Teaching evolution at a catholic school

[buffalo]

Tell us why Dr. Schweitzer’s find was so rare, rather than being common, as it would be if the fossils are merely tens of thousands of years old.

You must be aware by now this is more common with other findings. Or does your evo sources keep this hidden?

We now need a good reason to believe soft tissue can survive for 65 million years in rock layers that are subject to the ravages of time. Before these findings there was no one that believed a million years, much less 65 million. Now we see a bunch of hand waving. Science is magnitudes off,

 

[Montrose]

Montrose:

No. That would be deceit.

What obligation does God have to disclose everything to His created?

God cannot deceive us so what you suggest is impossible. Satan is the deceiver, not God.

 

[o_mlly]

Again you are showing your ignorance of science.

No, the ignorance of science is all yours. Your opinions may be even less respected than your inferences.

Paleontology, the history of life on earth, is a historical science.

https://www.uky.edu/~dolph/HIS316/handouts/fact.html
a. Factual -Descriptive Statements: These statements describe events and situations about which, through careful research, the historian can determine the truth or falsity beyond a reasonable doubt.
b. Inferential -Analytical Statements: Here the writer goes beyond a statement of fact to interpret, draw logical conclusions from given data, and project implications from the facts.
c. Opinion -Conviction Statements: These sentences tend to be generalizations or moral viewpoints.

 

[o_mlly]

How do you square that with asking for test results from BBT …

Are you trying to pull a “Freddy”? Show me where I asked for test results from BBT, whatever that is.

And the entire first post was about someone who wondered whether evolution was a legitimate topic for a class at a Catholic school

Nope. Read the OP’s post. I’ve cited it twice now. Did you miss the gospel yesterday?
… they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes (Mat 13:15).

 

[whatistrue]

Show me where I asked for test results

If you can’t keep up with your own posts, then I won’t do it for you. I responded directly to your request for “empirical tests” for BBT (Big Bang Theory) and what you choose to call Darwinism, but people who actually understand actual science call the theory of evolution.

Read the OP’s post.

I definitely did, just before I put that language in my post. I suggest that you perhaps didn’t read it thoroughly.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by “pull a ‘Freddy’”, and I won’t ask. Partly because your track record for answering legitimate simple questions is essentially nonexistent, but mostly because what I am pulling is the plug on this and future conversations. Welcome to the Ignore bin.

 

[o_mlly]

I responded directly to your request for “empirical tests” for BBT (Big Bang Theory) …

You mean this one? The one that you did not respond to with answers but tried to clumsily dodge?

What empirical tests did the Big Bang theory pass? Ditto Darwinism.

Welcome to the Ignore bin.

Thank you for the upgrade. Relieved of reading nonsense is always a welcomed event.

 

[rossum]

You must be aware by now this is more common with other findings. Or does your evo sources keep this hidden?

A very small percentage of fossils show preserved soft tissue. Once Dr. Schweitzer found her evidence, other palaeontologists knew where to look: intact large bones in relatively undisturbed layers. Some have been found.

We have DNA from mammoths and Neanderthals. Why don’t we have DNA from dinosaurs if they are the same age? Collagen is a tough protein, much more robust than DNA. Hence expected to survive for longer.

We now need a good reason to believe soft tissue can survive for 65 million years in rock layers that are subject to the ravages of time. Before these findings there was no one that believed a million years, much less 65 million.

As I said, tough proteins can survive inside an intact, not broken, large bone that has not suffered a lot of geological disturbance since being deposited. Yes, some earlier estimates were incorrect. They were corrected after Dr. Schweitzer’s discovery.

Science is magnitudes off,

A young earth is magnitudes off. If you believe a 5 billion year old earth to be 50,000 years old then that is 5 orders of magnitude off: 100,000 times wrong.

The distance from New York to LA is about 5,000 km. Reduce that by 5 orders of magnitude and you get 50 metres. That is how wrong young earth proponents are: they think America is only 50 metres (about 150 feet) from coast to coast.

Science is accurate enough to know when an error that big is being made.

 

[buffalo]

God cannot deceive us so what you suggest is impossible. Satan is the deceiver, not God.

God only has to reveal what He wishes. He is under no obligation beyond that. Even though Adam and Eve had the preternatural gift of knowledge do you believe quantum physics was included in this?

God cannot deceive, we agree. However, man can deceive himself through faulty or incomplete reasoning of our observations.

 

[Montrose]

God only has to reveal what He wishes. He is under no obligation beyond that. Even though Adam and Eve had the preternatural gift of knowledge do you believe quantum physics was included in this?

God cannot deceive, we agree. However, man can deceive himself through faulty or incomplete reasoning of our observations.

God would still be deceiving us. We would not be deceiving ourselves. That is a ridiculous way to support a young Earth. Absolutely ludicrous.

