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

[Oreoracle]

I wonder if I write 14 paragraphs on the issue if you will ever be able to understand the two-word phrase “on topic?” If you wish to discuss archeology and the rise of civilization, please start another thread.

Oooooohhhhhhh…I love it when people on the internet are snide. It chokes me up every time.

Anyway, I wonder if you are capable of p(name removed by moderator)ointing who’s responsible for causing the topic to digress into the topic of archaeology? I’ll give you a hint: It wasn’t me.

If you’re going to make accusations, aim them at the right person.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

JULIE MAE; I appreciate your frustration. However, are you aware that fundamentalists/so-called “literalists” are certain that the Bible account of Creation of Earth and Sky and animal and plans and humans is exactly how it happened. They equate the description of how thns came to be to a religious-faith account as its intrinsic core meaning. ***The *literal **** meaning of a text is what the original author intended Thus God used the folklore, the ancestral stories and language of the Hebrew People to wirite Genesis, the one at issue here. to write that book and the others. Looking for physical science and biology and and human history is not what He was about. Science changes theories all the time but they are based on study and new findings- where did we come from physically/geographically, how old is this fossil, human body, tree, ocean. Buit the Bible does not answer them. That is the key issue on this site between both sides!.

 

[Lui]

However, are you aware that fundamentalists/so-called “literalists” are certain that the Bible account of Creation of Earth and Sky and animal and plans and humans is exactly how it happened. They equate the description of how thns came to be to a religious-faith account as its intrinsic core meaning. ***The ***literal ****** meaning of a text is what the original author intended .

What I don’t get is WHY they want to take the Bible literally.

 

[grannymh]

JULIE MAE; I appreciate your frustration. However, are you aware that fundamentalists/so-called “literalists” are certain that the Bible account of Creation of Earth and Sky and animal and plans and humans is exactly how it happened. They equate the description of how thns came to be to a religious-faith account as its intrinsic core meaning. ***The ***literal ******meaning of a text is what the original author intended Thus God used the folklore, the ancestral stories and language of the Hebrew People to wirite Genesis, the one at issue here. to write that book and the others. Looking for physical science and biology and and human history is not what He was about. Science changes theories all the time but they are based on study and new findings- where did we come from physically/geographically, how old is this fossil, human body, tree, ocean. Buit the Bible does not answer them. That is the key issue on this site between both sides!.

In other words, for certain individuals, no is the answer to the question “Can science prove the world is over 4 billion years old?” Sola scriptura serves as the reason for their “no”.

Regarding strictly the formation of the present universe, the Catholic doctrine is that God is the Creator of all. Because exactly how the universe came into existence is in the material/physical domain, there is no scientific doctrine on the universe itself. Therefore, Catholics are free to argue any position regarding the material/physical universe.

As for the Wikipedia link, as far as I know there are very few CAF members who can address the different methods of dating. I do know that issues of contamination are being discussed in a number of sciences dealing with pre-historic times. The study of recently discovered DNA by anthropologists is adding to knowledge about the world’s pre-history.

If one includes living organisms as part of the world, then there are Catholic doctrines regarding human nature.

 

[grannymh]

What I don’t get is WHY they want to take the Bible literally.

Does it really matter if some individuals want to take the Bible literally?

For Catholics, it is Scriptures’ Divine Revelation which is important. This does not imply that scientific proof regarding the material/physical universe is useless. Catholicism sees great value in understanding science because that knowledge gives glory to our Creator and can be beneficial for humans and other living organisms.

What is frustrating to me is the either-or mentality which is probably why there are very few strictly scientific methods discussed on CAF.

In my humble opinion, both no and yes answers, with their reasons, are valid answers to the topic.

 

[inocente]

Ancient Chinese Characters.

