Thank God for Evolution!

[hecd2]

Responding to my earlier post

hecd2:

You scorn Protestant (and, I assume, Jewish and Islamic) fundamentalists, but your view is indistinguishable from theirs - the rejection of reason, science and evidence in favour of scriptural literalism and untutored tradition

A closer reading of my post shows that Hecd2’s accusation is unfounded because it stated :

Catholics reason from the Magisterium and Tradition, both rejected by Protestants. Protestants argue from their self-made doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’. The distinction between the two is fairly clear; Catholics apply ‘de fide’ teaching such as Lateran IV. The same logic applies to the difference between Jewish and Islamic teaching.

Peter

On the contrary it’s the same thing - fundamentalism, whether it’s Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Islamic is all of one stripe - it rejects reason, science and evidence in favour of scriptural literalism and untutored tradition (Lateran IV and the pronouncements of people whose knowledge of science was negligible falls within the category of untutored tradition in the field of science)

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Your points here are so naive that it is clear that you have taken about four minutes to study the subject, and you think that allows you to see logical errors that professionals who spend their lives studying and looking for errors in their work have missed. How typical.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Dear Alec,
You could win more bees with honey than with vinegar, or something to that effect…

 

[hecd2]

Hi Alec,
I just realized that you wrote that article!

Of course I wrote it - it’s my website

I read parts of it, but it had a lot of geology terms which were beyond my understanding.

You can’t use the presence of ‘pre-Cambrian organisms’ in the lower layers as evidence that those layers are old. Those organisms are believed to be pre-Camrian only becuase they are found in the lower layers. That would be circular reasoning.

Yes but that is not the way it works - there are many independent lines of evidence that support the fact that fossils are sorted phylogenetically and chronologically including nested phylogenies based on detailed anatomy, geographic distribution, radiometric, magnetic and other forms of dating and so on. Creationists have NO credible explanation for the sorting of fossil lineages in the geological record in the event of a global flood. Have you?

You should write at the level that lay people can understand, becase we’re the people who are looking at the creationist videos and articles. Otherwise you’re preaching to the choir.

I write at the level that is necessary to deal with the subject. However within the article you will find a very clear and brief summary which is greatly expanded within the body of the article:

"There are very obvious reasons why Berthault’s work does not undermine the consensus view of geology, and his work is certainly no reason to call into question the old age of the earth or the evolution of species because:

• His experimental work is not especially original or revolutionary
• His studies do not support a radical reinterpretation of sedimentology
• The geological column contains deposition mechanisms that lie outside the processes that Berthault investigated
• The suggestion that fossil organisms are sorted, not chronologically, but ecologically and hydraulically is not credible
• Radio-dating supports both the immense age and the chronological ordering of strata."
  Alec
  evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

 

[hecd2]

Dear Alec,
You could win more bees with honey than with vinegar, or something to that effect…

Sure, but don’t you think scientists are entitled to be fed up with people who come along after some tiny exposure to a subject and think that they can spot gaping and obvious flaws in the professional’s work?

Alec

 

[Neil_Anthony]

See, you want to hide the details from me because I’m a layperson. Peter Wilders will show us his reasoning in terms that lay people can understand.

I have to assume that if you had a real argument, you could put it in a way that people would understand. I watch science documentaries all the time and I enjoy them, and I learn a lot.

Wy not a documentary to refuse creationism, written at a level that people can understand? Just endless excuses instead.

Of course I wrote it - it’s my website
Yes but that is not the way it works - there are many independent lines of evidence that support the fact that fossils are sorted phylogenetically and chronologically including nested phylogenies based on detailed anatomy, geographic distribution, radiometric, magnetic and other forms of dating and so on. Creationists have NO credible explanation for the sorting of fossil lineages in the geological record in the event of a global flood. Have you?

I write at the level that is necessary to deal with the subject. However within the article you will find a very clear and brief summary which is greatly expanded within the body of the article:

"There are very obvious reasons why Berthault’s work does not undermine the consensus view of geology, and his work is certainly no reason to call into question the old age of the earth or the evolution of species because:

• His experimental work is not especially original or revolutionary
• His studies do not support a radical reinterpretation of sedimentology
• The geological column contains deposition mechanisms that lie outside the processes that Berthault investigated
• The suggestion that fossil organisms are sorted, not chronologically, but ecologically and hydraulically is not credible
• Radio-dating supports both the immense age and the chronological ordering of strata."
  Alec
  evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

 

[hecd2]

See, you want to hide the details from me because I’m a layperson. Peter Wilders will show us his reasoning in terms that lay people can understand.

