T-Rex bone discovery supports a young earth

[Eliza10]

Three-Sixteen you did an excellent job defending your position here. And I appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut from Cindy-Gia, too.

Someone asked above: why does this stuff give me a headache? I was reflecting on why it gave me a headache, too, and on why i rarely read these evolution threads. I did read this one and now I see why.

Frequently the evolutionists are steeped in their pet science theory for which they have found lots of science to support. Which is not hard, since its the most popular theory in science, and it enjoys the support of the best-funded research, too!

And the evolutionists are sharing opinions on a thread with those who are not steeped in science. And they don’t think our opinions amount to much, and they are patronizing. We are emotional. Immature.

So their posts reflect a certain arrogance, and discounting of the non-scientific opinion. Arguments they would not get to use if arguing with actual scientists who support creationism or something like it. But, for the most part, they aren’t here - just us. They would have to go to another website to argue with their scientific equals.

And so, we should just be quiet since they know everything and we don’t.

I conclude that it is the arrogance and discounting, the reaction to that, and the reaction to the reaction, that gives everyone a headache concerning the reading of these threads.

Its the same kind of exchange you can get on abortion discussions I’m sure, although here I imagine those run pro-life.

But all of us aren’t impressed with science education credentials. We’ve all seen the bizarre conclusions of so many highly educated people.

Also I don’t think one has to be deeply educated in science to have a worthy opinion on the conclusions of the scientists.

In the same way, I don’t have a degree in psychiatry, but, I can look at the theories of Sigmund Freud and conclude: “something is really messed up there.” And I can read, and I know other psychiatrists agree with me.

And I look at evolution, and say, “Something is really messed up there.” I know we did not evolve from apes. God made animals. God made people. He did not make animals that turned into poeple. Its really that simple.

And I can read, and I know other scientists agree with me.

I also am really bothered by the implication on this thread that the Pope supports evolution.

Our Pope made rather positive, seemingly supportive comments about evolution when he was not a Pope. Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals have a whole mix of opinions on many matters. When one becomes Pope, can you look back at all they ever said and did, and now it all becomes the infallible Pope’s opinion? We know it doesn’t work that way!

So please, I think it was PhilVaz, please quit saying our Pope supports evolution! Thats not right. We only know what he thought some years back. We don’t know what he thinks now as Pope. Maybe recently he is impressed with the T-Rex bone discovery, and now he supports the “young earth”!

We can be sure he’ll let us all know if he thinks its an important matter for faith and morals. Meanwhile we do know the bottom line and that is our Church is not taking sides on the matter.

 

[PhilVaz]

Eliza << I also am really bothered by the implication on this thread that the Pope supports evolution. Our Pope made rather positive, seemingly supportive comments about evolution when he was not a Pope. Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals have a whole mix of opinions on many matters. >>

Don’t be bothered. Just tell me what you think this means:

“…for science has long since disposed of the concepts that we have just now heard – the idea of a world that is completely comprehensible in terms of space and time, and the idea that creation was built up piece by piece over the course of seven [or six] days. Instead of this we now face measurements that transcend all comprehension. Today we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago and with which the universe began its expansion – an expansion that continues to occur without interruption. And it was not in neat succession that the stars were hung and the green of the fields created; it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that the earth and the universe were constructed as we now know them.”

AND

“All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.”

AND

“But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason. It was a particular characteristic of the 19th century to appreciate the historicity of all things and the fact that they came into existence. It perceived that things that we used to consider as unchanging and immutable were the product of a long process of becoming. This was true not only in the realm of the human but also in that of nature. It became evident that the universe was not something like a huge box into which everything was put in a finished state, but that it was comparable instead to a living, growing tree that gradually lifts its branches higher and higher to the sky.”

The current Pope wrote this in 1986.

Eliza << So please, I think it was PhilVaz, please quit saying our Pope supports evolution! Thats not right. We only know what he thought some years back. We don’t know what he thinks now as Pope. Maybe recently he is impressed with the T-Rex bone discovery, and now he supports the “young earth”! >>

Now tell me what you think this means:

“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.”

The current Pope approved this in 2004. Nope looks like he hasn’t changed his mind about the science in 18 years. But in 2005 he became a young-earth creationist, do I understand you right?

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Eliza << Three-Sixteen you did an excellent job defending your position here. And I appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut from Cindy-Gia, too. >>

You know my opinion. 316 did a terrible job since he gets all his arguments from Kent Hovind who is a fraud. And Cindy “does not know Jack.”

It’s not that difficult. Just read one book on the subject. Preferebly the one I recommend.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

And one more thing:

1. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers…
2. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin…

That’s called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Maybe you can let me know what you think this means also.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Not to flog a dead horse, but maybe you can let me know what you think this means:

"Now there is another misunderstanding that is constantly found in the ongoing discussion, and I have to deal with it right here at the beginning. I refer to what is called ‘creationism.’ Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with ‘creationism.’ But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements - I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it – is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way. It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools…

“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of ‘creationism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.”

