Darwin and evolution

[Orogeny]

I assure you,the answer is 24 hours exactly even if you are unaware how the average 24 hour day is transfered to daily rotation as a ‘constant’ -

Average? If the day is exactly 24 hours, why use an average figure? Did you check out the link I gave you?

Many Christians know how accurate clocks were devloped to act as rulers of distance based on 4 minutes of clock time equaling 1 degree of geographical separation and 24 hours/360 degrees -

esri.com/lewisandclark/locationthen.html

I’m sure even you will acknowledge, well, maybe not, that our ability to measure time is better today than it was in 1803-1806.

The empiricist created a conclusion that a star returning back to a location every 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds represents the constant daily rotation of the Earth despite the fact that astronomers since antiquity up to Huygens never ,ever referenced the daily cycle to any external celestial object and never as a ‘constant’,that was something John Flamsteed did.

Didn’t look at the link I gave you, eh. Take a look at it. You might learn something.

So,do Christians really want to be identified with the poorest possible conclusion in astronomy as well as evolutionary biology.To answer that,they better look in the mirror.

Yes or no on evolution?

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel16]

Yes or no on evolution?

Peace

Tim

How many people are faced with this question while the Christian authorities do nothing.Your question is a rigged one that I see many,many times,if you do not accept Darwin/evolution then a person must be into creationism/religion.It is not so much an injustice to me but the horror in seeing people of simple faith assaulted with taunts of superstition and myth is intolerable.Biological evolution emerged from the wonderful Christian soul of Steno,a fact many here choose to ignore or have not encountered -

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/history_04

The question you propose is so narrow from your empirical perspective that it looks like an accusation.I would never return the same question because I know the limits of your inquiry and the same goes for all those who follow evolutionary biology under an empirical banner.

Evolutionary biology was once a magnificent facet within evolutionary geology until Darwin injected a ‘cause’ via an essay on racial supremacy.Looking at the cowardice of my fellow Christians here and the sheer dullness as to basic astronomical and terrestrial facts,it is hard to see Christ and Christianity represented never mind the great Christian science heritage.

What plan God has,I do not know but in the midst of a holocaust,and make no mistake about this,it is an intellectual holocaust ,some goodness will eventually come out of it.People were supposed to register shock at the connection between racial supremacy and biological evolution at the core of Darwin’s ‘cause’ ,that they did not,is something I have to accept without prejudice.

Remember now,there is a specific reason why daily rotation is 24 hours exactly and why there is no external reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees and certainly not the idiotic conclusion by John Flamsteed in 23hrs56min04 seconds.When a person can answer that basic technical question correctly,I will welcome him as a genuine scientist

 

[Orogeny]

How many people are faced with this question while the Christian authorities do nothing.Your question is a rigged one that I see many,many times,if you do not accept Darwin/evolution then a person must be into creationism/religion.It is not so much an injustice to me but the horror in seeing people of simple faith assaulted with taunts of superstition and myth is intolerable.Biological evolution emerged from the wonderful Christian soul of Steno,a fact many here choose to ignore or have not encountered -

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/history_04

The question you propose is so narrow from your empirical perspective that it looks like an accusation.I would never return the same question because I know the limits of your inquiry and the same goes for all those who follow evolutionary biuology under an empirical banner.

Evolutionary biology was once a magnificent facet within evolutionary geology until Darwin injected a ‘cause’ via an essay on racial supremacy.Looking at the cowardice of my fellow Christians here and the sheer dullness as to basic astronomical and terrestrial facts,it is hard to see Christ and Christianity represented never mind the great Christian science heritage.

What plan God has,I do not know but in the midst of a holocaust,and make no mistake about this,it is an intellectual holocaust ,some goodness will eventually come out of it.

Blah, blah, blah. Yes or no on evolution.

Remeber now,there is a specific reason why daily rotation is 24 hours exactly and why there is no external reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees and certainly not the idiotic conclusion by John Flamsteed in 23hrs56min04 seconds.

Still didn’t read the link I provided. I have not once mentioned that time. Why do you keep bringing it up? Check out the link.

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel16]

Blah, blah, blah. Yes or no on evolution.

Tim

Maybe somebody else can explain to you that biological evolution is not Darwin’s distorted version of it and seeing you reduced to this type of response generates more anger in me towards my very silent fellow Christians than any reaction to you.

books.google.ie/books?id=nBp7vHOIrX8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=riddle+of+the+universe&ei=ei2bSZnLLaKIyAS7uYn7Cg

100 years ago ,Darwin’s followers were predicting that religion was played out ,people such as Haeckel ,likewise the communists and now the empiricists ,but the heart and goodness of Christianity lives on through love and where that is then so is God.

