The 6000 Year Earth

[ckempston]

No, it’s an offensive method of a disingenuous debating style that should be roundly condemned by a rational thinking person with conviction. For a non-Catholic Christian, the little-bit-o-truth in all faiths theory making faith formation nothing more than a religious Wal-Mart denies the authority that defines Christianity because you stray from the full truth from that authority. Unless you yourself consider it a credible authority it is hypocritical to cite it in support of your argument.

(This is off topic but I’ll get it back on) Do you think this is true, good and valid?

You’re wrong. Get a logic text.

As a Catholic I would take no issue with the underlined, but would with the plural of angel and “The” Word, not “a”, but what do I gain citing this to a Moslem in the manner you did to me? They will say "Yes, that is true so you should also believe:

Your style of debate is no different than when a Moslem cites John 14:26 as proof of Mohammed’s legitimate prophetic call like that sura above. Reject it all as there is no truth in it not found elsewhere more fully. If you find some fault with Church teaching reject it all.

I reject individual statements on their merit; I don’t simply reject or accept things just because one individual or group tells me I should.

Special offer for Wal-Mart shoppers:

I was looking for some reconciliation between science and theology. For the non-religious and religious disparity the reconciliation is a belief in God. For the religious it is a right belief in God.

The Buddhist talks genetics in support of evolution but doesn’t explain the origin of life in evolution by natural or divine means though does posit a remarkable natural human population explosion of zero to 10,000 humans to account for our genetic diversity. The Catholic theologian offers comment on all but how the origin of life and evolution speak through the Scripture. Then there is you and your debate style in agreement in part to the Buddhist and Catholic theologian on a few science ‘truths’, but doubtless you would be in disagreement on truths of faith so I am not sure what is gained.

Yeah, I don’t feel comfortable making a dogmatic conclusion when I know we do not have all the information needed to make such a conclusion. That does indeed set me apart from Catholicism in many ways.

I don’t shop at Wal-Mart and there is no need to buy what you all are trying to sell which is a scientifically explained Creation through evolution, without minimizing or defining the Creative act.

Which is just what the Catholic church does in the case of Evolution/Creation. Looks like I’m in good company. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with your own church’s teachings.

 

[Orogeny]

As a thought;

Did you know that when the dinosaurs walked the earth there were no icecaps.

Not true. Ice caps during at least part of the Mesozoic were very small and may indeed have vanished for short periods of time, but there were polar ice caps.

The seas were shallow and warm,

Some were, but there were still deep oceans.

the land was flat, a few meters above sea level with no mountains.

Huh? Where did you get that idea?

Why were there no polar icecaps, the shape of the earth is the same, obviously. Did the earth have some extra feature we don’t know about which kept it globally tropical.

Global climate has constantly fluctuated and the Mesozoic was no exception.

Peace

Tim

 

[Thing]

Not true. Ice caps during at least part of the Mesozoic were very small and may indeed have vanished for short periods of time, but there were polar ice caps.Some were, but there were still deep oceans.Huh? Where did you get that idea?Global climate has constantly fluctuated and the Mesozoic was no exception.

Peace

Tim

I get all my ideas from geologists, where else.

 

[Verisimilitude]

As a Catholic theologian, I was not aware that science and religion need to be reconciled.

I take it you think the Scopes trial in 1925 resolved all issues between science and theology so that any and all debates after it such as this one are useless.

They can inform each other at important points, but they are no more enemies than are gardening and chess.

Where do they do that? Can you define the creative act and the origin of life as it relates to science and evolution? A study of chess or gardening has not lead to embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, or attempted to redefine humanity as evolution does.

I have numerous friends who are both Catholic priests and biologists, or chemists, or astronomers.

Happy Easter! Christos Aneste!
StAnastasia

Yes, you keep saying that and not much else, but what does that prove? It offers nothing to the debate.

Sirach Chapter 6
33 My son, if thou wilt attend to me, thou shalt learn: and if thou wilt apply thy mind, thou shalt be wise.
34 If thou wilt incline thy ear, thou shalt receive instruction: and if thou love to hear, thou shalt be wise.
35 Stand in the multitude of ancients that are wise, and join thyself from thy heart to their wisdom, that thou mayst hear every discourse of God, and the sayings of praise may not escape thee.
36 And if thou see a man of understanding, go to him early in the morning, and let thy foot wear the steps of his doors.
37 Let thy thoughts be upon the precepts of God, and meditate continually on his commandments: and he will give thee a heart, and the desire of wisdom shall be given to thee.

If you have some wisdom, share it. If all you have is more cryptic non-answers, save it.

 

[StAnastasia]

As a guide to moral behaviour, the Bible is excellent. As a Science textbook… not so much.

Except for the bit about protecting guests by offering your virgin daughters to be raped by a mob, as Lot did. That’s probably not the best moral advice!

 

[StAnastasia]

I take it you think the Scopes trial in 1925 resolved all issues between science and theology so that any and all debates after it such as this one are useless…Yes, you keep saying that and not much else, but what does that prove? It offers nothing to the debate.

