B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Tlaloc. Hi! I’m more of a Xochipilli person myself
- Status
T
Tlaloc
Guest
I use Tlaloc both because I found the aztecs to be fascinating and because my home town is rather soggy.
Oh yeah and Quetzalcouatl is too long for many internet applications
Oh yeah and Quetzalcouatl is too long for many internet applications
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Can’t get much more soggy than south Louisiana you must be in the region. We’re at about 28 degrees today and did not get the anticipated snowfall we hoped for. It’s been sleeting though. Blessed Christmasj to you Tlaloc.
T
Tlaloc
Guest
Actually I’m in the Pacific Northwest. Lots of rain in the Willamette Valley as the clouds come in off the ocean and make it over the Costal range and then dump all their water when they hit the Cascade range.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Ah, makes sense although you do not get the deluges we do even without hurricanes…i.e. 11" in a 24 hour period.
T
Tlaloc
Guest
Yeah, as opposed to the short violent deluges you often find in the south, we get a good steady 9 months of moderate to light rain some years.
Um should we actually get back on topic?
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
OK but we get 70 -90" of rain w/o hurricanes. Been up there in your country brother and your “heavy” rains are not the same as ours. 
S
sires6
Guest
I decided not to answer both this one and Tim when I read drdurel’s answer. He/she said all I could ever say about it. As for Tim’s sarcasm: Tim do you really want to learn or are you just posting to annoy? If you are really seeking you can listen and look at some of the other’s posts.
There are enough questions about the Theory of Evolution to make it questionable, but if you don’t see that, why continue the dialogue? What is your real purpose here, Tim? There is so much information available on the web sites provided that even an engineer like you can have doubts.
Why not take a chance and look at the information and try a literal young earth view?
Isn’t it worth the information and chance? I thought it was when the mariad questions came up for me.
annie
O
Orogeny
Guest
Annie,
I assume you are responding to me (Orogeny).
My sarcasm comes from frustration with one particular poster who does nothing but cut and paste qoutes from sources that are questionable at best even when this has been pointed out to them. If that annoys you, sorry. It was meant to annoy dcdurel.
Do I want to learn what? Why do you suppose that I haven’t looked at those sites (I have)? Why do you assume that I haven’t been listening (I have)?
I’m not sure if I understand. If I don’t agree with you that the theory of evolution is questionable, I shouldn’t participate in this discussion? Is this thread only for those who don’t agree with or understand the science?
My purpose? I don’t know. I read the tread, read some things that I know to be untrue, and I added my opinion. Don’t know if I have a purpose other than to dialogue with fellow Catholics.
By the way, I’m a geologist, not an engineer.
Because the evidence for an old earth is massive and the evidence of a young earth is wishful.
Peace and Merry Christmas!
Tim
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Orogeny: Welcome to the fray! This anthropologist will walk with you any day.
Hrolf
Hrolf
O
Orogeny
Guest
Hello, Brother.
Actually, I have been in the fray for a while (this is a very long thread). Where abouts in Louisiana are you? I have family in the Baton Rouge/New Orleans area and I have spent a lot of time in the Lafayette area.
Peace
Tim
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Orogeny/Tim: I am a native New Orleanian who came to BR for grad school and stayed. I have family in NO and Lafayette. I don’t live in BR proper but to the east in the free state of Livingston (you should know what that means). Nearest Catholic church to us is 7+ miles to the west and a mission 7+ miles to the east. We drive 25 mi. and are members of the cathedral parish. Your responses are very much like a friend of mine from Thibodeaux who is now a geologist working for an oil firm in Houston. I thought you might be him but he would have recognized my screen name. Anyway, nice to meet you!
Hrolf/Leo
Hrolf/Leo
J
Joseph_Romero
Guest
Please remain on topic. Private Messaging is available for meet and greet.
Merry Christmas,
Merry Christmas,
J
Jim_B
Guest
Hello everyone,
Once we step into eternity, a belief in evolution will count for nothing. Our belief in God as our creator (He creates our soul at the instant of our conception) will count for something.
Whether or not evolution is true or false is not something I claim infalliblity on.
But I will say this. In the end the truth comes out.
And if a theory is valid, then it gains in credibility over time.
But with evolution, this theory has been losing credibility over time.
