The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
itinerant1 said:
So, what time period would you estimate for the existence of the dinosaurs?
Click to expand...
That’s what we are trying to determine by lab, flume, paleohydraulics and field studies. Based on the apparent coexistence of man and dinosaurs in the so-called Cretaceous, C-14 dating of fossil wood world-wide along with Dinosaur and Neanderthal bone collagen it would be 23,000 to 40,000 RC years. But are C-14 years really reliable? Some scientists suggest C-14 give way too old ages for their bones.

AND the presence of dinosaur depictions world wide by many cultures in the late 3000 years suggest dinosaur and man were together within historical time. Therefore 🤷
 
Philipp said:
That’s what we are trying to determine by lab, flume, paleohydraulics and field studies. Based on the apparent coexistence of man and dinosaurs in the so-called Cretaceous, C-14 dating of fossil wood world-wide along with Dinosaur and Neanderthal bone collagen it would be 23,000 to 40,000 RC years. But are C-14 years really reliable? Some scientists suggest C-14 give way too old ages for their bones.

AND the presence of dinosaur depictions world wide by many cultures in the late 3000 years suggest dinosaur and man were together within historical time. Therefore 🤷
Click to expand...
Is this 3000 years BC? Could true man (with soul and body) have existed 10,000 years BC?
 
Philipp said:
That’s what we are trying to determine by lab, flume, paleohydraulics and field studies. Based on the apparent coexistence of man and dinosaurs in the so-called Cretaceous, C-14 dating of fossil wood world-wide along with Dinosaur and Neanderthal bone collagen it would be 23,000 to 40,000 RC years. But are C-14 years really reliable? Some scientists suggest C-14 give way too old ages for their bones.

AND the presence of dinosaur depictions world wide by many cultures in the late 3000 years suggest dinosaur and man were together within historical time. Therefore 🤷
Click to expand...
“Based on the apparent coexistence of man and dinosaurs in the so-called Cretaceous” Huh?

The Cretaceous period is from 140 million to 65 million years ago, but then you say “23,000 to 40,000 RC years”. What do you mean by RC years?

Explain the discrepancies because this all sounds garbled.

While there has been a few survivors among the dinosaurs, ancient art is not conclusive as reference to existing dinosaurs because many ancient cultures believed in mythical monsters. And when I was a kid I knew the Flintstones’ world was make believe.
 
StAnastasia said:
It’s not hazy at all. “Adam” and “Eve” were part of the human species at the time, which numbered in the thousands. We are descended from most of those thousands, including “Adam” and “Eve.” The number of living representatives of Homo sapiens did fluctuate over 100,000 years but never fell to a single happily naked pair living in some mythical garden.

“The Toba supereruption occurred between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia), and it is recognized as one of Earth’s largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe theory holds that this supervolcanic event plunged the planet into a 6 to 10 year volcanic winter, which resulted in the world’s human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution. Some researchers argue that the Toba eruption produced not only a catastrophic volcanic winter but also an additional 1,000 year cooling episode.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
Click to expand...
And this is relevant to the Bible how? Why is it important or relevant to attach something science thinks is true to two people in the Bible? Do working scientists ever need to refer to the Bible while they work?

I think the statement from Pope John Paul II about the ontological leap to man and that this cannot be answered within science is true.

Or, to put it another way, God intervened in so many different parts of the Bible, including sending Jesus Christ, why are you focusing on this and basically saying, It doesn’t line up with science? Jesus told the paralytic to take up your pallet and return to your home, which he did. And how about the man who had been blind since birth?

God bless,
Ed
 
itinerant1 said:
Solar redshift is not an anomaly by any means and it certainly does not call into question the main ideas about redshift (except for YECs).

All too briefly, a phenomenon that is red-shifted is increased in electromagnetic wavelength, which amounts to being lower in both frequency and photon energy.

Redshift manifests three different physical effects. The Doppler effect is one, examples of which are apparent changes in the pitches of a siren on a fast moving vehicle. This finds its explanation in the effects of gravity; also a celestial body such as a star whose path is moving away from the observer is red-shifted.
Click to expand...
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here for a minute.

Ambulances with sirens we can touch, feel, and measure. Nobody has actually been near a star moving away from us.

There are observations of galaxies which are “connected” where one galaxy exhibits high redshift and the other doesn’t.
itinerant1 said:
The second effect depends on distance rather than motion in a particular direction; the general expansion of the universe, and the more distant galaxies and stars are red-shifted in accordance with the rate of increase of their distance from us (objects further away move away faster than closer objects).
Click to expand...
Uhhh… this is exactly the same as your first effect.

It is not an effect of distance per-se. It is an effect of speed. The distant galaxies are far away because they’ve been moving away at a higher speed than the closer galaxies. And you run the film backwards to arrive at the big bang. At least that’s how the story goes.
itinerant1 said:
The third effect involves gravitational redshifts, which are seen in electromagnetic radiation from luminous material in extremely high gravitational fields.
Click to expand...
So how do you know that extremely high gravitational fields are doing it? “Because it’s redshifted.” Oh.
 
StAnastasia said:
It’s not hazy at all. “Adam” and “Eve” were part of the human species at the time, which numbered in the thousands. We are descended from most of those thousands, including “Adam” and “Eve.” The number of living representatives of Homo sapiens did fluctuate over 100,000 years but never fell to a single happily naked pair living in some mythical garden.

“The Toba supereruption occurred between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia), and it is recognized as one of Earth’s largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe theory holds that this supervolcanic event plunged the planet into a 6 to 10 year volcanic winter, which resulted in the world’s human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution. Some researchers argue that the Toba eruption produced not only a catastrophic volcanic winter but also an additional 1,000 year cooling episode.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
Click to expand...
Interesting, but then how does that ‘soul’ thing work?
 
