S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, do you keep science and religion in separate compartments, hermetically sealed off from each other? That’s the only way I can imagine how you are able to hold your position.
- Status
F
free2pray
Guest
this problem of genetic diversity and bottle-necking is much worse for those who would argue for evolution than for creation.
R
rossum
Guest
There is nothing impossible about all humans having a particular pair as their ancestors. What is certain is that the pair were not the only humans alive at the time; Adam and Eve were part of a population. A couple may have 10 grandchildren. All of the grandchildren are descended from the first couple, but all of those grandchildren are also descended from various other contemporary couples.
We know that all humans are descended from Mitochondrial Eve. If we take all of her ancestors in the female line, if there was one of those females, perhaps even M-Eve herself, who only had one mate in her lifetime then all living humans are descended from that couple. However that couple would not have been the only humans alive at the time.
The 1,000 pairs estimate is the lowest limit I have seen on the population after the Toba Catastrophe, and is probably too low. The true figure is likely to be closer to 10,000.
rossum
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Nope – you’ve got two absolute bottlenecks to deal with: Adam and Noah. Evolution is not complicated by these.
R
rossum
Guest
If I weigh a 5 Kg bag of flour on both sets of scales I will get the same result each time. This will only be true up to the 10 Kg limit of the kitchen scales. Provide some second measurements of the dates of your dinosaur fossils using Argon-Argon or some other long dating technique.Perhaps you need to have your scales recalibrated. They seem to be off by ~50 to100,000 times. As you suggested the RC dates for bone collagen for saber tooth tigers [Smilodon] in the tarpits of LA are reasonable, the RC dates for dinosaur bones
which I have posted several times therefore are also reasonable.
You have also failed to explain how you can use a 12,000 - 28,000 year old sabre-tooth to justify a 6,000 year old Earth. I await your answer with interest.
Do you know that the Earth’s magnetic field reverses direction sometimes? These figures are like measuring the tide one hour apart and extrapolating in a straight line. It is your creationist source that is making false uniformitarian assumptions here. Have a look at CD701 for more details of this PRATT (Point Refuted a Thousand Times).
Unfortunately recent Popes seem to disagree with you about what is required of Catholics. Belief in a 6,000 year old Earth is allowed as is belief in a 4.5 billion year old Earth. Neither is compulsory. You would do well to follow the Popes’ lead in this.Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the C-14 ages that have been recorded for dinosaur bones A) falsify the evolutionary time scale and B) can be reconciled with the traditional chronology of the earth provided by the Holy Scriptures as interpreted by all of the Church Fathers and as affirmed in the Sacred Liturgy. That is the default position for Catholics. The burden of proof is on you–a burden you have not been able to bear.
rossum
F
free2pray
Guest
Think it through evolution has the ultimate bottleneck problem to deal with. According to evolutionists all life came from one spontaneously generated singled cell organism. In fact it breaks down so badly that i am too lazy to type it all just use your mind all i ask
M
Mr_Skeptic
Guest
That’s flat-out wrong.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the estimated age of the earth has changed a few times within the scientific community since the late 1700’s.
Have at it!
You can even cite Disney World if you like. They’re all the same when it comes to this topic. So, you’re only wasting your time citing them to me.
B
buffalo
Guest
I do not believe the high number of breeding pairs theory will survive very long. As we learn more about life we see that it is the cell that controls genes not vice versa. The 500 or so genes that are the same from the beginning of life are core. The cell controls the genes by switching them on and off in some pretty neat ways to construct life. The embryo drawings that are so derided had something to say. The embryos were wrong to suggest inheritance. This was the blindmess of the Darwinian theory. It now firmly point to common design.
Bottom line - they got it backwards. I know you will argue this, but you will see in a few years the whole shebang overturned.
R
rossum
Guest
Every individual can carry one or two alleles of each gene. Two individuals can carry a maximum of four alleles between them. We know the rates at which new alleles are added to a population. We can measure the number of alleles of various genes present in modern populations. We can also compare those alleles with the equivalent alleles present in Chimps. Some genes, particularly in the immune system, have hundreds of different alleles over the whole human population. Some genes, also in the immune system, have hundreds of alleles shared with chimps. Those figures are what enable us to estimate minimum population sizes in the past. If you have evidence that our current figures are wrong then please show it.
I mentioned Cheetahs. They have so little genetic variation that it is possible to graft skin from one Cheetah to another without it being rejected. The fact that we cannot do that with humans shows that we have much greater genetic variation than Cheetahs.
Past genetic bottlenecks have real and measurable effects in the present. We do not see those effects in the present for the vast majority of species so we can rule out a worldwide flood. We can also rule out a single Adam and Eve - a bottleneck of two - by observing present genetic diversity in humans and Chimps.
rossum
I
itinerant1
Guest
Granny,
I noticed that Dr. Dennis Bonnette quotes you in his essay as saying, “Divine Revelation trumps.”
