Thursday, January 12, 2012

Mary's Bones, Part II



UPDATE 2/1/12: Thanks to information obtained from contributors at the TalkRational blog, the carbon dating described below is most plausibly ascribed to bacterial contamination- the date is not merely "relatively modern", as described in the abstract, but altogether "too modern". Part III will address this and other updates.




Thanks to Hugh Miller (the "Hugosaurus") and Dr. Stacy Trasancos for bringing to my attention an astonishing (or, perhaps, maybe not quite so astonishing) new piece of the puzzle concerning the case of Mary's Bones.


Readers will recall that Mary has some dino bones, purportedly 70-80,000,000 years of age, which display a quite anomalous feature; that is, they contain soft tissue, blood cells, and collagen.


Dr. Trasancos has pointed out a possible answer to my question, posted at the conclusion of my earlier post:


"Why hasn't Mary Schweitzer allowed her dino bones to be C14 dated, in the face of the determination that they contain organic, and hence C14 dateable, material?"


It turns out that that a very plausible answer would be.........


She already has very good reason to suppose exactly what the C14 dating would show.


It would show that the bones are of modern origin.


In fact, C14 dating of organic material from similar Cretaceous bones, from the very same Hell Creek formation in Montana that yielded Mary's Bones, has already been performed, and shows that the material is of "relatively modern origin"!


So why hasn't this fact been widely reported?


Here is where the detective story starts to get really, really interesting..........


The original report by Mary Schweitzer of soft tissue, collagen, and hemes in a purportedly 70,000,000 year old TRex bone was subjected, understandably enough, to the greatest skepticism by mainstream Darwinian theorists, who understood the implications. 


The above study attempted to make the case that what Mary was actually seeing was outside contamination, "biofilms" which had penetrated the bones and which were being misinterpreted by Mary as soft tissue, hemes, and collagen.


It was never very convincing, since it failed, for example, to account for the observation of amino acids specifically associated with collagen in Mary's original findings.


But all of that is water under the bridge now.


In 2009, Mary and her co-authors published a detailed study, in Science, which directly addressed and conclusively demolished the hypothesis that these soft tissues, collagen, and hemes, could have been outside contamination; e.g. "biofilms"


You can read all about the specific tests (including tests for chemical reactions impossible to ascribe to "biofilms") here.


So.


It wasn't outside contamination.


But this leads us back to the very, very interesting statement made by the authors of the "biofilm" paper, published in 2008.


Notice here, in the abstract:


"Carbon dating of the film points to its relatively modern origin."


Ahem.


Since we now know it wasn't "film", but instead organic soft tissues from a dinosaur bone.........


The simple scientific fact on the ground before us is:




Carbon dating of the dinosaur tissue points to its relatively modern origin.


There is, by the way, a very encouraging moral to the story: science does benefit from a certain self-correcting tendency integral to the authentic scientific method itself.

No matter how implacably committed the scientific establishment might be to a given metaphysical assumption-e.g. neo-Darwinist evolutionary timelines in the billions of years- there will be enough disagreement among the various Darwinists, and enough experiments done, to piece together the pieces of the puzzle!

This is a very, very important piece of the puzzle.

As the matter stands, right now, on the face purely of the observational, worldview-neutral evidence.......

The entire timeline necessary for Darwinian macro-evolution to work has just been blown into tiny little smithereens.

Interesting times!

Much, much, much more to come................


UPDATE 2/18: In the discussion below reference is made to "demons"; that is, to entities invented to explain phenomena, which tell us nothing at all about nature, since they disclose themselves only in the observations they are invented to explain. I incorrectly refer to these as "Maxwell demons". The concept is actually that of Dennis Sciama, so these should properly be called "Sciama demons".















28 comments:

  1. Mr. DeLano,

    I just stumbled across your blog via Mrs. Dr. Tranascos' blog, via another blog - quite the journey! I am fascinated, please keep up the good work, especially on this story.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you kindly, Matthew, and welcome!

    Please let everyone know about this.

    It's really quite something :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The entire timeline necessary for Darwinian macro-evolution to work has just been blown into tiny little smithereens."

