The Dinasour Question

[mcpeake]

I think it is clear from the info that I posted that a pretty good argument can be made for a young earth(and that dinosaurs lived along with MAN.) I am sure that some may ake accusations about the kolbe center----well here is my challenge PLEASE CITE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE WHERE SUNGEIS OR THE KOLBE CENTER “LIED” OR “PURPOSLEY MISCONSTRUED FACTS.”"

 

[mcpeake]

I thought ud like this response by Sungenis Timmy-----and you might want to get a copy of the book he references too…

Question 4- Did Dinosaurs Exist?

Robert:
This is Bob Downs is louisville, KY. We had an email conversation about salvation, evolution, etc. I lost your email about evolution, dinosaurs, etc. You referred me to a book as well. Would you mind making a 2 sentence comment about whether or not dinosaurs are “real” and the title of the book you referenced. thanks, and I look forward to receiving your reply.
Bob Downs
Louisville, KY

R. Sungenis: Bob, yes, dinosaurs are real. We find their footprints in many places, as well as some of their bones. Two book I recommend are “Dinosaurs and Creation” by Donald B. DeYoung, and “The World That Perished” by John C. Whitcomb. Top

 

[Orogeny]

mcpeake:

I think it is clear from the info that I posted that a pretty good argument can be made for a young earth(and that dinosaurs lived along with MAN.) I am sure that some may ake accusations about the kolbe center----well here is my challenge PLEASE CITE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE WHERE SUNGEIS OR THE KOLBE CENTER “LIED” OR “PURPOSLEY MISCONSTRUED FACTS.”"

Well, let me make it clear. There is no good scientific argument for a young earth. There is no evidence for a young earth. The earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. That is based on numerous tests.

The use of known false information to knowingly mislead someone makes the user a liar. Is that something you can agree with? If Sungenis is using footprints in the Pauluxy as proof that humans and dinosaurs coexist, he is a liar because he seems to be intellectually capable of understanding that no such thing exists. That information has been available for a long time. In fact, it is so strong that even ICR, a very fundamentalist outfit, had to backtrack on their claim.

Now, here is MY challenge. Using accepted scientific methods, provide ONE piece of evidence indicating a young earth.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

mcpeake:

R. Sungenis: Bob, yes, dinosaurs are real. We find their footprints in many places, as well as some of their bones. Two book I recommend are “Dinosaurs and Creation” by Donald B. DeYoung, and “The World That Perished” by John C. Whitcomb. Top

I agree with Sungenis in this statement. Dinosaurs were real. We do find their footprints as well as their bones. No problems there.

Peace

Tim

 

[mcpeake]

another thin Tim stop using the word fundamentalism in a way that it is not suppose to be used—here is the proper definition –

Fundamentalism is more properly defined as a literal interpretation of the Bible without regard to historical or literary context, sacred Tradition, or the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[Ianjo99]

mcpeake:

another thin Tim stop using the word fundamentalism in a way that it is not suppose to be used—here is the proper definition –

Fundamentalism is more properly defined as a literal interpretation of the Bible without regard to historical or literary context, sacred Tradition, or the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Sorry for the semantics, but he seems to be using it correctly. I think he is using it in order to indicate the credibility of the source. If it is coming from a fundamentalist website or source, chances are the material is skewed. They don’t have a very good track record for accuracy in these debates.

Please note I don’t think that the Kolbe Center is Fundamentalist in the strict sense of their religion, but that their methods and views are fundamentalist.

 

[Orogeny]

mcpeake:

another thin Tim stop using the word fundamentalism in a way that it is not suppose to be used—here is the proper definition –

Fundamentalism is more properly defined as a literal interpretation of the Bible without regard to historical or literary context, sacred Tradition, or the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Sorry, mcpeake. I don’t take language lessons from you. I used the term exactly as I meant to. Sorry if you don’t like it.

I’m still waiting for you to answer my challenge.

