M
maize
Guest
whatever age the pope tells us to believe it is.
until then we dont know.
until then we dont know.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
“mightiest atheist-producing factories” Do you have any evidence to back that up? Computers have nothing to do with the age of the earth or what is called evolution. In fact, computers were designed by an intelligence, as opposed to man, who, according to science, got here purely by accident.Gee, I could have written that myself.
This question really comes down to the question of whether we are capable, using our God-given powers of observation and reasoning, of understanding anything about the world around us (and thus about our God who created the world). Are we capable of collecting and interpreting evidence? That is, are we capable of doing real science? Or are we forever deceiving ourselves, thinking that things that are 10,000 years old are really 5 or 10 or 15 billion years old?
The problem with that latter view is that we know science works. The very existence of the computers we’re using on this forum attest to the fact that science works.
It makes me crazy to see Catholics adopt the grave errors of American fundamentalist sola Scriptura Protestantism and, against all objective evidence, claim that the evidence lies and that the universe is just a few thousand years old. Such beliefs, whether offered by Catholics or Protestants, are the mightiest atheist-producing factories the world has ever known.
The Church has not ruled infallibly as to the age of the earth. Apparently, the Church does not regard the fake importance attached to the age of the earth as an important issue. God provides real knowledge, science is partly blind.
Please do not limit human knowledge to science. Real knowledge also comes from God.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
M
mapleoak
Guest
I don’t recall mentioning anything of 10,000 years. It is beside the point. However, to say that if the Earth is in fact young makes God deceptive would be nothing more than the sin of pride. Far better to be humble.
Sure, as long as we realize we are human beings capable of error. Man has proven himself wrong multiple times about many things throughout history. Each time it was our error, not God’s deception.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
My bible study professor on the subject:
qorbono.com/catalog/147/genesisandscience
not free (yet), but well worth every penny.
qorbono.com/catalog/147/genesisandscience
not free (yet), but well worth every penny.
V
VociMike
Guest
It means that in the past centuries there was a lack of objective evidence regarding the age of the earth (and of the universe), but now there are vast amounts of such evidence. It is just as perverse today to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old as it is to believe that the stars in the sky rotate on concentric spheres, or that the moon is made of green cheese.
And regarding your other post, I have never suggested that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge, and to suggest so would be to go against Church teaching.
R
rossum
Guest
6,000 to 10,000 years are common figures used by Young Earth Creatinists.
The evidence for an old earth is so overwhelming that if it were otherwise then the creator of that evidence would be deceptive. For example, there are over a million annual layers in the bed of Lake Baikal. Either those layers are the result of over a million years of deposition or they were put there to deceive us. To quote Theodosius Dobzhansky:One of the early antievolutionists, P. H. Gosse, published a book entitled Omphalos (“the Navel”). The gist of this amazing book is that Adam, though he had no mother, was created with a navel, and that fossils were placed by the Creator where we find them now - a deliberate act on His part, to give the appearance of great antiquity and geologic upheaveals. It is easy to see the fatal flaw in all such notions. They are blasphemies, accusing God of absurd deceitfulness. This is as revolting as it is uncalled for.
Source: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.
It is not only scientists who can make errors; theologians may similarly make errors in their interpretation of the Bible. There are various different interpretations of Genesis proposed by different theologians. Some of them must be wrong.
rossum
V
VociMike
Guest
If there is pride involved, it seems to me that it is pride in thinking that one is right and that all the experts and all of the data they have collected and analysed, over a great many scientific disciplines, are wrong.
Belief in a young earth with the knowledge we have today is pathological.
E
edwest2
Guest
“pathological”? Wow. And Jesus raising the dead? Pathological? Jesus rising again on the third day?
Once the “pathological” is applied here and there, it will be applied to other parts of the Bible. To declare, we have all the information we need, today, right now, to solemnly declare ---- whatever, is odd, to say the least.
There is no proof. Lots of supposed evidence but no proof. It’s like walking into a courtroom, presenting the evidence but not being able to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Go ahead. Ask any of the evolution supporters here if there is proof for the theory. I’ve brought it up before. The answer? There is no proof in science. Which leaves me skeptical, entirely skeptical, about all this importance attached to firmly setting in concrete the age of the earth.
For me, if the Catholic Church hasn’t set an age for the earth, fine. But to go on and on and on about it here, I really don’t think the point is to advance science but to get rank and file Catholics to believe in something the Church is not convinced about. I know for a fact scientists will go to work tomorrow and little will change regarding scientific progress.
Peace,
Ed
Once the “pathological” is applied here and there, it will be applied to other parts of the Bible. To declare, we have all the information we need, today, right now, to solemnly declare ---- whatever, is odd, to say the least.
