creation around 7,000 BC?

[Deconi]

OK Peter, let me see what I can do with this science of yours that makes the Church’s martyrology, a prayer believed in by popes and the flock throughout the centuries look like they were singing about things closer to Humpty Dumpty had a great fall than to anything real.

First of all how do you know the distance of stars? No doubt you will say they are measured through stellar parallax. But stellar parallax is no more than as metaphysical assumption. If what the Bible says is true then stellar parallax is a geocentric phenomenom and cannot be used to distance stars. Next, how do they know which is a near star and which is a far star. No doubt they will tell you bright stars are near stars and dim stars are far stars. But why couldn’t there be near small dim stars and large bright stars further out. You cannot reject either of the above arguments so your star science is not science before you begin. In other words that supernova COULD be 6,000 light years or less from the earth.

Now a little use of Catholic faith, something you Copernicans, uniformitarians and evolutionists have very little of. Oh yes, I hear you protest, I hear you say you have wonderful faith. Well you haven’t. Go pray for some real faith, faith that takes the word of Scripture, or the Church, before the word of science with its metaphysical assumptions, one after the other. Yes faith in the Church’s MARTYROLOGY for example. A faith that would say to someone with a Catholic INSTINCT, ‘Surely such a Catholic prayer must be the truth and I must search to see if what science taught me is actually true science or just the metaphysical assumptions of man.’

Here is another test of faith. On the Last Sunday after Penticost, the Gospel (Matt. 24 25) spoke of the end times, remember? Jesus said He would cause chaos in the heavens with the stars moving in all directions. But we all KNOW, DON’T WE Peter, that because the stars are supposed to be up to billions of light years away, it will take billions of years for this movement to be seen on earth. According to science Peter, this prophesy in the Gospel is impossible and thus we DON’T HAVE TO BELIEVE IN THAT GOSPEL, do we?
**
Voila! A lie in the sky!**

Far be it for me to ‘tell’ any individual HOW to post, Cass, you have to understand that some intellects here are ‘stuck’ with what WE have all been taught!

To not investigate why the accounts seem contrary to this faith of ours is a hurdle some will not navigate due to various thoughts, including the fear of being RIDICULED by the ‘accepted’ views! Of course, you have progressed from there since you clearly imitate Our Lord and His Apostles who taught and did things that brought the same ridiculing snipes!

The ECFS (by a majority) suffer the same inclinations of being consigned to the ‘mythical’ aisles of libraries…right next to Holy Writ, if the ‘investigator’ or analytical mind does not question the ‘differences’ postulated by those who think faith is just spiritual and has no physical, evidential, basis.

I’d only venture that the distance of stars and the space calculations are based on a bigger assumption of Big Bang theory! We all ‘know’ what light-speed is said to be and that ‘outer-space’ must be travelling at those vectors! How then can we see anything out there? Fact is, we do!..sugesting something else, or light-speed is faster than currently thought.

2cents and keep the change.

 

[Major_Tom]

2cents and keep the change.

My two cents: I read Cassini’s post twice and I have no clue what his/her point is.

To Peter Dawson: That was a thoughtful, insightful, rigorous post. Well done!

 

[Logos385]

I just want to put this in here without starting something huge:

The Earth is about 4.54 billion years old. According to fact, science, and common sense.

But yes, the Bible would generally disagree, so keep discussing.

 

[cassini]

2cents and keep the change.

My two cents: I read Cassini’s post twice and I have no clue what his/her point is.

To Peter Dawson: That was a thoughtful, insightful, rigorous post. Well done!

Tom, 11 posts I see, maybe apologetics and debate in not your thing if you have problems understanding my post. For the record, I was replying to a post that insists modern science is the new Catholic Dogma and is infallible to you intellectual moderns. I pointed out that modern science does not know a far star from a near star which is pretty important if you are into star science, no? Second, if you do not know how they distance stars with their science, then you would not know what stellar parallax is, so of course you wouldn’t have a clue even if you were told how to rubbish this infallible science. Finally by way of example I asked how will man know the last day is here by way of God moving stars if it takes 15 billion years for that movement to reach us according to science. Get it? In other words, according to science even God couldn’t do that?