I have to assume that if you had a real argument, you could put it in a way that people would understand. I watch science documentaries all the time and I enjoy them, and I learn a lot.

Wy not a documentary to refuse creationism, written at a level that people can understand? Just endless excuses instead.

Get thee to a library. Science is not always easy or straightforward. And it is not done by popular vote. The fact is that you might understand Peter’s reasoning but that doesn’t make it right (in fact it’s deeply wrong).

If you don’t understand the five points, then I am rather sorry for you. They are not particularly difficult.

Actually the full article isn’t that difficult either. What are you have trouble with?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Neil_Anthony]

"There are very obvious reasons why Berthault’s work does not undermine the consensus view of geology, and his work is certainly no reason to call into question the old age of the earth or the evolution of species because:

• His experimental work is not especially original or revolutionary
• His studies do not support a radical reinterpretation of sedimentology
• The geological column contains deposition mechanisms that lie outside the processes that Berthault investigated
• The suggestion that fossil organisms are sorted, not chronologically, but ecologically and hydraulically is not credible
• Radio-dating supports both the immense age and the chronological ordering of strata."
  Alec
  evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

I’d like to see proof for those 5 points. Why should I just take your word for any of them? Peter Wilder has lots of proof, where is YOUR proof?

 

[Orogeny]

I’d like to see proof for those 5 points. Why should I just take your word for any of them? Peter Wilder has lots of proof, where is YOUR proof?

First, Peter is just a mouthpiece for a man named Guy Berthault. Second, he has no proof. He is, in fact, counting on you not understanding any geology so that you will buy into his “proof”. Why don’t you ask Peter, in layman’s terms of course, how come in Berthault’s world, above and below mean side by side? Don’t worry if you don’t understand what I am saying. Peter will, or should because I have confronted him with that before. Of course, he will probably not answer directly (just as he has made it extremely clear that he feels that the previous and current popes are heretics but will not actually say it) but will instead a) question my credentials for asking, b) cry foul for the mean treatment he is getting, or c) ask where my experiment refuting Berthault is.

The bottom line, Neil, is that Berthault is a YEC who admittedly set out to show that Genesis was literally correct. His experiments were valid, but his conclusions are ridiculous. Anyone who has taken freshman geology should be able to see through him. But, you see, that is not who he is targeting. It is people who don’t understand a thing about geology. Just like you. And you fell for it.

Peace

Tim

 

[Neil_Anthony]

First, Peter is just a mouthpiece for a man named Guy Berthault. Second, he has no proof. He is, in fact, counting on you not understanding any geology so that you will buy into his “proof”. Why don’t you ask Peter, in layman’s terms of course, how come in Berthault’s world, above and below mean side by side?

Didn’t you watch the video? the layers are deposited from the side, not from the top. What scientists call the ‘old’ bottom layers could be new or old.

You make it sound like Guy Berthault is Dr. Evil and Peter Wilders is mini-me.

 

[drpmjhess]

You make it sound like Guy Berthault is Dr. Evil and Peter Wilders is mini-me. rolleyes:

Not Dr. Evil, but Dr. Stupid. That tragedy for Catholicism is that people like Berthault make Christians look like idiots, which most of us are not.

 

[Tah_Dah_Man]

:bible1: Was Noah’s flood global or local?

Peter delivered a clear global warning, confirming that God created the Earth, devastated it by the Flood, and will one day destroy it again by fire (2 Peter 3:5-7). Peter certainly did not mean that just a local area on Earth would be burned. Just as the Flood was global, so will be the final judgment.

Nine Biblical Evidences that the Flood was Global
christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c005.html​

"The clearest verses that show the extent of the flood are Genesis 7:19-23:
“And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.”

gotquestions.org/global-flood.html​

And, Jesus believed that the Flood killed everyone not on the Ark (Matt. 24:37–39).
answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp

:grouphug:

A lot of people wonder if the Bible is true, or just a fairy-tale.
And if it is a true story, how true?
Was Noah’s Flood global, or local?

2 Peter 2:5
King James Bible
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

2 Peter 2:5
Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible
And spared not the original world, but preserved Noe, the eighth person, the preacher of justice, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.

