EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[The_Barbarian]

Here’s where you can read the report:
tinyurl.com/aedj6e

As you can see, Smirnov also acknowledges the fluctuations of the Earth’s magnetic field, and note also that the abstract does not refer to an “alarming rate” of decay for the that field.

It does not say what Buffalo would like it to say.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The dynamicists are inclined to omit differential rotation of the viscous rotating composition when comparing stars but it is there as a generalised rule.

For the sun, it was first noted by Christof Shiner in 1630. It is well-known to stellar astronomers.

Modern fluid dynamics in stars?
**As in geophysical fluid dynamics, the interplay of rotation and stratification is important in many cosmic situations. A nearby example is provided by the sun. The outer third of the sun is convective and has relatively low density. The inner two thirds is stably stratified and of higher density. The object as a whole rotates with a period of 28 days. The differential rotation in the convection zone is rather different from that of the interior as determined by helioseismology.

The two regions are coupled through a convective boundary layer and a rotational transition layer called the tachocline. The situation is vaguely reminiscent of the terrestrial configuration where the outer layer is the atmosphere, the inner core the ocean and the tachocline is like the oceanographic thermocline. In both cases there seems to be a problem of these layers keep themselves so thin and do not suffer turbulent or diffusive spreading on the times available. Heretofore, as in the older approaches, attention has mainly focused on the influence of the convective layers on the interior, but the time is clearly ripe to look at the coupled system as is being done in studies of the ocean-atmosphere interactions.**
fluid.ippt.gov.pl/ictam04/text/sessions/docs/SL17/10158/SL17_10158.pdf

Seems like there’s a lot of literature on it. But I’d be open to persuasion. Let’s see your evidence, with some numbers.

 

[buffalo]

Here’s where you can read the report:
tinyurl.com/aedj6e

As you can see, Smirnov also acknowledges the fluctuations of the Earth’s magnetic field, and note also that the abstract does not refer to an “alarming rate” of decay for the that field.

It does not say what Buffalo would like it to say.

Take it up with these guys.The Geological Society of America. I didn’t write it, they did.

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.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Take it up with these guys.The Geological Society of America. I didn’t write it,

I know. You just read someone else’s description of what it said, and believed it. That was your error. I left a link for the actual paper so that you could see for yourself.

 

[Dchsknight]

I have a Monkey Wrench to throw into the Idea of the Magnetic Field being False. there is an event the would have caused it to Shift. AS far as i am reading, and it is not from a Creation science site. the Polar points have shifted as far as we can tell only once and there a suggestion on an event that would cause it. A world Flood would cause the feild to shift, because of the Rapid cooling of the world from all the water and the Contratction of the the Tectonic plates.

What about all that?

 

[StAnastasia]

A world Flood would cause the feild to shift, because of the Rapid cooling of the world from all the water and the Contratction of the the Tectonic plates. What about all that?

Of course, we have no reason to assume from scripture that the flood water was cold rather than hot, so we don’t know that the tectonic plates would have cooled.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I have a Monkey Wrench to throw into the Idea of the Magnetic Field being False.

The magnetic field is real. It’s the notion that you can extrapolate the current fluctuation over the life of the Earth that’s goofy.

there is an event the would have caused it to Shift.

It’s shifting all the time. It’s even reversed sometimes.

AS far as i am reading, and it is not from a Creation science site. the Polar points have shifted as far as we can tell only once and there a suggestion on an event that would cause it.

No, that’s wrong. Such shifts leave records in the rocks. The “stripes” along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge record numerous shifts.

A world Flood would cause the feild to shift, because of the Rapid cooling of the world from all the water and the Contratction of the the Tectonic plates.

Nope. A mile or so of water would have about zero effect on the outer core, thousands of kilometers of rock deep. Do the math.

What about all that?

Totally imaginary, it is.

 

[StAnastasia]

Nope. A mile or so of water would have about zero effect on the outer core, thousands of kilometers of rock deep. Do the math. Totally imaginary, it is.

But the ice dumped from the divine martini glass in the post-diluvil happy hour might have cooled the tectonic plates.

 

[rossum]

I have a Monkey Wrench to throw into the Idea of the Magnetic Field being False.

I am not aware of anybody here who denies that the earth’s magnetic field exists. There are many of us who deny that you can extrapolate the current rate of change of the earth’s magnetic field into the past. In the past the rate of change was different.

