[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is not science

[Barbarian]

I meant "Gentry", not "Snelling."

The Silver Crater and Fission Mines are lithologically different, but they, too, contain abundant radioactive minerals—especially betafite, a radioactive variety of the mineral pyrochlore, which is a complex calcium-sodium-(uranium)-niobate-tantalate-hydroxide. It was noted by Satterly that "Betafite [at the Silver Crater]
is often found in close association with clusters of mica books and apatite crystals. Small crystals of betafite have been found within the books of mica" (p. 130; emphasis mine). In my phone conversation with Gentry in February, he admitted the betafite was with his samples. Why did he leave that observation out of his papers? Why is it, with so many radioactive minerals and so much groundwater at these sites, that there is very little uranium in the halo centers? Or is there? Did Gentry err? Clearly, there is something complicated going on here, considering the nature of the host intrusive rocks, the low-grade metamorphism that the intrusive rocks have undergone, the high-grade metamorphism of the surrounding wall rock, the hydrothermal activity and the metamorphic replacement by the biotite within the calcite vein dikes. Gentry noted that "the great majority of minerals containing polonium halos show no evidence of high temperature episodes" (1975, p. 270). Gentry also noted in that same paragraph that "halo coloration disappears within minutes in [the 300 degree Celsius] temperature range" for fluorite. He continued:


An equally strong objection to the uranium-daughter hypothesis in uranium poor (p.p.m. or less) minerals is that many Po halos (such as the `Spectacle' halo [from Silver Crater]) are located in the interior of large pegmatite crystals as well as in small granitic mica flakes where they are often more than 10 cm. and sometimes much less than 100 cm. away from a significant uranium source.


[1975, p. 270]


This is quite an extraordinary claim to make for four reasons: (1) it contradicts Satterly's observation of betafite within some of the biotite; (2) it shows that he knows it is a pegmatite body and therefore must be intrusive; (3) it admits that heat, such as that from a metamorphic event, erases halos; and (4) it acknowledges the proximity of radioactive minerals.
http://ncse.com/book/export/html/3436

 

[Pizza]

...So since not all of the Bible is to be taken literally I wonder if considering the creation story a metaphor would make the entire Bible a lie.

Of course not!

The way I look at it is this: Let us assume for the moment that the story of, say, Jonah is a metaphor and that it never happened. What lessons and great truths or what instruction could we gleen from it?

1) What would God be telling us with the story of Jonah if it was a metaphor?
2) What would God be telling us with the story of Jonah if it was literally true?

It is my position that the story's meaning and value to me would not change. The lessons contained in it, the instructions I am implicitly given, would not change.

This is why and how I can pursue science with no regard for my faith - because my faith is solid. I've lived with the Lord in my life since 1977 - I've been thru a lot in my life, and He has always been 'there' for me. I feel his strength, forgiveness, loving kindness and presence all the time. The fact that a virus seems to be able to know how to mutate and avoid our vaccines is of no threat to my faith.

The fact that the earth and the universe seem almost certainly to be billions of years old does not threaten my faith at all; I cannot know when or how He created all of this - but I know He did. No scientific knowledge or discovery can rock my faith.

 

[jasonc]

if the creation days aren't literal then why is the shabat, the Only REAL REASON jews today the bible say they are allowed into the land? without the shabat there would be no isreal. that and the lineages of the matthew aren't going to go like this , metaphor, metaphor. stop abram was real then go from him alone. the story of genesis wasn't written until moses.

 

[twinc]

This is what it boils down to in the end, here we have an astronomer from Rome voicing his beliefs about evolution and the God of creation.. In his mind its blaspheme to think otherwise..

The papal astronomer said he rejects the literal interpretation of Genesis and instead finds truth through “science.”

“Science is a way of getting close to creation, to really getting intimate with creation, and it’s a way of getting intimate with the creator,” he claimed. “It’s an act of worship.”

http://christiannews.net/2014/10/20...ng-earth-creation-beliefs-almost-blasphemous/

tob

not another Galileo - twinc

 

[Doulos Iesou]

There are 6 meanings to term Evolution:
Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”

For the sake of brevity, we will keep it to Organic Evolution and Cosmic Evolution.

This is a strange list of definitions. When one refers to Evolution, they are generally referring to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which is in regards to how Natural Selection explains the diversity of life on Earth.

"Cosmic Evolution" isn't really a popular reference when speaking of the term "evolution." This is a question for a cosmologist not a biologist.

Organic evolution is also what people call abiogenesis, which generally isn't held by Christian Evolutionists.

Testable how? Can the results be repeated in a laboratory? Have the origins been OBSERVED? Did someone witness the "big bang" do we have it on film? "Pics or it didn't happen." as they say.

Please give me definitive proof that Napoleon existed, do we have pictures of him... can you demonstrate in a lab that he existed? You see, to answer different questions we need to use different tactics. When speaking about Darwinian Evolution, we are largely talking about the past, and we therefore have to make observations from what has been preserved from the past. For example, the geological and fossil evidence that has provided us insight into the way the world use to be, and how it has developed over it's few billion years existence. Based upon these observations, we can then make predictions about the future and things we would hope to see within a laboratory were we to conduct certain experiments.

To ask "show me evolution happening," is rather silly, while it is possible on some scale to see it, it generally won't be to the satisfaction to those who are for some reason skeptical. It is rather like asking someone to show them how the Grand Canyon formed, which took place over a large period of time to develop into it's present day grandness. Little by little erosion took it's course and the canyon grew deeper and deeper and wider and wider. Much like the diversity of life on earth, little by little the changes in populations and the geographical isolation of these populations drove variations between species to create different species.

