L
larkin31
Guest
yes, thanks again for posting these
and I quoted from these documents already here. i am not sure that granny or ed is reading them.
- Status
and I quoted from these documents already here. i am not sure that granny or ed is reading them.
L
larkin31
Guest
I, for one, would appreciate knowing (for you to quote it) what the thesis/conclusion is from this experiment. You appear to quote only one factual line from it. What was the experiment’s purpose, and what was its conclusion? You seem to be stating a lot about it rather than letting us read what the scientists themselves say is the experiment’s purpose, its methods, and its conclusion.BASED ON POPULAR DEMAND >>>> The reference for the dates for diamond is: Use of natural diamonds to lmonitor C-14 AMS instrument backgrounds, R. E. Taylor and John Southon. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 229 (2007) 282-287.
I have the paper. One of the interesting aspect is that : ***“Six fragments cut from a single diamond exhibited essentially identical C-14 value - 69.3 +/- 0.5 ka to 70.7 +/- 0.5 ka BP.” ***
Concordant dates for individual dinosaur bones are obtained also but in a much younger C-14 range of 23 ka to 30 ka which is what one would expect if everything was created “at once” - simul in Latin. That is: diamond contains primordial carbon 12, 13 and 14 all at the time of God’s creation with a gradual build up of more carbon-14 due to photosynthesis via upper atmosphere production of C-14. Conclusion: Even the C-14 dates for dinosasur bones may be too old as C-14 has not reached the equilibirum state as even Dr. Libby noted in the late 1940’s.
For the effect of ultrasonic cavitation on increasing the half life of 10,000 times for Thorium 228 google the name Fabio Cardone.
**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 structure of DNA **
[Simul in Latin means “at once” - From Lateran IV, AD 1215]
Thanks.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Grannymh, you’re side-stepping the most interesting questions at the interface of genetics and theology! If you don’t know the answer, I understand, but please consider the question.
What I’m wondering about is your claim that “human nature is created by God to be an unique unification of soul and body.” As you know, all living organisms share in common the fact that they have DNA. And organisms in fact share a good deal of their DNA; humans share around 98.4% of their genes with their other great-ape cousins.
My question to you is how you quantify DNA in the possession of a spiritual soul. Do you have to be 100% human to have an immortal soul? Would a teratoma – a tumor caused by the turning on of development of only a certain number of genes (e.g., for skin or teeth or a finger) – have a human soul? In other words, if it has human DNA does it have a human soul? Or does it have to be a fully developed human to have a soul?
StAnastasia
[/quote]
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny,
(1) I am looking at the whole of human nature. How about you?
(2) It should be clear to you – of all thread readers – that I am not at all a Cartesian dualist!
(3) I don’t know, as I’ve never read any pieces by Matthew Fox.
(4) Hylomorphism (Aristotle’s theory) was useful in a prescientific context in which the basic metaphysical presupposition was that things were composed of “matter” and “form.” How useful this continues to be in a scientific era is an interesting question.
StAnastasia
G
grannymh
Guest
Such honor I truly do not deserve.
“Human nature is created by God to be an unique unification of soul and body.” is not my claim.For information about that claim, please consult the teachings of the Catholic Church as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Or use this handy link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm The table of contents, index, and glossary will be a far better guide than I would be.
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. You may find them enjoyable as well as informative.
www.CatholicsComeHomeRockford.org
www.CatholicsComeHome.org
S
StAnastasia
Guest
If Hugh makes up stuff about the past, I wonder what he would think about the future of the universe. There is an orange dwarf star that has recently been discovered to be on collision course with our solar system, and that’s not in the Bible. In fact, the solar system is not in the Bible, but Hugh probably accepts it’s existence. Not every thing that exists has to be in accordance with the biblical text.
L
larkin31
Guest
I have seen folks fit just about anything into the wild imagery of Revelations, so, don’t underestimate him!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I suppose it’s possible to fit any potentially catastrophic astronmical event into the bizarre prophecies of Revelation. I’ve been reading Phil Plait’s Death from the Skies and find it both scary and fascinating. Millenarian Christians will have to find some way to fit into their biblical schema the eventual collision between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies. Unfortunately humans won’t see that, as it is two billion years away, and earth will not be inhabitable in 500 million years.
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
There is a useful piece on the website of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) on the age of the earth: ncse.com/evolution/science/how-old-is-earth.
R
rossum
Guest
Thank you for the reference hugh. It can be found on the web at Taylor and Southon (2007).
