evolution

[Orogeny]

Let’s set up a hypothetical situation. Let’s say that Earth is an uninhabited planet and that we come in on our saucer and land on Mount St. Helens. Our experts get out and look at the rocks. They would probably conclude that it was reasonable to say that it had recently erupted. But they could not say with absolute certainty. To rule out any other possibility would require an omniscience that belongs to God alone.

Why the hypothetical? Could scientists figure out that St. Helens has erupted in the past based on the physical evidence left by the 1980 eruption? Yes or no.

The evidence for an ancient Earth is not as compelling as you would like to believe. The Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) was run on a sample of rock and gave a date of 2 billion years. Trouble is that the rock was formed during a volcanic eruption in 1800. It was not 2 billion years old but 200. Now old-Earth theorists will say that the K-Ar test returned a false result because the sample was too young to be validly used which is 100% correct but 100% irrelevant. What it points out is that we can’t tell from the K-Ar test if a sample is incredibly old or incredibly young. For all we know every rock that has ever been tested using the K-Ar test was too young for the test to give an accurate result.

You don’t know what you are talking about. Unfortunately, the person who did much of that testing does and he did so specifically to deceive you and others who cling to a literal reading of Genesis into believing that dating methods are flawed. Check out Ar-Ar isochron dating.

In the 60s when we started landing vehicles on the moon, we knew the rate of accumulation of meteoritic dust and, assuming an ancient moon, assumed that the vehicle would be buried when it landed. It turned out that very little dust had actually accumulated indicating that maybe the moon isn’t as old as we thought.

Sure. Maybe you ought to use the “moon is receeding too fast” or “the oceans are too salty for an old earth” arguments as well. Nothing like debunked YEC arguments to give me a good laugh!

There are other indications that the Earth may not be as old as evolution demands. More research needs to be done but, when it comes to defending their dogmas, sedevacantists have nothing on evolutionists.

Go for it. I look forward to that research.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

The Catholic Church requires you to believe its constant teachings. It requires you to believe in Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium.

Ok, once again, yes or no. Simple answer. Does the Church REQUIRE me to accept a literal reading of Genesis?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Ok, once again, yes or no. Simple answer. Does the Church REQUIRE me to accept a literal reading of Genesis?

Peace

Tim

You cannot pick and choose as a Protestant does. For the correct interpretation of any passage we look to the Magisterium.

Therefore you are bound to the teachings of the church.

 

[Orogeny]

You cannot pick and choose as a Protestant does. For the correct interpretation of any passage we look to the Magisterium.

Therefore you are bound to the teachings of the church.

Is that a yes or a no?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Is that a yes or a no?

Peace

Tim

My answer is complete.

 

[TheAtheist]

I’m going to go out on a limb and say “no” for you Tim.

Many of your early Church fathers actually disdained a literal teaching of Genesis, among them were such notables as Augustine and Origen of Alexandria.

There was a debate between the Alexandrian school and I believe a theological school in Damascus that took the Bible literally on everything.

If the state of the Orthodox Church and Catholic Churches can be taken as evidence, the folks in Damascus seem to have lost that one.

 

[garysibio]

Ok, once again, yes or no. Simple answer. Does the Church REQUIRE me to accept a literal reading of Genesis?

Peace

Tim

No, it doesn’t. That doesn’t mean that it is not literal. Also, the Church does require us to accept monogenesis, an idea which comes from a literal view of Genesis. Now I have a question for you. OK, several questions.

1. Do you reject a literal view of all of Genesis or just the early chapters? Do you believe in Noah and a truly universal flood? What about the Tower of Babel or Sodom and Gomorrah? Literal or not? The same for Abraham, Isaac, Joseph and the others.
2. If you believe that some of Genesis is to be taken literally and some not, what is your criteria for deciding what is literal and what is not? Where is the dividing line?
3. If you reject all of Genesis as literal, what about the gospels? Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Why? The resurrection is no less amazing than God creating the universe in six 24-hour days.

