Why did God create dinosaurs

[geoformeo]

It’s not funny McGee. Souls are being lost or confused by trash talking scripture. The Belgian lady scientist spent many years in the Belgian Congo and has written over 100 technical articles. How do you think she got the lab directorship job? But let me continue with my rebuttles to the GEO guy.

Great. GEO guy here.

I suspect you are correct geoformeo that 70% is being closer to the actual % of earth’s surface covered by water. Nonetheless there are scientists that are discussing a possible flood (s) on Mars based on NASA geological interpretations. Catastrophism on Mars like on earth is the point of the discussion in case you haven’t figured that out yet. If one can speculate from the geological evidence that a flood happened on Mars than what is so unscientific about it happening on earth since there are huge oceans to negotiate, we have our church fathers talking about it as well as scripture and all the cultures of earth? Are you as a Catholic willing to even consider the possibility of a global flood on earth? Or are you so fearful of “fundamentalist Christians” that you have to separate yourself from their logical arguments, data, interpretations and many books on the subject and follow a fairy tale of origins? Our Catholic theologians titled Church Fathers all agreed there was a universal flood. It is you therefore who have deserted the faith of the church but modern scientific experimentation is bringing us closer to the truth of our origilns and that of the dinosaurs in spite of attempts to ignore these data.

Mars is a moot point. Mars is largely covered by basalt, which contains the mineral olivine as detected by the Mars rovers. Here on Earth, olivine breaks down rapidly in the presence of water. Therefore, there was no global flood on Mars, otherwise there would be little olivine present.

I am not fearful of the “fundamentalist Christian” arguments, because they are irrational and the scientific data does not support them. What I am greatly fearful of, is how their position pits science as the enemy. That in and of itself causes more damage to faith than anything science could do, unfortunately.

Regarding creation: All species were created in six literal days including the dinosaurs. They were still many in existence during St. John Damacene’s time of AD 750 as he talked about them not being ghosts but real live “dragons” upwards to 35 feet long etc. There are dinosaur depictions world-wide. Damacene even mentions one event in which Roman solders before his time had killed one that was 100 feet long [feet translated from the mesurements of his time period].

Great. So where are the remains of these “dragons” that are younger in age than Christianity?

Just curious. Where in the Catechism does it say that we are obligated to interpret Genesis 1 as six literal days?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Regarding creation: All species were created in six literal days including the dinosaurs. They were still many in existence during St. John Damacene’s time of AD 750 as he talked about them not being ghosts but real live “dragons” upwards to 35 feet long etc. There are dinosaur depictions world-wide. Damacene even mentions one event in which Roman solders before his time had killed one that was 100 feet long [feet translated from the mesurements of his time period]. God created dinosaurs for many purposes; one that has not been mentioned is perhaps to defeat the words of scoffers [Peter II I think it is] in the days in which we live. Below are web sites for the flood controvery. Got to hilt the sack. Moses sizzles while Darwin fizzles

The periods you speak of were also still rife with stories of hydras, krakens, and roc birds. I’m no science geek but as a fantasy junkie and an upstart writer, I know for a fact that those were myths. If any of those things were real, we’d be living in a world straight out of an RPG. As much it’s always been something I daydream all the time, I have to wake up to reality at some point.

Great. So where are the remains of these “dragons” that are younger in age than Christianity?

Yeah I wanna know too. I need new ingredients for my alchemy. :whacky:

P.S.

Thanks for answering my Triceratops question Geo. I’ve read a few nameless articles that have contended that they were too weak to use for fighting or something.

As much as I feel that it seems to be the mascot dinosaur for geeks, I have a thing for horns. They’re second on my list of favorite monster weapons (the first is breathing elemental stuff but that’s dragons now ).

 

[Philipp]

QUOTE=Mr Skeptic;6340409]This should be a remarkable discovery, turning biological evolution, geology, and other sciences on their heads! Let’s hear more! Please provide the citations. Thanks.

Here is the reference you requested from Genesis Park web site.

