L
larkin31
Guest
You did not answer my questions:
- do you acknowledge a Triassic period?
- how old do you take oil deposits to be? You can give a range, as I did, from earliest to oldest.
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
L
larkin31
Guest
HAHAHAHA
:extrahappy:
I
itinerant1
Guest
Regarding the interpretation of Genesis 1, I recommended Genesis 1 Through the Ages by Fr. Jaki (scroll down to see title). If one does not have time to read Fr. Jaki’s full-length survey then I recommend a booklet by Fr. Jaki, The Creator’s Sabbath Rest: A Clue to Genesis 1.
If one does not have time for the booklet listed above then one is plain out of luck because the movie, “Genesis 1” (with Mel Gibson as the Creator), is not due out anytime soon.
BTW, I missed a lot of posts but I did not see where the YECs in this thread ever responded to the challenges for them to present their explanations of the Biblical firmament, waters above the firmament, flat-earth, pillars of the earth, waters under the earth, and so on. :juggle:
Apparently, YECs have no explanation to offer for the pre-scientific cosmology found in the Bible, or at least no “explanation” that does not merit being laughed off the face of the planet. In sum, it looks as though the YECs Biblical literalism is not even logically self-consistent.
If one does not have time for the booklet listed above then one is plain out of luck because the movie, “Genesis 1” (with Mel Gibson as the Creator), is not due out anytime soon.
BTW, I missed a lot of posts but I did not see where the YECs in this thread ever responded to the challenges for them to present their explanations of the Biblical firmament, waters above the firmament, flat-earth, pillars of the earth, waters under the earth, and so on. :juggle:
Apparently, YECs have no explanation to offer for the pre-scientific cosmology found in the Bible, or at least no “explanation” that does not merit being laughed off the face of the planet. In sum, it looks as though the YECs Biblical literalism is not even logically self-consistent.
H
hugh_miller
Guest
Understanding geology is best done by sedimentology studies in lab, flume and by studying core samples not by by of the past 115 years or so starting with a German researcher who got in a boat and took core samples in the Bay of Naples. Basically Wegner he learned that the sediments at the bottom of the Bay of Naples is not necessasirly the oldest. Eventually scientists began lab and flume to see if what J. Walthur observed studies and geology is now beginning to catch up with understanding the basics which Darwin and his buddy Lyell did not know. They established those long ages out of love for a new hypothesis that confused everyone by making everyting seem older than it really is with their obsolete science with their now obsolete science. We then have all got caught up in these endless discussion on origins debate.*
Basically what he learned by studying his core samples was that the Top strata is not necessairly the most recent strata in moving waters. Conclusion: strata is NOT a function of time in flowing water. In the late 20th and 21st centuies scientists have aobserved by deductionsin the labs and flume studies followed by more field and studies that almost all the rocky strata we are now standing on was laid down in moving waters, some of it perhaps very fast. Here is his and other references which will be discussed after I’ve had my meal.
*Walthur, J. 1894. Eintleitung in die Geologie und Historische Wissenschaft, Gustav Fisher Verlag, Jena , Germany.
Here are a few of the other studies which are key to understanding how sediments form.
McKee E.D. and E.J. Crosby. (1967). Flood deposits, Bijou Creek, Colorado, June 1965, Journal Sedimentary Petrolology 37: 829-851.
Flume studies at the University of Colorado:
Julien, Pierre Y., Yongqiang Lan, and Guy Berthault. 1993. Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 164(5):649-660.
Other Laborataory studies;
Fineberg, Jay. Nature, vol. 386: 323-324, 27 March 1997, “From
Cinderella’s dilemma to rock slides” 1997 Laboratory studies confirming previous lab observations of the 1980’s in French geology publications.
Makse, H.A., S. Havlin, P.R. King, H.E. Stanley. 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature. 386:379-382 also confirming original lab studies
of the 1980’s.
And the studies of how Mudstones are formed (2007) and the fact that some of the Grand Canyon formations were formed rapidly. Even the sandstones were NOT laid down by wind over eons of time but by rapidly moving waters (2009).
I
itinerant1
Guest
Dread of the Jurassic is why all references to that period must be omitted.
L
larkin31
Guest
Jur-*** my-***!
I
itinerant1
Guest
The answer is an unqualified “No”.
