Evolution and Vatican I - Question

[Catholic_Dude]

As referred to in the original quote, the “whole substance” is ALL that makes up something… well, that’s what I take from it at least.

That is why I was wondering how the usage applies to an oak tree whether it is still an acorn or a fully grown oak?

Substance itself can be complete or either incomplete.

From what I remember in the newadvent article that usage was in reference to the soul and body which were both substances but “incomplete” when the body was separated from the soul.

There are many interpretations for what “substance” is, so what we need to do is find out the terminology for the age that the wording was used. How was the word “substance” used during the time of Vatican I?

I highly believe the reference to “substance” at that time was in regards to the theological terminology used by St Thomas. For example TransSUBSTANtiation is the changing of the “substance” of bread into the “substance” of the Body and Blood of Jesus while the “accidents” or “qualities” of bread remain.
My problem is I dont know how to think of a “substance” and thus my understanding of that Vatican I canon is incomplete and flawed.

 

[Koru]

That is why I was wondering how the usage applies to an oak tree whether it is still an acorn or a fully grown oak?

My problem is I dont know how to think of a “substance” and thus my understanding of that Vatican I canon is incomplete and flawed.

The acorn IS the oak tree, just not fully grown. It’s just like the human child on conception. The child may not be a fully grown 80-year old human, but the child is still a human… no matter what the stage or age.

My understanding of “substance” is that it’s “the stuff that is, and makes up things”… the Vatican I usage of “whole substance” is interpretted (to me) as “the complete form of stuff that is”.

I may not be getting too deeply into the fine points of the definition, but I think that I hit the gist of the definition (I hope!).

 

[zian]

(cont’d)
your (Koru’s) source, Chapter 6a, Inaccurate Dating Methods, make this statement

(3) The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed.

Yet we have no way of going back into past ages and ascertaining whether that assumption is correct.

Every process in nature operates at a rate that is determined by a number of factors. These factors can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. Rates are really statistical averages, not deterministic constants.

The most fundamental of the initial assumptions is that all radioactive clocks, including carbon 14, have always had a constant decay rate that is unaffected by external influences—now and forever in the past. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past.

The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered [1] if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.); [2] if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; [3] if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or [4] if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it.

These claims are answered here and in this linked article.

Really Cole, a lot of this dating related material is discussed in great detail in G. Brent Dalrymple’s “The Age of the Earth” that Phil (and probably others) have mentioned to you in previous posts. I do highly recommend that you get a copy of this book and spend some time with it - it is quite thorough.

(cont’d)

 

[zian]

(cont’d)
your (Koru’s) source states near the beginning of Chapter 10a, “Mutations”

A mutation is damage to a single DNA unit (a gene).

(emphasis mine)

The response is from here

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

(emphasis mine)

Then there’s the "Evolutions Handbook’s

(1) RARE EFFECTS—Mutations are very rare. This point is not a guess but a scientific fact, observed by experts in the field. Their very rarity dooms the possibility of mutational evolution to oblivion.

“It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation.”—*F.J. Ayala, “Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology,” in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.

Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life form, much less all the creatures that swarm on the earth.

Evolution requires millions upon millions of direct, solid changes, yet mutations occur only with great rarity.

“Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event.”—*F.J. Ayala, “Mechanism of Evolution,” Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.

which is answered here, and links therein.

well, I’m off to bed now …

 

[PhilVaz]

claim from anti-science booklet << The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered [1] if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.) >>

Also answered by Dalrymple decades ago:

"neutrinos from cosmic radiation disturb the decay process"

They do not. Morris, Slusher, and Rybka (creationists from the 1970s and 80s) were all answered by Dalrymple on this 20 years ago. From Dalrymple, "How Old is the Earth? A Reply to Scientific Creationism" Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Volume 1, Part 3, edited by Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites, April 30, 1984, pages 66-131

“Morris [1974] also suggests that neutrinos might change decay rates, citing a column by Jueneman (72) in ‘Industrial Research.’ The subtitle of Jueneman’s columns, which appear regularly, is, appropriately, ‘Scientific Speculation.’ He speculates that neutrinos released in a supernova explosion might have ‘reset’ all the radiometric clocks. Jueneman describes a highly speculative hypothesis that would account for radioactive decay by interaction with neutrinos rather than by spontaneous decay, and he notes that an event that temporarily increased the neutrino flux might ‘reset’ the clocks. Jueneman, however, does not propose that decay rates would be changed, nor does he state how the clocks would be reset; in addition, there is no evidence to support his speculation.” (Dalrymple [1984], page 89)