    How so? In what way would a fairly recent T-Rex rule out a "neo-Darwinist evolutionary timelines in the billions of years"?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Welcome RobT!

    The timeline is refuted in exactly this way:

    TRex bones are assigned to a "Cretaceous period", which empirically correlates to a Cretaceous layer of rock.

    The Cretaceous rock is, so the evolutionary argument goes, radiometrically dated to approximately 65-144 million years ago.

    Since the TRex bones are- again, so the story goes- associated with this Cretaceous strata, the bones must, under the evolutionary timeline, be............somewhere between 65 and 144 million years old (since TRex is considered "late Cretaceous", it is typically assigned in to 65-70 million year range).

    Now.

    Given the fact that Cretaceous bones have now been *directly dated* to less than 60,000 carbon years from the present (that is, when the *bones* are dated, *not the rocks*, they yield "relatively modern" ages- that is, ages less than the maximum of 60,000 years obtainable by C14 methods).....

    We now see an irreconcilable conflict between the neo-Darwinist evolutionary timeline of billions of years, and the empirical evidence of the C14 dates of the Cretaceous dinosaur bones.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm still not following. Suppose the bones are in fact 60,000 years old. How does that refute the idea that earth itself is billions of years old? Or am I misunderstanding you?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry, some misspellings require this re-posting.....


    Ah- I think I see what you are getting at now.

    As I said in the post Mary's Bones (Part I), there are two basic ways to account for the observed stratification of the rocks of the Earth's mantle.

    One is the standard, "uniformitarian" model of Lyell, which assumes slow deposition over billions of years.

    One is the "catastrophist" model, also found in Scripture as the Flood, which assumes one or more violent cataclysmic events.

    I pointed out in the original post that the second assumption strongly suggests, *but does not strictly require*, a much younger Earth than the billions-of-years absolutely required under the uniformitarian hypothesis.

    So- strictly speaking- the C14 dating of the TRex bones does not demolish the hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old.

    It does demolish, instead, the *evolutionary timeline*, which requires precisely those billions of years in order to provide the necessary time for the assumed evolution of forms by random mutation and natural selection.

    If TRex lived 60,000 carbon years ago, then the entire theory of evolution is falsified.

    Its assumptions concerning the ages of all creatures found in the fossil record is falsified.

    Its assumptions that radiometric dating techniques yield a reliable measuring rod by which to ascribe ages to the various strata of the Earth's mantle is falsified.

    The age of the Earth, in this case, is now properly defined as "unknown" as a matter of observational, worldview-neutral science.

    Metaphysical world-views can shape the interpretation of this data, still, to support the old-Earth hypothesis, but they can no longer do so on the basis of the theory of evolution.

    That theory has- subject to requisite and necessary confirmation of these results- just bitten the dust.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How does the existence of T-Rex 60,000 years ago demonstrate the falsity of the evolutionary timeline? A T-Rex 60,000 years ago would still leave open the possibility of billions of evolution prior to its existence.

    ReplyDelete
  8. RobT: How does the existence of T-Rex 60,000 years ago demonstrate the falsity of the evolutionary timeline?

    >> I already answered that one.

    RobT: A T-Rex 60,000 years ago would still leave open the possibility of billions of evolution prior to its existence.

    >> Sure. It would also leave open the possibility of Magical Collagen Fairies standing guard over the organic material.

    Neither hypothesis happens to be a scientific one.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No, you didn't answer that one. You said, "The age of the Earth, in this case, is now properly defined as "unknown" as a matter of observational, worldview-neutral science."

    If that's true, then you haven't falsified the evolutionary timeline that requires billions of years -- and this is according to your own argument, because if the age of the earth is "unknown" then the premise that it's billions of years old has not been falsified.

    Also, why is this not a scientific hypothesis: "A T-Rex 60,000 years ago would still leave open the possibility of billions of evolution prior to its existence."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rob:No, you didn't answer that one. You said, "The age of the Earth, in this case, is now properly defined as "unknown" as a matter of observational, worldview-neutral science."

      >> Which constitutes, exactly, a refutation of the evolutionary timeline. The timeline is no longer able to account for the observational, world-view neutral, scientific evidence.

      That is, it is *refuted*.

      As I said.