Then, by way of putting things in perspective I brought up the question of FAITH. Now you know what faith is? It is believing in something that science cannot explain and is beyond it. Catholics are supposed to believe in the Virgin Birth. Now science will tell you it is impossible, but you have to say, 'Don’t care, I believe in the Virgin Birth. Well the same goes for me in Church papal decrees of 1616, the tradition of the Fathers and saints throughout time, even the prayer called MARTYROLOGY. I simply do not believe millions were praying a prayer that was STUPID and UNSCIENTIFIC for centuries. Now call me a FAITH NUT if you like, but it takes a FAITH NUT to believe in the virgin birth nowadays so what’s new.

But your praise of Peter shows you are a science person, so the above faith thing might be over your head.

 

[cassini]

I just want to put this in here without starting something huge:

The Earth is about 4.54 billion years old. According to fact, science, and common sense.

But yes, the Bible would generally disagree, so keep discussing.

Couldn’t agree more Logos. If God created a full grown tree on monday and you cut it down the next day, and you found 130 rings on it you would say that tree is 130 years old, that is a fact, science, and common sense. But would it be true?

Now I went to the bother of studying the science that you consider infallible and I found it is built on so many metaphysical assumptions that it is more a religious conviction than real science. So, as I have a choice of religious convictions here I will go by my Catholic instinct and go with a literal reading of the Gospels and now I am intellectually and spiritually with the Fathers of Tradition, not the modernists of the 19th and 20th centuries.

 

[Logos385]

Now I went to the bother of studying the science that you consider infallible and I found it is built on so many metaphysical assumptions that it is more a religious conviction than real science.

That is a bold claim. What are the assumptions you speak of? For, as it stands, the age of the Earth is scientifically verifiable and independently inferred by numerous scientific fields to surprising accuracy. Science doesn’t deal in religious conviction…

 

[cassini]

That is a bold claim. What are the assumptions you speak of? For, as it stands, the age of the Earth is scientifically verifiable and independently inferred by numerous scientific fields to surprising accuracy. Science doesn’t deal in religious conviction…

ANY SCIENCE THAT EXTRAPOLATES IS AN ASSUMED SCIENCE. Science as you know or should know is now a discipline that ABSOLUTELY DISREGARDS GOD AS CREATOR AND DISREGARDS GOD’S CONCURSUS. In other words science has to make metaphysical assumptions as to what happened in the past. For example, if there was a universal flood as revealed in Scripture all uniformitarian and geological and radio active readings would be affected by it. If no God caused Flood, then a different way of reading calculations are done.
I could go on but ‘lay-science’ as they call it is now far more believable by Catholics than revelation. Protestants today are the biblical champions in this realm and Catholics have the Pontifical Academy of Sciences full of Atheists and agnostics telling the popes what to believe. God help us all.

 

[Logos385]

ANY SCIENCE THAT EXTRAPOLATES IS AN ASSUMED SCIENCE.

But generally assumed with good reason. The accusation was that science made baseless assumptions, which is what I was speaking to. Also, caps are certainly unnecessary.

Science as you know or should know is now a discipline that ABSOLUTELY DISREGARDS GOD AS CREATOR AND DISREGARDS GOD’S CONCURSUS.

This is incorrect. Science makes absolutely no metaphysical assumptions because it doesn’t make any metaphysical statements. The only statements science can make with regard to religion are when it deals with the proposed effect a certain deity has had on the natural world. Your example: the flood, is a perfect one. You would propose that at some near point in the past, there was a “universal flood.” Science can evaluate that specific claim, and, rightly, say it has no corroboration, therefore being false. This does not make a comment specifically on the divine, but just on the purported naturalistic effects of the divine entity being proposed. No metaphysical assumptions are necessary for science to work, for it completely ignores the metaphysical.

As I assume you are about to say in response, I suspect in all caps and in a tone that is supposed to be demeaning but is in fact degrading to yourself and argument, “the ignorance of metaphysical phenomena is a metaphysical assumption.” And this would be incorrect, for the scientific method simply takes into account naturalistic evidence and forms naturalistic conclusions. If science took into account naturalistic evidence and made metaphysical conclusions, you would certainly be correct in your query. However, it does not.

Finally, your accusation of the Protestants being ignorant of science is far off-base. Many, many Protestant denominations are astoundingly in tune with the scientific community. While some (possibly most) are not, making a generalization of that nature is unhelpful at best. To try and throw the scent of anti-scientific sentiment off of yourself by accusing others of it is not an argument, nor helpful to one.

 

[cassini]

But generally assumed with good reason. The accusation was that science made baseless assumptions, which is what I was speaking to. Also, caps are certainly unnecessary.

