Refuting Old Earth Creationism - Help

[Reepicheep]

My best friend is a recent convert to Christianity. We discuss theology now and then.
Problem - he’s (a) protestant, and (b) Young Earth Creationist, and (c) convinced he has to save me from the Catholic Church.
This leads sometimes to, let me say, tense - discussions.

He’s currently demanding that I show evidence that Old Earth Creationism is true, and separately, evidence to refute Young Earth Creationism.

I solicit ideas, suggestions, sources to read or research.

 

[Verbum]

Hi R,

Our faith teaches us that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.

Whether creation happened billions of years ago or thousands of years ago not a matter of faith. It is a matter of science. It is not correct to tell your friend that Catholics must believe in Old Earth or Young Earth.

The discussion centers around whether every word in the Bible is to be taken literally. The Bible is not a book; is is a library of books written over a long period of time by very different people. This library contains poetry, fiction, history, and traditional accounts, etc.

The golden rule is that we must assume the bible to be taken literally, except where a literal interpretation goes against facts or against reason. It was once believed that the bible taught that the sun moved around the earth. Facts have proved this to be false. Therefore we now know that the Bible does not teach that, but simply expresses itself the way the people of those days did.

As Pope John Paul II once said, there is more and more evidence to support the theory of the evolution of species over very long periods. There have been other papal pronouncements to the effect that Catholics can believe in evolution as long as it does not apply to the souls of humans, which is created directly by God.

Wikipedia has a good article on the development of the Church’s position on this subject.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

Verbum

 

[Steveabrous]

As the poster above said. Young earth or old Earth is irrelevant. I as a Catholic could believe young earth creationism. I wouldn’t even go there with him. You may even say “O.K. your right. Now lets talk about the early church. Here are some writings from the 2nd century which show that the church Christ established is the Catholic church.” That is the bigger issue. Not young Earth vs. old earth

On a side note Modern science promotes old Earth. If he rejects all that scientific evidence, What are you going to say to convince him?

Move on, and don’t waste your time.

 

[NovusAugustus]

In fact, the Catholic faith does not have any problem with Old Earth creationism. As long as you believe what is written in the book of Genesis, you are right in the eyes of the Church. The Church doesn’t issue scientific proclamations.

 

[edwest2]

Actually, it does.

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.”

No need to argue with your friend. If you believe the earth is young then say so. If your friend tries to start an argument, there’s no need to say anything further.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Reepicheep]

Verbum, Steveabrous:
Thank you both. Between you, you gave me enough to get started.

Steveabrous: it’s not that I’m eager to convince my friend of Old Earth Creationism. It’s that he is determined to convince me of Young Earth, and he’s not going to let it go. He’s a dear friend. I’m not going to turn my back on him.

Edweat2: Actually I believe the Earth is old. It’s my friend who believes in a young Earth.

 

[edwest2]

Hi R,

Our faith teaches us that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.

Whether creation happened billions of years ago or thousands of years ago not a matter of faith. It is a matter of science. It is not correct to tell your friend that Catholics must believe in Old Earth or Young Earth.

The discussion centers around whether every word in the Bible is to be taken literally. The Bible is not a book; is is a library of books written over a long period of time by very different people. This library contains poetry, fiction, history, and traditional accounts, etc.

The golden rule is that we must assume the bible to be taken literally, except where a literal interpretation goes against facts or against reason. It was once believed that the bible taught that the sun moved around the earth. Facts have proved this to be false. Therefore we now know that the Bible does not teach that, but simply expresses itself the way the people of those days did.

As Pope John Paul II once said, there is more and more evidence to support the theory of the evolution of species over very long periods. There have been other papal pronouncements to the effect that Catholics can believe in evolution as long as it does not apply to the souls of humans, which is created directly by God.

Wikipedia has a good article on the development of the Church’s position on this subject.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

Verbum

Evolution is a banned topic.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Verbum, Steveabrous:
Thank you both. Between you, you gave me enough to get started.

Steveabrous: it’s not that I’m eager to convince my friend of Old Earth Creationism. It’s that he is determined to convince me of Young Earth, and he’s not going to let it go. He’s a dear friend. I’m not going to turn my back on him.

Well, what has he shown you that makes him convinced it’s true? A book, a video, what?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Well, proof is all around us. Surely there must be a natural history museum that has a fossil or two he can look at…

I would caution you, though. I make it a point never to argue with crazy people. You will not convince them of your side of the argument, and you risk your own sanity in the attempt to do so.

 

[edwest2]

Well, proof is all around us. Surely there must be a natural history museum that has a fossil or two he can look at…

I would caution you, though. I make it a point never to argue with crazy people. You will not convince them of your side of the argument, and you risk your own sanity in the attempt to do so.

“crazy people” Great.

Stop insulting people. It’s not a good way to have a rational discussion.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

My best friend is a recent convert to Christianity. We discuss theology now and then.
Problem - he’s (a) protestant, and (b) Young Earth Creationist, and (c) convinced he has to save me from the Catholic Church.
This leads sometimes to, let me say, tense - discussions.

He’s currently demanding that I show evidence that Old Earth Creationism is true, and separately, evidence to refute Young Earth Creationism.

I solicit ideas, suggestions, sources to read or research.

