Evolution refuting catholicism?

[PhilVaz]

Another evolution thread evolving out of control…

I agree with the starter of the thread that we should get back to the polygenism vs. monogenism debate, since that’s the harder question to deal with (maybe more precise definitions of both will help, and what it means to be “truly human” with body and soul). Although its been discussed in here in many threads, not sure we resolved anything.

The creationist “scientific” objections to evolution are always rather easy to answer with an appeal to a few articles at TalkOrigins. No they are not infallible, but they blow away all the creationists and creationist sites I’ve seen and read. Just about every anti-evolution argument that comes up here has been dealt with there in excruciating detail. And I use anti-evolution meaning “against evolution” not in a bigoted sense. Pro-creationism might be another way of putting it. I am pro-creation by God but not “pro-creationism as a scientific alternative” to evolutionary science. Clear?

And yeah I read both sides carefully, including spending 4.5 billion hours transcribing the Firing Line Creation-Evolution debate, and converting to Real Audio. The evolutionists smoked the creationists in this debate (although the creationists or intelligent design advocates started off well). Good debate, one of the better ones with some of the top people.

SocCatholic << Yes I spent a few hours reading through it before I came to discredit it as compliant with the philosophical foundations of science. >>

I am amazed that folks can read the Evidences for Evolution article by Theobald (all of it, including the side-bars and external articles) and still think there is no good evidence for macroevolution, or that evolution is not good science. I’ve summarized it here

In what sense can “creationism” (there are many flavors) explain the various scientific evidence outlined in that article from the universal phylogenetic tree, transitional forms (yes, there are plenty), vestiges and atavisms, embryology, biogeography (past and present), paralogy / analogy, the molecular sequences, etc. I’m most interested in the scientific answers from “creationists” but also answers to the theological objections by those who accept evolution. Both are equally important. Although as I’ve mentioned I’m hoping John Haught takes care of most of those.

The “death before sin” (or animal death) has been talked about in here before. Look up old-earth creationist astronomer Hugh Ross or oil geologist Glenn Morton (former young-earther, now theistic evolutionist). Many Christians who are scientists have dealt with that. The “earth must be young” would indeed answer that objection theologically (taking early Genesis very literally), but scientifically its nonsense. Another solution proposed on this board has been “Paradise” was in a parallel universe (something like heaven) and not on this earth. Not something that can be measured by science, but that theological answer can possibly answer the theological objection too.

Meet theology with theology and science with science please.

Phil P

 

[MichelleTherese]

Another evolution thread evolving out of control… http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

That’s cute! We should start a new thread that’s all about evolution vs. creation and leave this thread alone so that the original question can be addressed.

 

[Brown10985]

PhilVaz:

Another evolution thread evolving out of control…

I agree with the starter of the thread that we should get back to the polygenism vs. monogenism debate, since that’s the harder question to deal with (maybe more precise definitions of both will help, and what it means to be “truly human” with body and soul). Although its been discussed in here in many threads, not sure we resolved anything.

The creationist “scientific” objections to evolution are always rather easy to answer with an appeal to a few articles at TalkOrigins. No they are not infallible, but they blow away all the creationists and creationist sites I’ve seen and read. Just about every anti-evolution argument that comes up here has been dealt with there in excruciating detail. And I use anti-evolution meaning “against evolution” not in a bigoted sense. Pro-creationism might be another way of putting it. I am pro-creation by God but not “pro-creationism as a scientific alternative” to evolutionary science. Clear?

And yeah I read both sides carefully, including spending 4.5 billion hours transcribing the Firing Line Creation-Evolution debate, and converting to Real Audio. The evolutionists smoked the creationists in this debate (although the creationists or intelligent design advocates started off well). Good debate, one of the better ones with some of the top people.

