Evolution according to the Catholic Church

[rossum]

There’s no such thing as accumulation of genetic variation

False. Risibly false. Ludicrously and badly false. Anyone with lactase persistence and blue eyes has accumulated two genetic variations. All people of European descent, as well as some others, have the lactase persistence variation. Do you know anyone of European descent with blue eyes? That is why your statement here is so laughably wrong.

i remember posing the idea of the primate tail. If the tail developed through a series of accumulated beneficial mutations, then what can we say about its recession?

A beneficial mutation is beneficial with respect to the environment. When the environment changes, then what is (and is not) beneficial changes. Environments change.

Our ancestors lost their tails a long time before humans evolved. Chimps, gorillas and gibbons are all tailless. We inherited our tailless state from our LCA with the chimps.

You can identify it with fancy names but is evidence against and not for evolution. I call it sudden appearance of body plans with no prior history of development.

I call it migration. The human body plan appeared in Australia in a single day when the first boatload of Australians landed about 40,000 years ago. Unless you are looking in exactly the right place at exactly the right time you will see sudden appearance.

 

[Noose001]

All people of European descent, as well as some others, have the lactase persistence variation. Do you know anyone of European descent with blue eyes? That is why your statement here is so laughably wrong.

Another speculation.

Our ancestors lost their tails a long time before humans evolved. Chimps, gorillas and gibbons are all tailless. We inherited our tailless state from our LCA with the chimps.

Is lose of tail also as a result of a series of accumulated genetic variation in the same manner as development of a tail?

I call it migration.

Call it whatever you want, it isn’t credible.

 

[buffalo]

One must consider that anyone who sees a 30,000 year old date from C14 dating and yet insists on a 6,000 year old earth is misusing the evidence. To a YEC both 30,000 year old ans 65 million year old dates are equally wrong. You cannot base you arguments on dates you think are wrong.

You didn’t answer the question. Which date is the correct one?

 

[buffalo]

then what is (and is not) beneficial changes. Environments change.

Our ancestors lost their tails a long time before humans evolved. Chimps, gorillas and gibbons are all tailless. We inherited our tailless state from our LCA with the chimps.

Some nice storytelling.

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

To a YEC both 30,000 year old ans 65 million year old dates are equally wrong.

You didn’t answer the question. Which date is the correct one?

Either 30,000 or 65 million is correct? Well, that blows a 6,000 year old earth out of the water.

 

[buffalo]

The Church teaches that the Creation account in Genesis can be taken as “storytelling” and not literal.

I would love to see that magisterial document that reverses centuries of understanding and teaching…

 

[buffalo]

Either 30,000 or 65 million is correct? Well, that blows a 6,000 year old earth out of the water.

So? And? …

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Either 30,000 or 65 million is correct? Well, that blows a 6,000 year old earth out of the water.

So? And? …

It means that you disagree with anyone who holds to it being 6,000 years old and that you accept the decay of radioactive isotopes to be a valid method of determining age.

 

[buffalo]

It means that you disagree with anyone who holds to it being 6,000 years old and that you accept the decay of radioactive isotopes to be a valid method of determining age.

I definitely hold C14 dating is superior to other methods.

Catholics did not come up with 6,000 years, a protesting bishop did.

But, the focus is definitely now on a much younger earth.

 

[rossum]

You didn’t answer the question. Which date is the correct one?

Your question was imprecise. Which particular bones? Which particular rocks? Do you have a reference to the paper where the excavation of the bones and their dating is described.

There are a lot of bones and a lot of rocks. You need to be more specific. For example, a buffalo horn misidentified as a Triceratops horn and dated about 25,000 years old is accurately dated. Buffalo were around at that time, while Triceratops were not.

Of course, a 25,000 year old date, if accurate, shows that a 6,000 year old earth is wrong. If the date is inaccurate, then we cannot infer anything from faulty data.

 

[rossum]

I definitely hold C14 dating is superior to other methods.

Sometimes it is, other times not. If you want accurate dates over about 50,000 years old then you need to use a different method.

If I stand on a set of kitchen scales that shows 20 pounds, do I weigh 20 pounds of have I maxed out the scales? C14 dating maxes out at 50,000 years with the best equipment. Average equipment is accurate to about 30,000 years. For older dates you need other radiometric methods using isotopes with longer half-lives, such as Ar-Ar or U-Pb dating.

 

[buffalo]

Sometimes it is, other times not. If you want accurate dates over about 50,000 years old then you need to use a different method.

If a bone is dated within the limits of C14 (around 50,000 years) it holds. Once again, if a bone, any bone, is dated 20,000 bp in rocks said to be millions of years old, which is correct?

 

[buffalo]

Of course, a 25,000 year old date, if accurate, shows that a 6,000 year old earth is wrong. If the date is inaccurate, then we cannot infer anything from faulty data.

So? And? ,

Remember, you are on a Catholic forum. A protesting bishop came up with 6,000 years.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It means that you disagree with anyone who holds to it being 6,000 years old and that you accept the decay of radioactive isotopes to be a valid method of determining age.

I definitely hold C14 dating is superior to other methods.

I see you have a preference for carbon over all the other elements. Some might call that odd. But anyway, what happens if you want to date something older than 60,000 years? What do you use?

And I see your bishop and raise you a pope.

 

[rossum]

If a bone is dated within the limits of C14 (around 50,000 years) it holds. Once again, if a bone, any bone, is dated 20,000 bp in rocks said to be millions of years old, which is correct?

I can date a million year old bone using C14 and it will give me a figure around 30,000 - 50,000 years old. Less if the apparatus was contaminated by a previous sample. How was the bone handled? Was it contaminated by atmospheric carbon when it was excavated? Was the rock porous so water containing dissolved carbon contaminated the sample? That is why I asked you for specific examples; there are a lot of things that need to be done to ensure a sample is dated correctly. For example, if an animal has seafood in its diet, then the old carbon problem will result in a C14 earlier than it should be due to dissolved limestone in the sea.

Similar things apply to the dating of the rocks, though C14 will not be used. is the sample contaminated? Is it representative of the general date of the rocks? Is it an earlier of a later inclusion? Again I need a specific reference.

Creationist sources often provide misleading data, as with ICR’s ‘date’ for the Mount Saint Helens eruption. As I so often say, creationist sources lie, so I need to see what source you are referring to.

 

[buffalo]

so I need to see what source you are referring to.

No you don’t. It is a simple question. Once again if C14 dates to 20,000bp (well within its limits) in thought to be rocks millions of years old, which is correct?

 

[buffalo]

But anyway, what happens if you want to date something older than 60,000 years? What do you use?

You and @rossum are dancing around the question. Is it a threat to your worldview?

 

[rossum]

No you don’t.

Yes I do. I know what I need to see. You do not have mind-reading powers.

What specific example are you referring to? As I said, YEC sources are extremely unreliable, so I need to see if you are using such a source.

Show me the reference, buffalo.

 

[Pattylt]

I would love to see that magisterial document that reverses centuries of understanding and teaching

You often make the comment that the church taught biblical creation for a thousand years or more thus implying that it is the correct teaching…and the only teaching that should be presented. The church also taught a geocentric theory for a thousand years. Should they continue to teach this as the correct theory?

 

[StudentMI]

They also taught against religious liberty in many official documents. Dignitatis Humanae changed that.