“Slusher (117) and Rybka (110) also propose that neutrinos can change decay rates, citing an hypothesis by Dudley (40) that decay is triggered by neutrinos in a ‘neutrino sea’ and that changes in the neutrino flux might affect decay rates. This argument has been refuted by Brush (20), who points out that Dudley’s hypothesis not only requires rejection of both relativity and quantum mechanics, two of the most spectacularly successful theories in modern science, but is disproved by recent experiments. Dudley himself rejects the conclusions drawn from his hypothesis by Slusher (117) and Rybka (110), noting that the observed changes in decay rates are insufficient to change the age of the Earth by more than a few percent (Dudley, personal communication, 1981, quoted in 20, p. 51). Thus, even if Slusher and Rybka were correct – which they are not – the measured age of the Earth would still exceed 4 billion years.” (Dalrymple [1984], page 89)

Summary: The “neutrinos released in a supernova” hypothesis was in a column called “scientific speculation.” The hypothesis was highly speculative, the author does not say decay rates would change, nor how the radiometric clocks would be reset, and he provides no evidence in support. The argument by Dudley was refuted by Brush who points out both relativity and quantum mechanics must be rejected if his hypothesis were true. Dudley rejects the young-earth conclusions drawn by the creationists noting that the age of the earth would only be effected by a few percent. The earth would still be older than 4 billion years. So much for the “neutrinos” speculation.

see also TalkOrigins Cosmic Rays and Radiometric Decay Rates
also TalkOrigins Solar Neutrinos and other Oddities

And that’s just one tiny objection answered.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

claim from anti-science booklet << But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past. >>

Answered again by Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth:

The assumption is that the rate at which decay proceeds in any given nuclide is either unalterable or that variations are quite negligible over a wide variety of physical and chemical conditions and for millions or billions of years of time. How reliable is this assumption? Unless there has been some undiscovered change in the fundamental nature of matter and energy since the universe formed, the presumption of constancy for radioactive decay is eminently reasonable (Dalrymple [1991], page 86-87). There are two basic reasons for this:

– the nuclei of atoms are extremely small and well insulated by their cloud of orbiting electrons; these electrons separate nuclei and thus cannot interact; they also provide a “shield” that prevents ordinary chemical or physical factors from affecting the nucleus. Chemical activity in an atom occurs almost entirely among the outermost electrons and does not involve the nucleus at all.

– the energies involved in nuclear changes are 10^6 times greater than those involved in chemical activity, and 10^4 to 10^5 times greater than energies that bind the electrons to the nucleus. This is why nuclear reactors and powerful particle accelerators are required to penetrate and make changes in atomic nuclei. Except in nuclear reactions, such energies are generally not available in natural processes such as those that form, change, or destroy rocks on the Earth and Solar System (Dalrymple [1991], page 87).

Several experiments have been conducted attempting to seriously change radioactive decay rates, those of Rutherford / Petavel in 1907 on 220Rn radon using a steel-encased cordite bomb: they observed no change in the activity of the sample even though the explosion generated an estimated temperature of 2,500 degrees Celsius and a pressure of 1,013 bars; and that of Madame Curie / M. Kamerlingh Onnes in 1913 who lowered the temperature of a radium compound to -252.8 degrees Celsius (the boiling point of liquid hydrogen) and observed no change in the radium activity by more than 0.05% (Emery 1972; Hopke 1974).

Other experiments involved varying gravity by measuring the rates on mountain-tops, in the depths of mines, by whirling in a centrifuge, or subjecting to magnetic fields as much as 8.3 Teslas. These early experiments and subsequent ones involving extremes of temperature, pressure, chemical state, electrical and magnetic fields have uniformly failed to induce any changes in the decay rates of a wide variety of alpha and beta emitters involved in radiometric dating (Dalrymple [1991], page 87-88).

However, tiny changes in decay rates are theoretically possible. Example: The maximum difference in activity yet found between any two beryllium Be compounds is 0.18%. Although chemically induced changes in the electron capture (e.c.) decay rates of zirconium 89Zr (0.08%) and strontium 85Sr (0.005%) have been reported (Emery 1972), 7Be is the only isotope for which changes have been observed by more than one investigator (Hopke 1974).

In summary, both theory and experiment have shown that changes in alpha, beta, and e.c. rates (the three main types of radioactive decay) are not only rare but exceedingly small. Even the largest observed change of 0.18% in beryllium 7Be would have a negligible effect on a calculated radiometric age. Also important is the fact that no changes have ever been detected in any of the isotopes used for dating and none of significance are theoretically expected.