SocCatholic << Yes I spent a few hours reading through it before I came to discredit it as compliant with the philosophical foundations of science. >>

I am amazed that folks can read the Evidences for Evolution article by Theobald (all of it, including the side-bars and external articles) and still think there is no good evidence for macroevolution, or that evolution is not good science. I’ve summarized it here

In what sense can “creationism” (there are many flavors) explain the various scientific evidence outlined in that article from the universal phylogenetic tree, transitional forms (yes, there are plenty), vestiges and atavisms, embryology, biogeography (past and present), paralogy / analogy, the molecular sequences, etc. I’m most interested in the scientific answers from “creationists” but also answers to the theological objections by those who accept evolution. Both are equally important. Although as I’ve mentioned I’m hoping John Haught takes care of most of those.

The “death before sin” (or animal death) has been talked about in here before. Look up old-earth creationist astronomer Hugh Ross or oil geologist Glenn Morton (former young-earther, now theistic evolutionist). Many Christians who are scientists have dealt with that. The “earth must be young” would indeed answer that objection theologically (taking early Genesis very literally), but scientifically its nonsense. Another solution proposed on this board has been “Paradise” was in a parallel universe (something like heaven) and not on this earth. Not something that can be measured by science, but that theological answer can possibly answer the theological objection too.

Meet theology with theology and science with science please.

Phil P

You agreed with me that the thread had gone off topic and then you wrote paragraphs on a topic irrelevent to monogenism vs polygenism.
Can someone please answer my question how the evidence for macroevolution fits in with monogenism?

 

[PhilVaz]

MichTer << We should start a new thread that’s all about evolution vs. creation and leave this thread alone so that the original question can be addressed. >>

Well there’s plenty of threads already. I like to wait until a new person registering on the board thinks this question hasn’t already been addressed 4.5 billion times on this board generating 4.5 billion posts. Do a search on “evolution” here and most of the threads are around 200 posts each.

It’s been addressed but the theological objections still stand against evolution (or at least cause tension anxiety headaches) and the scientific answers to creationism still demolish creationism. Which is why the “debate” still rages.

MichTer << The Theory of Evolution is full of frauds and lies and mistakes yet it is taught to us as if it were the only truth out there. >>

You should take back this earlier statement, read a little (or a lot) of the TalkOrigins archive, particularly this article on God and evolution. Unless you mean Piltdown, which did turn out to be one of the frauds, but this was exposed by evolutionary scientists in the 1950s, not by AnswersInGenesis or the Institute for Creation Research which didn’t exist yet. Science corrects science, that’s how it works.

But I would be very interested in all the frauds, lies, and mistakes in the general theory of evolution (descent with modification by natural selection) that you know about. We can always dream that evolution will go away but I wouldn’t recommend that.

Phil P

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

[catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp](http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp)

 

[PhilVaz]

Brown << Can someone please answer my question how the evidence for macroevolution fits in with monogenism? >>

Okay fine, since you’re pushing me here’s the short answer. I believe it was already given above. We trace ourselves back to an original human couple who was fully human (this couple had a body created by evolution, and a soul created by God). No other homo sapiens (our species) had both body and soul, only this first truly human couple.

We trace ourselves back to this first truly human couple ( = monogenism, one Adam and one Eve who were body and soul), the other homo sapiens (human body but no human souls) died off.

EDIT: this might not work since Glenn Morton deals with the definition of humanity from an anthropology perspective, and he concludes that Adam/Eve must have lived well before the first homo sapiens (well before 150,000 years ago). His book is quite good and I should finish it. It’s not “professionally” published however, but its very readable and comprehensive on the science of human evolution and the potential theological objections.

That’s my short answer, but I’ll need more time to produce a complicated answer on the level of a TalkOrigins article. And there was therefore “animal death” before the Fall, but not human death. Animals do not have spiritual souls. If you’re gonna throw in the “bodily immortality” of Adam/Eve objection, ok you got me, I’m still stumped by that one.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

BTW, Brown – your answer was given by Michael Doyle in post #29 (and following). It took 29 posts but you finally got your answer. And don’t worry, I’m sure this creation-evolution thread will also go on for another 200 posts like all the others.