This is incorrect. Science makes absolutely no metaphysical assumptions because it doesn’t make any metaphysical statements. The only statements science can make with regard to religion are when it deals with the proposed effect a certain deity has had on the natural world. Your example: the flood, is a perfect one. You would propose that at some near point in the past, there was a “universal flood.” Science can evaluate that specific claim, and, rightly, say it has no corroboration, therefore being false. This does not make a comment specifically on the divine, but just on the purported naturalistic effects of the divine entity being proposed. No metaphysical assumptions are necessary for science to work, for it completely ignores the metaphysical.

As I assume you are about to say in response, I suspect in all caps and in a tone that is supposed to be demeaning but is in fact degrading to yourself and argument, “the ignorance of metaphysical phenomena is a metaphysical assumption.” And this would be incorrect, for the scientific method simply takes into account naturalistic evidence and forms naturalistic conclusions. If science took into account naturalistic evidence and made metaphysical conclusions, you would certainly be correct in your query. However, it does not.

Finally, your accusation of the Protestants being ignorant of science is far off-base. Many, many Protestant denominations are astoundingly in tune with the scientific community. While some (possibly most) are not, making a generalization of that nature is unhelpful at best. To try and throw the scent of anti-scientific sentiment off of yourself by accusing others of it is not an argument, nor helpful to one.

Sorry Logos if I led you astray on the Protestant issue. By Champions I meant at rebutting ‘lay science’ not using it. Now these same Protestants have lots of material that shows a universal flood is in line with topography and geography of earth today… Now if Protestant scientists come up with the opposite of ‘lay scientists’ then science itself we see is open to different interpretations.

And please Logos, I know science is ideologically driven in this area and of course they would never concede to a possible universal flood. Ever heard of the M & M experiment that showed the earth does not orbit the sun? Do you think they accepted this science> Not on your Nelly. They preferred to accept Einstein’s ABSURD Special theory of Relativity instead.

Anyway logos I see you are not for turning your faith in modern scientific assumptions so we will leave it at that.

 

[juliamajor]

Is this a joke? Are you serious?Intelligence, knowledge, science and faith do not have to be polar opposites.I really don’t think that God, who has created us and made us a little less then the angels, would want us not to use science, or think, or puzzle about all things.If He did not want us to ponder all things.then why did he give us a brain?I don’ t think it was just so we could walk , talk and go to the bathroom by ourselves.Why were we given this capacity of thought? We don’t even utilize the vast majority of our intelligence.Just think how scared some people would be if we actually used our brain to it’s full capacity!.
I’m not frightened of science, or intelligence, or scholarship.
I prefer not to live in the past or idealize it out of all proportion.
The past, humanity’s, is full of marvels and wisdom- but so is the here and now.If we only have the eyes to see them and have now fear of the future but trust in God and His creation.

 

[Major_Tom]

*Tom, 11 posts I see, maybe apologetics and debate in not your thing if you have problems understanding my post. *

• Good one! Based on my snarky tone, I admit I had a little come-uppance coming. But your rejoinder was weak. I’m new to the board, so you assume I’m either ignorant or this is the first debate that I’ve had. Wow. You think this discussion board is the be-all of existence?
• I feel more embellishment of my earlier critique of your post is warranted.
• 1. You had no introductory or concluding commentary, no explanation of the ‘Roman Martyology’ text that you copied and pasted. Dawson stated his thesis, then backed it up with several supporting points, then re-stated his conclusion. Excellent form. You may differ with the ‘facts’ that he presented, or the conclusion. Nonetheless, a well-structured anaylsis. On the contrary, you vaguely stated your point by impugning his character, offered no ‘facts’, relied too much on colored fonts and ‘all caps’ to make your point for you. Shall I go on…? Oh, and you went way overboard on the histrionics. Frankly, several sentence fragments made it difficult to understand the exact meaning of your point. Again, Dawson was very lucid.
• On to the content. So my choices are either faith OR science? No in-between? No ‘little bit of both’? Wow, that’s close minded! I reject your premise. I can’t imagine that your definition of ‘science’ squares with many other people.
• Should a layman know what martyrology is? Can you define it for our benefit? Since I’m new and you take me for a dolt, perhaps you can keep it to monosyllabic words.
• Does your literal reading of the Gospels lead you to your conclusion about the earth’s age? What about the genealogies of the Old Testament?
• In all seriousness, who are the ‘Fathers of Tradition’ that you cite? Is this contrary, or in line with, the cathechism? I am not aware of the cathechism teaching such a literal line on interpretation of the gospel and view of science. Please contradict me if you can; you may be more aware of the cathechism than I am, but I think you are stepping way beyond the cathechism.

