Liberal Pell and Apostate Dawkins discuss evolution.

Started by Xavier, June 27, 2018, 12:39:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Kephapaulos

Quote from: Matto on June 28, 2018, 02:29:33 PM
I think evolution is important but I do not worry about it much anymore. I once worried more. But I don't think anyone who believes in it cares what I think. But for some reason growing up irreligious I never really believed in evolution that strongly (I was actually once told that my not really believing in evolution even though I was taught it is school and by our society was a signal grace). And when I became a traditional Catholic it was very easy to believe the story of Adam and Eve was true and not just say it was a symbolic fable that didn't really happen or (which I find to be worse) to try to mix the two theories and try to imagine that Adam and Eve evolved from monkeys and after their evolution was complete God infused human souls into them, etc. etc. etc. I guess since I agree with Xavier I am a whacko, but I don't mind being in his company.

Count me in too!

Prayerful

St Augustine tended towards an allegorical reading of the OT. It isn't rank Modernism to hold it as having something far beyond any literal meaning. Ven Pius XII rightly condemned the evolutionary understanding of Catholic Truth, but distinguished it from the Theory of Evolution, which can be taken by a Catholic as a possible understanding provided that God's role is not removed.

Quote
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

taken from the English translation of the 1950 Vatican Encyclical Humani Generis
Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.

LausTibiChriste

Lord Jesus Christ, Son Of God, Have Mercy On Me A Sinner

"Nobody is under any moral obligation of duty or loyalty to a state run by sexual perverts who are trying to destroy public morals."
- MaximGun

"Not trusting your government doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, it means you're a history buff"

Communism is as American as Apple Pie

Vetus Ordo

DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

LausTibiChriste

Lord Jesus Christ, Son Of God, Have Mercy On Me A Sinner

"Nobody is under any moral obligation of duty or loyalty to a state run by sexual perverts who are trying to destroy public morals."
- MaximGun

"Not trusting your government doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, it means you're a history buff"

Communism is as American as Apple Pie

Mono no aware

#35
I should also add that Vetus Ordo, who I've lauded overmuch on these forums, is nevertheless a shining example of the imperturbable calm I was talking about.  A true determinist, he rarely if ever gets suckered into "flame wars" and typically responds to things with the driest of humor.  A one-word response: "enlightening."  And now it is my turn to resort to profanity: effing genius.


Greg

Quote from: Xavier on June 29, 2018, 12:12:47 PM

3. So the evolutionists fail to show the earth is more than 100,000 years old, something already practically falsified by the discovery of C14, collagen, soft tissue, bone marrow, white blood cells and other such things in fossils alleged to be 65-500 million years old. One doesn't need to know much about decay rates to know the evolutionists are not seriously engaging with the ramifications of these discoveries for their theory: http://kolbecenter.org/question-of-time/

"For example, Carbon 14 is an isotope formed by the radioactive decay of carbon atoms, which is not supposed to be detectable in organic material older than about 50,000 to 60,000 years because of its short half life. However, it is often found in materials dated by other methods to be millions of years old, including petroleum, coal, wood, and bone, and has even been detected in diamonds otherwise dated at billions of years of age.


Clearly neither you nor the Kolbe Centre paid attention in science classes.

Carbon 14 is not formed like that you dimwit.

How can an isotope that has decayed have a greater atomic mass than Carbon 12?  When it decays it loses mass. Either a little or a lot but it never gains or it would not be decay.  You are speaking about and copy/pasting processes you don't even understand at a basic level.

You embarass thinking Catholics with your home school pseudo science.  Please learn the periodic table you dummy.  Or shut up with your bullshit science.

You throw out terms like Carbon 14 without even understanding what 14 means in the name.  Because if you did understand it you would immediately understand what Carbon 12 was too and Nitrogen (otherwise known as air) and realise that the above was written by an idiot because it was logically impossible.  Decaying stuff does not gain mass.  Ever. 