Of the physical and chemical processes that affect meteorites and rocks from the Earth and Moon, including pressure, temperature, gravity, magnetic and electric fields, none should affect radioactive decay to any significant degree. The assumption of constant decay rates is further strengthened by the consistency of the dating results received using the various radiometric methods (all “ticking” at different “clock” rates) from the past and present (Dalrymple [1991], page 89-90).

Dalrymple, G. Brent. 1991. The Age of the Earth (Stanford Univ Press).
Emery, G. T. 1972. “Perturbation of nuclear decay rates.” Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science, vol 22, pages 165-202.
Hopke, P.K. 1974. “Extranuclear effects on nuclear decay rates.” Journal of Chemical Education, vol 51, pages 517-519.

Another tiny objection answered.

Phil P

 

[cpayne]

That is why I was wondering how the usage applies to an oak tree whether it is still an acorn or a fully grown oak?

From what I remember in the newadvent article that usage was in reference to the soul and body which were both substances but “incomplete” when the body was separated from the soul.

I highly believe the reference to “substance” at that time was in regards to the theological terminology used by St Thomas. For example TransSUBSTANtiation is the changing of the “substance” of bread into the “substance” of the Body and Blood of Jesus while the “accidents” or “qualities” of bread remain.
My problem is I dont know how to think of a “substance” and thus my understanding of that Vatican I canon is incomplete and flawed.

A substance is an essential nature, the animating principle that makes something what it is. For example, an acorn, once sprouted, has the same substance as an oak tree because it contains within itself, as its essential nature, everything it needs to develop into its mature, fully flourishing condition. It already has within it its own “what it is.” An unsprouted acorn, however, does not have the same substance as an oak tree.

Similarly, a human egg cell does not have the same substance as a human being. A fertilized human egg cell does.

 

[hecd2]

The Evolution Handbook

Go through the links that explain all the problems with modern dating methods on this site and please explain to me why you believe that these problems aren’t relevant to the accuracy of these dating methods.

This is a perfect example of why Koru is so wrong so often. He scuttles about the internet looking for websites and documents of extremely dubious provenance that support his prejudice. Yet he will not read a single paper or book written by professional scientists. As long as he gives more credence to the ersatz pseudo-science put about by fundamentalists rather than the real stuff, he will find himself embarrassed over and over again. I don’t know whether he realises quite how embarrassing his errors in the discussion on radiometric dating have been - errors based on his belief that three minutes research on a fundamentalist website can stand against those who actually do the hard work to learn the science.

Which is a preamble to say that this document is appallingly bad in that the author misrepresents or misunderstands nearly every piece of science he mentions - it’s worthless garbage. Zian and Phil have already done a good job of pointing out the errors, but on the radiometric dating section, EVERY claim in the 7 assumptions section is wrong, so I decided to summarise why:

Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process
Wrong - most things can contaminate the sample without affecting the result. The only problem is loss or gain of daughter or parent isotope. But where this has happened, it can readily be detected by the failure of linearity in an isochron plot.

Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products
Very wrong - isochrons use the presence of non-radiogenic isotopes of daughter elements to allow accurate age measurements even in the initial presence of daughter elements

The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed. Yet we have no way of going back into past ages and ascertaining whether that assumption is correct.
Wrong - the decay rates or half lives depend on fundamental physical parameters through the electroweak force or the strong force, which in turn rely on fundamental physical parameters such as the fine structure constant. Wherever we look in the universe, and because of the finite speed of light, the further away in distance we look, the further back in time we look, we see only minuscule variations in the fundamental parameters - we can be confident that the physics then is the same as the physics now.

To be continued

 

[hecd2]

continuation

The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered [1] if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as *neutrinos, cosmic rays, *etc.); [2] if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; [3] if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or [4] if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it.
For passive decay such as is used in radiometric dating most of these claims are simply not true - there is no credible source for the case that the half-life of passive decay is affected significantly by any of these factors. Indeed the decay rates of unstable isotopes, of eg uranium and thorium in the middle of fission reactors where alpha, beta and gamma radiation is intense are unaffected. The decay of Be7 can be affected by up to 1% depending on its chemical and temperature environment and we know why that is. But a) we don’t use the decay of Be7 in radiometric dating and b) 1% is 100 million times too small a discrepancy to explain the difference between the 6000years and age of the earth known through science.

If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals.
This simply, absolutely not true. As I pointed out above, the half lives of passive decay processes are not affected in the middle of a fission reactor.

Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation time of radioactive minerals.
Ditto - this simply not true. It is a false claim.

