The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[itinerant1]

Pope BXVI

“While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity [that have arisen from the positive aspects of modernity], we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.” Pope’s Regensburg Address

And how specifically does this excerpt relate to evolution theory or the age of the earth?

 

[buffalo]

Your post is largely non-informative. Is there something specific you can say about “recent data” and Pope Benedict XVI, who endorses theistic evolution theory?

Look back over my numerous science posts that you like to ignore.

Bottom line - however God chose to do it is OK with me. The question is how did He do it? I like IDvolution and I think the Pope will too. Science is discovering the complexity of the cell and the power of the super language of DNA. It also now knows that all living organisms share a “core” that is capable of adding novel features akin to plugging in different appliances to your electric system in your home.

It is easier to reconcile Thomism to IDvolution that trying to reconcile Adam and Eve, Eve from Adam and original sin to evolution.

The science is leading the way to these new discoveries.

 

[itinerant1]

Look back over my numerous science posts that you like to ignore.

Bottom line - however God chose to do it is OK with me. The question is how did He do it? I like IDvolution and I think the Pope will too. Science is discovering the complexity of the cell and the power of the super language of DNA. It also now knows that all living organisms share a “core” that is capable of adding novel features akin to plugging in different appliances to your electric system in your home.

It is easier to reconcile Thomism to IDvolution that trying to reconcile Adam and Eve, Eve from Adam and original sin to evolution.

The science is leading the way to these new discoveries.

As far as I can see, your IDvolution, as you call it, is ineffective because it is creationist.

 

[Philipp]

The fascinating thing is new findings are being brought to light on every page.

Like Ed West has pointed Junk DNA concept has been junked; everything God created has a purpose. Even the alleged evolutionary “vestigal organs” like the appendix has a purpose. At one time it was estimated there were dozens of left over non-functional organs, now there are none according to what I’ve heard. Medical researchers finally decided to dump fictional evolutionary claims and find out their functions.

The zillions of positive mutations needed to keep moving macoevolution onward and upwards are missing just like the “missing links.” Alleged mutations are mostly variants within species like population geneticist Dr. Maciej Giertych has pointed out. Bad mutations are accumulating rapidly which is bad news for man like Dr. John Sanford has pointed out.

Intelligent design is looking more and more like a replacement hypothesis for evolution and Buffalo has proposed a way of expressing such an hypothesis as follows:

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. Buffalo

Those billions and billions of years needed for evolution to have occurred seem not to exist as C-14 is being discovered not only in dinosaur bone collagen in significant amounts but even in other fossils and rocks in significant or trace amounts such as:

Marble
Shell
Foraminifera
Commercial graphite
Foraminifera (Pyrgo murrhina)
Calcite
Shell (Spisula subtruncata)
Whale bone
Marble
Wood, 60 Ka
Wood
Wood
Anthracite
Anthracite
Foraminifera (untreated)
Shell (Turitella communis)
Wood (charred)
Anthracite
Shell (Varicorbula gibba)
Wood
Recycled graphite
Foraminifera
Coke
Coal
Marble
Carbon powder
Foraminifera (mixed species avg.)
Fossil wood
Marble
CO2
Anthracite
Shell (Ostrea edulis)
Shell (Pecten opercularis)
Calcite
Carbon powder
Marble
Whale bone
Calcite
Anthracite
Recycled graphite
Natural gas
Foraminifera (treated)
Wood
Wood
Anthracite coal
Wood
Anthracite
CaC2 from coal
Marble
Shell (Mytilus edulis)
Graphite
Graphite
Calcite
Foraminifera (N. pachyderma)
Bituminous coal
Graphite (NBS)
Petroleum, cracked
Marble
Wood
Graphite powder
Fossil CO2 gas
Graphite
Anthracite
Natural Graphite
Cararra marble
Natural Gas
Marble
Graphite powder
Graphite
Calcite (Icelandic double spar)
Graphite (fresh surface)
Graphite (200 Ma)
Wood (selected data)
Carbon
Carbon-12 (mass sp.)
Graphite
Graphite rod
Graphite (Finland)
Graphite
Graphite (Ceylon)
Graphite (air)
Graphite
Carbon powder
Graphite (air redone)
Graphite (argon redone)
Graphite (fresh surface)
Carbon powder
Graphite
Graphite (argon)
CaC2 (technical grade)