AS far as i am reading, and it is not from a Creation science site. the Polar points have shifted as far as we can tell only once

That site is lying to you; they are breaking one of God’s commandments by bearing false witness. The earth’s magnetic field has reversed many times; see Geomagnetic Reversal. We can observe stripes of differently magnetised rock on the floor of the Atlantic. You are being lied to by that site. I suggest that you double check everything else that you read there.

What about all that?

You are being lied to by that website.

rossum

 

[oriel16]

Seems like there’s a lot of literature on it. But I’d be open to persuasion. Let’s see your evidence, with some numbers.

What are you talking about ‘numbers’,what numbers did Copernicus use to determine the Earth had an orbital motion and daily rotation.What numbers did Steno use to begin evolutionary biology and geology or any other of the wonderful insights hidden behind dull individuals who look for ‘numbers’ whatever that is supposed to mean.I watched Newton obliterate genuine astronomical insights by mathematical ‘magic’ and completely ignore the reasoning which Copernicus used in developing his own idiosyncratic and dumb Arian view.

No offence but if I ever find an individual who can positively identify the basic fact for daily rotation and clocks in terms of the correct value of exactly 24 hours/360 degrees then I will know I am conversing with a genuine scientist.Do you clearly understand that unless you must give me the correct answer to this most basic question first before going on to discuss the geological consequences of the rotation of the Earth,you might believe that I am trying convince you rather than bringing yourself up to a genuine scientific standard.

Presently,the internal mechanism is a stationary Earth one,specifically thermally driven ‘convection cells’.Now,no offence to the stationary Earthers and their ‘cells’,but I have already determined that the details of a rotational mechanism which causes the 40kM spherical deviation of the planet is far more productive for explaining oceanic crustal evolution than ‘convection cells’ and particularly the mid-Atlantic ridge -

dosits.org/people/resrchxp/img/TDPfront-screen-crop-sm.jpg

I would not even beg the question as to how a ‘convection cell’ generates that magnificent global feature,probably the largest geological feature known.I can say that the feature indicates the presence of a rotational mechanism in the viscous composition .

What I am supposed to say - ‘Eppure si muove’ when discussing the geological consequences of the rotation of the viscous composition of the Earth’s interior.If you have ‘numbers’ for ‘convections cells’ then I do not care to see them because they represent a stationary Earth notion and rather than trying to convince you that rotational dynamics are involved in the evolution and motion of the fractured crust,I will leave you where you are with thermal convection.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Seems like there’s a lot of literature on it. But I’d be open to persuasion. Let’s see your evidence, with some numbers.

What are you talking about ‘numbers’,

That’s how rotation is measured. In numbers. Differential rotation is noted in varying rates. I’m interested in seeing what you have.

what numbers did Copernicus use to determine the Earth had an orbital motion and daily rotation.

Copernicus published his work “De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium” in 1543 (the year of his death). The first chapter gives a “popular” description of his work, and the following chapters are full of extremely detailed and sophisticated mathematical calculations to derive the best possible fits to the motions of the planets in his new system. No one but professional astronomers, and dedicated ones at that, would have penetrated past the first chapter. It has been suggested that the opaque style of these chapters caused the book to pass virtually unnoticed among the public and the church, while astronomers read it all because of the advanced new calculations and mathematical methods it presented, methods they could apply to other problems.
ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/text/copernicusmodel.htm

What numbers did Steno use to begin evolutionary biology and geology or any other of the wonderful insights hidden behind dull individuals who look for ‘numbers’ whatever that is supposed to mean.

Numbers illuminate and sharpen. “Dull individuals” are those who have neglected to learn what math will do for understanding.

I watched Newton obliterate genuine astronomical insights by mathematical ‘magic’ and completely ignore the reasoning which Copernicus used in developing his own idiosyncratic and dumb Arian view.

Newton assumed the Copernican view.

No offence but if I ever find an individual who can positively identify the basic fact for daily rotation and clocks in terms of the correct value of exactly 24 hours/360 degrees then I will know I am conversing with a genuine scientist.

It rotates precisely in 24 hours, because an hour is defined as the time it takes the planet to make 1/24th of a rotation. That is so, because the Babylonians used base 12 for their math,and they set the day at 12 hours. Later, the Egyptians added 12 for the night, which is why we reset the clock to two 12-hour periods.

Do you clearly understand that unless you must give me the correct answer to this most basic question first before going on to discuss the geological consequences of the rotation of the Earth,you might believe that I am trying convince you rather than bringing yourself up to a genuine scientific standard.

