Old Earth vs. Young Earth

[Ion]

That seems to this Catholic like a non-answer. Can science tell us true things about the natural world, or not? Has God deliberately rigged creation so that science gives consistent-yet-totally-wrong answers about the creation of the universe and our planet? If so, why?

The natural world doesn’t exist in itself, like atheist-materialist think, and there is nothing really true about it. True is only the way we experience it. The search for the natural laws might give this impression, that there is an ultimate set of finite laws. There is no such thing.

 

[snarflemike]

The natural world doesn’t exist in itself, like atheist-materialist think, and there is nothing really true about it. True is only the way we experience it. The search for the natural laws might give this impression, that there is an ultimate set of finite laws. There is no such thing.

I’m not asking about any “ultimate set of finite laws.” I’m asking if science can tell us true things about the natural world. And if it can, why does it appear to tell us something so totally false about the age of the universe and of our planet? And further, tell us this false answer rather consistently over a great many disciplines? If science breaks down over the age of the universe/planet, why does it seem to break down in the same way (give the same “wrong” answers) over so many different disciplines?

 

[snarflemike]

If one is walking down the beach and sees left footprints as far as he can see should he conclude a deceiver is at work?

God has no obligation to reveal all of His creation to man.

Human reasoning of our observations is the weak point. Science is provisional and is ever changing.

There are several problems right in out own solar system.

So are most scientists just stupid, or are they ignoring or falsifying evidence to advance an agenda? (outrageous climate change fraud aside, and even that is being exposed).

And can’t your claim that “Human reasoning of our observations is the weak point. Science is provisional and is ever changing.” apply to the counter-science being offered as well? How can anybody offer scientific evidence that science doesn’t work?

 

[Ion]

So are most scientists just stupid, or are they ignoring or falsifying evidence to advance an agenda? (outrageous climate change fraud aside, and even that is being exposed).

And can’t your claim that “Human reasoning of our observations is the weak point. Science is provisional and is ever changing.” apply to the counter-science being offered as well? How can anybody offer scientific evidence that science doesn’t work?

If you read about the scientifc knowledge in antiquity, or the middle age, you will see all sort of “nonsense” from our point of view. Thats not because they were stupid; they were reasoning logically as we do now, but their premises were wrong. The same thing is now.

 

[buffalo]

So are most scientists just stupid, or are they ignoring or falsifying evidence to advance an agenda? (outrageous climate change fraud aside, and even that is being exposed).

And can’t your claim that “Human reasoning of our observations is the weak point. Science is provisional and is ever changing.” apply to the counter-science being offered as well? How can anybody offer scientific evidence that science doesn’t work?

Many (not all) scientists have not even done verifying experiments themselves. They build a case based on what they read or are taught. Some of this is subject to fraud, prestige, power and grants. Who dares go against the current paradigm?

Look at this and then let’s discuss

** The Magician’s Twin - CS Lewis **

A powerful must see video:

---

**The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism **

The Similarity Between Science and Magic

1. Science as religion
2. Science as credulity
3. Science as power

 

[buffalo]

So are most scientists just stupid, or are they ignoring or falsifying evidence to advance an agenda? (

Some of it is we just cannot know. If you think about it how much of cosmology is subject to actual empirical testing? Not very much.

 

[buffalo]

If you read about the scientifc knowledge in antiquity, or the middle age, you will see all sort of “nonsense” from our point of view. Thats not because they were stupid; they were reasoning logically as we do now, but their premises were wrong. The same thing is now.

Yes - that is what I was getting at.

 

[Darryl_B]

The question Old Earth vs Young Earth is actually a question of whether the earth as we know it was uniformitarian (eg particles of dust gradually forming layers or rivers gradually etching channels) or whether it was cataclysmic.

Personally I subscribe to cataclysmic so any scientific observation I make (because thats all any “scientist” does is observe the product or result) will be modelled within that framework.

On the other hand a uniformitarian school will observe the same thing amd model it within that framework.

But what is most important is that the fundamental determination in any “science” is a preconceived belief system, and therefore shouldn’t really be construed as science. Science means knowledge, however the majority of “observational science” is actually just philosophical.

eg. In my country a whale skeleton was found a very long way from an ocean and very high up in a plateau above sea level. The concensus of “experts” was that the whale skeleton was 5 million years old, however the specimen was not carbon dated (which would be scientific) instead it was estimated into a uniformitarian model. It was buried this deep and is therefore this old. I do not find that to be scientific at all.

And from a cataclysmic model, the whale skeleton would be interpreted as being from the flood 4500 years ago.

 

[Gricken]

The question Old Earth vs Young Earth is actually a question of whether the earth as we know it was uniformitarian (eg particles of dust gradually forming layers or rivers gradually etching channels) or whether it was cataclysmic.

Personally I subscribe to cataclysmic so any scientific observation I make (because thats all any “scientist” does is observe the product or result) will be modelled within that framework.

On the other hand a uniformitarian school will observe the same thing amd model it within that framework.

