The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[buffalo]

Are you thinking of epigenetics here?

Are 41 and 42 part of your own writings, or are you quoting somebody else?

Epigenetics would be later generational responses to lifestyle and environment, adaptation of already existing life.

Sorry - I did not link -

AUGUSTINE AND EVOLUTION
A STUDY IN THE SAINT’S DE GENESI AD LITTERAM AND DE TRINITATE
BY
HENRY WOODS, S. J.

 

[grannymh]

Granny…I think we agree. God made man in His own image. I believe Adam and Eve existed. I just don’t see a 6000 year old world.

OH Gosh…my pet velociraptor just got out of the yard. She’s chasing a sweet little bunny!

Yes, we do agree. I also have trouble with a 6000 year old earth, mainly because of its immense complexity and the wonders of nature. Genesis does not hinge on the age of the earth.

If you would feed your pet volocirapter dark chocolate, she would not feel the need for chasing bunnies.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55

 

[StAnastasia]

OH Gosh…my pet velociraptor just got out of the yard. She’s chasing a sweet little bunny!

That poor, poor velociraptor, having to make its last stand against this bunny:

“Follow only if ye be men of valour, for the entrance to this cave is guarded by a creature so foul, so cruel that no man yet has fought with it and lived! Bones of full fifty men lie strewn about its lair. So, brave knights, if you do doubt your courage or your strength, come no further, for death awaits you all with nasty, big, pointy teeth.”

 

[edwest2]

Hi granny,

The Church has made explicit statements about human origins that are part of the deposit of faith. I think the following is a problem for science in the sense that the creation of Eve was a special creation.

From the encyclical Arcanum - Pope Leo XIII

"We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity. From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ. He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”(2)

God bless,
Ed

 

[spn82756]

That poor, poor velociraptor, having to make its last stand against this bunny:

“Follow only if ye be men of valour, for the entrance to this cave is guarded by a creature so foul, so cruel that no man yet has fought with it and lived! Bones of full fifty men lie strewn about its lair. So, brave knights, if you do doubt your courage or your strength, come no further, for death awaits you all with nasty, big, pointy teeth.”

 

[larkin31]

No evidence, still, of a 6000 yr old earth?

 

[edwest2]

Well, I’ve already offered the Hebrew Calendar, which starts a year before Creation, but it’s apparently no good.

Not sure when it expired, but hey.

God bless,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

Holy Coincidence Batman! As Robin would say.

I subscribe via RSS feed to some blogs, and this one just popped up this morning:

Thomism and Intelligent Design

I don’t have a horse in this particular race, so I’m just posting this thinking that those of you who do might enjoy reading the article.

The article “Thomism and Intelligent Design” is at best a superficial analysis of the subject, containing many errors, enough errors that one could write a small booklet size correction. Hence, I will just randomly pick a few statements from the article that illustrate my point.

1. To create such biological function the designer had to inject functional information (CSI) in the system.

“To inject” is an empty metaphor. From the perspective of science one needs to ask what precisely was injected, when was it injected, how was it injected, into what types of organisms was it injected, and so on. Then we must ask what the evidence is that supports the claim. The answer is “none”.

Injecting functional information implies a special creative act on the part of the anonymous designer. This is one instance in which IDT conflates proximate and ultimate causes. The article fails to address this fundamental problem, one which puts it at odds with Thomism.

“Special” creations of organisms or their systems contradicts the doctrines of Creation. One can attempt to avoid special creations problems by asserting that this “injection” took place during the initial Creation. However, one now places themselves in direct contradiction to scientific facts about the extensive age of the world and the universe, and natural history. Whatever the scenario, it relies on “creationism” ideology, which is rejected by Thomists.

There are a myriad of other problems, scientific, philosophical, and theological with the idea of injecting CSI into the system, which I cannot discuss here.

2. **Both Thomism and ID are teleological while evolutionism is not. **
This statement almost as useless as it is misleading. There is no proper explanation in the article as to the philosophical difference between teleology in Thomism and teleology in IDT. The difference involves IDT’s conflation of design and finality.

Evolutionism, as an ideology is not teleological. However, evolution as science is not teleological either. In fact, no natural sciences are properly teleological because teleology is not studied by science. Science by itself cannot prove or disprove teleology in nature.

Teleology involves a philosophical reflection on nature. A sound philosophy of nature will amply demonstrate the existence of teleology. Again, teleological explanations are not scientific explanation, and one should not expect evolution science to address teleology so as to affirm it, or deny it as does Dennet, Dawkins, Mayr, and so on.

3. Just quotes like this show clearly as Thomism has nothing to do with Darwinism and any materialistic theory. Moreover the intelligent design conception in Aquinas is fundamental, as expressed for example in the following statements:
Here again, the comparison of Thomism with IDT is superficial. “Design” in Thomism is not identical with design in IDT. IDT hopelessly confuses design and purpose.

