Monday, December 19, 2011

The Catholic Science Geek Gets It Exactly Backwards......

The Catholic Science Geek has a bone to pick with those who would tell God how He has to do things.

I wanted to point out to the CS Geek, that it is God Who has told the CS Geek how He did things.

Apparently the CS Geek has not considered this.

I respond to the CS Geek's foundational argument at the link above, and invite further dialogue on the issue of Mary's Bones- those pesky 80,000,000 year old dinosaur fossils that have soft tissue, collagen fibres, and hemes inside of them.

UPDATE 1/6/12:

Barb, after simply dismissing and refusing to address even a single one of the points raised, has resorted to the Memory Hole, and it is all perfectly fine and peaceful in the clean, certain, calm and serene scientific world of the Catholic Science Geek.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Excellent, I am so happy to hear that the New Year will bring an opportunity to address these important questions!

    Merry Christmas to you and good luck on that neuroscience final.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Oh, a very great many.

    Off the top of my head:

    Does Francisco Ayala's DRB1 research falsify the dogma of the Faith that every living human being is a direct descendant of Adam and Eve?

    Why or why not?

    Let's consider the implications of the recent observational evidences of an Earth-oriented, universe-spanning preferred axis for:

    1. CMB poles
    2. polarization of quasar photons
    3. Preferred galaxy rotational spin "handedness"

    along with

    1. Evidence of preferred, periodic, observer-centered Nz relations in galaxy distributions out a billion light years

    2. Void cosmology solutions for "dark energy" which remove the necessity for DE, provided only that Earth be considered as occupying a special, non-"Copernican", central position

    Do these observations and theoretical developments indicate that the Copernican Principle itself ought now be considered to be observationally challenged, and require, for its continued employment in cosmology, experimental demonstration (as opposed to philosophical pre-assumption)?

    How about the interesting divergence in treating a six-sigma, repeated observation of superluminal neutrinos at CERN as a "probable experimental error", verses a 3.5 sigma (at best!) "anomaly"from CERN being treated as evidence of a Higgs boson?

    Generally, I would be interested in examining each and every case where a unanimous consensus of the Fathers concerning Scripture, has been (whether de facto or de jure) treated as falsified or amended by a given scientific hypothesis and observation (e.g., the 1992 papal commission on l'affaire Galilleo).

    And first and foremost, of course, the pesky little question of whether bones with soft tissue and collagen ought to be C14 tested, instead of kept locked away from such testing, on the hilariously illogical "circulus in demonstrando" that, since we "know" the bones are 80,000,000 years old, C14 testing is therefore "pointless"?

    Looking forward to it!

  5. I regret that the New Year has come and gone without further input from the CS Geek.

    Is there no one else?

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. Good grief, barb. You didn't respond to a single point, insisting instead that you have no obligation to do so.

    This is what you mean by "throwing down the gauntlet"?


    And this, you assure us, is what being a scientist is all about........


    The points remain. Your self-validating Confirmation Bias isn't going to make them go away (and neither is it going to make you a scientist):

  8. My parting gift to the Catholic Science Geek: