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:
Gen 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective. Consider time as a rolled up tape measure. God is outside and can see the entire tape with its rolled layers. Man who lives on the tape itself only can see it like it is unrolled. (flattened)
Click to expand...
Yes, I am well aware that God does not exist in time (What that particular parishoner believes is absurd as it suggests God is revolving around some sun in heaven which he uses to keep track of the ‘God years’)

However with your point - why is there any mention of time at all? If it was written from God’s perspective there should be no mention of days since God does not experience any kind of time.

And then there are a whole litany of isues with this approach to Genesis too - such as God not knowing that he created land animals before flying animals or that land existed before water etc.
 
razredge said:
Yes, I am well aware that God does not exist in time (What that particular parishoner believes is absurd as it suggests God is revolving around some sun in heaven which he uses to keep track of the ‘God years’)

However with your point - why is there any mention of time at all? If it was written from God’s perspective there should be no mention of days since God does not experience any kind of time.

And then there are a whole litany of isues with this approach to Genesis too - such as God not knowing that he created land animals before flying animals or that land existed before water etc.
Click to expand...
God expressed creation in human terms.
 
buffalo said:
God expressed creation in human terms.
Click to expand...
So God wrote creation from his perspective but expressed it in human terms…

And so when he writes that the birds of the air were created before the land animals, and that water was created before land - was he lying in human terms as well?
 
razredge said:
So God wrote creation from his perspective but expressed it in human terms…

And so when he writes that the birds of the air were created before the land animals, and that water was created before land - was he lying in human terms as well?
Click to expand...
Huh???
 
What is the current year in the Hebrew calendar? It is 5771. A little research into that date might yield useful information about the date of creation and the age of the earth.

Peace,
Ed
 
buffalo said:
Huh???
Click to expand...
Don’t evade the question - the Genesis account has birds created before land animals and water created before land.

So given you think God wrote Genesis from his perspective was he lying when he writes this or is his memory just a bit spotty?
 
razredge said:
Don’t evade the question - the Genesis account has birds created before land animals and water created before land.

So given you think God wrote Genesis from his perspective was he lying when he writes this or is his memory just a bit spotty?
Click to expand...
Be more specific. Please quote the passage you are referring to.
 
odile53 said:
However, even modern scientific knowledge isn’t incompatible with faith: The same God who marked the limits of the oceans in Genesis created and developed the physical and chemical laws of matter and energy, set them in motion, and continues to reveal His creation to humanity, sharing a glimpse into His infinite Mind. Even an introductory study of those laws stimulates a reverence for the elegant genius of the Divine Creator, Who brought precise order from chaos and void. Many people of great scientific knowledge are also people of deep faith.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I love to think of ways that science and my religion work together, and it always makes sense. I am glad that someone else thinks this way to!
 
The JEWISH YEAR 5771 is based on the presumption that the Genesis Narrative was contemporaneous and literally true in the popular sense of that word so they date the “first year” as the dates they knew. They had no idea that the Earth was as is shown today to be millions of years older. IT is irrelevant to me as a believer how many years or how it is calculated by science as long as I do not slavishly count the years from Adam and on through to come up with 6000 years. as if the Bible record is an actual census of every male human since the beginning.
 
HOLY_POOH_FAN said:
The JEWISH YEAR 5771 is based on the presumption that the Genesis Narrative was contemporaneous and literally true in the popular sense of that word so they date the “first year” as the dates they knew. They had no idea that the Earth was as is shown today to be millions of years older. IT is irrelevant to me as a believer how many years or how it is calculated by science as long as I do not slavishly count the years from Adam and on through to come up with 6000 years. as if the Bible record is an actual census of every male human since the beginning.
Click to expand...
So God could not have told Adam?
 
rossum said:
Not unless God is capable of telling lies.

rossum
Click to expand...
As you well know God cannot tell lies, but is under no obligation to reveal everything, and human reasoning of observations can be in error.
 
why did not God intervene with cavemen ??? they were so slow to develope,
causes me moments of doubt
 
buffalo said:
As you well know God cannot tell lies, but is under no obligation to reveal everything, and human reasoning of observations can be in error.
Click to expand...
Which leaves us no further forward in determining how to interpret Genesis. Unless we have a guaranteed true interpretation, all we have are different human, and possibly incorrect, interpretations.

You sometimes point out, correctly, that scientists can be wrong. Theologians can also be wrong. There are incorrect interpretations of the world and there are incorrect interpretations of Genesis. It is just that to me science is better at checking and removing its errors. Theologians tend to split and to continue with both versions, while science looks for more data and rechecks old results.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Which leaves us no further forward in determining how to interpret Genesis. Unless we have a guaranteed true interpretation, all we have are different human, and possibly incorrect, interpretations.

You sometimes point out, correctly, that scientists can be wrong. Theologians can also be wrong. There are incorrect interpretations of the world and there are incorrect interpretations of Genesis. It is just that to me science is better at checking and removing its errors. Theologians tend to split and to continue with both versions, while science looks for more data and rechecks old results.

rossum
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
rossum said:
Which leaves us no further forward in determining how to interpret Genesis. Unless we have a guaranteed true interpretation, all we have are different human, and possibly incorrect, interpretations.

You sometimes point out, correctly, that scientists can be wrong. Theologians can also be wrong. There are incorrect interpretations of the world and there are incorrect interpretations of Genesis. It is just that to me science is better at checking and removing its errors. Theologians tend to split and to continue with both versions, while science looks for more data and rechecks old results.

rossum
Click to expand...
Agreed - theologians do a lot of speculating. Authoritative teaching in the Catholic Church stops at the Bishops. So theologians have no teaching authority.
 
buffalo said:
Be more specific. Please quote the passage you are referring to.
Click to expand...
Please don’t feign ignorance, i’m sure you’re all too familiar with the Genesis creation account and know exactly what I’m talking about.
But actually there’s no need, from your recent posts it’s clear that when faced with contradictions between science/history and the Biblical account, you will reject the ‘human reasoning of observations’.

Hence your position is essentially unfalsifiable (and therefore intellectually dishonest)
buffalo said:
Agreed - theologians do a lot of speculating. Authoritative teaching in the Catholic Church stops at the Bishops. So theologians have no teaching authority.
Click to expand...
More stalling, Buffalo knows perfectly well that theologians include bishops and other members of the Church who have developed its theology.
 
Tiny comment.
Without pointing fingers, since I have a limited amount of fingers, there is a general lack of knowledge as to the Catholic protocol for formulating doctrine. Protocol can involve years of study before a proposed doctrine is presented to a major Church Council. Even then, it may take time to explain the doctrine through another Church Council. Check out Catholic history in the early centuries and the length of time for the Council of Trent.

There is also a limitation on subject matter. Basically, subject matter concerns Divine Revelation. The key point is that official deliberations on doctrines are under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top