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

[Al_Moritz]

And my relevant official Church documents trump yours.

You may check the footnotes for paragraph 390 at least, of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. For the context, it would be wise to check paragraphs 355-421.

My humble suggestion is to talk with any Catholic who has actually and thoroughly studied the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, instead of mine quoting*.*

I have answered this at the bottom of the following post of mine, responding to you in an earlier discussion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7867216&postcount=54

 

[Al_Moritz]

Assuming that Noah’s ark is an historical event (which i don’t believe it is), watching somebody building an ark for 100 years and calling it folly is a different kettle of fish to ignoring the fact there is no evidence whatsoever that a world wide flood ever happened; certainly not around the time Noah is reported to have built his boat.

There are interpretations that say that a flood “covering all the Earth” refers to the Earth as the writer(s) knew it, i.e. all the local area that they knew. It is of course preposterous to assume that the writer knew the whole planet Earth at the time – the Catholic Church never said that divine revelation works that way, but religious fundamentalists like certain posters here love to ignore the teachings of the Church.

 

[buffalo]

C’mon buddy that must be one of the most ridiculous things you’ve ever said. Stop banging your head and think about it - the evolution of language, ie the fact that languages constantly change, and that one language gives rise to a family of descendants, that other languages die out and that others are hybrids of more than one parent is an indisputable fact. We know that Latin gave rise to the Romance languages (French, Italian, Castilian Spanish, Potuguese, Catalan, Romanian and many more). The Anglo-Frisian branch of Western Germanic gave rise to Old English and Old Frisian, and susbsequently these evolved into modern Frisian, modern English and modern Scots. English is an interesting example in that a huge shift occured in the middle ages between old English and middle English, which changed substantial parts of the grammar and vocabulary and overlaid the Germanic base with substantial Romance vocabulary via French (or actually Norman French). Modern English continues to evolve into different forms - the language of Shakespeare is not the language of today, nor is it the same as the literally hundreds of English forms and dialects that have sprung up around the world.

As others have pointed out, what we know about the evolution of languages belies a single major event, and the story is historical only in the sense that the rest of Genesis is historical (ie not at all).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Of course they change. No argument here. Evolution of language as in cavemen, grunting sounds etc.

You too take the position “it had to happen” this way. There is zero evidence for it.

 

[buffalo]

Nobody here rejects Church teaching. As for our God-given powers of reason, we should also use them to perform good science.

Exactly. (underline the good)

 

[Farsight001]

Of course they change. No argument here. Evolution of language as in cavemen, grunting sounds etc.

You too take the position “it had to happen” this way. There is zero evidence for it.

Repeat yourself all you want. It’s not going to make you right. Many of us here have read about and seen this evidence you say doesn’t exist. So please, citations for your claim that language diversity appeared abruptly. We’re all still waiting.

 

[buffalo]

I wouldn’t be so quick as to say nobody here rejects Church teaching. Many people on the boards, aren’t even Catholic, and make no bones about their disagreement with Church teaching. Many others are Catholics who freely admit they reject certain Church teachings.

You say the Eucharist is a supernatural event so you rely on religion, but creation was a natural event so you rely on science. There are a few issues with this:

-the Eucharist is a supernatural event. It is also a natural event. The bread and wine are changed into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. What you eat and drink is not bread and wine. It’s not bread and wine that symbolizes flesh and blood. It’s not bread and wine that you believe is flesh and blood. It IS flesh and blood.

-How exactly do you know the creation of the universe wasn’t a supernatural event? In which case, by your own reasoning on the Eucharist you would disregard all the observed evidence that points to the contrary of the reality. God made the universe. God made the natural laws of the universe. He is not bound by them, He is their master.

The Church clearly teaches that sin entered the world through the first Man.

The Church clearly teaches that all men and women are descended from one original man and one original woman- Adam and Eve.

The Church clearly teaches that Noah existed, and that God made a covenant with him that remains in effect for all mankind.

The Church clearly teaches that God made Eve from Adam’s side.

If you don’t reject Church teaching and you believe in evolution, how do you reconcile those teachings with your evolutionary beliefs?

Pax and God Bless.

I would add - So God let nature go on but then decided to act within this frame supernaturally? I see no reason the nature frame is supernatural in origin and God acts supernaturally within it. It is quite consistent.