And for a Catholic apologist right here at Catholic Answers at least sympathetic with evolution, see this one by Jimmy Akin, he concludes by saying

“Until such time as the magisterium would either reverse its twentieth-century finding that human evolution is not precluded by the deposit of faith or would make a new finding that it is required by the deposit, human evolution as a matter that is free with respect to the sources. It is a matter that must stand or fall on its own scientific merits; it is not a matter of Catholic teaching.” (Evolution and the Magisterium, This Rock, Jan 2004)

I highlite the important part. So let’s learn a little about the science before trashing evolution, and work on the theology. For the former there is the infallible and inspired TalkOrigins (just kidding), for the latter see John Haught, here is a course he currently teaches at Georgetown Univ, he’s no dummy

Phil P

 

[DavidFilmer]

wanerious:

DavidFilmer:

For amusement, visit the Monkey Shakespeare Simulator which uses thousands of distributed computers to compare random text to Shakespearean works. As of this writing, after 579,440 billion BILLION BILLION simulated monkey-years, a digital monkey managed to type 22 characters (four words and part of a fifth word) from the tragedy Cymbeline.

This only illustrates your lack of understanding of infinity. It is a really big number.

Actually, the Monkey Simulator helps demonstrate my point with a real-world test case.

The Monkey Simulator has matched 22 characters, but has not yet matched 23. Let’s consider the odds of matching 23 characters, and see if the simulator SHOULD have already achieved this by purely random chance…

The simulator has a character set of 67 elements (it is case sensitive). The odds of matching 23 random characters are 1 in 67^23, or 9.99e+41.

The monkeys have already typed 3.20e+39 pages. But a page has 2000 characters (per the simulator FAQ), so each page contains 1,978 distinct 23-character strings. In typing that many pages, the monkeys have typed 6.32e+42 distinct 23-character strings.

If a purely random process was equally as likely to produce an ordered result as an unordered one, the monkeys should have achieved a 23-character match 6.3 times already.

But they haven’t achieved it at all. That’s because unordered processes do not produce (non-trivial) ordered results.

 

[PhilVaz]

DaveFilmer << But they haven’t achieved it at all. That’s because unordered processes do not produce (non-trivial) ordered results. >>

Already answered above. Come on let’s get serious, what do you do with all the evidence for macroevolution presented by Theobald? You were already shown to misunderstand the 2nd Law of Thermo, and here is a shorter answer. Here are two articles on evolution and chance.

What kind of creationist are you anyway? Young-earth, old-earth, intelligent design, what?

And here is what Barry Lynn in that Firing Line debate says on the “monkey typewriter” example. I don’t agree with Barry Lynn normally, but he was fabulous in this debate:

LYNN: No, I just disavow it, because I think that it is obviously possible to believe in the idea of a God, a God who has a presence and an interest in humanity, without rejecting the overwhelming data that supports evolution. And the failure of anything, Mr. Buckley, to in fact contradict it. In other words, you have picked a few squabbles with evolution but you haven’t even suggested for a moment what the mechanism is with which you would replace it.

BUCKLEY: Well, what if one simply advances basic intelligence? And says, some such thing as that – in fact, a lot of monkeys turned loose over an infinite number of time could not, would not reproduce Shakespeare. Does that sound as an arrogant rejection of – of a random explanation for what we see about us?

LYNN: No, not at all. I think that one of the great things about randomness and chance is that they are used in this process of evolution, as I personally view it, as remarkable tools within that toolbox of God’s creative interest. I mean to reject the idea that chance is something that could be used by the divine is to limit the power of the divine considerably. The divine is not sitting a bunch of monkeys in a building with a bunch of typewriters. I think we’re a little more sophisticated than that, and I think that the process of evolution is far more creative than that.

This debate is here, read it and weep.

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

MichelleTherese:

Don’t forget: geology is the crux on which Darwin’s Theory of Evolution hangs. Don’t neglect your earth science when you investigate.

