The CC on Evolution: A Different Thread, I Hope

[PhilVaz]

Ignatius << The Church does not suport old earth creationism. >>

Yes, the Church supports old earth evolution. I hope that’s what you meant, and not young-earth creationism. :banghead:

Cardinal Schonborn on young earthers:

"Now there is another misunderstanding that is constantly found in the ongoing discussion, and I have to deal with it right here at the beginning. I refer to what is called ‘creationism.’ Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with ‘creationism.’ But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements – I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it – is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way. It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools…

“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of ‘creationism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.” (Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Catechetical Lecture for 11/13/2005)

Phil P

 

[Koru]

Ignatius << The Church does not suport old earth creationism. >>

Yes, the Church supports old earth evolution. I hope that’s what you meant, and not young-earth creationism. :banghead:

Cardinal Schonborn on young earthers:

"Now there is another misunderstanding that is constantly found in the ongoing discussion, and I have to deal with it right here at the beginning. I refer to what is called ‘creationism.’ Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with ‘creationism.’ But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements – I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it – is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way. It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools…

“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of ‘creationism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.” (Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Catechetical Lecture for 11/13/2005)

Phil P

I’d like you to point out exactly where the Church ever stated that it supports old earth evolutionism… but I’m afraid that you can’t. The Church has not issued any official words or teachings that state to even imply that the earth and universe is billions or even millions of years old.

Now, I’m not a fundamentalist… but I still believe that the earth is younger than 10,000 years old because of the evidences left on earth (there is no sound scientific study or evidence that proves otherwise). Please, research the history of why and how evolution and old earth theories came around. It’s a fairly recent concept and has only started being taught in the last few hundred years! I recommend you at LEAST read half of this online compendium of the history of the theory of evolution so you can understand where I’m coming from on reasons why I don’t give any credit to the theory of evolution (i’m speaking of theistic evolution too).

God himself and Jesus Christ (while trying not to separate them) both stated that the Original Sin of man brought death into the world… not just to mankind, but for the entire world. They do NOT state that it was solely for mankind.

The Evolution Cruncher

~Cole

 

[PhilVaz]

koru << I’d like you to point out exactly where the Church ever stated that it supports old earth evolutionism… but I’m afraid that you can’t. The Church has not issued any official words or teachings that state to even imply that the earth and universe is billions or even millions of years old. >>

The Church can’t make official statements on science in the sense of De Fide dogma. Infallibility and doctrine defined by the magisterium relate to faith and morals only. All I can do is quote the positions of the Popes since Pius XII. I’ve quoted Pius XII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI / Cardinal Ratzinger, in 50 threads, 500 messages each of 5000 words each. I am not exaggerating since that’s probably how many threads and words we’ve had in here on this subject.

Pius XI states in Motu Proprio which brought about the re-foundation of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1936:

“Amongst the many consolations with which divine Goodness has wished to make happy the years of our Pontificate, I am happy to place that of our having being able to see not a few of those who dedicate themselves to the studies of the sciences mature their attitude and their intellectual approach towards religion. Science, when it is real cognition, is never in contrast with the truth of the Christian faith. Indeed, as is well known to those who study the history of science, it must be recognized on the one hand that the Roman Pontiffs and the Catholic Church have always fostered the research of the learned in the experimental field as well, and on the other hand that such research has opened up the way to the defense of the deposit of supernatural truths entrusted to the Church…” (Pope Pius XI)

Pius XII allows for evolution of the human body (Humanis Generis) and definitely accepts an ancient earth. John Paul II quotes him as follows:

"Thirty years ago, on 22 November 1951, my predecessor Pope Pius XII, speaking about the problem of the origin of the universe at the Study Week on the subject of microseisms organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, expressed himself as follows: ‘In vain would one expect a reply from the sciences of nature, which on the contrary frankly declare that they find themselves faced by an insoluble enigma. It is equally certain that the human mind versed in philosophical meditation penetrates the problem more deeply. One cannot deny that a mind which is enlightened and enriched by modern scientific knowledge and which calmly considers this problem is led to break the circle of matter which is totally independent and autonomous – as being either uncreated or having created itself – and to rise to a creating Mind. With the same clear and critical gaze with which it examines and judges the facts, it discerns and recognizes there the work of creative Omnipotence, whose strength raised up by the powerful fiat uttered billions of years ago by the creating Mind, has spread through the universe, calling into existence, in a gesture of generous love, matter teeming with energy’ " ( Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

continued…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

John Paul II said in 1996 that evolution is more than a hypothesis:

“Today, almost half a century after the publication of the [Pope Pius XII Humani Generis] Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.” (Pope JP2, PAS October 1996)

Summary: the evidence for evolution is strong, has been progressively accepted by researchers, and the convergence of this evidence is a significant argument in its favor.

