creationism and evolution

[wanerious]

Chris W:

That does not make sense to me. Was the entire race put into the garden of Eden? Did god breath the breath of life (which I assume you take to mean (name removed by moderator)arting a soul) on the intire race?

This is an interesting question. Personally, this is my model, but I understand that the Church teaches that the soul is ultimately traceable to two individuals. Ok. I don’t get too worked up about that detail.

I still think you are being way to concrete to ask if the entire race was put into the Garden, when I don’t think the Garden was a particular place, but a wonderful literary construction.

Was the entire race guilty of commiting that first sin? Was the purpose for the creation of women (causing a completeness, symbolic of the triune God) applicable to the entire race, incuding those without an intellect and will?

If ultimately the entire race is to possess souls, then yes.

On one hand you say Genesis was nt concerned with the other brutes that may have existed, but then you say it is talking about the entire race of persons. I am confused.

Genesis is mostly concerned with the relationship between God, Man, and His Creation. Man, or Adam, represents those blessed, former “mere”, animals. Since by the time these stories were passed down to finally be written, all members of the human species were ensouled, the writers of the story are not concerned with, or have any way of knowing about, former members of the human species not ensouled.

I could not disagree more. Our religious beliefs do stand up to logic and reasoning. In fact, the study and use of apologetics rests on these principles. I would go so far as to say that if you have beliefs that do not stand up to logic and reasoning, they are probably incorrect beliefs.

Only to a point, and then we must appeal to mystery and faith. Of course there are beliefs that logically follow from other beliefs, but the instigating events behind the religious claims are beyond natural inspection.

 

[oriel36]

john doran:

umm…can you be a little clearer? i’m afraid you lost me. totally.

thanks.

O.K., I have been over this stuff a thousand times with Newtonians,aetherists,relativists and every other empirical scam artist who thinks finite light distance (also known as the 'speed of light ’ ) can be squared or diluted into mathematical notation.

For the interested reader ,the ’ Equation of Light’ as the original insight was originally called reflects an observational illusion which astronomers witnessed in the motion of Jupiter’s moon Io where the moon appears to speed up and slow down rather than have a smooth motion.

Roemer resolved what is known as ‘anomalous’ motion of Io by recognising that the orbit of Jupiter and Earth close and widen at different times of the year causing the motion of Io to accelerate as the planets close their distance and slow down as the orbits of Jupiter and Earth around the Sun widen.



Basically the odd motion of Io was attributed correctly to finite light distance and while from Earth it appears that Io appears to speed up and slow down,in actuality the motion is smooth and constant.

Io is Jupiter’s innermost satellite so let’s see what Isaac Newton has to say on the matter.

“Some inequalities of time may arise from the Excentricities of the Orbs of the Satellites; [etc.]… But this inequality has no respect to the position of the Earth, and in the three interior Satellites is insensible, as I find by computation from the Theory of their Gravity.”
Opticks 1704

dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/OnlinePubs/Roemer/chapter3(part2).html

Look,this is astronomical forensics and I could expand on what Newton did wrong but all scientists are interested in Newtonian or realtivistic spindoctoring rather than recovering the true astronomical framework that was destroyed to make way for Newtonian mechanics and the explanation of planetary motion by way of terrestial ballistics.

In clear terms,mathematicians are ignorant of the effects of finite light distance on observation and especially in terms of cosmological modelling.

 

[john_doran]

wanerious:

The second link I posted includes a short article that may come as some relief — that more “official” Catholic sources will start to encourage evolutionary teaching and the Church’s position in order to combat the “anti-evolution biases that Catholics pick up” from our society.

anti-evolution bias? is that a typo? i ask only because the only time, in my 33 years of life, that i have ever (socially) encountered someone questioning evolutionary theory, has been online within the last year; i have been taught and have heard, everywhere i have turned, only that evolution is a “fact” about which we can be as sure as we are about things like relativity theory and chemistry and maybe even math.

weird.

I am encouraged that “Denying that humans evolved seems by this point a waste of time”

perhaps. but probably only in the same way that it’s a waste of time for catholics to convert dyed-in-the-wool protestants, and vice versa.