**The licensed C-14 labs keep trying to find fossils and rocks with “dead carbon” to calibrate their instruments but everything containing carbon also contains C-14. Do you suppose GOD is trying to tell us something like: I created all the isotopes including C-14 at the same time I created stars and DNA {St. Augustine said God could have created in an instant but he agreed with Scripture because that was God’s word so six days was ok with him.} ** God had a purpose in everything He created and we sure are having fun finding out what these purposes are.

 

[StAnastasia]

Intelligent design is looking more and more like a replacement hypothesis for evolution and Buffalo has proposed a way of expressing such an hypothesis as follows:

Philipp, do you mean “is looking more and more” to you, or to scientists? Can you name any scientists outside creationist circles who believe this stuff?

 

[StAnastasia]

I check back every once in awhile to see what my simple little OP in 6000 (I) has become. I am amazed that nearly 2K posts later it is still being cussed and discussed. I hope it remains civil but I’m not going to read 2,000 posts to find out. Have fun.

BTW, I am a now a 2 day old Catholic and loving every minute of it.

Congratulations, and welcome!

 

[itinerant1]

Like Ed West has pointed Junk DNA concept has been junked; everything God created has a purpose. Even the alleged evolutionary “vestigal organs” like the appendix has a purpose. At one time it was estimated there were dozens of left over non-functional organs, now there are none according to what I’ve heard. Medical researchers finally decided to dump fictional evolutionary claims and find out their functions.

The zillions of positive mutations needed to keep moving macoevolution onward and upwards are missing just like the “missing links.” Alleged mutations are mostly variants within species like population geneticist Dr. Maciej Giertych has pointed out. Bad mutations are accumulating rapidly which is bad news for man like Dr. John Sanford has pointed out.

Intelligent design is looking more and more like a replacement hypothesis for evolution and Buffalo has proposed a way of expressing such an hypothesis as follows:

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. Buffalo

Those billions and billions of years needed for evolution to have occurred seem not to exist as C-14 is being discovered not only in dinosaur bone collagen in significant amounts but even in other fossils and rocks in significant or trace amounts such as:

Marble
Shell
Foraminifera
Commercial graphite
Foraminifera (Pyrgo murrhina)
Calcite
Shell (Spisula subtruncata)
Whale bone
Marble
Wood, 60 Ka
Wood
Wood
Anthracite
Anthracite
Foraminifera (untreated)
Shell (Turitella communis)
Wood (charred)
Anthracite
Shell (Varicorbula gibba)
Wood
Recycled graphite
Foraminifera
Coke
Coal
Marble
Carbon powder
Foraminifera (mixed species avg.)
Fossil wood
Marble
CO2
Anthracite
Shell (Ostrea edulis)
Shell (Pecten opercularis)
Calcite
Carbon powder
Marble
Whale bone
Calcite
Anthracite
Recycled graphite
Natural gas
Foraminifera (treated)
Wood
Wood
Anthracite coal
Wood
Anthracite
CaC2 from coal
Marble
Shell (Mytilus edulis)
Graphite
Graphite
Calcite
Foraminifera (N. pachyderma)
Bituminous coal
Graphite (NBS)
Petroleum, cracked
Marble
Wood
Graphite powder
Fossil CO2 gas
Graphite
Anthracite
Natural Graphite
Cararra marble
Natural Gas
Marble
Graphite powder
Graphite
Calcite (Icelandic double spar)
Graphite (fresh surface)
Graphite (200 Ma)
Wood (selected data)
Carbon
Carbon-12 (mass sp.)
Graphite
Graphite rod
Graphite (Finland)
Graphite
Graphite (Ceylon)
Graphite (air)
Graphite
Carbon powder
Graphite (air redone)
Graphite (argon redone)
Graphite (fresh surface)
Carbon powder
Graphite
Graphite (argon)
CaC2 (technical grade)

