6000 year old earth

[thistle]

I’m wondering why this gets some people all steamed up. I happen to believe the earth is around 4.6 billion years old and not 6000 years old but the Church allows us to believe either so why are some people being so heated and rude about those who are allowed by the Church to believe in a young earth?

 

[IvanHR]

I’m not sure if anyone mentioned this, but isn’t it true that when Jesus or God mentions the number 1000, they actually mean a large amount (of time, or whatever)?

 

[rossum]

Thanks, I can do it or one post but not for more than one

You need to add more sets of tags. What you actually type is:

…[noparse]

Thanks, I can do it or one post but not for more than one

[/noparse]…

The first tag closes the other person’s quote. The second tag opens it again. That clearly separates your words from theirs.

Correct but this was patently not a science part of the Bible but a supernatural act of God evidently if you continue reading the events of Jacob.

How do you know it “was patently not a science part of the Bible”? Do you have a Bible verse saying so, or are you using knowledge gained from science? Genesis 1 clearly describes a number of “supernatural acts of God”. Does that indicate that Genesis 1 is also not science and so that YE Creationism is also not science?

Again this is not part of the science in the Bible but another supernatural act but this time by Satan.

Excellent. We are agreed that when a literal reading of the Bible and science contradict each other, then science is to take precedence and the literal meaning is replaced by a miracle of some sort.

Yes but who’s Science? Your faith in science seems higher than your faith in the word of God.

My faith in the men of science is higher than my faith in some, but not all, men of God. A lot of different men propose different interpretations of the word of God. Pre-trib or post-trib? Pre-mil, a-mil or post-mil? Arminian or Calvinist? Catholic, Protestant or Eastern Orthodox? All follow basically the same Bible, but all have different interpretations of it. We know that men can misinterpret the Bible, Harold Camping being just one obvious recent example. There are 1001 different interpretations of the word of God available from different men (and even some from women). While there are different interpretations possible in science, there is far less variation between the different interpretations and hence I have more trust in the results of science. My computer is the result of science, and it works a lot better than Harold Camping’s prophecies.

I respect applied science but dating of more than perhaps a few thousand years is s spurious business. With arbitrary guesstimates. Hardly pure science, since no one knows for example how much background radiation there was so long ago.

We do know, because it can be measured. Varves from Lake Suigetsu allow us to measure the levels of background radiation indirectly by their effect on 14C levels.


Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration for almost the complete 14C dating range (less than 45 ka cal BP) reconstructed from annually laminated sediments from Lake Suigetsu (Japan).

Chuck Missler is a former engineer and a polymath to boot.

Chuck Missler is neither a biologist nor a biochemist. He is a typical YEC who uses scientific sounding words to push snake-oil onto people who do not have the required background. Yes, parts of evolution are rocket science. Have a look at the Hardy-Weinberg equations for an example.

Yes but it is always best to check something for oneself don’t you think?

Agreed. Leonardo da Vinci thought so as well:

"If the Deluge had carried the shells for distances of three and four hundred miles from the sea it would have carried them mixed with various other natural objects all heaped up together; but even at such distances from the sea we see the oysters all together and also the shellfish and the cuttlefish and all the other shells which congregate together, found all together dead; and the solitary shells are found apart from one another as we see them every day on the sea-shores.

“And we find oysters together in very large families, among which some may be seen with their shells still joined together, indicating that they were left there by the sea and that they were still living when the strait of Gibraltar was cut through. In the mountains of Parma and Piacenza multitudes of shells and corals with holes may be seen still sticking to the rocks…”

– Leonardo da Vinci, Notebooks, 1510

What we see in the ground today is not the result of a global flood, as was obvious to Leonardo. For example, we see fossilised sand dunes, laid down under air, not water. There was no global flood in recent history. This is another case where you are going to have to decide that the Bible is not literal history.

rossum

 

[Freekevio]

What way?

Peace,
Ed

By being Spirit led, by reasoning with people, by prompting people to think about where they came from, by Praying and much more. The Holy Spirit is infinitely creative in ways to get people saved and I have met or heard of people who have met Jesus in many other ways including through the study of science and the historical evidence for Jesus to name just 2.
There is a book by 50 scientists called " in six days."

ID is widely attacked in the USA by the way and are we not all creationists Young earth and Old?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I’m wondering why this gets some people all steamed up. I happen to believe the earth is around 4.6 billion years old and not 6000 years old but the Church allows us to believe either so why are some people being so heated and rude about those who are allowed by the Church to believe in a young earth?

The belief alone isn’t the real issue, just the extent to which Creationists take in
proving their views as correct. If one believes, FINE, but if someone else believes
then tries to make others believe by false science, deceptive arguments, etc, that
is where I get heated.

Not sure what everybody’s position is on liars, but I just don’t like them.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Where do the young earth creationists derive from the Bible that the earth is only 6000 years old? Why has the Catholic Church decided not to make this a fundamental teaching?

Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose. Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation often hold that they arose at about the same time, perhaps six thousand to ten thousand years ago. Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer time scale. They generally hold the universe to be ten billion to twenty billion years old, life on earth to be about four billion years old, and modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand years old. Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold dates used by either or both of the other two positions.

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

The Time Question

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, “The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers” (CCC 283).

• catholic.com/magazine/articles/in-the-name-of-science

so in short one has to believe in what the church says until there is conclusive or imperative evidence for either side dealing with the love of God.

some of the evidence thus far for both sides

• s8int.com/giants1.html
• s8int.com/WordPress/2010/04/26/did-ancient-americans-ride-the-parasaurolophus-dinosaur-or-did-they-just-exaggerate-the-size-of-their-sheep/
• s8int.com/
• apologetics315.com/2008/03/ultimate-apologetics-mp3-audio-page.html
• magisreasonfaith.org/

God bless

 

[aragonjohn1]

Where do the young earth creationists derive from the Bible that the earth is only 6000 years old? Why has the Catholic Church decided not to make this a fundamental teaching?

if you would like here is a bit of the known history regarding “the young earth” movement;

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, [11] dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC. The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 BC.

Young Earth creationists have claimed that this view has its earliest roots in ancient Judaism, citing, for example, the commentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089–1164).[4] Shai Cherry of Vanderbilt University notes that modern Jewish theologians have generally rejected such literal interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who oppose some aspects of Darwinian thought generally accept partial scientific evidence that the Earth could be much older

The Septuagint has traditionally been calculated to date the creation around 5500 BC, while the Samaritan Torah around 4300 BC, and the Masoretic around 4000 BC.[18] Many of the earliest Christians who followed the Septuagint calculated creation around 5500 BC, and Christians up to the Middle-Ages continued to use this rough estimate: Clement of Alexandria (5592 BC), Julius Africanus (5501 BC), Eusebius (5228 BC), Jerome (5199 BC) Hippolytus of Rome (5500 BC), Theophilus of Antioch (5529 BC), Sulpicius Severus (5469 BC), Isidore of Seville (5336 BC), Panodorus of Alexandria (5493 BC), Maximus the Confessor (5493 BC), George Syncellus (5492 BC) and Gregory of Tours (5500 BC). The Byzantine calendar has traditionally dated the creation of the world to 1 September, 5509 BC, María de Ágreda and her followers to 5199 BC while the early Ethiopian Church (as revealed in the Book of Aksum) to 5493 BC. Bede was one of the first to break away from the standard Septuagint date for the creation and in his work De Temporibus (“On Time”) (completed in 703 AD) dated the creation to 18 March 3952 BC but was accused of heresy at the table of Bishop Wilfrid, because his chronology was contrary to accepted calculations of around 5500 BC. After the Masoretic text however was published, dating creation around 4000 BC became common, and was received with wide support. Proposed calculations of the date of creation, using the Masoretic from the 10th century – 18th century include: Marianus Scotus (4192 BC), Maimonides (4058 BC), Henri Spondanus (4051 BC), Benedict Pereira (4021 BC), Louis Cappel (4005 BC), James Ussher (4004 BC), Augustin Calmet (4002 BC), Isaac Newton (4000 BC), Johannes Kepler (27 April, 3977 BC) [based on his book Mysterium], Petavius (3984 BC), Theodore Bibliander (3980 BC), Christen Sørensen Longomontanus (3966 BC), Melanchthon (3964 BC), Martin Luther (3961 BC), John Lightfoot (3960 BC), Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide (3951 BC) Joseph Justus Scaliger (3949 BC), Christoph Helvig (3947 BC), Gerardus Mercator (3928 BC), Matthieu Brouard (3927 BC), Benito Arias Montano (3849 BC), Andreas Helwig (3836 BC), David Gans (3761 BC) and Gershom ben Judah (3754 BC).

the young earth theory was not advocated or held by many of the early church fathers and was not known historically as a semi-popular view until the late middle ages. even after then the promenint views were that the earth is 5000ish-7000ish, about ten thousand, a million or over, a few years less than a billion.