It is noteworthy that “…the 2004 document properly recognizes evolutionary theory as firmly grounded in fact”

depending on what is meant by “firmly grounded” and “fact”, it may be noteworthy, but not particularly encouraging…

 

[john_doran]

oriel36:

Look,this is astronomical forensics and I could expand on what Newton did wrong but all scientists are interested in Newtonian or realtivistic spindoctoring rather than recovering the true astronomical framework that was destroyed to make way for Newtonian mechanics and the explanation of planetary motion by way of terrestial ballistics.

fair enough. but i can tell you that i am interested in understanding what you believe is “the true astronomical framework that was destroyed to make way for Newtonian mechanics and the explanation of planetary motion by way of terrestial ballistics”.

can you elaborate?

In clear terms,mathematicians are ignorant of the effects of finite light distance on observation and especially in terms of cosmological modelling.

again - can you elaborate?

thanks.

 

[Monarchy]

If evolution contradicts Catholicism, we are totally justified in rejecting evolution without supplying one single shred of scientific evidence to proove the case!

Not acording to the rules of logic.

Is it unscientific to call the Theory of Evolution a theory? What I want, as I said in an earlier post, is for evolution to be presented for what it is…a theory. It is not fact. As you pointed out, it could be wrong.

DO you know what a scientific theory is? A theory in science is an explination that fits all the known evidence. Almost all of science is theory. A theory is held up until something comes along that is able to falsify the theory. For something to be a scientific theory it must be falsifiable and there for creation science is a misnomer. You cannot prove or disprove the existance of a creator, ergo, it is not a falsifiable theory, ergo, it is not a scientific theory.

 

[wanerious]

john doran:

i’m not sure what your criteria of “seriousness” are, so i am not sure how you are able to rank the papers; whether or not they are interesting to you is, of course, simply a matter of personal preference.

They are mildly interesting, though my enthusiasm is admittedly tempered by the fact that these are hardly peer-reviewed publications. It is additionally tempered by the fact that Setterfield is a blatantly dishonest or incredibly incompetent researcher. Any paper that attempts to average measurements made in the 1700’s with those made with modern equipment is one I immediately suspect of hogwash. Looking at the table from 1900-present, I would say that the average value has been increasing, not decaying. Were a paper written with extremely precise data gathered by the same method with the same equipment, say in the last 20 years or so (when this decay should be immediately detectable), now that would be interesting. But this effect is not to be found using modern equipment. Again, I suspect hogwash.

i imagine that this paper:

ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html

failed whatever test to which it was you subjected it, and which provides what the authors feel is good evidence for variance in c.

I’m not the most perceptive person in the world, but I sense a little snarkyness.

here’s another one for you, though perhaps it may fare equally poorly under the rigors of your scrutiny…

Yep, definitely snarky.

 

[john_doran]

Monarchy:

Not acording to the rules of logic.

perhaps you can provide the logical rules you believe would be violated in giving up the less certain of two contradictory propositions.

DO you know what a scientific theory is? A theory in science is an explination that fits all the known evidence. Almost all of science is theory.

that’s all well and good, but beside the point: if something’s a theory, then teach it as a theory - as having imperfections, gaps, and explanatory difficulties. which is precisely not the way evolutionary theory is presented.

A theory is held up until something comes along that is able to falsify the theory.

this is a little inexact: theories are replaced not only by those that falsify them, but by those that do any number of other explanatory work better than the current one - for instance, ones that are simpler, fit the data better, explain more of the data, integrate more easily with the rest of accepted theory, and even those that just appeal more to the scientific community at large…

it’s a little more complicated than you’re letting on, i think.

 

[wanerious]

anti-evolution bias? is that a typo? i ask only because the only time, in my 33 years of life, that i have ever (socially) encountered someone questioning evolutionary theory, has been online within the last year; i have been taught and have heard, everywhere i have turned, only that evolution is a “fact” about which we can be as sure as we are about things like relativity theory and chemistry and maybe even math.

weird.

I’d like to run in your circles. Here in the Bible Belt, fundamentalism is alive and well.