      RobT: If that's true, then you haven't falsified the evolutionary timeline that requires billions of years -- and this is according to your own argument, because if the age of the earth is "unknown" then the premise that it's billions of years old has not been falsified.

      >> Distinguo. The evolutionary timeline is falsified. Please read above, where I distinguished between this timeline, and the *separate* question of the age of the Earth.


      RobT: Also, why is this not a scientific hypothesis: "A T-Rex 60,000 years ago would still leave open the possibility of billions of evolution prior to its existence."

      >> Because possibilities are not scientific hypotheses. Scientific hypotheses require that observations be accounted for, consistently.

      Your possibility does not account for observations.

      It merely proposes an a priori invoking of a metaphysical worldview.

      Like Magic Collagen Fairies, it cannot be strictly refuted on scientific grounds, because it is not, strictly speaking, a scientific proposition.

      It is a metaphysical proposition.

      Delete
  10. How can you say that the timeline cannot account for something when you say that the timeline is unknown. If it's unknown, then you cannot say what it can or cannot account for.

    I went to your earlier post and read this: "So- strictly speaking- the C14 dating of the TRex bones does not demolish the hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old. It does demolish, instead, the *evolutionary timeline*, which requires precisely those billions of years in order to provide the necessary time for the assumed evolution of forms by random mutation and natural selection."

    The second sentence is where I lose you. Suppose we accept that t-rexes were in existence 60,000 years ago -- if that does not demolish the hypothesis that the earth is billions of years old, then how does it demolish the evolutionary timeline?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rob: How can you say that the timeline cannot account for something when you say that the timeline is unknown.

    >> Because *the* evolutionary timeline- that is, the one we have been discussing, and not some other one- purports to account for something- that is, a 65-70 million year old TRex- that, it turns out, does not exist.

    In other words, *the evolutionary timeline*; that is, the precise object of my sentence, not some *other* possible timeline which might or might not ever come into existence- is *scientifically falsified*.


    Rob: If it's unknown, then you cannot say what it can or cannot account for.

    >> Distinguo. There is the evolutionary timeline, which has been scientifically falsified.

    There is the question of the age of the Earth, which is unknown.

    The two issues are not one issue.

    This is your logical error, and it seems to be persistent.

    But we can perhaps work through this.

    Rob: I went to your earlier post and read this: "So- strictly speaking- the C14 dating of the TRex bones does not demolish the hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old. It does demolish, instead, the *evolutionary timeline*, which requires precisely those billions of years in order to provide the necessary time for the assumed evolution of forms by random mutation and natural selection."

    The second sentence is where I lose you.

    >> OK.

    Suppose we accept that t-rexes were in existence 60,000 years ago -- if that does not demolish the hypothesis that the earth is billions of years old, then how does it demolish the evolutionary timeline?

    >> Because the evolutionary timeline requires that TRexes were not in existence 60,000 years ago.

    It requires Trexes to have been extinct for 65 million years, 60,000 years ago.

    Since we now know that Trexes were *not in fact extinct* 60,000 years ago.......


    (Drum roll)

    We know that the evolutionary timeline is falsified.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks, we've gotten to the core of where I lose you: Why you say the evolutionary timeline requires that T-Rex be extinct 65 million years ago?

    ReplyDelete
  13. It is not "I" who says this, Rob.

    It is the evolutionists themselves who say it.

    See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution#Basic_timeline

    Relevant excerpt:

    "65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,"

    ReplyDelete
  14. Now let me ask you something, Rob.

    Why is it *absolutely necessary* that the non-avian dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, under the assumptions of the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution?

    What scientific evidence requires them to advance this hypothesis?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Here is where you are in error, I think.

    In your article, you write, "The entire timeline necessary for Darwinian macro-evolution to work has just been blown into tiny little smithereens."

    But this is incorrect, because it relies on an unstated assumption that there is exactly and only one possible timeline for Darwinian macro-evolution. It is too strong a statement to say, "The current consensus about the timeline is wrong, therefore Darwinian macro-evolution cannot work." That conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premise. Alternatives exist, for instance, "...therefore we must adjust the timeline in light of this discovery."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rob: Here is where you are in error, I think.