Adam and Eve: Defense of Their Literal Existence as the Primal Human Couple, by Catholic Philosopher, Dr. Dennis Bonnette
G
grannymh
Guest
May I add that a large population of breeding pairs in one location does not preclude an exceptional breeding pair in another location. Imagine a computer model covering Africa which would track all individuals and their actions, including who migrated where and when. Whose assumptions would be fed into the computer?
In other words ,in designing a particularly large population for a computer model, there will be lots of influences other than numerical. In other words, the possibility for one extremely unusual breeding pair down the line cannot be ruled out.
Blessings,
granny
Spring is a message of hope from the Creator.
P
Philipp
Guest
So what is new in the world of academia? Thank goodness for Pope Pius 12th suggesting that both sides of the origins controversy be discussed and now Pope Benedict is suggesting the same. Academia is very unhappy that a book suggestilng that the hypothesis of descent from a common ancestor is an impossibility was printed with its detailed papers challenging the hypothesis from Physics, sedimentology, chronology and genetices. Let freedom of discussion ring loud and clear.
Seems I read something from the “Saint” that that is how science works.Please show why the following alternate hypothesis to the one the “saint” promotes can not be used as a valid hypothesis for origins for the sake of discussion as proposed by the aforementioned popes at least
among Catholics?**“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have obviously been created AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator by variation in the DNA structure of each life form. [Simul in Latin meaning “at once” in English, from Lateran IV, AD 1215] **
G
grannymh
Guest
An analytic approach to any kind of research examines more than the abstract and conclusion. The possibility of errors in logic such as “All grass is green; therefore all green things are grass.” also needs to be considered. Then there is the possibility that the so-called cranks who challenge methods may be on to something.
In other words, I have taken my review of research off line where I am free to explore whatever area I want whenever I want.
Out of respect for the researchers, my first goal is to learn and understand their science on their turf. Actually, I have been doing that [with many questions for posters] since Google landed me in a thread and I accidentally registered. I have spotted an Achilles heel in some early papers. But I am staying quiet until I check more recent research papers.
Blessings,
granny
The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
P.S. Thank you Rossum.
P
Philipp
Guest
Rebuttals to # 1-4 above:
(1) Dating was done with the most reliable dating method available, C-14 AMS and Beta units which units has been studied so much that they have their own peer reviewed journal since the 1960’s, I believe; this is to to keep them on their toes. Triangulation was performed using collagen, Calcium carbonat efraction of bioapatite and total organics — can’t get any better than that!
Do the long age Ar/Ar, K/Ar etc have such a journal to keep them on their toes? If you go to www.dinosaurc14ages.com and the radioactive decay section you will filnd three major reasons why they are not reliable and one of the reasons thay are NOT used. Why should anyone other than old earthers try and use such inferior methods for dating fossils which has to be done DIRECTLY BY C-14? However, if the funds are available let’s join forces and compare C-14 dating with some of these methods with dinosaur bones world-wide and see what the results are. Also shells wood etc imbedded in volcanic ash etc. What se ye?
(2) Simple, I’m neither an young earth Ussherite religious zealite nor a long earth religions fanatic. I’ll let the Lord leadh me where he will with field and lab research.
(3) I looked and rebut with this from Dr. D. Russell Humphrey which I’m sure everyone would like to see another reason to forgoe those millions and milllions and billions of years. Now measurements of this ‘fossil’ magnetism in rock strata (being the local field direction and strength) are different to the global measurements of the strength of the earth’s total magnetic field as reported by Barnes, yet the ‘fossil’ magnetism (palaeomagnetism) does record the behaviour of the field during the earth’s history. Geophysicists have now recognized a continuous sequence of roughly 50 magnetic polarity (field direction) reversals in the magnetism ‘fossilized’ in rock strata that span the last 600 million years of the evolutionists’ timescale, from the so-called Cambrian period when the first metazoan (multi-celled) fossils ‘appear’ in the rock record to the present. However, since some fossiliferous strata also have reversed polarities preserved in them, the magnetic field must have been reversely polarized when those sediments were being laid down.
Many creationists argue that Noah’s Flood produced most of these fossiliferous rock layers in a single year. Thus, these reversals of the earth’s magnetic field have to be envisaged as occurring on average every week or two during the Flood year. If this were the case, we should then be able to find field evidence of the reversal process having occurred this rapidly, otherwise the Barnes-Humphreys freely decaying electric currents mechanism for the generation of the earth’s magnetic field in less than 10,000 years is also in trouble.
