A
Allyson
Guest
Totally understandable. I do push back and try to get more clear answers. 
Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents
- Status
A
Allyson
Guest
If by creationism, you mean some sort of literal or literalish read of Genesis, then no, creationism is not reality. If you mean something else, please define creationism.
I still want to know the time frame you put on the time that life has been on earth for all the biological processes to take place. See my last question to you:
buffalo:
Do you accept that this process took place over billions of years?
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
I am not really sure. I have stated in the past not the billions, but not the thousands. I am awaiting more science on this part. What we glean from the fossil record is abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within. I think we can narrow the time through genetics and a correct mutational clock. (I think this will be much more accurate than the assumed ages of rocks) The vid I posted from Carter - perhaps you missed the point about the human origins and the long stretches and short blossoming of the spokes.
To shed more light on the discussion please take the time to view the two Swamidass videos I posted. I have not read the book yet, but soon will. He is declaring strongly that your thinking on Adam and Eve is wrong.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Have you an observed repeatable example of this claim which demonstrates an unintelligent cause of an intelligent effect?
No, I do not. That is my point. I donāt believe anyone has made such an observation. Ergo ā¦ an intelligent cause for all life must exist.
This is a red herring fallacy. Please argue against the claim as stated rather than the pedigree of other possible claimants.
Do you have a repeatable observation of intelligence emanating from unintelligent causes? That observation (not speculation) will falsify the claim of ID scientists.
The task you assign is not for me but for you. I believe there are no such observations because they do not exist. But Iām open to your (name removed by moderator)ut.
That makes three āscientistsā who cannot come up with repeatable observations of intelligence from unintelligent causes. All life comes from an intelligent cause. Case closed?
Strawman. No, I did not and do not suggest āGodā. That would be your āfollow onā, not mine.
No respected philosopher disputes the first principles and scientists are not philosophers. To mask ignorance, scientists use euphemisms such as āemergent propertyā or ābrute factā which are meaningless terms as explanations.
But I put it to you as well: show me a repeatable observation of intelligence emanating from unintelligent causes.
F
Freddy
Guest
Youāll never get an answer to this. āNot billions but more than thousandsā is the only response youāll get. Buff doesnāt want to appear to be a fundamentalistAllyson:
buffalo:
Do you accept that this process took place over billions of years?
The equivalent answer if you asked him the distance between LA and NY would be: 'Iām waiting for further information but itās not as much as 4,000km but more than 4mm.
A
Allyson
Guest
Okay, I think I do remember that you said something like this at some point. Thank you for the reminder.
The age of the rocks is not assumed. We can measure the time scale based on radioactive decay. I have a lot of chemists in my family, so I think it would be heresy for me to not trust how atoms decay. lol
I am working on the two Swadimass now. I did catch that point from Carter, but I do not think it it problematic. Geneticists typically qualify their calculations of time because the rate of mutations that are preserved are not constant. Genetic dating is always approximate. When that dating lines up with the best dating of the rocks, you know you are getting confirmation.
I am impressed with the scientific knowledge of contributors here, and admit I am not competent to make a substantial contribution.
My naive view is that there must have been a first human, a being that was not a gorilla or a chimpanzee, but a human with an immortal soul. If you like you can call the first human man Adam and the first human woman Eve or Lucy, but perhaps humans arrived after Lucy.
Here again we are in the realm of definitions. What do you mean by a human, is it Homo sapiens, Home erectus or something else?
It does not really matter there must have been a first human, call it what you like. I think this is not contradicting Humani Generis.
My naive view is that there must have been a first human, a being that was not a gorilla or a chimpanzee, but a human with an immortal soul. If you like you can call the first human man Adam and the first human woman Eve or Lucy, but perhaps humans arrived after Lucy.
Here again we are in the realm of definitions. What do you mean by a human, is it Homo sapiens, Home erectus or something else?
It does not really matter there must have been a first human, call it what you like. I think this is not contradicting Humani Generis.
B
buffalo
Guest
Wrong. I just do not know and neither do you.
B
buffalo
Guest
Rock dating is an issue. So now we are going to argue thisā¦ We were supposed to be talking about Adam and Eve.
You have to assume decay rates stayed constant and you know the original content. When you get a fossil found in rock said to be millions of years old and an artifact RC dates at 20,000 years ago, a reconciliation is in order. Lyell dated Niagara Falls to be 35,000 years old yet here is a rock with Fr Pennipenās point of where he drew the falls when he visited. Using this info there is a vast difference. A reconciliation is in order. We still have heat in the solar system that should be long gone. A reconciliation is in order. So I am happy to wait on provisional science. I will leave it there.
Last edited:
A
Allyson
Guest
I think it is safe to say that @Freddy and I know the age of the earth in the same way. We accept the best science done on the subject to date.Freddy:
Wrong. I just do not know and neither do you.
G
gama232
Guest
This has been talked about here for years with no end in sight. Why? Primarily due to āscience onlyā people thinking that a real objection to Humani Generis has been found. It hasnāt.
For those claiming that science knows something and the Church is wrong, consider that science cannot study God. It cannot study the Bible either. The Catholic Church can combine scientific knowledge with actual knowledge contained in the Bible. Science alone cannot do this. When Cardinal Schoenborn had an article published in the New York Times that spoke against evolution, he was rejected. Pope Benedict:
"In the book, Benedict reflected on the 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who told the academy that Charles Darwinās theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwinās theory of evolution was āmore than a hypothesis.ā
āThe pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,ā Benedict said. āBut it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.ā
Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory."
