Dinosaurs and the Flood

[Freddy]

buffalo:

Wow, call me impressed with the quick research. And no you never pointed this out before. You never answered papers until now.

Did the paper pass peer review and no one caught this except you? Hmmmmm - smells… link the paper rebuttal and I will study it.

The reference https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/bi034769a I would have to purchase. It is acknowledged in the citations list.

So a paper by the ID guys about ID from an ID lab that never existed and was fraudulently represented via photoshop as being a lab and whose scientific information you don’t understand and are not qualified to interpret was never peer reviewed.

This is your…ahem…evidence for whatever it is you are trying to propose.

In the meantime…any comment on how all the races and languages and diferent religions emerged from 200 or so generations from one family? And we’re all waiting for your qualifications. Because, seriously, all you do is post links to papers that contain information that directly contradicts what you believe and which you don’t understand in any case.

Over to you.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Catholic Church does not hold that the Bible teaches science.

It does not. You’re right. But one thing we need to remember at least when it comes to early Genesis narratives, “time” is not an absolute, or so the astrophysicists tell us. It can be compressed or elongated by speed or mass or both. Anything happening “during” creation would not be according to our notion of time. A “day” could be a billion years or it could be a nanosecond. And if we were somehow present during it, it might still seem a “day” to us, either way.

 

[buffalo]

@freddy Nice hitpiece from wiki. Typical… People can visit these sites and judge for themselves.

Biologic Institute

Discovery Institute | Public policy think tank advancing a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation.

 

[buffalo]

Because, seriously, all you do is post links to papers

Yes, I post papers that back my positions. Very few here actually do that for or against. As time is going on the specific points I reference are converging on the issues that science is now trying to resolve with the EES. All is not so good in the Darwin camp. We see more complexity every day and that has to be explained. Blind unguided chance is not sufficient.

 

[NSmith]

I’ve already answered that photosynthesis, while an apt example of a local reduction in entropy as a result of energy (name removed by moderator)ut, does not address the problem that the large-scale increase in entropy must always occur. And considering that evolutionists who posit a development of life from the accidental presence of the necessary elements combined with a steady (name removed by moderator)ut of energy are required by statistical probability to resort to billions of years, they are not talking about the kind of thing that photosynthesis demonstrates, which no one denies.
it’s the same as the flippant article someone linked that attempted to dispense with the objection by saying that snow sometimes forms and therefore the second law of thermodynamics is not a valid objection. This is nonsense, and the situation is the same with photosynthesis, because neither snow nor photosynthesis are taking place over billions of years and resulting in a reduction in entropy which is roughly equivalent to the freezing of the entire volume of liquid water on the earth.

 

[Anrakyr]

This is nonsense, and the situation is the same with photosynthesis, because neither snow nor photosynthesis are taking place over billions of years and resulting in a reduction in entropy which is roughly equivalent to the freezing of the entire volume of liquid water on the earth.

That’s arguing in bad faith.

Lots of things seem to run counter to expectation in science but the exception doesn’t disprove the rule. Both chemistry and biology have such nichas that would baffle the untrained.

My favorite is for example thermal venting in space. Since space is a vacuum you can’t transmit heat. Something could be molten hot right beside you but you won’t know until you touched it. Overheating is a huge problem on the ISS.

Does that mean the laws of thermal dynamics goes out the window? No, it means we have to adapt our understanding.

 

[NSmith]

If it does run counter to the expectation then it needs to be demonstrated so that it can be understood, and there has not been any such demonstration because no one can prove that the events these people are guessing about actually took place and they cannot be repeated.
Attempting to show that abiogenesis occurred is the same as trying to show that the Resurrection occurred. We can observe the impact of those events on life today, and we can suppose about what is the most likely explanation for the impact we observe, but neither can be established empirically as fact, and I dispute that abiogenesis is even remotely likely. Furthermore, in the case of the Resurrection we have eyewitness accounts and there are none for abiogenesis.
If abiogenesis did not occur naturally, then there is no reason to suspect that any of the other jumps in evolution occurred naturally or even that the diversity of life that we see is a result evolutionary processes. We have a fossil record, but explanations for why the fossil record is what it is are at best educated guesses or at worst constructed hypotheses meant to validate the already held worldview of the observer. What Darwin rightly observed in his work was wrongly extrapolated to cover a vast amount of that fossil record, without evidence commensurate to the claims.
This is where I contest the scientific consensus at the moment, which to my understanding holds that life originated as single-celled organisms (possibly but not necessarily due to abiogenesis) and from there became what we see today through biogenesis. But neither form of innovation have any evidence other than extrapolation and “science fiction” to put it as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

 

[Anrakyr]

I think you are trying to tug on a singular thread in an attempt to undo a tapestry made by a master. Most people on this form are not scientist, therefore we do not have the ability to argue these higher facts.
That’s why we have professionals.