OK, I’ll bite. Even though evolution is a biological process, not a geological process, what about geology do you feel contradicts evolution?

Peace

Tim

 

[John_of_Woking]

Brown10985:

Hi,
Macroevolution is something that I’ve been deeply struggeling with. I believe in the Catholic Church and everything she says it is though I just don’t see how belief in macroevolution is compatible with Catholicism. None of the evidence points to monogenism. My professors tell me that, even though it is a theory, the evidence is so strong for macroevolution that it’s widely accepted as fact among most scientists. This confuses and scares me.

Help

Brian

I agree. Evolution and polygenism totally undermines the Dogma of original sin.

 

[john_doran]

wanerious:

In an infinitely random sequence of numbers, every possible sequence is included. It is true that over the entire sequence there is a uniform number of each letter, but there are local sequences of highly “ordered” patterns. Will there be a sequence of 1 million straight “A”'s? Sure. Somewhere, a sequence corresponding to all of “Moby Dick”? Sure.

this is the theory that, given an infinite amount of time, all possibilities would (must) become actual.

you speak of this like it is self-evident, but it’s not; it’s a theory, and it’s controversial.

first of all, why should anyone believe that? how would you know something like that?

besides, isn’t one of the possiblities that certain combinations of letters never become actual? in which case the theory isn’t even coherent.

i’m afraid you’re going to have to offer compelling evidence that this theory of yours is better attested-to than the alternatives.

i’m not saying that you’re wrong - i’m just saying that it’s not as obvious as you make it out to be.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

MichaelTDoyle:

In the land of Nod?
This siblings idea is not dogmatic. I think it makes more sense that there were a type of proto-man with animal souls.
I’ve never been comfortable with the idea of instituted incest.

You are more comfy with them mating with ape-creatures? How would we have then inherited original sin?

Instituted incest isn’t wrong if God instituted it.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

amarischuk:

Brian, I am glad to meet you.

Last year I was in a seminary studying for the Catholic priesthood when I came a similar problem. In fact I have discussed this problem at length here in several threads, some old, some new.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23152

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2132&highlight=amarischuk

The problem came to a head for me when I was thinking of monogenism, transanrmism and polygenism and I ran across this article: rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html

In order to get a less anti-scientific view I broke out my Theological Investigations vol. II by Karl Rahner and Rahner, though granding room for transformism (barely) acknowledged that polygenism was officially out. I would suggest you read the section on monogenism in Rahner’s book.

To top it off, my uncle Stephen was professor of bio-chemistry at the University of Ottawa, one of my best friend Joseph is researcher at the neurology department at UBC (having recently completed his PhD in evolutionary microbiology) and another friend Bob is in med school (I studied medieval history, literature and philosophy). I would frequently have discussions about this topic with my friends. I am not willing to admit to the latin-averroism of Joseph and we would frequently debate the problem (he is insistent on someday writeing a book on the subject with me).

It is true that much of Catholic doctrine rests on this dillema; what’s more, many Catholic doctrines also rest on other anthropomorphism and myths found throughout the bible.

I would also suggest you get Lawrence Boadt’s Introduction to the Old Testament, and books by Donald Senior and Raymond Brown on exegesis (such as the St. Jerome’s Biblical commentary or the Catholic Study Bible).

One thing to remember when reactionary Catholics insist that you abandon your knowledge for ‘faith’ is that they have abandoned Aquinas and the whole spirit of Catholicism according to such greats as Aquinas, Maritain, Gilson, de Lubac, Congar, Rahner, Schillibeeckx, de Chardin, Kung, Jungmann and Chenu.

I personally love the writings of Hilair Belloc, G.K. Chesterton and Arnold Lunn, but one thing they have in common is a latent anti-scientism found in thier writings. Such as in the Everlasting Man, or in Is the Catholic Church Anti-Social, or in Vincent Brome’s Six Studies in Quarreling.