*One of the most fascinating fossil graveyard of all is located in the southern United States. The Ashley Beds is an enormous phosphate graveyard that contains mixed remains of man with land and sea animals, notably dinosaurs, pleisosaurs, whales, sharks, rhinos, horses, mastodons, mammoths, porpoises, elephants, deer, pigs, dogs, and sheep. This catalogue of fossils from the phosphate beds was given in the records of Major Edward Willis who displayed them at multiple expositions (Willis, “Fossils and Phosphate Specimens,” 1881.) Professor F.S. Holmes (paleontologist and curator of the College of Charleston’s Natural History Museum) described the fossil graveyard in a report to the Academy of Natural Sciences: “Remains of the hog, the horse and other animals of recent date, together with human bones mingled with the bones of the mastodon and extinct gigantic lizards.” There can be little doubt what extinct gigantic lizard he referenced for he pictured a hadrosaurus on the front of his 1870 book The Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and captioned it: “Skeleton of a Fossil Lizard eighteen feet in Length.” Moreover, on page 31 he wrote, “It was in this Post-Pleiocene age, the period when the American Elephant, or Mammoth, the Mastodon, Rhinoceros, Megathereum, Hadrosaurus, and other gigantic quadrupeds roamed the Carolina forests, and repaired periodically to these Salt-lakes”… (p. 31.) The mixing of these remains was pell-mell throughout the roughly 40 square mile area of this deposit around Charleston, South Carolina. By one estimate, bones made up 65% of the extraordinary phosphate deposits in the region of the Ashley River basin before it was largely mined out. (Keener, J.C., The Garden of Eden and the Flood, 1901, p. 244.) Evolutionists have cast about trying to propose a credible mechanism for mixing creatures from Cretaceous to Holocene in this stratum, but none has been satisfactory and the matter has been expunged from current references to this site. (Watson, John Allen, Man, Dinosaurs, and Mammals Together, 2001, p. 7.) *

Also visit creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes24.html

COMMENT: Before evolutionary scientists discovered bone collagen and soft tissue in their T-Rex [John Horner and Mary Schweitizer, Science 2005] Paleontologist Joe Taylor director of Mount Blanco Fossil Museum had already discovered bone collagen in his T-Rex through the efforts of Mark Armitage as reported here: creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/38/38_2/Trex.htm ]. In the Italian plublication, Evolutionism: The Decline of an Hypothesis other scientists arranged to have collagen from a Triceratops and Hadrosaur C-14 dated. Perhaps everyone should challenge their evolutionary scientific breathern to C-14 date both the dinosaur bones and fossil human bones from Africa as well as has been done with fossil Neanderthal bones. Moses and Catholic church fathers win again.

 

[Prieldedi]

Decrease in size of elephant tusks in correlation with ivory hunting. Domestication of wolves into dogs. Lenski’s bacteria research. And micro evolution is the same as macro evolution. I’m sure you would think that a person that believes small streams can be created by erosion but a river cannot is a moron. Oh and fossils. Dang they’re cool.

No, it was stated that the universe existed before he introduced light. This is wrong.

No, it’s wrong. Would you like me to detail it? It’s horribly wrong. But the thing is, even if I do, you wouldn’t care and it wouldn’t make you deviate from your point of view.

Why haven’t a Jewish boy born already circumcised? After 4,000+ years of having every Jewish male newborn circumcised is about time the genetic code in Jews males had changed, just like you imply elephant genetic code changed producing smaller tusks in correlation with ivory hunting. But maybe, maybe the elephants killed for their ivory died before reaching maturity, the age in which tusks get bigger, so the tusks measured are smaller. I’m sure this is closer to the real scenario with the elephants. It’s possible the food supply and the quality of it had to do with shorter tusks (vitamins, minerals). I would even venture to say that evolution got confused here, it needed to give elephants faster legs to run away from predators (man in this case), not shorter tusks. Isn’t evolution “always” moving “upward”?

But if elephants can “evolve”, why can’t Jewish boys? Do you want another example? Boxers, the dogs. Their ears and tails are cut when they are born. Why haven’t a single boxer dog born with shorter ears and shorter tails? Where is evolution hiding is these two examples? Enough time and enough generations have passed already for evolution to take over, but it is yet to show up. Remember how fast “evolution” acted with the dark moss in England during the industrial revolution?

Domestication: is this evolution? Isn’t there another word in the dictionary that describes this event better… adaptation perhaps? Maybe there is still a better word than adaptation, but, evolution? Wolves are wolves and dogs are dogs. Are you suggesting wolves evolved into chihuahuas? The way I see it, what we have at hand today are the “end products” of evolution. All present living animals are the end products of their respective line. Not a single animal is evolving before our eyes (please, don’t ask me to wait for thousands of years to see it). The bones of all present living animals of which fossils have been found are the same as the fossils, which points to no changes. Extinct species don’t prove evolution, it means those species disappeared for reasons unknown (unless one is an evolutionist know-all).

