E
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
larkin31
Guest
Sure you did. You know that it is very likely a close approximation of the age of the earth. All of the evidence from 40 forms of dating is pointing that way.No. I’m not admitting that.
And you called a young earth “the dreaded wrong age.”
The truth slipped out, which is hard for you to acknowledge. Take your time. The truth is liberating.
E
edwest2
Guest
Sorry. I will not become a pawn to Old Earth Evangelism. Threads like these open for only one purpose: to get converts.Sure you did. You know that it is very likely a close approximation of the age of the earth. All of the evidence from 40 forms of dating is pointing that way.
And you called a young earth “the dreaded wrong age.”
The truth slipped out, which is hard for you to acknowledge. Take your time. The truth is liberating.
And it indicates that it’s not really about the truth, just what you call “very likely true.”
God bless,
Ed
L
larkin31
Guest
A fellow Catholic of yours started this thread.Sorry. I will not become a pawn to Old Earth Evangelism. Threads like these open for only one purpose: to get converts.
Yeah, that slippery thing called empirical truth. It tends not to be absolute. So don’t trust it!And it indicates that it’s not really about the truth, just what you call “very likely true.”
E
edwest2
Guest
In this particular case, I’ve seen more than enough to conclude that truth is not the goal but lining up more people to follow an ideology. I refer to it as the Technocracy.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
L
larkin31
Guest
Here is what your current Pope once wrote:Sorry. I will not become a pawn to Old Earth Evangelism. Threads like these open for only one purpose: to get converts.
John Paul II on evolution:“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.” (From the International Theological Commission, headed by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI, statement “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,” plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004)
"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the [Humani Generis] Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
"What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified, it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Just so we know who is trying to “convert” whom…“Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy. And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.”
R
Renko
Guest
I believe the earth is only about 6 to 8 thousand years old count the years from Adam & Eve to the present day.
L
larkin31
Guest
Your present Pope wrote quite the opposite. Do you disagree with his writing that I reprinted above?I believe the earth is only about 6 to 8 thousand years old count the years from Adam & Eve to the present day.
G
grannymh
Guest
These contain information from the scientific community. They are summaries of sorts of current scientific theories. They contian individual opinions on topics in the field of science. They are bits of information being passed along by high ranking clergy acting as indivudals writing about current news. So what?Here is what your current Pope once wrote:
John Paul II on evolution:
Just so we know who is trying to “convert” whom…
Now, if you choose to read the quotes from the point of view of how they are written, there are a number of things worth considering as said by wise people, scientists and observers of science included. Indeed, there are some very thoughtful comments by high ranking clergy acting as indiviudals writing about current news.
L
larkin31
Guest
He accepts the old earth estimates, that’s what. The Catholic position is NOT that the earth is young, nor is it to reject the old earth science, which Pope John Paul II admits is amazing beginning to converge in its theories, but rather that no hypothesis should be accepted that controverts “moral” truths that God made two first humans and imbued them in one event with souls. Otherwise, these last two popes accepted the old earth estimations and the multiple theories of evolution as very powerful theories.These are reports from scientists. They are summaries of sorts of current scientific theories. They are individual opinions on topics in the field of science. They are bits of information being passed along by high ranking clergy acting as indivudals writing about current news. So what?
H
hugh_miller
Guest
Sorry about that but I was preparing supper for my wife and I. You wouldn’t want me to burn the hamburgers now would you.! You see I’m cook, bottle washer, and caregiver while “Hacksaw Peggy” recovers from a whole host of ailments. Anyway let’s start in 1975 when another wonderful lady - she, a famous Internationally known mineralogist explained to some famous chronologists of that time period why radio decay dating methods do NOT give absolute ages and actually are meaningless.Start with just one, and an explanation. That is what this thread is about. So absolutely, go for it.
And why did you not answer the argument that I posted above, in two rather full paragraphs? Why not start there?
