The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No granny, these subject are not discussed in science literature, because scientists and theologians recognize a literal interpretation of the Bible as nonsensical.
Regarding those scientists and theologians which you referred to in post 973 --" because scientists and theologians recognize a literal interpretation of the Bible as nonsensical."

It should be recognized that those scientists and theologians are using ridicule to attack the beliefs of Catholicism. Furthermore, the attack has no basis since it is obvious that those scientists and theologians do not understand the relationship of Catholicism to Holy Scripture.

Please note: Understanding Catholicism is not a necessary qualification for being a good scientist or theologian. On the other hand, the quality of respectfulness for others should be part of human behavior.

The use of ridicule and attacks on the intellectual capabilities of believers should be seen for what it is – a futile and fruitless endeavor. Divine Revelation will always trump.

Blessings,
granny

Link to Catechism of the Catholic Churchwww.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
 
Again I ask for the reference or review of Fr. Victor’s book entitled: The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11. It is a compendium and defense of traditional Catholic Theology of Origins.
I’ll look for a review. All important science books are reviewed in the relevant scientific publications.
 
Please note: Understanding Catholicism is not a necessary qualification for being a good scientist or theologian. On the other hand, the quality of respectfulness for others should be part of human behavior.
Grannyh, you are quite right about respectfulness. I love teaching my graduate seminar on cosmogonies from the world’s religious traditions, and we discuss them in a spirit of great respect for the theological truths they contain. I am not an adherent of the Boshongo faith, and while I respect their cosmogony I maintain that their claim that Bumba (God) vomited forth the sun is scientifically nonsensical. All ancient cosmogonies are scientifically nonsensical, meaning that they don’t make sense scientifically.

There is no coherent way to think of God vomiting forth the sun, or sitting up in space 6,000 years ago using the divine hands to form the ball of the sun, or sprinkling the stars around the firmament. These are beautiful, poetic ways of expressing it, but they are scientifically incoherent. However, the theology of creation makes a lot of sense: God so loved the world that God spent time creating a world that would one day bring forth spiritually responsive creatures like us!

StAnastasia
 
Now it appears that two thirds of the geologic sedimentary column which was formed rapid movement of mud carrying waters.
Reference please. I am not at all sure that mudstones make up two thirds of the sedimentary rocks we see. There is a great deal of sandstone, limestone and chalk out there as well.
Another report shows that ripples in sand dunes were formed also by rapidly moving water and NOT by sand storms.
I see this as another example of creationists over extending a good scientific claim. I am sure that some sand ripples are formed by water, I have seen them myself on beaches. I am also sure that other ripples are formed by wind, I have seen them myself on sand dunes well behind beaches where there has been no “rapidly moving water” for hundreds of years. This is a gross overclaim. As with Dr Berthault a result applicable to some situations is extended to situations where it does not apply.

Perhaps I should make a false overclaim as an example. There is dispute about the Book of Maccabees in the Bible – Catholics include it while Protestants reject it. This shows that there is doubt about which books are in the Bible therefore there is doubt about whether the Book of Genesis should be included in the Bible! There is real doubt about Maccabees; it is incorrect to apply that same doubt to Genesis about which there is no difference between Protestant and Catholic. Overclaims are not convincing, especially an overclaim, such as the one about about sand ripples, which is so easily checked.
DR. SNELLING’S REPLY TO YOUR ABOVE COMMENT:

You are certainly quite correct that I have heard before the same response that Rossun posted in defence of the laboratory who did the potassium-argon dating of the recent New Zealand lava flows for me.
However, Rossun has been deceived by those who are peddling lies. The laboratory in question was told when my samples were submitted to them that they came from young lava flows, and at the time I submitted the samples to the laboratory they never claimed that their equipment could not distinguish potassium-argon dates less than 2 million years. In fact, it was only after they did the potassium-argon dating of my samples and they found out I was a creationist, that the laboratory put out the story that their laboratory equipment could not distinguish potassium-argon dates less than 2 million years old. It was an attempt to save face and to make me look bad. In fact, it wasn’t the scientist at the laboratory who did the analyses for me who put out that story, but his successor who was given his job after he was ‘retired’. At no time was I dishonest with the laboratory regarding the samples I sent them.
Since there is obviously doubt in this case, then I would suggest that the correct thing for Dr Snelling to do is to repeat the tests with another laboratory, this time getting written assurances in advance that their equipment is capable of dating samples of the given estimated age.