 

[buffalo]

Science is accurate enough to know when an error that big is being made.

Hmmmm - a million went to 65 million. That’s a magnitude of 65 times. A big mistake. Yet, we do not have evidence any soft tissue can survive that long. Oh wait, yes we do. It has to, since the earth has to be very old. Such nonsense…

 

[buffalo]

God would still be deceiving us. We would not be deceiving ourselves. That is a ridiculous way to support a young Earth. Absolutely ludicrous.

Gaps in the fossil record? Your claim is God has deceived us?

 

[o_mlly]

They are not allowed to question the teaching as it shows insubordinate behavior. Is this legit catholic diocese approved teaching or do we have wolves in Shepard’s clothing?

The kids are not allowed to question the teachers explanation of his or her understanding of creation vs evolution because it puts them “on the spot”

This is a religion class that talks about evolution …

Now that the evo’s have exhausted themselves (at least for the moment), I am taken by your last post indicating that the course in question is on religion (Catholic, I presume) and not science.

The Church does not make technical judgements. On the matter of evolution, she leaves to science the details of explaining the material diversity of life. The teaching Catholics must hold to is expressed by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis:

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

One would think that in a religion class, even a Philosophy of Religion class, that the extent of the comment on evolution would center on Pius XII teaching. If the students questioning strays into the underlying science then it would seem reasonable that the teacher limit such diversions and refer the students to their science teachers.

He’s learning the science just like I did but questions the monkey to human transition just like I did.

And so you and they should. Pius XII has taught definitively on that particular event.

http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-...nts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
See paragraph 36 for the full text.

 

[twf]

I doubt such a Catholic school is readily available… maybe an SSPX run school might lean that direction… but maybe not even then.

 

[twf]

Souls… not biological bodies.

 

[Rau]

Your position might be worth supporting if you were honest in your appraisal of those who ‘conduct themelves in the way that they assert’. Call it as you see it.

Good grief Fred. I am referring to the way God conducts his “creating” activity, and the assertions about that made by ID supporters. If you are trying to make some other point, it escapes me.

 

[Rau]

Dawkins himself recognizes design in biology. To still be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist” he has to fantasize about it just being an illusion. Many here follow that same line…

Given God created everything, “design“ per se is not an illusion. But that is no demolition of evolution principles, a circa 15billion year old universe or a circa 4.5billion year old earth.

 

[Rau]

It’s mindboggling to read people who continue to elevate as fact that which is merely inferred. Start a new thread.

Are there better quality estimates of earth’s age (other than 4.5b years) available? I’m unaware of any other scientifically made estimates. Is there reason to regard radiometric dating of rocks (some have been dated at about 4 bill years) prone to errors of many orders of magnitude?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Your position might be worth supporting if you were honest in your appraisal of those who ‘conduct themelves in the way that they assert’. Call it as you see it.

Good grief Fred. I am referring to the way God conducts his “creating” activity, and the assertions about that made by ID supporters. If you are trying to make some other point, it escapes me.

My apologies, Rau. I think I was making a point about someone elses’s post and ended up quoting yours.

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

Science is accurate enough to know when an error that big is being made.

Hmmmm - a million went to 65 million. That’s a magnitude of 65 times. A big mistake. Yet, we do not have evidence any soft tissue can survive that long. Oh wait, yes we do. It has to, since the earth has to be very old. Such nonsense…

One question I asked you some time back, on more than on ocassion I believe, and which was never answered: What method would you suggest for measuring the age of material that is over a few tens of thousands or years old? Say a million.

Which is kinda tricky, isn’t it. Which why it wasn’t answered. Because, and writing this out seems mind bendingly weird, you don’t believe that there is anything that’s a million years old.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’m sure we could tie it down to a rough estimate based on whatever evidence one would like to proffer.

Yours would be…?

Start a new thread.

I don’t think that we need to. The age of the earth/universe is part of the discussion. In case you missed the posts that did discuss it, here are a few samples (with apologies to the relevant posters for not including your name):

…instead of God’s 6 day creation.

the six day creation story is not about science. It’s not literal, the Church doesn’t teach that it is.

The science of evolution is not “instead of” Genesis.

If someone wants to promote a young earth creationist theory, you could bring it up in a religion / theology class…

It is also taught in schools that the universe is billions of years old and it’s development is governed by natural processes.

Geology is also taught. Along with the “ages” like Jurassic, Mesozoic, and so forth.

He simply chose to work over a huge span of time rather than a small span.

the same process that we have observed gradually unfolding over a period of millions of years…

The science clearly indicates an old Earth,

since the geological evidence supports billions of years…

The biology regarding evolution is often talked about in time frames of millions of years…

and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex.