Can science prove the world is over 4 billion yrs. old?

  • Thread starter Thread starter valentino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Again, put up or shut up - what specific pages have errors? Quote the so called error for further discussion.
Click to expand...
Actually Buffalo – you should heed your own advice, as you are the one who is defending scientific fraud. Show me passages in the book that are consonant with what educated people today – including Catholics – know about the age and constitution of the universe. If you can’t do that, I’d say you are just blowing smoke to defend Protestant YECism papered over to render it palatable to Catholics.
 
StAnastasia said:
Actually Buffalo – you should heed your own advice, as you are the one who is defending scientific fraud. Show me passages in the book that are consonant with what educated people today – including Catholics – know about the age and constitution of the universe. If you can’t do that, I’d say you are just blowing smoke to defend Protestant YECism papered over to render it palatable to Catholics.
Click to expand...
I knew you wouldn’t/couldn’t. Typical.
 
buffalo said:
If you read the book you would know some pages contain no science at all. What you are doing is fraudulent and misleading.

Again, put up or shut up - what specific pages have errors? Quote the so called error for further discussion.
Click to expand...
St Anastasia has said that the book’s mention of the “vapor canopy” is a scientific error. Look up “vapor canopy” in the index. Those pages have scientific errors on them.

When St Anastasia said “Some page have more errors than others” you should bear in mind that 1 > 0.

rossum
 
rossum said:
St Anastasia has said that the book’s mention of the “vapor canopy” is a scientific error. Look up “vapor canopy” in the index. Those pages have scientific errors on them. When St Anastasia said “Some page have more errors than others” you should bear in mind that 1 > 0.rossum
Click to expand...
In his discussion of the flood (pp. 371-374) Warkulwiz cites Henry Morris and Whitcomb and Riley. That’s cutting edge science?
 
rossum said:
St Anastasia has said that the book’s mention of the “vapor canopy” is a scientific error. Look up “vapor canopy” in the index. Those pages have scientific errors on them.

When St Anastasia said “Some page have more errors than others” you should bear in mind that 1 > 0.

rossum
Click to expand...
You guys never read it.

I will quote it here without adding or subtracting anything:

“The Flood was a supernaturally induced unleashing of natural powers, for God said that He would send rain upon the earth (7:4). He collapsed the antediluvian vapor blanket (if there was one),29 released pressurized subterranean waters, c and perhaps induced volcanic activity as well. d”

What did Walt Brown argue in the reference?

Now if you guys have read the book you will know what the 29, c and d references mean.

So now it is obvious to all that you are lifting terms out of context.

She is doing “a drive by” job here, which is typical. rossum you can do better than to defend her nonsense. You yourself do not engage in this way.
 
buffalo said:
“The Flood was a supernaturally induced unleashing of natural powers, for God said that He would send rain upon the earth (7:4). He collapsed the antediluvian vapor blanket (if there was one),29 released pressurized subterranean waters, c and perhaps induced volcanic activity as well. d”
Click to expand...
“The antediluvian vapor blanket (if there was one)” – that is an idea even the Protestant Fundamentalists have abandoned as worthless.

“Released pressurized subterranean waters” – for which there is zero evidence.

“and perhaps induced volcanic activity as well.” – you have to love Warkulwiz’s free use of “perhaps,” “maybe, and possibly” throughout this book.

This book is dishonest charlatanry through and through.
 
StAnastasia said:
“The antediluvian vapor blanket (if there was one)” – that is an idea even the Protestant Fundamentalists have abandoned as worthless.

“Released pressurized subterranean waters” – for which there is zero evidence.

“and perhaps induced volcanic activity as well.” – you have to love Warkulwiz’s free use of “perhaps,” “maybe, and possibly” throughout this book.

This book is dishonest charlatanry through and through.
Click to expand...
The above falls under the heading - The Biblical Account of the Flood… The next is the Flood in Folklore and then Geological Signs of the Flood. Then follows Objections and Replies.

You - “Released pressurized subterranean waters” – for which there is zero evidence.

Wrong, we now now there is a great ocean under China and more water than exists in all the ocean is locked up in rocks under great pressure. I have showed the sources for this many times and you know it. We also know that is the present earth is “leveled” out the water would be around 9000 feet deep.

You certainly are not going to deny past volcanic activity, are you?

What do the footnotes say? You are still not being honest here.
 
buffalo said:
Bishop Vasa wrote the forward to this book - It does a very good job in showing what the Church has always taught and understood.

The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins

**Product Description

** Today the Catholic Church has well-developed theologies of redemption and sanctification but no well-developed theology of creation.
Click to expand...
That sounds very embarrassing. After divine revelation and 2,000 years the Church is blowing in the wind on creation?

