11 year old not allowed to join Scouts as atheist

[packsaddle 753]

Well, not only DID humans walk with dinosaurs..in fact we WALKED dinosaurs:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSwb6PEzcDAilrUZCf9vv9ARl-C6atdsERREpuKUMNc39fpTrnyXw

[Peregrinator 85]

Are you aware that the Catholic, Episcopalian, Anglican, ELCA Lutheran, Methodist, Presbytarian, etc. hierarchies ALL accept the scientific evolution of the earth scenario as truth

 

Actually, I'm not terribly concerned about what mainline Protestants teach about it, and you're simply wrong about what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter. There isn't a definitive Church teaching on the subject except that God created the universe ex nihilo (which some modern scientists dispute by the way). In any case, however, this is simply an argument from authority and can be immediately dismissed (unless you believe that the churches you mentioned above can speak authoritatively about science?).

 

I'll add that I've not said whether I believe in YEC or not. While YEC does present some difficulties, old-universe theories also present certain problems for religious believers that are oftentimes glossed over, plus there can be philosophical issues as well. I am interested in those problems; and moreover I'll defend my fellow Catholics' right to believe in YEC against those who wrongly believe that the Church has a definitive teaching on the issue. That doesn't mean that I am a YEC myself.

 

If we break things down logically, then BSA24 claims that YEC implies a certain belief X but that we now know that not-X is true, because of (among other things) computers.

 

So (in a reductio ad absurdum):

 

C (computers) exists

C ==> ~X

But YEC ==> X

Therefore YEC is false

 

I am interested in the logical steps in between. Can we show that YEC implies X? Can we do it without name-calling?

[packsaddle 753]

Peregrinator, you mention that YEC does present some difficulties. What are they? I'd like to learn those in more detail.

 

And what do YOU think 'X' is?

 

Edit: and by the way, who is it that is claiming that Catholics do NOT have a right to believe something?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Peregrinator 85]

Peregrinator, you mention that YEC does present some difficulties. What are they? I'd like to learn those in more detail.

 

Well, for example, the whole notion of dating through carbon-14 decay. YEC throws that all out of whack. I know of one explanation for why that might be (namely, that the speed of light has been decreasing since the creation of the universe), but it is definitely not mainstream science.

 

And what do YOU think 'X' is?

 

I don't know what X is. It seems to me that there has to be some X that is implied by YEC if one wants to show that modern technology disproves YEC, though.

 

Edit: and by the way, who is it that is claiming that Catholics do NOT have a right to believe something?

 

I wasn't referring to anyone on this board. It's a common misconception that the Church has 'rejected' YEC definitively. BadenP seems to imply that, but implication is not the same as coming right out and saying it.

[Peregrinator 85]

Take some water and put it in a tank. Give it a methane rich nitrogen atmosphere with plenty of carbon and oxygen. Put a bolt of electricity through it.

 

Are those the conditions that prevailed when the Earth was formed, or when life arose on Earth? How would we know?

 

ZAP! A slime of amino acids will form from the compounds. The building blocks of organic matter.

 

How long before one gets a one-celled organism from those amino acids? Can I create a one-celled organism in my tank? How about a virus?

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

From 2007:

 

Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries particularly the United States and his native Germany between creationism and evolution was an absurdity, saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

 

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

 

They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other, the pope said. This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.

[Peregrinator 85]

Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries particularly the United States and his native Germany between creationism and evolution was an absurdity, saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

 

The absurdity mentioned by His Holiness is the conflict of faith and science -- i.e., it is absurd to say that evolution disproves science (which is what some on the creationist side might say -- science teaches evolution, evolution is wrong, therefore science is wrong) and absurd to say that evolution disproves faith. I think that is clear from his actual remarks:

 

They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other, the pope said. This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.

[BadenP 93]

Pere

 

It is indeed you my my friend who is wrong, Tampa T quotes Pope Benedict to disprove your point, the Catholic Church does support evolution. Additionally try reading Pope John Paul II's book Crossing the Threshold, it will open your eyes to many other things that YOU mistakenly think the Catholic Church holds as absolute truth.

 

pack- Sorry but there were no humans during the Cretaceous or Jurrasic periods walking the earth.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

[packsaddle 753]

Peregrinator,

Actually, while you may not be up to it yourself, a virus HAS been assembled by other persons from off-the-shelf reagents. It was subsequently inserted into a bacterium and it did what viruses do. So yes, that one is possible.

 

Setting aside his 'infallible' nature, nevertheless the Pope did say there is proof of evolution. How is that reconciled with YEC?

 

And getting back to 14C dating. How has the speed of light changed and how do you know it did? Moreover, what does that have to do with 14C?