Thanks, you didn’t comment on it so I will. Yet another new superstition, the internet superstition industry is very healthy. We both know how easy it is to be suckered into seeing patterns in everything. The Jesus code is another new superstition, although embarrassingly the same patterns can be found in Aesop’s Fables, the yellow pages or any other large enough book. If only more kids were taught basic probability, but why some folk can’t reconcile reality with trust in Christ unless they have all manner of flimsy excuses in beyond me.

The point remains that the “science” in Gen 1 contains obvious mistakes of the kind that any ancient people might make, so cannot have been revealed by God, the revealed truths instead being in what it says about God.

I won’t ask if that’s what the Church teaches as you guys can tend to disagree.

 

[inocente]

I wonder if I write 14 paragraphs on the issue if you will ever be able to understand the two-word phrase “on topic?” If you wish to discuss archeology and the rise of civilization, please start another thread.

Hi Julia, I’d say those posts are on topic in that they’re about what “prove it” means.

With one exception I can’t think of anyone anywhere having a vested interest in the age of the world, we can all just look at the evidence and make up our own mind, it makes no spiritual or material difference.

The exception is young earth creationists, who claim science must “prove it”. It’s been said a number of times on this thread that natural science isn’t about proving, it’s about falsifying bad theories. Science yawns at YECs taking their pot shots, and it would be neat instead to see a positive argument for their age for the world, let alone why we should care a jot about the age of the world.

Well, that’s my five cents.

 

[grannymh]

The point remains that the “science” in Gen 1 contains obvious mistakes of the kind that any ancient people might make, so cannot have been revealed by God, the revealed truths instead being in what it says about God.

I won’t ask if that’s what the Church teaches as you guys can tend to disagree.

O.K. I will speak as an observing granny.

As far as the first three chapters of Genesis, there is no modern “science”. What is there is “observation of nature” which is the basis of pre-science and then modern science. The opening of Genesis is the first people’s observation that many physical/material objects exist in the world around them, above them, and below them. How these inanimate objects came to be in the shape they are was a key question. God was posited as the answer.

Now some materialistically based people would reply that a supernatural being was a natural answer since at that time real science was not available. Some current people claim that real science has replaced superstition. While science provides some good answers about the world, the real truths of the first three chapters of G*enesis *remain. I agree with Inocente that these real truths are those that say something about God.

By the way, in regard to your “Well, that’s my five cents.” Are you sure you deserve that increase in price?

 

[buffalo]

What I don’t get is WHY they want to take the Bible literally.

Catholics are to understand the Bible as to what the author intended to convey. In addition, the long standing understanding and interpretation by the Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit.

If you want to understand the Bible look to what the Church has always taught and believed.

 

[inocente]

What is there is “observation of nature” which is the basis of pre-science and then modern science.

The vault of the sky is interesting. It contains the stars (Gen 1:14-18) and beyond it is water (1:6-7). Apparently many ancient cultures perceived the sky as a solid canopy. They might be seriously unnerved by limitless space, perhaps our natural predisposition is to think of the sky as a dome. Small children often only color in the sky at the top of their paintings, and we still look upwards to the heavens (Do you sense the Creator, world? Seek Him beyond the starry canopy! Beyond the stars must He dwell. - Schiller, as per Beethoven’s 9th).

By the way, in regard to your “Well, that’s my five cents.” Are you sure you deserve that increase in price?

5 US cents are only worth 3.5 European cents.

 

[Lui]

Catholics are to understand the Bible as to what the author intended to convey. In addition, the long standing understanding and interpretation by the Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit.

If you want to understand the Bible look to what the Church has always taught and believed.

I’m pretty sure that Catholics aren’t supposed to take everything in the Bible literally and that the Catholic Church does not tell us to. I was talking about Fundamentalists not Catholics.
If you’re saying that the Church tells us to take the whole Bible literally, please post a link where it says so.

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m pretty sure that Catholics aren’t supposed to take everything in the Bible literally and that the Catholic Church does not tell us to. I was talking about Fundamentalists not Catholics.
If you’re saying that the Church tells us to take the whole Bible literally, please post a link where it says so.

