EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mpartyka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BTW, if there’s anything Discerner did to be forgiven for, I do forgive him.

Being wrong is not an offense, and I chose to believe that he is simply wrong, not malicious. Saying exactly what you believe to be true is a virtue, not a sin.

So I see no offense to forgive.
 
grannymh said:
It would be helpful to go back to post 791. The question which still has not been answered is: What exactly is the potential gain of the Hadron Collider? – What is its huge positive gain?Blessings,grannyAll human life has a right to existence
Click to expand...
grannymh, one could ask, what exactly is the potential gain of the Iraq war, which has wasted hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars? In other words, it seems hypocritical to complain about the cost of building a hadron collider, and not to oppose the cost of this illegal war.
 
I recently ran across this quote from St. Basil the Great:

“If visible things are so beautiful, what will be the invisible? If the grandeur of the heavens transcends the measure of the human intellect, what mind will be able to explore the nature of the everlasting?”
 
rad314 said:
I recently ran across this quote from St. Basil the Great:

“If visible things are so beautiful, what will be the invisible? If the grandeur of the heavens transcends the measure of the human intellect, what mind will be able to explore the nature of the everlasting?”
Click to expand...
That’s a lovely quotation – I like it!

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
What industry did you work in? Those are rigorous communication standards.
Click to expand...
I have worked for top administrators in the general area of development/public relations. Because of what I was writing and for whom I was writing is why I was held to tough standards. I never returned formally to that field after marriage; other interests took over.

I did find answers to my questions about the Hadron Collider and the US Femilab in previous posts. Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is precious.
Refuse FOCA
 
Originally Posted by hecd2 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
My comment about this might seem a little unchivalrous and I beg your pardon in advance. You are, of course, entitled to disagree with me, but unless you have read the twenty or so papers on this matter that I referenced for you (rather than merely their titles) your opinion is not informed.

“An aged man is but a paltry thing,
A tattered coat upon a stick, unless
Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing
For every tatter in its mortal dress.”

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
Dear Alec,

Before this thread reaches its limit of posts, here is my reply to the above post 627, page 42. This isn’t the first time, I’ve deserved having my head on a platter and I’m sure it won’t be the last. However, you could have been a bit more chivalrous by giving me some links.

I used “search” on your website. Takahata & Hammer produced no matches. Tanesa had lots of matches but I haven’t read them yet. Ayala, Zhao & mtDNA led me to interesting papers on basic evolution and Dr. Carl Wieland of AnswersinGenesis.Org. I checked out this creationist website briefly but did not want to get distracted from the important matter at hand. Besides I like reading about dinosaurs evolving.

The information about Mitochondrial Eve was very interesting. Especially footnote 5. Cann, Stoneking and Wilson paper which added to my vocabulary. I also appreciated when you put in definitions.

When I checked the following, I landed on Nordborg Lab which said that the page doesn’t exist. 11) Nordborg, *Coalescent Theory, *March 2000, available on-line here: walnut.usc.edu/~magnus/papers/wiley.pdf Please note that I normally don’t check footnotes unless there is something in the text which intrigues me.

I did get lost in the middle of the paper on the Bible literalist’s Eve. Personally, I don’t think that it is necessary to find her or her birthday.

The section on “Neanderthals are the same species as us?” was comforting for obvious reasons. That is if I read it right that we are not the same species as Neanderthals. If the Ridley in your footnote is Matt Ridley, his article in the February 2009 National Geographic looks appealing. I have a special room in my home for reading magazine articles. “Green et al, Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA,” sounded impressive because of the number of samples tested.

At this point, I should share my method for reading the references you gave me. Since I cannot read them from the viewpoint of a scientist, I read them from my own experience as a writer, assistant editor, and professional gofer in a variety of jobs.

First I look for numbers as a way of evaluating the evidence. Since I don’t have a scientific model to use for comparison, I am using the clinical study AREDS , major clinical trial regarding age-related Macular Degeneration, conducted by the National Eye Institute a few years back. The magic number was 4,000 selected participants at clinics across the U.S. times x amount of years. Thus, a fairly good representation was assured even though there were drop-outs. The new AREDS 2 study is looking for 4,000 participants at 100 clinics. When I read reports of health-type studies, I automatically exclude ones with low participation.

However, individual scientists do not always have resources compared to the National Eye Institute. Even so, I consider numbers like 134 samples and 147 people too low. The results could be valid on a large scale or not be valid. To me, they are full of possibilities but still doubtful. One million based pairs is an impressive number but I would still like to read it. However, I’m thinking that it might be too technical for me.

AREDS was very clear about the protocol for the study. I would rely on your judgment about protocol used for research. Though I did find that different techniques were being used. It was also interesting that information was being pooled. The final report of AREDS included detailed data on what worked, what complications arose, and how the conclusions were formed. The final paper was presented to the American College of Physicians and published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

While I did find indications of what happened to some of the genomic research, again, I would rely on your evaluation as to publication status and peer review, etc. I paid attention to Discussion, Conclusion, Consideration, Prospects, Analysis. The one thing I consider very important is what I would call qualifications, or qualifying words. Actually, I’m not sure if I am using the right term. Sorry. When I was working, this type of writing was done to protect one’s posterior. But it can also be seen as an invitation to further research funding.