Peace

Tim

 

[mcpeake]

here is a quote for u timmy-----

Recently, however, a prominent group of Catholics have once again taken up the banner bequeathed to them from tradition. Chief among them is the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. Its members house theologians and scientists from all over the world, some tops in their field. In October 2002, the Kolbe Center presented the Special Creation model (i.e., the universe was created in six days) to both John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger at the Vatican, in two different meetings. I was privileged to be present at one of them. The presentation was comprised of scriptural, magisterial and scientific information gathered over the last 50 years that gives positive evidence of a young earth, much of it not known before. For example, one of the Kolbe scientists, Dr. Guy Berthault, a member of the French Academy of Sciences, has proven beyond little doubt that Charles Lyell’s theory of the geologic column (i.e., that the layers of sediment were formed over millions of years) is false.(6) Another scientist, Dr. Robert Gentry, has shown by evidence of Polonium halos that the earth had to be created instantaneously, otherwise Polonium 216, with a half-life of 3 minutes, could not exist. Hence, the traditional Catholic approach to the question of origins has come of age, and is now poised to present to the world a very convincing scientific model of how the world was created in six days.

 

[mcpeake]

I think he is using it in order to indicate the credibility of the source. If it is coming from a fundamentalist website or source, chances are the material is skewed. They don’t have a very good track record for accuracy in these debates.

Please note I don’t think that the Kolbe Center is Fundamentalist in the strict sense of their religion, but that their methods and views are fundamentalist.

---

In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti

WHAT DID U JUST SAY?-HE ISNT USING IT CORRECTLY—TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE LITERALLY IS NOT BEING A FUNDAMENTALIST NECESSARILY–IN FACT LEO XII SAID WE SHOLD DO JUST THAT UNLESS THERE IS A GOOD REASON NOT TOO-----

 

[PhilVaz]

mcpeake << kathy–please be more specific—what is not evidence??? …are you calling bob sungenis and terry jackson liars??? …paluxy is not the only place that human prints and dinosaur prints were fround----KOLBE CENTER–GO THERE >>

Uh oh this thread could get nasty. Here is the proof that Sungenis and the Kolbe Center use for Dinos living with man (to be specific: Fred and Wilma, Pebbles and Bam-Bam):

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/dinokid.jpg

On a serious note, as for the Paluxy man-tracks, as Tim pointed out, mainline creationists abandoned that 20 years ago. Only folks like the Kolbe Center and Carl Baugh still promote them. See AnswersInGenesis article on bad creationist arguments:

“‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs…” (from Arguments we think creationists should NOT use)

Also this from AnswersInGenesis:

“In 1986 a number of leading creationist researchers decided that the evidence of supposedly human and dinosaur footprints, found together at the Paluxy River in Texas, had serious problems. They decided that, pending further research to establish the correct interpretation of the prints, they could no longer be safely used as evidence supporting the fact (based on the biblical account of creation) that man and dinosaur lived at the same time.” (from Searching for the Magic Bullet)

Institute for Creation Research concludes in an article on the Paluxy tracks: “…it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution…”

Your best debunker of the dinosaur man-track thing and creationists is Glenn Kuban, who happens to be a Christian, and has been studying the Paluxy site and others for 25 years. His well researched pages are found here. Other pages on this found at TalkOrigins here (Kuban’s site is more up to date I think).

Of course the original (real) creationists realized the earth was very old well before Darwin, but don’t let that stop you from promoting the Paluxy tracks.

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

mcpeake:

here is a quote for u timmy-----

Recently, however, a prominent group of Catholics have once again taken up the banner bequeathed to them from tradition. Chief among them is the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. Its members house theologians and scientists from all over the world, some tops in their field. In October 2002, the Kolbe Center presented the Special Creation model (i.e., the universe was created in six days) to both John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger at the Vatican, in two different meetings. I was privileged to be present at one of them. The presentation was comprised of scriptural, magisterial and scientific information gathered over the last 50 years that gives positive evidence of a young earth, much of it not known before. For example, one of the Kolbe scientists, Dr. Guy Berthault, a member of the French Academy of Sciences, has proven beyond little doubt that Charles Lyell’s theory of the geologic column (i.e., that the layers of sediment were formed over millions of years) is false.(6) Another scientist, Dr. Robert Gentry, has shown by evidence of Polonium halos that the earth had to be created instantaneously, otherwise Polonium 216, with a half-life of 3 minutes, could not exist. Hence, the traditional Catholic approach to the question of origins has come of age, and is now poised to present to the world a very convincing scientific model of how the world was created in six days.

So, can you meet my challenge? You are good at posting press releases, but woefully shy of scientific evidence.