Unfortunately for your hypothesis, as the title makes clear, what is being measured is not the age of the diamonds but the background C-14 in the Keck AMS spectrometer. They are using the diamonds to calibrate the instrument. If I have a set of kitchen scales which measures up to 10 Kg then when I stand on those scales they will register 10 Kg. That does not mean that I weigh 10 Kg, all it means is that I have shown that the scales do indeed weigh up to 10 Kg. Taylor and Southon were using those diamonds in a similar way, to answer the question “how far back can this particular mass spectrometer measure?” Every instrument comes with a certain amount of “background”, such as microscopic debris from previous samples. The presence of that background limits the accuracy of the instrument.
Not unexpected. All this is showing is that the background is a constant value. If a few of my friends also tried my kitchen scales, they would all weigh 10 Kg as well. Hmmm… maybe there is a new weight loss plan in there somewhere.
Do you have a reference for the dinosaur bone dating as well please. I am also interested in how you use a measured dates of 23 ka to 30 ka to justify the YEC position of 6 ka. Those measured dates are just as fatal for a 6,000 year old Earth as a 100 million year old date would be.
rossum
G
Greg27
Guest
I think the scientific evidence for the great age of the Earth (and the evolution of life over time) is overwhelming. I don’t have the expertise to check and test every claim myself, and it would be unrealistic to try. Nevertheless I think it is rational to accept the evidence and the theories that explain them. I think this is distinct from having to accept the extreme claims of atheism sometimes tacked onto ideas like evolution from people such as Dawkins.
L
larkin31
Guest
Indeed. The writers explain that the natural diamond samples come from rocks over 100 million years old. Nothing happens here to have them question the age of the sample.
hugh, you need another experiment if you want to explain that diamonds are young.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Right. For all his competence as a scientific communicator, Dawkins is speaking way out of line in drawing his conclusion of metaphysical naturalism from his legitimate ontological naturalism.
G
grannymh
Guest
I knew it. You did study in the 1980’s when Matthew Fox and John Dominic Crossan started on their road to popularity. I could tell that from a couple of your posts.
During those years, one didn’t have to personally read Matthew Fox or John Dominic Crossan because many professors already knew what they were advocating and many accepted, at least partially, their positions and consequently taught them. Both Fox and Crossan were and still are popular with the media. In some way, students were exposed to these men or to subsequent authors who followed in their footsteps. Should I ask if you remember Starhawk?
The Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan was a world-class scripture scholar so his opinions were accepted across the board. Matthew Fox had denied original sin and was forbidden to teach theology. This bit of notoriety helped his writing career with early books on “creation spirituality” and the “cosmic christ” . And we must not forget the Darwinists who joined the act.
Like any three-ring circus, audiences will focus most of the time on one or possibly two of the participants. Consequently, the connections between Crossan, Fox, and Darwinists are not obvious nor are they intended to be. However, their cumulative effect on higher education was to weaken the foundations for Christian beliefs.
By the way, whatever the catechism was in the 1980’s mentioned in your post –
there is now a new *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, *ISBN: 1-57455-109-4 This one is considered an universal one.
In the spirit of free speech, I will continue to present the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, as a useful tool for studying the Catholic view. When one side of the coin is presented, I am happy to present the other side of the coin for the readers’ benefit.
Blessings,
granny
Spring is a message of hope sent by the Creator.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I’m sorry, but I’m not familiar with Fox or Crossan or Starhawk (what is a “Starhawk”?). I’ve heard of the Jesus Seminar, but I don’t regard voting on biblical passages as particularly scholarly. I did most of my work in the theology faculty at Oxford, although I also studied with Dominicans and Jesuits and Franciscans in the United States.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, since the CCC is silent on the matter, can you tell me whether having an immortal soul is connected in some way to having human DNA? In the absence of your response, I shall assume that “immortal soul” is a vacuous concept, a quaint holdover from the prescientific era of dualism. Of course, perhaps it’s not vacuous, but you have yet to offer any support for the concept in relation to empirical reality.
StAnastasia
E
edwest2
Guest
You think the evidence is overwhelming? Why? Just because you trust a few of those making the claims? Have you considered any of the anomalies? If not, why not? This issue is not contentious only because of dogmatic beliefs on the side of those who are currently convinced that the earth is very old.
There is a purely political dimension to this debate that operates by simply engineering consent. Dawkins and those who agree with him, need the great ages to continue with their agenda. That fact is not a small part of this issue.
God bless,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Dawkins and the 100,000 other biologists in the US, and the hundreds of thousands of scientists elsewhere in the world and in other disciplines. Balancing this consensus is that of (1) Ed, (2) Granny, (3) Buffalo, (4) Prieldedi, (5) Cassini, and (6) Hugh Miller. Let’s say 200,000 highly trained scientists against six who can’t agree on methods, processes, or a common fixed date. Hmmmm, let me think about this.
B
buffalo
Guest
You are not alone. Most scientists in fact do not redo the experiments, but build upon foundational knowledge that they heard from others. That is a danger to be aware of.
The question on the table in these threads is whether or not those foundations are valid.
- Status