Well, darn, I bet I got it wrong, and you aren’t going to enlighten us…

 

[rossum]

It rotates precisely in 24 hours, because an hour is defined as the time it takes the planet to make 1/24th of a rotation.

Here I disagree with you. The SI hour is defined as 3600 seconds, while the SI second has been 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” since 1967. Prior to that the second was indeed defined as 1 / 86,400 of a standard day.

The rotation of the earth is not uniform enough for accurate time measurements, hence the move from astronomical to atomic clocks.

rossum

 

[oriel16]

Newton assumed the Copernican view.

Newton assumed his own illegal view by introducing a hypothetical observer on the Sun where it is not needed and defeats the whole purpose of resolving retrogrades as seen from an orbitally moting Earth as Copernicus did and Galileo/Kepler understood -

apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

This is the distortion by Newton -

“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct…” Newton

There are very old rules governing the dramatic change from geocentric to heliocentric reasoning and Newton simply creates his own,I know where he managed to do this via Kepler but only the most indifferent particpant in this forum cannot fail to notice how the Earth’s motion accounts for the illusion of the backward motion of the other planets insofar as we are all heading in the same direction around the central Sun.No need for a hypothetical observer on the Sun to resolve the observed backward motion just the flash of an insight that we are on an orbitally moving Earth.

It rotates precisely in 24 hours, because an hour is defined as the time it takes the planet to make 1/24th of a rotation. That is so, because the Babylonians used base 12 for their math,and they set the day at 12 hours. Later, the Egyptians added 12 for the night, which is why we reset the clock to two 12-hour periods.

…

The empiricsts get this wrong because they apply a certain type of reasoning that began with John Flamsteed,their value is 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds which provides the astrological framework for Newton -

hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

The rules governing the relationship between clocks and daily rotation in terms of 24 hours/360 degrees precede heliocentric knowledge of daily rotation.The creation of the average 24 hour day was derived from observing natural noon and equalising the variation to 24 hours,Huygens more or less explains this -

‘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. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation..."

xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

As one 24 hour day elapses into the next 24 hour day (Monday into Tuesday into Wednesday ect ) using this method,they simply transfered the average 24 hour day to daily rotation as a ‘constant’.In short,there never was an external celestial reference for constant daily rotation through 360 degrees as an independent motion,it was just an extremely clever way to make use of the existing 24 hour day which everyone can admire today by looking at how time and longitude meridians circle the globe as a reflection of 4 minutes equating to 1 degree of geographical separation and 24 hours in total.

montgomerycollege.edu/Departments/planet/M_AS102/coordinates/LatitudeLongitudeEarth.html

In short,there are two values proposed for daily rotation through 360 degrees and only one of them is correct.The incorrect value was used by Newton in construction of his agenda.

Well, darn, I bet I got it wrong, and you aren’t going to enlighten us

…

I apologise.In all the years I have presented the geological indicators for rotational dynamics in the viscous interior I have never imposed it as a conclusion but as a mechanism that answers more questions than a stationary Earth mechanism which is thermally driven ‘convection cells’.It is entirely up to another whether it answers their questions also as an open ended thing rather than a firm conclusion.

This is only used to demonstrate that there is so much to do when a wider view is taken and that it is not all about who got what wrong.It is the new explanation for the seasons which I feel is a better issue to promote as a modification of the original astronomical insight of Copernicus but that is for another day.

Again,I apologise.

 

[reggieM]

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.

Darwinian theory is dehumanizing in that regard. We do need to proclaim such truths, and show they they are supported by reason and logic (along with revelation).

All human life is destined for a life beyond the realm of science.

Thank you for that also. Unfortunately, too many today are enslaved by scientism and they cannot see their own eternal destiny.

 

[Namesake]

Darwinian theory is dehumanizing in that regard.

Give it a rest Reggie. The theory of evolution doesn’t give a whit about dehumanizing anything. The theory of evolution is objective. You make the theory of evolution into something that it is not capable of and that is what you term dehumanizing. Evolution theory is objective. That means it doesn’t care about dehumanizing.

 

[reggieM]

The theory of evolution is objective. You make the theory of evolution into something that it is not capable of and that is what you term dehumanizing. Evolution theory is objective. That means it doesn’t care about dehumanizing.

