K
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.
M
MLowe75
Guest
That is somewhat of a false analogy. Classical music is judged by
standards of beauty, not standards of truth. You cannot say Beethoven’s 5th
is false. It is not a claim, much less an argument, still nothing like a
theory. You can say the claim that the world was created less than 10,000
years ago is true or false. I say it again, the most vocal proponents of
evolution, since its inception, have been atheists or at least agnostics
who have discernible animosity toward religion. My goodness, you don’t
have to look beyond the Huxley’s to see this obvious fact.
standards of beauty, not standards of truth. You cannot say Beethoven’s 5th
is false. It is not a claim, much less an argument, still nothing like a
theory. You can say the claim that the world was created less than 10,000
years ago is true or false. I say it again, the most vocal proponents of
evolution, since its inception, have been atheists or at least agnostics
who have discernible animosity toward religion. My goodness, you don’t
have to look beyond the Huxley’s to see this obvious fact.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
The term aboriginal is more generic. We also use it in Canada to refer collectively to First Nations, Inuit, and Metis peoples.
L
LittleFlower
Guest
Yes, I know. In the context I was used it in, it is clear who I am referring to.
Unsure why @MLowe75 thinks the term is wrong, when clearly it isn’t.
In Australia, the word Aborigine is somewhat outdated.
Unsure why @MLowe75 thinks the term is wrong, when clearly it isn’t.
In Australia, the word Aborigine is somewhat outdated.
H
Hope_Philomena
Guest
You entirely missed the point, nice one
T
TK421
Guest
The reason some Catholics have a negative view of Young Earth Creationism is because they believe it is harmful, which I agree with.
I was born in an evangelical family and I can remember around the age of 10 watching propaganda videos at church camp about why evolution was was a hoax and that science supported a young earth. I was young, porous, inexperienced, and I trusted them.
Eventually my views were corrected, but there was a maze that had to be navigated first. Understanding the world through a scientifically accurate view; recognizing the huge holes in Youth Creationism, and most importantly: coming to accept that I didn’t have to trade my faith in order to think like a modern, analytical human being.
I always liked life. I think I might have studied biology in some way: maybe being an entomologist or even gone into medicine. But as a teenager/young adult, there was tension in that area because of how I was taught at a young age. I was also pretty enthusiastic when it came to scripture and Christianity too, so I wasn’t like some people who could just put it on the back burner and then do whatever seemed interesting to them. I felt paralyzed and conflicted. Unraveling it both emotionally and intellectually took time to reach the tranquility that I have now, and incidentally, I also ended up in the Catholic Church in the process.
So yeah, I kind of feel like my life was in some way sabotaged by fighting a battle that some people never have to fight. Who are given all the right tools from day 1. There is a temptation of bitterness here. If I had been raised in a different family under different circumstances I could have been unified body, mind, and soul at an early age, and I feel like I could have achieved who-knows-what. But, by conventional measures, I am still more fortunate than 90% of the planet, and God put me where I was for a reason and I just have to accept that and make the best of it.
But I find nothing innocent about YEC. It violated me.
I was born in an evangelical family and I can remember around the age of 10 watching propaganda videos at church camp about why evolution was was a hoax and that science supported a young earth. I was young, porous, inexperienced, and I trusted them.
Eventually my views were corrected, but there was a maze that had to be navigated first. Understanding the world through a scientifically accurate view; recognizing the huge holes in Youth Creationism, and most importantly: coming to accept that I didn’t have to trade my faith in order to think like a modern, analytical human being.
I always liked life. I think I might have studied biology in some way: maybe being an entomologist or even gone into medicine. But as a teenager/young adult, there was tension in that area because of how I was taught at a young age. I was also pretty enthusiastic when it came to scripture and Christianity too, so I wasn’t like some people who could just put it on the back burner and then do whatever seemed interesting to them. I felt paralyzed and conflicted. Unraveling it both emotionally and intellectually took time to reach the tranquility that I have now, and incidentally, I also ended up in the Catholic Church in the process.
So yeah, I kind of feel like my life was in some way sabotaged by fighting a battle that some people never have to fight. Who are given all the right tools from day 1. There is a temptation of bitterness here. If I had been raised in a different family under different circumstances I could have been unified body, mind, and soul at an early age, and I feel like I could have achieved who-knows-what. But, by conventional measures, I am still more fortunate than 90% of the planet, and God put me where I was for a reason and I just have to accept that and make the best of it.