As it stands Dr Snelling’s evidence is not secure enough to counteract the great deal of other evidence both for the accuracy of radiometric dating methods and for an old Earth.
Furthermore, if what I did was not good science, then the same criticism should be levelled at potassium-argon dating experts such as G. Brent Dalrymple, who, like others has also potassium-argon dated young volcanic rocks, even those less than 2 million years old. They too have shown that young and recent volcanic rocks can and do produce anomalously old potassium-argon ‘dates’. So if I am guilty of bad science, then so are these potassium-argon dating experts!
Here I disagree with Dr Snelling. Dr Dalrymple and others who dated rocks from known eruptions were not attempting to date the rocks, they already knew how old the rocks were. They were instead testing the applicability of the dating methods to that type of rock. IIRC Dr Dalrymple included some pillow lavas of known date in his tests. The tests gave the wrong date, which showed that, as suspected, pillow lavas are not good samples for K-Ar dating. Because the outer layer sets solid so fast underwater there is insufficient time for all the previously existing Argon to outgas so the radiometric clock is not correctly reset. This work was perfectly good science, it is just that it was testing the applicability of K-Ar dating and not attempting to date rocks.
PHILIPP’s COMMENT: The lab should have made a special disclaimer when accepting samples such as: Save your money, Do not send samples from volcanic material that are less than 2 million years old as our equipment will not work right in that range . Perhaps that’s like saying: Do not send us dinosaur bones containing collagen for C-14 dating as such species are 65 million years or older.
Caveat emptor. Dr Snelling chose which lab to send his samples to. It was up to him to check on the lab first. There is more than one such lab available to test samples.

rossum
 
Fr. Victor Warkulwiz, M.S.S. also has a Ph. D. in physics so in addition the cover points out that the book is “Everything a Catholic needs to know to uphold the lilteral trught of Genesis 1-11.” Perhaps as a modernist theologian [like Teilhard Chardin] you don’t like the competition? 😉
I love competition! It’s Victor Warkulwicz against the world’s scientists in virtually every discipline from astronomy to physics and chemistry and biology and paleontology.
 
. However, the theology of creation makes a lot of sense: God so loved the world that God spent time creating a world that would one day bring forth spiritually responsive creatures like us!

StAnastasia
This type of theology regarding the earth only makes sense to those who disagree with the basic truths of Catholicism. Catholicism teaches a distinction between the spiritual realm of the Creator, and the material/physical realm to which the created earth belongs.

As wonderful as it is, the earth, whatever its age, can only bring forth the material/physical. It cannot bring forth the spiritual. Catholic theology teaches that God, Himself, brought forth human beings. God created the human person to share, through knowledge and love, in His own life.

Blessings,
granny

Link to Catechism of the Catholic Churchwww.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
 
Reference please. I am not at all sure that mudstones make up two thirds of the sedimentary rocks we see. There is a great deal of sandstone, limestone and chalk out there as well.

I see this as another example of creationists over extending a good scientific claim. I am sure that some sand ripples are formed by water, I have seen them myself on beaches. I am also sure that other ripples are formed by wind, I have seen them myself on sand dunes well behind beaches where there has been no “rapidly moving water” for hundreds of years. This is a gross overclaim. As with Dr Berthault a result applicable to some situations is extended to situations where it does not apply.

Perhaps I should make a false overclaim as an example. There is dispute about the Book of Maccabees in the Bible – Catholics include it while Protestants reject it. This shows that there is doubt about which books are in the Bible therefore there is doubt about whether the Book of Genesis should be included in the Bible! There is real doubt about Maccabees; it is incorrect to apply that same doubt to Genesis about which there is no difference between Protestant and Catholic. Overclaims are not convincing, especially an overclaim, such as the one about about sand ripples, which is so easily checked.

Since there is obviously doubt in this case, then I would suggest that the correct thing for Dr Snelling to do is to repeat the tests with another laboratory, this time getting written assurances in advance that their equipment is capable of dating samples of the given estimated age.