INTRO by this respondent: As I tried to explain on this thread, decay rates are NOT constant for many reasons. Therefore the long ages for the universe and the age for the earth of 4.5 billion years and dinosaurs bones at 65 million years appear to be quite meaningless; and, therefore is the Hypothesis of descent from a common ancestor starting with the stars, then to mud and rocks and perhaps to a mud “puppy” to man to fish to apelike critters. It all sounds a bit preposterous like a fairy tale. Sorry about that but I must agree with another Catholic, Professor emeritus Larry Azar of Iona College with his book, “Evolution and Other Fairy Tales”
(1) As Dr. Marie Claire van Oosterwyck, a leading mineralogist and lab director at a major University in Belgium as well as a Catholic has written: “My answer to the anomalous age ‘problem’ in radiometric dating of minerals was as follows: Radioactive elements are present within the mineral matrix itself and several conditions can influence how much radioactive material can be retained.
**1. **Chemical composition of the material.
**2. Mineralogical composition of the mineral.
3. Crystal structure of the mineral.
**4. **Grain size of the various crystals in the mineral (smaller grain size means there are more grain boundaries per unit volume.)
**5. **Exposure of mineral to high-temperature water
**6. **Exposure of mineral to weathering.
**7. **The particular radioactive isotope present in the mineral.
Thus the ‘clocks’ reputed to produce absolute ages depend upon the above factors and therefore are neither absolute nor true ages. According to textbooks on the subject the ‘clocks’ should be insensitive to such conditions but the “time” they register will change if conditions 1-7 vary.”
**COMMENT: Therefore, C-14 date the fossils where possible and NOT the minerals in order to come closer to the true age of the fossils in their matrix of rock or clay. NO Carbon? Therefore you don’t know the age. **
**Reference: **Anomalous Radiometric Dating and its Effect on the Interpretation of Hominid Fossils.
Currently being published in Germany and awaiting publication in the USA
(2) According to main stream scientists not even GLA protein can last longer than 100,000 years. Yet in and extensive paper in Science magazine and on-line details with many photographs Dr. Mary Schweitzer showed that collagen and even soft tissue supposedly survived 65 M years. Thus this research by Bada* indicates that the T-Rex could only be no older than 100,000 years. C-14 dating showed that other dinosaur bone collagen [confirmed by dating calcium carbonate fraction of bone bioapatite] was closer to 23,000 to 30,000 years BP. CONCLUSION: The radio decay methods used by Dalrymple are meaningless ages as claimed by Oosterwyck and others.
*Reference: Bada, Jeffrey L. GLA protein will not last 100,000 years, Scripts Institute of Oceanography http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/fossilizeddna.html.
M
Mr_Skeptic
Guest
So, surely, you can show the mechanism(s) which can cause the decay rate to change. I would be absolutely fascinated to discover a mechanism which would cause the decay rate to change. Please list all the test data, methodology, citations, research facilities, universities, journals, etc. Thanks.And that would only happen if the rate of decay of carbon-14 would have remained constant over the years. They assume that it remained constant but they don’t know. So one more reason why C-14 isn’t accurate in determining the correct age.
E
edwest2
Guest
If it’s very likely true, why appeal to any religious figure? I’m constantly reminded here that science is silent about God and the supernatural.Your present Pope wrote quite the opposite. Do you disagree with his writing that I reprinted above?
God bless,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
“powerful” ?He accepts the old earth estimates, that’s what. The Catholic position is NOT that the earth is young, nor is it to reject the old earth science, which Pope John Paul II admits is amazing beginning to converge in its theories, but rather that no hypothesis should be accepted that controverts “moral” truths that God made two first humans and imbued them in one event with souls. Otherwise, these last two popes accepted the old earth estimations and the multiple theories of evolution as very powerful theories.
“In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”
-From Communion and Stewardship
God bless,
Ed
M
Mr_Skeptic
Guest
Ah, yes. Gliese 710.Speaking of time, I learned just yesterday that a rogue “orange dwarf star” is on collision course with our solar system. It would be fascinating to see, but I’m sort of glad I won’t be around…
I’m wondering if our species will still be around in 1.5 million years. If we don’t kill each other over tribal, superstitious beliefs, our chances of being directly affected by it is huge. Even if it ends up being a near miss, it will greatly disturb the Oort Cloud. Comets will be on a massive increase. Probability of comet-earth impact increases exponentially.