Bacteria remains bacteria. There hasn’t been recorded a single instance in which a lesser living creature “evolved” to a higher living creature.

I said Moses, without wanting to write science had it right: life beginning at sea, next birds, then land animals and finally man. In general terms he summarizes how the universe came to be and how life started on Earth. To me, science confirms what Moses said.

And the Big Bang is still a THEORY. Scientists don’t know “why” there was a big bang in the first place, much less what was there before the bang. So as I have said before, you can BELIEVE in this theory or not. You can’t prove it. In the end, the account of scientists as to what really happened in the very beginning is a GUESS. There are other individuals guessing too what did happen, why do I have to BELIEVE one group of GUESSERS (yours) over the other?

My point of view is not theological. Scientists want me to BELIEVE in things that can’t be seen, that can’t be proven, that can’t be reproduced… but since the word BELIEVE is so predominant in these discussions about science, aren’t scientists invading the field of “faith” when they ask me to BELIEVE in things that can’t be seen, proven or reproduced?

 

[Prieldedi]

We agree. Science is not greater than God.

I still don’t understand it.

We have seen speciation in action (where one species evolves into another), determined loosely by the inability for the original species to mate with the evolved species. This has been determined in fruit flies.

It is, however, true that many aspects of evolution cannot be observed in our time-scale. However, I would challenge that none of my work in science can be observed in our time-scale (analgous interactions can be, as with the fruit flies, but not the actual interactions I posit). When we observe molecules in space, and we posit reactions that produce and destroy these molecules, the abundances take hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate, because of the diffuse nature of space. I would also challenge, though, that any historical science cannot be upheld by your criteria: there would be no way to accept that Napoleon attempted conquest of Russia, or that Alexander attempted to conquer India, because none of us have “seen it in action”.

Your criteria is your own; it is just not the criteria scientists themselves use in order to determine what is most likely real. And that’s the whole goal: to determine what is most likely reality. We simply use the best ideas we have at the time.

My third question was:
(3) If no to (2), why not, and would this account contradict evolution? If yes to (2), what would you consider to be sufficient evidence to falsify the creation account (as an example)?

What I am asking here (since you said ‘yes’ to (2)) is what, hypothetically, would falsify the creation account?

Science has explanatory power because it has predictive power. Every scientific theory or claim should be able to make predictions that can be explored. If these predictions are found to be accurate (within a margin of error), then there is verification for that theory. If they are inaccurate, then the test is done again and again. If the result continues to differ from the prediction, then the theory is falsified.

For example, in evolution, if a rabbit fossil were found in the pre-cambrian, this would falsify evolution, and a new, different theory would have to be developed.

If the creation account is a scientific proposition, what could we possibly observe that would falsify it?

Thank you very much for your answers.

I would suggest reading, if you haven’t already, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” by Theodosius Dobzhansky, a Christian.

I have read that, if you take more than the thousand known fruit fly mutations and put them in one single individual, it would still be a fruit fly and not a new species. According to Frances Hitching (The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, 1982), “Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.”

I believe in the history of Alexander and Napoleon because the people living at the time “saw it in action”, told so to their descendants, who in turn told theirs, to the present day. In this case, History “was actually seen by someone.” That’s not the case with evolution. No one has seen it yet.

Granted that we can use the best ideas we have at the time, as long as they are not presented as the only and final explanation.

I believe in God. I believe He created the Universe, but I also believe no one knows how He did it. The explanations presented by science so far make sense, I don’t deny that, but I’m not convinced science has all the answers. Something happened in the distant past when no human beings were around and science is trying to explain it, but it’s still guessing most of the time and I say this with the utmost respect to scientists. That’s why new and different theories are developed, they guessed wrong the first time.

Fossils and strata: It is a fact that in geological formation all of the strata cannot be found in order, and all of it cannot be found out of order either. What you find is pieces of strata here and pieces there. So a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian doesn’t necessarily mean that one theory is falsified. Scientists tell us that the Earth moves and changes, so what was here today, tomorrow can be there. Eruptions, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, all these can explain a fossil out of its “logical” place.

I have not read Theodosius Dobzhansky, a Christian. He believes in evolution, no problem with that, but let me tell you that I know Christians who believe that Jesus was the first Marxist, and they will say that Marxism and Christianity are the same thing. Being a Christian is no guarantee for wisdom.