āWe cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,ā he saidā
There it is but the debate will continue. Why? Man must prove there is no Original Sin. That way he can do what he wants. Man, not the Church, is afraid of the truth. Therefore, he will create convincing stories about the past. Why would different humans at allegedly different stages of development mate together? Why would they? Could it be because all of these supposedly early humans were fully human? That is enough evidence to discredit current ideas about who man is. And leaves Adam and Eve, who the Church teaches were given gifts like bodily immortality, as the literal beginning of the human race, which recently added Neanderthals. I submit Neanderthals, based on their physical features, and who walked upright as we do, was another racial type, but died out for unknown reasons.
For those claiming that science knows something and the Church is wrong, consider that science cannot study God. It cannot study the Bible either. The Catholic Church can combine scientific knowledge with actual knowledge contained in the Bible. Science alone cannot do this. When Cardinal Schoenborn had an article published in the New York Times that spoke against evolution, he was rejected. Pope Benedict:
"In the book, Benedict reflected on the 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who told the academy that Charles Darwinās theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwinās theory of evolution was āmore than a hypothesis.ā
āThe pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,ā Benedict said. āBut it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.ā
Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory."
āWe cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,ā he saidā
There it is but the debate will continue. Why? Man must prove there is no Original Sin. That way he can do what he wants. Man, not the Church, is afraid of the truth. Therefore, he will create convincing stories about the past. Why would different humans at allegedly different stages of development mate together? Why would they? Could it be because all of these supposedly early humans were fully human? That is enough evidence to discredit current ideas about who man is. And leaves Adam and Eve, who the Church teaches were given gifts like bodily immortality, as the literal beginning of the human race, which recently added Neanderthals. I submit Neanderthals, based on their physical features, and who walked upright as we do, was another racial type, but died out for unknown reasons.
Last edited:
A
Allyson
Guest
I am not sure what āan artifact RCā is? I am also not clear on your example with Niagara falls.
That said, NO, we do not need to argue about dating methods. The age of the earth matters here because billions of years of development is context in which complex life like what we see today arose. There was 2 billion years of just viruses (non-life) and single cell-organisms just exchanging genes and cell structures before muti-cellular life was formed (as yet another way to exchange and share genes and cell structures.) In the context of billions of years, you can make better sense of a purely natural process operating and leading to us.
And, you can still believe that God put that process in place, but you do not need to posit that he directly tinkered to make it work.
F
Freddy
Guest
I think we can all tie it down to a figure with a little more accuracy than you have suggested. Your range of time spans is the equivalent of giving someonās age at ānot in his sixties but older than half an hourā.Freddy:
Wrong. I just do not know and neither do you.
How can your views be taken seriously when you give responses such as that?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Eh? Youāve really lost me here. It was you who claimed that evidence for your proposal that āāInformation organizedā in an effect is evidence of an intelligent causeā could be found by examining āother effects that contain organized informationā. Now you say that you ābelieve there are no such observations because they do not exist.ā If you knew that there was no such evidence for your belief in an intelligent cause, then why imply that there was, and why suggest that I examine it? And why believe your initial proposal, now that you say there is no evidence for it?
Iāve no idea where youāre going with this. As a good Catholic, I believe that all life stems from God, who is intelligent, but I certainly donāt believe he was so clumsy as to do it by the processes usually attributed to Intelligent Design
Why? What would it demonstrate? For what its worth I think of myself as fairly intelligent, and I emanated from a zygote which certainly wasnāt. The same applies to every human who ever lived, and to a certain extent a lot of other species of animal too. Is that what you were looking for, or would you like to define what you want and why you want it a little more clearly?
.
B
buffalo
Guest
You do not have to take me seriously. The OP is HG and Adam and Eve.
B
buffalo
Guest
an artifact radio carbon dated.
B
buffalo
Guest
You are conditioning God in your own image?
What processes usually attributed to ID? Please explain.
A
Allyson
Guest
Why are you shifting the goalposts here? You said that there was a distinction between ID Creationists and ID Science. I do not think that distinction exists in part for some of the reasons I stated in my comment, but I am open to finding out who is an ID Science person who is not a creationist. Can you give me any names? I was not asking about their claims.Allyson:
This is a red herring fallacy. Please argue against the claim as stated rather than the pedigree of other possible claimants.
Do you have a repeatable observation of intelligence emanating from unintelligent causes? That observation (not speculation) will falsify the claim of ID scientists.
As for causation and intelligence and non-intelligence. I am going to go where we have not gone before on this thread. Quantum mechanics is not an intelligent process (if I can use that word in physics), yet, because we are entangled, we observe many things that are intelligent like other people or cats
. There is also no causation at the quantum level of existence in the classical sense, but it is the most foundational level of everything that exists and that we experience.Oh, and I am most definitely NOT a physicist. The last physics I took was HS, so what I know about QM comes 100% from self-study. I want to be clear that I am not attributing any woo to QM, so letās all avoid wooifying it. Thanks
A
Allyson
Guest
Okay, I am still confused. You said.
Radio Carbon dating does not go back millions of years. So, there is no need to reconcile a dating method for one object where the half life is in the millions of year (the rock) and the other where the half-life is in the tens of thousands of years (the carbon based artifact). The dating is based on different half isotopes that decay at different rates. Rates you can know from measuring decay in a lab. I fail to see the issue here.
B
buffalo
Guest
and not dare to questionā¦
- Status