Cardinal backs evolution and "intelligent design"

Reuters - Science ^ | 2005-10-04

[Coyoteman]

I do not know, any more than you know that it has been uniform from "the beginning"

Does not have to be uniform from the beginning. Carbon-14 dating can be applied only to about the last 50,000 years. This is a period that is pretty familiar through ice cores, glacial varves and a variety of other "timekeeping" methods; the last about 11,600 years can be examined through tree-ring dating with very good accuracy.

it would only impact C14 when it would have been faster. no one was around to test that.

With tree-ring dating we can examine dead bristlecone pines and through examination of a number of trees compare ring sequences. We can then Carbon-14 date particular rings, or groups of rings, and establish a calibration curve. This corrects for variations in the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere.

how would a global flood impact C14 starting points, rates of decay, leaching of C?

The "global flood" did not happen. There is very good evidence in certain areas of the world for floods at certain times (the Channeled Scablands of central Washington), but these can be defined as to area and dated. There are a lot of areas where there is no evidence for a flood of any magnitude in the last 10,000 years.

To sum this up, the bristlecone pine calibration curve works very well, and gives us quite accurate dates going back some 11,600 years. There is no evidence for the types of criticisms of this method that you can find on the creation websites.

Let me know any specific questions you might have and I'll see if I can answer them.

[Thatcherite]

Now remind me exactly where the slandering or rudeness took place?

I guess that as demonstrated previously you have a short attention span that precludes you remembering the whole of one of your posts when you read it. Please note that I didn't say a word about your politeness until you claimed to be whiter than white on the politeness front. Also, for the avoidance of doubt I am often rude to those who insist on flaunting their stupidity and incapacity to understand logical/scientific fallacies in public. Unlike you I make no claim to being a saint. Anyway, here is what you posted to me a couple of weeks ago:

Looks like the usual crowd has stopped by to spit on me again. No surprise there.

Now if you don't think that is rudeness, I guess you have different standards from mine. You continued as follows:

I'm reminding Freepers that the authority Dawkins appealed to was a Communist. That fact is independent of opinion -- not up for debate. I merely presented his quotes and his position as a communist, and let the fact speak there for itself. If you do not see a problem with that, then that's your right. Of course, some of us might see a problem with you not having a problem with that...

Now you indulge serial logical fallacies here so it is quite funny:

• You imply that if I accept scientific arguments put forward by Haldane (the communist) then I may be a communist too. I guess that this fatuous allegation is another example of the polite and civil way that you conduct yourself on FR, setting an example to all the other creationists.
• You imply that the worth of Haldane's scientific arguments can be predicated on his politics. I expect that Haldane believed in atoms and electrons and stars too. Shall we dump all scientific knowledge that Haldane agreed with?

The funniest thing about this is that we are indulging in the typical creationist tabula rasa. You have already had the ridiculous nature of your argument rubbed into you repeatedly on the original thread. It has already been pointed out to you that Dawkin's use of Haldane is not an appeal to authority, but an acknowledgement of the source of a scientific argument. Let's quote for everyone again the self-defeating pair of statements that you managed to separate by only a few-hundred words in your original article (it does help to have a long span of attention if you plan to present a reasoned argument):

• When they are raised, the objections themselves are ignored in favor of scorning the individual raising them. (Funny thing is, in any other form of debate, this degrading into the defamatory is an indication of victory)
• Would that be the same J B S Haldane who was a Communist...?

Patrick, I think that pair of quotes appearing in the same post belongs in the "This is your brain on creationism" section of your homepage.

[PatrickHenry]

Patrick, I think that pair of quotes appearing in the same post belongs in the "This is your brain on creationism" section of your homepage.

It's deserving, but that section of the List is way too long. I'll just have to let some gems go by.

[Thatcherite]

It's deserving, but that section of the List is way too long. I'll just have to let some gems go by.

It is a real problem isn't it, never a thread goes by without several howlers like that. So much comedy, so little space for it.

[steve-b]

The scientific evidence for evolution is ambiguous at best.

The evidence that evolution in general occurred (as opposed to the evidence for the details of this or that particular line of descent) is as solid as the evidence that Dan Ra^ther documents are fake.

evolutionary theory destroys universals, resulting in nominalism and ultimately solipsism, both very anti-scientific philosophies

Nonsense. By this argument, the notion that food does not instantaneously turn into feces within the body leads to the same result.