For Catholic who has faith you seem to have so little and your fellow man.

 

[billsherman]

Most people on this form are not scientist, therefore we do not have the ability to argue these higher facts.

One of the core beliefs of the anti-intellectual is that there is no such thing as an expert. Every man his own expert!

Expertise can be obtained from a wikipedia article or a youtube video. This might be the most damaging part of the anti-intellectual credo.

It’s precisely how you end up with people on this thread with no education, training, or experience in the relevant field trying to argue that biologists, physicists, and Biblical scholars are all wrong.

 

[NSmith]

Look, Christian apologists have wrestled with the pagan/atheist consensus from the start, and have made great progress in many areas. For example, the debate about whether or not the universe has an infinite past or a beginning, only concluded in the 20th century. And lo and behold the Christians, who were ridiculed by respected “professionals” for centuries, proved to be correct according to what is available to our observation, and we do suspect today that the universe had a beginning. In my view it will be the same with the origin of life and the reasons for life’s diversity.
Christians must hold at the very least that God created the universe through direct intervention, as we affirm in the Creed, “Creator of Heaven and Earth.” Although we do not hold that God used bodily hands to do so; as St. John Chrysostom explains, Scripture in this case condescends to speak in language that we as bodily creatures understand, but does not mean to say that Almighty God has a body like we do or is restricted to its operation.
So it is true that I have very little faith in mankind to answer these kinds of questions. I understand that for the entirety of human history we’ve been mistaken about almost everything having to do with our beginnings and the reasons for our existence, particularly when we’ve departed from the Truth which is Christ.
This is why I don’t consider any scientific claim or historical discovery to be a challenge to Faith. Because Faith, although based on the natural light of reason, receives its saving power from God as a gift, and our illumination therefore is not like the wisdom of the world. It stands to reason, then, that true Faith seems alien to those that are wise as the world considers men to be wise, and even sometimes results in what appears to be foolishness. The Lord’s ways are not our ways. Faith is not contrary to reason, but is the fulfillment and the right orientation of reason, the submission of reason to Truth. Neither will a man be cast into hell for mistakenly believing in geocentrism, but a man will be cast into hell for believing that God did not create mankind in His image. I do not accuse you, but I caution you and any who are following this thread, that there are some who are intentionally using science to destroy central claims of Faith. We do not have to seriously consider these people or their claims. Under Rome, when pagans attacked Christians as fools and atheists before the magistrate for declaring that the world had a beginning, Christians did not condescend to argue with them but gave their lives up in Faith and died resolute.

 

[PickyPicky]

If it does run counter to the expectation then it needs to be demonstrated so that it can be understood, and there has not been any such demonstration because no one can prove that the events these people are guessing about actually took place and they cannot be repeated.
Attempting to show that abiogenesis occurred is the same as trying to show that the Resurrection occurred. We can observe the impact of those events on life today, and we can suppose about what is the most likely explanation for the impact we observe, but neither can be established empirically as fact, and I dispute that abiogenesis is even remotely likely

We seem to have shifted from the extinction of dinosaurs to the theory of evolution to the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

The thrust of your argument seems to be that abiogenesis cannot be empirically demonstrated because study of such a hypothesis is an historical science, like geology: we cannot determine how the Alps were formed because we cannot form an Alp.

But geological theories are established by observing present-day processes, observing the results of what we now believe to be historical processes, and forming a hypothesis that draws these together and explains them better than other hypotheses.

The same is true of evolution, and the same may or may not be true of abiogenesis, which is a hypothetical work in progress.

Historical scientific theories may or may not be repeatable. That does not disqualify them.

 

[NSmith]

No, but if it is eminently impossible for an event to have taken place, then it is incredibly difficult to show with reasonable certainty that it happened at all. And since no one has ever seen life originate from unlife it would seem to be impossible. This is the same logic many people have applied to the Resurrection in my discussions with them, and it is a sound argument. I contend that there is not sufficient reason to suspect that abiogenesis happened, and so I reject it because no one has shown evidence to match the impossibility of the claim.
But you’re right that this doesn’t necessarily demonstrate anything about the theory of evolution because some evolutionists don’t hold that abiogenesis happened. I did continue to then dispense with biogenesis as well, which is a central claim of the theory of evolution. That being: a lizard eventually can become a bird if the conditions are just right and you give the lizard several hundred thousand, or maybe a million, generations.
This is again something that appears to be impossible, because we have never observed a lizard become a bird and don’t see any lizards in the process of doing so today. And I contend that there is not sufficient historical evidence to overcome the seemingly impossible fact. Therefore, I don’t believe that lizards ever became birds in the past or that any similar innovation occurred in other species. As such, I have rejected the idea that humans came from some any form of prior life without resorting to scientific entanglement, based purely on logical methods and historical facts. So it doesn’t even matter to me if people can claim that it should technically be possible for such evolution to occur in the vanishingly small percentage of cases, which is what the majority of inquiries into the subject are quibbling about. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. It would be like trying to scientifically show that you could, theoretically, resurrect someone.
I did present a few challenges to the research that has been conducted in order to make people think, but even if those challenges are met, it would not change my opinion because the standard of evidence is impossible to meet. To remain consistent with my belief in the Resurrection, that standard would be: eyewitness accounts or other historical evidence that have not been convincingly disposed of and which have been preserved over the course of time and the lack of an alternative explanation that also explains the existence of those facts.