PS: I like the scholarly bright yellow cover with its bright red text.
 
inocente said:
That sounds very embarrassing. After divine revelation and 2,000 years the Church is blowing in the wind on creation?

PS: I like the scholarly bright yellow cover with its bright red text.
Click to expand...
Excuse me. What do you mean by blowing what? in the wind. I am familiar with standing down wind. 😉

In addition, Divine Revelation is not governed by 21st century methods of scientific inquiry no matter how many wish it. In other words, when one steps over to the spiritual domain, the Catholic Church has already proclaimed the essential truth of creation.
Catholic belief is in “one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.” Source: Nicene Creed professed by the congregation usually at the Saturday/Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
 
Pope Pius X11 wrote Divini Afflante Spiritu in 1947 - ot thereabouts and that shut up the “so-called” Ttraditional views that Genesis 1-11 is literally true in the popular sense of “literal” but what the author(s) intended, God and the human inspired writer. The Pontifical Biblical Commission during Vat 11 issued a docuemt as to how the NT is to be understood and read- not an actual rreporter’s transcription as to what Jesus did or said or where it took place.
Read my other posts please and the Pritchard NEAR EASTERN TEXTS
.
 
grannymh said:
Excuse me. What do you mean by blowing what? in the wind. I am familiar with standing down wind. 😉

In addition, Divine Revelation is not governed by 21st century methods of scientific inquiry no matter how many wish it. In other words, when one steps over to the spiritual domain, the Catholic Church has already proclaimed the essential truth of creation.
Catholic belief is in “one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.” Source: Nicene Creed professed by the congregation usually at the Saturday/Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Click to expand...
But the blurb for the book says the Church “has no well-developed theology of creation” and that still sounds very embarrassing after 2,000 years.

Of course (and this is the point I was hoping to make :)), it might also sound embarrassing to point out that the Church has no well-developed theology of table tennis, crochet and tire pressures. As you say, I’d have thought it sufficient to acknowledge God as creator and then get on to the good stuff about Christ, given that Christ didn’t actually say much about creation and it’s Christ’s church, but then I’m not a Catholic so I’ll shut up, just thinking out loud. 😃
 
inocente said:
That sounds very embarrassing. After divine revelation and 2,000 years the Church is blowing in the wind on creation?

PS: I like the scholarly bright yellow cover with its bright red text.
Click to expand...
Possibly the worst book cover imaginable. But the book is dead in the water, except for earnest YEC discussions in church basements. I could not even get a journal to accept my review of it.

The book is a self-published, puerile waste of time, that incorporates arguments for Young Earth Creationism that even Protestant Young Earth Creationists abandoned years ago, such as the postulated ante-diluvian “vapor Canopy” as a probable cause of “Noah’s Flood.”

You’d be far better served reading Archbishop Josef Zycinski’s God and Evolution (2006).

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
The book is a self-published, puerile waste of time, that incorporates arguments for Young Earth Creationism that even Protestant Young Earth Creationists abandoned years ago, such as the postulated ante-diluvian “vapor Canopy” as a probable cause of “Noah’s Flood.”

You’d be far better served reading Archbishop Josef Zycinski’s God and Evolution (2006).

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
That is not the case the book makes…
 
buffalo said:
That is not the case the book makes…
Click to expand...
"If the book is widely read and considered by Catholics, it should cause a renaissance in their thinking about origins. I recommend the book also for Protestants who should overlook the few instances where it deviates from strongly held biblical beliefs. The book is overwhelmingly and delightfully a work of young-earth creationism. "
 
StAnastasia said:
"If the book is widely read and considered by Catholics, it should cause a renaissance in their thinking about origins. I recommend the book also for Protestants who should overlook the few instances where it deviates from strongly held biblical beliefs. The book is overwhelmingly and delightfully a work of young-earth creationism. "
Click to expand...
It is a book that shows clearly the long held understanding and teaching of the Church. Many, including yourself, are quick to argue those teachings are not relevant today. They are and that is the purpose of the book. It defines the 16 Doctrines of Genesis.

Mockers cannot deal with it so they attack the science aspects.

Years ago I started a thread called Tradition and Science - should we look deeper? (or something like that). The point is that the theology and philosophy are sound. That means the science has to be reconciled. (IDvolution does that. (origins)). Science should embrace the scrutiny.
 
StAnastasia said:
Possibly the worst book cover imaginable. But the book is dead in the water, except for earnest YEC discussions in church basements. I could not even get a journal to accept my review of it.

The book is a self-published, puerile waste of time, that incorporates arguments for Young Earth Creationism that even Protestant Young Earth Creationists abandoned years ago, such as the postulated ante-diluvian “vapor Canopy” as a probable cause of “Noah’s Flood.”
Click to expand...
I guess I won’t be buying THAT book any time soon:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top