      >> This is good- because here is where, to the contrary, you are in error, I think :-)

      This is a good sign, we are narrowing down our point of contention.

      Rob: In your article, you write, "The entire timeline necessary for Darwinian macro-evolution to work has just been blown into tiny little smithereens."

      But this is incorrect,

      >> No. It is precisely correct.

      because it relies on an unstated assumption that there is exactly and only one possible timeline for Darwinian macro-evolution.

      >> No. It instead relies upon the scientific *fact* that there is one and exactly one *actual* timeline for Darwinian macroevolution.

      This is precisely your error. You imagine that there are many possible timelines, but there is only one *actual* timeline.

      If you answer the questions posed by me above, you will shortly come to see why there can be only *one and exactly* one such timeline, as a matter of *scientific* consideration.

      Rob: It is too strong a statement to say, "The current consensus about the timeline is wrong, therefore Darwinian macro-evolution cannot work."

      >> No. It is precisely true to say, "the current consensus about the timeline is wrong, therefore Darwinian macro-evolution cannot work."

      The reason, which you have not yet grasped, is that the timeline forms the precise expression of the hypothesis as applied to the key observational evidence.

      The timeline *is* the expression of the hypothesis.

      If the timeline is falsified, so is the hypothesis.

      The timeline is falsified.

      So, therefore, is the hypothesis.

      Let's see if you can answer my question above, and tell us why.

      Rob: That conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premise.

      >> In fact, it does.


      Rob: Alternatives exist, for instance, "...therefore we must adjust the timeline in light of this discovery."

      >> But it cannot be so adjusted, without departing from the foundational assumptions of the theory of evolution itself.

      Please answer the question I posed to you above.

      If you cannot answer it, I will.

      Delete
  16. "Why is it *absolutely necessary* that the non-avian dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, under the assumptions of the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution?"

    But I haven't seen anyone say that it's absolutely necessary that this occurred, simply that they believe this is what occurred.

    But you have an answer, you say, so I am eager to hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It is absolutely necessary, Rob, because the dino bones that have been C14 dated are found in a strata which has been radiometrically dated to approximately 144-65 million years before the present.

    The entire evolutionary timeline depends *absolutely* upon the assumption that the bones can be dated by the age of the surrounding strata, determined by radiometric dating techniques.

    This is the foundational assumption which underlies the *whole* evolutionary timeline.

    It has now been falsified.

    It cannot be replaced by some other timeline, without abandoning the basis of the theory itself; that is, that the strata represent datable layers corresponding to historical periods under the uniformitarian hypothesis.

    This is why the timeline has been falsified.

    This is why it cannot be adjusted in some way to accommodate a 60,000 year old TRex.

    This is why the entire evolutionary timeline has bee blown into tiny smithereens.

    Which was to be demonstrated.

    ReplyDelete
  18. As I understand it, the evolutionary timeline does not "absolutely" depend on radiometric dating of rocks -- at least, not if you take that to mean that EVERY fossil can be perfectly dated according to its placement in rock. Natural forces such as earthquakes, erosion, and plate tectonics can create anomalies, discontinuities, and mingling of material in the layers.

    This has been an interesting discussion. I think your most recent post (even though I disagree with it) is a much clearer expression of your views than your original post.

    By the way, I'd point out that the age of these fossils is in no way settled. See here for a recent analysis:
    http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110614/full/news.2011.369.html

    Also here:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%E2%80%9CDinosaur%20Peptides%20Suggest%20Mechanisms%20of%20Protein%20Survival%2C%E2%80%9D

    Those links, besides giving an overview of the disagreement, discuss ways in which collagen might have been preserved. That reminds me of how you mocked someone on Stacy site: when someone said we might discover something new about preservation from this finding, you ridiculed her as invoking magic. She was doing nothing of the sort, of course, and it turns out that she might have been quite right.

    Accordingly, I'd caution on something. You have a distinct tendency to seize on research that supports your philosophical viewpoint, and ignore or dismiss anything that does not. You also have a tendency to seize on surprising scientific news as proof that whole scientific paradigms MUST BE WRONG (rather than seeing the surprising news as simply another area for investigation and refinement) and the Catholic belief system MUST BE RIGHT (as if the Catholic belief system were the only possible alternative when a paradigm shift is indeed warranted).