Obviously, I am looking at “science” in a very different way than you do. That is probably because the audience I wrote for is different from yours. Please be assured that I find what I read an extremely fascinating challenge. All these little bits of the puzzle of human nature are amazing. I am grateful for the discoveries of science. I’m far from reading all the research, but could we pause for some discussion?

Blessings,
granny

Human life comes from a loving Creator.
 
Who has the convincing defense of Theistic Evolution?

Who has at least a partial defense of Theistic Evolution?

Anyone?

Any guesses?

:confused:

Early morning blessings,
granny

Eve & Adam need a friend. Soon.
 
grannymh said:
Who has the convincing defense of Theistic Evolution? Who has at least a partial defense of Theistic Evolution?
Click to expand...
Grannymh, I’m not sure precisely what you’re asking. The “defense” of evolution involves looking at the evidence of the long history and diversity of life on earth, and assessing the evolutionary explanation for that diversity. The “defense” of theism involves looking at the long human history of theistic belief, and the diversification of this belief into Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and other religious traditions.

A defense of theistic evolution would involve looking at how religious traditions have adapted to the understanding of the world as we know it through the sciences.

StAnastasia
 
I have been out of this thread for a while because i wanted to find some really good evideince against evolution and i FOUND IT! here it is…

The Earth has a Magnetic Field, Right? Right!

The field has been watching it for quite some time now, and scientist have found that the earth’s Magnetic Field is decaying at a Constant and gradual rate.

Scientist have now reversed the rate in math and science and found that if the field is added to, as in we hit the rewind button, once it gets past 10,000 years the field becomes so Strong that earth is ripped apart. .

Soooo, what do you do with that?
 
Dchsknight said:
The Earth has a Magnetic Field, Right? Right!
Click to expand...
Correct.
The field has been watching it for quite some time now, and scientist have found that the earth’s Magnetic Field is decaying at a Constant and gradual rate.
Click to expand...
False. The earth’s magnetic field has indeed changed over time but not at a constant rate. Sometimes it reverses direction so the South Pole is near Canada and the North Pole is in Antarctica. I suspect that you have been lied to by a creationist source, since it is usually creationist sources that propagate this false information about the earth’s magnetic field. This falsehood is just another well known creationist PRATT: CD701: The earth’s magnetic field is decaying, indicating a young earth.

You would do better not to rely on sources that tell you lies.
Soooo, what do you do with that?
Click to expand...
Ignore it because it is false. Falsehoods will not refute an old earth.

rossum
 
I have been out of this thread for a while because i wanted to find some really good evideince against evolution and i FOUND IT! here it is…
Click to expand...
The Earth has a Magnetic Field, Right? Right!
Click to expand...
The field has been watching it for quite some time now, and scientist have found that the earth’s Magnetic Field is decaying at a Constant and gradual rate.
Click to expand...
Yep. But not quite “gradual.” It fluctuates from time to time. The evidence from paleomagnetism shows that it not only goes up and down over geologic time, but sometimes reverses entirely. It’s caused by convection currents in the outer core, and the effect is rather variable. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down.
Scientist have now reversed the rate in math and science and found that if the field is added to, as in we hit the rewind button, once it gets past 10,000 years the field becomes so Strong that earth is ripped apart. .
Click to expand...
I have a hard time believing any scientist is that dumb. If they are scientists, they would know the facts I mentioned, and almost certainly know better than to extrapolate far beyond the observed data.

It would be sort of like taking temperatures from morning to early afternoon, and supposing that the Earth must have been at absolute zero twenty years ago.
Soooo, what do you do with that?
Click to expand...
Just smile and shake my head.
 
rossum said:
Correct.

False. The earth’s magnetic field has indeed changed over time but not at a constant rate. Sometimes it reverses direction so the South Pole is near Canada and the North Pole is in Antarctica. I suspect that you have been lied to by a creationist source, since it is usually creationist sources that propagate this false information about the earth’s magnetic field. This falsehood is just another well known creationist PRATT: CD701: The earth’s magnetic field is decaying, indicating a young earth.

You would do better not to rely on sources that tell you lies.