Now,somebody has to take that step in pointing out the illegal transfer of a social/racial document to a evolutionary biological principle.I will do what I can to ease the expected reaction but it must come from a Christian source.That is all for the moment.

 

[StAnastasia]

There is debate among Catholic scientists and since I am a Catholic, they are the ones I look to for answers.

Is this hope on your part, or do you actually have names of published and widely respected biologists, geneticists, or paleontolgoists who doubt evolution?

StAnastasia

 

[rossum]

I assure you,the answer is 24 hours exactly even if you are unaware how the average 24 hour day is transfered to daily rotation as a ‘constant’

If you are going to argue about sceince, then you would do well to learn more about science. An hour is defined as 60 minutes. A minute is defined as 60 seconds. A second is defined as “the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.” SI definition as used in science. The period of rotation of the earth is not exactly 24 hours, hence the need for occasional leap seconds. To quote from the historical background of the NIST link above: The unit of time, the second, was defined originally as the fraction 1/86 400 of the mean solar day. The exact definition of “mean solar day” was left to astronomical theories. However, measurement showed that irregularities in the rotation of the Earth could not be taken into account by the theory and have the effect that this definition does not allow the required accuracy to be achieved. In order to define the unit of time more precisely, the 11th CGPM (1960) adopted a definition given by the International Astronomical Union which was based on the tropical year. Experimental work had, however, already shown that an atomic standard of time-interval, based on a transition between two energy levels of an atom or a molecule, could be realized and reproduced much more precisely. Considering that a very precise definition of the unit of time is indispensable for the International System, the 13th CGPM (1967) decided to replace the definition of the second by the following (affirmed by the CIPM in 1997 that this definition refers to a cesium atom in its ground state at a temperature of 0 K):

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
Your lack of scientific knowledge is showing in many places. I strongly suggest that you correct this lack before trying to use scientific arguments further. You are being less effective than I am sure that you want to be.

rossum

 

[Kscrawler]

1. 
   *]A very large majority of all scientists believe that evolution has/is ocurring.
   
   *]Some folks have used the information in item 1 above to advance their atheisitic agenda, or an agenda of racial superiority.
   
   *]The fact that some folks use evolution for their own purposes does not invalidate evolution, but rather shows the error of those using it incorrectly.
   
   *]The Catholic church has no official teaching that believing in evolution is heretical, despite the fact that many folks wish it did.
   
   *]Almost everyone believes that you can be a faithful Catholic and not believe in a literal genesis, this includes many of the early church fathers.
   
   Have I been unfair, have I missed anything?

 

[oriel16]

If you are going to argue about sceince, then you would do well to learn more about science. An hour is defined as 60 minutes. A minute is defined as 60 seconds. A second is defined as “the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.” SI definition as used in science. The period of rotation of the earth is not exactly 24 hours, hence the need for occasional leap seconds.

rossum

You have thousands of years of astronomical history along with the technical arguments and documents working against you and supporting the conclusion as to why the Earth turns through 360 degrees in 24 hours exactly and not the 23 hr56min04sec value.

In any case,thank you for the empirical razzle dazzle of the hyperfine this or that,I am sure it impresses the hell out of people who know no better but you are effectively still working off the false premise and conclusion drawn by John Flamsteed as the scaffolding on which Newton created his ‘laws’ of motion.In short,not only is Darwin’s version of evolution an invalid adaption of a social commentary on racial supremacy applied to biological evolution,empiricists can’t even fall back on Newton’s ‘laws of physics’ .

If the Christian authorities had not decided to take a holiday from their expansive and rich scientific tradition,I would not be here explaining to you that leap corrections are exclusively an annual orbital adjustment with the calendar system and have nothing whatsoever to do with daily rotation.The Church convened to resolve the anomaly which occurs when the fraction of days cannot be meshed with the leap day correction every 4th year hence the Gregorian maneuver to make 10 days vanish in order to restore the calendar to its cyclical orbital framework based on 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes…

To quote from the historical background of the NIST link above: The unit of time, the second, was defined originally as the fraction 1/86 400 of the mean solar day. The exact definition of “mean solar day” was left to astronomical theories. However, measurement showed that irregularities in the rotation of the Earth could not be taken into account by the theory and have the effect that this definition does not allow the required accuracy to be achieved.

rossum

Again,false premise and conclusion and here is why -

To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.

" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon’d from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers’d in Astronomy. …"

Huygens explains that there is no external reference for 24 hours or rather,the natural noon cycle from which the 24 hour day is extracted is never equal.The noon correction called the Equation of Time therefore creates the 24 hour day and keeps these 24 hour days elapsing seamlessly into each other.People here know this as the 24 hours of Monday turns into the 24 hours of Tuesday and so on .The calendar correction on Feb 29th keeps this seamless 24 hour cycle with the Church adding an innovative refinement at the time of calendar reform. Wonderful Church history behind all this but sadly abandoned today.

The correction which creates the average 24 hour cycle and keeps the cycles ticking over from Monday into Tuesday also serves another purpose by keeping the daily cycle as a ‘constant’,not as an observation but as a convenience.There is no external reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees but the sheer brilliance of the astronomical timekeepers allowed the correlation between the 24 hour clock and daily rotation to stick as 4 minutes for 1 degree of longitude/geographical separation and 24 hours/360 degrees.

Flamsteed created a false conclusion that there is an external reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees and that is where you are drawing a false relationship betwen leap corrections and daily rotation.Despite what NIST says,timekeeping astronomers before Flamsteed never,ever tied daily rotation to an external celestial reference and never as a constant.

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
Your lack of scientific knowledge is showing in many places. I strongly suggest that you correct this lack before trying to use scientific arguments further. You are being less effective than I am sure that you want to be.

rossum

I am sure the wider population is impressed by that stuff but there is no astronomical support for the unfortunate conclusion Flamsteed drew in respect to daily rotation and the return of a star to a meridian.I know what he actually did and how he did it but I have to present the genuine Christian astronomical heritage first and especially the wonderful means by which astronomers created the 24 hour cycle we see as Monday turning into Tuesday ect.

I would insist that the Church convene a tribunal or commission to sort out this unholy and anti-Christian mess because when you get to a stage where you cannot explain how the 24 hours of Monday turn into the 24 hours of Tuesday then we may have reached an intellectual nadir.

 

[oriel16]

1. 
   *]A very large majority of all scientists believe that evolution has/is ocurring.
   
   *]Some folks have used the information in item 1 above to advance their atheisitic agenda, or an agenda of racial superiority.
   
   *]The fact that some folks use evolution for their own purposes does not invalidate evolution, but rather shows the error of those using it incorrectly.
   
   *]The Catholic church has no official teaching that believing in evolution is heretical, despite the fact that many folks wish it did.
   
   *]Almost everyone believes that you can be a faithful Catholic and not believe in a literal genesis, this includes many of the early church fathers.
   
   Have I been unfair, have I missed anything?

1. 
   Yes
   
   It is an affront to intelligence and humanity’s investigation of terrestrial and celestial phenomena to accept a proposition based on a commentary of racial supremacy and apply it to the diversity of God’s creation.
   
   The only thing dumber than the empiricists are the Christians who excuse them and I mean that.

 

[StAnastasia]

1. 
   *]A very large majority of all scientists believe that evolution has/is ocurring.
   
   *]Some folks have used the information in item 1 above to advance their atheisitic agenda, or an agenda of racial superiority.
   
   *]The fact that some folks use evolution for their own purposes does not invalidate evolution, but rather shows the error of those using it incorrectly.
   
   *]The Catholic church has no official teaching that believing in evolution is heretical, despite the fact that many folks wish it did.
   
   *]Almost everyone believes that you can be a faithful Catholic and not believe in a literal genesis, this includes many of the early church fathers.
   
   Have I been unfair, have I missed anything?

1. 
   Sounds fair to me.

 

[oriel16]

Sounds fair to me.

Darwin’s amusement and delight on an essay about racial supremacy turned into an attack on the Christ and Christianity and God’s creation,how ,for goodness sake,could that possibly happen !!.Why don’t you just convert to empiricism and wear as swastika because I am wrecking my brains wondering how people who consider themselves Christians are staying silent or behaving as though it were the most normal thing.

These people would see Christianity finished tommorrow and this is your reaction !.

“In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work.”(The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, edited by Nora Barlow, 1958.)