2 Peter 3:1-18 (entire chapter)
Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible
3 Knowing this first: That in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? For since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they are wilfully ignorant of: That the heavens were before, and the earth out of water and through water, consisting by the word of God:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of the ungodly men.
:bible1: :twocents:

 

[The_Barbarian]

Your error is in assuming the word “eretz” can only mean “the whole world.” But it can mean “my land”, “hereabouts”, “the nation of Israel”, and various other things. So when the Bible says the entire land was flooded, it doesn’t have to mean “the whole world.”

And even if it was purely an allegory that God uses to teach us about man’s evil, and His love for us, it would be very disrespectful to call it a “fairy tale.” That applies to any other allegories God uses in Scripture. Have some respect for Him.

 

[wildleafblower]

:bible1: Was Noah’s flood global or local?

Peter delivered a clear global warning, confirming that God created the Earth, devastated it by the Flood, and will one day destroy it again by fire (2 Peter 3:5-7). Peter certainly did not mean that just a local area on Earth would be burned. Just as the Flood was global, so will be the final judgment.

Nine Biblical Evidences that the Flood was Global
christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c005.html​

"The clearest verses that show the extent of the flood are Genesis 7:19-23:
“And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.”

gotquestions.org/global-flood.html​

And, Jesus believed that the Flood killed everyone not on the Ark (Matt. 24:37–39).
answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp

:grouphug:

‘The Flood’ has been known for decades by Roman Catholics like myself as the Deluge: *The great flood which covered the whole land or region in which Noe lived (Gen. 6:1-9:19) God sent this flood to destroy all men in this region because of their wickedness. Noe and his family alone were spared (Gen.6:1-8). Scriptural scholars say that the flood did not necessarily cover the whole earth as we know it today; some even hold that it did not necessarily destroy all the people on the earth. Our English text uses “earth” when describing the place, but the words of the original Hebrew text can mean land or locality; in fact, land seems to be the first and primary meaning in this context. Thus we would read the waters “filled all on the face of the land.” *(page 68 of the Catholic Encyclopedia located within The Holy Bible, published with the approbation of His Eminence Samuel Cardinal Stritch, Archbishop of Chicago, The Catholic Press, Inc., Copyright 1952, 1950.)

And please do remember that Chapter 6 verse 1 of Genesis as noted in the footnote of the New American Bible: “1 [1-4] This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation - the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.”vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P8.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P8.HTM

Any claims made by Guy Berthault showing how the Grand Canyon was formed from Noah’s Flood in one year has been debunked.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

B]hecd2 posts

…**

not only is your position scientific codswallop, but that your theology and logic are equally badly flawed.

**

He follows this accusation (a Catholic on a Catholic Forum) by:

**

There is no abuse or intolerance from me…

**

Does one reply to this sort of inconsistency and provocation?

I suppose I should in the hope of finding some vestige of normality, despite knowing that whatever I say will produce a further volley of abuse (with no supporting facts).

First, my scientific position is that of Guy Berthault whose work has been published by the French Geological Society and Academies of Sciences in France and Russia. Since hecd2 gives no explanation for his charge, presumably the “codswallop” refers to Berthault’s experimental research (and, therefore, to the prestigious scientific organs publishing it).

Second, as this thread can witness, my theology and logic are 100% that of the Councils of Lateran IV and Vatican I, and their ‘de fide’ definition of Creation which preclude the theory of evolution. Once again, he produces **no facts **to substantiate his accusation.

I have also drawn attention to the Magisterial warning against changing the traditional meaning of dogma to accord with the so-called development of science. Further, I have affirmed that statements by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences or Church authorities regarding evolution do not constitute magisterial material. Produce a council dogma supporting macro-evolution and the discussion will end. The Church has done the contrary in its infallible defintion of Creation by Lateran IV.

Peter

 

[Peter_Wilders]

hecd2 posted

**

There are very obvious reasons why Berthault’s work does not undermine the consensus view of geology, and his work is certainly no reason to call into question the old age of the earth or the evolution of species because:
• His experimental work is not especially original or revolutionary
• His studies do not support a radical reinterpretation of sedimentology
• The geological column contains deposition mechanisms that lie outside the processes that Berthault investigated
• The suggestion that fossil organisms are sorted, not chronologically, but ecologically and hydraulically is not credible
• Radio-dating supports both the immense age and the chronological ordering of strata.

**

These are statements. They are your opinions not refutations.