Philipp said:
We are missing a tail also but Ah! We have a tail bone where one once was. Right? Such is proof of evolution; I guess you might call our tail bone a vestigal??? All you evo guys must have a web site answer for that. What happened to our tail? How did we diverge and lose it?

And you still have not disproved that our church fathers were dead wrong. It’s up to you show that our church fathers were abolutely wrong about their support for a recent creation…
QUOTE]

May you please restate the arguments by the Church Fathers?
Click to expand...
 
StAnastasia said:
Granny, Humani generis is interesting but no more relevant to human genetics than Pope Urban VIII’s proclamation was to astronomy:

“The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.”
Click to expand...
I think there are three points to be made:
  1. Not all papal documents are Church doctrine.
  2. In Humani Generis Pius XII says, “…Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.” (emphasis added)
    Multiple original sins? Multiple biological inheritance but only one direct lineage of actual human beings (with souls)? The explanations are various, but there is much room for debate.
  3. The Catholic Church never makes an infallible dogmatic statement on science, as it is not a scientific institution and scientific findings are always changing views on certain issues. Paradigms shift in science, but not in the truths put forth by the Church, so I am fairly certain that the Church will not in fact be making any definitive statements any time soon.
 
edwest2 said:
And this is relevant to the Bible how? Why is it important or relevant to attach something science thinks is true to two people in the Bible? Do working scientists ever need to refer to the Bible while they work?

I think the statement from Pope John Paul II about the ontological leap to man and that this cannot be answered within science is true.

Or, to put it another way, God intervened in so many different parts of the Bible, including sending Jesus Christ, why are you focusing on this and basically saying, It doesn’t line up with science? Jesus told the paralytic to take up your pallet and return to your home, which he did. And how about the man who had been blind since birth?

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
First of all, both of the creation accounts in Genesis were adopted from pagan texts by the Jewish temple scribes centuries after they were written. I don’t think any reasonable Catholic takes them as literal accounts of how creation actually happened.

Secondly, God has the power to change his creation. Science may say that it’s impossible to raise someone from the dead, Jesus could still have done it. First/second hand accounts swear by it. Now, science shows us that there is no way two people could have thousands of kids, living until they were 960 years old, having their kids intermarry and end up with what we have now. There is a substantial difference b/w ancient texts which are “iffy” yet interpreted through the Spirit and more recent apostolic accounts (as the Pauline letters) which can be backed up historically.
 
ricmat said:
There are observations of galaxies which are “connected” where one galaxy exhibits high redshift and the other doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Really? Cite your source and produce the link. (YEC sites are not admissible.)
ricmat said:
So how do you know that extremely high gravitational fields are doing it? “Because it’s redshifted.” Oh.
Click to expand...
Duh! I don’t know any good scientist who thinks that simplistically about redshift or anything else. In any case, the explanation would be too long and tedious for now. But I am sure if you consult any good source on redshift your darkness will turn to light. If you absolutely can’t find the answers let me know.
 
The_Geographer said:
Please! Someone contact the Humane Society. This horse is already dead and they just keep kicking it. Such cruelty…

Ya’ll are having fun with this thread I see. Why is it that I get a feeling that if the Pope walk into the room all of a sudden nobody would really care and would probably call him stupid given the chance? I’ve never seen more arrogance than among people that try to force someone to accept their position on a subject as I have evolutionists and creationists.
Click to expand...
I’m seeing it as more of a pinata. I’m hoping that if I wack at it a few more times, I can at least get a stray sucker or something.
 
Caritasregat said:
First of all, both of the creation accounts in Genesis were adopted from pagan texts by the Jewish temple scribes centuries after they were written. I don’t think any reasonable Catholic takes them as literal accounts of how creation actually happened.

Secondly, God has the power to change his creation. Science may say that it’s impossible to raise someone from the dead, Jesus could still have done it. First/second hand accounts swear by it. Now, science shows us that there is no way two people could have thousands of kids, living until they were 960 years old, having their kids intermarry and end up with what we have now. There is a substantial difference b/w ancient texts which are “iffy” yet interpreted through the Spirit and more recent apostolic accounts (as the Pauline letters) which can be backed up historically.
Click to expand...
reasonable? A man rising from the dead? Is that reasonable?

“Genesis does not contain purified myths.” Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1909.

It is not for science to say what God can and cannot do. It is not for science to say, this part of the Bible is plausible but this part isn’t.

God bless,
Ed
 
StAnastasia said:
I read Science, Nature, and articles from journals of physics, astronomy, geology, biology, and genetics. I also lunch daily with two biologists, a biochemist, a geologist, a geneticist, an anthropologist, and a philosopher. And I attend conferences and other professional meetings, both theological and scientific. So I am exposed to a wide range of perspectives on questions at the interface between religion and the sciences.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Are you a student or professor? I’m just curious…
 
Caritasregat said:
First of all, both of the creation accounts in Genesis were adopted from pagan texts by the Jewish temple scribes centuries after they were written. I don’t think any reasonable Catholic takes them as literal accounts of how creation actually happened.
Click to expand...
Just a thought. Pagans were descended from Adam and Eve since there were only two sole parents of the human species.🙂
 
Caritasregat said:
Interesting, but then how does that ‘soul’ thing work?
Click to expand...
Some theories got no soul. Only a comprehensive theory of origins has soul.

We do know from the apocryphal work, “The Chronicles of Adam and Eve”, that Adam was a soul man. In fact he wrote the lyrics to the song “Soul Man” and would sing it Eve:

*I’m a soul man
I’m a soul man

Well grab the rope and I’ll pull you in
Give you hope and be your only boyfriend
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

I’m a soul man *:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top