There is no proof. Lots of supposed evidence but no proof. It’s like walking into a courtroom, presenting the evidence but not being able to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Go ahead. Ask any of the evolution supporters here if there is proof for the theory. I’ve brought it up before. The answer? There is no proof in science. Which leaves me skeptical, entirely skeptical, about all this importance attached to firmly setting in concrete the age of the earth.
For me, if the Catholic Church hasn’t set an age for the earth, fine. But to go on and on and on about it here, I really don’t think the point is to advance science but to get rank and file Catholics to believe in something the Church is not convinced about. I know for a fact scientists will go to work tomorrow and little will change regarding scientific progress.
Peace,
Ed
R
rvrateri
Guest
This is an interesting topic.
I personally believe the earth is older than 6000 years. I do however believe in the creation story.
God created the earth and all living things in it in six days. However God does not count days the way we do. One thousand years could be one day in the eyes of God.
Basically God really only knows how old the world is. One of his mysteries. Maybe he will share it with us one day.
Blessings to all
I personally believe the earth is older than 6000 years. I do however believe in the creation story.
God created the earth and all living things in it in six days. However God does not count days the way we do. One thousand years could be one day in the eyes of God.
Basically God really only knows how old the world is. One of his mysteries. Maybe he will share it with us one day.
Blessings to all
V
VociMike
Guest
Nice try, but the situations are not comparable. The comparable situation would be that thousands of people saw Jesus dead in the tomb for days and weeks and months, and that nobody saw him risen. Is this your claim?
Evidence either matters to your worldview or it doesn’t. You either believe that man can use his God-given abilities to observe and reason to learn something about the world around him, or you don’t. If science can be off by a factor of a million in gauging the age of the earth and the age of the universe, how can it have produced any of the devices that surround you? How can it have landed men on the moon (unless you don’t believe that either)?
Yes, “pathological” is exactly the term I choose to apply to the obstinate rejection of the fruits of human observation and reason (not perfect, but not perfectly flawed either) and the acceptance of a non-Catholic, American fundamentalist Protestant false theology in its place.
And yes, I stand by my opinion that such rejection of reality is the greatest atheist producing machine of our age.
M
mapleoak
Guest
This is an example of exactly what I mean. We cannot possibly be wrong because are interpretations are infallible. Therefore God would be deceptive.
Or maybe there could possibly be some other reason they are there. Nope, has to be deception.
E
edwest2
Guest
What does landing men on the moon have to do with this topic? Again, intelligence was required to create hardware that allowed man to do this. I study science and I particularly study the history of technology.
Did you know there are ancient depictions of dinosaurs made by men? Not vague scrawl but refined images on pottery and on metal? Do you know there are buried trees and tree stumps under layers of rock strata? How did they get there?
The current mantra radiating out from the media is question everything and use logic. Guess what? There are still valid questions. What I question is the insistence involved in the ‘just say yes to evolution’ movement. Anyone who disbelieves must be approached again and again and again. As if there’s a dealine to get the job done.
You’ve got to believe this! Now! Right now! Believe it or get called pathological!!
Do you understand that this urgency brings up the fact that believing in this right now is actually about something other than science? Scientists are at work right now and doing whatever they do. What? Will they all be required to sign something that says the earth is a certain age? If not, then why is it so important?
Peace,
Ed
Did you know there are ancient depictions of dinosaurs made by men? Not vague scrawl but refined images on pottery and on metal? Do you know there are buried trees and tree stumps under layers of rock strata? How did they get there?
The current mantra radiating out from the media is question everything and use logic. Guess what? There are still valid questions. What I question is the insistence involved in the ‘just say yes to evolution’ movement. Anyone who disbelieves must be approached again and again and again. As if there’s a dealine to get the job done.
You’ve got to believe this! Now! Right now! Believe it or get called pathological!!
Do you understand that this urgency brings up the fact that believing in this right now is actually about something other than science? Scientists are at work right now and doing whatever they do. What? Will they all be required to sign something that says the earth is a certain age? If not, then why is it so important?
Peace,
Ed
M
mchale
Guest
Umm, just a nitpick, but the site kind of undermines itself when it starts by getting certain basic facts wrong:
A Brief History of Time is by Stephen Hawking… not Karl Sagan, which is really Carl Sagan, the author of Cosmos.
–
Bill
M
mchale
Guest
Ok, just a few thoughts here.
Bill
- The media does a rather horrid job of portraying science; at least the mass media does.
- Evolution is not just something that happened in the past. Examples of it are happening right now. One clear example is how bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to the antibiotics that we use against them.