But the field evidence has now been found. As already reported,20 palaeomagnetic measurements of a lava flow at Steens Mountain in Oregon have shown that one of these magnetic polarity transitions (part of a complete reversal) took place in about two weeks, the time period over which the lava would have cooled. As would be expected, the investigators, both evolutionists, were astonished by these results and had difficulty accepting them, but finally had to admit:
‘…even this conservative figure of 15 days corresponds to an astonishingly rapid rate of variation of the geomagnetic field direction of 3° per day. …The rapidity and large amplitude of geomagnetic variation that we infer from the remanence directions in flow B51, even when regarded as an impulse during a polarity transition, truly strains the imagination.…We think that the most probable explanation of the anomalous remanence directions of flow B51 is the occurrence of a large and extremely rapid change in the geomagnetic field during cooling of the flow, and that this change likely originated in the (earth’s) core.’21
(4) Good for the Popes. So let the discussion begin - in all our Catholic elementary, secondary and Universities world-wide - namely the evidences from both hypothesis of origins. What say Ye?
P
Philipp
Guest
Whoops I forgot to give the actual reference, It’s answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i4/magnetic.aspRebuttals to # 1-4 above:
(1) Dating was done with the most reliable dating method available, C-14 AMS and Beta units which units has been studied so much that they have their own peer reviewed journal since the 1960’s, I believe; this is to to keep them on their toes. Triangulation was performed using collagen, Calcium carbonat efraction of bioapatite and total organics — can’t get any better than that!
Do the long age Ar/Ar, K/Ar etc have such a journal to keep them on their toes? If you go to www.dinosaurc14ages.com and the radioactive decay section you will filnd three major reasons why they are not reliable and one of the reasons thay are NOT used. Why should anyone other than old earthers try and use such inferior methods for dating fossils which has to be done DIRECTLY BY C-14? However, if the funds are available let’s join forces and compare C-14 dating with some of these methods with dinosaur bones world-wide and see what the results are. Also shells wood etc imbedded in volcanic ash etc. What se ye?
(2) Simple, I’m neither an young earth Ussherite religious zealite nor a long earth religions fanatic. I’ll let the Lord leadh me where he will with field and lab research.
(3) I looked and rebut with this from Dr. D. Russell Humphrey which I’m sure everyone would like to see another reason to forgoe those millions and milllions and billions of years. Now measurements of this ‘fossil’ magnetism in rock strata (being the local field direction and strength) are different to the global measurements of the strength of the earth’s total magnetic field as reported by Barnes, yet the ‘fossil’ magnetism (palaeomagnetism) does record the behaviour of the field during the earth’s history. Geophysicists have now recognized a continuous sequence of roughly 50 magnetic polarity (field direction) reversals in the magnetism ‘fossilized’ in rock strata that span the last 600 million years of the evolutionists’ timescale, from the so-called Cambrian period when the first metazoan (multi-celled) fossils ‘appear’ in the rock record to the present. However, since some fossiliferous strata also have reversed polarities preserved in them, the magnetic field must have been reversely polarized when those sediments were being laid down.
Many creationists argue that Noah’s Flood produced most of these fossiliferous rock layers in a single year. Thus, these reversals of the earth’s magnetic field have to be envisaged as occurring on average every week or two during the Flood year. If this were the case, we should then be able to find field evidence of the reversal process having occurred this rapidly, otherwise the Barnes-Humphreys freely decaying electric currents mechanism for the generation of the earth’s magnetic field in less than 10,000 years is also in trouble.
But the field evidence has now been found. As already reported,20 palaeomagnetic measurements of a lava flow at Steens Mountain in Oregon have shown that one of these magnetic polarity transitions (part of a complete reversal) took place in about two weeks, the time period over which the lava would have cooled. As would be expected, the investigators, both evolutionists, were astonished by these results and had difficulty accepting them, but finally had to admit:
‘…even this conservative figure of 15 days corresponds to an astonishingly rapid rate of variation of the geomagnetic field direction of 3° per day. …The rapidity and large amplitude of geomagnetic variation that we infer from the remanence directions in flow B51, even when regarded as an impulse during a polarity transition, truly strains the imagination.…We think that the most probable explanation of the anomalous remanence directions of flow B51 is the occurrence of a large and extremely rapid change in the geomagnetic field during cooling of the flow, and that this change likely originated in the (earth’s) core.’21
(4) Good for the Popes. So let the discussion begin - in all our Catholic elementary, secondary and Universities world-wide - namely the evidences from both hypothesis of origins. What say Ye?
