Or in western Europe. By the way, apart from the fact that Berthault is unpublishable in high impact geological journals, I have been unable to find a single paper in respectable geological journals, not a single paper, that references his Russian or Chinese publications. Not one. That’s rather curious for someone who claims to be revolutionising structural geology, isn’t it?
Orogeny responds rather surprisingly and without giving any scientific explanations to support his radical judgement by accusing an Academy of Sciences of being wrong.
The conclusions Orogeny condemns form part of the article published by the Academy. My suggestion, that he checks with Berthault’s website where the published papers and references concerning his research are posted, was considered by Orogeny as “silly”.
This approach from someone who claims to have scientific training is to say the least somewhat unexpected. Separating his scientific case for evolution from his polemic against instant creation is not difficult because when politely asked for details for the former he offers nothing.
I didn’t say there was
I never said it was
it does not except where it can lead to a greater appreciation of Creation.
You are free to witness in your own way and there is no need to mention biology at all.
Don’t confuse mitochondrial Eve or Y chromosome Adam with Adam and EveOne question I’ve got on this, and this has been a real challenge for me, is whether evolution is reconcilable with the doctrine of original sin as I currently understand it.
First, most every reference made to the story of original sin seems to posit the historical accuracy of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis, despite many Catholics’ belief that the creation story is a non-literal account that doesn’t describe the physical “how and when” of the actual events. Secondly, as has been noted, there is genetic evidence that Adam and Eve may not have lived at the same time in history. The term, “most recent common ancestor” (MRCA) refers to the maternal “Mitochondrial Eve” and paternal “Y Chromosome Adam.” In other words, geneticists have calculated that the DNA in everyone on earth’s mitochondria (the energy-producing parts of our cells) come from one female who lived around 140,000 years ago somewhere in Kenya, Tanzania, or Ethiopia. All human males, traced by genetic analysis of the Y-chromosome, are descended from a single man that lived about 60,000 years ago. These two people didn’t live concurrently.
If that’s true, which it may not be given my limited exposure to the genetic literature (please let me know), it’s hard to reason how the Genesis account of “Adam’s fall” has been transmitted to his descendents via concupiscence or some other mechanism (incidentally, Eve sinned first).
Now, there IS some evidence from neuroscience that we instinctually don’t do the right thing all the time, that we have a predilection to sin (maybe inherited genetically?), but as I understand it, a “predilection” to sin isn’t the same as original sin. As I read it, I still rely on the grace of God to help me overcome my more base instincts (no matter how I got them), and to help in striving toward an upright life, but I still have a hard time intellectually reconciling the traditional view of original sin with genetic science.
True, but shouldn’t we also inquire as to whether “The Fall” can be understood in a non-literal sense? For instance, there have been theologians who have unsuccessfully proposed “polygenic” interpretations of the doctrine of original sin. It seems to me that evolution stands a good chance of explaining the development of the human body, Adam and Eve may not have really been the first humans, or if they were, they were incrementally different from those around them. Another possibility is that they emerged as part of one of numerous small groups of early humans, lending some credibility to the “land of Nod” story. However, that might also imply that we have more than one human original family.
I’ve seen some of those papers about a separate physical and spiritual development they do appear interesting.
Which seems to contradict what both science and religion tells us.
Still, we have to account for preternatural gifts. Man evolved into immortality, knowledge, etc…??? or was this a supernatural infusion?I’ve seen some of those papers about a separate physical and spiritual development they do appear interesting.
(Side note: Biologists and the Church mean slightly different things when referring to mono- or polygenisis.)
Since we define A&E as being the first who were fully or truly human i.e. body and soul and biology can’t measure a soul we will never see evidence in the fossil or genetic records. I don’t even think we should spend a whole lot of time on it.
Personally I think that the Upper Paleolithic Revolution is evidence that something interesting happened to humans but that is just my personal speculation.
Which seems to contradict what both science and religion tells us.
that’s beyond my paygrade
Of course you are quite right, but when you are witnessing to someone who because of belief in evolution puts into question Original Sin and the basic Church doctrines stemming from it, either you address the subject of evolution or you let them continue on their misguided way. Personally, in this situation, I feel a duty to use the two spears available to Catholics which can pierce the thick skin of the evolutionist balloon.
Berthault’s experiments do nothing at all to invalidate radiometric dating of rocks which forms part of the geolological evidence on which the standard timescale is based.
See The Imminent Demise of Evolution. Others have made this prediction before, and all have been wrong.
What are you going to do, bleed on me?
the Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight is in your picture. If it is then I think I understand your picture since I found this video.
Are you going to eat their legs?I get it now Alec, after watching the flick in it’s entirety, YOUR the white knight!the Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight is in your picture. If it is then I think I understand your picture since I found this video.
youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno&mode=related&search=
I never saw a Monty Python movie before. Thanks.
You don’t have to eat the legs. 
That’s a really funny movie! It’s my very first MONTY PYTHON movie. The make believe horse was cute. Very evolutionary I learn something new whenever I’m on Catholic.com. It’s an educational experience spanning in every direction. Again, thank you for exposing the humorous side of who you are Alec.(This was an off-topic post I posted elsewhere today but belongs here.)
Spears? More like toothpicks. You do realise that you are claiming that three papers in zero-impact journals, NONE of which have been cited by any other paper in a respectable journal (the truly seminal papers are cited over and over again), and none of which show anything new, are a) about to revolutionise two hundred years of structural geology and b) are enough, on their own, to refute the literally thousands of independent lines of evidence in support of evolution.
How do you know that such methods of dating are reliable if it has been proven to be in error? Isn’t it an assumption to say that he has only proven rapid layering, rather then the possibility that the method used for dating is compromised?
One of the growing numbers of problems besetting radiometric dating is the initial supposition that the rocks are old. That problem is removed by Berthault’s fundamental experiments on stratification which show that rocks do not need millions of years but form rapidly.
The rock formations so far examined (the Tonto Group, Crimean Peninsular, Cambrian and Ordovician sandstones of St. Petersburg) follow the same pattern of rapid formation of strata. This is to be expected because the current (not taken into account by the original principles of stratigraphy) which transported the sedimentary particles moved relatively fast. The current’s actual velocity determined by paleohydraulic analysis of the rock has been shown to be several meters per second. Unless examples can be produced of formations forming otherwise, it can be said that strata tend to form rapidly.
It would be helpful if you would attach comments about my post to the post itself - use the [noparse]