But what is most important is that the fundamental determination in any “science” is a preconceived belief system, and therefore shouldn’t really be construed as science. Science means knowledge, however the majority of “observational science” is actually just philosophical.

eg. In my country a whale skeleton was found a very long way from an ocean and very high up in a plateau above sea level. The concensus of “experts” was that the whale skeleton was 5 million years old, however the specimen was not carbon dated (which would be scientific) instead it was estimated into a uniformitarian model. It was buried this deep and is therefore this old. I do not find that to be scientific at all.

Then you probably don’t know about realtive dating or that Carbon dating wouldn’t work on anything 5 million years old. Or you’ve never heard of radiometric dating, which would be used on something that would be 5 millions years old.

 

[buffalo]

The question Old Earth vs Young Earth is actually a question of whether the earth as we know it was uniformitarian (eg particles of dust gradually forming layers or rivers gradually etching channels) or whether it was cataclysmic.

Personally I subscribe to cataclysmic so any scientific observation I make (because thats all any “scientist” does is observe the product or result) will be modelled within that framework.

On the other hand a uniformitarian school will observe the same thing amd model it within that framework.

But what is most important is that the fundamental determination in any “science” is a preconceived belief system, and therefore shouldn’t really be construed as science. Science means knowledge, however the majority of “observational science” is actually just philosophical.

eg. In my country a whale skeleton was found a very long way from an ocean and very high up in a plateau above sea level. The concensus of “experts” was that the whale skeleton was 5 million years old, however the specimen was not carbon dated (which would be scientific) instead it was estimated into a uniformitarian model. It was buried this deep and is therefore this old. I do not find that to be scientific at all.

It took a while but they are coming to terms with catastrophism.

 

[Darryl_B]

Then you probably don’t know about realtive dating or that Carbon dating wouldn’t work on anything 5 million years old. Or you’ve never heard of radiometric dating, which would be used on something that would be 5 millions years old.

Actually I am familiar with the constraints of carbon dating which is why I would like to see it carbon dating rather than just assuming and calling that science.

 

[buffalo]

Then you probably don’t know about realtive dating or that Carbon dating wouldn’t work on anything 5 million years old. Or you’ve never heard of radiometric dating, which would be used on something that would be 5 millions years old.

Carbon dating is said to be good to about 50,000 years ago. We have dated dinosaur bones at 28-32,000 Years ago.

 

[Gricken]

Actually I am familiar with the constraints of carbon dating which is why I would like to see it carbon dating rather than just assuming and calling that science.

Are you familar with the concepts of realtive dating, or the process of radiometric dating? Because I can assure you they would not use carbon dating on said whale.

 

[edwest2]

That seems to this Catholic like a non-answer. Can science tell us true things about the natural world, or not? Has God deliberately rigged creation so that science gives consistent-yet-totally-wrong answers about the creation of the universe and our planet? If so, why?

The point many are missing is the selective questioning going on here. First, let’s establish as fact that God is God and can do things only a God can do. Second, Jesus Christ existed in actual history and did plenty of things without the use of science and technology, literally. Like raising the dead, removing leprosy, restoring sight to the blind, walking on water and commanding a storm to subside. Are we seeing a God who does need to use any laws of science that we know of? Of course not.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Source: Catholic Answers

If Catholics believe God created the Universe out of nothing and leave that information out, then the wrong questions are being asked. Jesus revealed what God can do. He physically rose from the dead.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Darryl_B]

Are you familar with the concepts of realtive dating, or the process of radiometric dating? Because I can assure you they would not use carbon dating on said whale.

Yes I am. KAr etc a system I have seen yield some very bad results. There is no reason the said whale could not be carbon dated.

 

[Darryl_B]

It took a while but they are coming to terms with catastrophism.

I absolutely agree. Unfortunately the science world is largely funded by money. So any science outside the predetermined philosophy doesnt get the cash, I mean respect.

 

[ngill09]

Carbon dating is said to be good to about 50,000 years ago. We have dated dinosaur bones at 28-32,000 Years ago.

Link?

I absolutely agree. Unfortunately the science world is largely funded by money. So any science outside the predetermined philosophy doesnt get the cash, I mean respect.

Sorry, no. The world was not under water within the past couple thousand years. If you want me to enumerate why that theory is completely ridiculous and counter to absolutely all evidence, I’ll be happy to oblige.

 

[buffalo]

Link?

Sorry, no. The world was not under water within the past couple thousand years. If you want me to enumerate why that theory is completely ridiculous and counter to absolutely all evidence, I’ll be happy to oblige.

         [**Recent C-14 Dating of Fossils including Dinosaur Bone Collagen.**](http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm)

         *Are the results a confirmation of rapid formation of the geologic column as modern sedimentology studies have predicted?*

 

[ngill09]

         [**Recent C-14 Dating of Fossils including Dinosaur Bone Collagen.**](http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm)

         *Are the results a confirmation of rapid formation of the geologic column as modern sedimentology studies have predicted?*

Do you have a source outside of Young-Earth Creationist propaganda websites?

 

[Gricken]

Do you have a source outside of Young-Earth Creationist propaganda websites?

Buffalo doesn’t accept anything else. Since he assumes all other science is too biased to be trusted.