(1) No, t6here are still some fascinating quewstions that arise at the interface of science and religion, in areas as diverse as cosmolgoy, biology,a nd neuroscience.

(2) Among biologists – including Catholic ones – there is no debate about whether evolution happens. The debate went on for a few decades (till about 1950), and is now concluded, like the debates about gravity or atomic theory.

StAnastasia

 

[Verisimilitude]

You’re wrong. Get a logic text.

No, I’m not. Get some conviction.

Yeah, I don’t feel comfortable making a dogmatic conclusion when I know we do not have all the information needed to make such a conclusion. That does indeed set me apart from Catholicism in many ways.

Once again I can say you do not read things fully. The Church has not made such claims of certainty like you yourself have, yet you quote the Pontiff to support your certainty.

Which is just what the Catholic church does in the case of Evolution/Creation. Looks like I’m in good company. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with your own church’s teachings.

Maybe you should look up what a hypocrite means. You have said twice you are in good company with the Church, evoking St. Augustine and the Popes to support your claim but then trash the Church and accusing it of dogmatic shopping around.

 

[Orogeny]

I get all my ideas from geologists, where else.

Could you be a little more specific than that?

Peace

Tim

 

[Verisimilitude]

(1) No, there are still some fascinating questions that arise at the interface of science and religion, in areas as diverse as cosmolgoy, biology,a nd neuroscience.

I thought this was pretty straight forward:

Can you define the creative act and the origin of life as it relates to evolution?

(2) Among biologists – including Catholic ones – there is no debate about whether evolution happens. The debate went on for a few decades (till about 1950), and is now concluded, like the debates about gravity or atomic theory.

StAnastasia

I referenced something earlier that said the evolutionary theory does not concern it self with the origin of life and is opposed to the theory of constancy. What was Created if anything: the molecular building blocks of life that then formed the ameoba over time into humans and every other living thing? Is there no miracle to Creation and can all be explained by science? Will science now explain the feeding of thousands by Christ, or redefine how Jesus was begotten, not made as defined in our profession of faith? Is that just a ignorant carryover from the lack of scientific knowledge when it was developed?

 

[StAnastasia]

I referenced something earlier that said the evolutionary theory does not concern it self with the origin of life and is opposed to the theory of constancy. What was Created if anything: the molecular building blocks of life that then formed the ameoba over time into humans and every other living thing? Is there no miracle to Creation and can all be explained by science? Will science now explain the feeding of thousands by Christ, or redefine how Jesus was begotten, not made as defined in our profession of faith? Is that just a ignorant carryover from the lack of scientific knowledge when it was developed?

(1) Evolution explains the diversity of life on earth, not its origins. That is a fascinating question in itself. I have a couple of friends working on the four major constituents for such an explanation.

(2) No – science will not explain the feeding of the 5,000, or the Incarnation, as those are theological questions.

 

[ckempston]

No, I’m not. Get some conviction.

Yes, you are.

Once again I can say you do not read things fully. The Church has not made such claims of certainty like you yourself have, yet you quote the Pontiff to support your certainty.

It’s perfectly normal, and reasonable, if I’m arguing a point with someone, to quote a source that an opponent accepts as authoritative. You are, of course, free to ignore it, as you have, and pretend like your position is not built on sand, but that doesn’t make it true.

Maybe you should look up what a hypocrite means. You have said twice you are in good company with the Church, evoking St. Augustine and the Popes to support your claim but then trash the Church and accusing it of dogmatic shopping around.

I quote the church and Augustine because YOU assign some level of credibility to them, not because I completely agree with them. This is not that hard to comprehend, but it does continue to illustrate the point that you are deficient in your understanding of logic.

 

[Thing]

Could you be a little more specific than that?

Peace

Tim

OK. I toyed briefly with this, first; Here
…before moving on to this; Here
Then this; Here
…before reverting to this, scrolling down to; GEOLOGY AND CLIMATE DURING THE CRETACEOUS, Here

 

[Orogeny]

Then this; Here

Hmm. 1st paragraph - “While Pangaea was breaking apart, mountains were forming on the west coast of North America by subduction of the ocean plates beneath the continental plates. Throughout the Middle to Late Triassic, mountain forming continued along the coast extending from Alaska to Chile.”

So much for no mountains during the Mesozoic.

…before reverting to this, scrolling down to; GEOLOGY AND CLIMATE DURING THE CRETACEOUS, Here

There is evidence that there were polar ice caps and/or glaciation at times during the Mesozoic.

sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V62-3Y9Y9WX-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=884c2e471c792849510634585d405f50

Peace

Tim

 

[Thing]

Hmm. 1st paragraph - “While Pangaea was breaking apart, mountains were forming on the west coast of North America by subduction of the ocean plates beneath the continental plates. Throughout the Middle to Late Triassic, mountain forming continued along the coast extending from Alaska to Chile.”

So much for no mountains during the Mesozoic.There is evidence that there were polar ice caps and/or glaciation at times during the Mesozoic.

sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V62-3Y9Y9WX-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=884c2e471c792849510634585d405f50

Peace

Tim

…ah well … geologists differ, dinosaurs die…

 

[JustMe88]

Might as well throw another kink into this discussion:

There is amongst some Biblical scholars a theory that goes by two different names, Genesis Gap or Dateless Past.