A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning; that is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence.
This is basically a claim that God could have created the earth with the appearance of age. It’s the last resort of creationists when all else fails - it’s equivalent to the claim that God buried all the fossils 6,000 years ago, or that God created light in transit from objects that appear to be hundreds of millions of light years ago. It is in the same class as the claim that God could have created us all 20 seconds ago with perfect memories of a life we’ve never lived. It is a non-scientific and not very interesting philosophical idea. A magic wand trumps everything.

Alec
http://www.evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

You aren’t going to find anti-evolution information on an evolutionist website.

You’re wrong yet again. Go here:
evolutionpages.com/Links.htm

If you can systematically go through and address each of the facts against evolution, then I’ll start debating you with all the in-depth technicalities.

Feel free to start off at the 6th chapter, “Inaccurate Dating Methods.”

I did. The resource is junk - see above. As for you debating me with “in-depth technicalities”, you are not able to. You have shown you know nothing, confusing C14 radiodating with U-Pb and Rb-Sr and K-Ar methods for dating rocks. You uncritically quote the most dreadful nonsense from low-rent anti-intellectual deceitful or plain mistaken websites.

I notice that you haven’t made any attempt to tell us yet in your own words how a Pb-Pb isochron works, or how U-Pb discordance from zircons on a concordia plot can date the KT iridium anomaly. Don’t worry - everyone knows that’s because you don’t know.

By the way, I’ve spent more than your accused “three minutes” finding the flaws with evolution.

Well I didn’t say you’d spent three minute finding the ‘flaws’ with evolution. I said you’d spent three minutes researching radiometric dating. I can’t believe that anyone, no matter how slow, could spend more and still make the errors you did. But with regard to your investigation of evolution more generally, you might as well have spent just three minutes as that is all your research warrants. As long as you insist on trashy creationist propaganda over professional science, you will continue to be embarrassed.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Koru]

A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning; that is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence.

You completely didn’t understand what this quote meant did you…? What this statement says is that for the formulas to work correctly, there cannot be any daughter products present before or at the start of decay. This applies to ALL radiometric dating methods, but let us simply use Rubidium-Strontium dating.

For the formula to work, the subject must NOT have had any Strontium as a part of the subject that isn’t directly resulting from the decay of the Rubidium. If Strontium existed before or added anytime during the subjects existance that did not directly come from the decay of Rubidium… then the whole formula is flawed. How can one determine if Strontium was only produced due solely to the decay factor and not from any other source? How can one determine if Strontium didn’t exist as a part of the subject before the decay of the Rubidium being tested in the formula?

Radiometric dating methods don’t show the age of anything, it only shows how far along the decay is of the chemical being examined. There is no definitive age given even from multiple results of the same sample. The problem with evolution can be compared to the problem with mathematics. If the simple mathematics don’t add up correctly, you can’t progress into trigonometry. What you are trying to explain is trigonometry while completely bypassing the fundamental rules of math.

There’s something you simply don’t get it hecd2, show me ONE “irrefutible” proof for evolution and I’ll show you that there has already been facts shown against that evidence. Evolutionary origin theories are in need of many many proofs if it is to ever take town creationism BECAUSE the burden of proof is on the theory of Evolution. Evolutionary origin theory came after the scientific theory of Creation, so it needs to have proof before it is to be believed over Creation theory… so where are the countless irrefutible proofs?

Also, the reason I don’t waste my time explaining how radiometric dating works down to the T is because I can simply provide links that explain it better and faster. I see it as a waste of time to sit here and type up something in my own wording that can more simply be explained in the links I provided. I don’t need to prove my intellect and credentials to some random person on the internet simply because he demands it of me. Personally, I really don’t care if you want to assume that I don’t understand the material you claim to know so much about.

As long as you insist on trashy creationist propaganda over professional science, you will continue to be embarrassed.

HAHAHAHA, creationist propaganda? Aren’t you embarrassed even saying something so hypocritical? Unless you actually believe that scientists and textbooks in schooling don’t use propaganda and lies to promote and prove macroevolution to us and our children… but the fact is that they do use lies and propaganda to promote evolution. Why would somebody need to use propaganda to promote something if it is the truth? Oh, that’s right… because there aren’t any absolute proofs and they need to use falsehoods to explain the concepts and ideologies in macroevolution.

Also, you say that my resource is junk? Wow, I say your resource is junk too! That solves everything… claiming the site as junk then sending me a source that I say is junk. Instead of your mudslinging tactics, why don’t you use your knowledge of the subject of evolution to tactically and formally disprove all the evidences my source provides against evolutionary origins (remember, your theory is the one that holds the burden of proof)? This doesn’t mean finding one thing wrong and tossing out all the evidences, that’s like somebody finding one corrupt computer file and tossing out the entirety of the software installed on the computer because of one bad file. One bad file doesn’t make the whole software library bad now does it?