But I find nothing innocent about YEC. It violated me.
Last edited:
M
MLowe75
Guest
Yes, and there is uranium-lead, uranium-helium, rubidium-strontium, all of
which are used solely upon volcanic rocks.
None of which make up the geological column (they are sedimentary rocks).
That column invented by Charles Lyell in the 1800’s, without the aid of any
of these techniques.
Does this sound scientific to you?
Also, Lyell “estimated” the age of the end of the Cretaceous Period, to be
80 million years ago. And when geologists use radiometric dating, they are
often presented with a host of data points, which are “harmonized” when
they are “discordant.”
Question: When radiometric methods were first used, and these discordant
dates were shown to exist, by what standard were they ‘harmonized’? I mean
to say, how were they thought to be discordant in the first place, if no
scientific method had existed to verify them?
As it stands, the end of the Cretaceous Period has been dated to 65-70
mya. Using radiometric dating methods.
So one of two things is true: a) Charles Lyell is extremely lucky, or b)
Geologists started the dating process with a bias to validate existing
theories of an old earth proposed by natural philosophers like Charles
Lyell, and popularized by the most notable natural philosopher Charles
Darwin.
which are used solely upon volcanic rocks.
None of which make up the geological column (they are sedimentary rocks).
That column invented by Charles Lyell in the 1800’s, without the aid of any
of these techniques.
Does this sound scientific to you?
Also, Lyell “estimated” the age of the end of the Cretaceous Period, to be
80 million years ago. And when geologists use radiometric dating, they are
often presented with a host of data points, which are “harmonized” when
they are “discordant.”
Question: When radiometric methods were first used, and these discordant
dates were shown to exist, by what standard were they ‘harmonized’? I mean
to say, how were they thought to be discordant in the first place, if no
scientific method had existed to verify them?
As it stands, the end of the Cretaceous Period has been dated to 65-70
mya. Using radiometric dating methods.
So one of two things is true: a) Charles Lyell is extremely lucky, or b)
Geologists started the dating process with a bias to validate existing
theories of an old earth proposed by natural philosophers like Charles
Lyell, and popularized by the most notable natural philosopher Charles
Darwin.
Last edited:
H
Hope_Philomena
Guest
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html
Read this and get back to me.
These are textbook arguments you’ve got here… At least come up with something that I can’t prove you wrong about in less than five minutes.
Read this and get back to me.
These are textbook arguments you’ve got here… At least come up with something that I can’t prove you wrong about in less than five minutes.
M
MLowe75
Guest
Okay, I just want to reiterate - the Church does not say Catholics have to
believe in a) evolution or b) an old earth.
Do you agree with this?
I am very familiar with talk origins. While reading a book by Richard
Milton I attempted to fact check some of his more dubious claims, and also
reviewed a debate he had with Foley on Java Man. That was back when I had
a ton of time in college. Now I don’t have a ton of time. Instead of just
throwing down a link and claiming victory, can you please present the
article for me in set of claims, if not full blown arguments, so that a) I
know you’re not just throwing down links to overwhelm me, and b) so we can
have an actual discussion.
Also, I use the term “victory” with a bit of sad sarcasm. I am not your
enemy. If it is possible, I would rather you view this discussion as a
well-intentioned search for truth. If you truly want to persuade me, it
does not help to talk down to me. If anything it, it hamstrings your
arguments as they are outweighed by vitriol rather than respectful
dialogue. I think a few people have already made remarks about the tone
here.
But again, I truly believe the Catholic Church should be of all
organizations one that allows for respectful disagreement on matters that
are not essential to salvation. When pressed, I will point out the
terrible intellectual blunders that result from evolution, but I will never
try to directly shame another Catholic for believing in evolution or an old
earth.
believe in a) evolution or b) an old earth.
Do you agree with this?
I am very familiar with talk origins. While reading a book by Richard
Milton I attempted to fact check some of his more dubious claims, and also
reviewed a debate he had with Foley on Java Man. That was back when I had
a ton of time in college. Now I don’t have a ton of time. Instead of just
throwing down a link and claiming victory, can you please present the
article for me in set of claims, if not full blown arguments, so that a) I
know you’re not just throwing down links to overwhelm me, and b) so we can
have an actual discussion.