Not a young earthmuseum/research outfit; shame on me, Ah well it’s better than quoting from some fairy tale about dexcent from a common ancestor web site
Goodnite sweet Jesus, Goodnight
I
itinerant1
Guest
“In this book Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field], Barnes advances the argument that the observed exponential decay of the Earth’s magnetic field proves that the Earth cannot be more than about 10,000 years old. It is my intention to show that this argument is flawed in the extreme, and is therefore without any merit. At this time I have not seen the second edition of the book, though I know that one exists. All of my comments and arguments are therefore directed only towards the first edition, cited at the top of the page. So far as I know the second edition is out of print at this time…”Whoops I forgot to give the actual reference, It’s answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i4/magnetic.asp
museum/research outfit; shame on me, Ah well it’s better than quoting from some fairy tale about dexcent from a common ancestor web site
Continue reading:
On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth’s Magnetic Field
R
rossum
Guest
I am sure that the C-14 results were as stated. They are the equivalent of the 10 Kg reading on my kitchen scales. Show me the Ar/Ar, K/Ar or other deep time capable method dating for these fossils. All you are showing so far are the limits of accuracy of the C-14 method, your figures say nothing at all about the actual age of the fossils you are testing.
How old do you think that the Earth is?
Then you cannot assume a constant rate of decay for the Earth’s magnetic field. If the field can reverse itself every two weeks then all extrapolation for more than about a week is an exercise in futility. As I said, in this case it is the creationists who are guilty of making uniformitarian assumptions.
Such ideas are perfectly appropriate for lessons in Catholic Theology or Catholic Belief.(4) Good for the Popes. So let the discussion begin - in all our Catholic elementary, secondary and Universities world-wide - namely the evidences from both hypothesis of origins. What say Ye?
You are sadly mistaken if you think that Answers in Genesis is not a young earth outfit. They insist in their Statement of Faith that the creation was about 4,000 years before Christ. They are indeed the ones who run that Creation Museum.Whoops I forgot to give the actual reference, It’s answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i4/magnetic.asp
rossum
G
grannymh
Guest
There is another factor to this posting beyond being a pre-scientific concept of the universe. Since it is a graphic representation of the Hebrew conception of the world, please note the heading, “Heavenly Seat of the Divinity” placed above the world. The black area is captioned “Sheol”. This is the home of the dead (also called the nether world) in the depths of the earth.
When looking at this drawing from the point of view of a theistic culture, one sees God present in the prime position. There is the relationship of God, the Creator, to all the known world.
What is even more interesting is the inclusion of Sheol on the vertical line extending from the “Heavenly Seat of the Divinity.” The Catholic Bible Dictionary, Scott Hahn, General Editor, ISBN: 978-0-385-51229-9 says that God’s power extended over Sheol which was considered a place where the dead dwelt in gloom. Yet, there was the hope that God would not abandon His people and would bring redemption. (Scripture references include: Psalm 139: 7-8;
Proverbs 15: 11; Job 26:6; Wisdom 16:13; Psalm 16:10; Psalm 49:16; 1 Samuel 2:6)
This drawing demonstrates the ancient belief that the first human, Adam, was both mortal and immortal. His body and subsequently that of his descendents would return to the earth, but Adam would not disappear. God continued to watch over the dead because of their immortal souls. Our spiritual immortal soul enables us to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 355 - 421)
The connection between God, the world, and us as descendents of Adam, is still a vertical line.
Blessings,
granny
Human life is meant for eternal life with God.
C
Caritasregat
Guest
Redshift and blueshift involves measuring the shift of spectral lines given off by a moving object. This does not apply to how far away a thing is, just how fast it is moving towards or away from us. It is still highly arguable whether anything can travel faster than light, and if anything is superluminal, we wouldn’t see it at all.
My question was, why it is necessary for Catholics to believe that the earth is between 6,000-10,000 years old? Why could we not allow for evolution, stellar formation, etc. which is scientifically verifiable, but still hold that there were two main *human * ancestors in whom God implanted a soul?
C
Caritasregat
Guest
Just to shed some light on the matter and hopefully resolve a conflict or two: There is more than one way of believing in God as the ‘first cause’. It is unnecessary, and I think somewhat naive, to think that God went “poof” and everything came into being at a specific moment, setting the human race off and running.
Read your ancient history, read your Catholic philosophy: The belief God holds all things in existence is perfectly compatable with the view that matter (creation) has always existed, or was created billions of years ago. These (I guess religiously controversial albeit scientific) views are also compatable with the belief that God created mankind at a distinct point in history (implanting a soul), but not necessarily on literally the sixth day. It is most certainly compatable with a Christo-centric view of the universe, which holds that all of creation was created for Christ (read Wisdom), and in seeing that mankind is an infintessimal speck in the incomprehensible vastness of the universe and in the untraceably huge expanse of time, it simply adds to God’s glory and to Christ’s profound love and humility.
- Status