1. ^ Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible, 1879, 8th Edition, 1939—entry under ‘Creation’ quoting Dr. William Hales New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy, Vol. 1, 1830, p. 210

• askelm.com/doctrine/d911001.htm
• daylightorigins.com/

hope this helps You

God bless

 

[rossum]

Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose. Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation often hold that they arose at about the same time, perhaps six thousand to ten thousand years ago.

Actually, if you examine things carefully, they don’t. The special creationists may well attribute the origins of man and the universe to God, usually at 6,000 years ago or at 100,000 and 4.5 billion years ago. However, creationists, of whatever type, fail to provide an explanation for the origin of life, and refuse to provide a date for it.

You don’t believe me?

See Psalm 42:2 – “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?” (emphasis added)

Any explanation relying on God cannot explain, or give a date for, the origin of life. Only a non-living God would allow that.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

“Practical,” not much I suppose, but it’s lie that I burn over.
You’re not supporting the Creationist movement, are you?
Note that I’m not too bothered by the belief in the literal
creation account, but when it becomes a movement
that uses lies et cetera, then I get mad, that’s all.

It’s almost like lying for God, not cool.

“lying for God” That’s interesting. If the position is that Creationist what to throw science into the trash then they are what?

1. Want God to be part of the biology textbook?

I mean, this is far from the first time - or the last - that this subject gets brought up. It’s like a litmus test. “Hi, I’m here to tell you creationists are liars, and because I said so, you should…” What?

Is this thread just a rant to

A) Find out if there any creationists here?

B) If there are - what? Yell at them? Turn them into villains?

Where are any of these people? Where is intelligent design being taught? Where is this “movement”? There are plenty of activists out there pushing all kinds of things but they usually are identified.

Finally, and I don’t want to be confrontational, what will you do about the “lies” aside from post here?

Peace,
Ed

 

[aragonjohn1]

People before the thought of the Big Bang, Solar System, Evolution, etc don’t count.
Did that ever come to mind?

Creationism is a MODERN movement that sets out to deny many scientific claims.

I don’t necessarily have too much against people who believe in the literal interpretation,
but when it reaches the point of “DESPITE WHAT SCIENCE SAYS,” and so forth, then
I get very *very *vexed.

creationism and the young earth theory are two different things and ideas way prefiguring “modern times”

God bless

 

[aragonjohn1]

Actually, if you examine things carefully, they don’t. The special creationists may well attribute the origins of man and the universe to God, usually at 6,000 years ago or at 100,000 and 4.5 billion years ago. However, creationists, of whatever type, fail to provide an explanation for the origin of life, and refuse to provide a date for it.

You don’t believe me?

See Psalm 42:2 – “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?” (emphasis added)

Any explanation relying on God cannot explain, or give a date for, the origin of life. Only a non-living God would allow that.

rossum

but if there was only one God alive there would have to truth and truth never contradicts.

1. not if the proof was non-subjective [and/or evidence or history current or unknown is found proving either side ] (read the part about the churches stance on creation that was quoted or sourced )
2. when God’s loving perfect will.

( I don’t read the psalms yet in the bible so correct me if am wrong from a Christian or your view )

God bless

 

[thistle]

The belief alone isn’t the real issue, just the extent to which Creationists take in
proving their views as correct. If one believes, FINE, but if someone else believes
then tries to make others believe by false science, deceptive arguments, etc, that
is where I get heated.

Not sure what everybody’s position is on liars, but I just don’t like them.

Jesus seems to have the opposite position to you.

Matt 5:

43 "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,

45 that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?

47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Jesus seems to have the opposite position to you.

Matt 5:
43 "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?