Gary

 

[Orogeny]

1. Do you reject a literal view of all of Genesis or just the early chapters? Do you believe in Noah and a truly universal flood? What about the Tower of Babel or Sodom and Gomorrah? Literal or not? The same for Abraham, Isaac, Joseph and the others.

The flood, the Tower of Babel were clearly not historical events. Sodom and Gomorrah I am not real clear on. I have no reason to believe that Abraham, Isaac and Joseph were not real, historical people.

1. If you believe that some of Genesis is to be taken literally and some not, what is your criteria for deciding what is literal and what is not? Where is the dividing line?

If there is a reason to believe that the stories are not literal (evidence of an old earth, evidence for evolution, no evidence for a global flood), I decide that the story is true but not literally true. In the case of the men that you mentioned, I have no reason to doubt that they didn’t exist.

1. If you reject all of Genesis as literal, what about the gospels? Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Why? The resurrection is no less amazing than God creating the universe in six 24-hour days.

Since I don’t reject all of Genesis as literal, this doesn’t need a response. However, regarding your questions, yes, I am Catholic, I accept the resurrection as a historical event.

Do you know of any physical evidence that the resurrection happened? Me neither. Now, does that make me Catholic enough for you?

Peace

Tim

 

[garysibio]

To creationists, explain:

Australopithecus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus

Homo Habilis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

Homo Erectus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

Neanderthal
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Cro Magnon (modern man)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro_magnon

What are these remains? Extinct speicies of apes? Deformed humans? Tricks of the Devil?

( vague generilisations don’t count.)

Actually, I have a BA in anthropology so I am quite familiar with the fossils you have mentioned. First of all, you have to remeember that, if you were to gather all of the hominid fossils that we know of, they’d fit very nicely in the back of your average pickup truck. We’re not working with a lot of evidence one way or the other.

If we limit ourselves to the fossils belonging to the genus Homo, it turns out that there is much more variation in the skulls of people living today than there is in the fossil skulls. That wouldn’t be the case if they were our evolutionary parents.

Australopithecus is most likely an ape (based on its jawbone). No anthropologist believes that we descended from it.

I’m not going to claim that creationists can currently answer every point that is brought up against it. More research needs to be done. The problem is that it is not getting done because of prejudice in the scientific community.

Gary

 

[Namesake]

Australopithecus is most likely an ape (based on its jawbone). No anthropologist believes that we descended from it.

First of all humans are apes. It’s a fact, you could look it up (like Yogi said).

Second, anthropologists are fine in their area of expertise, but they are generally not as involved in biological evolution as evolutionary biologists, geologists, paleontologists, etc.

 

[Orogeny]

My answer is complete.

It may be complete, but it doesn’t answer the question. Does the Church REQUIRE me to accept a literal reading of Genesis. Yes or No. You know the answer. It would be a help to everyone reading these conversations to know what your answer is. Yes or no.

Peace

Tim

 

[garysibio]

Why the hypothetical? Could scientists figure out that St. Helens has erupted in the past based on the physical evidence left by the 1980 eruption? Yes or no.

I made it hypothetical because no one on Earth would be able to be able to examine the geologic evidence without knowing from the news that a volcano had erupted there. It’s the same reason why lawyers want jurors who haven’t read about the case already.

Aside from that I already answered your question in the negative. While they would most likely see a volcano as a distinct possibility, maybe even a probability, unless the observers were omniscient they could not rule out the possibility of some other process, even an unknown one, producing a result indistinguishable from a volcano.

You don’t know what you are talking about.

Thank you for reminding me that the reason I hate getting into these discussion is the ridiculous bigotry of the so-called scientifically minded. Apparently I’ve offended your orthodoxy. Oh well.

Unfortunately, the person who did much of that testing does and he did so specifically to deceive you and others who cling to a literal reading of Genesis into believing that dating methods are flawed. Check out Ar-Ar isochron dating.Sure. Maybe you ought to use the “moon is receeding too fast” or “the oceans are too salty for an old earth” arguments as well. Nothing like debunked YEC arguments to give me a good laugh!Go for it. I look forward to that research.

Do you want to discuss this topic or are you just going to ridicule?