I note that in the last sentence of your propaganda that the Kolbe Center was poised to present a “very convincing scientific model”. When, pray tell, do they plan to unveil that stunning breakthrough?

I will also note that the presentation does not seem to have impressed Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger). Take a look at this document, especially starting on paragraph 62. bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

Good reading!

Peace

Tim

 

[Ianjo99]

mcpeake:

I think he is using it in order to indicate the credibility of the source. If it is coming from a fundamentalist website or source, chances are the material is skewed. They don’t have a very good track record for accuracy in these debates.

Please note I don’t think that the Kolbe Center is Fundamentalist in the strict sense of their religion, but that their methods and views are fundamentalist.

---

In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti

WHAT DID U JUST SAY?-HE ISNT USING IT CORRECTLY—TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE LITERALLY IS NOT BEING A FUNDAMENTALIST NECESSARILY–IN FACT LEO XII SAID WE SHOLD DO JUST THAT UNLESS THERE IS A GOOD REASON NOT TOO-----

I think he is using it in order to indicate the credibility of the source. If it is coming from a fundamentalist website or source, chances are the material is skewed. They don’t have a very good track record for accuracy in these debates.

Please note I don’t think that the Kolbe Center is Fundamentalist in the strict sense of their religion, but that their methods and views are fundamentalist. ----> That’s what I said.

It’s nice that you throw a papal quote at me, but I think I have good enough reason to doubt the literal interpretation when about 99.85 percent of educated scientists relevant to the field of life science propose otherwise and when the general consensus of scientists agrees. talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

fundamentalism

n : the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

i.e. → fundamentalist in nature.

 

[rossum]

mcpeake:

For example, one of the Kolbe scientists, Dr. Guy Berthault, a member of the French Academy of Sciences, has proven beyond little doubt that Charles Lyell’s theory of the geologic column (i.e., that the layers of sediment were formed over millions of years) is false.

Incorrect, Lyell is still valid. Berthault’s results do not invalidate the principle of superposition. Newer layers still appear on top of older layers. Berthault’s results duplicated a case where the layers are not laid down horizontally, but the principle of superposition does not require horizontal depositional surfaces. Berthault erred in confusing the principle of superposition with the principle of original horizontality, which was already known to have limited application. Berthault’s experiments only duplicated results that were familiar to sedimentologists decades earlier. There is nothing of significance in his work.
From here.

mcpeake:

Another scientist, Dr. Robert Gentry, has shown by evidence of Polonium halos that the earth had to be created instantaneously, otherwise Polonium 216, with a half-life of 3 minutes, could not exist. Hence, the traditional Catholic approach to the question of origins has come of age, and is now poised to present to the world a very convincing scientific model of how the world was created in six days.

Dr Gentry forgot that radon is a gas.Polonium forms from the alpha decay of radon, which is one of the decay products of uranium. Since radon is a gas, it can migrate through small cracks in the minerals. The fact that polonium haloes are found only associated with uranium (the parent mineral for producing radon) supports this conclusion, as does the fact that such haloes are commonly found along cracks (Brawley 1992; Wakefield 1998).
From here.

The Kolbe Centre is going to have to do a lot better than this if it is going to convince me.

rossum

 

[mcpeake]

For example, one of the Kolbe scientists, Dr. Guy Berthault, a member of the French Academy of Sciences, has proven beyond little doubt that Charles Lyell’s theory of the geologic column (i.e., that the layers of sediment were formed over millions of years) is false.(6) Another scientist, Dr. Robert Gentry, has shown by evidence of Polonium halos that the earth had to be created instantaneously, otherwise Polonium 216, with a half-life of 3 minutes, could not exist. Hence, the traditional Catholic approach to the question of origins has come of age, and is now poised to present to the world a very convincing scientific model of how the world was created in six days.
whether or not someone ws impressed doesnt matter—and the argument is much bigger than the Paluxy footprints

 

[Orogeny]

mcpeake:

WHAT DID U JUST SAY?-HE ISNT USING IT CORRECTLY—TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE LITERALLY IS NOT BEING A FUNDAMENTALIST NECESSARILY–IN FACT LEO XII SAID WE SHOLD DO JUST THAT UNLESS THERE IS A GOOD REASON NOT TOO-----

You mean like the teaching in the Catechism:
283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."121

and

289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation.