Cardinal Schonborn catechetical lecture for 11/13/2005.

So you are saying Pope Benedict XVI became a young-earth creationist in 2005, and Schonborn became a young-earth creationist in December 2005, shortly after writing the above. I don’t want to misrepresent, but I think this may be your, and Cindy’s and 316’s position. And you also believe the Jack Chick "Big Daddy" comic book should be read in biology classrooms, instead of the Ken Miller / Joe Levine textbook . Do I have you all figured out yet? I am trying very hard to understand your positions here, just as much as you all are trying to understand evolutionary science.

Phil P

 

[wildleafblower]

Eliza10, “Someone asked above: why does this stuff give me a headache? I was reflecting on why it gave me a headache, too, and on why i rarely read these evolution threads. I did read this one and now I see why.”

The someone was me. Hi, Eliza! Thank you for taking the time to express your opinion. I concur with you that having to read through participant’s comments that aren’t pertinent to the topic of discussion can at times confuse the issue, especially if you are earnestly attempting to learn about a significant scientific discovery such as the T-Rex.

We are experiencing ‘loopy times’ as a result of ‘Culture Wars and 82 Evolution Debates’. This is why I was hoping a Science forum might eleviate some of the undue stress.
ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/15765.html

Eliza10, “Frequently the evolutionists are steeped in their pet science theory for which they have found lots of science to support. Which is not hard, since its the most popular theory in science, and it enjoys the support of the best-funded research, too!”

Girlfriend, you nailed it right on the head. We are evolving together in thought! It’s evolution, it’s science, and the best- funded research endeavor in the history of mankind.

Eliza10, “And the evolutionists are sharing opinions on a thread with those who are not steeped in science. And they don’t think our opinions amount to much, and they are patronizing. We are emotional. Immature.”

I have to disagree with you, Eliza. Evolution theory in not based on opinion. Scientists, and non-scientists like me, worldwide endorse ‘evolution’ as the foundation of accumulated data over history that’s been supported by scientific research that’s been peer-reviewed!

[snip]

Eliza, “And so, we should just be quiet since they [scientists] know everything and we don’t.”

We need to grow with knowledge. Scientist need people like us. Why? Their learned teachers with a gift from God to help mankind understand the beauty that unfolds within our world.

My attraction began with cosmology. You may wish to start there. Study the heavens. The rest will unfold like a beautiful rose bud.

May God bless you Eliza with the spirit of wonder.

Packing my bags…the sky is calling me. I’m flying tonight.

 

[zian]

Eliza10:

And so, we should just be quiet since they know everything and we don’t.

Well, Eliza10, you’ll have to show me where anyone claimed that! What I have seen is link after link to bonafide reference material, inviting one to consult that material and then respond. How is that telling you to be quiet?

But all of us aren’t impressed with science education credentials. We’ve all seen the bizarre conclusions of so many highly educated people.

Yes, scientists are human too, with all the potential failings that go along with that.

Also I don’t think one has to be deeply educated in science to have a worthy opinion on the conclusions of the scientists.

Well, you don’t have to be, but some training does help to recognize errors. As in any human endeavor, there will always be a few snake-oil salesmaen around to try to profit from others misfortune or lack of understanding. The scientific method itself is the sharpest scalpel for excising wrong ideas from science.

Meanwhile we do know the bottom line and that is our Church is not taking sides on the matter.

Sounds like a reasonable thing for any church to do.

 

[Eliza10]

PhilVaz:

Just tell me what you think this means:

“…for science has long since disposed of the …the idea that creation was built up… over the course of seven [or six] days… …billions of years ago… the stars were hung … over vast periods of time…”

He is saying: science tells us. He is not telling infallible truth.

He is telling us what “today”, science tells us. leaving open what “tomorrow,” science may tell. Perhaps it will affirm that man was created at once from the dust of the earth, just as Jesus created new eyes out of dirt and spit for a man born blind.

PhilVaz:

AND

"All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? …We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities.

…One might say…

PhilVaz:

The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. …

Here I diverge with the man who spoke here before he was our Pope. [Now that he is Pope I expect he will be far more careful when speaking on this topic].

I agree with the man, that scripture tells us what the humans are. But I* do not agree* that it does not *also *tell us how we came to be. I believe that it is more likely to be both/and.

And although the Cardinal was not a scientist, i would concede he probably had more science education than I. Therefore my opinion may not seem to matter to you. But remember: God often uses the simpletons of the world to confound those who consider themselves wise by worldly standards.

PhilVaz:

AND

"… It became evident that the universe was not something like a huge box into which everything was put in a finished state…

I perhaps agree with him. But I do not agree that Man was not put on this earth in his finished state. He was made by God from dust of the earth. Made finished, and set in the garden, where God also walked with him. Not born, but made.