John Paul II does not interpret Genesis literally:

“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope JP2, 10/3/1981 to PAS, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

Summary: (1) the Bible is not a scientific treatise; (2) the main point of Genesis 1 is that God is our Creator; (3) the Scripture uses the cosmology in use at the time of the writer (not a modern cosmology); (4) the Bible wishes to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens were made; (5) any other teaching about the origin and nature of the universe is alien to the intentions of the original biblical authors.

continued…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Benedict XVI when he was Cardinal Ratzinger approved a document by the ITC that said the following:

“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.” (From the International Theological Commission, headed by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI, statement “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,” plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004)

This document, approved by Ratzinger who became Pope the following year, calls “common descent” (i.e. macroevolution) “virtually certain.” Also the Pope accepts the standard science on the age of the universe and earth, and the standard science on the evolution of human beings from the primates. Ratzinger’s previous commentary on Genesis also agrees with this science. He has no problem with the science per se.

The CCC Catechism accepts standard science on the age of the cosmos, the development (read: evolution) of life, and the appearance of man (Catechism 283-284) and states faith, reason, and modern science are in harmony (Catechism 159, and other paragraphs).

Do you have something explicit from Pius XI, Pius XII, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI that says the earth is 6000 to 10000 years old, that evolution is false, that the scientific evidence is poor, and that we should reject modern science since it is in conflict with the Catholic faith. That’s what I’m looking for. Of course you’d have to explain what I have already quoted from the Popes. Thank you.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Koru << but I still believe that the earth is younger than 10,000 years old because of the evidences left on earth (there is no sound scientific study or evidence that proves otherwise) Please, research the history of why and how evolution and old earth theories came around. It’s a fairly recent concept and has only started being taught in the last few hundred years! >>

The studies in radiometric dating have proven as well as science can prove anything that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Geologists, even Christian ones, have known the earth is at least millions of years old since the early 1800s (see the Davis Young chapters linked below). Yes, the science of modern geology is only a few hundred years old. The science of modern biology began with Darwin (mid 1800s) who discovered evolution and its mechanisms. Because it is only a few hundred years old doesn’t mean it is not true. And science is constantly refining itself, discovery after discovery, data after data, experiment after experiment, etc.

In the 1600s everyone thought the earth was still 10000 years old. In the 1500s most people thought the earth didn’t move. In 300 B.C. or so the Greeks were beginning to discover the earth was not flat, while it can be argued the biblical authors (and the ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, and Israelites of the same time) thought the earth was a flat disk. We’ve learned a little bit about the universe and the earth in the meantime.

If you want the history of how we went from young earth to old earth, how even Christian geologists began interpreting the Bible and Genesis less literally, I have typed it all in on my site, with help from evangelical Christian geologist Davis Young:

History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

Alec (HECD2), Tim (Orogeny), Zian, Rossum, SteveAnderson, and a few others in here who know the science much better than I, will fill you in on the exciting details.

Now you’re going to direct me to The Kolbe Center and Answers In Genesis. I know, happens all the time after my posts in here on this topic.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

BTW, thanks for the link to The Evolution Cruncher PDF. I’ll try to read it, but it is long. As a response, I would suggest Index to Creationist Claims. I can bet most of the claims in that Cruncher book are answered in that Index. This has recently become a book The Counter-Creationism Handbook published 2006 by University of California Press, but it is kept up-to-date online.

I don’t think that Evolution Cruncher book is endorsed by a university press, I wonder why. And the Cruncher book is dedicated to George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist preacher and amateur geologist who began the modern young-earth movement in the early 20th century. So they have traced their beliefs correctly.

