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

[buffalo]

No, I close my mind to fanatic fundamentalist views. Why is it so important to you to convince people to join the creationism club when not even the Pope wants to join?

So there you have. Cannot/willnot respond to the science. Yor refusal to address the other findings says it all. You are a devoted evolutionist. I on the other hand an IDvolutionist. Do you know the difference?

Pope stated faith and reason cannot be opposed. Why are you so afraid of the science?

According to most posters science is self correcting. I challenge you again - what say you when 100 peer reviewed findings of 70 year old soft tissue are validated. Will you still hold your scorn?

 

[Lui]

You are a devoted evolutionist. I on the other hand an IDvolutionist. Do you know the difference?

Hm, let me guess…the first one is a realist and the second one an IDelusionalist

 

[buffalo]

Hm, let me guess…the first one is a realist and the second one an IDelusionalist

Again, your evasion says it all.

 

[Lui]

Again, your evasion says it all.

And your persistence to try to convince people of IDevolution/Creationism says it all…

 

[buffalo]

And your persistence to try to convince people of IDevolution/Creationism says it all…

I have got the latest science backing me. Your paradigm is fading.

 

[Lui]

I have got the latest science backing me. Your paradigm is fading.

I don’t see any scientists internationally shouting out that they finally found out the earth is only 5000 years old. Where is YOUR evidence, I mean from serious sources, not biased creationism sources???

 

[buffalo]

I don’t see any scientists internationally shouting out that they finally found out the earth is only 5000 years old. Where is YOUR evidence, I mean from serious sources, not biased creationism sources???

First off I never claimed the earth is 5000 years old. You are misinformed.

You still fail to address the points I raised.

 

[JM3]

A moment of speculation.

aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

Looking back in time, a scientist will view the universe as being 15 billion years old. But what is the Bible’s view of time? Maybe it sees time differently. And that makes a big difference. Albert Einstein taught us that Big Bang cosmology brings not just space and matter into existence, but that time is part of the nitty gritty. Time is a dimension. Time is affected by your view of time. How you see time depends on where you’re viewing it. A minute on the moon goes faster than a minute on the Earth. A minute on the sun goes slower. Time on the sun is actually stretched out so that if you could put a clock on the sun, it would tick more slowly. It’s a small difference, but it’s measurable and measured.

If you could ripen oranges on the Sun, they would take longer to ripen. Why? Because time goes more slowly. Would you feel it going more slowly? No, because your biology would be part of the system. If you were living on the Sun, your heart would beat more slowly. Wherever you are, your biology is in synch with the local time. And a minute or an hour where ever you are is exactly a minute or an hour.

If you could look from one system to another, you would see time very differently. Because depending on factors like gravity and velocity, you will perceive time in a way that is very different. The flow of time varies one location to another location. Hence the term: the law of relativity.

Here’s an example: One evening we were sitting around the dinner table, and my 11-year-old daughter asked, "How you could have dinosaurs? How you could have billions of years scientifically ― and thousands of years Biblically at the same time? So I told her to imagine a planet where time is so stretched out that while we live out two years on Earth, only three minutes will go by on that planet. Now, those places actually exist, they are observed. It would be hard to live there with their conditions, and you couldn’t get to them either, but in mental experiments you can do it. Two years are going to go by on Earth, three minutes are going to go by on the planet. So my daughter says, “Great! Send me to the planet. I’ll spend three minutes there. I’ll do two years worth of homework. I’ll come back home in three minutes, and no more homework for two years.”

Nice try. Assuming she was age 11 when she left, and her friends were 11. She spends three minutes on the planet and then comes home. (The travel time takes no time.) How old is she when she gets back? Eleven years and 3 minutes. And her friends are 13. Because she lived out 3 minutes while we lived out 2 years. Her friends aged from 11 years to 13 years, while she’s 11 years and 3 minutes.

Had she looked down on Earth from that planet, her perception of Earth time would be that everybody was moving very quickly because in one of her minutes, hundreds of thousands of our minutes would pass. Whereas if we looked up, she’d be moving very slowly.

But which is correct? Is it three years? Or three minutes? The answer is both. They’re both happening at the same time. That’s the legacy of Albert Einstein. It so happens there literally billions of locations in the universe, where if you could put a clock at that location, it would tick so slowly, that from our perspective (if we could last that long) 15 billion years would go by… but the clock at that remote location would tick out six days.

 

[buffalo]

A moment of speculation.

aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

I have posted repeatledy:

Perhaps time is a rolled up tape measure. From Gods perspective He sees it all at once. Humans, being on the tape itself can only see the graduations backward and forward.

Gen 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective.

 

[Lui]

First off I never claimed the earth is 5000 years old. You are misinformed.

You still fail to address the points I raised.

Normally I have no problem having a civil discussion but you tend to judge and label people who don’t agree with you. You call Catholics who believe in some form of evolution(that would include Pope John Paul II) people who have fallen for scientism indicating that these Catholics are committing intellectual sin.You call your ideology called IDevolution the TRUTH(which indicates all other opinions are false) and you say that YOU read the Bible the way you’re supposed to read it(although the Catholic Church tells us otherwise). In other words, you’re saying many Catholics, the Pope and I read the Bible the wrong way.