Ignore it because it is false. Falsehoods will not refute an old earth.

rossum
Click to expand...
Paleointensity of the early geodynamo (2.45 Ga) as recorded in Karelia: A single-crystal approach
A.V. Smirnov, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA, et al. Pages 415-418.The paper describes measurements of the intensity of Earth’s magnetic field for rocks formed 2.45 billion years ago using a new technique that utilizes single crystals. The results are important because there is currently a debate concerning when the inner core of Earth, which tends to stabilize the field, started to grow. The study is also of general interest, as we seek to learn more about the present-day field, which is dropping rapidly in strength at an alarming rate.
 
buffalo said:
Paleointensity of the early geodynamo (2.45 Ga) as recorded in Karelia: A single-crystal approach
A.V. Smirnov, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA, et al. Pages 415-418.The paper describes measurements of the intensity of Earth’s magnetic field for rocks formed 2.45 billion years ago using a new technique that utilizes single crystals. The results are important because there is currently a debate concerning when the inner core of Earth, which tends to stabilize the field, started to grow. The study is also of general interest, as we seek to learn more about the present-day field, which is dropping rapidly in strength at an alarming rate.
Click to expand...
Could you please explain to me how, if the earth was torn apart by its magnetic field about 10,000 years ago (as per Dchsknight’s post), we can find any 2.45 billion year old rocks on earth?

I am aware that the dipole strength of the earth’s magnetic field is currently dropping more quickly than normal; it is possible that we are heading for another magnetic field reversal, which would require a drop to zero followed by an increase in the opposite direction - North Pole in Antarctica.

The error in Dchsknight’s post was to assume a constant rate of decline, which is known to be incorrect. If you measure sea level on a beach over an hour you will get silly results if you do not realise that the tide goes in and out so you cannot extrapolate the measured rate of change as if it never varied. The strength of the earth’s magnetic field does vary; the rate of variation is not constant.

rossum
 
The_Barbarian said:
Yep. But not quite “gradual.” It fluctuates from time to time. The evidence from paleomagnetism shows that it not only goes up and down over geologic time, but sometimes reverses entirely. It’s caused by convection currents in the outer core, and the effect is rather variable. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down.

I have a hard time believing any scientist is that dumb. If they are scientists, they would know the facts I mentioned, and almost certainly know better than to extrapolate far beyond the observed data.

It would be sort of like taking temperatures from morning to early afternoon, and supposing that the Earth must have been at absolute zero twenty years ago.

Just smile and shake my head.
Click to expand...
When it comes to evolutionary geology,I have been shaking my head for many years.

I borrowed from already known observed spherical deviation in rotating stellar bodies of roughly the same size but with different maximum Equatorial speeds.The dynamicists are inclined to omit differential rotation of the viscous rotating composition when comparing stars but it is there as a generalised rule.

I look at the Earth’s 40Km spherical deviation,recognise that it has a rotating viscous interior and apply differential rotation as a principle.As the orientation of the mid-Atlantic ridge and symmetrical generation of oceanic crust off that ridge indicate a global mechanism,I jettison the stationary Earth thermal ‘convection cells’ favored by geologists presently and replace it with the rotational dynamics of differential rotation.

Because empiricists have severe difficulties with the motions of the Earth ,they are still stuck with a stationary Earth ‘convection cell’ mechanism which requires no association with planetary shape and motion and causes more difficulties than it solves.

It is not all about showing who got what wrong but actually doing productive work for a change and enjoying the reasoning that links observations from other areas such as geology and astronomy.I like rotational dynamics and its consequences in surface geological features but apparently I am the only one.

Setting out to give more details of the Earth’s spherical shape,I end up getting a better mechanism to explain plate tectonics,it does not inject a ‘cause’ such as explaining why the Earth rotates in the first place but simply answers a few question which add more detail to work already done and for others to work on.That is true science.
 
Originally Posted by StAnastasia forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Grannymh, actually, all life, all of creation comes from a loving creator! *
Namesake said:
But that isn’t within the realm of science.
Click to expand...
Dear Namesake,

Just so you know. I’ve been told I approach problems backwards and having my head on a platter is nothing new. 😉

I keep picturing evolution’s bottleneck theory as more flexible and unpredictable than it appears. In my imagination, a fictional scientist is standing, looking at the bottleneck and saying to herself–what is there around me that I can use to measure, quantify, etc. according to the strict limits of empirical science.
Aha. Here are chimp genomes and human genomes and those multiplying alleles or whatever they are called. Eureka! They all fit within the realm of science. 👍

Here I am, who every 937 posts has to proclaim that I am not in the same class as a determined rock, nor am I a bunch of mechanical doodads governed by willy-nilly genes. From where I am standing, looking at the bottleneck, I see something, rather someone, coming through who is somewhat within the realm of science but not totally. So how do I explain that to a scientist without appearing as a resident in lala land?🤷

At the moment (being female I have the right to change my mind at any time) my guess is that the reports about how many human types have to pass through the constrictive grasp of the bottleneck are missing some kind of data or have data that isn’t consistent or doesn’t fit with evolutionary philosophy. Thus, there would be clues that the bottleneck is more flexible and unpredictable than forecasted.

The possibility of Eve and Adam is what is being sought.

Maybe the bottleneck process itself is being underestimated. In my lifetime, there have been so many different estimates of the age of the earth, I now refuse to commit any estimate to my memory bank. Also, I’m still mourning the demotion of Pluto. Thus, I have to keep an open mind, o.k., the major portion of my mind is open.

Maybe we need to find the little child who clearly saw the “fancy dressed” emperor as he was.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is destined for a life beyond the realm of science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top