Now, instead of trying to get me heated up with all your name calling. Provide YOUR evidences for evolution, and I can find the facts to debunk them. Simple solution, right? You have the burden of proof, not me… so prove away!

 

[zian]

You completely didn’t understand what this quote meant did you…? What this statement says is that for the formulas to work correctly, there cannot be any daughter products present before or at the start of decay. This applies to ALL radiometric dating methods, but let us simply use Rubidium-Strontium dating.

For the formula to work, the subject must NOT have had any Strontium as a part of the subject that isn’t directly resulting from the decay of the Rubidium. If Strontium existed before or added anytime during the subjects existance that did not directly come from the decay of Rubidium… then the whole formula is flawed. How can one determine if Strontium was only produced due solely to the decay factor and not from any other source? How can one determine if Strontium didn’t exist as a part of the subject before the decay of the Rubidium being tested in the formula?

The answer, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, is the use of isochron methods. The amount of initial daughter element is not only NOT assumed to be zero, it is even measured by these techniques. See any and all of the following
talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isodaughter
(perhaps especially good for your point of view, as it discusses a number of the issues related to isochron methods, how these potential difficulties are mitigated, and why they do not invalidate isochron methods).
talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating/AnimatedIsochron.html
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD014.html
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD014_1.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html
Note in particular the cross-references to the YEC literature.

Dalrymple, in his “Age of the Earth” (1991), also has detailed discussion of isochrons from several different parent-daughter systems, including Rb-Sr, beginning on page 102.

Koru:

Also, the reason I don’t waste my time explaining how radiometric dating works down to the T is because I can simply provide links that explain it better and faster. I see it as a waste of time to sit here and type up something in my own wording that can more simply be explained in the links I provided.

Here you are reneging on your own promise from post # 57 , where you said

If you can systematically go through and address each of the facts against evolution, then I’ll start debating you with all the in-depth technicalities. (emphasis mine)

Well, now’s the time to bring it - it was your idea, after all.

 

[DJim]

Koru–

You have completely ignored my post #53.

Why?

Am I to conclude that you are in full agreement with my treatment of the subject?

If not, will you please provide a response?

Thanks,

DJim

 

[Koru]

DJim:

You have completely ignored my post #53.

Why?

My apologies, I had actually thought that I did reply… but many times when I type up a response, i press the “Preview Post” and think that I press the “Submit Reply” button.

Likewise, God has to make several attempts to create a suitable partner for Adam…-…well the matter making them up is made from nothing…

But God apparently chose the “wrong” material from which to “build” a suitable partner. God then realizes it’s best to use some other material–Adam’s flesh–and then “builds” the woman accordingly.

I don’t believe that God made any mistakes in creating a partner for Adam. He created all the animals, birds, insects, fish, etc. before he created Adam. God knew how he was to make a suitable partner for Adam, and so He did it exactly that way without any sort of mistake.

How does one believe that Adam was evolved over many many millions of years and then turn around and say that Eve was made in one day from the rib of Adam while he was put under a deep sleep? Why can’t Adam be created just as quickly as Eve? Did Eve deserve special creation while Adam deserved to be the result of many deaths and extinctions even before Original Sin?

The soul is created immediately from nothing at the moment of conception–that’s what is inferred by the teaching Church…-…But there is no way to claim that Vatican One excludes evolution on the basis of the original creation of the material universe

I would say that the soul is “made” immediately from nothing at the moment of conception, I don’t know if it’s even possible to create (invent) something more than once. The Creation from nothing (ex nihilo) doesn’t refer to the existing creatures of after the creation… The physical body is handed down from the parents while God makes a spirit to fill that body upon conception.

God DOES use analogy and metphor to communicate–do you deny that this is exactly how Jesus communicated? Jesus always spoke truth, but sometimes spoke it in metaphor and in parable. So the real question is why anyone would think Genesis does NOT contain metaphor and is only some woodenly literalistic history lesson?

You are speaking about God the Son when speaking about the usage of parables and metaphors, but the Creation is particularly attributed to God the Father who always spoke directly and to the point without the useage of metaphors. The closest He ever gets to that is when speaking to Job and asking an IMMENSE amount of rhetorical questions.

As Pius XII made clear, evolution of the human form is NOT contrary to the work of God, nor contrary to Genesis. Especially given that Genesis itself is exactly a story of how God “built” first Adam and then Eve from EXISTING matter.