Berthault giving facts and figures and with patience responded to the principle points of your critique. You were asked to post his response on your website. You refused, giving no facts or evidence as justification, merely they didn’t address the “key criticisms” of your article, which in fact they did. None of your reasons were specific, e.g. Has Berthault a Phd?; the paper does not revolutionise geology; his papers are poor quality; worldwide ecological sorting is not credible; it was known that laminae can form rapidly; The experiments are fine - his interpretation and conclusions are completely unwarranted; extrapolation; his suggestion that all radiometric dating is invalid takes him beyond the pale of serious science - it is pure propaganda.

These are opinions unsupported by facts or evidence. You talk of your “robust refutation” which is no more than your personal views. Expressing opinions in an overt attempt to disparage and decredibilise the work of an experimenter and the institutions publishing his results, comes under the heading of defamation; a grave sin in the eyes of the Church.

Peter

 

[Peter_Wilders]

wildleafblower

Any claims made by Guy Berthault showing how the Grand Canyon was formed from Noah’s Flood in one year has been debunked

Why this campaign against Berthault? Where in any of his published papers does he make such a claim?

Peter

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It could be a couple of things, not nearly as far-fetched as what you say here:

**I said none of the following and have no idea where it came from. Please don’t attribute writings to me that I have not written. I have no idea what you think. You’ve been seduced by pseudo-science because you don’t know enough science to know better. **

1. The scientific evidence could be circular. For example, one article by a supposed mainstream scientist that was posted here, tried to debunk the new discoveries about sedimentation by saying that the lowest layers must be older, because they have the oldest lifeforms in them! But the notion that those lifeforms are oldest came about from studying the layers and assuming the lower layers were older. It’s circular reasoning.
2. There would be a philosophical bias built right into science. After all, they’re looking to explain how life originated using laws of nature. No matter how farfetched it might seem that the first lifeform randomly came into existence from primordial soup… thats the only solution they can offer, since they have no physical evidence of a God who might have created life. Therefore since God isn’t physical, God can’t be a reason or anything.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

SpiritMeadow,
I think this is a misunderstanding due to my confusing use of punctuation. Instead of “here:” which I have to admit, seems to indicate the following paragraphs, I meant to refer to the paragraph above, which was a quote from you…

It could be a couple of things, not nearly as far-fetched as what you say here:

I hope that explains it. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

“open your eyes” “open your mind” believing in anything other than evolution is crazy!

The truth is a rare commodity on the internet generally. Church Teaching tells us Adam and Eve were our parents. Just go to the Library on this site if you don’t believe me. Genesis records actual history. Once again, it’s in the Library on this site.

Evolution that states everything came to be, including humans, entirely on its own is against Catholic Teaching. God intervened. It doesn’t matter if that’s not in a textbook, that’s what the Church teaches. Whatever happened, God guided it.

Unfortunately, some here, like SpiritMeadow, are more interested in politics. About convincing people that the Church needs to change. Science has nothing of real value to say to the Church about this issue. And those who wish to separate science and theology should realize that the Church does not and says so to the faithful.

**The politics of what? Is there some issue before the country on evolution vs. creationism? I have not suggested the church change at all. Its fine as far as i can see on this issue. I might be a bit clearer but it has spoken reasonably clearly I’d say. I agree, Science has nothing to say to the church about how She should change. It simply makes its claims and the church may use them in whatever manner She choses to. The Church seems quite realistic to me. I don’t think anyone, certainly not myself say that theology should not consider science. That would be expected and normal. Science may not however consider any faith, Catholic or otherwise in its statements. I just fail to see why this concept is so foreign to you. It seems quite obvious to everyone else. **

Ed

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Peter, looking at your video evidence again, just because they created those sediments in a few minutes, how would that apply to the Grand Canyon? Are you saying that it was formed in the same way by water currents depositing sand in vertical layers that appear to be horizontal?

A paleohydraulic analysis of the Tonto Group in the Grand Canyon featured in one of Berthault’s papers published by the Russian Academy of Science’s Geological Institute “Lithology and Mineral Resources” should answers your question.

From an examination of the sedimentary deposits it can be determined that a transgression moving from the ocean over the continent travelled at a velocity upwards of 6 m/s. It transported large amounts of sediments including boulders eroded from the underlying Zoroaster & Vishnu granite. As the current velocity reduced sediments were deposited according to size. There is a fall velocity for each size of sediment. The largest deposit first and finest ones of clay and silt settle last when the current has slowed to almost zero.

You can follow the complete deposition of the Group in the paper on www.sedimentology.fr

Peter