The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hugh_r.miller said:
Oh, so C-14 dating of dinosaur bone collagen etc and many other dinosaur bone fragments from Texas to Alaska does not matter? Uhm! repeatabililty in experimentation is “no real argument with solid support.” Let’s then close all 125 or so C-14 dating labs through out the world, Academia has spoken. :o

Go figure! That little rhyme I keep posting is valid and so are the C-14 dates for the Bone collagen and the calcium carbonate fraction of the other Triceratops and Hadrosaur and other dinos. IDvolution Ye, descent from a common ancestor :o is truly an embarrasment so much so that the NSF has dropped it. I wonder what they know that we don’t?
Click to expand...
If you can present a theory that better explains the origin of species, and the related accumulated data, I am most eager to listen. I am not so fixated on any particular theory that a better theory would not attract my sincere consideration.

Of course, we don’t need a new fangled theory that has even more problems than do the current theories, as the current theories have a boatload of problems of their own.

So, what allegedly does the NSF know that you or anybody else does not know?

You talk in riddles and rhymes but what is that you have to offer for serious consideration? If you have a good theory, you should be willing to elaborate on it.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Interesting thread. I see I have a lot of catholics that can hold my view on the matter.

This is one of the reasons I even came here. Any religion that wants to defend a position that the earth is young is not a viable option for me.

Thank you to all theists of all stripes for being able to have the freedom to accept things we do know.
Click to expand...
Catholicism does not defend the position that the earth is young. Such an idea, that the earth is young, is the product of a Protestant fundamentalism that has gained some support amongst individual Catholics who think they know better than the Catholic Church.

Catholicism cannot be judged on the views of a Protestant influenced sectarian minority amonst it ranks.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Interesting thread. I see I have a lot of catholics that can hold my view on the matter.

This is one of the reasons I even came here. Any religion that wants to defend a position that the earth is young is not a viable option for me.

Thank you to all theists of all stripes for being able to have the freedom to accept things we do know.
Click to expand...
Pardon me. This statement does not apply to the Catholic Church.
Any religion that wants to defend a position that the earth is young is not a viable option for me.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church does not make doctrines regarding strictly science matters. Catholic teaching is that God created the world and that Adam and Eve are the two, sole parents of the human species.

One needs to distinguish between official Catholic teaching and people who are Catholic making statements about science. Catholics, including high ranking clergy, can present their opinions, speculations, and conclusions on all kinds of scientific matters but that does not mean that these opinions, speculations, and conclusions are official Catholic doctrine. Science, such as age of earth, is outside of the Catholic realm of faith and morals.

However, when someone says that the earth is a big bowl of primordial soup which came to be by pure chance without any kind of cook, that is a denial of Catholic teaching about God.

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.
 
grannymh said:
The Catholic Church does not make doctrines regarding strictly science matters. Catholic teaching is that God created the world and that Adam and Eve are the two, sole parents of the human species.
Click to expand...
Granny, do you not recognize the contradiction in what you have just said? If the Church insists that “Adam” and "Eve’ are literally “the two, sole parents of the human species,” it is pontificating on a matter of science. You have contradicted yourself!
 
buffalo said:
Updated April 27, 2010 Has Noah’s Ark Been Found on Turkish Mountaintop? The remains of Noah’s Ark have been discovered 13,000 feet up a Turkish mountain – according to a sensational claim by evangelical explorers. …“It’s not 100 percent that it is Noah’s Ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it.”
Click to expand...
The remains of the Titanic have been discovered on the far side of the moon, according to another tabloid.
 
StAnastasia said:
Granny, do you not recognize the contradiction in what you have just said? If the Church insists that “Adam” and "Eve’ are literally “the two, sole parents of the human species,” it is pontificating on a matter of science. You have contradicted yourself!
Click to expand...
This reminds me.

You have commented that you read the story of Adam and Eve for its theological significance, not for it’s literal truth. .Please tell us what the theological significance is. Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.
 
StAnastasia said:
The remains of the Titanic have been discovered on the far side of the moon, according to another tabloid.
Click to expand...
LOL - it sounds like the monthly missing link findings. 😉
We will see if this stands up to scrutiny. Foxnews reported this too.
 
grannymh said:
You have commented that you read the story of Adam and Eve for its theological significance, not for it’s literal truth. .Please tell us what the theological significance is. Thank you.Blessings ggranny Human life is sacred.
Click to expand...
Contrary to what you may think, “Adam” and “Eve” are not proper names like “Dick” and “Jane.” “Adam” means “man” and symbolizes humanity formed from “Adma” or “earth” (it’s a play on words in Hebrew). “Eve” means “mother of all.”

Hominids continued to evolve after their split from that of the other great apes, which also continued to evolve. Brain size increased along with tool use: “Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in Africa in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago. By the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic 50,000 BP (Before Present), full behavioral modernity, including language, music and other cultural universals had developed.”

Those are the scientific facts of the matter. Now for the theology. As human behavioral modernity evolved, a significant aspect of this was religion and morality, evidenced by altruism, grave burials, and other practices. Humans developed religious awareness and sensitivity to metaphysics and to God’s self-disclosure, or revelation. Humans also developed and awareness of their capacity for temptation and falling into sin, hence the story of the serpent and the forbidden fruit.

The theological significance of the Adam and Eve story therefore is that it establishes in human experience the premises of salvation history, culminating in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ.