Remember that the East (Orthodox and Eastern rite Catholics) reject the doctrine of original sin. Catholism evolves like any other system of thought. If monogenism doesn’t fit, much like some believed that heliocentrism didn’t fit…it is not the end of the world. Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Like I called for in the thread about hell, it is perhaps time to abandon many of these juvenile and mythological superstitions in Catholicism. Don’t let the fundamentalists take over the Church by abandoning it. This is the Scopes trial for the Church.

Adam

Wow. Just goes to show that the enemies of the Church that are within the Church are sometimes more dangerous than the enemies from without. Maybe Catholism should just **evolve **to a higher mental plane where they have evolved beyond a need for God?

 

[trogiah]

I thought I would share that I consider myself very certain of the truths of the Faith of the Catholic Church and at the same time I have no problem considering the theory of evolution as possibly true.

John the Baptist tells some religious leaders that crossed his path.

And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

If God can make a child of Abraham from a stone, would it be so unreasonable to think that God could take that stone, change it into a clam, a giraffe or a monkey first.

If that change took place by “the hand of God” or by a well placed hit of a bit of cosmic radiation I have to ask - What is the difference. The God of Jesus, the God of our Church, is the God of creation. We can’t really know how the world was created in detail. Noone was their to witness it and no video camera was running. We can look at the evidence of creation and talk about how it looks like it was created. And if that seems to contradict Scripture - perhaps God remade the world some other time and made it look like it took millions of years rather than six days.

Creation itself is God’s Word with regard to creation. Scripture tells us over and over that God is the “One who made the heavens and the Earth.”

Whatever theory becomes universally accepted as “truly” the way in which creation was made. - The truth of Jesus being the Son of the Living God and the one who leads us to God’s kingdom will never change.

“Be Not Afraid”

peace
-Jim

 

[MichelleTherese]

Tim,
Why geology is so important to neo-Darwinian Evolution:
(Disclaimer: I can’t spell to save my life and there’s nary a dictionary in sight around here…)

In order for the Theory of Evolution to work the world absolutely must be millions of years old. This would give evolution time to work. Because of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution geology has been tweaked and fudged in order to accomodate the millions and millions of years necessary for biological changes to take place. But when you look at the facts outside the box the evedence points to a very young Earth created by catastrophy rather then millions of years of slow sedimentation. However, these findings are not allowed to be published or spoken of by the Scientific Community. We are only given one side of the story (An old Earth) while just as many facts supporting a young Earth are swept under the carpet. For example, when testing the ages of rocks all data that is found to support a younger Earth is tossed out. Rather then the narrow range of facts that point to the Earth being 4,600 million years old we have more of a shotgun blast of facts that our scientists then weed out in order to make the data say what they want it to say. They created the answer first and then forced science to fit the mold. Why aren’t we shown all of the facts and data?

On biology’s side, proven frauds are still kept in our “Family Tree” even though they are known to be false. This family tree is still in our school textbooks and in our museams. Yet they have been proven to be frauds planted by men seeking glory. Why are they there and why aren’t we told that they are fakes?

I call this kind of stuff “Dirty Science” and as a mere student of science (I’m NOT a scientist yet) it drives me mad. But if one dares to stand up to even the University professors and demand that these frauds and tweaked data be explained, you fail. It seems to me that in order to make the Theory of Evolution work you have to shut everyone up who refuses to follow along like a sheep.

The Scientific Community points their fingers in scorn at the Catholic Church and cites the times when the Church silenced scientists that went against Her. (Ex: claiming the Earth revolved around the Sun rather then the Sun revolving around the Earth.) Yet the Scientific Community has taken the place of the Church and now silences anyone who dares to speak against Saint Darwin and the Sacred Theory Of Evolution.

So, this leaves good Catholics worrying about their souls in light of Evolution and how this Theory-Taught-As-Gospel-Truth might refute the Catholic faith.

 

[MichelleTherese]

Phil P: ( would be very interested in all the frauds, lies, and mistakes in the general theory of evolution (descent with modification by natural selection) that you know about.)

