The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
ID and evo both come down to probabilities. ID is calculating the odds of design. That my friend is scientific.

Actually the really fascinating finding is the extent of the language of DNA. What is important is what living systems can do with whatever amount of genetic material they have. The amount is not as important. It was thought humans had 100000 genes. The HGP has found it is more like 20000. An ear of corn has over 50000.
 
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.
The big issue Thomism has with ID is that it interjects God into the process to “correct” if you will mistakes.

That is not what IDvolution states. IDvolution is a creative process right from the beginning. Evolution is not a creative process at all.
 
November 6th, 2009 is the release date of the book by the National Research Council of Italy in Italian; I think that the all the authors in that book by Dr. Roberto de Mattei should be awarded a Nobel prize of some support as they have blown the whistle on the long ages for evolution to survive as an hypothesis. Dr Mattei should be included as he broke through the censorship fog to get the book printed.
Philipp, look for the forthcoming book on The Scientific Impossibility of Gravity. Gravity is intrinsically atheistic, and should not be taught in our schools.
 
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.
Scientists would agree with you that science should be done well.
 
As far as I can see, your IDvolution, as you call it, is ineffective because it is creationist.
Itinerant1, I assume you make a distinction between “Creationist I” (which all of us monotheists are) and “Creationist II” (the anti-scientific perspective of YECs and IDers).

StAnastasia
 
The subject of evolution has split into a variety of specialties. It is no longer a one-size-fits-all.
Grannym can you explain this? I’m not sure what you mean by “one size fits all.”
 
ID and evo both come down to probabilities. ID is calculating the odds of design. That my friend is scientific.
Ah, one says. All of natural science is based on probabilities at some point in time.
It takes a philosopher who is willing to leave the ivory tower and a scientist who is willing to leave the lab, in order to come up with the most probable probability.
 
The big issue Thomism has with ID is that it interjects God into the process to “correct” if you will mistakes.

That is not what IDvolution states. IDvolution is a creative process right from the beginning. Evolution is not a creative process at all.
You have my permission to laugh at me. When I first read about “god of the gaps” I thought it was sola scriptura.
 
From the book Chance or Purpose, page 77:

“Anyone who makes a ‘battle of beliefs’ out of the question of evolution is certainly not serving science. The fact that questions concerning evolution have been made into ‘weapons of war’ to use against belief in creation, has little to do with science, just as Marxism’s ‘dialectical materialism,’ with its ‘scientific’ atheism, has very little indeed to do with genuine science.”

That is the problem with science today, it has become scientific atheism. The secular creation story that - joyfully - excludes their sense of guilt, shame and sin, leaving them accountable to no one and nothing.

God bless,
Ed

Choose Jesus.
 
Itinerant1, I assume you make a distinction between “Creationist I” (which all of us monotheists are) and “Creationist II” (the anti-scientific perspective of YECs and IDers).

StAnastasia
Actually, I would not consider the people who sweat out west obtaining samples for dating as being anti-science.

Plus there should be a distinction regarding the “creationists” who have been influenced by books such as Original Blessing: A Primer in Creation Spirituality. Not all monotheists have the same belief system.
 
Actually, I would not consider the people who sweat out west obtaining samples for dating as being anti-science.

Yes, despite all their sweating they are anti-science. Sweat does not make one a scientist.
 
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?
Any scientist or any engineer who does not belong to the Mithras-type religious sect (life from rocks perhaps pre-programmed by some deity) called evolution would qualify so I suspect that could be in the 100’s of thousands. If I tried to list some of the more famous ones you immediately from your roost in academia would pull out your dossier and make them out to be YEC creationists or Intelligent Designers which to you are one and the same.

WARNING: You see, one must be careful of using so-called “Scientific Concensus” [From the roost of academia] which history shows to be notoriously unreliable. The concensus by scientists for historical events is especially unreliable particularly if NO one was around to record such events because it rests on the worldview of those interpreting the evidence.

Thus the only Persons who were there when earth and life were created were the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity as our faith tells us. They allowed those events to be recorded in Genesis 1-11.

Believers in Dawinism, Neo-darwinism, Mithras, theisitic evolution, Buddhism or whatever celebrated Darwin’s 200th year birthday and 150th year of his book in 2009. You believe the written records in Genesis 1-11 to have been based on mythology of the Mid-east cultures. Well that is your world-view, not mine.

I’ll stick with the logic of IDvolution and the reality of the evidences from scientific research in which I have participated in both field and lab as a research chemist or know others who have so participated. For the final answers to our quest for “truth in science” I guess we will find out soon enough won’t we! 😉
 
Grannym can you explain this? I’m not sure what you mean by “one size fits all.”
The one-size-fits-all term (which is no longer applicable to the subject of evolution) is taken from the clothing industry.

The first theory of evolution started out as something which could be used for all living organisms; therefore, the tree of life diagram. This first theory was the one and only “size” that would fit any size or shape of any living creature. In other words – All grass is green; therefore, all green things are grass.

As better means of gathering “earth” samples for dating are being developed along with advanced lab technology, it could be that the first “size so to speak” of methods to determine earth age need to be expanded to fit different shaped situations.

Easter Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.
 
As better means of gathering “earth” samples for dating are being developed along with advanced lab technology, it could be that the first “size so to speak” of methods to determine earth age need to be expanded to fit different shaped situations.
Meaning what sorts of situations?
 