And the question I would have: why in the world is a Catholic listening to a Seventh-day Adventist preacher, rather than the modern Popes of the 20th and 21st century and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences endorsed by those Popes? :ehh:

Phil P

 

[cpayne]

And the question I would have: why in the world is a Catholic listening to a Seventh-day Adventist preacher, rather than the modern Popes of the 20th and 21st century and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences endorsed by those Popes? :ehh:

Phil P

Dear PhilVaz: A very good attempt to get the discussion back to the OP—this is something like what I had in mind.

 

[steveandersen]

…
Alec (HECD2), Tim (Orogeny), Zian, Rossum, SteveAnderson, and a few others in here who know the science much better than I, will fill you in on the exciting details. …

only if you spell my name right

 

[PhilVaz]

Thanks cpayne, but now I must take us off topic again.

I quote from the previously mentioned The Evolution Cruncher PDF, page 136, for supposed evidence the earth is young –

17 - MOON DUST “Although most people do not know it, one of the reasons so much money was spent to send a rocket to the moon was to see how thick the dust was on its surface! Evolutionists had long held to the fact (as we do) that the earth and moon are about the same age. It is believed, by many, that the earth and its moon are billions of years old. If that were true, the moon would by now have built up a 20-60 mile [32 to 97 km] layer of dust on it!”

I now get to throw all 965 pages of this Evolution Cruncher book in the garbage can because of this. Keeps me from having to read all of it. Thank you.

Arguments Creationists Should Not Use by Answers In Genesis, the biggest and “most authoritative” creationist group on the planet.

Which arguments should definitely not be used? according to Answers In Genesis:

“Moon-dust thickness proves a young moon.”

Moon dust argument no longer useful by Answers In Genesis
Moon dust and the age of the solar system by Snelling/Rush also of AiG

In the trash compactor goes The Evolution Cruncher. Now go read

Index to Creationist Claims

as I’ve said and learn something, please!

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Can’t remember that SteveAndersen fellow’s name darn! But he will also fill you in on the details of evolution in short burst sentences brimming with content, unlike my rambling on with various font sizes and smilies for 5000 word messages.

One of his favorite phrases is: “you can’t just be a little bit evolved.”

Phil P

 

[cpayne]

One of his favorite phrases is: “you can’t just be a little bit evolved.”

Phil P

Okay, but now I have a question. Does this sentence also refer to the supernatural divine infusion of a rational soul? Is that “evolved” as well?

Rats! I didn’t want to get sucked into this discussion!

 

[steveandersen]

Okay, but now I have a question. Does this sentence also refer to the supernatural divine infusion of a rational soul? Is that “evolved” as well?

Rats! I didn’t want to get sucked into this discussion!

[Giant sucking sound]

No it is a play on the old saying “you can’t just be a little bit pregnant”. You either are or you aren’t.
I usually say this in response to someone who says that they think some limited form of evolution occurs (such as new strains of bacteria arising or the divergence of humans into those geographically adapted traits we call “race”) but that it stops at some arbitrarily defined boundary.

My opinion is that it is the thin edge of the wedge. Once you admit that variance between isolated populations increases (and the evidence for that is overwhelming) and you don’t propose a method for halting the process then you’re stuck. You can’t just be a little bit evolved.

As for the soul, it is not evolved. Souls are not biochemical, they do not have genes, souls don’t mate with each other to make little souls so I don’t see how they can evolve. Even if biology could say anything about the soul (which it can’t) there is no mechanism for evolution of the soul.

[/Giant sucking sound]

 

[cpayne]

souls don’t mate with each other to make little souls so I don’t see how they can evolve. ]

What about soulmates?

Okay, never mind. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[steveandersen]

What about soulmates?

Okay, never mind. Thanks for the clarification.

while ther may have soulmates
I don’t think that they make soulettes


(weren’t they Ray Charles’ back up singers)

 

[Koru]

I now get to throw all 965 pages of this Evolution Cruncher book in the garbage can because of this.
Phil P

Why do you just find one thing that is possibly incorrect out of hundreds and possibly thousands and throw out the entire read? That’s not how studying is supposed to be conducted. I DO believe that you should research material for authenticity but don’t throw away the whole steak because of a piece of fat!