I knew this shit age 13 to 14.  You don't know it at 29.  And I didn't have Google to fact check in 1983.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-141.htm
Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

Greg

Explain again how rams' bladders may be used in the prevention of earthquakes.

Well my Liege...

Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

Greg

Here.  Watch this.  It is pretty darned simple to understand.



The Kolbe Centre should have a scientist read their screeds before publishing.

And you should read and think before reposting. If you haven't fact checked don't post. Or your credibility is kaput.

You suggest to the reader that you don't give a rats about the truth as long as they subscribe to your view of the world.
Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: Xavier on June 29, 2018, 12:12:47 PM
(...)

Xavier, I understand you're pursuing the priesthood.

Since you have a keen interest in the overal theme of Evolution and Creation, and whilst I admire and sympathise with stances such as yours, I think it would be wiser if you should take some time to read more in depth about the evolutionary perspective from their own side of the aisle. Since you are to assume a public role in the Church in the future, I believe it's fitting that you should have a more balanced view of things. For your own intellectual sake and your future congregation's.

These frequently asked questions are a good starting point for an overall view of some common objections to Evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

This one is particularly good because it goes in depth about actual evidence for common descent and macroevolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

QuoteEvolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

Xavier

#40
Your vulgar mouth revealing your filthy mind aside, Greg, you once again misrepresent the argument completely despite being corrected on it once before. Why don't you start with the first point above, the highly professional paper from Science vs Evolution that mentions why C14 still being present in dinosaur bones is a definitive falsification of evolution? You admitted once this is an unexpected result for evolution. Now, you confuse the issue and confuse yourself once more.

Quote from: Xavier on June 18, 2018, 07:54:20 AM
Quote from: GregC14 in dinosaur bones is another topic entirely that you only just raised.  And I agree, that any sort of once living tissue from any kind of organism should not last 65 million years underground, overground or even wombling free.  Not even close.   Evolutionists need to explain this

Well said. And I commend you for the sincerity and honesty of that admission.

I also like good arguments, and should it be that I've made an erroneous one, I'd like honest feedback on it, so that I can correct it in the future. But I think we both agree: this particular demonstration is quite solid.

I'm not a utilitarian. I believe as St. Paul says that we cannot do evil that good may come out of it; so that we cannot use the evil means of telling even a small lie, even if through that the good end of saving a soul could be accomplished. That is Catholic doctrine.

1. We are talking about C14 remaining in living organisms, in fossils buried deep in the ground, and remaining in rocks alleged to be billions of years old that have no contact with the surface. Like soft tissue, blood, hemoglobin and white blood cells, no C14 should be remaining (some intake of C14 occurs throughout the organisms life, but none after that, this is what allows an estimate of when that organism died) if that organism really died and was buried 65 or even 500 million years ago. Soft tissue has been found in organisms dated to "500 million years" by potassium argon dating, which is erroneous for the reason explained in point 2.

Here are the scientific facts, and the two chemical equations of interest: Every Carbon atom has 6 protons; there are three naturally occurring carbon isotopes, that have 6,7 and 8 neutrons respectively. The most common form of Carbon has 6 neutrons, in the scientific literature it is referred to by convention as 12C6 to distinguish it from 14C6 which has 8. The form here is (n+p)X(p) so that the number of neutrons is represented as the difference between the superscript and subscript. 13C6 is relatively irrelevant. 14C6 or C14 is unstable, is formed by atmospheric conversion as follows - n(neutron)+14N7=>14C6+p(proton)

2. The second reaction of interest is also called radioactive beta decay: Here 14C6 =>14N7+e(emitting an electron). This is the reaction that takes place with a half life of 5730 years. Again, Living organisms have a stable ratio of C12/C14 for as long as they live. It is only after they die that beta decay begins to take place. This is what allows us to estimate when the organism died. Try to get this through your skull before setting up the same strawman again. This is absolutely non-controversial, even the evolutionists do not deny animals that are really 65 million years old should have none of the C14 that was in them when they were alive still remaining within them.