 

[Prieldedi]

Remember how fast “evolution” acted with the dark moss in England during the industrial revolution?

Correction: It’s the dark moth.

 

[Prieldedi]

If that is the case, then how is your justification of your anti-old radiometric dates any different than mine? I could say the exact same thing back to you. You’re arguing with the 2nd-grade “I know you are, but what am I?” logic.

But you’re lumping all scientists into the category of “those who equate God with evolution”, when there is nothing further than the truth. Similarities between species may not be conclusive evidence that we all come from one common ancestor, but the fact that every single life form on Earth is DNA-based sure is. And the reason theologians haven’t weighed in on it is because it is not a theological question, it is a scientific one. Scientists answer “how” questions, not “why” questions.

If you really want to know the answers to these questions, I suggest you read Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker.” His science is very good, his theology is very bad. If you can sift through the bad theology, you will have a very good picture of how this happens.

Fair enough, but the standards should apply to me as well. As one who works as an earth science professional, I know what I am talking about and how not to trust SOME scientists and their interpretations.

The big to-do was that they said there was something that “might” be the remains of life. As it turned out, it was concluded that it wasn’t the remains of life, hence the media’s complete blackout with regard to the meteorite. The reasonable, common sense scientists were not jumping to conclusions and were working hard in the lab to discover the truth, which, when it came out, no one wanted to hear.

1. No, God is the creator of the natural laws (and therefore, allowed them to be studied through science).
2. It is not. The problem is people equate God with only acting through miracles, and do not see His hand in the natural laws.
3. As above.
4. Again, YOU seem to be equating science and God. Part 2, see question 2 answer.
5. Why can’t SOME non-scientists do the same? Why can’t SOME people believe in God?

Remember the tale of the king and the invisible dress he was wearing? It took a 2nd grader to say he was naked. Adults were admiring the invisible dress. Sometimes 2nd graders’ logic is better than adults’ logic.

DNA proves one common Creator rather than one common ancestor. A ship is made of metal, a spoon is made of metal, both point to a common creator, Man, not a common ancestor.

I still believe it’s a rather convenient position to say scientists don’t answer the “why” questions, but I’ll respect your position on this.

Richard Dawkins can’t answer those questions I asked.

Fair enough your distrust of SOME scientists and their interpretations.

NASA went for weeks saying the remains were from living things: “A two-year investigation by a NASA research team found organic molecules, mineral features characteristic of biological activity and possible microscopic fossils inside of carbonate minerals…” They even identified the fossils as trilobites, I think. My take on this? NASA wanted the funds for a program to go to Mars. Even Hollywood jumped in NASA’s bandwagon releasing three movies about Mars in a span of 3-4 years.

Too bad the common sense scientists don’t speak loud enough to be heard.

Galileo talked about God and nature in the same sentence. Newton did too. We need more like them.

 

[StAnastasia]

I have read that, if you take more than the thousand known fruit fly mutations and put them in one single individual, it would still be a fruit fly and not a new species. According to Frances Hitching (The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, 1982), “Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.”

You simply don’t understand evolutionary theory. No one claims this.

 

[Prieldedi]

You simply don’t understand evolutionary theory. No one claims this.

This is what Astrochemist said:

We have seen speciation in action (where one species evolves into another), determined loosely by the inability for the original species to mate with the evolved species. This has been determined in fruit flies.

My reply was to his comment. Those were the words I quoted from a scientist (not my words, Frances Hitching’s) disclaiming the notion supported by other scientists that the fruit fly evolved into another species. How come you say no one claims that?

What’s so difficult about evolutionary theory that only a few enlightened human beings are capable of understanding it?

What I see again and again is that when someone thinks different, the first thing to do is put across that he/she is a good no-know-nothing… “You simply don’t understand evolutionary theory…”

 

[StAnastasia]

What’s so difficult about evolutionary theory that only a few enlightened human beings are capable of understanding it?

There’s nothing difficult about it. That’s why it’s taught at my sons’ Catholic elementary school!

 

[hugh_miller]

There’s nothing difficult about it. That’s why it’s taught at my sons’ Catholic elementary school!

Teaching evolution as a fact in Catholic schools over millions and billions of years of death to where Adam and Eve finally evolved without a balanced instruction of what the Catholic church fathers all taught is pure unadulterated brain washing.

