How do you justify your beliefs when the Church tells you that it does not agree with your fundamentalist approach? You believe against the Church, and I’m interested as to why you continue to proclaim the Catholic faith when you obviously don’t agree with it. ?If you are wearing that collar, you are to be set upon a different standard, a higher standard, for you will be held to a higher account because of your position. If at any time you say there is something in the word is not true, you have just renounced God. You can decieve yourself all you want, you can put words in my mouth as you insist upon doing, I really got a kick out of that partial quote that was pasted here, you guys had fun with it, but how it was done, turned it into a lie, just as your statement how now I hate priests and all scientists.
No, I see where you are coming from, it’s certainly cloaked well with your claim that you have faith, but in the end, your faith in evolution has trumped your faith in God. I do not blend the two together, you are trying to do just that.
Continue your lies and accusations all you want, but know this, I know the truth and the truth is the word, not mans word, but God’s word.
Your delusion is as old as well, social darwinism, which to a degree you espouse without knowing it. By the way, science is not a tool, technology is. so you accept it when it works for you and reject it out of hand when it doesn’t. That sadly should tell you something.Both paths ultimately lead to the truth - gotta love that one, he he. thank you for showing what you are saying, how many times have the suto religions said the same thing.
Oh, now I’m the anti-scientist, thanks for the label, now for the truth. I look to science as a tool, nothing more, some tools are useful, others get shoved into the junk drawer, others fall apart in your hands and end up in the trash. The designer of the latter didn’t actually put in enough thought into creating it, so it falls apart while trying to actually use it, this is evolution.
Do you look to true science, as in something that is not based upon a narrow minded approach, I’m taking note, you cannot even attempt to think there is more to what God has created then you ever could possibly imagine. That your theories are trodding right on over the truth, that you are holding back science in the first place due to your narrow minded approach. There is a real science to it all we have yet to even dialog about, much less understand, the likes of which would make you shudder.
What if your theories are completely false, what if I found proof that all you know is completely wrong, that your observations are that of a child, and that God’s is the final authority in this matter. Nope, you’ll have nothing to do with that, the status quo doesn’t support it, so you don’t, you cannot possibly lead, you must always follow, you can’t imagine, you can only recite, this is why I say, you are in the dark ages, you cannot see the real science while your’s is obscured. I can just imagine this same argument, going back to when they thought the world was flat, I would be the guy that insisted it was not, yet you would fit right in with the status quo insisting upon the fact it was flat and here is why, and if I didn’t agree with you, I was labled ignorant.
Sir I beg to differ. You have called everyone who believes in evolution a heretic. Most priests do, including both JPII and Benedict. So you do endict the priesthood, and the Catholic church for that matter. You are way of out step with the Church sir. We are not fundamentalists period.I never said that, and again, you guys are trying to put words in my mouth.
And you know this, because someone told you so. So where do we go to see this wonder being performed? And if they can’t do it, what makes you think the story they told you is true?I’m not practicing the Kabala, I’m merely pointing out one of the things they did, that’s all.
Really! The matter that buried Pompeii was shown to be only 1,925 years old?umm… here…they dated the material that buried Pompeii:
To everyone’s surprise the date given by the argon-argon dating technique was 1,925 years ago – off by only seven years. The scientific error on the estimate was plus or minus 94 years.
No, it was solidified 1,925 years ago. When it’s liquid, argon escapes. So when it solidifies, the clock is reset.Really! The matter that buried Pompeii was shown to be only 1,925 years old?
No.Was this a brand new creation which did it not exist from the beginning of time?
See above. And look here:How are you differentiating between the age of matter and the age of material that is composed of matter?
But is there is no way to measure the age of the initial matter that was created and which all things are made up of?No, it was solidified 1,925 years ago. When it’s liquid, argon escapes. So when it solidifies, the clock is reset.
SpiritMeadow, I had never encountered leave-your-brains-on-the-doormat Catholics before I joined Catholic Answers. Where do these people actually live? I’ve never run across one in the different parishes I’ve worshipped in, in widely varied regions of the world (England, France, Italy, Nigeria, Australia, Argentina, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Illinois, Georgia, Texas, Michigan, California, Washington, Hawaii, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Colorado).Sir I beg to differ. You have called everyone who believes in evolution a heretic. Most priests do, including both JPII and Benedict. So you do endict the priesthood, and the Catholic church for that matter. You are way of out step with the Church sir. We are not fundamentalists period.
None that are of any interest to biology. A physicist would have to tell you about others. We do have some measures, and I’ll look them up for you, if you like. Geology and paleontology merely want to know how old the rock is, not how old the universe is.But is there is no way to measure the age of the initial matter that was created and which all things are made up of?
Isochrons. Would you like to learn how that works?If one measures the age of such and such rock, how does one know that when it was created, it didn’t initially contain x non-decayed measuring units?
Something to contemplate further along where you are going with this reasoning. It’s been proven scientifically that all matter is energy and that all energy is matter, as in, nothing ceases to exist in our universe, only changes form, they are both interchangable, something may be energy one day, matter the next, then back to energy again. How can you carbon date something like that?But is there is no way to measure the age of the initial matter that was created and which all things are made up of?
If one measures the age of such and such rock, how does one know that when it was created, it didn’t initially contain x non-decayed measuring units?