M
Mr_Skeptic
Guest
Please don’t be condescending towards me. I ask that you give me the same respect that I give you. I have never talked to you in this manner, and would appreciated it if you conducted yourself accordingly. We can disagree on things, but should still be civil, respectful and polite towards each other.Come on now. Please try hard and get the message.
I’ll get to the rest of your remarks at a later time.
M
Mr_Skeptic
Guest
Saw it. Good link. Thanks, Larkin!Moro, see my post just above this one for the relative margins of error for the various radiometric dating methods.
I
itinerant1
Guest
(This response is addressed to the YECs on CAF as well as to the atheists.)This is way too harsh. What you call “mindless biblical literalism” is, in fact, an honest, straightforward reading of the Bible. You refuse to admit the dichotomy between science and the Bible. YECs have the courage to say that the science is wrong. Do you have the courage to say that the Bible is wrong?
Way too harsh? I think it is, rather, way too mild. YECs act like they are an alternative Teaching Magesterium, one which opposes and corrects the mind of the Church and science in general. YEC hubris has tipped the scale.
Christoph Cardinal Schonborn says “The ‘creationist’ position is based on an understanding of the Bible that the Catholic Church does not share.” (Creation and Evolution: A conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo, p. 91).
Cardinal Schonborn speaks for the mind of the Church when he says “creationism” is not acceptable. Catholic YECs are an embarassment to the Church.
The Bible is the inspired word of God. YEC interpretation of the Bible is not an acceptable way to interpret the Bible. YEC interpretation distorts and perverts the inspired word of God.
There is no dichotomy between the Bible and science because the Bible is not teaching science or natural history of the world. "The first page of the Bible is not a cosmological treatise about the development of the world in six solar days. The Bible does not teach us “how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven.” (ibid. p. 91).
In my opinion, YEC is a Protestant heresy that has no place in the Catholic Church.
Agnostics and atheists generally like the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 because it provides them with an easy target against the Church, and supposedly the existence of God. YEC says the world is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old and base that idea on their peculiar and off-beat interpretation of *Genesis. *Since the world is actually billions of years old, agnostics and atheists can easily discredit the Bible and Christianity with scientific facts. However, they are not actually discrediting the Bible but rather the YEC’s fallacious and mindless interpretation of the Bible. There lies the critical difference.
So I’m sure agnostics and atheists have a vested interest in their insistance that the YEC interpretion of Genesis is a reliable and straightforward reading of Genesis.
In nuce, that describes the YEC - Atheist game, and my objective is to run interference. You may be a “gentle atheist” but sometimes I like playing hardball.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Death by Super Sizing at McDonald’s currently runs a higher probablility as a cause for mass extinction.Ah, yes. Gliese 710.
I’m wondering if our species will still be around in 1.5 million years. If we don’t kill each other over tribal, superstitious beliefs, our chances of being directly affected by it is huge. Even if it ends up being a near miss, it will greatly disturb the Oort Cloud. Comets will be on a massive increase. Probability of comet-earth impact increases exponentially.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I suspect many YECs are fixated on elementary grade level Sunday School instruction that was wrong on certain points, yet they have not matured intellectually or spiritually much beyond that early stage in their religious development.What the majority of people do not want to admit on this thread is that Sunday Schools have been teaching the dreaded wrong age of the earth for centuries. Yet, somehow, even though infected with this grave error, these kids go on to do great things for this country.
How is that possible if they are missing this critical, supposedly life and death piece of information?
The seriousness of this falls away when one realizes that too many people in this country don’t even read, much less know what the age of the earth might be. That too many don’t even graduate high school. And for those who do make it to college, that too many need remedial education because they still don’t know much.
And this, this is the most important piece of information they need? There are people who believe Americans never landed on the moon (I’m not one of them), but that’s relatively OK, just as long as they still accept the right age of the earth?
God bless,
Ed
A young earth interpretation of Scripture was derived in modern times from Bishop Ussher. The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century chronology of the history of the world formulated from a literal reading of the Bible by James Ussher, the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh. Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC. (LOL)
It’s long past time for YECs to let go of this fantasy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.