SAnastasia
 
hugh_r.miller said:
Ye, descent from a common ancestor :o is truly an embarrasment so much so that the NSF has dropped it. I wonder what they know that we don’t?
Click to expand...
“Some 150 years of research have amply confirmed Darwin’s insight. Paleontologists, for example, have brought ambiguous homologies into sharp focus with the discovery of transitional fossils. A case in point is the connection between the blowholes of whales and dolphins and the nostrils of humans. Fossils show how the nostrils of ancestral whales moved from the tip of the snout to the top of the head.”

nytimes.com/2010/04/27/science/27gene.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all
 
buffalo said:
Updated April 27, 2010

Has Noah’s Ark Been Found on Turkish Mountaintop?

The remains of Noah’s Ark have been discovered 13,000 feet up a Turkish mountain – according to a sensational claim by evangelical explorers.

…“It’s not 100 percent that it is Noah’s Ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it.”
Click to expand...
It is certain that it is not Noah’s Ark. We actually know what it is that they found, and it is not Noah’s Ark. I am surprised you are promoting such dubious claims.
 
hugh_r.miller said:
Ye, descent from a common ancestor :o is truly an embarrasment so much so that the NSF has dropped it. I wonder what they know that we don’t?
Click to expand...
Possibly how to read things in context.

In case anyone is interested, here is what happened. For the past 30 years the NSF has put out a survey to determine what people do know, or don’t know, about science. The questions were designed in such a way, that in 100 years the answers would still be relevant. If you have never seen it here are some of the questions from 2001-2008:

Antibiotics kill both viruses and bacteria, true or false?
The centre of the Earth is very hot, true or false?
How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun?
Electrons are smaller than atoms, true or false?

As you can see the questions are very difficult and need a high level science background to understand. (Yes, that’s dripping with sarcasm. ;)) It’s sad to say but only 44 percent of women knew that it takes a year for the Earth to go around the Sun.

So, here is how things changed, they realized that U.S. citizens did particularly poorly compared to other countries on a couple of questions in previous years. I don’t remember the exact wording, but the questions were (more or less).

The universe started with a huge explosion, True/False.
All life forms were descended from a common ancestor, True/False.

U.S. citizens did comparatively well on the other questions compared to other countries, but on these two, they did poorly. However, if you changed the questions to:

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe started with a huge explosion, true/false.
According to the theory of Evolution, all life on Earth descended from a common ancestor, True/False.

U.S. citizens did much better, comparable with other industrialized nations. So… this means that U.S. citizens were answering the questions based on what they believed, not based on their knowledge of the theories. The NSF decided to drop the questions because they thought that they weren’t representative.

Many people were opposed for a few reasons:
  1. It would misconstrued by creationists and ID advocates. Which is evidently true from this thread.
  2. Because they had enough time to rephrase the question so that the answers would reflect the publics knowledge instead of their beliefs.
  3. And yes, Joshua Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education objected to it because he thought it “downplayed the controversy over teaching evolution in schools” (those last 5 words are actually important).
I know several people want to jump for joy because one person used the word “controversy”, but if you read it in context, he was talking about a social controversy, not a scientific one.

I’d like to think that those who have been misrepresenting this story will stop, perhaps even admit to a misunderstanding, but I am not hopeful.
 
Okay, so it seems a though Dinosaur protein has been preserved for millions of years.

See Dinosaur protein preserved over time . The related links on that page are also informative.

So far, I see no reason for one not to accept what the researchers have stated about the samples, and this extends to the estimated age.
 
buffalo said:
Noah’s Ark Slideshow
Click to expand...
buffalo, you’ve shown us 4 pictures of something made of wood from Fox News. Really? Can’t you see that there is no difference between what you just showed us, and pictures of aliens on the cover of National Geographic?

You do see that, don’t you? I mean really, you must see that it isn’t good evidence for Noah’s Ark right? Those pictures don’t even prove that it is a boat, let alone the Ark. I mean really, the picture that they gave of Noah’s Ark was a 14th century painting of something that wasn’t even shaped the way it was in the Bible.

Please, please tell me that you that you see the problem with those pictures as evidence.
 
StAnastasia said:
Contrary to what you may think, “Adam” and “Eve” are not proper names like “Dick” and “Jane.” “Adam” means “man” and symbolizes humanity formed from “Adma” or “earth” (it’s a play on words in Hebrew). “Eve” means “mother of all.”

Hominids continued to evolve after their split from that of the other great apes, which also continued to evolve. Brain size increased along with tool use: “Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in Africa in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago. By the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic 50,000 BP (Before Present), full behavioral modernity, including language, music and other cultural universals had developed.”

Those are the scientific facts of the matter. Now for the theology. As human behavioral modernity evolved, a significant aspect of this was religion and morality, evidenced by altruism, grave burials, and other practices. Humans developed religious awareness and sensitivity to metaphysics and to God’s self-disclosure, or revelation. Humans also developed and awareness of their capacity for temptation and falling into sin, hence the story of the serpent and the forbidden fruit.

The theological significance of the Adam and Eve story therefore is that it establishes in human experience the premises of salvation history, culminating in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ.

SAnastasia
Click to expand...
While this post uses the name of Jesus Christ, it does not represent Catholic theology regarding God’s relationship to the beginning of the human species, what constitutes human nature, and the effects of the first man’s sin.

Blessings,
granny

Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put paragraph numbers and topics such as Adam, etc. in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top