As it stands Dr Snelling’s evidence is not secure enough to counteract the great deal of other evidence both for the accuracy of radiometric dating methods and for an old Earth.

Here I disagree with Dr Snelling. Dr Dalrymple and others who dated rocks from known eruptions were not attempting to date the rocks, they already knew how old the rocks were. They were instead testing the applicability of the dating methods to that type of rock. IIRC Dr Dalrymple included some pillow lavas of known date in his tests. The tests gave the wrong date, which showed that, as suspected, pillow lavas are not good samples for K-Ar dating. Because the outer layer sets solid so fast underwater there is insufficient time for all the previously existing Argon to outgas so the radiometric clock is not correctly reset. This work was perfectly good science, it is just that it was testing the applicability of K-Ar dating and not attempting to date rocks.

Caveat emptor. Dr Snelling chose which lab to send his samples to. It was up to him to check on the lab first. There is more than one such lab available to test samples.

rossum
The two on mudstones were in Science which I’ve already posted 2007 or so. The one on sandstone ripples being formed by rapid moving waters instead of by sand storms over eons of time was in a 2009 geologic convention this past fall or in December; it was also posted. When I have time I will look up the references.

Indiana Un flume studies was for mudstones—go google mudstone flume studies at IU. :rolleyes:
 
This type of theology regarding the earth only makes sense to those who disagree with the basic truths of Catholicism. Catholicism teaches a distinction between the spiritual realm of the Creator, and the material/physical realm to which the created earth belongs.
Granny, I’m not sure what you don’t understand. A theology of creation is essential to Catholicism. It is people who disagree with the truths of Catholicism who claim to have no need for a theology of creation. God infinitely transcends the created order!
 
Granny, I’m not sure what you don’t understand. A theology of creation is essential to Catholicism. It is people who disagree with the truths of Catholicism who claim to have no need for a theology of creation. God infinitely transcends the created order!
To reply to your comment: “Granny, I’m not sure what you don’t understand.”
What I don’t understand is which theology are you referring to. Would you please identify it?

Regarding a theology of creation, Matthew Fox was probably not the first to develop his own. Yet, his book Original Blessing: A Primer in Creation Spirituality is considered a corner stone of the creation spirituality movement. Because he influenced so many professors, it is crucial that when one speaks of a theology of creation, one needs to identify which theology one is referring to.

One may also recall that Matthew Fox’s original disagreement with Catholicism concerned Original Sin. Thus, because of the popularity of this denial, it is very crucial that when one speaks of a theology of creation, one needs to identity which theology one is referring to.

Regarding the earth, my home sweet home, Catholic theology teaches that God created it. But Catholic theology doesn’t stop there. Catholic theology explains the nature of the human person who inhabits the earth but not in the same way non-human animals do. This is because Catholic theology holds that there are two sole parents of the human species which is totally distinct, i.e., different in kind from all other species.

Catholic theology teaches that the first real person Adam preferred himself to God. By that very act, Adam, the created, scorned God, the Creator. Considering the academic influence of the followers of Matthew Fox, it becomes very important to identify which theology.

Blessings,
granny

Link to Catechism of the Catholic Churchwww.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
 
[What I don’t understand is which theology are you referring to. Would you please identify it?
There are many theologies of creation. St. Paul had one, the Fathers of the Church had theirs, the scholastic theologians had theirs. And then there are theologies of creation developed by Orthodox theologians, by the reformers, and by theologians contemporary to us, such as Jack Haught, Archbishop Zycinski, Ted, Peters, Nancey Murphy, Arthur Peacocke, Robert Russell, etc.
[/quote]
 
There are many theologies of creation. St. Paul had one, the Fathers of the Church had theirs, the scholastic theologians had theirs. And then there are theologies of creation developed by Orthodox theologians, by the reformers, and by theologians contemporary to us, such as Jack Haught, Archbishop Zycinski, Ted, Peters, Nancey Murphy, Arthur Peacocke, Robert Russell, etc.
Regarding creation of the earth and the human inhabitants,
I follow Catholic theology which is in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. For those unfamiliar with the style of this Catechism, I would suggest checking the footnotes and cross-references in the margins. When St. Paul, Fathers of the Church, and others are quoted, they will be referenced in the footnotes. The Catechism unifies the various teachings of Catholicism.