Gary

 

[garysibio]

First of all humans are apes. It’s a fact, you could look it up (like Yogi said).

Second, anthropologists are fine in their area of expertise, but they are generally not as involved in biological evolution as evolutionary biologists, geologists, paleontologists, etc.

Huans are more that just apes. We have immortal souls, apes do not. However, even if we were just apes, your statement is irrelevant since not all apes are human.

There are three branches of anthropology and, in the process of getting a BA, you get a big dose of all three. One of those branches is physical anthropology which deals with these fossils.

I must say that this was a nice attempt to not address the points I brought up about these fossils.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

The flood, the Tower of Babel were clearly not historical events. Sodom and Gomorrah I am not real clear on. I have no reason to believe that Abraham, Isaac and Joseph were not real, historical people. If there is a reason to believe that the stories are not literal (evidence of an old earth, evidence for evolution, no evidence for a global flood), I decide that the story is true but not literally true. In the case of the men that you mentioned, I have no reason to doubt that they didn’t exist.Since I don’t reject all of Genesis as literal, this doesn’t need a response. However, regarding your questions, yes, I am Catholic, I accept the resurrection as a historical event.

Do you know of any physical evidence that the resurrection happened? Me neither. Now, does that make me Catholic enough for you?

Peace

Tim

Do you believe that King Solomon built a temple in Jerusalem? I ask because there is not one bit of physical evidence pointing to its existence. Two pieces of evidence that have been purported to prove it have been proven to be forgeries. Based on your criteria, that temple never existed.

Gary

 

[buffalo]

It may be complete, but it doesn’t answer the question. Does the Church REQUIRE me to accept a literal reading of Genesis. Yes or No. You know the answer. It would be a help to everyone reading these conversations to know what your answer is. Yes or no.

Peace

Tim

No - the Catholic Church does not require a literal reading of every passage of Scripture. It requires a literal reading unless there is sufficient reason not to. This is not my answer, it is the Church’s.

We are not Sola Scriptura Protestants. Therefore we do not have private interpretation. We are required to submit to the teaching on all passages.

Back to you - are you privately interpreting Genesis? It would be helpful…etc…

 

[The_Barbarian]

Actually, I have a BA in anthropology so I am quite familiar with the fossils you have mentioned. First of all, you have to remeember that, if you were to gather all of the hominid fossils that we know of, they’d fit very nicely in the back of your average pickup truck. We’re not working with a lot of evidence one way or the other.

Hmm… let’s see… here’s a list of 99 significant ones:
talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

It would be a little tight in that pickup bed, even if we limited it to the more significant finds. I’m a bit surprised to find that an anthropologist wouldn’t know that.

If we limit ourselves to the fossils belonging to the genus Homo, it turns out that there is much more variation in the skulls of people living today than there is in the fossil skulls.

No, that’s wrong. We’d have to include H. habilis, the adults of which had an average brain size of 650 cc. Find me a modern human population like that. Find me a population with skulls even close to this:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/images/Homo_habilis.gif

That wouldn’t be the case if they were our evolutionary parents.

That’s wrong, too. There’s nothing at all to prevent evolution from increasing the diversity in a species.

Australopithecus is most likely an ape (based on its jawbone). No anthropologist believes that we descended from it.

First, the jawbone of Australopithecines is not like those of other apes. As you can see here:
cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Hominids/Australopithecus%20afarensis%20jaw.gif

Australopithecine jaws are more like human ones than ape ones. Pretty much what you’d expect from a transitional.

I’m not going to claim that creationists can currently answer every point that is brought up against it.

Can you name one assertion made by creationism that goes against accepted science, which has turned out to be true?

More research needs to be done. The problem is that it is not getting done because of prejudice in the scientific community.

Or maybe it’s just that no one is interested in proving that the world isn’t flat any more.

 

[cynic]

Actually, I have a BA in anthropology so I am quite familiar with the fossils you have mentioned. First of all, you have to remeember that, if you were to gather all of the hominid fossils that we know of, they’d fit very nicely in the back of your average pickup truck. We’re not working with a lot of evidence one way or the other.