Good luck. See if you can find proof of an old age. When the pupurted evidence is shown, always check the underlying assumptions. You may be surprised at what you find.

 

[triumphguy]

Ask him which Church put the bible together - and then ask what that Church says.

 

[georget]

The Church is wise to stay out of the fight between Fundamentalism and science. Knowing where the bible came from and where evolution is headed (being replaced by a newer theory eventually). It knows the source of truth was before and after both. It is a mystery.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

My best friend is a recent convert to Christianity. We discuss theology now and then.
Problem - he’s (a) protestant, and (b) Young Earth Creationist, and (c) convinced he has to save me from the Catholic Church.
This leads sometimes to, let me say, tense - discussions.

He’s currently demanding that I show evidence that Old Earth Creationism is true, and separately, evidence to refute Young Earth Creationism.

I solicit ideas, suggestions, sources to read or research.

i don’t really understand the viewpoint that says there must be an old earth or a young earth. the earth must be only as old as it is.

but nobody can definitively say exactly how old it is. earths history is a vast unending pot of data and we can only stick a straw into that field of data here and there.

why can the earth not be middle-aged or sort-of young or sort of old.

the reason is that a protestant bishop in ireland had the unhappy fortune of calculating the age of the earth as 6000 years old and this age somehow has persisted in, mostly, american protestant circles ever since.

but the actual age of the earth could be anything. in the early 1900’s geologists were working hard to prove noah’s flood and a young earth but i think geologists today may be a bit embarrassed by that historical fact and perhaps have swept all aside to embrace a long age earth of constant gradual processes. but there is really no scientific reason to suppose that cataclysmic processes could not occur on earth quickly, rather than slowly.

 

[triumphguy]

i don’t really understand the viewpoint that says there must be an old earth or a young earth. the earth must be only as old as it is.

but nobody can definitively say exactly how old it is. earths history is a vast unending pot of data and we can only stick a straw into that field of data here and there.

why can the earth not be middle-aged or sort-of young or sort of old.

the reason is that a protestant bishop in ireland had the unhappy fortune of calculating the age of the earth as 6000 years old and this age somehow has persisted in, mostly, american protestant circles ever since.

but the actual age of the earth could be anything. in the early 1900’s geologists were working hard to prove noah’s flood and a young earth but i think geologists today may be a bit embarrassed by that historical fact and perhaps have swept all aside to embrace a long age earth of constant gradual processes. but there is really no scientific reason to suppose that cataclysmic processes could not occur on earth quickly, rather than slowly.

Spot on!

Trying to fit the age of the earth into someone’s theory is a bit daft.

 

[buffalo]

i don’t really understand the viewpoint that says there must be an old earth or a young earth. the earth must be only as old as it is.

but nobody can definitively say exactly how old it is. earths history is a vast unending pot of data and we can only stick a straw into that field of data here and there.

why can the earth not be middle-aged or sort-of young or sort of old.

the reason is that a protestant bishop in ireland had the unhappy fortune of calculating the age of the earth as 6000 years old and this age somehow has persisted in, mostly, american protestant circles ever since.

but the actual age of the earth could be anything. in the early 1900’s geologists were working hard to prove noah’s flood and a young earth but i think geologists today may be a bit embarrassed by that historical fact and perhaps have swept all aside to embrace a long age earth of constant gradual processes. but there is really no scientific reason to suppose that cataclysmic processes could not occur on earth quickly, rather than slowly.

They have and there is plenty of evidence. Uniformatarianism has been the ruling the day for several hundred years. But recently catastrophosim is back on the scene.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

They have and there is plenty of evidence. Uniformatarianism has been the ruling the day for several hundred years. But recently catastrophosim is back on the scene.

thanks be to God.

i only want scientists who don’t know.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Spot on!

Trying to fit the age of the earth into someone’s theory is a bit daft.

yes. it is only as old as it is. i would not worry about anything less than the truth, and there is so much to learn, geology is only a young thing yet.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

My best friend is a recent convert to Christianity. We discuss theology now and then.
Problem - he’s (a) protestant, and (b) Young Earth Creationist, and (c) convinced he has to save me from the Catholic Church.
This leads sometimes to, let me say, tense - discussions.

He’s currently demanding that I show evidence that Old Earth Creationism is true, and separately, evidence to refute Young Earth Creationism.

I solicit ideas, suggestions, sources to read or research.

Is your friend aware that for Catholics believing in Genesis or Evolution is a non-salvific matter? In other words believing in either does not determine whether the Catholic goes to Heaven or Hell. The Church takes a precautionary wait and see view as we know Science is always in a state of fluctuation and discovery.

We are free to believe either and the Church has not made any binding statements except that if we choose to believe in Evolution we must also believe that it was guided by the Hand of God and that God especially created the Soul for each individual i.e. Theistic Evolution.

Maybe if you clarify the above first. Ask him if he thinks he will go to Hell if he doesn’t believe in YEC?

catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

staycatholic.com/is_theistic_evolution_truly_plausible.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

 

[edwest2]

The Church is wise to stay out of the fight between Fundamentalism and science. Knowing where the bible came from and where evolution is headed (being replaced by a newer theory eventually). It knows the source of truth was before and after both. It is a mystery.

Evolution is a banned topic.

Peace,
Ed