Regarding radioactive decay rates: They are NOT constant. 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 evolution 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 appears quite preposterous and a fairy tale. As Dr. Marie Claire van Oosterwyck, a leading mineralogist in Europe and lab director in 1975 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. What Madam Oosterwyck knew back in 1975 and her data ignored and her career ended, like all evolutionary believers do, new research in the past 20 years has shown that she was as correct now as she was in 1975. Moses excels while Darwin’s hypothesis declines. **

 

[StAnastasia]

Teaching evolution as a fact in Catholic schools over millions and billions of years of death to where Adam and Eve finally evolved without a balanced instruction of what the Catholic church fathers all taught is pure unadulterated brain washing.]

Hugh Miller, have you studied either science or the philosophy of science? The fact is that species appear to be related and to fall into lineages. The theory explaining this best is evolution by descent with modification from a common ancestor.

StAnastasia

 

[geoformeo]

Thanks for answering my Triceratops question Geo. I’ve read a few nameless articles that have contended that they were too weak to use for fighting or something.

As much as I feel that it seems to be the mascot dinosaur for geeks, I have a thing for horns. They’re second on my list of favorite monster weapons (the first is breathing elemental stuff but that’s dragons now ).

Lost Wanderer,

My pleasure. As much as I love Triceratops, Stegosaurus was always my favorite. I’ve been infatuated with dinosaurs ever since I was a little kid, and I count myself fortunate as having been able to dig them up as an adult. Pretty exhilarating stuff.

 

[geoformeo]

Remember the tale of the king and the invisible dress he was wearing? It took a 2nd grader to say he was naked. Adults were admiring the invisible dress. Sometimes 2nd graders’ logic is better than adults’ logic.

And as I posted to philipp, a 2nd grader would state the obvious that if dinosaurs and man coexisted, men would be eaten and eliminated.

DNA proves one common Creator rather than one common ancestor. A ship is made of metal, a spoon is made of metal, both point to a common creator, Man, not a common ancestor.

I’m afraid that is a poor analogy. The metal in both a ship and a spoon was originally mined from a rock before it was molded by a human. Hence, the rock is their common ancestor.

I still believe it’s a rather convenient position to say scientists don’t answer the “why” questions, but I’ll respect your position on this.

It’s not a convenient position, it is the only position that science holds. Ironically, it is people with your worldview (that believe that science can answer the “why” questions) that actually give credibility to the atheistic theologies of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and the like. Those who understand that science has no absolute purview in “why” questions are able to see the atheistic positions as philosophies and theological garbage.

Richard Dawkins can’t answer those questions I asked.

Just because the man is inept in theology does not mean he is inept in his area of expertise.

NASA went for weeks saying the remains were from living things: “A two-year investigation by a NASA research team found organic molecules, mineral features characteristic of biological activity and possible microscopic fossils inside of carbonate minerals…” They even identified the fossils as trilobites, I think. My take on this? NASA wanted the funds for a program to go to Mars. Even Hollywood jumped in NASA’s bandwagon releasing three movies about Mars in a span of 3-4 years.

I can guarantee you they did not identify the fossils as trilobites. Trilobites were not microscopic organisms.

Too bad the common sense scientists don’t speak loud enough to be heard.

Galileo talked about God and nature in the same sentence. Newton did too. We need more like them.

Ever heard of media bias? 300,000+ people at this year’s March for Life in DC and no secular media coverage. Common sense scientists don’t get heard because they are not controversial enough, or not in line with what the liberal, atheistic media wants them to find. Hence the complete blackout when it was revealed the molecules were not of biological origin.

Scientists aren’t afraid to use God and nature in the same sentence. We are just hesitant to credit everything unknown to His miraculous supernatural intervention.

 

[Astrochemist]

Definition: To speciate (to become a new species; for a sexually reproducing species): A sufficiently large part of a group that once could procreate with any other sufficiently large part of the group changing genetically to the point where that part can no longer procreate with every other sufficiently large part of the group.

Fruit flies speciate. This is a measured and undeniable fact.

The new species of fruit fly that arises from evolution is justifiably called “fruit fly”. This is why even the most stringent special creationist, even the author you quoted, does not deny that new species evolve. They rather qualify that there are groups of living things called “kinds”, which are broader than species, and that no kind of plant or animal has ever evolved into any other kind of plant or animal.

However, for the other implications about evolution, I will refrain from responding; it has been made clear to me by a moderator that this is a banned topic.

 

[geoformeo]

I said Moses, without wanting to write science had it right: life beginning at sea, next birds, then land animals and finally man. In general terms he summarizes how the universe came to be and how life started on Earth. To me, science confirms what Moses said.

