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

[Dan_Daly]

So you have a special license that makes heresy on whatever particular issue you disagree with okay? Can someone else get one and use it on contraception or abortion or gay so-called marriage?

When you say “the evidence” overrides Church teaching, what you really mean is your interpretation of the evidence. That position is totally incompatible with the Catholic faith.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[Dan_Daly]

It’s interesting to see how the lines of argument have developed in this and similar threads:

Those speaking in favor of trusting Genesis, as well as the rest of the Bible, can and do cite Church teachings found in both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Many of those speaking in favor of rejecting Church teaching argue that refusing to do so is:
-an unpopular minority view
-stupid
-out of step with the times
-narrowminded
-not in alignment with what our secular culture says

It’s an interesting observation that a view which talks so much about “following the evidence” it resorts to personal attacks, bullying, and popularity contests.

I am fully aware that people sometimes don’t know what the Church teaches. I had no idea polygenism was heresy for most of my life. This is where we all have a responsibility to educate, starting with ourselves, then our families, and then our neighbors. Hopefully, some of that is going on in these threads- which is my goal in participation- the education of myself and others.

However, what has come up a good bit here that is greatly disturbing, is that someone says:

Yes, I know what the Church teaching is…but I know better.

That isn’t ignorance. It’s willful disobedience.

Pax and God bless.

 

[Al_Moritz]

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.

Sigh – I give up.

 

[razredge]

Sigh – I give up.

youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E
Richard Dawkins put it best:

Biologist Richard Dawkins identifies what he views is the single most compelling fact to refute Creationism – but states that the real problem lies in convincing Creationists to listen to the evidence. "What they do is simply stick their fingers in their ears and say ‘La la la,’" says Dawkins. "You cannot argue with a mind like that."

 

[Al_Moritz]

youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E
Richard Dawkins put it best:

Biologist Richard Dawkins identifies what he views is the single most compelling fact to refute Creationism – but states that the real problem lies in convincing Creationists to listen to the evidence. “What they do is simply stick their fingers in their ears and say ‘La la la,’” says Dawkins. "You cannot argue with a mind like that."

The problem is that most atheists are just like that too. I am really taken aback by how much little rational discourse is possible on all sides. But like you once said, only religious fundamentalists can subscribe to such outlandish things like geocentrism and a 6,000 year-old Earth. Atheists are at least not that silly – hold on, not quite true if you classify the “physical nothing” of the quantum vacuum as truly “nothing”, and then claim that the universe could have come uncaused from nothing. OUCH.

 

[razredge]

So you have a special license that makes heresy on whatever particular issue you disagree with okay? Can someone else get one and use it on contraception or abortion or gay so-called marriage?

If you look at my other posts, you will find that I accept the Church’s stance on same sex marriage (as it is supported by reason) and have defended it at length on here, ditto with abortion. So I am not simply being contrarian as you seem to think.

When you say “the evidence” overrides Church teaching, what you really mean is your interpretation of the evidence. That position is totally incompatible with the Catholic faith.

No, I follow the interpretation of people who know how to interpret the evidence - like Al Moritz here who is both a Catholic and a biochemist and who has written this piece on the Origin of Life for the leading anti-creationist website Talk Origins.
talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

So please, don’t expect me to take your word over his and the vast majority of scientists
out there.

 

[razredge]

The problem is that most atheists are just like that too. I am really taken aback by how much little rational discourse is possible on all sides. But like you once said, only religious fundamentalists can subscribe to such outlandish things like geocentrism and a 6,000 year-old Earth. Atheists are at least not that silly – hold on, not quite true if you classify the “physical nothing” of the quantum vacuum as truly “nothing” aned then claim that the universe could have come from nothing. OUCH.

I actually don’t find the atheists that irrational (except occasionally when it comes to objectivity of morality or free will, where they try to have their cake and eat it too).

Actually, I have been meaning to follow up with you on the cosmological argument as I have been watching some debates and had some questions.

While the statement that the quantum vacuum is nothing is indeed ridiculous, the atheists can say that, though the universe began at the Big Bang, this was caused by a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum which always existed (or something along those lines)

 

[MindOverMatter2]

While the statement that the quantum vacuum is nothing is indeed ridiculous, the atheists can say that, though the universe began at the Big Bang, this was caused by a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum which always existed (or something along those lines)

They cannot say that its “timeless”.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I actually don’t find the atheists that irrational (except occasionally when it comes to objectivity of morality or free will, where they try to have their cake and eat it too).

Actually, I have been meaning to follow up with you on the cosmological argument as I have been watching some debates and had some questions.

While the statement that the quantum vacuum is nothing is indeed ridiculous, the atheists can say that, though the universe began at the Big Bang, this was caused by a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum which always existed (or something along those lines)

Yes, a quantum vacuum which always existed makes some sense. Something must always have existed, be it matter, fields, e.g. a quantum vacuum, or God (leaving aside metaphysical considerations about act, potency and actus purus that argue in favor of the God hypothesis). One problem here is that we have no observational evidence whatsoever for the idea that a quantum vacuum could produce universes. This is purely hypothetical, speculative physics, as renowned cosmologist George Eliis points out, based on an outlandish, completely evidence-free extrapolation from know physics.