"Archeologists and geologists use half-life to date the age of organic objects in a process known as carbon dating. During beta decay, carbon 14 becomes nitrogen 14. At the time of death organisms stop producing carbon 14. Since half life is a constant, the ratio of carbon 14 to nitrogen 14 provides a measurement of the age of a sample." https://atomic.lindahall.org/what-is-meant-by-half-life.html

Finally, I doubt I've made 40 posts about evolution in all, I only began to devote attention to it recently. And yes, Vetus Ordo, I will continue to read more about it. I care about what makes my traditional Catholic friends lapse from faith and practice, and put their souls in danger of eternal loss. Mr. Dawkins claims evolution has finally made it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist". I doubt many of us know atheists who are not also evolutionists. All, therefore, who take the duty of combating the error of atheism seriously should exercise a healthy skepticism about evolution and its fallacious claims.

A brief article from the Institute for Creation Research developing demonstration 3 above in some more detail with some facts and figures. http://www.icr.org/article/rethinking-carbon-14-dating-what-does/

Quote14C actually presents a serious problem for believers in an old earth. 14C has been detected in organic specimens (coal, wood, seashells, etc., containing carbon from formerly living organisms) that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old—but no detectable 14C should be present in specimens that are even a little more than 100,000 years old! Nearly anyone can verify this for themselves using basic multiplication and division.

Radiocarbon Basics

Carbon comes in three "varieties" or isotopes: 12C, 13C, and 14C. Any carbon atom has six protons within its nucleus, but the different isotopes have different numbers of neutrons. In today's world, only about one in a trillion carbon atoms is a 14C atom.

Cosmic rays (mainly high-energy protons) trigger a process in the atmosphere that changes atmospheric nitrogen into 14C. However, unlike the other two carbon isotopes, 14C is unstable and eventually decays back into nitrogen. The decay rate can be measured for a large number of these 14C atoms. Since this decay process slows as the number of 14C atoms decreases, it may be expressed best in terms of a half-life, which is the amount of time for half of any given sample of 14C to decay back into nitrogen. Thus, after one half-life, 50 percent of the original 14C atoms will remain. After two half-lives, 25 percent of the original 14C will remain, and so on. Today's measured half-life of 14C is 5,730 years.

Because carbon is expected to be thoroughly mixed throughout the biosphere, atmosphere, and oceans, living organisms (which continually "take in" carbon throughout their lifetimes) are expected to have the same 14C/C ratio as the environment, or about one 14C atom per trillion carbon atoms. Once they die, however, organisms no longer take in new carbon, and the amount of 14C in their bodies begins to decrease.

In principle, this decay rate may be used to "date" the time since an organism's death. But the calculated dates will only be accurate if the assumptions behind the method are correct.

Smallest Detectable Amount of Radiocarbon

Sensitive instruments called acceleration mass spectrometers (AMS) are used to count the 14C atoms within a sample of material. However, even the most sensitive AMS machines cannot detect fewer than one 14C atom per 100,000 trillion carbon atoms.1 Since the amount of 14C in a sample decreases with time, no radiocarbon at all should be detectable if the sample is sufficiently old.

The concentration of 14C (the number of 14C atoms per total number of carbon atoms) within a sample is indicated using a "percent of the 14C/C ratio in modern carbon," or pMC notation. If a sample has one 14C atom per trillion carbon atoms, we would say that its concentration of 14C is 100 pMC, since this is 100 percent of the modern 14C/C ratio (one 14C atom per trillion carbon atoms). Likewise, one 14C atom per two trillion carbon atoms would be equivalent to 50 pMC.

Since one 14C atom per trillion carbon atoms is equivalent to 100 pMC, then one 14C atom per 100,000 trillion carbon atoms is equivalent to 100 pMC/100,000 = 0.001 pMC. No instrument on earth can detect 14C in a sample whose 14C/C ratio is less than 0.001 pMC.2

Assuming the initial value was 100 pMC, how much time will have transpired before the 14C/C ratio in a sample drops below 0.001 pMC?