You do know that the speed of light DOES vary, depending on the medium it's passing through?

 

Edit: BadenP, what are you talking about, man? To hear my children, I was practically there myself! (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Peregrinator 85]

It is indeed you my my friend who is wrong, Tampa T quotes Pope Benedict to disprove your point, the Catholic Church does support evolution.

 

There's a distinction between supporting something and actually teaching it. I realize this distinction is lost on many non-Catholics.

 

Additionally try reading Pope John Paul II's book Crossing the Threshold, it will open your eyes to many other things that YOU mistakenly think the Catholic Church holds as absolute truth.

 

How would you know what I think the Church holds as truth?

[Peregrinator 85]

Actually, while you may not be up to it yourself, a virus HAS been assembled by other persons from off-the-shelf reagents. It was subsequently inserted into a bacterium and it did what viruses do. So yes, that one is possible.

 

I didn't say that creating a virus was impossible. I wondered whether one might be created by the experiment mentioned by BSA24.

 

And getting back to 14C dating. How has the speed of light changed and how do you know it did? Moreover, what does that have to do with 14C?

 

I did not say the speed of light had changed. I said that a higher speed of light would explain why there is an apparent contradiction between the dates obtained by carbon-14 dating and the age of the earth according to YEC. A higher speed of light implies a higher rate of decay of radioactive elements (of which carbon-14 is one). Again, as I said, not mainstream science.

[BSA24 10]

There is a list of talking points for creationists to follow when they challenge evolution. Peregrinator repeats them all as if from a sheet handed to him by a PR person. All of the points are false.

 

>>>>

And those scientific dating methods are based on certain assumptions for which there is considerable evidence, but not proof.

>

dating through carbon-14 decay

 

[packsaddle 753]

"I said that a higher speed of light would explain why there is an apparent contradiction between the dates obtained by carbon-14 dating and the age of the earth according to YEC."

OK, I get it now. First, given the short half-life of 14C, that particular isotope has virtually nothing to do with the age of the earth...except that it happens to agree with dating that does not depend on radioactive decay.

 

But otherwise that is the old Setterfield argument that at one time the speed of light was infinite but declined rapidly to its present value. What you are essentially saying is that the old geological concept of 'uniformitarianism' is contradicted by YEC. And THAT would be what 'X' is, I suppose.

 

Yes, YEC is incompatible with the assumption of 'uniformitarianism'. And that may provide a link to some of the things BSA24 mentioned in his earlier post. If uniformitarianism is invalid, then there is nothing in science that can be valid. If uniformitarianism is false then we would have none of the technologies that today we either enjoy or regret. In that sense BSA24 is correct. The ultimate test of all this is that those technologies do exist. Some of them even do good things.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Peregrinator 85]

But otherwise that is the old Setterfield argument that at one time the speed of light was infinite but declined rapidly to its present value. What you are essentially saying is that the old geological concept of 'uniformitarianism' is contradicted by YEC. And THAT would be what 'X' is, I suppose.

 

Yes, it is Setterfield's argument. I don't know of anyone else who has made it. Like I said, it is not mainstream science.

 

X is whatever it is implied by YEC that contradicts the existence of computer technology. I don't know what X is -- that's up to the person who believes that YEC contradicts computer technology to posit.

 

If uniformitarianism is invalid, then there is nothing in science that can be valid. If uniformitarianism is false then we would have none of the technologies that today we either enjoy or regret.

 

How does that follow? Technology is based on whatever laws of the universe are operating now. It's not based on laws and processes that may have prevailed in the past. By the way, modern geologists and paleontologists, for example, accept that the rates of geologic processes may have been different in the past.

 

As an aside, packsaddle, I find it weird that you would ask me what one of the problems with YEC might be, then attack my posts based on my answer.(This message has been edited by Peregrinator)

[Peregrinator 85]

There is a list of talking points for creationists to follow when they challenge evolution. Peregrinator repeats them all as if from a sheet handed to him by a PR person. All of the points are false.

 

Ah, so it is false to wonder whether a one-celled organism, or even DNA, could be created in a tank through simulated natural processes?

 

It is false to wonder whether those processes were actually present on Earth at the time of its formation, or in the deep geologic past?

 

False. There is considerable proof

 

Sorry, I use "proof" in the mathematical sense. Everything else is evidence.

 

That is not the only method of dating geological and other artifices.

 

I never said it was. I pointed out that it was one of the problems with YEC. I did not even question its accuracy.

 

It is degrees of resolution which lack accuracy, not whole generational misses as you assume.

 

How do you know what I assume from my posts in this thread?(This message has been edited by Peregrinator)