Life cannot come from non-life. protein stands and cells are components of living organisms, not the organism itself. What you said is basically like saying the spark plug to a car is the whole engine.

We can actually create proteins synthetically, so it is plausible for building blocks of life to be created from non-life. Abiogenesis is certainly a far stretch, though unrelated to Darwin's Theory of Evolution.. and isn't really a debate among Christians. So I think "organic evolution" was really the wrong topic to discuss.

 

[twinc]

if the creation days aren't literal then why is the shabat, the Only REAL REASON jews today the bible say they are allowed into the land? without the shabat there would be no isreal. that and the lineages of the matthew aren't going to go like this , metaphor, metaphor. stop abram was real then go from him alone. the story of genesis wasn't written until moses.

creation days are literal and none other will fit - it seems the only reason for rejection is that it is in the bible and the word of God - lets see six seconds shall thou labour and then rest and have a Sabbath for a second every seventh second or try it for a minute/hour/week/month/year/thousand of years - come now be reasonable and come home back home now - twinc

 

[jasonc]

creation days are literal and none other will fit - it seems the only reason for rejection is that it is in the bible and the word of God - lets see six seconds shall thou labour and then rest and have a Sabbath for a second every seventh second or try it for a minute/hour/week/month/year/thousand of years - come now be reasonable and come home back home now - twinc

im not an evolutionist nor old earth believer. I don't believe in geocentrism.

 

[Edward]

The biggest problem with discussing this type of thing seems to be education. The smarter one is, the harder is is for them to take things on faith. Head knowledge puffeth up, while faith and love edify.

No wonder we are told to come to the Lord as little children. So we can receive it without arguing and having to "think it out"

 

[Free]

The biggest problem with discussing this type of thing seems to be education. The smarter one is, the harder is is for them to take things on faith. Head knowledge puffeth up, while faith and love edify.

No wonder we are told to come to the Lord as little children. So we can receive it without arguing and having to "think it out"

But there are a couple of other just as equally big problems: 1) those who are unlearned and uneducated may not be interpreting the text properly or thinking through the issues very well, or 2) some may be spiritually proud and so look down on those who think differently, that they are unteachable and unwilling to accept different interpretations of Scripture or admit that they could be wrong.

 

[Pizza]

Responding to Edward here:

Yea, but it could be said that it takes MORE faith to believe WITH 'head knowledge' than with the mind of a child!

Personally, my pursuit of mathematical and scientific knowledge is also an act of worship. I know that I will never understand how the universe works or how God created it all, but the pursuit is sure enjoyable. And as I have said before, the more I read and learn about "the Big Bang", the more I am convinced that scientists ARE seeing evidence for the big bang - and what the big bang is, or was, is the footprint of God saying: "Let there be light...."

You KNOW that scientists, if they dig deep enough, are going to see evidence of His creation work. And I think that is what has happened.
It excites me to read about it all - I KNOW science, for the most part, will never attribute what they are seeing as God's handiwork and Im fine with that.

I know, and that is what matters to me. I don't let science undermine my faith, because my faith is solid. Ok, fine, when science can PROVE God does not exist, I will be worried - but we both know that can never happen - so I'm not worried.

 

[Edward]

But there are a couple of other just as equally big problems: 1) those who are unlearned and uneducated may not be interpreting the text properly or thinking through the issues very well, or 2) some may be spiritually proud and so look down on those who think differently, that they are unteachable and unwilling to accept different interpretations of Scripture or admit that they could be wrong.

Aside from how much you and I disagree on things here and there...I gotta admit, you made a very valid point here!

 

[Edward]

Responding to Edward here:

Yea, but it could be said that it takes MORE faith to believe WITH 'head knowledge' than with the mind of a child!

Personally, my pursuit of mathematical and scientific knowledge is also an act of worship. I know that I will never understand how the universe works or how God created it all, but the pursuit is sure enjoyable. And as I have said before, the more I read and learn about "the Big Bang", the more I am convinced that scientists ARE seeing evidence for the big bang - and what the big bang is, or was, is the footprint of God saying: "Let there be light...."

You KNOW that scientists, if they dig deep enough, are going to see evidence of His creation work. And I think that is what has happened.
It excites me to read about it all - I KNOW science, for the most part, will never attribute what they are seeing as God's handiwork and Im fine with that.

I know, and that is what matters to me. I don't let science undermine my faith, because my faith is solid. Ok, fine, when science can PROVE God does not exist, I will be worried - but we both know that can never happen - so I'm not worried.

You're right too brother! That's kinda how I see it too. Nothing yet has been able to shake my faith, and it wouldn't shake my faith for them to come out with something like, they can 'prove' that God doesn't exist. I would likely laugh at it and consider that they were either outright lying, or simply over-educated wrong. Like you say though, it IS very interesting, science.

 

[jasonc]

if you study creation right and or end times. you will see GOD, that is by his planning. may be im wrong but that is what I have noticed.

what irks me about atheist is that they will say that if there is a god why would he knowingly make a bad design when in fact in the west we have car makers, and other makers of things that purposed to fail or poor designed due to greed or the engineer is told to be cheap to save money. I can use my truck for an example with the fan clutch I just point and compare the oem mount flange to the after market. the engineer had to know the oem studs on the water pump would have to be longer to make that work. yet didn't supply them. so the after market one is held on not by much. a spinning pulley with a few turns of the nut on the oem studs is a scary thing.