 

[john_doran]

wanerious:

They are mildly interesting, though my enthusiasm is admittedly tempered by the fact that these are hardly peer-reviewed publications. It is additionally tempered by the fact that Setterfield is a blatantly dishonest or incredibly incompetent researcher. Any paper that attempts to average measurements made in the 1700’s with those made with modern equipment is one I immediately suspect of hogwash. Looking at the table from 1900-present, I would say that the average value has been increasing, not decaying. Were a paper written with extremely precise data gathered by the same method with the same equipment, say in the last 20 years or so (when this decay should be immediately detectable), now that would be interesting. But this effect is not to be found using modern equipment. Again, I suspect hogwash.

fair enough. perhaps you can actually point out the error in his methodology, which he gives exhaustively, with references. or, if his methodology is at least self-consistent, point out its failings.

something other than a “feeling” that it’s hogwash. which i am sure wouldn’t fly coming as a response from a creationist to a detailed and carefully documented exposition of evolutionary theory.

I’m not the most perceptive person in the world, but I sense a little snarkyness.
…
Yep, definitely snarky.

i apologize for that - i was actually smiling bemusedly as i wrote it.

 

[john_doran]

wanerious:

I’d like to run in your circles. Here in the Bible Belt, fundamentalism is alive and well.

really? though i suspect that i have more in common with christian fundamentalists than “scientific” ones, i’m pretty sure running in ***your ***circles’d get tedious pretty fast for me.

 

[john_doran]

john doran:

perhaps you can provide the logical rules you believe would be violated in giving up the less certain of two contradictory propositions.

that’s all well and good, but beside the point: if something’s a theory, then teach it as a theory - as having imperfections, gaps, and explanatory difficulties. which is precisely not the way evolutionary theory is presented.

this is a little inexact: theories are replaced not only by those that falsify them, but by those that do any number of other explanatory chores better than the current one - for instance, ones that are simpler, fit the data better, explain more of the data, integrate more easily with the rest of accepted theory, and even those that just appeal more to the scientific community at large…

it’s a little more complicated than you’re letting on, i think.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Maybe I missed the infallible statements regarding evolution?

Peace

Tim

Yup! Here they are:

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Now pay attention to the pronouncements by prior Popes and infallibility.

 

[wanerious]

john doran:

fair enough. perhaps you can actually point out the error in his methodology, which he gives exhaustively, with references. or, if his methodology is at least self-consistent, point out its failings.

something other than a “feeling” that it’s hogwash. which i am sure wouldn’t fly coming as a response from a creationist to a detailed and carefully documented exposition of evolutionary theory.

I agree, and I’ll save the link. I’ll read it in more detail maybe this weekend.

 

[oriel36]

john doran:

fair enough. but i can tell you that i am interested in understanding what you believe is “the true astronomical framework that was destroyed to make way for Newtonian mechanics and the explanation of planetary motion by way of terrestial ballistics”.

can you elaborate?

thanks.

Sure ! but I am not interested in intellectual grandstanding and wish to keep it at a level that any reader can understand what is going on,at least those Catholics who have an interest in these things.

I need a specific diagram that does not exist on any website but exists in the vatican library.The diagram is Kepler’s Panis Quadragesimalis or ‘lenten Pretzel’.If anyone can help me out and present it,it would be brilliant as it makes any further explanation easier.*

To give you an idea just how badly Newton mangled the insight of Kepler with Roemer’s finite light distance insight have a look at this passage from Newton.

"PHÆNOMENON V.
Then the primary planets, by radii drawn to the earth, describe areas
no wise proportional to the times; but that the areas which they
describe by radii drawn to the sun are proportional to the times of
description.

For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes
of that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."
Principia

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

Bring in Kepler’s observations of the retrograde motion of mars by way of the Panis quadregesimalis which reflects the motion of Mars as seen from Earth over the course of many years against the backdrop of stars and you will see that Kepler was working off the motion of Mars from mean orbital distances drawn through the center of the Earth’s orbital motion while Newton used mean Sun/Earth distances .

There is a HUGH diiference between the two methods.

Again,If somebody can find the diagram of Kepler (which has to be in some Catholic archive) it will make things easier to compare to Newton’s erroneous astronomical format.

 

[wanerious]

john doran:

really? though i suspect that i have more in common with christian fundamentalists than “scientific” ones, i’m pretty sure running in ***your ***circles’d get tedious pretty fast for me.