 

[buffalo]

Um, how do you accept “common descent” and reject macroevolution at the same time? You do understand that this is how all things are commonly related, right? Microevolution could not be responsible for that. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Bible to contradict the idea of macroevolution, so it puzzles me why so many people shy away from it. I personally believe that man is a part of the common descent of all living things. The Bible speaks of the difference between the “natural man” and the “spiritual man”, and how only the intervention of God makes one into the other. In other words, the natural or evolved man dies, and the spiritual man assumes his life. I take the Adam and Eve story to be a telling of how God tweeked an existing creature once it finally reached a usable stage of development.

I utterly reject the notion that God left deceiving physical evidence laying about. This would constitute a deliberate lie and that is not in the nature of God as I have been taught it. Who would worship a Being that did such things? With that in mind, the veracity of the evidence discovered by science must be accepted at face value.

Why? The directional arrows point in opposite directions. Materialism points from less information to more. The God direction points from God to less. In addition, the history shows better (from Adam and Eve), corrupted by sin and decay.

 

[buffalo]

The encyclical Humani Generis by Pius XII that you like to quote as well allows for the inquiry into an “origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter” by evolution as long as the immediate creation of a spiritual soul by God is maintained:

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, on the part of men experienced in both fields, 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—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Such “origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter” by evolution is incompatible with Eve coming out of Adam’s rib.

Read in its entirety:
The Pope is saying - go ahead study it, here are the boundaries. Don’t confuse the soul. In the end the Church has the last say.

 

[grannymh]

I have answered this at the bottom of the following post of mine, responding to you in an earlier discussion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7867216&postcount=54

I am familiar with the Commission’s Report, i.e.,Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God*
and the * Preliminary Note found at the bottom.

It is my humble opinion, that it can be read in the light of common knowledge.
t is common knowledge that Adam is *both *a symbol and a real person.

 

[rossum]

There are interpretations that say that a flood “covering all the Earth” refers to the Earth as the writer(s) knew it, i.e. all the local area that they knew. It is of course preposterous to assume that the writer knew the whole planet Earth at the time – the Catholic Church never said that divine revelation works that way, but religious fundamentalists like certain posters here love to ignore the teachings of the Church.

Noah’s flood covered “all the eretz”, to quote the Hebrew. Reading Genesis 12:1 we see the same word used:And the Lord said to Abram: Go forth out of thy country (eretz), and from thy kindred, and out of thy father’s house, and come into the land (eretz) which I shall shew thee.
In this verse, eretz obviously doesn’t mean the entire planet, unless we are to believe that Abraham was an alien.

Of course, Abraham being from another planet would neatly explain why there is no evidence of the flood on this planet, the evidence is all on Abraham’s original home planet.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

I have answered this at the bottom of the following post of mine, responding to you in an earlier discussion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7867216&postcount=54

I am familiar with the Commission’s Report, i.e., Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God*
and the * Preliminary Note found at the bottom.

It is my humble opinion that this document can be read in the light of common knowledge.
It is common knowledge that Adam is *both *a symbol and a real person.
It is common knowledge that commissions and cardinals can express their opinions about scientific theories. Scientific theories per se are not part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.
It is common knowledge that many people would like Catholic dogma to change in accord with natural science which exists in the material/physical domain.

It is not common knowledge that Divine Revelation Trumps
in matters of Catholic faiith…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There are interpretations that say that a flood “covering all the Earth” refers to the Earth as the writer(s) knew it, i.e. all the local area that they knew. It is of course preposterous to assume that the writer knew the whole planet Earth at the time – the Catholic Church never said that divine revelation works that way, but religious fundamentalists like certain posters here love to ignore the teachings of the Church.

Perhaps that can explain some aspects of Noah’s story. But, considering the vast diversity of animals and insects, is it still reasonable to think that he saved 2 of every kind, including insects? Or is that just a localized phenomenon to? If the rest of the world was safe including the animals in those areas, why was it necessary to save 2 of every animal and creepy thing in Noah’s particular land? What was the purpose? Maybe, it was just to preserve wild life in that area for Noah’s sake? Also, surely we would have to believe that all human life was wiped out, except for a handful of humans that would have survived with Noah. This means there should be an extreme bottle neck in the human population around about 10,000 - 6000 years ago; after the time of Adam and Eve. What does science have to say about this?