It’s difficult to argue with people who think they are holders of the truth and everyone else is wrong because it leads to nowhere.

 

[buffalo]

Normally I have no problem having a civil discussion but you tend to judge and label people who don’t agree with you. You call Catholics who believe in some form of evolution(that would include Pope John Paul II) people who have fallen for scientism indicating that these Catholics are committing intellectual sin.You call your ideology called IDevolution the TRUTH(which indicates all other opinions are false) and you say that YOU read the Bible like you’re supposed to read it(although the Catholic Church tells us otherwise). In other words, you’re saying many Catholics, the Pope and I read the Bible the wrong way.

It’s difficult to argue with people who think they are holders of the truth and everyone else is wrong because it leads to nowhere.

Do you know how many times I have been labeled here on this board? You yourself did it.

I do not call it IDevolution - it is properly called IDvolution. Spend some time there going through both the faith and science resources. Argue your points on merit.

I accept the scientism charge.
I accept that where faith and reason intersect they both must be true.

I read the Bible as the Catechism teaches.

I have been studying faith and reason for a** very **long time. The cue that faith and reason cannot be opposed came from the Pope. I took the initiative to find the areas where they intersect. IDvolution, the solution came from this and many many debates and threads on this very forum. (One of them was titled - Faith and Tradition are we looking deep enough?) Believe me, (other posters will attest) there have been some big hitters that have posted here with regard to it. Over time, it honed and strengthened the argument.

I invite you once again to argue the science on its own merits. (Warning - many of the links on the IDvolution site are peer-reviewed)

I invite you to argue faith on its own merits. Browse the site and pick some that you have an issue with.

IDvolution considers the latest science and is ** **consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

---

 

[Lui]

I read the Bible as the Catechism teaches.

Really? The Catechism teaches Biblical literalism?

VATICAN CITY, Italy - The Vatican criticized a literal interpretation of the Bible
and said the fundamentalist approach to scripture was “a kind of intellectual suicide.”
A Vatican document said fundamentalism “refuses to admit that the inspired Word of God has been
expressed in human language… by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.”
The 125-page document, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, was written by the Pontifical Biblical Com-mission, a group of scholars who assist the Pope in the study of scripture.
It noted that a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible had been gaining strength. The Vatican is
increasingly concerned about the number of Catholics, especially in Latin America, who have abandoned the church for fast-growing fundamentalist sects.
“The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life,” the document said. Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide.”
A fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible began during the Reformation, when Protestants showed an increasing concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of scripture.
The document said fundamentalism refused to admit that there was a human element in the transmission of the Word of God.
One member of the commission, Jesuit Father Joseph Fitzmyer, said fundamentalists failed to recognize that several years elapsed between the time Jesus spoke and the time when the gospels were written.
“There was no stenographer, no one with a tape recorder on that time,” said Fitzmyer.
From The Star, 1994 Manila, Philippines

Btw, I only labeled you AFTER you labeled others

I also wanted to add that you once told me to ask my confession priest who believes in evolution if he has heard of IDvoluton? If you google IDvolution you find absolutely NOTHING? I doubt that he will know about something that you can’t even find with Google.

 

[buffalo]

Really? The Catechism teaches Biblical literalism?

Btw, I only labeled you AFTER you labeled others

The Catechism teaches that we should interpret Scripture as to what the author intended to convey authorized by the Magisterium, protected by the Holy Spirit.

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

 

[inocente]

If you google IDvolution you find absolutely NOTHING? I doubt that he will know about something that you can’t even find with Google.

I found it on Google. It’s the name of a small French company . Also it’s mentioned in a lonely OP on of all things a body builder’s forum, but sadly no one else has posted on the thread. Apart from that, as you said, zip.

 

[inocente]

I do not call it IDevolution - it is properly called IDvolution. Spend some time there going through both the faith and science resources. Argue your points on merit.

I looked around the website and here’s my unasked for critique:

It’s obviously intended for a Catholic audience. The design is good. It’s light on content about the theory.

The definition of idvolution is rather squidgy - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. What does breathed mean, how did that happen, and why the quotation marks? What’s the difference between a language, a super language and a super-duper language?

What are the kinds? A page on the site has extracts from an article which somewhat desperately argues that evolution is philosophically impossible, apparently because it doesn’t rely on a “metaphysical essence which is undetectable by modern biologists” . So do the kinds come out of “the super language of DNA” or from this “metaphysical essence”, which one is it, why won’t they make up their minds?

Given the use of ID in the name, is the definition’s “God” shorthand for ID’s intelligent agent, an it/she/he? It never seems to occur to supposedly scientific ID guys that if we’re designed then they also need to explain the origin of the designer, otherwise they’re not doing science. Their theory is like that cartoon of a blackboard filled with complicated equations and at the end “then a miracle occurs” . And there’s nothing in the theory to say if the intelligent agent is still around, it would seem at least possible that it moved away to design other universes if that’s its role.

Well, you see the kinds of critiques I have. Science is cool and I’ll admit to having a bigger problem with all attempts to avoid challenging received worldviews by hammering science into a corner. I know God is with us because, unreasonably, God touches my life, nothing at all to do with books and words and theorizing. Isn’t that the same for every Christian?