Blessings,
granny

Link to Catechism of the Catholic Churchwww.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
 
The two on mudstones were in Science which I’ve already posted 2007 or so. The one on sandstone ripples being formed by rapid moving waters instead of by sand storms over eons of time was in a 2009 geologic convention this past fall or in December; it was also posted. When I have time I will look up the references.

Indiana Un flume studies was for mudstones—go google mudstone flume studies at IU. :rolleyes:
Here are some exerpts from the Mudstone articles with references below the quotes:

This article comes from June 8, 2009 issue of Science News. It is referring to the articles by Schieber, Southard, and Thaisen which were published in the journals Science and Geology.

***Most of the sediments in the world are mudstones – including shale and clays. Until recently these were thought to form only in calm, placid seas. Now, two geologists are continuing to show that they can form in flowing or turbulent water. Two years ago, Schieber and Southard burst a paradigm by explaining how mudstones could form in flowing water (see 12/14/2007). They’ve been experimenting ever since. In flume experiments, they have found new ways to image what is going on in turbulent muddy water. Their latest paper in Geology shows that mudstone particles can form ripples, just like sand.1 The particles clump into floccules several millimeters in size. Even though smaller and lighter than sand, they behave like sand particles – climbing up slopes and avalanching down the lee sides, forming the familiar ripples kids see on the beach as the waves recede. This happens even though floccules have slight attractions to each other via van der Waals forces. They behave as if independent particles – just like sand grains. The authors were also surprised to find that ripple formation occurs even when the mud is highly dilute: “this is remarkable when one considers that floccule ripples consist of as much as 90 vol % water.” ***

In the original paper from 2007: Mudstones constitute up to two-thirds of the sedimentary record and are arguably the most poorly understood type of sedimentary rocks (ref. 9). …
Our observations do not support the notion that muds can only be deposited in quiet environments with only intermittent weak currents . Instead, bedload transport of flocculated mud and deposition occurs at current velocities that would also transport and deposit sand.


In the Tonto group of the Grand Canyon Guy Berthault has shown by using Paleohydraulics that the Tonto group was formed catastrophically in rapid flowsing water.

Dr. A. Lalomov in Russia has shown rapid formations in his studies in a major location in one of the Russian Republics that was thought to have taken 30 M years to form.

Dr. S. Austin has identified a huge grave yard of Nautilius’s in the Grand Canyon.

Dr. M.E. Clark has shown by experimental studies and on site studies of the Paluxy River Tx that the limestone strata in which fossil human and dinosaur footprints were discovered in the second and six strata [River bottom] was laid down in twice daily tides carrying huge amounts of “Limy mud.” The hypothesis is that the humans and dinosaurs fled to higher ground in between tides then returned to feed perhaps on clams etc. I’ve seen clam holes in the top strata and down stream there are huge clam beds with the shells “closed” suggesting that they were buried rapidly while still alive.

C-14 dating of the fossils from wood to dinosaur bones from TX to Alaska confirm a cataclysm suggested by evolutionary paleontologist Dr. John Horner but NOT 65 M years ago to which he subscribes. But in the range of C-14 dating.

Big Jack Horner sat in a corner
scraping a dinosaur bone.
Some soft tissue appeared
And he said, “Just what I feared!
Evolution’s long ages are gone!”

There are many other studies of geologic basins that support the rapid formation of the geological column as well as immense fossil grave yards. [more later if you want to hear about them but me spous wants to eat out tonight.]

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. Buffalo
  1. Juergen Schieber and John B. Southard, “Bedload transport of mud by floccule ripples—Direct observation of ripple migration processes and their implications”, Geology, June 2009, v. 37, no. 6, p. 483-486, doi:10.1130/G25319A.1.
  2. Juergen Schieber, John B. Southard, Kevin Thaisen,“Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating floccule ripples", Science, 14 Dec. 2007, v. 318, no. 5857 p. 1760-1763
  3. Science News June 6, 2009
  4. Berthault G, “Analysis of main principles of stratigraphy on the basis of experimental data” Lithol Polezn Iskop, 2002,No. 5 P442-446 "
  5. Berthault G. “Sedimentological Interpretation of the Tonto group stratigraphy” (Grand Canyon Colorado river) Lithology and Mineral resources Vol 39, No. 5, 2004
 
There are many other studies of geologic basins that support the rapid formation of the geological column as well as immense fossil grave yards.
No surprise there – the world has lots of flood basins. None of this proves an ancient tale of a flood covering Mt. Everest.
 