4. But the ID arguments of IC and CSI cannot be rejected for they are based on logic and mathematics.
This statement is a true howler! Just because IC and CSI are based on logic and mathematics does not mean they are true. If we apply the article’s “logic” to any theory based on logic and mathematics then we must accept that theory as necessarily true. Furthermore, we must accept as true any theory “A” and theory “B”, even though they contradict each other and are mutually exclusive, just as long as “they are based on logic and mathematics.”

Number “4” is truly a nonsensical statement, one that makes nonsense of logic and human reasoning. It is a claim appropriate to a mind that has lost all sense of objectivity.

As I stated in the beginning, the problems with the article are numerous. It is one rank piece of analysis. Enjoy!

 

[itinerant1]

No evidence, still, of a 6000 yr old earth?

None whatsoever!

 

[grannymh]

The article “Thomism and Intelligent Design” is at best a superficial analysis of the subject, containing many errors, enough errors that one could write a small booklet size correction. Hence, I will just randomly pick a few statements from the article that illustrate my point.

1. To create such biological function the designer had to inject functional information (CSI) in the system.

“To inject” is an empty metaphor. From the perspective of science one needs to ask what precisely was injected, when was it injected, how was it injected, into what types of organisms was it injected, and so on. Then we must ask what the evidence is that supports the claim. The answer is “none”.

Injecting functional information implies a special creative act on the part of the anonymous designer. This is one instance in which IDT conflates proximate and ultimate causes. The article fails to address this fundamental problem, one which puts it at odds with Thomism.

“Special” creations of organisms or their systems contradicts the doctrines of Creation. One can attempt to avoid special creations problems by asserting that this “injection” took place during the initial Creation. However, one now places themselves in direct contradiction to scientific facts about the extensive age of the world and the universe, and natural history. Whatever the scenario, it relies on “creationism” ideology, which is rejected by Thomists.

There are a myriad of other problems, scientific, philosophical, and theological with the idea of injecting CSI into the system, which I cannot discuss here.

2. **Both Thomism and ID are teleological while evolutionism is not. **
This statement almost as useless as it is misleading. There is no proper explanation in the article as to the philosophical difference between teleology in Thomism and teleology in IDT. The difference involves IDT’s conflation of design and finality.

Evolutionism, as an ideology is not teleological. However, evolution as science is not teleological either. In fact, no natural sciences are properly teleological because teleology is not studied by science. Science by itself cannot prove or disprove teleology in nature.

Teleology involves a philosophical reflection on nature. A sound philosophy of nature will amply demonstrate the existence of teleology. Again, teleological explanations are not scientific explanation, and one should not expect evolution science to address teleology so as to affirm it, or deny it as does Dennet, Dawkins, Mayr, and so on.

3. Just quotes like this show clearly as Thomism has nothing to do with Darwinism and any materialistic theory. Moreover the intelligent design conception in Aquinas is fundamental, as expressed for example in the following statements:
Here again, the comparison of Thomism with IDT is superficial. “Design” in Thomism is not identical with design in IDT. IDT hopelessly confuses design and purpose.

4. But the ID arguments of IC and CSI cannot be rejected for they are based on logic and mathematics.
This statement is a true howler! Just because IC and CSI are based on logic and mathematics does not mean they are true. If we apply the article’s “logic” to any theory based on logic and mathematics then we must accept that theory as necessarily true. Furthermore, we must accept as true any theory “A” and theory “B”, even though they contradict each other and are mutually exclusive, just as long as “they are based on logic and mathematics.”

Number “4” is truly a nonsensical statement, one that makes nonsense of logic and human reasoning. It is a claim appropriate to a mind that has lost all sense of objectivity.

As I stated in the beginning, the problems with the article are numerous. It is one rank piece of analysis. Enjoy!

Sounds like a war of words, not a serious discussion of objectives.

 

[itinerant1]

Sounds like a war of words, not a serious discussion of objectives.

It may sound like just words to anyone who does not understand the concepts to which the words refer.

 

[Philipp]

Hi granny,

The Church has made explicit statements about human origins that are part of the deposit of faith. I think the following is a problem for science in the sense that the creation of Eve was a special creation.

From the encyclical Arcanum - Pope Leo XIII

"We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity. From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ. He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”(2)

God bless,
Ed

Thank you Ed. This should answer Grannymh’s quest for perhaps the best reference for Adam and Eve as our first parents. It leaves NO room for evolution from a common ancestor or from a group of 1000 to 3000 mating couples evolving from a group of hominids. Supposedly these ancestors were preceded by the great apes, back to a possible four legged rat like creature scurrying under the feet of dinosaurs 65 million years ago. The above scenario is on the cover sheet of a brochure by the American Geological Institute, entitled ***Why Scientists Believe in EVOLUTION *** I have a copy from the fourth printing dated 1987.