Regarding the radiometric dating, you should know better if you’ve researched it out. Radiometric dating (Carbon 14, Argon, et cetera) cannot be used to accurately identify ages past 30,000 years. The reason being is due to what affects the calculations when deciphering the half-life breakdown. Even the scientist that discovered and invented carbon dating would attest to this!

Because of the earth’s declining magnetic field, more radiation (which forms C14) is allowed into the earth’s atmosphere. Atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years. He (the founder of carbon dating) assumed that the earth was millions of years old, and that it was already at equilibrium. However each time they test it, they find more c14 in the atmosphere, and have realized that we are only 1/3 the way to equilibrium.

What does this mean? 1/3 * 30,000 = 10,000! If based solely on this, the earth has a stop point of 10,000 maximum. But I won’t stop here, let’s continue. There are many more problems with radiometric dating and the “geologic column”. But I will only get into those more explicitly if requested.

You listed a fundamental physics and cosmology link among all these other links. I’ll try my best to look through these, but here’s my argument. You’re trying to explain quantum mechanics while I’m trying to explain simple mathematics. If the mathematics aren’t correct then quantum mechanics and physics sure aren’t going to be anywhere closer to truth… just a detailed imagination with a false backbone, a house built on the foundation of sand.

I think we can both agree that even though in the Pope’s position, they are not always infallible unless they declare they will be speaking for the teachings of the Church. There were bad Popes throughout all of history, one even tried to create his own translation of the bible and say that this is how the Church should interpret it… but as healthy as he was, he died before it could be released (protection for the See of Peter).

When these Popes speak of evolution, have they ever clarified if they speak of the evolution of kinds (or species) or do they speak of the simple microevolution which is observable and proven? I am sure that the evidences they are speaking of are most likely and assuredly microevolution. Because that is definitely more than a hypothesis. Now, onto why evolution can’t sit tightly in the faith of the Church.

I don’t believe I clarified my statement correctly when I first posted on this thread when I spoke of Original Sin. Let me clarify…

How can evolution be true if science and God can’t be contradicted. “God himself and Jesus Christ (while trying not to separate them) both stated that the Original Sin of man brought death into the world… not just to mankind, but for the entire world. They do NOT state that it was solely for mankind.” The evolutionary process puts the role and state of death before the fall of man. The Church teaches that through Adam’s sin, death was introduced into the world. According to evolutionary theory, there are countless generations of lives before the creation of man that have been theorized to have died and become extinct none-the-less!

Regarding the Evolution Cruncher again, this is just one of the compendiums that is easily accessbile for online reading. I’m not saying that the words in there aren’t fallible, I’m saying that the evidence portrayed in there list the hundreds and hundreds of flaws with evolution. I’ll grant you that a few of them might be wrong, because I haven’t back-researched all the “proofs” provided in it, but that is no reason to throw out the entire compendium because of who it was dedicated to or because it isn’t endorsed by a university press and that a few of them might be incorrect.

The theory of evolution has caused nothing but trouble and never brought a soul to Christ, all that I’ve observed is that, if anything, gives people a reason to NOT believe in God. On the other hand, through first-hand experience, I have seen how the theory of Creationism has brought people TO Christ. There has to be SOME merit granted to the latter if for this only.

I will continue to read through the links you provided and try to reason with and research both sides extensively in the pursuit of truth. I used to have no problem with the theory of evolution until it entirely corrupted the faith of my best friends. I have seen no good and never found any good that has come from this theory.

God Bless,
~Cole

 

[edwest2]

Jesus came to earth because of Original Sin.

Adam and Eve were two actual people. They were in a direct relationship with God.

Jesus refers to the fact that they were created male and female. That Noah was real, and He referred to Sodom and Gommorah.

Looking at Humani Generis, and the Bible, it is clear that there are certain settled points. Jesus Christ is the son of God. Evolution is not concerned with the Bible, it is concerned with a naturalistic philosophy that assigns everything to natural, non-God causes. This is not compatible with our faith.

Then they come knocking on the doors of the faithful, “We have evidence! You cannot ignore this!” As Catholics, we have the evidence of our faith. If a scientist was standing next to Jesus when he turned the water to wine or raised Lazarus from the dead, would the scientist say, “Oh, I can’t examine that, it was obviously a miracle.” I think not!