I am but a stuent of Geology and by no means a Scientific genious. But I will share with you a few of the very confusing things I have run into thus far:

1. There is no fossil record of evolution. If all of these billions of species evolved over millions of years the Earth would be laced with their fossils every step of the way. Where are they?
2. The Geological Column exists nowhere on Earth. When a possible colum exists sometimes very interesting things are part of that column as well. Ex: an entire tree standing upright through all the layers that were laid down over “millions of years” of sedimentation.
3. The Geological Column doesn’t make any sense. Only 0.2 millimeters of sediment would be laid down per year. How could that cover a carcass before it had a chance to rot away? Were there no winds or rains or tides while this tiny amount of sediment built up?
4. When a section of the Geological Column is created in the lab from one type of rock crushed up it swiftly creates layers that represent millions of years of slow sedimentation. However, these layers are not set up by sedimentation but according to the weight of the various particles (heaviest on bottom) and the current flow which created the layers. Therefore the rock is not layered according to age but according to density. The thickness of the layers is independent of the amount of time it took for them to be laid down. Evedence of this outside the lab can be found at the “Mini Grand Canyon” on Mt. Saint Helen’s. It matches our own Grand Canyon exactly - but was created in a matter of minutes.
5. The Geological Column is dated by radioactive methods but sedimentary rock does not contain radioactive minerals.
6. The rocks in the Geological Column date the fossils.
7. The fossils in the Geological Column date the rocks.
8. The Theory of Plate Tectonics claims that the crust of the Earth is caused by heat currents being moved upwards through the semifluid Earth interior. However, the amount of heat created by this convection would be between 1,000 and 10 billion times greater then the heat we know to be radiating from the Earth. The calculated velocity, according to the Theory, required to move the Earth’s crust is too low. Also, the velocity-gradient of the viscosity of the semi-liquid interior of the Earth would have to be 100 million times greater then what the Theory claims it is.

 

[Orogeny]

Hi, MichelleTherese. Thanks for the reply.

MichelleTherese:

In order for the Theory of Evolution to work the world absolutely must be millions of years old. This would give evolution time to work. Because of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution geology has been tweaked and fudged in order to accomodate the millions and millions of years necessary for biological changes to take place.

The problem with this statement is that the idea of an old earth pre-dates Darwin. Do you have any evidence of “fudging” of data? I must have missed that during my college days.

But when you look at the facts outside the box the evedence points to a very young Earth created by catastrophy rather then millions of years of slow sedimentation.

The geologic column include both slow, gradual depositional environments and catastrophic events. If you know any geologists, ask them to show you some. There are some great examples in your state.

However, these findings are not allowed to be published or spoken of by the Scientific Community. We are only given one side of the story (An old Earth) while just as many facts supporting a young Earth are swept under the carpet.

There is no conspiracy.

For example, when testing the ages of rocks all data that is found to support a younger Earth is tossed out. Rather then the narrow range of facts that point to the Earth being 4,600 million years old we have more of a shotgun blast of facts that our scientists then weed out in order to make the data say what they want it to say. They created the answer first and then forced science to fit the mold. Why aren’t we shown all of the facts and data?

If you have scientifically defensible data that refutes current dating data, you should publish it. If your methodology is good, you will get published. If not, you will have a hard time getting past peer review.

On biology’s side, proven frauds are still kept in our “Family Tree” even though they are known to be false. This family tree is still in our school textbooks and in our museams.

This should be a very easy one for you. Please provide a list of known frauds that are used in current textbooks and museums.

Yet they have been proven to be frauds planted by men seeking glory. Why are they there and why aren’t we told that they are fakes?

If they have been proven to be frauds, then you have been told they are fakes (assuming that they are).

I call this kind of stuff “Dirty Science” and as a mere student of science (I’m NOT a scientist yet) it drives me mad.

What branch of science are you studying?

But if one dares to stand up to even the University professors and demand that these frauds and tweaked data be explained, you fail.