The Church has never insisted upon an exhaustively literal interpretation.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I’m pretty sure that it is more or less proven that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

I’m pretty sure science has done no such thing.

There are a lot of assumptions made in techniques that attempt to age the earth. We assume things have or have not remained constant throughout history (radioactive decay, magnetic field of the earth, speed of light, etc) that we don’t really know if they have or have not.

Even if someone agrees with the conclusion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, if they are honest about how that conclusion was arrived at, they will admit there are a lot of assumptions, unknowns, and things that simply don’t have any scientific explanation (what was the cause of the “big bang” for example).

Pax.

 

[rossum]

I’m pretty sure science has done no such thing.

There are a lot of assumptions made in techniques that attempt to age the earth. We assume things have or have not remained constant throughout history (radioactive decay, magnetic field of the earth, speed of light, etc) that we don’t really know if they have or have not.

Scientists do not assume when they can check something.

• Radioactive decay rates have been checked. They have remained constant for the last 150,000 years at least. Just as well because if rates in the recent past were at the kind of values Young Earthers wanted then the Earth would still be molten rock - radioactive decay releases heat and fast decay releases heat faster.
• The Earth’s magnetic field has been checked. It is known not to be constant, but to change in various ways, some regular, some not. The entire magnetic field even reverses on occasions. No scientific dating method assumes either a static, or uniformly changing, magnetic field.
• The speed of light has been checked. It is know to have been constant for the last ten billion years.

There are no assumptions in the points you mention. They have all been checked experimentally.

Even if someone agrees with the conclusion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, if they are honest about how that conclusion was arrived at, they will admit there are a lot of assumptions, unknowns, and things that simply don’t have any scientific explanation (what was the cause of the “big bang” for example).

Please do not believe everything you read on creationist websites. They have an agenda and they lie. They also drag in irrelevancies. The cause of the Big Bang is not relevant to the age of the Earth, any more that the cause of God is relevant to the date of creation.

rossum

 

[Lui]

I’m pretty sure science has done no such thing.

There are a lot of assumptions made in techniques that attempt to age the earth. We assume things have or have not remained constant throughout history (radioactive decay, magnetic field of the earth, speed of light, etc) that we don’t really know if they have or have not.

Even if someone agrees with the conclusion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, if they are honest about how that conclusion was arrived at, they will admit there are a lot of assumptions, unknowns, and things that simply don’t have any scientific explanation (what was the cause of the “big bang” for example).

Pax.

When I say more or less, I include that there might be minor corrections. I am sure that science PROVED 1000% that the earth certainly isn’t only about 6000 years old like young earth creationists want us to believe.

 

[Robert_Sock]

When I say more or less, I include that there might be minor corrections. I am sure that science PROVED 1000% that the earth certainly isn’t only about 6000 years old like young earth creationists want us to believe.

The earth may be vastly older than 6,000 years old but human history, since the soul of Adam, is only 5771 years old, as is believed in Judaism.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The earth may be vastly older than 6,000 years old but human history, since the soul of Adam, is only 5771 years old, as is believed in Judaism.

Could I have a citation that says “Judaism” believes this? The Catholic Church doesn’t “believe” it and the Jewish folks don’t usually lag behind in matters scientific.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Could I have a citation that says “Judaism” believes this? The Catholic Church doesn’t “believe” it and the Jewish folks don’t usually lag behind in matters scientific.

This was based on personal conversation with my Jewish psychologist.

 

[Lui]

The earth may be vastly older than 6,000 years old but human history, since the soul of Adam, is only 5771 years old, as is believed in Judaism.

lol…if you say so…



I wonder who made the cave paintings in Chauvet, France 35000 years ago…

 

[Robert_Sock]

Could I have a citation that says “Judaism” believes this? The Catholic Church doesn’t “believe” it and the Jewish folks don’t usually lag behind in matters scientific.

chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2901/404/1/jewish/How-Old-is-the-Universe.htm

Here’s an interesting read from Chabad, which states the age of the universe.