[flevit]

you mixed up speed of light with carbon dating...

so do you find merely a coincidence that:

both man and bible (well most cultures have a global flood tradition) posit the earth was covered with water. the controversy is merely when.

man suggest 85% of species died off in one event...Bible suggest 99.999% died off, again the question is when..
(man suggest there are previous numerous mass extinctions, because of the assumption that sediment layers are seperate events and represent long ages bible suggest all one "mass extinction" most sediment layers are one event,)

[csense]

The evidence that evolution in general occurred (as opposed to the evidence for the details of this or that particular line of descent) is as solid as the evidence that Dan Rather documents are fake.

Hmmm, I wonder how this analogy would fare at Democratic Underground, since it would immediately present a rather interesting corrolary.

That said, without reference to specific lines of descent, the notion of evolution in general is pretty much useless, since it's singular claim would simply be one of change. Something that is true of all things, living or not, and irregardless if the mechanism of life is evolution or not.

[csense]

Yikes!

read: corollary

[Elsie]

 

"I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition -- that the limits of a scientific theory are respected," he said.

 

 

---

---

 

 

When an interpretation of Scripture defies reality, it is the interpretation of Scripture that is at fault.

55 junior

---

---

 

 

 

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says.  If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and then of the New Testament writers, they have to decide what the following verses mean:

 

Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 

If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

 

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

 

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

 

 

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

 

 

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

 

 

 

 

1 Timothy 2:13

  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.   Was Paul WRONG about this???

 

 

[Elsie]

The bible is not a credible science book.

Don't you REALLY mean THIS??

---

The bible is not a credible science book.

[Elsie]

If creationists were only half as critical of their readings of the Bible as they are of science, there would be far fewer creationists in the world.

Likewise.

---

If Evolutionists were only half as critical of their readings of the Bible as they are of science data, there would be far MORE Evolutionists going to Heaven.....

[Elsie]

 

 

Ah.... but Freeper death is MUCH different than the final one that awaits us all!

 

 

 

 

Hebrews 9:26-28 (King James Version)  

   ²⁶For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

   ²⁷And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

   ²⁸So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

[Elsie]

I've pinged the two individuals mentioned, to let them respond or add anything they wish.

 

 

Here's some stuff from the bible about it........................

---

---

 

Genesis 13:13
  Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.
 

Genesis 18:20-21
 20.  Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
 21.  that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 19:4-7
 4.  Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 
 5.  They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
 6.  Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
 7.  and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

Isaiah 3:9
 9.  The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

 More?

Ezekiel 16:49-50
 49.  "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
 50.  They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

 

---

---

But there IS hope!!!

---

---

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 9.  Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
 10.  nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 
 11.  And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

 

---

---

If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape.....

[blowfish]

Don't you REALLY mean THIS??

Not at all! There are millions of people who have derived benefits from reading the bible. I just don't believe that every word in there is a literal historical transcript.

[Junior]

Haven't seen you in awhile. Catching up on old threads, I see.

[Liberal Classic]

If Evolutionists were only half as critical of their readings of the Bible as they are of science data, there would be far MORE Evolutionists going to Heaven.....

You speak as if you have a tally of just how many scientists suffer eternal torment in the place where the man with the horns and pointed stick conducts his business.

[Liberal Classic]

Blowfish wrote:
The bible is not a credible science book.

To which you replied:
Don't you REALLY mean THIS?? The bible is not a credible science book.

Of course not. He means just what he wrote. Why must you put words into his mouth?

[Remole]

Your suggestion that the Catholic Church has recognized the value of science only since Galileo is patently false. Please see Thomas Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization for a sketch of how many many developments in technology, mathematics and astronomy were produced by people in the Catholic Church before, during and after the time of Galileo; and also a sketch of the Galileo trial that shows that the tribunal was led to its decision (8 yrs of house-arrest) by a zeal to "out-Protestantize" the Protestants.

[Remole]

I apologize for my blunt tone, but I have read your posts along with the posts of others on this thread who share your perspective on this issue, and my conclusion is that you and yours represent a religion that is vastly, vastly different from mine (I am Roman Catholic, with a few post-graduate degrees in it). REading these posts, I tend to reach the conclusion that you and yours are as far away from RC as Mormons. I am not saying that you and yours ARE Mormons, but that your positions regarding the interpretation of the Bible and the study of paleontology are very, very distant from the positions on those subjects held by RCs.

[Remole]

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Was Paul WRONG about this???

Paul here spoke of what he knew. That does not mean that on this point he knew everything, not to mention having a knowledge of paleoanthropology as it has developed in the 20th century.