replying. If you look carefully at my claim, you will spot the usage of a possibility versus a negative.
"The possibility of two people being the parents of all humans is not necessarily opposed to the general evolutionary theory found in natural science.
So far, to my knowledge, science has not specifically identified two individuals, but that has nothing to do with the possibility of two individuals existing.
It is my claim, which I am sure will be challenged from every corner, that science has not completely ruled out the possibility of two parents. Since two individuals have not been completely ruled out, the possibility of their existence is viable.
B
buffalo
Guest
Science will not be able to address two individuals. It cannot reduce it that far. So it is natural for them to speak of populations.
I predict though that as time goes on the truth of Adam and Eve will be supported by science.
G
grannymh
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you for the compliment. I think if you read the many other posts here that clearly state that evolution involves populations exclusively, I would say that no one is actively looking or, if they are, the current thinking is against the idea. If we share common ancestry with apes, or so their thinking goes, then before Adam, there were pre-humans or hominids. Then the totally unsupported claims begin. In a vain attempt to ‘explain’ God’s role, He is reduced to a man running through a crowd of people, picking two to give souls to and that is what elevates them to human status.
If some sort of evolutionary process occurred and God intervened as is recounted in the Bible then science cannot or will not comment on that. After all, supernatural events cannot be detected or so we are led to believe. Can science detect Jesus Christ? The Church teaches us that Christ did exist and his existence is confirmed by non-Christian writers from the time period as well. Why did He appear? To reconcile us with God. He died for all men so that sins would be forgiven.
Here, science is surgically removed from the supernatural. However, those who are scientifically minded could run down to see the tilma, or cloak, of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Secretary of State Clinton saw it recently and asked, who painted it? The Church has declared that it was not painted by human hands.
Back to the topic. In a recent issue of Our Sunday Visitor, author Benjamin Wiker raises the possibly that science can discover that we are the offspring of two people. So, no, it is not out of the realm of possibility. However, in the search for truth, you have to realize there are people speaking against it, seeking to bury it or just ignore it.
Right now, there is a global campaign for atheism. Do you think these people put “Man created God” on the sides of buses for no particular reason? They think that science has shown the following: our genetic material kept upgrading our bodies and our brain, and one day, it gave us a god or gods concept to improve our chances for survival and reproduction. Yep, god was just a phase in our neurological development.
Peace,
Ed
G
grannymh
Guest
My claim addressed the general evolutionary theory found in natural science. It did not address one specific aspect.
To accomplish this, someone has to either challenge the establishment or excite the imagination of a scientist. Personally, I hope to challenge someone’s imagination with a little help from my friends, including those who challenge me.
G
grannymh
Guest
Ed, How can I get a copy of Benjamin Wiker’s article in Our Sunday Visitor?
I read his book (with Scott Hahn) Answering the New Atheism. In it were a couple of ordinary sentences which have influenced the foundation for my claim.
When I read the above, it can be overwhelming – but not when there is trust in God.
C
cassini
Guest
In my experience, I have read only one attempt by evolutionists to explain how the whole human race came from a monkey, or a hominid as you evolutionists prefer to call them. These evolutionists were Opus Dei, a very Catholic organisation that fully accept Adam was the first man from whom Eve and consequently the rest of the human race came from. It was written by a Professor of genetics and went something like this. God picked a monkey, sorry hominid, and infused a soul into its zygot, that is, fertilised egg. This zygot in turn split as they do, giving rise to a female alongside the original male into which God infused another soul. This monkey, sorry hominid, gave birth and the ‘twins’, Adam and Eve were ‘created’… They were raised by the monkeys, sorry hominids, until they could fend for themselves whereupon they began the human race.