 

[buffalo]

A really interesting discussion

What Happened to Evolution at the Royal Society?

 

[PickyPicky]

This is again something that appears to be impossible, because we have never observed a lizard become a bird and don’t see any lizards in the process of doing so today

We do see in fossils a history in which simple species appear, then more complex species appear, and there is then evidence of continuing change in the record of species. A hypothesis is formed, that these represent development of forms by evolution. A mechanism for this change is discovered in genetics. Then genetic change is seen in action, and indeed speciation is seen. Taken together these represent an explanation of the fossil record, and of the variety of species on Earth, and scientists are satisfied that this is the best explanation currently available to us.

It, of course, may appear impossible to those of us who judge by common sense — but then so does much else, and common sense is not a tool of scientific inquiry.

 

[Anrakyr]

I do not accuse you, but I caution you and any who are following this thread, that there are some who are intentionally using science to destroy central claims of Faith.

I know you are not accusing me. I do not take much said here personally. I trust we can disagree without thinking less of the other. With that said let’s move on.

For example, the debate about whether or not the universe has an infinite past or a beginning, only concluded in the 20th century.

I hate to use the Thor (2011) movie but I noticed you took a gander at my profile so feels oddly appropriate.
In the movie Thor says “I come from a place where magic and science are the same.”

This is reference to Clarks first Law; Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
To me (and I imagine others but I don’t expect people to be held to this belief) science plumbing the depths of existence doesn’t cheapen the divine, it merely makes it more incredible. Science isn’t here to rob you of your faith, if anything I hope it enhances it.

Neither will a man be cast into hell for mistakenly believing in geocentrism, but a man will be cast into hell for believing that God did not create mankind in His image.

Putting aside the implication that one must believe in God to go to heaven but you can’t go into science to confirm what you hope is true.
The only exception to this is if you vitally need equipment to work and you hope you can make it.

If you go into science to prove creation aside from confirmation bias you may rob yourself of finding out the wonders you could. That the act of creation maybe so deceptively simple and complex but because at first glance you fear it’s contrary to faith you miss the hand of the divine in it.

 

[NSmith]

I think you may be overstating the testimony of the fossil record, but it’s been years since the last time I sat down to consider neo-Darwinism seriously so I will take another look. Last time I looked into it, however, there were very few fossils that can’t also be explained by an already existing species of animal or a close relative that has gone recently extinct, and the evidence for the evolution of plants is almost nonexistent in the fossil record.
Also, intermediate species are not represented in the fossil record as we should expect, and several of the examples that have been pointed to as a “missing link” were actually hoaxes or examples of an existing species.
However, I am willing to grant that for many scientists it still appears the most likely explanation. Even so, they usually have a different understanding of reality than I do and so I don’t see a disagreement with them as being “anti-intellectual.”

 

[Pattylt]

As you look into the fossil record again, please make sure you go into it with the correct scientific understanding of what a transitional fossil actually is. Looking for a half dinosaur/half duck won’t get you any answers.

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

 

[NSmith]

These are the sort of examples that seem to be begging the question. That is to say that any feature shared between two distinct groups of animals today is considered in a fossil to establish some transitory species. For example tiktaalik roseae is considered a transitional fossil because it has an elbow/wrist joint whereas fish today don’t have elbows or wrists. But this to me seems to be assuming that the transition took place when there aren’t any other intermediate fossils of the transformation continuing afterward into a true reptile. This is blamed on incompleteness in the fossil record instead of the initial assumption of the paleontologist.
This would be like digging up a seal skeleton fifty million years from now and saying: “Aha, this clearly is a transitional link between a mammal and the fish that we have today, because it has fins and most mammals don’t have fins!”
Edit: I think this thread has been stretched so far beyond the OP’s question that I am going to open a new thread specifically for transitional fossils: Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

 

[otjm]

There is a tad bit of difference between teaching the Gospels are true, and that there are no allegories within the Gospels.

The Church has not said that the genealogies are literally factully complete; that would impose a modern understanding of genealogy with an understanding 3,000 to 5,000 years ago. The fact that people who were a critical part of the Jewish faith were remembered is not proof that they were in consecutive birth order.

 

[buffalo]

These are the sort of examples that seem to be begging the question.

Genetic classification will be better than homology.