How old is the earth?

[rossum]

I can prove gravity whenever I want to.

The fact of gravity is well knkown and proven, as is the fact of evolution. Both can be shown in the lab and in nature.

The theory of evolution is well supported, and though there are some gaps there are no known problems with it.

The theory of gravity has known problems. It works well enough for macroscopic masses, like the earth and the moon, however our current theory of gravity (Einstein’s general relativity) does not work well for quantum sized large masses - quantum black holes or the very early universe. With such bodies we get different results from quantum mechanics and from general relativity. One or both of them nust be incorrect under such conditions. Google “quantum gravity” for more on this problem.

Do not confuse a phenomonon such as evolution or gravity, with the theory that explains that phenomenon, the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity.

The Apollo 11 astronauts needed precise calculations to use the moon’s gravity to get them back home. This at a time when computers were toys compared to the laptops available today.

Most earth-moon calculations are done using Newton’s equations. They are much simpler and give answers accurate to a fraction of an inch in the earth-moon system. Einstein’s equations only become useful when dealing with a massive body like the sun or with speeds a significant fraction of the speed of light.

In short, there are more problems with our current theory of gravity than there are with our current theory of evolution. We know that our current theory of gravity breaks down at the quantum scale. We have not so far found any places where our current theory of evolution breaks down.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

“Any view of evolution that assumes on principle that biological nature is entirely governed by chance and blind laws must be in error.”

From the Catholic newspaper, Our Sunday Visitor, dated April 19, 2009.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

“Any view of evolution that assumes on principle that biological nature is entirely governed by chance and blind laws must be in error.”

From the Catholic newspaper, Our Sunday Visitor, dated April 19, 2009.

And is now part of the infallible Magesterium.

Really, ed. Our Sunday Visitor?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Hi Tim,

The Holy Father agrees with them:

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

We are not haphazard mistakes.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Hi Tim,

We are not haphazard mistakes.

Peace,
Ed

I don’t know of many people who think we are “haphazard mistakes”. At this point though, science and the courts agree that design in nature is not likely factual.

That doesn’t mean you have to abandon faith, it just means you should probably accept science as the appropriate descriptor of the way things happened in the physical universe, and accept faith (religion) as the descriptor of more metaphysical things. It’s the non overlapping realms of knowledge idea.

Admittedly as science advances religion must change accordingly, but that doesn’t have to destroy faith.

 

[mchale]

Respectfully, have you read the Galilleo story? The Library of this site explains it well. Briefly, Galilleo was out of control. All the facts weren’t in, but he was running around saying, I’m right! I’m right!

I am quite well aware of the Galileo story. I wasn’t trying to make Galileo out to be a saint. At the same time, regardless of the reason, the Church did in fact act in a way that made it look like it was making pronouncements on natural philosophy. The result is that 500 years later, its still taking hits over the issue.

Your comment about bacteria is odd. Mammallian sexual reproduction has nothing to do with bacterial defense against foreign substances like antibiotics.

It has everything to do with it. If you are resistant to a disease that one of your parents was not resistant to, but the other was, you are benefiting from the same sort of genetic scrambling. Your non-resistant parent is as well, because at least some of their genes are now coupled with genes that provide resistance to that disease.

In any case, my point here was that mixing genes is part of evolution, it does not invalidate evolution.

Do you read any Catholic newspapers or magazines? I ask, respectfully, because there are too many here that are spreading false or distorted information.

I do, though frankly I am not exactly sure that all of them are necessarily up to the task of dealing with this issue. For that matter, I am afraid a lot of priests are not either. Its not their fault, their job and vocation is to be priests not experts in science.

All those people who keep telling me to question everything and keep an open mind have their own dogma.

Don’t believe the earth is old? Blasphemy!

Don’t believe in evolution? Blasphemy!

Got something good to say about Intelligent Design? Blasphemy!

I think what they might be poorly articulating and which are clearly missing is this: While the results in science are always subject to revision, one goes against the current best models only when one has a scientific basis to go against those models. None of the above has much in the way of evidence supporting it, at least as far as scientists are concerned.

To put it another way, it can be argued that the Bible represents the value of Pi to be 3. Yet we know that the answer is approximately 3.14. That difference is large enough that certainly it was knowable (and in fact known) in the Ancient world. Few people these days would dispute the value of Pi on religious grounds. Yet that is what some do when they reject Evolution, the age of the Earth, etc.

Here’s a few words from the April 19, 2009 issue of Our Sunday Visitor.

