B
buffalo
Guest
Correct. RC dating is only accurate to around 50,000ya.
The fossil dates at 20,000 years ago, well within its capablilities.
Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents
- Status
The fossil dates at 20,000 years ago, well within its capablilities.
B
buffalo
Guest
Isn’t it obvious if one starts out agnostic or even atheist and he becomes convince of ID he would become a convert and advocate for it. Maybe you are looking at this the wrong way. It seems to be believers in your mind cannot do good science. By thinking this way you excluding and not open to science which is supposed to be open.
A
Allyson
Guest
Sure, some bones, that have not fully mineralized can be carbon dated - like the latest living Neanderthals, but what does that have to do with all the fossils that are older than that? Those that are dated using other isotopes from the surrounding rock, etc.?
A
Allyson
Guest
That family full of chemists (and other scientists) is also a family full of Catholics. You are assuming way to much about my state of mind with this comment.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Fossils are found in sedimentary rock and they are rapidly buried. The age of the rock and the fossil should date the same age.
A
Allyson
Guest
I know of no fossil in situ in sedimentary rock that would qualify for carbon dating. Those fossils are dated by the surrounding rock(s). Also, not all remains that we find are buried in sedimentary rock. For example, with Neanderthals, we find their remains in caves and/or ritually buried.
B
buffalo
Guest
I will ask another way. If a layer of sedimentary rock is bracketed by layers of igneous rock, and a fossil is found in the sed rock that dates 20,000 ya, how old is the top layer of igneous rock?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Quite the reverse. I’m told I’m made in his.
Insofar as the theory of Intelligent Design differs from conventional ideas about evolution, I believe it requires sudden and ungainly intervention here and there, as if the divine architect of evolution could not quite get it right from the start. A good effort, but not quite the flawless perfection of the God I believe in.
B
buffalo
Guest
No. it does not. However, God can ans does intervene when He wishes as Catholics know. Front loaded design does not need subsequent intervention.
A
Allyson
Guest
Your hypothetical is fallacious. It assumes facts not in evidence and does not give enough facts at the same time. If you have two layers of igneous rock, and a layer of sedimentary rock has a fossil in situ. Either, that fossil will be too old to be radio carbon dated OR if it can be, the igneous rock above with have a younger date when tested.
In stead of using hypotheticals, do you have a real world example?
B
buffalo
Guest
And why they were not carbon dating because of this belief. Now we are, more and more.
The other issue is about in situ. When uniformatarianism ruled, fossils were thought to be relatively stable in their place. Catatastrophism has scattered fossils that were laid down in one place perhaps several times. So the fossils of one animal could be widely scattered and intermixed.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Are we ready to get back to Adam and Eve?
A
Allyson
Guest
Yes, carbon dating can be done to eliminate that it is possible for a particular fossil, but has such dating given rise to the situation you are describing? So far you have no actual real world example. You just seem to suggest that maybe something was missed because assumptions. That is not a strong argument.
Yes and no. Yes, catastrophes can move layers of rock. No, fossils in situ are not moved out of the kind of rock they are embedded in even when that layer itself is moved. That some fossils are scattered has no bearing on whether isotope analysis works. For any find, geologists will study the landscape or location to see what if any catastrophes will apply to dating.
I am on the Swamidass videos now. In the one with Behe, I really connected with S.'s critique of ID. I think he and I took somewhat similar paths in our experience with ID arguments, although from somewhat different starting points.
G
gama232
Guest
According to the Catholic Church, if a process occurred, God guided it. From Communion and Stewardship:
"But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” ( Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).’
"But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” ( Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).’
D
Dovekin
Guest
Information is organized by temperature and barometric pressure, unintelligent causes. It allows meteorologists to try to predict the weather, which is usually an example of an intelligent cause producing disorganized information.
https://www.amazon.com/Ambient-Weat...ocphy=9007108&hvtargid=pla-314799920104&psc=1
A
Allyson
Guest
This was definitely an interesting discussion. I do not think it is necessary to posit de novo creation of Adam and Eve, afterall, HG just says that we are concerned with the special creation of the souls. It leaves open the possibility for the bodies to from pre-existing living matter. Of course, I recognize that he is not approaching it from a Catholic theological perspective. I am more inclined towards an early historical Adam and Eve v. a couple 10,000 years ago. That is just too late in time. (This came up early in the thread.)
A
Allyson
Guest
Oh, and I should note that he spoke highly of David Reich and his book, which I had linked in my OP.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
My mistake. Is there any observable difference between Intelligent Design and Evolution then? I had always understood that things allegedly of irreducible complexity were explained by ID as sudden interventions.
I dare say. However, he does not appear to have done so as part of the course of evolution.
Not even an atheist would disagree with that. However, he would probably ask in what way ‘front-loaded’ evolution is observably different from ‘atheist’ evolution. What would be your reply?
R
rossum
Guest
If you are looking for an “intelligent effect” then you are assuming what you have to prove. Evolution has repeatedly been observed to unintelligently develop resistance to pesticides, antibiotics etc.
You need to think through your argument more carefully. Specifically “all life”. Consider what the Psalm (41 or 42, depending) says: “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?”
If God is a “living God” and “an intelligent cause for all life must exist” then the living God must also have a cause. You need to change that “all” to “some”.
A bit of self-criticism of your arguments would not be amiss. As Abraham Lincoln said, “Don’t trust everything you read on the internet.”
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
Actually, burden of proof belongs to design without cause, Where are the observations of an unintelligent cause of a intelligent effect?
Did evolution bring about the corona virus?
Lesser creatures like the single-cell amoeba have a larger genome than the human genome. Could it not be that apparent evolution is the result of pre-programmed genetic code being expressed in later generations?
- Status