You attribute the book of Genesis as simply allegorical? So there was no real Adam and Eve? No judgements on mankind? Was Pope Pius XII speaking from the See of Peter or was he speaking from his personal idiology on the issue? I’ve listed previously what the Church teaches about the first 3 chapters of Genesis that all must follow:

Here is what Catholics are taught to acknowledge with the first three books of Genesis:

1. the creation of all things out of nothing by God at the beginning of time…and including time

1. the special creation of man.

1. the creation of woman from man.

1. that all of humanity is descended from an original pair of human beings – Adam and Eve.

1. that Adam and Eve were created in an original state of holiness, justice, and immortality.

1. that a Divine Command was laid upon man to prove his obedience to God.

1. the transgression of that Divine Command at the instigation of Satan.

1. the loss of the state of holiness, justice, and immortality of our 1st parents, because of their disobedience – Adam and Eve were kicked out of Paradise.

1. the promise of a future Redeemer, a Savior – Gen 3:15, the protoevangelium, the first “good news.”

Source: “The Sources of Catholic Dogma,” Denzinger: #2123

Corresponding references in the Catechism for the above nine teachings:

1. CCC #’s 296-299
2. CCC #’s 355-358
3. CCC #’s 371
4. CCC #’s 54-55, 359-360, 375, 390-392, 402-405, 407, 416-417, 419
5. CCC #’s 374-379, 384, 398, 415-416
6. CCC #’s 396-397, 399
7. CCC #’s 379, 390-392, 394-395, 397-398, 413-415
8. CCC #’s 379, 390, 399-400, 410
9. CCC #’s 410-411

If you want to read about my responses to this, they are all on another thread where you can go to by clicking right here…

 

[DJim]

I don’t believe that God made any mistakes in creating a partner for Adam. He created all the animals, birds, insects, fish, etc. before he created Adam.

Three observations:

1. Only in the first story of creation does God “make” the animals before “making” Adam. In the second story, God makes Adam first. That was the story to which I referred. Not sure why you would insist the first story’s sequence is correct when both stories are inspired by the Holy Spirit. And, you can’t take both literally on this point.
2. In the second story of creation, God makes creatures from something else–the clay of the ground. The bodily forms of all creatures are derived from clay (except woman of course, derived from Adam who is derived from clay). So, adopting your terminology, in one story of creation God “invents” material creatures from nothing, but in the second story of creation, God makes all such creatures physically from something else. Again, you can’t take both literally on this issue.
3. The literal direction of the second story of creation shows us a God who fails to make a suitable partner for Adam after several initial attempts–attempts that result in the creation and naming of animals. In rejecting the notion that God made any “mistakes” in creating a partner for Adam, you are rejecting the literal sense of the text.

God knew how he was to make a suitable partner for Adam, and so He did it exactly that way without any sort of mistake.

Obviously so, since our concept of Who God is demands this perfection. But the story of creation (second one) does NOT present us with this literal picture. This means that the Genesis author did not literally convey the historic truth to us about the way God created woman from man. The God of history did not “audition” or “try out” the animals first to see if they would be “suitable partners” before creating Eve. The “audition” is part of the story, not part of the history.

How does one believe that Adam was evolved over many many millions of years and then turn around and say that Eve was made in one day from the rib of Adam while he was put under a deep sleep?

With great and insurmountable difficulty, I’d think.

But, the magisterial statements of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on the creation of woman do not insist that Eve was made in one day from Adam’s rib during a deep sleep. Rather, the PBC affirms only the creation of woman from man.

That creation, btw, is really a derivation, isn’t it? Woman is “derived” from the “substance” that is man, since woman is made from the physical matter of man?

As such, doesn’t this contradict your interpretation of Vatican One’s teaching? I thought you were asserting that all creatures were originally created by God immediately from nothing?

DJim

 

[DJim]

Why can’t Adam be created just as quickly as Eve? Did Eve deserve special creation while Adam deserved to be the result of many deaths and extinctions even before Original Sin?

The “cessation of bodily life” is NOT the kind of death brought about by original sin. The “death” brought about by original sin is the death of the integrity of the human person. God designed us as “graced” body-souls. Original sin killed the “graced” part of our design and allowed the disintegration (death) of our human nature–the ripping apart of our bodies and souls.

The dogma of the Assumption of Mary illustrates the point nicely. Mary, free from original sin, did not, by necessity, have to experience the “death” connected to original sin. YET, the “course of her earthly life” did conclude–but it’s different from the rest of us because it concluded such that she entered Heaven integrated–possessing both body and soul.

Further–in Genesis, the “planting” of a garden necessitates a “cycle of life”–which includes the “cessation” of life and growth. Fruit from trees would eventually be consumed by Adam and Eve, etc. The life cycle was necessarily present in the Garden. But only those with human souls (and free will) were told that disobedience would lead to “death”.