Ah, but there’s a difference (to me) between “loving” and “liking.”
I do “love” everyone, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I “like” everyone.

It’s a kinda tricky system.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, I trust the educated Catholics to keep the creationists out of their private schools, let alone the creationists that are forcing their agenda into the public schools.

I think most educated Catholics are fighting to keep our children educated.

Where is this “fighting” occurring? I don’t think most educated Catholics aren’t fighting anything related to the topic, unless you have evidence. Who are these “creationists”? Where are they acting? A few leads, if you don’t mind?

A picture is being painted that no police detective would investigate. Very recent names, dates, places, would be nice. Not vague vagueness.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Probably no one person fits all of those categories all at once; but most people who are creationists fit into one or more of them.

Creationists take something from the Bible that the Church does not take (specifically, that the bible written several thousands of years ago meant to teach 20th and 21st century science). They run with that; and science is nothing more than a distraction from their mindless insistence that “If the Bible says so, I believe it and that ends it”, Emotion (and fear) rules the day. Emotion, because nothing logical can impact it, and fear, because of their misguided understanding of biblical literature, that if anything is “false” in part, it is then suspect in all. They are black and white, while the Church is red and blue and green and brown and… etc.

That is a total mischaracterization of the Catholic Church’s position, which is this:

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Emotion? That’s wrong. Creationists believe science has been lying about human origins, for one thing. That scientists are selling a worldview. You’ll note that most “creationists” are non-Catholic Christians who have taught this in Sunday Schools since right after this country was founded.

And the allegations here are mostly based on fear and emotion. If I had kids in school and a neighbor told me that a certain group was infiltrating our schools, I would ask “who are they,” “where and how are they doing this,” and “how do you prevent this”?

All I’m reading here is vague followed by more vague. Any real-life examples from 2013 about what “creationists” are doing regarding schools?

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Genesis ! seems to be written from God’s perspective. Consider a rolled up tape measure 7 layers. God sees all at once. We live on the tape and have to look back past the graduations.

The 6,000 years came from Anglican Bishop Usher who calculated it from the geneoalogies. The Jewish calendar is at 5773. Sungenis says it could be as high as 12,000BC if they are ancestral relationships wherein the ancestor is the calendar marker until the birth of the next-in-line

 

[edwest2]

I’m not sure if anyone mentioned this, but isn’t it true that when Jesus or God mentions the number 1000, they actually mean a large amount (of time, or whatever)?

No.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Any real-life examples from 2013 about what “creationists” are doing regarding schools?

Textbooks under attack in Texas, dated this month.

Ideologues on official state textbook review teams are attacking the treatment of evolution and climate change in science textbooks under consideration in Texas, charged the Texas Freedom Network and the National Center for Science Education in a joint press release issued on September 9, 2013. “Once again culture warriors on the state board are putting Texas at risk of becoming a national laughingstock on science education,” TFN’s president Kathy Miller warned.

rossum

 

[Freekevio]

Actually, if you examine things carefully, they don’t. The special creationists may well attribute the origins of man and the universe to God, usually at 6,000 years ago or at 100,000 and 4.5 billion years ago. However, creationists, of whatever type, fail to provide an explanation for the origin of life, and refuse to provide a date for it.

You don’t believe me?

See Psalm 42:2 – “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?” (emphasis added)

Any explanation relying on God cannot explain, or give a date for, the origin of life. Only a non-living God would allow that.

rossum

Honest scientists Brother Rossum state with confidence that there was a sudden emergence of life around 30,000 years ago. This in in accord with the revelation from our Beautiful Creator that there was indeed a big gap between day 1 and two and also helps to understand where the darkness came in.
The gap was of the order of a few million years in human time and is when the dinosaurs lived as vegetarians. if you think about it, everything without evolution could have been done in a few hundred thousand years and all life was indeed done instantaneously according to their Kind, but it was to fit with Darwin that the other scientists such as geologists and paleontologists began to formulate their own time-frames.

Give someone a white coat and they are given God like status in authoritative knowledge or butchery and frequently both.

 

[adawgj]

I don’t know where they get the dating of a 6 day creation, because it was the Aztecs and Mayans that developed 365 day calendars.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach as a fundamental one because it goes against a lot of biological, geological, archaeological, and historical truth, which The Church supports.