Also, I use the term “victory” with a bit of sad sarcasm. I am not your
enemy. If it is possible, I would rather you view this discussion as a
well-intentioned search for truth. If you truly want to persuade me, it
does not help to talk down to me. If anything it, it hamstrings your
arguments as they are outweighed by vitriol rather than respectful
dialogue. I think a few people have already made remarks about the tone
here.
But again, I truly believe the Catholic Church should be of all
organizations one that allows for respectful disagreement on matters that
are not essential to salvation. When pressed, I will point out the
terrible intellectual blunders that result from evolution, but I will never
try to directly shame another Catholic for believing in evolution or an old
earth.
Last edited:
H
Hope_Philomena
Guest
No, and here’s why.Now I don’t have a ton of time. Instead of just
throwing down a link and claiming victory, can you please present the
article for me in set of claims, if not full blown arguments, so that a) I
know you’re not just throwing down links to overwhelm me, and b) so we can
have an actual discussion.
I will not speak on a subject in great detail when I am not as knowledgeable on the subject. It would do more justice to the argument to leave the explanation to the actual knowledgeable people; hence I gave you a very detailed explanation that I briefly looked over. You claim you’re knowledgeable in the subject so it’d be better for you to look at a knowledgeable response.
Yes. I’ve already replied to this portion of your original question and you did not respond. It is right here. Please don’t attempt moral superiority; I’m not superior to you, you’re not superior to me. We are both equally wonderful and sinful people just having an argument on a Catholic forum.Okay, I just want to reiterate - the Church does not say Catholics have to
believe in a) evolution or b) an old earth.
Do you agree with this?
But again, I truly believe the Catholic Church should be of all
organizations one that allows for respectful disagreement on matters that
are not essential to salvation. When pressed, I will point out the
terrible intellectual blunders that result from evolution, but I will never
try to directly shame another Catholic for believing in evolution or an old
earth.
R
rossum
Guest
Correct. There are other similar methods as well, all suitable for most volcanic rocks.Yes, and there is uranium-lead, uranium-helium, rubidium-strontium, all of which are used solely upon volcanic rocks
The geological column includes both sedimentary and volcanic rocks. For example, the rocks round Mount Vesuvius include deposits from the volcano as well as the usual sedimentary rocks.None of which make up the geological column (they are sedimentary rocks).
It was earlier than that. The basic idea goes back to Nicholas Steno (1638-1686) and has been developed since then. Lyell was more responsible for developing the idea of deep time, along with Hutton.That column invented by Charles Lyell in the 1800’s, without the aid of any of these techniques.
rossum
G
goout
Guest
The “geological column” wasn’t invented by Lyell.That column invented by Charles Lyell in the 1800’s, without the aid of any
of these techniques.
The column is a graphic demonstration of observed evidence that anyone and everyone should be able to see. Lydell isn’t “lucky” because he wasn’t gambling, he was using basic vanilla scientific procedures based on observed data. He didn’t invent the data either, so…
Dating methods back it up, because…he and others did good science, not because scientists want to fool billions of people.
No serious scientist, Catholic or otherwise, refutes this basic earth science.
That should give you pause to think.
Last edited:
M
MLowe75
Guest
Can you please tell me what dating technique Charles Lyell used to date the
end of the Cretaceous Period to 1800 years?
end of the Cretaceous Period to 1800 years?
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
He didn’t. Lyell lived in the 1800s, (1797-1875).Can you please tell me what dating technique Charles Lyell used to date the end of the Cretaceous Period to 1800 years?
rossum
G
goout
Guest
Better yet, maybe you could do some background reading.
I don’t want to sound insulting, but a basic 100 level geology course can clear a lot of this up for you.
I don’t want to sound insulting, but a basic 100 level geology course can clear a lot of this up for you.
M
MLowe75
Guest
That’s a typo, should read, “Can you please tell me what dating technique
Charles Lyell used to date the end of the Cretaceous Period to 80 mya?”
Radiometric dating wasn’t around back then. How did he do it.
Charles Lyell used to date the end of the Cretaceous Period to 80 mya?”
Radiometric dating wasn’t around back then. How did he do it.
Last edited:
M
MLowe75
Guest
A basic level geology course cannot address the problems with radiometric
dating. It will not address them. Take, for example, the wide ranges of
dates assigned to the KBS Tuff on the heels of Leakey’s discoveries of
hominids. Would a 100 level course examine how Fitch and colleagues from
Cambridge originally dated the KBS Tuff to 2.6 million years old, refined
their date in 1976 to 2.42 million years old, disputed with the findings of
Curtis at Berkeley who dated the same rocks to 1.6 million years old, and
finally admitted they had a “scatter” of 0.5 to 2.4 millions years.