Reference please. I am not at all sure that mudstones make up two thirds of the sedimentary rocks we see. There is a great deal of sandstone, limestone and chalk out there as well.

I see this as another example of creationists over extending a good scientific claim. I am sure that some sand ripples are formed by water, I have seen them myself on beaches. I am also sure that other ripples are formed by wind, I have seen them myself on sand dunes well behind beaches where there has been no “rapidly moving water” for hundreds of years. This is a gross overclaim. As with Dr Berthault a result applicable to some situations is extended to situations where it does not apply.

Perhaps I should make a false overclaim as an example. There is dispute about the Book of Maccabees in the Bible – Catholics include it while Protestants reject it. This shows that there is doubt about which books are in the Bible therefore there is doubt about whether the Book of Genesis should be included in the Bible! There is real doubt about Maccabees; it is incorrect to apply that same doubt to Genesis about which there is no difference between Protestant and Catholic. Overclaims are not convincing, especially an overclaim, such as the one about about sand ripples, which is so easily checked.

Since there is obviously doubt in this case, then I would suggest that the correct thing for Dr Snelling to do is to repeat the tests with another laboratory, this time getting written assurances in advance that their equipment is capable of dating samples of the given estimated age.

As it stands Dr Snelling’s evidence is not secure enough to counteract the great deal of other evidence both for the accuracy of radiometric dating methods and for an old Earth.

Here I disagree with Dr Snelling. Dr Dalrymple and others who dated rocks from known eruptions were not attempting to date the rocks, they already knew how old the rocks were. They were instead testing the applicability of the dating methods to that type of rock. IIRC Dr Dalrymple included some pillow lavas of known date in his tests. The tests gave the wrong date, which showed that, as suspected, pillow lavas are not good samples for K-Ar dating. Because the outer layer sets solid so fast underwater there is insufficient time for all the previously existing Argon to outgas so the radiometric clock is not correctly reset. This work was perfectly good science, it is just that it was testing the applicability of K-Ar dating and not attempting to date rocks.

Caveat emptor. Dr Snelling chose which lab to send his samples to. It was up to him to check on the lab first. There is more than one such lab available to test samples.

rossum
Ripples

http://www.kidscosmos.org/kid-stuff/mars-trip-graphics/airway-hts-ripples-combo.jpg
 
“the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles’”. Ken Miller, 1994

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Darwin

Now 2010 - from Nature
Human genome at ten: Life is complicated

Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view. Biology’s new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA — what used to be called ‘junk’ DNA — has been fascinating and befuddling. Researchers from an international collaborative project called the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) showed that in a selected portion of the genome containing just a few per cent of protein-coding sequence, between 74% and 93% of DNA was transcribed into RNA2. Much non-coding DNA has a regulatory role; small RNAs of different varieties seem to control gene expression at the level of both DNA and RNA transcripts in ways that are still only beginning to become clear. “Just the sheer existence of these exotic regulators suggests that our understanding about the most basic things — such as how a cell turns on and off — is incredibly naive,” says Joshua Plotkin, a mathematical biologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia

Darwin was wrong and Miller too - functional systems not under the constraints of Darwinian selection.

IDvolution anyone?

Perhaps it is time to get Miller and Levine’s textbook out of the schools.
 
No surprise there – the world has lots of flood basins. None of this proves an ancient tale of a flood covering Mt. Everest.
As I’m sure you already know, Mt. Everest would not have had to be as high whenever the marine fossils near its peak as I undertand.

Was Mount Everest ever flooded. BelowProfessor [Donald DeYoung](http://www.wasdarwinright.com/authors-f.htm#DON DeYOUNG.) comments:-

*"According to Genesis 7:19-20, every hill and mountain on earth were completely covered by the floodwaters. **As evidence, *
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top