    Until you moderate these reactions (which are perfectly normal and human emotional reactions, but not always justifiable intellectually), you'll have a very difficult time convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

    This has been fun, and I'm glad I better understand your views. Now back to my own life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rob: As I understand it, the evolutionary timeline does not "absolutely" depend on radiometric dating of rocks

      >> It does indeed depend absolutely upon the foundational assumption that fossils can be dated based on the radiometric ages of the start in which they are found.

      This foundational assumption has now been falsified.

      -- at least, not if you take that to mean that EVERY fossil can be perfectly dated according Rob:to its placement in rock. Natural forces such as earthquakes, erosion, and plate tectonics can create anomalies, discontinuities, and mingling of material in the layers.

      >> But this does not address the problem. If Mary's Bones had been found in an anomalous layer (as many such bones are), the evolutionist could have had recourse to precisely your argument above.

      But they were not found in such an anomalous layer.

      They were instead found in the Hell's Creek formation in Montana, one of the richest depositories of Cretaceous bones in the world.

      Therefore your argument above is not relevant to the difficulty which Mary's Bones present for the evolutionary timeline.

      Delete
  19. Also, as a last parting gift in gratitude for our interesting discussion, here's the blog on which Stacy was being accused of dissent (I know you were curious about it):
    http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-should-be-our-attitude-toward.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, my.

      Now it all makes perfect sense.

      I know this fellow, from previous blog exchanges (or, more accurately, attempted exchanges- my side always disappeared into his Memory Hole).

      I thank you sincerely for this.

      Delete
  20. Rob: This has been an interesting discussion.

    >> I agree.

    I think your most recent post (even though I disagree with it) is a much clearer expression of your views than your original post.

    >> If you disagree with it, you cannot do so based upon its scientific content. The scientific evidence is conclusive. You might disagree with it on metaphysical grounds, of course.

    Rob: By the way, I'd point out that the age of these fossils is in no way settled. See here for a recent analysis:
    http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110614/full/news.2011.369.html

    Also here:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%E2%80%9CDinosaur%20Peptides%20Suggest%20Mechanisms%20of%20Protein%20Survival%2C%E2%80%9D

    Those links, besides giving an overview of the disagreement, discuss ways in which collagen might have been preserved. That reminds me of how you mocked someone on Stacy site: when someone said we might discover something new about preservation from this finding, you ridiculed her as invoking magic. She was doing nothing of the sort, of course, and it turns out that she might have been quite right.

    >> I am familiar with the peptides study, which is ridiculous, and so deserves ridicule. Here is exactly why: it proposes to preserve a theory, even in the face of experimental falsification, by having recourse to handwaving appeals to unknown and undemonstrated processes, which themselves are adopted *precisely* to explain away the observed falsification.

    In science, this fallacy is often referred to under the rubric "Maxwell demons"; that is, invented processes or entities which are adopted *precisely to explain away a given anomaly*. Theyu tell us nothing at all about nature, they involve no consistent application of the laws of nature; indeed they explicitly violate that consistency, since they exist *solely* to resolve an otherwise insuperable problem.

    For example, your peptides study requires us to dispense with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which acts to degrade organic molecules such as collagen, even under *theoretically perfect* conditions, in a tiny fraction of the 70 million years required to rescue the evolutionary timeline.

    I have linked to a peer reviewed study which provides this theoretical maximum in the original Mary's Bones post.

    Examples of "Maxwell demons" include dark matter and dark energy in cosmology, and such proposals as are linked to in your comment, in evolution.

    They richly deserve ridicule, since they advance metaphysical solutions under a scientific label, which is, exactly, ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rob: Accordingly, I'd caution on something. You have a distinct tendency to seize on research that supports your philosophical viewpoint,

    >> You say, having seized on research that supports *your* philosophical viewpoint :-)

    and ignore or dismiss anything that does not.

    >> I do not ignore it. I refute it. Typically, such research will be found to employ the ridiculous expedient of advancing metaphysical solutions to scientific problems.