One can estimate this time by dividing 100 pMC by 2 repeatedly until the resulting number drops below 0.001 pMC. We find that about 18 such halvings are required for the pMC value to drop below 0.001 (Figures 1 and 2). (We could "round up" the value of 0.0007 pMC at 17 half-lives to 0.001 pMC, but the 0.00038 pMC at 18 half-lives is definitely below the detection threshold.) Since each half-life is 5,730 years, this means that no 14C at all would be detectable in a specimen that is older than about 18 × 5,730 years = 103,140 years.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: Xavier on July 12, 2018, 06:50:39 AMFinally, I doubt I've made 40 posts about evolution in all, I only began to devote attention to it recently. And yes, Vetus Ordo, I will continue to read more about it. I care about what makes my traditional Catholic friends lapse from faith and practice, and put their souls in danger of eternal loss. Mr. Dawkins claims evolution has finally made it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist". I doubt many of us know atheists who are not also evolutionists. All, therefore, who take the duty of combating the error of atheism seriously should exercise a healthy skepticism about evolution and its fallacious claims.

Fair enough.

Evolutionary science is a huge topic with a lot of nuances. I just wanted to advise you to look at both sides of the coin. It's always healthier.

It is true that modern atheists do consider Evolution as a supportive thesis of their worldview but Evolution, in and by itself, does not necessitate an atheistic universe.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

Xavier

And how do you square evolution with original sin. Dawkins and his impious ilk love evolution because it gives them reason to attack Christianity at its very roots and foundations. If there is no original sin, there is no need for a Redeemer, and they think they have proved Jesus then died for nothing. You know as well I do, Vetus, that most evolutionists do not believe there are two parents of the whole human race, though independent evidence proves it is. Evolution is also invented to deny the supernatural power of God in creating man by the breath of His Spirit, without needing to wait for a chimp to give birth. Were baby Eve and baby Adam brought up by monkeys? Sounds like Jungle Book, doesn't it. As if to prove evolutionists can sink into still greater depths of blindness and depravity, an evolutionist wrote, allegedly millions of years ago, "at this time the world really was the Planet of the Apes".
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: Xavier on July 12, 2018, 09:11:40 AM
And how do you square evolution with original sin.

Not an easy task at face value, to be sure.

But before you fully embrace these theological tensions, it's better to have a proper and mature grasp of evolutionary science itself, not just its criticisms. Perhaps I'm misreading you but I have a distinct impression of utter urgency when I read your posts. A laudable zeal but it can quickly backfire.

Take your time. Pray. Mature.

You won't be solving anything concerning the dichotomies of evolutionary and creationist models (including ID) in the coming years, I can assure you.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

Xavier

#44
Urgency, yes, not in a few years, no. But in a few decades, we Christians can do it if we work together with single-minded focus to overthrown this heresy. If we desire to see Christianity triumph again over the new paganism in the west, Vetus, we need to stop treating evolution with kid gloves. I told Greg a while ago by PM.

" I agree the lack of transitional fossils is strong evidence against evolution. Michael Denton, in his classic work, Evolution: A theory in crisis points out Darwin himself felt the number of transitional forms should have been "inconceivably great" yet they were almost completely missing in his day and are still missing in ours! Denton says the fossil record is probably almost complete, but even if it were not, the preponderance of actual living species we find buried in comparison with the one or two the Darwinists sometimes try to argue are intermediate is appallingly, almost embarrasingly, bad for the evolutionists. It almost certainly refutes their error.

I will happily work with old earth creation scientists. But some 33 years after the publication of this admittedly excellent work, Darwinism is still holding strong. Only one thing will destroy it - proof that the earth is less at least than a million years old. Just imagine if the papers printed that tomorrow. We'd have the churches full and the seminaries packed just like they were not too long ago, and also we'd have abortion culture defeated and Christian society renewed.

What I want is to banish and crush this extremely dangerous and creation-denying heresy in such a way that it will never be taught again in our universities and schools. Within, say, the next 30 years."
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)