“The truth of the matter is this. The Church cannot whole-heartedly affirm evolution because evolution as a science itself isn’t wholly firm.” The author is Benjamin Wiker who is also the author of Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkin’s Case Against God.

Referring to Intelligent Design, he writes: “These types of arguments have considerable merit, more than Catholics have been inclined to grant, precisely because they focus on quite particular trouble spots for a purely materialist, reductionist account of evolution.”

Ok, I think we need to start from the point that the Church does not really affirm scientific theories any more. Granted they will talk about them, but they are not in the business of telling science what is and is not right.

On the flip side, I think we need to keep in mind that while there are details to be worked out by Evolution, it is a far more complete theory than Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design essentially is based on a few exceptional cases that are not easy to explain with our current understanding of Evolution.

That being said, philosophically, we are called to reject a purely materialistic view of evolution. It doesn’t mean we embrace intelligent design, which, I am sorry to say, has little merit as science. Rather, philosophically we can embrace theistic evolution. Ultimately, theistic evolution is essentially identical to normal evolution, but we accept that what appears random and accidental to our eyes was in fact guided by God.

If you do a google search for red shift phenomena not related to distance, you’ll see what I’m talking about. Plus it’s not hard to find references to objects traveling at least .93 of the speed of light or faster.

There is no problems in General Relativity with objects traveling at 93% of the speed of light. In fact, we can easily expect that parts of our Universe are expanding away from us at faster than c; we just can’t see those galaxies.

In any case, red shift are completely irrelevant to the question. We have numerous standard candles (Cephid Variable Stars, certain types of Super Nova, etc.) that show that the Universe is immensely large. In order for us to see as far away as we do, it has to be immensely old.

–
Bill

 

[edwest2]

I don’t know of many people who think we are “haphazard mistakes”. At this point though, science and the courts agree that design in nature is not likely factual.

That doesn’t mean you have to abandon faith, it just means you should probably accept science as the appropriate descriptor of the way things happened in the physical universe, and accept faith (religion) as the descriptor of more metaphysical things. It’s the non overlapping realms of knowledge idea.

Admittedly as science advances religion must change accordingly, but that doesn’t have to destroy faith.

“religion must change accordingly”? No. I don’t think so. If you read Pope Benedict’s words, he is very aware of the religion must change concept.

I know plenty of people who buy the purely mechanistic origin theory for man. PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins among them.

What the courts say doesn’t matter at this point. Intelligent Design (the non-political idea) is a valid concept.

I’m aware of the writings of Stephen Jay Gould. The Catholic Church teaches that science and faith are complementary.

It’s very sad that some people think we are the product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have man in mind.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I am quite well aware of the Galileo story. I wasn’t trying to make Galileo out to be a saint. At the same time, regardless of the reason, the Church did in fact act in a way that made it look like it was making pronouncements on natural philosophy. The result is that 500 years later, its still taking hits over the issue.

It has everything to do with it. If you are resistant to a disease that one of your parents was not resistant to, but the other was, you are benefiting from the same sort of genetic scrambling. Your non-resistant parent is as well, because at least some of their genes are now coupled with genes that provide resistance to that disease.

In any case, my point here was that mixing genes is part of evolution, it does not invalidate evolution.

I do, though frankly I am not exactly sure that all of them are necessarily up to the task of dealing with this issue. For that matter, I am afraid a lot of priests are not either. Its not their fault, their job and vocation is to be priests not experts in science.

I think what they might be poorly articulating and which are clearly missing is this: While the results in science are always subject to revision, one goes against the current best models only when one has a scientific basis to go against those models. None of the above has much in the way of evidence supporting it, at least as far as scientists are concerned.

To put it another way, it can be argued that the Bible represents the value of Pi to be 3. Yet we know that the answer is approximately 3.14. That difference is large enough that certainly it was knowable (and in fact known) in the Ancient world. Few people these days would dispute the value of Pi on religious grounds. Yet that is what some do when they reject Evolution, the age of the Earth, etc.

Ok, I think we need to start from the point that the Church does not really affirm scientific theories any more. Granted they will talk about them, but they are not in the business of telling science what is and is not right.

On the flip side, I think we need to keep in mind that while there are details to be worked out by Evolution, it is a far more complete theory than Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design essentially is based on a few exceptional cases that are not easy to explain with our current understanding of Evolution.

That being said, philosophically, we are called to reject a purely materialistic view of evolution. It doesn’t mean we embrace intelligent design, which, I am sorry to say, has little merit as science. Rather, philosophically we can embrace theistic evolution. Ultimately, theistic evolution is essentially identical to normal evolution, but we accept that what appears random and accidental to our eyes was in fact guided by God.