Now call me a FAITH NUT if you like.

Your words, not mine! Did I mention you seem defensive?

 

[Logos385]

cassini:
Now these same Protestants have lots of material that shows a universal flood is in line with topography and geography of earth today… Now if Protestant scientists come up with the opposite of ‘lay scientists’ then science itself we see is open to different interpretations.As far as I’m aware, all of such science is junk science, and completely nonsensical. I’d be greatly surprised if you provided some legitimate evidence of the flood : ).

And please Logos, I know science is ideologically driven in this area and of course they would never concede to a possible universal flood.

Science is not ideologically driven. If there was evidence of a global flood, it would be accepted in the scientific community. There is not, so it is not.

Ever heard of the M & M experiment that showed the earth does not orbit the sun? Do you think they accepted this science> Not on your Nelly. They preferred to accept Einstein’s ABSURD Special theory of Relativity instead.

I was skeptical before my research, but I looked it up anyway. I was hoping beyond hope that M and M did not stand for “Michelson and Moley…” but here we are. That experiment disproved the existence of the Aether. It had NOTHING to say about the Earth’s orbit around the sun. Please tell me how it did. And Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity is an astounding feat of intellectual genius. It is just as astoundingly accurate, and in what way is it absurd??

Anyway logos I see you are not for turning your faith in modern scientific assumptions so we will leave it at that.

There is no faith involved. It is based on pure evidence. What is the faith you speak of in this case?

 

[cassini]

Is this a joke? Are you serious?Intelligence, knowledge, science and faith do not have to be polar opposites.I really don’t think that God, who has created us and made us a little less then the angels, would want us not to use science, or think, or puzzle about all things.If He did not want us to ponder all things.then why did he give us a brain?I don’ t think it was just so we could walk , talk and go to the bathroom by ourselves.Why were we given this capacity of thought? We don’t even utilize the vast majority of our intelligence.Just think how scared some people would be if we actually used our brain to it’s full capacity!.
I’m not frightened of science, or intelligence, or scholarship.
I prefer not to live in the past or idealize it out of all proportion.
The past, humanity’s, is full of marvels and wisdom- but so is the here and now.If we only have the eyes to see them and have now fear of the future but trust in God and His creation.

Nice speech juliamajor, but who is saying that faith and science are polar opposites? What I am saying - whether you believe it or not - is that there are limits to science and different scientific conclusions, sometimes ideologically based. Take for example global warming. Thousands of scientists are saying it is caused by man, thousands are saying it is a natural phenomemon. In other words true science and Catholic faith cannot contradict each other. But FALSE science can. Knowing what is true and what is false can only be judged by the Queen of all sciences theology, and biblical revelation is the theology of origins.

 

[thistle]

Nice speech juliamajor, but who is saying that faith and science are polar opposites? What I am saying - whether you believe it or not - is that there are limits to science and different scientific conclusions, sometimes ideologically based. Take for example global warming. Thousands of scientists are saying it is caused by man, thousands are saying it is a natural phenomemon. In other words true science and Catholic faith cannot contradict each other. But FALSE science can. Knowing what is true and what is false can only be judged by the Queen of all sciences theology, and biblical revelation is the theology of origins.

Actually all of them agree global warming is a natural phenomenon and almost all agree that man is speeding it up and making it worse.

As for your other opinions they are wrong.

The Church is the authoritative interpreter of scripture (NOT you) and it does NOT teach that the earth is only 7000 years old and it does NOT teach that the universe was created in 6 literal 24 hour periods.

 

[juliamajor]

Nice speech juliamajor, but who is saying that faith and science are polar opposites? What I am saying - whether you believe it or not - is that there are limits to science and different scientific conclusions, sometimes ideologically based. Take for example global warming. Thousands of scientists are saying it is caused by man, thousands are saying it is a natural phenomemon. In other words true science and Catholic faith cannot contradict each other. But FALSE science can. Knowing what is true and what is false can only be judged by the Queen of all sciences theology, and biblical revelation is the theology of origins.