I remember trying to fault this fairy tale teologically so to speak, but it was very clever. Eve it seems did come from the original Adam. I wrote asking if Adam had two souls then, one animal, one human, or if God had a way to turn an animal soul into a human soul. I then discovered the two-soul idea had been declared heresy so that was out. That left the animal-human soul combination as the only alternative. It also meant that if Adam and Eve got hungry they could kill their grandparents and eat them without being accused of murder. I also wondered if Adam and Eve had problems with all those other hominids down the street and did their kids ever fall for any of them. ‘Sorry dear, he is an animal and your not allowed to go out with animals’ I could hear Eve say to one of her daughters. The scenario just got more ridiculous as it went on and I wondered how any Catholic could actually believe in it and be happy in their ignorance as to how complicated God is supposed to have created the human race.
I remember trying to fault this fairy tale teologically so to speak, but it was very clever. Eve it seems did come from the original Adam. I wrote asking if Adam had two souls then, one animal, one human, or if God had a way to turn an animal soul into a human soul. I then discovered the two-soul idea had been declared heresy so that was out. That left the animal-human soul combination as the only alternative. It also meant that if Adam and Eve got hungry they could kill their grandparents and eat them without being accused of murder. I also wondered if Adam and Eve had problems with all those other hominids down the street and did their kids ever fall for any of them. ‘Sorry dear, he is an animal and your not allowed to go out with animals’ I could hear Eve say to one of her daughters. The scenario just got more ridiculous as it went on and I wondered how any Catholic could actually believe in it and be happy in their ignorance as to how complicated God is supposed to have created the human race.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Actually, if you believe that the soul is infused at conception, some people do have two souls.
G
grannymh
Guest
Cassini, I hope you are sitting down. This is one time I have to agree with you. The above is quite a fairy tale!
Blessings,
granny
All human life comes from God.
E
edwest2
Guest
To grannymh,
Here is a link to the issue of OSV I mentioned.
osv.com/tabid/7623/itemid/4706/OSV-Newsweekly-April-19-2009.aspx
Apparently, you have to be a subscriber to read the evolution articles.
Peace,
Ed
Here is a link to the issue of OSV I mentioned.
osv.com/tabid/7623/itemid/4706/OSV-Newsweekly-April-19-2009.aspx
Apparently, you have to be a subscriber to read the evolution articles.
Peace,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Indeed. I’ve never heard an evolutionary biologist spin this sort of yarn.Cassini, I hope you are sitting down. This is one time I have to agree with you. The above is quite a fairy tale!Blessings,granny
All human life comes from God.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thanks Ed. Since I never see Sunday Visitor around here, I took out a subscription. Wiker’s articles are fascinating and written clearly.
What are tags at the bottom of an article? How does one use them? And how did you get this link? It is time for me to learn more about the computer…
Blessings,
granny
All human life comes from God.
R
reggieM
Guest
I agree that was an excellent article by Benjamin Wiker in OSV - superbly written and very clear. He just came out with a new book on Darwin. His other books, A Meaningful World, Moral Darwinism and Architects of the Culture of Death are brilliiant also (I want to read the one you mention here too). He is emerging as one of the finest Catholic authors in America, in my opinion.
B
buffalo
Guest
A
Alethios
Guest
How would the ancient artisans know the shape and habits of the dinos…books? TV? Internet?
The graphic knowledge of the dinos could be handed down at most a few generations.
This is reasonable protection against claims that macro-evolution occurred by mutations, rather than by activation of latent gene functions. It’s all about evidence, brother.
Calling evolution a selection of a sequence of mutated genes is just a sophism; what makes the macro change in 'species" is the last change of protein/enzyme - a single change.
Our mistake… Inorganic radiometry - the dating of rocks - was intended. mea culpa - but all else holds.
Silly, is it? Why, then, does the K-Ar give > 2 MA ages which are allegedly valid, for lava that is known to be <<<< 2 Ma ?
Why is K-Ar used if uncalibrated?
As Cremo and Thompson have abundantly researched, high consistency can be just a matter of eliminating inconsistent test results as contaminated… without justification… or even documentation.