 

[buffalo]

I found it on Google. It’s the name of a small French company . Also it’s mentioned in a lonely OP on of all things a body builder’s forum, but sadly no one else has posted on the thread. Apart from that, as you said, zip.

Google it again. It is the top entry. Please be honest.

In any case I would not use an argument from unpopularity to make your point. Critique the actual content .I welcome valid points as it will only make the site better. Thanks…

Then we will have something to debate.

No doubt it is Catholic.

 

[buffalo]

I looked around the website and here’s my unasked for critique:

It’s obviously intended for a Catholic audience. The design is good. It’s light on content about the theory.

The definition of idvolution is rather squidgy - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. What does breathed mean, how did that happen, and why the quotation marks? What’s the difference between a language, a super language and a super-duper language?

What are the kinds? A page on the site has extracts from an article which somewhat desperately argues that evolution is philosophically impossible, apparently because it doesn’t rely on a “metaphysical essence which is undetectable by modern biologists” . So do the kinds come out of “the super language of DNA” or from this “metaphysical essence”, which one is it, why won’t they make up their minds?

Given the use of ID in the name, is the definition’s “God” shorthand for ID’s intelligent agent, an it/she/he? It never seems to occur to supposedly scientific ID guys that if we’re designed then they also need to explain the origin of the designer, otherwise they’re not doing science. Their theory is like that cartoon of a blackboard filled with complicated equations and at the end “then a miracle occurs” . And there’s nothing in the theory to say if the intelligent agent is still around, it would seem at least possible that it moved away to design other universes if that’s its role.

Well, you see the kinds of critiques I have. Science is cool and I’ll admit to having a bigger problem with all attempts to avoid challenging received worldviews by hammering science into a corner. I know God is with us because, unreasonably, God touches my life, nothing at all to do with books and words and theorizing. Isn’t that the same for every Christian?

Breathed is in the “” marks because I do not know the actual means of transmission. Do you? Perhaps a clue is St John - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

IDvolution is not a science site. However, it is using the latest in modern science to support the philosophy. The peer reviewed science links do not make reference to who the designer is and shouldn’t or they have crossed the line from science to philosophy.

The science side is showing evidence of design. The faith side is showing who we know the creator to be, God. The site merely connects the dots.

Perhaps you can help polish the definition.

Language - c’mon - simple language vs super language?

As genetic research matures I believe we will see a much better classification system develop than the current species. We already know that morphological traits alone do not cut it. I believe we will be able to better define the “kinds”. (kingdom level? St Augustine’s Prime Matter)

I suggest you read the entire article - The Philosophical Impossibilty of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution

ID - Intelligently Designed
volution - 1. a rolling, revolving, or spiral form or motion

Perhaps a picture can express it better:

 

[vz71]

If you google IDvolution you find absolutely NOTHING? I doubt that he will know about something that you can’t even find with Google.
inocente;8164139:

I found it on Google. It’s the name of a small French company

. Also it’s mentioned in a lonely OP on of all things a body builder’s forum, but sadly no one else has posted on the thread. Apart from that, as you said, zip.

In your ferver to put down someone, you have overlooked something important…

Your claim that google cannot find it is not only demonstrated false, but false to such a degree that I am questioning your honesty in the matter.

google.com/search?q=IDvolution&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

The first link on the page.
And in fact, the majority of the links that return on the first page reference the philosophy.

As stated a couple of posts back, please be honest.

 

[inocente]

Google it again. It is the top entry. Please be honest.

Well of course Google will find the word in a url, even I could write a search engine to do that. On the other hand references are notable by their absence. If it’s your site then allowing advertisements for a while may help to get more hits.

In your ferver to put down someone, you have overlooked something important…

Sheesh, what fervor? Am I so dumb as to think others can’t do exactly the same Google search as me? I got a hit on the site itself and a couple of hits on the domain owners, the same as for every other website, plus the two I mentioned. That was it. How does it put anyone down to observe that the concept of idvolution has few online references? Am I to walk on eggshells to avoid being accused of dishonesty and having my integrity questioned? Heck no. Sheesh dude.

 

[inocente]

Breathed is in the “” marks because I do not know the actual means of transmission. Do you?

Why not chemistry, emergent complexity, things built into the system at a deep level by physical law? I don’t see a need to posit anything special, to me that spoils the elegance and beauty of it.

Perhaps you can help polish the definition.

Trying to compress it I get God put DNA into species but then think so what? I’m obviously not grasping whatever’s being said. My confusion about whether the “kinds” are supposed to come from DNA or from “metaphysical essence” is genuine, I’m not trying to win debating points.

*Language - c’mon - simple language vs super language? *

That also confuses me. DNA is the language of evolution, and I’d have thought it indicates change over time rather than “that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator”.

Something is obviously going straight over my head, except I suspect that if I understood it properly I’d disagree even more.

I suggest you read the entire article - The Philosophical Impossibilty of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution

I did but avoided mentioning it as it’s from another site and there was a whole bunch of things in it I disagreed with.