I forgot to respond to this in my previous post. Actually, this is only 3/4 accurate according to the fossil record. Birds (or any other winged animals outside of bugs) did not evolve until the Jurassic Period (~205-142 million years ago), a couple hundred million years after amphibians began to inhabit the land. But the sea critters, land animals, and man sequence is correct.

 

[hugh_miller]

Hugh Miller, have you studied either science or the philosophy of science? The fact is that species appear to be related and to fall into lineages. The theory explaining this best is evolution by descent with modification from a common ancestor.

StAnastasia

I have a BS in chemistry from a major university and post graduate courses in nuclear physics, radiochemistry and spectroscopic analysis with even laboratory analytical work in the US Army and 18 very active research years in a major research facililty. My expertise is in electrochemistry including metallic and organic coatings with a yen for paleontology, paleochronology and history. I’ve had much field experience on dinosaur excavations and much lab research with 10 plus technical papers in both areas. It is my background in coatings that led me to arrange for the study of those dark coatings on many dinosaur bones that turned out to contain 2-7 % carbon content possibly from the results of asteroid impacts; the black surfaces could be the decay products of their flesh etc - the coatings were NOT from protective preservative organic coatings which is put on large bones and give carbon content in the range of 17 to 35 % carbon depending on whether one or two coats are applied.

I also attended a minor seminary and have studied the works of the church fathers in later life so I thus believe I’m in a position to critique the declining evolutionary hypothesis from theological, philosophical and scientific perspectives. My main point which proponents of evolution seem to avoid except for an occasional “remark from authority” is that those millions and billions of years needed for evolution from a common ancestor to have occurred don’t seem to exist! If you grasp that argument then what on earth does similarities between species have anything to do with proof for evolution of life from a common ancestor particularly if those gega years don’t exist. **“Abrupt Appearance” of all life forms is a far superior hypothesis of origins and our children in Catholic Schools have a right to know the evidence for that scientific hypothesis and compare it with the hypothesis of evolution from a common ancestor. It is no wonder that our youth are losing their faith soon after they leave Catholic schools. They are NOT prepared to the more intense brain washing they could be subjected to in college. **

 

[Astrochemist]

Regardless of whether evolution is true or false (a banned topic), the age of the universe and of the earth appears to be on the order of billions of years.

Radio-carbon dating will not produce accurate results for anything older than 100,000 years. Attempting to date such objects will end with inaccurate results, because of radio-isotope fluctuations and because of alternate mechanisms of production of C-14 (see Libby 1970; Spitzer 1978). These cannot be accounted for using standard radio-dating techniques, because these techniques function analogously to chemical rate methods, which break down due to fluctuations at the limit of small abundances. A stochastic method can be applied, including other production and destruction reactions for C-14, and this will accurately date millions-of-year-old fossils by a lower limit (typically you get ranges of “older than 150,000 years”, etc.).

Carbon-14 is likely observed in space (in IRC +10216); this does not mean that IRC +10216 is five thousand years old.

The context is off.

 

[StAnastasia]

Hugh Miller, the evolutionary hypothesis is not declining; in fact it has only been strengthened year by year since 1859. Hence its acceptance by both biologists and theologians, except for the disgruntled few.

There is no evidence supporting the hypothesis that all life forms appeared abruptly as if created in six days a few thousand years ago. That’s why Catholic schools don’t teach it as “science,” which it is not. It’s fine to teach the theology of the creation story in religion class, or to teach creation stories from around the world in comparative literature classes.

One problem with “young earth creationism” is that it can lead people to atheism. Children who are taught that we must interpret Genesis literally, and who then learn when they get to high school or college that they have been hoodwinked by their religion teachers, are more likely to abandon their faith than are children who are taught scientific truth and a sophisticated hermeneutic from their earliest years.

StAnastasia

I also attended a minor seminary and have studied the works of the church fathers in later life so I thus believe I’m in a position to critique the declining evolutionary hypothesis from theological, philosophical and scientific perspectives. … **“Abrupt Appearance” of all life forms is a far superior hypothesis of origins and our children in Catholic Schools have a right to know the evidence for that scientific hypothesis and compare it with the hypothesis of evolution from a common ancestor. It is no wonder that our youth are losing their faith soon after they leave Catholic schools. They are NOT prepared to the more intense brain washing they could be subjected to in college. **

 

[Bear_Claw]

Here’s some humour injected into this thread