65 Ma is an assumption.
C14/radiocarbon dating has been validated historically to 5,000 yr BP( Egyptian dynasties) and 10,000 years BP with German oak tree rings. Some of the dino RC ages were < 10,000 years.
Inorganic radiometric dating has already been rejected, but please tell us more about astronomic chronologies?
Mammoth fossils in the K-T layer have been C14 dated between 9 and 11 Kya!..
Better get your clocks cleaned! Only off by 64,990,000 yrs …
AMDG
A
Alethios
Guest
According to Kev, “Geochron Laboratories … has clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old.”
That raises the obvious question - if measurement accuracy starts at 2 million yrs old , what historical event or object of known age was used to calibrate the K-Ar chronometer beyond this age? Without this independent validation of age, any rock radioometry is without standing as evidence on this thread.
Kev will have to go on overtime to do more hatchet jobs on all the other errors discovered in inorganic radiometric dating and documented in :
L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 1 &2: (Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society).
by:
D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics
Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D. Physics
Donald DeYoung, Ph.D. Physics
John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics
Steven A. Austin, Ph.D. Geology
Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. Geology
For example:
Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand. Eleven rock samples were taken from solidified lava formed less than 70 years ago. The samples were dated by Geochron Lab as being up to 3.5 million years old. [This is within the Geochron accuracy limits, according to Henke]
So we really don’t know if there is any credibility to rock dating, do we?
see Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years
Geologists believe the Bearthooth Mountains rock unit to contain some of the oldest rocks in the United States, with an estimated age of 2,790 million years [beyond the 2 Ma limit]. The following table summarizes the results from three labs, which are all below the 2 MA limit, and none of the rock dates are concordant. ???
841.5 million years (potassium-argon)
1,060 million years (rubidium-strontium)
1,250 million years (uranium-lead)
1,379 million years (samarium-neodymium)
Some historically dated lava flows and their radiometric “ages”: Ma = Million yrs ago
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801)…1.6±0.16 Ma; 1.41±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC)…0.25±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972)… 0.35±0.14 Ma
Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915)…0.11±0.03 Ma
Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064-1065)…0.27±0.09 Ma; 0.25±0.15 Ma
Akka Water Fall flow, Hawaii (Pleistocene)…32.3±7.2 Ma
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii (AD 1959)…8.5±6.8 Ma
Mt. Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb 1963…2.4±2 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (May 1964)…0.7±0.01 Ma
Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian,
Glass Mountains, California (<500 years old)…12.6±4.5 Ma
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801)…22.8±16.5 Ma
Rangitoto basalt, Auckland, NZ (<800 years old)…0.15±0.47 Ma
Alkali basalt plug, Benue, Nigeria (<30 Ma)…95 Ma
Olivine basalt, Nathan Hills,
Victoria Land, Antarctica (<0.3 Ma)…18.0±0.7 Ma
Anorthoclase in volcanic bomb,
Mt Erebus, Antarctica (1984)…0.64±0.03 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<200 years old)…21±8 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<1,000 years old)…42.9±4.2 Ma; 30.3±3.3 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt (<1 Ma)…690.77 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt (<0.6 Ma)…24.2±1.0 Ma
Ten (10) ages are within the 2 Ma range of accuracy, but wildly inaccurate…
“Excess Argon”: The “Achillies’ Heel” of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon “Dating” of Volcanic Rocks
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.
AMDG
G
grannymh
Guest
O
Orogeny
Guest
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 1&2 (AKA RATE), is a flawed, misleading publication aimed at fooling those who don’t have the education necessary to see the falsehoods. This effort was reviewed by the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), a group of Christian scientists and found to be lacking at best.
asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm#i
This isn’t a criticism from an athiest group, it is from a Christian group.
Peace
Tim
S
StAnastasia
Guest
You’re right Tim – ASA is an excellent, thoughtful and prayerful group I joined last year. They have no patience for either bad science or metaphysical naturalism “deduced” from science.
StAnastasia
- Status