Carbon dating is used to tell how long ago something that was once living died - more specifically when it stopped absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. The “from the atmosphere” part means carbon dating does not work on marine organisms. E = Mc[sup]2[/sup] has no effect on carbon dating. We know the decay rates of radioactive carbon and have checked them long into the past. We know the levels of atmospheric rediocarbon because we have measured them. We know the the calibration tables for carbon dating are accurate because we have checked them against the Lake Suigetsu varves, the Lake Baikal varves and tree-ring data. Three different dating methods all agree, and two of them are just counting 1, 2, 3, 4, … It is not difficult to carbon date organic material.How can you carbon date something like that?
Oh the internet simply reflects people who are interested enough and angry enough to engage in it. You will see very little middle of the road discussion on any topic from A to Z as they say. Anthing that is controversial attracts people who are upset with the way things are. The reactionary right of the Catholic church upon further research is well documented in any number of books and publications as being a distinct minority. Their joining with fundamentalist baptist churches on the issues of abortion and gay rights is also well documented, mostly revolving around the Bush elections. They part company on most other issues of course, since fundies have little problem with contraception, and several other of the life issues. They are the highest divorcing group in the US as well, and that doesn’t bother our reactionary Catholics one bit. Oddly they thoroughly decry any joining of forces between Catholics and their pet hatreds such as gay alliances where the point is to erradicate hunger in a community. That is just wrong because we would be condoning the gays and their lifestyle. They don’t seem to have any problem with condoning the divorcing fundies though.Odd wouldn’t you say?SpiritMeadow, I had never encountered leave-your-brains-on-the-doormat Catholics before I joined Catholic Answers. Where do these people actually live? I’ve never run across one in the different parishes I’ve worshipped in, in widely varied regions of the world (England, France, Italy, Nigeria, Australia, Argentina, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Illinois, Georgia, Texas, Michigan, California, Washington, Hawaii, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Colorado).
I wonder if the Internet is a breeding ground for this kind of reactionary mindset, a mindset that denies both science and theology in the service of a wooden biblical literalism. It is perplexing.
It is odd, but I’ve never seen consistency in the conservative mindset anyway. A lot of big-time Republican candidates have been divorced (even) twice and that is tacitly not mentioned as long as the candidate is sufficiently anti-gay and pro-life.Oh the internet simply reflects people who are interested enough and angry enough to engage in it. … The reactionary right of the Catholic church upon further research is well documented in any number of books and publications as being a distinct minority. Their joining with fundamentalist baptist churches on the issues of abortion and gay rights is also well documented, mostly revolving around the Bush elections… They don’t seem to have any problem with condoning the divorcing fundies though.Odd wouldn’t you say?
Quite so. We depend on the fact that people rarely store cotton for very long without spining and weaving it. But we always need to keep in mind that we only really know when the plant grew.Well, here’s what has me preplexed on it, we’ll take plant matter, dry it, and at a later date, use ot to weave cloth, you carbon date the cloth back to when the plant died, yet cannot date when the cloth was made.
Right again. When the original carbon has been replaced by geologic carbon, you get nonsense when you try to date it by C-14. There are other radiometric methods, such as Argon/Argon that do work, however.We then get into fossle records, where the original matter has been replaced by minerals, ie. turned to stone, there is no organic matter to date, for it has all left.
Right once again. Ancient campfires, for example, if exposed to groundwater, can be contaminated.We then go back to the original living matter and know, it has not been stored in a vaccume, the material itself has been corruped by outside elements over the years, and what we are dating is not only the original object, but what it has naturally absorbed from exposure to the elements, some of these elements it’s exposed to may have originated from an earlier and later time of the original objects creation, thus obscuring the actual date.
Correct, we cannot tell how long it was between the plant dying and the cloth being woven.Well, here’s what has me preplexed on it, we’ll take plant matter, dry it, and at a later date, use ot to weave cloth, you carbon date the cloth back to when the plant died, yet cannot date when the cloth was made.
Correct, we do not use carbon dating on a mineralised fossil. Apart from anything else, and radioactive carbon that was once present would have decayed long ago. Carbon dating is only good for up to 60,000 years ago. In general we cannot directly date the rock that fossils are made of, we have to use less direct methods. Ideally we look for a datable layer below the fossil and a datable layer above the fossil. We can date those two layers and get an age range for the fossil. Datable layers are usually volcanic, molten rock loses a lot of gas so that the radiometric clocks like Argon-Argon (Argon is a gas) are set back to zero. We can date the volcanic layer from the amount of Argon present.We then get into fossle records, where the original matter has been replaced by minerals, ie. turned to stone, there is no organic matter to date, for it has all left.
Contamination of samples is indeed a problem. There are two solutions. The first is the isochron method, an uncontaminated samlple gives a straight line on an isochron plot, a contaminated sample does not give a straight line. By looking at the isochron plot we can estimate how straight the line is and hence how much contamination has occurred. Samples with too much contamination are rejected. The second solution is to take multiple samples and date them by different methods. If all the methods agree then the date is likely to be correct, if the methods do not agree then we know we have a problem.Take the cloth for example, if it were to be exposed to humidity, it has the potential to soak up external elements like a sponge, when you are dating it, you are assuming it has not and not only are dating the original object, you are dating the accumulation of debree within it at the same time.
Evolution is sound science strongly backed by evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that you choose to ignore.Evolution is a strong deception that you chose to believe.
“Evolution” is the strongest, best substantiated explanatory framework for biological diversity on earth. “Creation” is a theolgoical doctrine of the ontological dependence of the universe on God. If you perceive a contradiction between creation and evolution, you do not correctly understand either one.Evolution is a strong deception that you chose to believe.