- The Church, thankfully, learned the folly long ago of trying to dictate natural philosophy from the Bible or Faith. The facts of Natural Philosophy simply are not relevant to the questions involved.
- Science, when done properly is always tentative and never dogmatic. I.e., all results are potentially subject to revision if new evidence comes to light and always will be. That being said, baring significant new evidence, the current evidence most logically suggests a Universe and an Earth that are billions of years old. The size of the observable Universe alone requires a Universe many hundreds of millions of years old (Even if you decide the Red Shift is not caused by an expansion of the Universe) to explain how we are suppose to see stuff hundreds of millions of light years a way.
Bill
R
rossum
Guest
Scientists are not infallible, and they know it. That is why every scientific results comes with error bars on it. The age of the earth is 4.54 × 10[sup]9[/sup] years ± 1%. The “±” shows that scientists know that the figure is not exactly accurate, and that they are 95% confident that their error is within the stated limits. I suggest that you read Isaac Asimov’s essay The Relativity of Wrong to get an idea of how science deals with errors and how it works towards more accurate answers. All scientific answers have error bars, but the newer answers have smaller error bars than the older answers. By today the error bars on the age of the earth are small enough that there is no realistic possibility of the YEC interpretation of Genesis being correct. One of the old earth interpretations may still be correct.
Any reasonably trained geologist can tell the difference between annual varves (as in Lake Baikal) and non-annual flood. Have a look at this image. It is easy enough to see the difference between the non-annual layers from Lake Walensee on the left and the much more regular annual varves from Lake Zurich on the right. The picture came from Glenn Morton’s site: home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm. Glenn is a Christian and a former Young Earth Creationist. We have checked that varves are annual by dating the layers from different lakes. Varves are annual and we have enough sequences of varves to show that the 10,000 year maximum age allowed under YEC assumptions is wrong. The same with ice layers, tree rings, astronomical data and many other ways of determining the age of the earth and of things on the earth. Insisting on a young earth is a good way to put off anyone with a scientific mind from accepting Christianity. To quote Saint Thomas Aquinas:In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.
Young Earth Creationism is an excellent example the kind of “obstacle” that Saint Thomas was talking about.
rossum
E
edwest2
Guest
The bacteria idea just does not work. Bacteria can exchange genetic material with other bacteria, including other species of bacteria. Bacteria have a built-in mechanism for doing this. It is obvious that this is a design feature of bacteria.
I have read detailed information that describes non-distance related red shifts. I don’t think anything final can be said about red shifts being related to distance. In fact, some distant objects would have to be receding from us at the speed of light if you go entirely by the red shift.
What did the Church, specifically, learn long ago about what folly? The Church can and does speak about scientific matters all the time. It has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
Peace,
Ed
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
hardly a thing to quiver over, but noted, thanks for the good eye. I’ll be sure to tell the Naji, the speaker.
M
mchale
Guest
Actually it is. Basic mistakes like that can undermine any claims to have mastered the material. Particularly when we are talking about getting the author wrong of one one of the most famous science books in the last 30 years.
–
Bill
M
mchale
Guest
So do most creatures. In bacteria and most other single celled organisms that reproduce asexually, the exchange of genetic material is necessary to preserve the species.
In multi celled organisms, including members of the plant and animal kingdoms, the exchanges of genetic material occurs through sexual reproduction.
The point here is that by mixing up the genetic code of one organism with that of another, you can increase the chances of both organisms passing at least some of their genes onto the next generation (and so on).
Ultimately, all we are talking about here is the genetic variation part of evolution. Then comes the natural selection part; in the case of bacteria, those that have genes that make them somewhat resistant to antibiotics survive to pass on those genes to other bacteria making them also resistant.
With respect, I think you need to study the science a bit more carefully. If an object is traveling at the speed of light, it effectively becomes invisible to us as its redshift would be infinite (Essentially identical to an object crossing the event horizon of a black hole). In any case, none of this changes the fact, that we have good reason to believe that the Universe is hundreds of millions, if not billions of light years across (at least) and that to see as much of it as we do would require hundreds of millions or billions of years for the light to reach us.
There is a difference between the Church performing or encouraging research or engaging in a dialog with scientists and it trying dictate scientific facts based on what our faith or the Bible tells us. The Church can, does and should, work to ensure that we understand how scientific discoveries can fit into our faith and to ensure that scientific research is conducted in a moral way. If on the other hand it tries to dictate scientific results based on what it believes our faith or the Bible tells us, it risks its credibility. Almost 500 years after the fact, people still attack the Church because of Galileo.
–
Bill
- Status