But since the above brochure was printed, radiocarbon dating of dinosaur bones and other fossils have shown that those millions and even billions of year do not exist. The exact time period is not determinable by chronological studies but only 1000’s of years, NOT millions or billions.

Sedimentology and mineral research is further evidence that the sedimentary rocks were laid down rapidly including sandstone, mudstone, shale and limestone. Discovery of distinct dinosaur depictions on all sort of matricies from archaeological studies of cultures from 500 - 3000 years ago support the above research. I hope someone will someday prepare such a brochure.

Dinosaur and human footprints together has been a seething controversy since the 1970’s but now with the discovery of pristine fossil human footprint trails with dinosaurian ones under tons of rocks deposited rapidly by huge tide carrying mud and cat-scan studies of dinosaur and human footprints together me thinks that the Geological Society’s brochure needs a bit of updating — maybe with a title of “Abrupt Appearance” with Adam and Eve surrounded with both dinosaurs and mammals.

***Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations). *** Thank you Buffalo.

 

[grannymh]

It may sound like just words to anyone who does not understand the concepts to which the words refer.

What I said was that it sounded like a war of words which should have alerted one to the fact that the “concepts” might be in trouble. Why were concepts ignored or not understood? Out of context statements could be one answer. No relationship to serious objectives could be another answer. It could be the difference between an attack mode and an open analysis. Maybe what should be a common goal has been dismissed. Or maybe it is that the concepts are erroneously assumed to be common knowledge.

It is my humble observation that the battlefield is human nature. So what are the neo-Thomists doing about this battle? Who is minding the front line? I really would like to know.

It is time to take my cranky self to bed.

Blessings,
granny

Psalm 139

 

[grannymh]

Thank you Ed. This should answer Grannymh’s quest for perhaps the best reference for Adam and Eve as our first parents.

I might as well not waste a cranky day. I have a thread going about the Catholic sources for the literal Adam. Consequently, that is not my quest here. My quest here has to do with the age of the earth.

But since the above brochure was printed, radiocarbon dating of dinosaur bones and other fossils have shown that those millions and even billions of year do not exist. The exact time period is not determinable by chronological studies but only 1000’s of years, NOT millions or billions.

The references I am looking for are the published research redating areas of the earth as mentioned above. My apology if you have already given the complete citations. If so, let me know about where they are on the thread. Otherwise, please help me out with actual citations. I am also wondering if bones of pre-human hominids were radiocarbon dated.

Discovery of distinct dinosaur depictions on all sort of matricies from archaeological studies of cultures from 500 - 3000 years ago support the above research. I hope someone will someday prepare such a brochure.

Is that 3,000 years B.C.? Again I would like to read the actual research papers and would appreciate your help in locating them.

Dinosaur and human footprints together has been a seething controversy since the 1970’s but now with the discovery of pristine fossil human footprint trails with dinosaurian ones under tons of rocks deposited rapidly by huge tide carrying mud and cat-scan studies of dinosaur and human footprints together me thinks that the Geological Society’s brochure needs a bit of updating — maybe with a title of “Abrupt Appearance” with Adam and Eve surrounded with both dinosaurs and mammals.

Seriously, one of the objections to Adam and Eve being the sole parents of the human species is that they would not have been able to survive when dinosaurs were active. That is what interests me about dinosaur digs. But I need published research.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations). Thank you Buffalo.

What really interests me here is that there could be a different way that genes operated in pristine human nature.

Blessings,
:yawn:

 

[itinerant1]

“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments.”

Excerpt from In the Beginning…": A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Cardinal Ratzinger.

 

[grannymh]

It may sound like just words to anyone who does not understand the concepts to which the words refer.

Ah, one says. Concepts. Please name and explain them. Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

"We cannot say: creation or

evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are.

Ah, one says. The concept of soul.

The “soul” refers to “the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is made in God’s image”

Please explain what the soul is in relation to the human species?

Soul signifies the spiritual principle in man. The presence of the spiritual soul makes the human anatomy a living person. “spirit and matter in man are not two natures united but rather their union forms a single nature.” We as human beings, in our own nature, unite the spiritual and material worlds.

And what is this human project designed for?

We alone are called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. This is the reason we were created. We are called to a covenant with our Creator, to offer Him a response of faith and love which no other creature is capable of doing.

Reference, Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 355 - 368
link: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

In regard to post 569, which implied that concepts are important, please
add comments from the Thomistic and ID positions.

And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments."

Excerpt from In the Beginning…": A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Cardinal Ratzinger.

This, too, needs to be discussed as to Thomistic and ID concepts.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the difficulties.