I’m not sure that’s true, there’s been quite a lot of remains of Neanderthals found in France, and remains of Homo Erectus have been found at sites across the world, from Africa and Europe to China.

If we limit ourselves to the fossils belonging to the genus Homo, it turns out that there is much more variation in the skulls of people living today than there is in the fossil skulls. That wouldn’t be the case if they were our evolutionary parents.

I’m not sure why a lack of varition in a ancestor species precludes variation in it’s descendants. It’s estimated that the ‘races’ have been developing distinctly for about 50-100 thousand years.

Australopithecus is most likely an ape (based on its jawbone). No anthropologist believes that we descended from it.

If you accept the possibility of descent from apes, then why not believe it?

I’m not going to claim that creationists can currently answer every point that is brought up against it.

Most wont even acknowledge the existence of such evidence, even though it’s clearly there. Who has more prejudice?

 

[garysibio]

I’m not sure that’s true, there’s been quite a lot of remains of Neanderthals found in France, and remains of Homo Erectus have been found at sites across the world, from Africa and Europe to China.

I can’t say that I’ve ever tried it but I’ve heard that statement made several times in recent years by anthropologists. Keep in mind that very few entire bodies have been found. Most are just small fragments.

When you go into a museum and see the bones of a Neanderthal Man, you are most likely seeing a cast of a fossil and not the actual fossil. Even when I was in college, I very rarely handled an actual fossil. We studied from casts.

I’m not sure why a lack of varition in a ancestor species precludes variation in it’s descendants. It’s estimated that the ‘races’ have been developing distinctly for about 50-100 thousand years.

OK. I should have explained this a bit better. The point is that we can find human beings living today that have skulls exactly like those of our Homo habilis and H. erectus fossils. When anthropologists look at fossil skulls and compare them, they say “See. The skull is increasing in size until we get to modern man. This is evolution.” However, that idea goes right out the door if there are people whose skulls are the same size or even smaller than our supposed ancestors.

If you accept the possibility of descent from apes, then why not believe it?

An anthropologist who believes in evolution would say that Homo habilis and Australopithecus share a common ancestor but the latter represents a limb of the family tree that died out and left no descendants.

Most wont even acknowledge the existence of such evidence, even though it’s clearly there. Who has more prejudice?

There’s a difference between disputing the interpretation of evidence and denying its existence or ignoring its consequences because it doesn’t fit your theory.

Gary

 

[Orogeny]

Aside from that I already answered your question in the negative. While they would most likely see a volcano as a distinct possibility, maybe even a probability, unless the observers were omniscient they could not rule out the possibility of some other process, even an unknown one, producing a result indistinguishable from a volcano.

You are right. Maybe some alien brought down a massive amount of volcanic ash, scooped out the side of the mountain and deposited the ash in such a way as to look like an eruption. That is one possibility.

On the other hand, we have seen things like the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. We have seen the results of those eruptions and we know what the resulting deposits look like and are composed of. Now, with that knowledge, if we are surveying an area near a mountain that we don’t know the geologic history of and we find deposits just like those created by Mt. St. Helens and Pinatubo, do we really need to consider the alien hypothesis or can we reasonably infer that the mountain is a volcano of the same type as St. Helens and Pinatubo?

Thank you for reminding me that the reason I hate getting into these discussion is the ridiculous bigotry of the so-called scientifically minded. Apparently I’ve offended your orthodoxy. Oh well.

Nope, you are just showing how gullible you are in your quest to disprove science.

Do you want to discuss this topic or are you just going to ridicule?

The moon dust argument deserves ridicule. Do you want to discuss this topic or are you just going to regurgitate old, discredited YEC arguments?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Do you believe that King Solomon built a temple in Jerusalem? I ask because there is not one bit of physical evidence pointing to its existence. Two pieces of evidence that have been purported to prove it have been proven to be forgeries. Based on your criteria, that temple never existed.

I have no reason to think that it didn’t exist, therefore I assume that it did exist.

The lack of evidence for a building, even a large one like the Temple of Solomon, is not the same as the lack of evidence for a global flood. You understand that, right?

Peace

Tim