When I began teaching high school biology 24 years ago, all of us rookies were taught that it was a fact, and anyone who didn’t belief that was a ‘bible-thumping-fundamentalist’. But as I’ve learned more and more about the complexity of life, thechance of billions of molecules assembling themselves spontaneously to create the first cell seems impossible to me. I know of a growing number of people (far more intelligent than I) who no longer see the theory of evolution as being credible.
Over time, the evolution theory has become less credible, not more. Let it sink or swim on its own merits. If evolution is true, then nothing anyone says will make it untrue.
But if evolution is not true, then nothing all the 'scientists’say will ever save it.
Jim B
Once we step into eternity, a belief in evolution will count for nothing. Our belief in God as our creator (He creates our soul at the instant of our conception) will count for something.
Whether or not evolution is true or false is not something I claim infalliblity on.
But I will say this. In the end the truth comes out.
And if a theory is valid, then it gains in credibility over time.
But with evolution, this theory has been losing credibility over time.
When I began teaching high school biology 24 years ago, all of us rookies were taught that it was a fact, and anyone who didn’t belief that was a ‘bible-thumping-fundamentalist’. But as I’ve learned more and more about the complexity of life, thechance of billions of molecules assembling themselves spontaneously to create the first cell seems impossible to me. I know of a growing number of people (far more intelligent than I) who no longer see the theory of evolution as being credible.
Over time, the evolution theory has become less credible, not more. Let it sink or swim on its own merits. If evolution is true, then nothing anyone says will make it untrue.
But if evolution is not true, then nothing all the 'scientists’say will ever save it.
Jim B
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Jim: Unfortunately, and all too many times, it comes down to “God created the earth in 7 days” or “we evolved - and were lucky at the evolutionary lotto”. Physical evidence does not support the first and, as Einstein so aptly put it, God does not play dice with the universe for the second. God is behind His Creation. It flows elegantly however murkily we perceive it. The more we learn about God’s Creation the more the mystery of that Creation deepens. Like it or not, we are not the pastoralist Hebrews whose belief in a monotheistic God is awesome in its own right. We may be dwarves on the shoulders of giants but God gave us brains to think and we are not pastoral nomads but a people who have followed the “trail of Creation” for some centuries. Does it really challenge your faith to think of an awesome Creator God who set his universe into motion according to set laws which He laid down? Can you honestly look at the Hubble telescope pictures and say, yep, that was just a few thousand years ago?
O
Orogeny
Guest
Jim B:
Who are those people that you mention? How many are there?
Why does the claim that evolution is losing credibility keep coming up? Is it the old adage, tell a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it?
Peace
Tim
This sure is a common claim on these threads. The FACT is, new discoveries are being made all the time that support evolution.
Who are those people that you mention? How many are there?
Why does the claim that evolution is losing credibility keep coming up? Is it the old adage, tell a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it?
Peace
Tim
R
rossum
Guest
Jim B:
rossum
You are not the first person to make this sort of statement, merely the latest in a very long line. See Glenn Morton’s page The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
dcdurel,
Some answers to your regurgipost #102:
dcdurel:
dcdurel:
Remember that creationism also needs transitionals to generate the number of observed species after the Flood bottleneck. Transitional fossils are required to support both theories.
dcdurel:
dcdurel:
dcdurel:
dcdurel:
dcdurel:
dcdurel:
Another substandard post. Maybe if you stuck to Theology you would do better; you seem to be out of your depth in Biology.
rossum
Some answers to your regurgipost #102:
See Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events.
Most new species arise from small local groups. Unless you dig in the right place and at the right time horizon you will not find transitionals. For example the whale transitionals (Pakicetus, Ambulocetus etc.) are found only in Pakistan. There are no whale transitionals in America because whales did not evolve in America. Most animals over most of the world migrated to where they are now; migration does not produce transitional fossils.
Remember that creationism also needs transitionals to generate the number of observed species after the Flood bottleneck. Transitional fossils are required to support both theories.
Strictly this is a question on Abiogenesis, not Evolution. Abiogenesis has more open questions than evolution, for a survey of reasonably current ideas see this page.
This is incorrect. Abiogenesis has many open questions, but it is certainly discussed and scientists do have some clues - see the web link above and its references. Again your creationist sources are wrong. Why do you continue to use them if they are providing you with false information? By now experience should have told you that they are unreliable.