**The licensed C-14 labs keep trying to find fossils and rocks with “dead carbon” to calibrate their instruments but everything containing carbon also contains C-14. Do you suppose GOD is trying to tell us something like: I created all the isotopes including C-14 at the same time I created stars and DNA {St. Augustine said God could have created in an instant but he agreed with Scripture because that was God’s word so six days was ok with him.} **God had a purpose in everything He created and we sure are having fun finding out what these purposes are.

You haven’t convinced me that your spiel on C-14 is anything more than junk science.

A blatant logical fallacy prevalent among creationists is that (1) the highlighting of weaknesses in Darwinian theory can disprove evolution, and (2) a weakness, real or imagined, in evolution theory constitutes evidence for creationism or Intelligent Design theory.

Also, your knowledge of St. Augutine leaves much to be desired.

 

[itinerant1]

Philipp, do you mean “is looking more and more” to you, or to scientists? Can you name any scientists outside creationist circles who believe this stuff?

Exactly. Sometimes the obvious still needs to be stated, whether or not anyone is willing to listen.

 

[buffalo]

God had a purpose in everything He created and we sure are having fun finding out what these purposes are.

Purpose - it is important to point out that living systems have a stubborn purpose. Purpose is unneccessary in the evo system What drive this purpose? Life is front loaded by God.

 

[itinerant1]

Purpose - it is important to point out that living systems have a stubborn purpose. Purpose is unneccessary in the evo system What drive this purpose? Life is front loaded by God.

It looks like you are the one who ignores posts. “Purpose” is not a scientific concept. Science cannot measure “purpose”. Purpose is discerned through a philosophical reflection on nature and not by proper scientific method. This is where Behe and ICR show their utter philosophical poverty by trying to have science do the work of philosophy.

When rigid Darwinians deny the existence of purpose they are commiting the very same fallacy as you have in your post. But I have explained all of this in a recent post with more detail. Sorry you don’t grasp the difference between the natural sciences and philosophy. Perhaps I should start a remediation thread on this subject.

 

[buffalo]

Bingo! But it exists in life doesn’t it?

More from BXVI -

“Ultimately it comes down to the alternative: What came first? Creative Reason, the Creator Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, strangely enough brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. As Christians, we say: I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason.”
– Pope Benedict XVI

I think the Pope would like Idvolution.

 

[buffalo]

It looks like you are the one who ignores posts. “Purpose” is not a scientific concept. Science cannot measure “purpose”. Purpose is discerned through a philosophical reflection on nature and not by proper scientific method. This is where Behe and ICR show their utter philosophical poverty by trying to have science do the work of philosophy.

They are staying in the realm of science. However, we all understand the implications of ID that philosophers will comment on.

The science of ID is a challenge to evo without having to cross over to philosophy.

 

[itinerant1]

They are staying in the realm of science. However, we all understand the implications of ID that philosophers will comment on.

The science of ID is a challenge to evo without having to cross over to philosophy.

Wrong on a number of counts. For one, science has not tools to measure ID’s concept of “intelligent design”. In this matter, ID violates methodological naturalism, as well as skews classical philosophical notions of causality. But that is old news.

Also, Behe’s speculation about ancient micro-organisms being “front-loaded” with DNA is poor science and creationist to boot. One must conceive of a micro-organism with at least 1,000 times the normal complement of genetic material…Not such a great idea.

I don’t see ID as a genuine challenge to evolution because the vast majority of scientists do no consider ID to be science. They see it, rather, as a science-killer. I must agree.