CONTINUED:

Here are some comments by field paleontologists who I greatly respect but do not necessairly agree with their world-view. But are out there literally “in the trenches” trying to discern “truth in Science.” They don’t agree with the “concensus” type thinking from the roosts of academia:

Why dinosaur bones are in such good condition and more recent buffalo and cow bones are not?

***In excavating hundreds of buffalo sites in the Southwest and elsewhere, I have seen patterns. A few are: Skulls are almost never attached to lower jaws. One finds articulated necks. Blanco Canyon, the main canyon I have dug in has a layer of sandy loam about 20 feet thick that at one time covered the entire canyon process. It is evident that this layer was deposited by long, slow rainy seasons. Millions of buffalo died and were scavenged just as cows are today. But, the buffalo bones were evidently buried fairly soon after death. They do not appear to have weathered on the surface for as long as cow bones do today in this canyon. The necks remain articulated, indicating more rapid burial that today. Since the white pioneers came here, the rains come violently in the spring and summer. They must be different than rains that buried the buffalo, because today’s rains have cut down through all the buffalo layers. The bones usually show root-etching, proving th ey have been near in the root zone almost since they were buried. The surface of the lowest most bones are often completely root etched. Bison bones are buried in old draws and canyon valleys. Their remains do not stretch for mile after mile in flat “un-canyoned” layers, to coin a phrase.

By contrast, dinosaur remains are often found with skulls attached to jaws, attached to articulated necks and many times whole skeletons, and indeed often to mummified bodies. The bones are not root etched unless they have been near the erosional surface in recent time. If one digs back beyond the root zone, the bones are smooth. They also do not show to have weathered on the surface before burial. They are not buried in old draws or canyons, but their flat layers stretch for miles and miles covering several western states.

The buffalo appear to have died naturally, been scavenged, and then buried in low places by slow but steady rains. The dinosaurs appear to have been buried rapidly, in vast layers of mud that appears to have lacked oxygen which would have decayed all flesh and soft tissue inside the bones.

Paleontologists have insisted all along that dinosaurs died natural deaths, were subjected to scavenging by fierce meat eating dinosaurs and laid on the surface for long periods of time and were buried as a result of local rains. These are contradictory to explaining why there are so many well-preserved dinosaur bones, much less why so many articulated skulls and jaws; and certainly not mummies!
Joe Taylor
Mt. Blanco Fossil Research studies. ***
.,._
Dr. John Horner: *** “We have discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs…There was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area, but a catastrophic inundation…We believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment”*** [Horner, John R…, Digging Dinosaurs, 1988, p. 131]

Dr. Robert Bakker, field paleontologist, in his book, The Dinosaur Heresies” (1986) argues against the consensus that “dinosaurs were plodding, dim-witted giant lizards too awkward and ill-equipped to survive the ravages of environmental change.” Rather he “depicts dinosaurs as never before imagined: hot-blooded, amazingly agile and surprisingly intelligent.” (Would God have created these critters any other way? Good logic, Bakker). What does he find in the field? Let him explain his field research on page 31: *** “Collagen has long since rotted away, along with all the muscle fibers and blood vessels. But the fossilized bone faithfully preserves the canals left by every capillary that made its passage through it to serve the dinosaur in life. These living cells, now gone left one other signature on this carcass. A black powder rubs into my gloves as I finger the bone chips. This powder is carbon dust mixes with granulated bone, the dried and distilled residue of all the cell membranes, cell fluids, and organelles who work within the bone was ended when the dinosaur died.”***

Now Bakker’s ideas about NO collagen left in dino bones are now obsoleted by the discovery of soft tissue from 1997 on; and, C-14 studies of dinosaur bone collagen etc reported iln 2009. All three paleo guys are now briefly on the same page as Bakker is working with a different group in Montana on dinosaur mummies and Cat-scanning. Join the fun as we see what God has given us to examine.

C-14 studies could answer all these contradictions and I think such chronology studies will be the scientific wave of the future.:cool:
 
“We have discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs…There was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area, but a catastrophic inundation…We believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment”
Noah’s Flood?
 
Any scientist or any engineer who does not belong to the Mithras-type religious sect (life from rocks perhaps pre-programmed by some deity) called evolution would qualify so I suspect that could be in the 100’s of thousands.
Philipp, can you actually name a substantial number of these hundreds of thousands/ Can you refer me to their professional organizations, their annual conferences, or their research publications?
 
Seriously?

Do all of you just ignore me when I explain the very important facts that:

A) C-14 dating works only on organic material
B) C-14 dating works only for something between approx 5 and 60k years old.

After explaining, in detail, exactly why these things are true, you guys continue to talk about people dating rocks and fossils and other inorganic material. Why?
 
Now, I haven’t read all these 950+ postings.
Code:
 Has anyone confronted this question? In both Matthew 1 (going back to Abraham) and in Luke 3 (going back to Adam) we have genealogies of Jesus - in both traced, I should note, through Joseph and not Mary. That raises an interesting question re the virgin birth.

But my question is different: neither of these genealogies go back more than a few thousand years, probably not nearly that long. So, are these two gospel accounts inaccurate? If so, does this cast a shadow of doubt over other gospel accounts? If some things in the scriptures are inaccurate, well....   You get the idea, I'm sure. Did Jesus walk on water, still the storm, meet Elijah and Moses during the Transfiguration, feed 5000 (or was that 4000?) with those few little loaves and fishes, turn water into wine, cast demons into pigs which plunged over a cliff, etc. 

 God bless folks of all religions, colors, countries, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top