I would say that the soul is “made” immediately from nothing at the moment of conception, I don’t know if it’s even possible to create (invent) something more than once.

Well, Pope Pius XII says: “for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” He uses the term “immediately created.” I think it’s best to stick with the Pontiff on this. He is saying we are obliged to accept that God immediately creates every human soul from nothing at the moment of conception. A person’s soul is not created by God from nothing until the moment of conception…

The Creation from nothing (ex nihilo) doesn’t refer to the existing creatures of after the creation… The physical body is handed down from the parents while God makes a spirit to fill that body upon conception.

I would be more precise and not use “spirit” for “soul” above, but I am glad to see you agree that the “substance” of our human bodies is not immediately created from nothing at conception.

That’s really all you need to agree to in order to reconcile the “principle” of evolution with the dogma of creation of substance ex nihilo.

What I’m saying is that you appear to agree with what Pius XII stated in Humani Generis (36):

“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -”

Evolution in this context is understood to involve the origin of the human body from “pre-existent and living matter.”

This is really no different from the fact that we know our “bodies” are “derived” from two different “source” cells belonging to our parents and not created immediately from nothing by God, but part of an unbroken chain of life going back to creation itself…

cont.

DJim

 

[DJim]

You are speaking about God the Son when speaking about the usage of parables and metaphors, but the Creation is particularly attributed to God the Father who always spoke directly and to the point without the useage of metaphors. The closest He ever gets to that is when speaking to Job and asking an IMMENSE amount of rhetorical questions.

I disagree–unless, as I point out above regarding Genesis, you can find a way to take two different fact patterns from two different creation stories literally and historically, even when they contradict…

You attribute the book of Genesis as simply allegorical? So there was no real Adam and Eve? No judgements on mankind?

I made no such statements, so I guess your questions answer themselves. The creation stories of Genesis convey truth. But that truth is conveyed in story. And the two stories of creation are different. Which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that those “differences” are intended to convey “truths” that do not conflict with each other, even if the “stories” do conflict…

Was Pope Pius XII speaking from the See of Peter or was he speaking from his personal idiology on the issue?

Pius himself answers this as well in Humani Generis:

1. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

Pius XII’s teaching on the question of “pre-existent and living matter” resolves the question for us, regardless of whether the teaching is “ordinary” or “extraordinary.”

I’ve listed previously what the Church teaches about the first 3 chapters of Genesis that all must follow:

Pius’s approach follows those declarations by the PBC…

In any case, I think your argument from Vatican One fails from the start precisely because the second story of creation literally has God using an existing substance–clay–to create Adam’s human form…

DJim

 

[hecd2]

You completely didn’t understand what this quote meant did you…? What this statement says is that for the formulas to work correctly, there cannot be any daughter products present before or at the start of decay.

On the contrary, I completely understood the statement from your ‘resource’. However, the problem is that the statement is plain wrong (as the resource is about almost everything else), and you are wrong when you repeat it. As has been pointed out to you several times by me and others, having daughter products present at the start is not a problem if we date with isochrons. Why do you find it so difficult to understand that you ought to learn about a subject before you pontificate on it, which, if you fail to do, you look plain silly?

The fact that you don’t know anything about isochrons is unsurprising – only days ago you made the following statement which shows a breathtaking ignorance of the science: “Radiometric dating (Carbon 14, Argon, et cetera) cannot be used to accurately identify ages past 30,000 years”. The surprising puzzle is that you’re so resistant to learning before speaking – I have been pointing out to you for some time that isochrons and concordia/discordia plots are important in radiometric dating, but rather than find out about them, you preferred instead to pretend that you understood them, with the inevitable consequence that your conceit is now unmasked.

This applies to ALL radiometric dating methods, but let us simply use Rubidium-Strontium dating. For the formula to work, the subject must NOT have had any Strontium as a part of the subject that isn’t directly resulting from the decay of the Rubidium. If Strontium existed before or added anytime during the subjects existance that did not directly come from the decay of Rubidium… then the whole formula is flawed. How can one determine if Strontium was only produced due solely to the decay factor and not from any other source? How can one determine if Strontium didn’t exist as a part of the subject before the decay of the Rubidium being tested in the formula?

By the use of the isochron method. Everything that you say here is wrong. You really would be well-advised not to make confident statements about things that you haven’t learned, don’t you think?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Also, you say that my resource is junk? Wow, I say your resource is junk too! That solves everything… claiming the site as junk then sending me a source that I say is junk.