 

[rossum]

Thank you Ed. This should answer Grannymh’s quest for perhaps the best reference for Adam and Eve as our first parents. It leaves NO room for evolution from a common ancestor or from a group of 1000 to 3000 mating couples evolving from a group of hominids.

This is a very unwise move, you are tying the truth of your religion to a particular scientific interpretation; something along the lines of “Unless the Sun goes round the Earth, my religion is false”. You are putting unnecessary obstacles between anyone with a modicum of scientific knowledge and your religion. Do you really want to exclude people in that way?

But since the above brochure was printed, radiocarbon dating of dinosaur bones and other fossils have shown that those millions and even billions of year do not exist. The exact time period is not determinable by chronological studies but only 1000’s of years, NOT millions or billions.

Join Philipp’s new weight loss plan. No horrid exercise! No dieting!! Eat whatever you want!!! Don’t use your bathroom scales, stand on your kitchen scales instead – just watch how your weight drops to 10 Kg overnight!

Sedimentology and mineral research is further evidence that the sedimentary rocks were laid down rapidly including sandstone, mudstone, shale and limestone.

Some rocks are formed quickly, other rocks are formed slowly.

Dinosaur and human footprints together has been a seething controversy since the 1970’s but now with the discovery of pristine fossil human footprint trails with dinosaurian ones under tons of rocks deposited rapidly by huge tide carrying mud and cat-scan studies of dinosaur and human footprints together me thinks that the Geological Society’s brochure needs a bit of updating — maybe with a title of “Abrupt Appearance” with Adam and Eve surrounded with both dinosaurs and mammals.

Again, your total failure to provide any references limits the credence we can give to this. Where are these studies published? Where were those footprints found?

rossum

 

[grannymh]

This is a very unwise move, you are tying the truth of your religion to a particular scientific interpretation; something along the lines of “Unless the Sun goes round the Earth, my religion is false”. You are putting unnecessary obstacles between anyone with a modicum of scientific knowledge and your religion. Do you really want to exclude people in that way?

FYI, Rossum,

I have a thread “What are the Catholic sources for the literal Adam?” in the Sacred Scripture Forum. This in no way implies that I am excluding evolution. As you and Alec know, I have been learning about scientific evolution by asking questions for over a year. I have also gained information from those who do not accept evolution.

My main area of interest is the reality, or in scientific jargon, the possibility of two sole parents of the human species. The difficulty is how to handle the fact that natural science, by definition, is limited when it comes to human nature. In not the same way, science is also limited in forecasting backwards in time regarding the age of the earth. Obviously, Adam and Eve (Jane and John Doe) had to put their feet somewhere.

Now that I have limited access to some of the actual research papers, I am studying those from an analytical view point. Since my interest is concentrated on methods and materials, I now have to search out information regarding logic, mathematics, and philosophies used before, during, and after research. (R. Descartes, Meditations, Metaphysiques was cited in the beginning of a paper regarding volition in the material brain.)

At this point, I have a split opinion regarding material evolutionary theories. It is not that I am sitting on the fence. It is that I find two fences.

Some rocks are formed quickly, other rocks are formed slowly.

One size does not fit all. I believe you said something similar in that results from a particular experiment had been applied to areas far beyond reasonable assumptions.
As I recall, you implied that idea succinctly. Should I go back to find that post to double check if it were yours? I should go back anyway because it seemed a good example of the trouble which can occur with expanding a particular conclusion to an universal conclusion.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

FYI, Rossum,

I have a thread “What are the Catholic sources for the literal Adam?” in the Sacred Scripture Forum. This in no way implies that I am excluding evolution. As you and Alec know, I have been learning about scientific evolution by asking questions for over a year. I have also gained information from those who do not accept evolution.

My main area of interest is the reality, or in scientific jargon, the possibility of two sole parents of the human species. The difficulty is how to handle the fact that natural science, by definition, is limited when it comes to human nature. In not the same way, science is also limited in forecasting backwards in time regarding the age of the earth. Obviously, Adam and Eve (Jane and John Doe) had to put their feet somewhere.

Now that I have limited access to some of the actual research papers, I am studying those from an analytical view point. Since my interest is concentrated on methods and materials, I now have to search out information regarding logic, mathematics, and philosophies used before, during, and after research. (R. Descartes, Meditations, Metaphysiques was cited in the beginning of a paper regarding volition in the material brain.)

At this point, I have a split opinion regarding material evolutionary theories. It is not that I am sitting on the fence. It is that I find two fences.

One size does not fit all. I believe you said something similar in that results from a particular experiment had been applied to areas far beyond reasonable assumptions.
As I recall, you implied that idea succinctly. Should I go back to find that post to double check if it were yours? This post was an example of the trouble which can occur with expanding a particular conclusion to an universal conclusion.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.