Fitch’s argument was that his “scatter” was less than Curtis’, which ranged
from 1.5 to 6.9 million years. Would a 100 level geology course discuss
how exactly a date of 2.4 million years was originally chosen given all
these facts? Would a 100 level geology course answer the following basic
question: It seems very clear that scientists arrive at a final date by
selecting rocks they think are the right age and throwing away samples that
seem wrong.
How do scientists know in advance which are the right rocks and which are
the wrong rocks to use?
My own personal guess, after years of researching this topic, and simply
applying rules of logic and common sense, is that scientists are human and
they have biases. And in the field of geology, there is pressure to
present findings that confirm a uniformitarian, old earth, evolutionist
world view.
dating. It will not address them. Take, for example, the wide ranges of
dates assigned to the KBS Tuff on the heels of Leakey’s discoveries of
hominids. Would a 100 level course examine how Fitch and colleagues from
Cambridge originally dated the KBS Tuff to 2.6 million years old, refined
their date in 1976 to 2.42 million years old, disputed with the findings of
Curtis at Berkeley who dated the same rocks to 1.6 million years old, and
finally admitted they had a “scatter” of 0.5 to 2.4 millions years.
Fitch’s argument was that his “scatter” was less than Curtis’, which ranged
from 1.5 to 6.9 million years. Would a 100 level geology course discuss
how exactly a date of 2.4 million years was originally chosen given all
these facts? Would a 100 level geology course answer the following basic
question: It seems very clear that scientists arrive at a final date by
selecting rocks they think are the right age and throwing away samples that
seem wrong.
How do scientists know in advance which are the right rocks and which are
the wrong rocks to use?
My own personal guess, after years of researching this topic, and simply
applying rules of logic and common sense, is that scientists are human and
they have biases. And in the field of geology, there is pressure to
present findings that confirm a uniformitarian, old earth, evolutionist
world view.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
He didn’t have an exact technique. All he had was relative dating, which goes back to Steno, and estimation. He looked at observed rates of present geological change and use those present rates to estimate how long it would have taken observed geological formation to build up.That’s a typo, should read, “Can you please tell me what dating technique
Charles Lyell used to date the end of the Cretaceous Period to 80 mya?”
Radiometric dating wasn’t around back then. How did he do it.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
By testing rocks of known dates to see if the methods work correctly. For example, Dalrymple’s work on Hawaiian pillow lavas showed that pillow lavas are not suitable for K-Ar dating. See Argon-40: excess in submarine pillow basalts from kilauea volcano, hawaii.How do scientists know in advance which are the right rocks and which are the wrong rocks to use?
rossum
M
MLowe75
Guest
So let me make sure I understand. Lyell wasn’t simply guessing, he was
estimating, based on relative dating and rates of geological change - but
he didn’t have an exact technique, as you say.
When something is measured without an exact technique, I believe that is
called guessing.
Prior to radiometric dating, relative dating was used to say one thing was
older than another. By dating the end of the Cretaceous Period to 80 mya,
Charles Lyell was making claims beyond his ability to do so accurately,
without any “exact technique” as you write.
Relative dating can only determine the sequential order of things, not
their respective ages.
Again, I find it incredible that present methods of radiometric dating
basically confirm this man’s guess, when he had no accurate way of making
it. It seems very odd to me that scientists are today able to discard
certain rock samples because they do not fit into preconceived notions
about the layers where they were found.
estimating, based on relative dating and rates of geological change - but
he didn’t have an exact technique, as you say.
When something is measured without an exact technique, I believe that is
called guessing.
Prior to radiometric dating, relative dating was used to say one thing was
older than another. By dating the end of the Cretaceous Period to 80 mya,
Charles Lyell was making claims beyond his ability to do so accurately,
without any “exact technique” as you write.
Relative dating can only determine the sequential order of things, not
their respective ages.
Again, I find it incredible that present methods of radiometric dating
basically confirm this man’s guess, when he had no accurate way of making
it. It seems very odd to me that scientists are today able to discard
certain rock samples because they do not fit into preconceived notions
about the layers where they were found.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.