I disagree, Namesake. I do not think that the theory of evolution is objective. It’s based on subjective interpretations of data. You can see that very clearly by merely searching the phrase “could have evolved”, or “might have evolved” or “possibly evolved”. It’s extremely common. Stephen J. Gould called such things “Just So Stories” – and others have found that phrase to be very accurate.

Here’s one of many examples of the kind of non-objective views published within the ambiguous topic of “the theory of evolution”.

Design – an inappropriate concept in evolutionary theory

Here’s a peer-reviewed paper that claims that the term “design” should be removed from all evolutionary literature.

In spite of the nice contrast between ‘accident versus design’, the term design carries with it too many undesirable connotations, such as the existence of a creator, and should not be used in evolutionary theory. Design could be replaced with non-accidental or non-stochastic, but these substitute terms are awkward and not really informative. Darwin developed his theory of organic evolution in part as an explanation of the appearance and perfection of adaptations to counter the idea of design as advocated by Paley and accepted then by almost everyone in the western world, including biologists… Unfortunately in this respect there is no solution to the paradox posed by Darwin which should not have been expressed in the form he used; his query was expressed in a letter to a colleague and not in a manuscript intended for publication. Actually **the living world as we see it is the result of chance **because all of the attributes of these organisms evolved and the process of evolution is stochastic.

Aside from the manipulation of language that is obvious here, Walter Bock claims that “the existence of a creator” is an “undesirable” outcome of the use of the term “design”.
Clearly, he is biased against the belief in a Creator at all – and not just that there is Intelligent Design in nature.

Beyond that, he claims that “the living world is the result of chance”.

Perhaps all of the evolutionists here on CAF who have repeated that “evolution is not random” could protest to the peer-review process that approved Mr. Bock’s article.

How about all the Darwinists here who claim that “evolution has nothing to do with God”?

Clearly, Mr. Bock doesn’t think so and he wants to censor scientific language of words that might make people think that God actually exists.

 

[grannymh]

Give it a rest Reggie. The theory of evolution doesn’t give a whit about dehumanizing anything. The theory of evolution is objective. You make the theory of evolution into something that it is not capable of and that is what you term dehumanizing. Evolution theory is objective. That means it doesn’t care about dehumanizing.

Dear Namesake,

Here’s an interesting definition: “Pop evolutionary psychology, or Pop EP, refers to a branch of theoretical psychology that employs evolutionary principles to support claims about human nature for popular consumption.” Scientific American, January 2009, page 74. Where I come from that’s called phycho-babble.

My point is that there is a big difference between “theory of evolution” and applications. I also find on a number of threads that there is a difference between theory of evolution and an actual understanding of the problems of its details. Where I went to school that is called the difference between the residents of the ivory tower and the people on the street. Unfortunately, “street people” now has a different connotation. But I’m sure you know that I’m referring to the real world.

I just read a post that listed many positive results from an evolutionary view point. I applaud that. I also am in favor of evolution from an academic view point. I love it when my curiosity is challenged. But, the fallout of a misguided evolutionary philosophy (including a degree of dehumanizing) is at the tragic point. And right now, I’m not even sure if there is a “Catholic” or any kind of a solution.

Blessings,
granny

The full nature of human life is beyond the realm of science.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I disagree, Namesake. I do not think that the theory of evolution is objective.

It makes testable predictions, which can be verified or rejected. Would you like to learn about some of them?

It’s based on subjective interpretations of data.

You’ve been misled about that. Would you like to learn about some objective ways to understand evolution?

It’s extremely common. Stephen J. Gould called such things “Just So Stories” – and others have found that phrase to be very accurate.

Note that these are not part of evolutionary theory. Can you summarize what it is, and then tell us what part of it is “just so” stories. Gould was pointing out that the “just so” is not part of the theory.

Here’s one of many examples of the kind of non-objective views published within the ambiguous topic of “the theory of evolution”.

Design – an inappropriate concept in evolutionary theory

Given than no one can demonstrate design in nature, it’s pretty solid.

Perhaps all of the evolutionists here on CAF who have repeated that “evolution is not random” could protest to the peer-review process that approved Mr. Bock’s article.

Don’t see any evidence he thought it was random. Keep in mind that Darwin’s discovery was that it wasn’t random.

How about all the Darwinists here who claim that “evolution has nothing to do with God”?

Don’t remember any of them. Most of us here acknowledge evolution is the way He did it.

Clearly, Mr. Bock doesn’t think so and he wants to censor scientific language of words that might make people think that God actually exists.