As a biochemist I am appalled at what sometimes counts as “scientific evidence” in cosmology (and there are cosmologists who feel just as uncomfortable with the speculative nature of much of their discipline). And before any creationist here shouts “hurrah”: no, the Big Bang is an extraordinarily well established scientific theory. And no scientist in their right mind would claim that the same holds for generation of universes from quantum vacua, so everything is fine after all, I guess.

 

[Lui]

Sigh – I give up.

I came to the same conclusion. I have to give up because continuing to debate with Dan just goes round in round in circles. He ignores arguments I make that he can’t use and picks out the ones he can use against me by twisting what I said.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I actually don’t find the atheists that irrational (except occasionally when it comes to objectivity of morality or free will, where they try to have their cake and eat it too).

My years of experience debating with atheists suggest otherwise to me. But certainly, there are some atheists that are more rational than others.

 

[Al_Moritz]

He ignores arguments I make that he can’t use and picks out the ones he can use against me by twisting what I said.

Yup, precisely. And while I am at the topic, many atheists use the same tactics.

 

[buffalo]

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:

Heliocentrism is wrong, the sun is not the center of the universe. There are two possibilities left, the earth is or any point is.

 

[rossum]

They cannot say that its “timeless”.

Why not? According to some possible cosmologies out current four dimensional space-time originated at the Big Bang. Before that there was neither space nor time, hence “timeless”.

rossum

 

[inocente]

Heliocentrism is wrong, the sun is not the center of the universe. There are two possibilities left, the earth is or any point is.

Nooooooooooooooooooo, don’t go there.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Why not? According to some possible cosmologies out current four dimensional space-time originated at the Big Bang. Before that there was neither space nor time

rossum

Hence no physical dimensions either. Space/time and energy/matter are not intrinsically separate entities, but rather different aspects of the same physical reality, before which there was no physical reality. “Change”, and therefore also potentiality, is intrinsic to the nature of physical reality. If something is truly timeless, then it is that way because timelessness is its natural and intrinsic expression. Therefore it does not and cannot change. Ever. If it did change its intrinsic nature, you would be getting something from nothing, change from no change; you would be getting something which did not exist before, and this is simply because change is not intrinsic to the nature of a timeless being. Timelessness transcends all time and thus cannot be reduced to or be made synonymous with the nature of any particular point in space-time.

Secondly, if all physical reality truly had one definitive beginning in a big-bang of sorts, logically speaking this suggests that it came from something which has a different nature to its own intrinsic nature, since there is no physical change before the big-bang.

But a good cosmological argument is not really interested in whether or not a thing had a beginning, but rather it is more interested in explaining why there is such a thing as change/potentiality. Science merely describes physical events, it does not dictate metaphysical absolutes. In other-words, when a scientist says that an object came out of nothing, they are merely describing the fact that a physical object came from nothing physical. They are not truly demonstrating the possibility or actuality of something from an absolute nothing.

The link below goes in to further detail about the limits of what the scientific method can say about an event.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8291159&postcount=15

 

[inocente]

Why not? According to some possible cosmologies out current four dimensional space-time originated at the Big Bang. Before that there was neither space nor time, hence “timeless”.

There are cosmologists who don’t like taking the Hubble line all the way back to a singularity since it introduces infinities, and they have a case since infinities are anathema. Which seems to mean there must then be a time before the big bang, the universe existed in a previous form.

The big bang was then just a reset of the physical clock, and we’d have to call it Re-creation not Creation.

 

[inocente]

Secondly, if all physical reality truly had one definitive beginning in a big-bang of sorts, logically speaking this suggests that it came from something which has a different nature to its own intrinsic nature, since there is no physical change before the big-bang.

That’s a bit unsatisfying logically though, invoking an unfalsifiable non-physical to explain the physical.

Though as I understand it the argument that space-time originated at the big bang has the universe bootstrapping itself into existence, which is also a bit unsatisfying.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That’s a bit unsatisfying logically though, invoking an unfalsifiable non-physical to explain the physical.

Your personal preference for a universe that has its existential roots in a scientifically verifiable explanation is irrelevant. What is relevant is that what ever the cause of physical reality is i can at least know for absolute certain that it is not logically possible (and not scientifically valid) for it to be defined as physical (a dynamic quantifiable reality), without distorting the true meaning of physics. Its quite simply pseudo-science to look for a physical absolute.

Though as I understand it the argument that space-time originated at the big bang has the universe bootstrapping itself into existence, which is also a bit unsatisfying.

So long as one accepts that out of nothing comes nothing, Its not simply unsatisfying epistemologically speaking; its in every respect metaphysically impossible for the universe to be the cause of its own nature or potential existence.

 

[rossum]

That’s a bit unsatisfying logically though, invoking an unfalsifiable non-physical to explain the physical.

Though as I understand it the argument that space-time originated at the big bang has the universe bootstrapping itself into existence, which is also a bit unsatisfying.

To quote a better cosmologist than I:There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

• A Brief History of Time

todayinsci.com/H/Hawking_Stephen/HawkingStephen-Quotations.htm
If the total energy of the universe is zero then we have nothing from nothing, which is much less of a logical problem.

rossum