It probably reproduced asexually, by splitting into two, like bacteria. Is this really so difficult that you could not answer it? Are you so blinded by faith in your creationist websites that you have forgotten how to think for yourself? Perhaps you do not even bother to read what you are cutting and pasting here.
That “only” is incorrect. RNA can carry information, but does not do it as well as DNA. RNA can catalyse reactions but does not do it as well as proteins. DNA cannot catalyse reactions and proteins cannot carry information. RNA came first since it can do both jobs, look up “RNA world” and Rybozyme. Once the RNA world was established then DNA could take over the information carrying job and proteins could take over the catalysing of reactions, leaving RNA to handle the link between DNA and proteins which it still does. RNA is a generalist doing many jobs and was largely replaced by two specialists doing specific jobs. This is a good example of how an irreducibly complex system can evolve.
See this article. This question is inconsistent with your question about how the first cell reproduced. Again it seems you are not even reading this stuff before you post it. You should have enough respect for your audience to read your own posts before pressing the send button.
See the article Evolving Immunity by Matt Inlay.
Another substandard post. Maybe if you stuck to Theology you would do better; you seem to be out of your depth in Biology.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
To the creationists here,
Some questions about the evidence for the literal interpretation of Genesis.
1 Genesis 2:20 mentions cattle. What is your evidence for the existence of cattle from the early geological record? A Cambrian cow would blow a huge hole in the theory of evolution - so let us see your evidence. If you do not have evidence for cattle then you can use sheep [Gen 4:2], birds [Gen 2:20], fish [Gen 1:28], fruit trees [Gen 1:29] or seed bearing plants [Gen 1:29].
2 What is your evidence for human habitation such as cities [Gen 4:17] from the early geological record?
3 What is your evidence for the effect of the flood on species? Taking cattle as an example you should be able to give evidence of an increase in the number of cattle from Creation up to the Flood, extinction of all but one species of cattle at the Flood, then a gap followed by a reappearance of that single species and a radiation into modern species after the Flood. You can use the other land animal species mentioned in Genesis instead of cattle if you wish, they should all show a similar pattern of increase, extinction and radiation.
This is the kind of evidence you need to show if you want to convice me that your literal interpretation of Genesis is correct. If you want to make a scientific case for your views then please show your evidence. I await it with interest.
rossum
Some questions about the evidence for the literal interpretation of Genesis.
1 Genesis 2:20 mentions cattle. What is your evidence for the existence of cattle from the early geological record? A Cambrian cow would blow a huge hole in the theory of evolution - so let us see your evidence. If you do not have evidence for cattle then you can use sheep [Gen 4:2], birds [Gen 2:20], fish [Gen 1:28], fruit trees [Gen 1:29] or seed bearing plants [Gen 1:29].
2 What is your evidence for human habitation such as cities [Gen 4:17] from the early geological record?
3 What is your evidence for the effect of the flood on species? Taking cattle as an example you should be able to give evidence of an increase in the number of cattle from Creation up to the Flood, extinction of all but one species of cattle at the Flood, then a gap followed by a reappearance of that single species and a radiation into modern species after the Flood. You can use the other land animal species mentioned in Genesis instead of cattle if you wish, they should all show a similar pattern of increase, extinction and radiation.
This is the kind of evidence you need to show if you want to convice me that your literal interpretation of Genesis is correct. If you want to make a scientific case for your views then please show your evidence. I await it with interest.
rossum
B
Benadam
Guest
Genesis is mythic literature. It was written with a system of symbols and literary devices that represent realities easily recognized by it’s readers of that time.
Genesis reveals God’s creative activity and conveys concepts that require that they be figured in visible forms. The visible forms can be taken as literal figures of invisible realities.
In the case of the creative activity of God, there are subliminal layers of activity that are revealed in the text. The text is also communicating an existence outside of our conscious experience in regards of time. The human experience of time changed after Adam sinned in a way radical to the point that everything before that event is refered to as ‘in the beginning’.
To summarize, in reference to your question about the order of creation and it’s apparent conflict with the archeological record. Genesis doesn’t address science and it’s not trying to be a history book, it is a story that reveals the truth of man’s origin and what it communicates is real history.
- Status