There is no problems in General Relativity with objects traveling at 93% of the speed of light. In fact, we can easily expect that parts of our Universe are expanding away from us at faster than c; we just can’t see those galaxies.

In any case, red shift are completely irrelevant to the question. We have numerous standard candles (Cephid Variable Stars, certain types of Super Nova, etc.) that show that the Universe is immensely large. In order for us to see as far away as we do, it has to be immensely old.

–
Bill

Bill,

Of course it affirms or does not affirm scientific theories. Why do you think there are so many here who mention the current or previous Pope and their statements about it? Why do you think there are people here who post pro-evolution comments regularly? I think you should realize there are atheists, and others, who post here trying to get several points across as You Must Believe.

They are:

Intelligent Design : A joke, stealth creationism, religious. Highly unlikely to be any science involved in it.

Evolution: A fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. Did I mention it’s a fact? Oh, and you just can’t criticize it. And if you do, watch out.

All kinds of stuff in the Bible never happened because >Science< tells us so. And you can’t go against the overwhelming evidence.

Religion: It’s bad. Makes people do bad things. Never mind any of the good things

So, you see, the mind of man is worshipped here under the label S C I E N C E. Science will heal you. Science will lead you into the future. Stop worrying and love Science.

The fool says in his heart there is no God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Holly3278]

Its about 4.55 billion years old.

 

[Namesake]

“religion must change accordingly”? No. I don’t think so. If you read Pope Benedict’s words, he is very aware of the religion must change concept.

Religion has to change when facts show that religion is wrong. Geocentrism is the primary example of that.

What the courts say doesn’t matter at this point. Intelligent Design (the non-political idea) is a valid concept.

What the courts hold is important because that is another source of truth. The courts have recently held that Intelligent Design is not science and that’s the truth.

I’m aware of the writings of Stephen Jay Gould. The Catholic Church teaches that science and faith are complementary.

I was actually thinking of Francisco J. Ayala when I mentioned non overlapping realms of knowledge, although Gould made a similar reference of non overlapping magisteria.

 

[Namesake]

Bill,

Evolution: A fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. Did I mention it’s a fact? Oh, and you just can’t criticize it. And if you do, watch out.

Peace,
Ed

Evolution is a fact, not because it’s repeated a lot, but because there is so much evidence and there is no competing theory. Please don’t make the mistake of asserting that ID is a competing theory because no one with any credibility in science or the courts believes that ID has any basis in fact.

You can criticize evolution theory all you want as long as you are willing to present evidence and stand up to peer review and testing. That’s how science works. Otherwise it’s just opinion, which is not worth anything in science.

 

[edwest2]

Evolution is a fact, not because it’s repeated a lot, but because there is so much evidence and there is no competing theory. Please don’t make the mistake of asserting that ID is a competing theory because no one with any credibility in science or the courts believes that ID has any basis in fact.

You can criticize evolution theory all you want as long as you are willing to present evidence and stand up to peer review and testing. That’s how science works. Otherwise it’s just opinion, which is not worth anything in science.

I do not worship science. I think more people, Catholic and non-Catholic, should truly examine what the Church has to say.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Sideline]

Evolution is a fact, not because it’s repeated a lot, but because there is so much evidence and there is no competing theory. Please don’t make the mistake of asserting that ID is a competing theory because no one with any credibility in science or the courts believes that ID has any basis in fact.

You can criticize evolution theory all you want as long as you are willing to present evidence and stand up to peer review and testing. That’s how science works. Otherwise it’s just opinion, which is not worth anything in science.

I think you are missing Ed’s point. He doesn’t care about whether something has been repeatedly observed; he doesn’t care if something can be tested; he doesn’t care whether the information comes from a credible source.

All he cares about is that Catholics give up believing in evolution. He has said repeatedly that you should ignore any information to the contrary. He thinks seeking evidence and confirmation is somehow equivalent to worshipping science.

The important thing is that you give up on the idea of evolution, if it just happens to also be wrong, then all the better.

 

[buffalo]

Evolution is a fact, not because it’s repeated a lot, but because there is so much evidence and there is no competing theory. Please don’t make the mistake of asserting that ID is a competing theory because no one with any credibility in science or the courts believes that ID has any basis in fact.

You can criticize evolution theory all you want as long as you are willing to present evidence and stand up to peer review and testing. That’s how science works. Otherwise it’s just opinion, which is not worth anything in science.

THE POSITIVE CASE FOR DESIGN