Discussion From Science Class...

[cartermia]

explained in this link: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/132322-my-mind-hurts/#.UqOanb4o4rk

[Nihil Obstat]

Young earth creationism is absolutely, unequivocally false.

[cartermia]

Why are you a Church Militant because I just looked up what creationism was and it said:

 

creationism-

noun

1.

the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

2.

( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.

3.

the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

 

 

 

found at dictionary.com

 

 

 

I would say this concept aligns completely against church teaching and you are calling it false. 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

I said young earth.

[cartermia]

Maybe numbers are things people just created to confuse other people and they mean nothing at all. Maybe all things are equal to all things.

And maybe science isn't even real, it is all a lie! I solved the mystery of the universe!

 

[Archaeology cat]

What Nihil said. Even dendrochronology goes back further than 6000 years. People pick on C-14 dating, but that isn't the one that gets you back millions of years (it's only accurate to approx 62000 years BP). The accuracy is known by C-14 dating things for which we already know the age. For older things, uranium and potassium-argon dating are used.

[CatherineM]

Old earth and natural selection are completely okay with Church teachings.

[cartermia]

What Nihil said. Even dendrochronology goes back further than 6000 years. People pick on C-14 dating, but that isn't the one that gets you back millions of years (it's only accurate to approx 62000 years BP). The accuracy is known by C-14 dating things for which we already know the age. For older things, uranium and potassium-argon dating are used.

Wait, teach me something please. What is dendrochronology? Please simplify because I am only a 14 year old.

[Nihil Obstat]

Wait, teach me something please. What is dendrochronology? Please simplify because I am only a 14 year old.

Tree ring dating.

[cartermia]

Oh, okay I do understand that! Let us go down a side road right now and I have a new question.

 

You don't have to cut down the tree to date it's age do you? I want to know how old "my" sycamore tree is, my grandmother said it was there when she was a child but I want to know truly how old it is.

[Archaeology cat]

Wait, teach me something please. What is dendrochronology? Please simplify because I am only a 14 year old.

my apologies for not clarifying earlier. :) Dendrochronology is dating from tree rings. The Bristlecone pine chronology is quite complete and goes back to 6200 BC, I think. Then C-14 goes to about 62000 BP (before present, defined at 1950). It only works for organic materials, and always gives a range,not an exact date. Then there are a few uranium dating methods (uranium-lead, uranium-uranium, uranium-thorium), which get you back into the millions of years. Potassium-argon works for things over 100,000 years old.

[AnneLine]

I've been working on the response below, but in answer to the question of the tree, you could make a guess, but ultimately the only way to know for sure is to count the rings inside it after it is chopped down.   Or see if there are any records in your family history.  Maybe somebody wrote about planting it in a family diary or something.  But yes, you'd have to cut it down to be sure... or make a guess from one that had been cut down.

 

 

Now... to go to what I've been working on!  :)

 

 

CarterMia, I really want to commend you for the courage to bring this to the debate table.  That took guts!.... probably more than I would have!   I don't think I would have had the courage as a teen to come in to debate a bunch of adults on the debate table!  You are a feisty lady! 

 

I think we forget that you are still in high school!   And that's a compliment!

Archaeology Cat  and some of the others can define the scientific terms for you... I don't know all of that too much because what science classes I took I took 30 years ago!

 

But, let's start here:  I don't think any of us - because we are all good Catholics! - have any problem with the idea of God creating all things.

 

I certainly do believe that.  I don't need to believe in a literal date and time of creation, because I don't think God works that way.   

 

As a woman of faith, I'm comfortable with seeing God as the source of all things and working though the changes that appear in rock, plant and animal fossils.  God is outside of time, and I don't care if it took him 6 billion years, 6 million year, 6 days or whatever!    He could have done whatever He wanted, and it is just fine for me!   I really don't need to know the specifics of His timing to know He has wrought a miracle of creation, and for that I praise Him!

 

However, if I want to look at the numbers in a scientific way, it's apparent to me that it wasn't a 6000 year process.  Change takes time, and there certainly have been changes that have taken place over a much longer period of time.  It is very apparent to me even as a non-science major that God worked through many, many, MANY tens of thousands of years... and to me that is just fine.   I don't think one needs to go off the deep end to get from the idea of natural selection (which is that things that live longer will live to reproduce, so if something is a 'bad design' it won't survive more than a few generations) that God doesn't exist.

 

This is an example that might help:

 

If I can look at the history of the world and see countries come and go, and he various changes in clothing, for example, that have happened over the last 200 years, I certainly can see that there have been changes... and sometimes changes that have taken place in response to new needs being met.  200 years ago, soldiers wore bright colored uniforms.  Red coats, for example.  But those red coats make great targets!!!!   And those soldiers didn't go home to have families.   When some soldiers (like the early American revolutionary war soldiers) started adopting clothing that fit into the colors around them, not so many were killed.  Soon ALL the armies were doing that.... and it became the basis of camouflage.  Now almost all armies wear clothing that makes the soldiers disappear into the environment, and it saves lives!  That is a change in just 200 years!   

 

If I go back to many, many generations before that, I would expect to see even MORE changes... in clothing, in customs.   So it doesn't surprise me if I imagined back many, many, MANY thousands of generations, that our actual bodies might not adapt and change.   If someone had a mutation that made it more likely for them to survive longer, they would produce children with similar genetic inheritance.  They would be the ones that live and reproduce.    And that the same would be true of animals and plants. 

 

And ultimately THAT is all that Darwin was saying in the 'theory of evolution.'   One CAN be a faithful Catholic and believe that his basic premise is sound. 

 

Many protestant groups do NOT believe this... they think that scripture MUST be taken literally.  And that is where the 6000 year thing comes into play.   Catholics are much more comfortable with the idea of the Scriptures being true THAT God created, but not necessarily about the MECHANICS of how it was created.

 

Does that make any sense?

 

 

 

 

[cartermia]

Thanks for "dumbing" everything down just a bit guys! :) I like numbers but I hate math, so I try to see everything as a giant puzzle but with numbers. That is why I like to put a date that I could at least visualize on the age of the earth. I can see where Darwin had his idea of evolution somewhat.  Like first there where Adam and Eve then multiply and multiply some more until people broke up and going to (example) Asia and getting the different eyes compared to the people in Africa. Then they go to Europe and you get Irish, German, Romanian, and the list goes on and on. I can see your perspective a little better now.  

[CrossCuT]

Evolution and the real age of the earth do not have any qualms with the church. We have to remember that Genesis is Hebrew poetry and while the numbers have meaning, they are not meant to be taken literally. 

[AnneLine]

:like3:      Now I know ArchCat has some background in archaeology, and I know a bit about Astronomy and Cosmology... not sure about Nihil... he seems to know a little about everything!   Nihil, è¿™æ˜¯ä¸æ˜¯è¿™æ ·å‘¢ï¼Ÿ

 

But I bet we'd be happy to help with questions like this.....because I think it helps to NOT be afraid of thinking about BIG IDEAS without being afraid of them and trying to stuff them into little safe boxes.   I know when I first started studying HS science, I got a little challenged as well.. .until I realized there wasn't any reason to be scared of the ideas.  I could look at them in the light of faith... without being afraid of what the science of the world would tell me.

 

And... in making that leap... I was entering into the viewpoint of people like St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas!   THAT's exciting! 

 

I would LOVE to watch a discussion between Darwin and St. Thomas, for example, on the creation of the world.  IF they could let themselves just have a good discussion, without fighting, it would be fascinating!!!!