+++
**III. UNIVERSALITY OF THE DELUGE.—The Biblical account ascribes some kind of a universality to the Flood. But it may have been geographically universal, or it may have been only anthropologically universal. In other words, the Flood may have covered the whole earth, or it may have destroyed all men, covering only a certain part of the earth. Till about the seventeenth century, it was generally believed that the Deluge had been geographically universal, and this opinion is defended even in our days by some conservative scholars (cf. Kaulen in Kirchenlexikon). But two hundred years of theological and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:
**
(I) The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned. Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.
–From the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 ed.; Deluge
L
larkin31
Guest
First, your conclusion does not follow from the statement in the one preceding sentence. Simply because not ALL sediments fall in precisely the correct chronological order does NOT mean that “strata is NOT a function of time in flowing water.” Your conclusion far exceeds your premise in scope.
Secondly, what does this have to do with dating oil deposits and recognizing the conditions of temperature, pressure, and time necessary for the petroleum to end up where it is?
B
buffalo
Guest
M
Mr_Skeptic
Guest
Fixed.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Moor’s statement is an overstatement, but there is some truth to it. Evolution theory involves a metaphysical vision, “a sort of philosophic faith”, as T.H. Huxley reminded (Genesis and Abiogenesis). Yet, scientific evidence that supports this broad theory of natural history continues to accumulate. Evolution theory works in the laboratory and correctly predicts in the field.
Nonetheless, if someone comes up with a better theory, I will gladly dispense with evolution theory, and so will scientists in general. However, to date there are no serious contenders to scientific evolution. Evolution theory will dramatically evolve as new evidence arises and better interpretations are made, but whether evolution theory will ever be completely replaced by a completely new and better theory in future centuries is not something we can know.
B
buffalo
Guest
Here is a better theory - IDvolution - God breathed the language of DNA into the “kinds” that have adapted to their environment which accounts for the diversity of life we see.
And we do not have to twist and turn to make it fit with Catholic theology.
Are you not paying attention to evo theory? The modern synthesis giving way to self organization. Saltations not being able to be explained by gradualism. Every day the story has to get more far-fetched to keep up with the findings.
At what point will you acknowledge the odds are better for IDvolution?
I
itinerant1
Guest
I
itinerant1
Guest
So far, there is no evidence to support this speculative hypothesis.
No such hypothesis is scientifically tenable in the context of YEC.
A limited number of kinds could not carry large amounts of unused DNA for eons without serious mutational problems arising.
This tells me your understanding of evo is superficial at best, but I don’t think we are permitted yet to discuss this topic and thereby clarify the contemporary scientific issues.
When IDvolution in no longer IDvolution but has evolved into a completely different creature. But then it would no longer be IDvolution, would it?
B
buffalo
Guest
Let’s break it down.
No one argues adaptation.
Absolutely wrong - DNA is shown to be conserved. By the way limited is subjective. How many kinds would it take?
So you deny that EES is where they are going?
I
itinerant1
Guest
What are the odds that you will explain what is up with the “firmament”, and what is up above the firmament?
Do you think we live in a geocentric system?
What about the Earth being flat? Are you a flat-Earther?
Does the Earth still rest on pillars, or was that just in OT times?
B
buffalo
Guest
Bogus alert!
We have already discussed high concordance.
The illustration you are fond of posting is a human attempt to translate knowledge to a picture. Say a jet flew by an ancient. They may be apt to describe this as a “fiery chariot” or “bird that roars like lion”.
God may be laughing at the way we describe DNA.
L
larkin31
Guest
Ed, you gone?
I
itinerant1
Guest
Conserved to a point only. However, if you would like me to provide quotes from cell biologists who would take issue with your claim about DNA, I can do that. And the nonsense of a 6,000 year old Earth has to be discarded if you ever want any credibility outside of the YEC cult.
Yes, how many kinds, would it take, and how do you define “kinds”?
Just cite me some reliable scientific claims and evidence (fossil records, number of generations required, rates of evolution, and so on.) that would even make IDvolution sound plausible.
I made no denial (or affirmation) regarding EES. How did you ever come up with that one?
I am not even sure what you understand by EES.
In science, the concept of self-organization needs a sound philosophical underpinning. For an organism to “self-organize” presupposes something already in existence of the organismic self for it to act organizationally in this goal-oriented manner.
- Status