I will make a bet with you. If you stand up and present valid, defensible data, you will not fail. If you stand up and condemn based on your beliefs and not data, you will fail.

It seems to me that in order to make the Theory of Evolution work you have to shut everyone up who refuses to follow along like a sheep.

There’s that conspiracy theory again.

The Scientific Community points their fingers in scorn at the Catholic Church and cites the times when the Church silenced scientists that went against Her. (Ex: claiming the Earth revolved around the Sun rather then the Sun revolving around the Earth.)

I think you have that backwards.

Continued on the next post

 

[Orogeny]

Continued from previous post.

MichelleTherese:

So, this leaves good Catholics worrying about their souls in light of Evolution and how this Theory-Taught-As-Gospel-Truth might refute the Catholic faith.

MichelleTherese, I am a devout Catholic and a geologist. I believe that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and that evolution is the process that life on earth developed.

I believe God created everything including the earth and all life on it. I believe in original sin. I believe Jesus Christ came to earth and died for our sins. In fact, every time you recite the Creed at Mass, you are stating those beliefs that I passionately believe in. And yet, I don’t worry about my soul in light of evolution.

I asked what science you are studying. Which ever branch you have chosen, I would suggest that you must either gain an understanding of the scientific process or perhaps science is not the right field for you. If you are studying only to gain knowledge and not employment, I must ask you if you really think that you will be able to get anything useful out of your classes if you go in with the preconcieved position that you have stated in this thread.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

MichelleTherese, I know your response was to PhilV and he is capable of responding on his own, but I wanted to make a couple of comments myself.

1) There is no fossil record of evolution. If all of these billions of species evolved over millions of years the Earth would be laced with their fossils every step of the way. Where are they?

You are wrong. Do a little research and you will find information concerning fossils of transitional forms.

1. The Geological Column exists nowhere on Earth. When a possible colum exists sometimes very interesting things are part of that column as well. Ex: an entire tree standing upright through all the layers that were laid down over “millions of years” of sedimentation.

Your information source is wrong. Polystrate fossils (fossils such as the trees you mention) have valid scientific explanations.

1. The Geological Column doesn’t make any sense. Only 0.2 millimeters of sediment would be laid down per year. How could that cover a carcass before it had a chance to rot away? Were there no winds or rains or tides while this tiny amount of sediment built up?

How far along are you in your geology studies?

1. When a section of the Geological Column is created in the lab from one type of rock crushed up it swiftly creates layers that represent millions of years of slow sedimentation. However, these layers are not set up by sedimentation but according to the weight of the various particles (heaviest on bottom) and the current flow which created the layers. Therefore the rock is not layered according to age but according to density. The thickness of the layers is independent of the amount of time it took for them to be laid down. Evedence of this outside the lab can be found at the “Mini Grand Canyon” on Mt. Saint Helen’s. It matches our own Grand Canyon exactly - but was created in a matter of minutes.

I think I am beginning to understand where you are getting your information. Just a word of advice. Change your major if you are willing to accept this kind of information as scientifc.

1. The Geological Column is dated by radioactive methods but sedimentary rock does not contain radioactive minerals.

Radioisotope dating is typically done on igneous rocks, especially volcanics which are very widespread. However, your statement regarding sedimentary rocks not containing radioactive minerals is absolutely wrong. Do some research on the mineral carnotite.

1. The Theory of Plate Tectonics claims that the crust of the Earth is caused by heat currents being moved upwards through the semifluid Earth interior. However, the amount of heat created by this convection would be between 1,000 and 10 billion times greater then the heat we know to be radiating from the Earth. The calculated velocity, according to the Theory, required to move the Earth’s crust is too low. Also, the velocity-gradient of the viscosity of the semi-liquid interior of the Earth would have to be 100 million times greater then what the Theory claims it is.

Again, your sources are showing .

Do yourself a favor and do some legitimate research. Ask questions of your professors. If you don’t like the answers, do some research and collect the data you need to make your argument. Don’t continue to rely on the sources you are obviously relying on.

Peace

Tim