 

[grannymh]

Since biological evolution requires billions of years, as Darwin correctly thought, the fact of evolution remains pertinent to the age of the earth. So, I have collected several quotes from Pope John II on the subject of evolution for further consideration.

The subject of evolution has split into a variety of specialties. It is no longer a one-size-fits-all.

 

[grannymh]

Pope BXVI

“While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity [that have arisen from the positive aspects of modernity], we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.” Pope’s Regensburg Address

“Self-imposed limitation of reason” – that is the wrong key to open the door to knowledge of the truth.

 

[grannymh]

And how specifically does this excerpt relate to evolution theory or the age of the earth?

If you ask me, it is the attempt to remove the limitations from both.

 

[grannymh]

As far as I can see, your IDvolution, as you call it, is ineffective because it is creationist.

Didn’t know that the label “creationist” had so much power. Is my spiritual life ineffective because I believe that God created me and that He created the earth?

 

[grannymh]

You haven’t convinced me that your spiel on C-14 is anything more than junk science.

A blatant logical fallacy prevalent among creationists is that (1) the highlighting of weaknesses in Darwinian theory can disprove evolution, and (2) a weakness, real or imagined, in evolution theory constitutes evidence for creationism or Intelligent Design theory.

Also, your knowledge of St. Augutine leaves much to be desired.

And my knowledge of science leaves much to be desired. However, from an analytic perspective, I would choose the Thomistic point of view in that science must be done well.

From “Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design” by Michael W. Tkacz. This Rock magazine**,**
November 2008

Into this medieval debate comes Aquinas, who reasoned thus: God is the author of all truth; the aim of scientific research is the truth; therefore, there can be no fundamental incompatibility between the two. Provided we understand Christian doctrine properly and do our science well, we will find the truth.

Neo-Thomists should be examining the materials and methods sections of research to see if the “science” is being done well. This is respectful of the purpose or aim of scientific research.

Neo-Thomists should be determining which Catholic doctrines are involved in various scientific theories instead of a blanket attack on the labels of creationist or ID. If there are no Catholic doctrines involved in those movements, then energy should be turned to countering the popular limited scientific research which does impact Catholicism.

The real issue is human nature. If the age of the earth, whatever it might be, is connected to the two sole parents of the human species, then the age should be researched with the utmost care. Neo-Thomists should act as guides to insure that the truth is found regardless of any beliefs of any of the researchers.

Easter Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

www.CatholicsComeHomeRockford.org
www.CatholicsComeHome.org

 

[grannymh]

Wrong on a number of counts. For one, science has not tools to measure ID’s concept of “intelligent design”. In this matter, ID violates methodological naturalism, as well as skews classical philosophical notions of causality. But that is old news.

Also, Behe’s speculation about ancient micro-organisms being “front-loaded” with DNA is poor science and creationist to boot. One must conceive of a micro-organism with at least 1,000 times the normal complement of genetic material…Not such a great idea.

I don’t see ID as a genuine challenge to evolution because the vast majority of scientists do no consider ID to be science. They see it, rather, as a science-killer. I must agree.

If Neo-Thomists would examine carefully what ID is doing from the analytical view point of methods and materials, they might be able to point out where ID theory should shift direction. Since I am used to reading research, I automatically accept subject or subjects as being in the materials section. However, some research will separate the subjects especially when referring to human subjects.

In my humble opinion, Neo-Thomists should determine what science is really challenging. Actually, the classical philosophical notions of causality is a grain of sand compared to what is really at stake. On the other hand, a grain of sand in a person’s shoe gets attention. Now, I am not saying that the grain of sand should be thrown in the trash. Neo-Thomists should place that grain of sand in the context to which it belongs.

Easter Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.

 

[larkin31]

I enjoyed this thread for a while, but it has become boring and repetitive.

My absence from now on is simply my voting with my feet to move on…