What is false science? anything that doesn’t adhere to your myopic view?Do you think that the Vatican astronomer has the same silly ideas like you?Did you know that the vatican has it’s own telescope here in the states? have they come out with any earthshaking news about geocentrism? NO.Because all your claims ar bogus.You drag up document of the Church from 500 yrs ago as your proof? what about recent documents? You cannot accept one document without accepting all documents.

 

[cassini]

Actually all of them agree global warming is a natural phenomenon and almost all agree that man is speeding it up and making it worse.

As for your other opinions they are wrong.

The Church is the authoritative interpreter of scripture (NOT you) and it does NOT teach that the earth is only 7000 years old and it does NOT teach that the universe was created in 6 literal 24 hour periods.

OK Thistle, I never said the Church TAUGHT a 6-day creation 6,000 years ago. No it didn’t, it TOOK IT FOR GRANTED.

As for your ‘The Church is the authoritative interpreter of scripture (NOT you)’ , well In 1616 the Church interpreted Scripture as revealing a fixed earth and moving sun. And it TAUGHT that for over 100 years. Bet you refuse to accept that literal interpretation as well Thistle?

There are many things that Modernists love to point out that the Church does not teach dogmatically. But it still remains true that within Catholicism there was a belief in the literal reading of Scripture for 1800 years. For me that is as good a sign of truth as any, and especially over the metaphysical assumptions of god-less science.

 

[Fox]

My wife is a geologist, believe me the world was not created around 7000BC. The Earth is about 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old.

 

[Major_Tom]

'The Church is the authoritative interpreter of scripture (NOT you)

’ , well In 1616 the Church interpreted Scripture as revealing a fixed earth and moving sun. And it TAUGHT that for over 100 years.

But it still remains true that within Catholicism there was a belief in the literal reading of Scripture for 1800 years.

You used the past tense. Why did it stop?

 

[cassini]

What is false science? anything that doesn’t adhere to your myopic view?Do you think that the Vatican astronomer has the same silly ideas like you?Did you know that the vatican has it’s own telescope here in the states? have they come out with any earthshaking news about geocentrism? NO.Because all your claims ar bogus.You drag up document of the Church from 500 yrs ago as your proof? what about recent documents? You cannot accept one document without accepting all documents.

What is false science. Abiogenesis is one false science. You can only get life from life in real true science. In the false science you obviously believe in abiogenesis has had to occur for life to be according to the ‘scientific’ Big Bang heliocentric evolutionary scenario. That is life from inorganic matter (with a little gas here and there, add water and a dart of sunshine).

True science are the results of the Airy experiment and the Mitchelton & Morely experiments that were the only two scientific experiments ever conducted to determine the relative movements of the sun, earth and stars. These scientific experiments indicated the earth is fixed, not the sun and stars.

Next juliamajor you enter the world of metaphysical assumptions - whether our world is geocentric or heliocentric. Don’t you know that cosmic movements are relative? Owning a telescope or looking into one will show you the exact same thing whether you accept the heliocentric heresy or the geocentric revelation. As regards Church astronomers ‘coming up with any earthshaking news about geocentrism’, well no, because looking into telescopes have nothing to do with relative motion between earth and sun.

Are Church documents over 500 years null and void now?

What about recent documents? Gosh juliamajor, I didn’t know there were any. Could you please cite them for us ignoramuses, we are a little behind the times. If you can show me ONE official Church document that abrogates that outdated 1616 decree I will concede to it llike a good Catholic.

 

[cassini]

'The Church is the authoritative interpreter of scripture (NOT you)

’ , well In 1616 the Church interpreted Scripture as revealing a fixed earth and moving sun. And it TAUGHT that for over 100 years.

But it still remains true that within Catholicism there was a belief in the literal reading of Scripture for 1800 years.

You used the past tense. Why did it stop?

It stopped Major Tom, when the ruling authority of the Church conceded to the Copernican heresy from 1741 to 1835 and tried to undermine the papal decree of 1616 upholding the literal interpretation of Scripture. In the most scandalous episode in Church history, these same churchmen ended 1800 years of tradition in the realm of creation interpretation and theology. From that moment on, as Pope Urban VII predicted in 1632, the Catholic faith fell into the hands of the Modernists with their new infallible source of truth - science, and a false science at that. Theology thus went down the road of pervertion trying to keep up with a ‘science’ that made dogmas meaningless, dogmas such as Original Sin, the Church’s foundational dogma.