Where in 289 does it mention age?
Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

mcpeake:

For example, one of the Kolbe scientists, Dr. Guy Berthault, a member of the French Academy of Sciences, has proven beyond little doubt that Charles Lyell’s theory of the geologic column (i.e., that the layers of sediment were formed over millions of years) is false.(6) Another scientist, Dr. Robert Gentry, has shown by evidence of Polonium halos that the earth had to be created instantaneously, otherwise Polonium 216, with a half-life of 3 minutes, could not exist. Hence, the traditional Catholic approach to the question of origins has come of age, and is now poised to present to the world a very convincing scientific model of how the world was created in six days.
whether or not someone ws impressed doesnt matter—and the argument is much bigger than the Paluxy footprints

Rossum beat me to the post. You need to check the usefulness of your sources.

Peace

Tim

 

[PhilVaz]

mcpeak << Another scientist, Dr. Robert Gentry, has shown by evidence of Polonium halos that the earth had to be created instantaneously, otherwise Polonium 216, with a half-life of 3 minutes, could not exist. >>

While I’m not a geologist, several problems and mistakes have been noted on Gentry’s research. I remember looking this up at the library when I first heard it several years ago. It was called a “minor mystery” yet unsolved by geologist G. Brent Dalrymple in the 1981-82 Arkansas Creationist Trial, which led Gentry to title his book on halos research Creation’s Tiny Mystery. However the mystery has been de-mystified somewhat by TalkOrigins and others here. Sorry the earth is old, I recommend Dalrymple’s The Age of the Earth as the standard text, or the Wiens (Christian perspective) article Tim linked above.

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

mcpeake:

whether or not someone ws impressed doesnt matter—and the argument is much bigger than the Paluxy footprints

Actually, there are two separate things here. If the false claim regarding the Pauluxy tracks were true, that would put a major crimp in evolutionary theory. Polonium halos would create problems for old earth geology.

But since both have been shown to be untrue, they do neither.

Peace

Tim

 

[Eileen_T]

I have always been open to Creation and a young earth although predisposed to Evolution. I used to say “Give me a logical explanation for the dinosaurs.” After all, I believed God could literally create the universe in 6 days, it was just that it could have been a different timeframe of what the ‘days’ were to God.

The book Evolution ? by Wallace Johnson came into my hands and gave me what I considered a reasonable and logical explanation for dinosaurs and carbon dating etc… to my own satisfaction.

That’s it for me. End of story. I don’t particularly care if others believe in billions of years of evolution or not. That’s up to them. I guess we will find out in heaven, if we can even be interested in the subject then. I don’t think it will matter one little bit. :twocents:

 

[Magicsilence]

Evolution is a very nice theory to believe in, its cool, lucky, and makes us unnaccountable for our actions because it supports a universe thrown together by chance.

However, the single fact that gets me EVERY time i start to see the arguements for evolution is that it (evolution) has NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER been observed, EVER. Evolutionists SAY they have transitional fossils, but what they should be doing is picking out ones they dont have in the number of transitional fossils they have, not the ones they do have.

Its illogical.

You can call it bad science if you think that disagreeing with scientists is wrong because it is supported by popular opinion. Just realise that when you start to view the earth as being billions of years old, we arose through evolution, etc… you are beginning to take an atheist stance.

Evolution is a very strange theory, because, no matter what it says about complex systems evolving time, can ANYBODY ANYWHERE explain to me how a singular asexually reproducing organism could possibly mutate to create two organisms that depended on each other, and how would they KNOW that they needed each other to procreate. It baffles me that scientists support the theory with bad ideas. I had my biology teacher lecture me for a year on evolution, and even before i started to read about it, i could see that there were serious problems with the theory.

Evolution is a theory the scientists are desperately trying to keep alive by attempting to fit the evidence with the theory. That, my friends is bad science.

Evolution is a lie.

Just think about it for a few minutes to realize its absurdity.

Just think that at one point, one organism mutates (i.e its offspring) so that the new offspring have a fully functioning immune system, just wham, just like that.

We have been on earth for 100 years with the technology to record such an incident. Over 20 billion people (rough guess) have lived throughout that time, and not ONE of them, EVER, has EVER EVER EVER been to seen to mutate beneficially.

Why oh why do you still believe in the nonsense of evolution?

In Christ.

Andre.