The fallacy you commit is based on the assumption that the ‘resources’ are equally well researched, written by people of equal expertise, supported by equally compelling evidence and equally error-free – and thus of equal merit. But this is patently not so.

On the one hand we have the formal scientific literature, including prestigious journals such as Nature and Science, in which many, many of the great scientific discoveries of the twentieth century were published. We have many specialised journals on earth sciences and geochronology. We have undergraduate and graduate level texts on geochronology, such as Dalrymple. The authors of these publications are genuine experts who have spent years studying their disciplines, followed in most cases by many more years of research extending the knowledge base of their field. The writers of the best popular science books are almost all scientists with significant discoveries under their belts. Dalrymple, for example found that the history of earth’s magnetic field reversals was locked into lava flows. They are all part of the great adventure of science that has been so successful in unravelling so many aspects of the natural universe in the last couple of hundred years. Publications in science are very carefully reviewed to ensure that they do not contain errors. The purpose of science is to discover how the natural universe works, and over time science follows wherever the evidence leads – the literature reports those discoveries.

On the other hand, creationist web resources are written from a predetermined perspective with the sole aim of discrediting scientific findings that do not conform to their religious beliefs. They are composed by rank amateurs in the relevant fields, or in many cases, as here, they are written by people who have no knowledge of the subject at all. They sprinkle poorly understood scientific language around to impress the uninformed, but the scientific image they portray is a sham – they do no science and understand little – they never fool professional scientists. They saturate their treatises with errors and false claims – for example, anyone who states that half lives of radioactive species are affected by the earth’s atmosphere deserves to lose all credibility. Their arguments are devoid of supporting evidence, they promulgate urban myth, and they recycle their often-refuted claims over and over again like the ghastly resurrection of the living dead.

There are bushels of published documents both in paper and on the web. Choose whatever subject you will and you will find both authoritative and phoney sources – the trick is to be able to tell the difference. The fact that you give more credence to the prejudiced, uninformed and mendacious creationist sites than you do to professional science, indeed the fact that you refuse to read any authoritative scientific sources, says a great deal about your inability to sort the wheat from the chaff.

This doesn’t mean finding one thing wrong and tossing out all the evidences, that’s like somebody finding one corrupt computer file and tossing out the entirety of the software installed on the computer because of one bad file. One bad file doesn’t make the whole software library bad now does it?

If you look higher up this thread you will see that I point out that every single one of the seven headline claims that your ‘source’ makes against radiometric dating is based on schoolboy mistakes. Every one. Where there is that much incredible density of error, there is every reason to reject the entire flimsy facade wholesale.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[wildleafblower]

Several interesting articles about isochrons.

1. ISOCHRONS FOR MARTIAN CRATER POPULATIONS OF VARIOUS AGESApplication to Selected Surfaces on Mars

*Here we will present a survey of our crater count data for several sample surfaces on Mars, plotted against a background of our new isochrons. Some of the data have been published in reports using earlier isochron iterations, and are presented here for comparison; other data are newly published. Because of the important geophysical implications of young volcanism on Mars, we start with an effort to test the shape of the crater production function predicted above against the shape actually observed in reasonably homogenous young areas, where craters are best preserved, and to affirm young ages of lava flows.

Unfortunately, areas of perfectly homogeneous age are not available on Mars. Broad Martian lava plains show mixes of lava flows with much greater variation in crater density and age than found in the lunar maria, not to mention that dunes and dust drifts cover some localized patches of these units. Thin, young lava flows can be detectable in MGS images but not in Viking images, since they may not be thick enough to cover pre-existing > km-scale craters and rampart ejecta blankets (Hartmann, 1999). Also, as discussed in Part 3, geographic distribution of local secondaries may be patchy (McEwen, 2003), and we try to avoid “contaminated” regions . . .*psi.edu/projects/mgs/chron04c.html
http://www.psi.edu/projects/mgs/chron04c.html

2)Digital Isochrons of the World’s Ocean Floor
Müller, R.D., Roest, W.R., Royer, J.-Y., Gahagan, L.M., and Sclater, J.G., A digital age map of the ocean floor. SIO Reference Series 93-30, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

*The data are described in a Data and Analysis Note in the Journal of Geophysical Research (1997) entitled Digital Isochrons of the World’s Ocean Floor. *
www2.geosci.usyd.edu.au/research/marinegeophysics/Resprojects/Agegrid/jgr_paper.html#anchor1054093
http://www2.geosci.usyd.edu.au/rese...projects/Agegrid/jgr_paper.html#anchor1054093

taken from
ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/crustage.HTML
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/crustage.HTML

I love to READ!