He’s probably too sensitive about it. Although you don’t want to bring religion into science, “design” is pretty well dead as a scientific theory for nature.

One of my favorite books is “The Evolution of Vertebrate Design.” The author wasn’t proposing the sort of fairy-tale that William Dembski or Phillip Johnson is peddling; he just made an analogy to function.

You’re too sensitive about science being empirical. It doesn’t mean there is no God. It just means that this is the most effective way for us to understand the universe.

 

[edwest2]

I disagree, Namesake. I do not think that the theory of evolution is objective. It’s based on subjective interpretations of data. You can see that very clearly by merely searching the phrase “could have evolved”, or “might have evolved” or “possibly evolved”. It’s extremely common. Stephen J. Gould called such things “Just So Stories” – and others have found that phrase to be very accurate.

Here’s one of many examples of the kind of non-objective views published within the ambiguous topic of “the theory of evolution”.

Design – an inappropriate concept in evolutionary theory

Here’s a peer-reviewed paper that claims that the term “design” should be removed from all evolutionary literature.

Aside from the manipulation of language that is obvious here, Walter Bock claims that “the existence of a creator” is an “undesirable” outcome of the use of the term “design”.
Clearly, he is biased against the belief in a Creator at all – and not just that there is Intelligent Design in nature.

Beyond that, he claims that “the living world is the result of chance”.

Perhaps all of the evolutionists here on CAF who have repeated that “evolution is not random” could protest to the peer-review process that approved Mr. Bock’s article.

How about all the Darwinists here who claim that “evolution has nothing to do with God”?

Clearly, Mr. Bock doesn’t think so and he wants to censor scientific language of words that might make people think that God actually exists.

“The living world as we see it is the result of chance.” Neither Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Schoenborn or Pope Benedict agree with this. Evolutionary theory as pure dictatorship is being argued for here constantly.

Catholics should not accept the idea that evolutionary theory is neutral about religion.

Thank you, reggieM for this.

Peace,
Ed

 

[oriel16]

You’re too sensitive about science being empirical. It doesn’t mean there is no God. It just means that this is the most effective way for us to understand the universe.

Empiricism is anti-scientific,it is basically a variation of the Arian heresy and while effective in extracting scientific investigation from within Christian tradition and setting itself up as a plausible platform for understanding creation,its roots show a contempt for Christian scientific traditions .Through Newton,it exploited the natural intricacies,not diificulties,in determining the motions of the Earth,arguments for these motions which originally were theological in nature.

The Arian/empirical heretics cannot even grasp the main argument for the Earth’s orbital motion based on how the motions of the other planets are resolved by the Earth orbital motion as we all move in the same direction around the central Sun -

apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Modern imaging makes the insight of Copernicus so easy to enjoy now in the same way Galileo and Kepler enjoyed it.The empiricists cannot enjoy it as they do not experience the flash of recognition in how the puzzle of the backward motions are solved by the motion of the Earth.

Those who spout about ‘testable’ predictions , try to obscure the reasoning of Copernicus as complicated mathematics and fits and doing nothing more than trying to conceal the work of the great Christian astronomer for they themselves have not received an education but an indoctrination.

The absolute distortion of the work of an inspired Christian astronomer can be spotted almost immediately -

“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct…” Newton

It is a tangled web of distortions by Newton which lead to ‘testable predictions’ that the empiricists always spout on about but it all began with Newton and his vandalism of astronomy.It then became open season on the investigation of terrestrial/celestial phenomena when these distortions or ‘laws’ were introduced and Darwin was just another jumping on the empirical bandwagon.

I can always be forgiven for apologising to you insofar as I still believe that people are good at heart and will listen to reason but empiricists never do.The worst people are those who act within Christianity to rot it rather than those who attack it from the outside and unfortunately there are many at the moment.

If there is not enough wisdom to spot and deal with the national supremacy undercurrent that run’s through Darwin’s empirical ‘cause’ for evolution then the situation is far worse than even I imagine.The testable prediction of the nationalistic supremacy agenda,the one that runs through Darwin’s conclusions based on Malthus already happened,it turned a nation into slaves of the past and leads to the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

Never has the human race seen so many anti-scientific people as presently but they are unscientific in an Arian way by proposing that Christ was a moral authority while they represent a scientific authority hence ‘two ways of knowing’.If the Church does not actively fight this empiricism strain,then the Trinity is no longer in the Church.