    Rob: You also have a tendency to seize on surprising scientific news as proof that whole scientific paradigms MUST BE WRONG (rather than seeing the surprising news as simply another area for investigation and refinement) and the Catholic belief system MUST BE RIGHT (as if the Catholic belief system were the only possible alternative when a paradigm shift is indeed warranted).

    >> Precisely, what I do is distinguish between science and metaphysics, based upon a Catholic appreciation of their correct relationship in an integrated hierarchy of valid knowledge.

    Science is going crazy precisely because it has lost the necessary appreciation of the necessary distinctions in this regard.

    RobT: Until you moderate these reactions (which are perfectly normal and human emotional reactions, but not always justifiable intellectually), you'll have a very difficult time convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

    >> I am not strictly in the business of convincing anyone. I am in the business of examining the truthfulness of various propositions, an endeavor which rarely correlates to 51% of the vote.

    Rob: This has been fun, and I'm glad I better understand your views.

    >> Yes, I agree. I enjoyed it very much. I thank you sincerely for your contributions to this blog. You have enriched it.

    Rob:Now back to my own life.

    >> All the best.

    You are welcome anytime.

    God be with you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You Rob, exactly which Rite of the Catholic Church are you representing? The Jesuits of the Roman Rite believe the earth to be billions of years old.

    Actually the Roman Rite as a whole does not state an age of the earth. A creationist subset is trying to push your point of view down everyone's throat. Unfortunately for you the book of Genesis alone does not support the creationist assertions. To believe the young earth theory requires you to believe there are no gaps, and that Adam and Eve had a very limited time in the Garden of Eden.

    That is not supported in the book of Genesis, since if you actually read the book of Genesis you would know that Adam and Eve were immortal until they fell from Grace. We do not know if they were there for a week or a few hundred billion years.

    So it is your opinion that God created everything and has left it alone. Obviously not accurate, since God eventually created Adam, then saw a need for the creatures, then saw a need for Eve. So if from the time of the first creature, until Eve was 10 billion years then your young earth theory just loses steam. You can not refute my assertion with anything in the book of Genesis.

    So if God saw a need for these changes, why is it not possible that God has seen a need for a lot of other changes. Things the evolutionist call evolution. It just may not be the random events that they want to believe it is. Of course God may have set the system up to change on its own, and this is just an elaborate experiment.

    Lastly, if I were you I would go look up the drawbacks of C-14 dating. It does not work well once a certain amount of Carbon 14 has built up. At a certain point rate of C-14 accumulation slows, making accurate dating impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Brian:

    So, then, your argument would be that the following would not represent the Catholic Faith?

    "The twenty-fifth day of December.
    In the five thousand one hundred and ninety-ninth year of the creation of the world from the time when God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth;
    the two thousand nine hundred and fifty-seventh year after the flood;
    the two thousand and fifteenth year from the birth of Abraham;
    the one thousand five hundred and tenth year from Moses and the going forth of the people of Israel from Egypt;
    the one thousand and thirty-second year from David’s being anointed king;
    in the sixty-fifth week according to the prophecy of Daniel;
    in the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad;
    the seven hundred and fifty-second year from the foundation of the city of Rome;
    the forty second year of the reign of Octavian Augustus;
    the whole world being at peace,
    in the sixth age of the world,
    Jesus Christ the eternal God and Son of the eternal Father,
    desiring to sanctify the world by his most merciful coming,
    being conceived by the Holy Spirit, and nine months having passed since his conception,
    was born in Bethlehem of Judea of the Virgin Mary, being made flesh."

    Because, you see Brian, the above is from the Roman Martyrology, and has been traditionally chanted in the Roman Rite for over a thousand years on Christmas Eve.

    It was chanted by Pope Benedict personally, at the midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, 2011.

    So before you go off huffing and puffing about "creationist subsets", be good enough to hear me very well.

    The relevant concept here is "lex orandi, lex credendi".

    Go ahead, look it up, and come on back if you mean to suggest that you can:

    1. Deny that the above constitutes a profoundly ancient and universal statement of the catholic Faith;

    2. Force any catholic, on any grounds whatsoever, to deny a syllable of it;

    3. Prove scientifically that the Church is in error in proclaiming the Faith in this way.

    See you soon.

    ReplyDelete