What is your take on this?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

The point is that there was not a generation in which there were two sole ancestors of humans living. In any given generation we are descended from thousands of individuals. We did not have two sole ancestors.

As a woman scientist I too agree with you. Have a nice week.

 

[grannymh]

That’s not the point. The point is that there was not a generation in which there were two sole ancestors of humans living. In any given generation we are descended from thousands of individuals. We did not have two sole ancestors.

I agree that currently we are descended from thousands of individual humans. It is the generation before human nature origin that baffles me. However, that topic cannot be discussed in this forum. Sometimes, my curiosity gets the better of me. Naughty right brain.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Perhaps that can explain some aspects of Noah’s story. But, considering the vast diversity of animals and insects, is it still reasonable to think that he saved 2 of every kind, including insects? Or is that just a localized phenomenon to? If the rest of the world was safe including the animals in those areas, why was it necessary to save 2 of every animal and creepy thing in Noah’s particular land? What was the purpose? Maybe, it was just to preserve wild life in that area for Noah’s sake?

Of course, a lot of this has to be legend.

Also, surely we would have to believe that all human life was wiped out, except for a handful of humans that would have survived with Noah. This means there should be an extreme bottle neck in the human population around about 10,000 - 6000 years ago; after the time of Adam and Eve. What does science have to say about this?

What is your take on this?

That would have been a local extinction too, and I do not know what science has investigated about that. If it would establish that it was legend, I would be neither surprised nor feel unsettled.

 

[grannymh]

I have answered this at the bottom of the following post of mine, responding to you in an earlier discussion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7867216&postcount=54

Just a tiny bit of clarification. I don’t do Noah, the flood, old earth, young earth, middle earth, the big bang, and similar. My area is human nature, including human’s relationship with God.

 

[Lui]

There are interpretations that say that a flood “covering all the Earth” refers to the Earth as the writer(s) knew it, i.e. all the local area that they knew. It is of course preposterous to assume that the writer knew the whole planet Earth at the time – the Catholic Church never said that divine revelation works that way, but religious fundamentalists like certain posters here love to ignore the teachings of the Church.

 

[Dan_Daly]

The encyclical Humani Generis by Pius XII that you like to quote as well allows for the inquiry into an “origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter” by evolution as long as the immediate creation of a spiritual soul by God is maintained:

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, on the part of men experienced in both fields, 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—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Such “origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter” by evolution is incompatible with Eve coming out of Adam’s rib.

Yes and Arcanum and Humani Generis do not conflict.

Note that the passage you quoted from Humani Generis allows: research, discussion, and inquiries. What you did not quote from the document that is says Catholics should NOT treat evolution as a fact. This immediately follows what you did post, and is in fact part of the same paragraph:

However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Inquiry is not belief. The Church teaches in that Eve was made from Adam’s rib. The Church teaches that we may inquire into other theories. The two do not conflict.

Pax.

 

[razredge]

Polygenism is heresy. I have shown you the Pope specifically condemning it. You have the free will to believe or not believe it, but you do not have the authority to decide what is or is not heresy. If you choose to adhere to polygenism, you are adhering to an idea condemned as heresy.

Pax.

Sigh - Heliocentrism was also a formally declared heresy at one point, look how that turned out (unless you’re cranks like Sungenis et al).

The assertions of the Church, CANNOT overturn the physical evidence -

St Augustine said this about a literal interpretation of Scripture:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, **may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience**, even by one who is not a Christian. **It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided,** that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

— De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408]

 

[razredge]

Sigh - Heliocentrism was also a formally declared heresy at one point, look how that turned out (unless you’re cranks like Sungenis et al).

The assertions of the Church, CANNOT overturn the physical evidence -

St Augustine said this about a literal interpretation of Scripture:

Boy, the ‘True Believers’ are out in full force today aren’t they?

The reason this same ‘Adam & Eve’ debate has gone on and on over the past few years is primarily due the fact that some people are simply intellectually dishonest, close minded and will simply refuse to change their minds on the matter - regardless of what evidence you throw at them. Such people cannot be argued with (as Richard Dawkins points out in this video):
youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E