The Catholic Church grants sainthood on the basis of what? Miracles. I was just reading about a candidate for sainthood and one of the carefully examined miracles attributed to her aid. And all the doctors involved gave the results of their examinations of a miraculous cure. Man is flesh and spirit.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Alec;

Let’s dispense with the name calling. As to the others, I have misplaced my papers, but (the wife willing) I will find them and list them by this weekend.

I shall look forward to that with eager anticipation. Remember to be sure that they support your point of view that there is not enough time for neo-Darwinian evolution to have occurred, rather than, like Prigogine, opposing it. Try not to ineffectively quote-mine this time - knowing what your reference actually worked on is quite helpful.

You might have missed the point about phyla. Of course I know that mammals and lizards are of the phylum Chordata. But the point I was trying to make was that the fossil evidence we do have challenges the classic concept of Darwinism.

Really!! How about the fossils we have for the folllowing transitions: fish to tetrapod, amphibian to amniote, the emergence of synapsids, early mammals, the emergence of placental mammals, the emergence of primitive primates, the divergence of monkeys, the catarrhyni/platyrrhini split, the emergence of hominidae, and then a continuous progression of fossils from Ardipithecus ramidus to archaic Homo sapiens?

The most glaring example is the Cambrian explosion (which encompassed the globe) some 530 million years ago.

Here’s the rub: jointed legs, food-gathering appendages, intenstinal structures, gills, eyes with optically perfect lense, notochords all “evolved” simultaneously.

Sorry - a ten (not five) million year period is ‘simultaneously’? By the way - can you define an ‘optically perfect lense [sic]’ and where we find such a mythical thing in Cambrian fossils - in order for us to avoid the obvious thought that you have been unthinkingly copying from the foolish garbage that one finds on creationist websites. Ah - but that’s what you’re doing isn’t it - copying stuff you don’t understand? Hence the Prigogine embarrassment, and this nonsense about an ‘optically perfect lense’.

All 34 animal Phyla that exist today appear as a single burst in the fossil record during the Cambrian event. And radioactive dating of rocks from that period places all development within a 5 million year window.

Your acceptance of radio-dating and the 530 million year date of the lower Cambrian noted

Argue ‘latent library’ and I will agree with you. But the question remains: how can ‘random’ mutations outside of the probable realm of earth time result in this variety WITHOUT an intelligent, supranatural force?

Mutations to homeobox containing genes including HOX domain.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

The Catholic Church grants sainthood on the basis of what? Miracles. I was just reading about a candidate for sainthood and one of the carefully examined miracles attributed to her aid. And all the doctors involved gave the results of their examinations of a miraculous cure. Man is flesh and spirit.
Ed

What has God got against amputees?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Regarding the radiometric dating, you should know better if you’ve researched it out. Radiometric dating (Carbon 14, Argon, et cetera) cannot be used to accurately identify ages past 30,000 years.

Wrong!! yet another person who confidently talks about things he or she doesn’t know the first thing about. Carbon dating of once living matter is limited to a few 10s of thousands of years because the half life for C14 decay is 5,730 years. However the half life for U238 to Pb206 is 4.47 billion years, for U235 to Pb207 is 704 million years and for K40 to Ar40 is 1.25 billion years. Rb87 to Sr87 it is a whopping 48.8 billion years and this can be used for dating geological species back to the formation of the solar system at 4.5 billion years.

Because of the earth’s declining magnetic field, more radiation (which forms C14) is allowed into the earth’s atmosphere. Atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years. He (the founder of carbon dating) assumed that the earth was millions of years old, and that it was already at equilibrium. However each time they test it, they find more c14 in the atmosphere, and have realized that we are only 1/3 the way to equilibrium.

Really?? Let’s have a scientific reference that shows that the C14 in the atmosphere is 1/3 of the way to equilibrium. Of course, that is absolute poppycock.

What does this mean? 1/3 * 30,000 = 10,000! If based solely on this, the earth has a stop point of 10,000 maximum. But I won’t stop here, let’s continue. There are many more problems with radiometric dating and the “geologic column”. But I will only get into those more explicitly if requested.

I should be delighted if you would, because on the evidence so far, you haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about

Alec
evolutionpages.com