Keeping in mind that the Bible didn’t have Chapter or Verse divisions until the middle ages, there is a theory that says Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 can be seperated by millions if not billions of years.

The Dateless Past (Proverbs 8:22-23, John 1:1, Acts 15:18, Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:18, Hebrews 1:10, 11:3, IJohn 1:1, Revelations 1:6, 3:14). Genesis 1:1 is the introduction to the whole Bible and all of history, marking the boundary between time and eternity. It is not a summarized statement of what is to follow, for it mentions heavens first, while following verses mention the earth first. Job 38:4-7 makes clear that the heavens were created first else the stars could not have rejoiced when the earth was created. This proves that v1 refers to the prior acts of God and the verses which follow refer to the earth under a flood and judgement, restored to a second habitable state, as before the curse of v2.

The Scriptures show that Lucifer was the original ruler of planet Earth, conceiving an idea that he could obtain co-operation of the other angelic beings and dethrone God (Isiah 14:12-14, Ezekiel 28:11-17, ITimothy 3:6).

God destroys Lucifer’s kindgom on earth, by destroying every bird, animal, fish, city, inhabitant, and all vegetation. He then turns the earth upside down, and by the means of a great flood makes the earth empty and a waste (Genesis 1:2, Psalms 104:5-9, Isiah 14:12-14, Jeremiah 4: 23-26, Ezekiel 28: 11-17, 2Peter 3: 5-9).

While the Sacred Scriptures may not be a scientific treatise, per se, they do speak truth to all that is known. Finite man trying to understand all that was created by an infinite God is a fools errand at best.

Biblical inerrancy is just that, inerrancy in ALL that the Scriptures touch, whether the historical or supernatural. To seperate the two is to invalidate the entire Book.

So, there you go. Have at it.

 

[Thing]

Hmm. 1st paragraph - “While Pangaea was breaking apart, mountains were forming on the west coast of North America by subduction of the ocean plates beneath the continental plates. Throughout the Middle to Late Triassic, mountain forming continued along the coast extending from Alaska to Chile.”

So much for no mountains during the Mesozoic.There is evidence that there were polar ice caps and/or glaciation at times during the Mesozoic.

Peace

Tim

Well, at least there was a time in the early to mid Triassic before Pangaea broke apart when there was no mountain building and there were dinosaurs. So, I was half right anyways.
Here

 

[Orogeny]

Well, at least there was a time in the early to mid Triassic before Pangaea broke apart when there was no mountain building and there were dinosaurs. So, I was half right anyways.
Here

And that supports your claim that there were no mountains during the Mesozoic how?

OK, look. Your claims about no mountains and no polar ice caps were made for a reason. What was it you wanted to argue with those statements? I can give you links to show you that you are still wrong about mountain building activities, but what is the point? I don’t know what your purpose for making such a claim is, so I don’t know what good it would do to point out your continued error.

Peace

Tim

 

[Thing]

And that supports your claim that there were no mountains during the Mesozoic how?

OK, look. Your claims about no mountains and no polar ice caps were made for a reason. What was it you wanted to argue with those statements? I can give you links to show you that you are still wrong about mountain building activities, but what is the point? I don’t know what your purpose for making such a claim is, so I don’t know what good it would do to point out your continued error.

Peace

Tim

I’d just about forgotten myself. I think the point was that I was wondering if there were any really unusual features of the early earth like, as an example, water over the atmosphere, which may have trapped heat in the atmosphere and allowed the dinosaurs to flourish in a subtropical earth climate. I think thats all.

 

[Orogeny]

I’d just about forgotten myself. I think the point was that I was wondering if there were any really unusual features of the early earth like, as an example, water over the atmosphere, which may have trapped heat in the atmosphere and allowed the dinosaurs to flourish in a subtropical earth climate. I think thats all.

Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

The problem with that theory is that there were ice ages prior to and following the Mesozoic. There are probably numerous reasons for both the ice ages and the warm periods such as the Mesozoic. However, a layer of water above the atmosphere isn’t one of those reasons.

If you are suggesting that that was when Noah’s flood occurred, you have an even bigger problem. There were no humans alive during the Mesozoic.

Peace

Tim

 

[Verisimilitude]

(1) Evolution explains the diversity of life on earth, not its origins. That is a fascinating question in itself. I have a couple of friends working on the four major constituents for such an explanation.

Agreed, it is fascinating. Any personal thoughts on it?

As a Catholic theologian, I was not aware that science and religion need to be reconciled.

So this is now incorrect and some reconciliation is justified between the two?

(2) No – science will not explain the feeding of the 5,000, or the Incarnation, as those are theological questions.

Maybe plant and animal life was created as is and in full like what fed the multitudes hundreds of millions of years ago and in different epochs, and evolutionary changes generated different species we know today from those now original but extinct species. Maybe man (modern human) was created as is and in full more recently in Earths history.

Maybe not, but that scenerio satisfies most if not all of my issues I have with the current understanding of evolution science specifically as it regards human beings.