"In these savage contests many tribes must have been utterly exterminated. Some, probably, perished by hardship and famine. Others, whose leading star had given them a happier direction, became great and powerful tribes, and, in their turns, sent off fresh adventurers in search of still more fertile seats. The prodigious waste of human life occasioned by this perpetual struggle for room and food was more than supplied by the mighty power of population, acting, in some degree, unshackled from the consent habit of emigration. The tribes that migrated towards the South, though they won these more fruitful regions by continual battles, rapidly increased in number and power, from the increased means of subsistence. Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians, brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation, and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the means of supporting it. "

ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.3.html

.

 

[Kscrawler]

Yes

It is an affront to intelligence and humanity’s investigation of terrestrial and celestial phenomena to accept a proposition based on a commentary of racial supremacy and apply it to the diversity of God’s creation.

The only thing dumber than the empiricists are the Christians who excuse them and I mean that.

It is an affront to intelligence to take the clear diversity of God’s creation as created through God’s evolutionary plan and reject that plan because others use it for the false premise of racial supremacy. Do you reject the idea that people can take truth and twist it for their own devices?

That is what is being done with evolution by the racial supremacy issue. But even so no reputable scientist to accepts the evolutionary theory believes in the false and discarded premise of racial supremacy. That ship has sailed and sunk in the tides of time, but the facts of evolution still exist.

 

[gam197]

There is a CD called "Evolution, the Hoax Destroying Christendom by J.W.C Johnson which costs $6.00.(This CD is excellent as it helps the lay catholic understand about carbon dating and gives information on each human fossil that was found…)

Humani Generis - written August 12, 1950 by Pope Pius XII,(encyclical on evolution) at a cost of $1.50.

They are available Seton Home School (540-636-9996) or Keep the Faith(201-327-5900)

originally posted** by Oregeny**
Of course it is fear.

Catholic do not fear truth.

Why? Did you wait for the Pope and the Magisterium to produce an encyclical on gravity?

Galileo was very involved with the church and was asked not to present his material as fact as the church did not want the lay people who could not even read to misunderstand the information.

There are currently at least 4 threads on this site on evolution, mostly on Apologetics. One has over 540 posts and the other 800 posts. What is the point of belaboring this?

I agree with what my Church teaches which is that discussions are taking place but at this time, they do not feel there is conclusive evident to issue a firm statement for or against macro evolution.

 

[Orogeny]

Catholic do not fear truth.

Some obviously do.

Galileo was very involved with the church and was asked not to present his material as fact as the church did not want the lay people who could not even read to misunderstand the information.

There are currently at least 4 threads on this site on evolution, mostly on Apologetics. One has over 540 posts and the other 800 posts. What is the point of belaboring this?

I enjoy it, but since you brought it up, why do you continue posting to this thread?

I agree with what my Church teaches which is that discussions are taking place but at this time, they do not feel there is conclusive evident to issue a firm statement for or against macro evolution.

I agree with what the Church teaches as well. I don’t have a problem with the Church not making a definitive statement on evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[a_burger]

You can believe in Darwin or believe in Jesus. Jesus said Scripture was God breathed meaning Genesis was correct. I think that should end the discussion.

 

[Kscrawler]

You can believe in Darwin or believe in Jesus. Jesus said Scripture was God breathed meaning Genesis was correct. I think that should end the discussion.

It is quite easy to believe in the theory of evolution and also be a good Catholic. The Church has affirmed this more than once.

When it seems to someone that there is a conflict between science and scripture you have to recognize that is impossible, since both came from God. So the possibilities are that the science is wrong, or that your interpretation of scripture is wrong.

The Catholic Church has made it clear that your interpretation of scripture is wrong. Now I think we can end the discussion.

 

[StAnastasia]

Why don’t you just convert to empiricism and wear as swastika because I am wrecking my brains wondering how people who consider themselves Christians are staying silent or behaving as though it were the most normal thing. These people would see Christianity finished tommorrow and this is your reaction !.

Convert to empiricism? I already employ it in science. Wear a Swastika? That ancient symbol has been ruined.

Lots of people would see Christianity finished tomorrow. So?

 

[StAnastasia]

You can believe in Darwin or believe in Jesus. Jesus said Scripture was God breathed meaning Genesis was correct. I think that should end the discussion.

I believe in Jesus. I honor Darwin.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

So, as I expected my response basically went unanswered save for the one reply submitted and once I reponded to it that responds was completely ignored… I wonder, why is that?

 

[StAnastasia]

So, as I expected my response basically went unanswered save for the one reply submitted and once I reponded to it that responds was completely ignored… I wonder, why is that?

It had already been answered in post #96. If you think it wasn’t answered adequately, maybe that’s an indication you have a promising paper to propose for the next AAAS meeting.