Oh, I don’t know, I’m a pretty fun guy. But maybe you were smiling bemusedly again

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

This is the most “serious” and interesting, but they admit in their conclusion that a varying c causes a whole host of problems in fundamental physics. They do present what they consider a “minimal” changing-c theory, which they also admit is not without its problems. It is an interesting and necessary academic exercise, but as of yet there is no evidence of a changing c that would necessitate construction of such a theory.

Interesting thought I had - evolutionists arguments involve change - except they didn’t stop to think it could apply to the speed of light.

 

[john_doran]

oriel36:

Sure ! but I am not interested in intellectual grandstanding and wish to keep it at a level that any reader can understand what is going on,at least those Catholics who have an interest in these things.

wow. if that stuff you posted is for the average reader, then i’d hate to see intellectual grandstanding, because i couldn’t make head nor tails of it…

is there not a much simpler way you can:

1. present a synopsis of the the relevant portions of kepler;
2. the same for newton;
3. explain how they conflict; and
4. why that matters now, so many centuries after them both.

thanks.

 

[john_doran]

wanerious:

Oh, I don’t know, I’m a pretty fun guy. But maybe you were smiling bemusedly again

man. i seem to be continually coming-off as a bit of a jerk…

i only meant that i think it would be harder for me to live with christian fundamentalists than scientific “naturalists” or logical positivists ro whatever, despite my baseline (theological) commonalities with the fundamentalists. because i don’t like it when people are all up in my face, you know?

i’m fun, too. honest.

 

[oriel36]

john doran:

wow. if that stuff you posted is for the average reader, then i’d hate to see intellectual grandstanding, because i couldn’t make head nor tails of it…

is there not a much simpler way you can:

1. present a synopsis of the the relevant portions of kepler;
2. the same for newton;
3. explain how they conflict; and
4. why that matters now, so many centuries after them both.

thanks.

O.K. ,compare what Newton and Kepler wrote on the same matter.

“That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.” Newton

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

“The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances.” Kepler

The only astronomical justification for a Newtonian geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency (" whether of the sun about the earth, or…") is the sidereal astronomical format.

EUMETSAT | Monitoring the weather and climate from space

EUMETSAT is the European operational satellite agency for monitoring weather, climate and the environment.

www.eumetsat.int

Basically,this is where Isaac is getting his mean Sun/Earth distances for you can switch the positions of the Sun and Earth without any loss to the sidereal perspective however there are several things wrong in principle -

1 , The Earth does not rotate to face the Sun every 24 hours exactly

2 , there is no constant .986 deg orbital displacement for each axial rotation due to Kepler’s second law.

http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/PageMill_Resources/ellipse.gif
Circular and Elliptical Orbits Having the Same Period and Focus

---

Look,basically Isaac converted Flamsteed’s erroneous axial rotational/stellar circumpolar equivalency (23 hours 56 min 04 sec ) to a geocentric/heliocentric ORBITAL equivalency,not a very good idea John ,not very good at all.

In simple terms,it is a really bad idea to say the Earth rotates to the ‘fixed stars’ in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec and construct theories of planetary motion on such a view as Newton did.

Let me see how you are looking at planetary motion and particularly Keplerian motion.This is not a competition but rather a discussion with very good ends in mind,at least for those interested in astronomy and the difference between what we observe from Earth and what is really going on.It is as much a facet of Catholic tradition as anything else and I see far too little of it.

 

[john_doran]

oriel36:

In simple terms,it is a really bad idea to say the Earth rotates to the ‘fixed stars’ in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec and construct theories of planetary motion on such a view as Newton did.

Let me see how you are looking at planetary motion and particularly Keplerian motion.This is not a competition but rather a discussion with very good ends in mind,at least for those interested in astronomy and the difference between what we observe from Earth and what is really going on.It is as much a facet of Catholic tradition as anything else and I see far too little of it.

you know, i’m really trying to understand, but i’m afraid i just don’t get it: i can see that you feel newton made some kind of calculational error with regard to kepler, but, for the life of me, i can’t comprehend what you’re saying it is. i also can’t see what it has to do with the calculation of the speed of light…

please - if you could just explain in your own words what you’re getting at, or point me to a website that does so, it would be helpful.

thanks for your patience.