The Cardinal, now Pope, is not saying otherwise here. You may think he is implying otherwise, but I think he is not.

Perhaps you think he is saying Adam, too, evolved. He was born an infant, from the womb of some humanoid ape-like creatures without souls who nursed and raised him and listened mutely while he talked the first human words. Kind of like Jungle book.

You don’t think that, do you???

PhilVaz:

Now tell me what you think this means:

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since…

Notice the red letters.

PhilVaz:

… there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago… while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."

There is a distinction between what he says before he is Pope and after. We have in our Church history Popes who were teaching in oppposition to the eternal truths of the faith until they were Pope, then, suddenly, they changed and infallibly taught truth in faith and morals.

Therefore i say a distinction can and should be made between what the Pope says before and after he is Pope. I know it supports your argument to say that our Pope stands with you on evolution, but it is not an true statement. Since there is so much science to support your theory, why not stick with the truths of science and not the false implications to make your case? Our Pope has not spoken up for evolution of man as Pope - (or, apparently, ever) and I don’t believe he will. To say our Pope has is not true.

And no, you are also reading the ridiculous into what I said . Surely you see I did not say the Pope has become a young-earth creationist. I said we do not know the Pope thinks. For all we know he could have read about the T-Rex bones and thought to himself that it looks like dinasaurs aren’t so old after all. I am only guessing what he might possbily think. You never know.

You might guess he is thinking that Adam and Eve’s children married the humanoid-ape-creatures and begat more humans. Perhaps they also begat more humanoid-ape-creatures, but they all died off thru the process of natural selection. You might guess that he would love to write a paper on that but is held back from this desire by right-wing Vatican officials. You, like me, would be guessing.

 

[PhilVaz]

Eliza << And no, you are also reading the ridiculous into what I said . Surely you see I did not say the Pope has become a young-earth creationist. I said we do not know the Pope thinks. For all we know he could have read about the T-Rex bones and thought to himself that it looks like dinasaurs aren’t so old after all. I am only guessing what he might possbily think. You never know. >>

Yes I was exaggerating since young earthers themselves are ridiculous.

You aren’t reading carefully, you are seeing what you want to see. What Ratzinger, and now Pope Benedict clearly says, is that he has no problems with the science. He doesn’t disagree with the science, he accepts the science. That science is: the universe is about 15 billion years old (13.7 billion in fact), the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and humankind indeed evolved from the animal kingdom (that human beings and chimps have a common ancestor several million years ago). Ratzinger and now Benedict has no problems with that science. He couldn’t be more clear.

Ratzinger/Benedict: "We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are."

International Theological Commission: “Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism…While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.”

Homo sapiens, that’s us. Common descent is “virtually certain” and anthropology and biology makes a “convincing case” for human evolution. That is as close to fact and truth in science as you are gonna get.

So he does indeed believe we evolved from the animal kingdom, that is what the modern theory of evolution tells us, that is what all the scientific evidence tells us, and that is what he has no problem with. The Church and theology and Genesis tell us “who we are” while science tells us “how we got here.” That is clearly his position.

Doesn’t mean you have to accept any of this science, as I have said before, you can believe the earth is FLAT, FIXED, YOUNG, and that it is "Turtles all the way down." But it is not a position any reasonable and informed Catholic living in the 21st century should take. That is also what Schonborn explicitly says, that young earthism is “nonsense” and contrary to reason.

Benedict has only been Benedict for less than a year. Give him time to write his first “evolution encyclical.”

Phil P

 

[iceman]

Mom of one:

But I thought that dinosaur bones were buried in the earth by the devil to trick people into believing that a) the earth is millions of years old, and b) that dinosaurs actually existed. After all, there is no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible.

I hope you realize that I don’t believe this. I saw a book in a Christian bookstore with that teaching in it. Can you believe it?

I understand the sarcasm in this point but some effectively argue that current phenomena such as crop circles and “UFOs”, both of which have yet to be satisfactorily explained by science, are in fact demons or made by demons to deceive us, and challenge our religious faith. (I do not want to turn this discussion into one about either crop circles or UFOs, incidentally.) Is it so outlandish to wonder if other phenomena here on Earth also may be created by Satan to lead us away from God? Scientific inquiry is facinating and useful. More humility in interpreting apparent findings and conclusions would probably be wise.

I also am not as convinced by “scientific” discoveries as I used to be, especially in light of more recent admissions after the fact of falsified data, the imposition of a “discoverer’s” values and beliefs in the interpretation of information and discoveries, and far too often a very selective presentation of what actually is discovered(information intentionally excluded or minimized). I have to wonder how many scientists today are little better at accurately representing their positions and discoveries than today’s journalists are at reporting “the facts and only the facts” in news stories.

Food for thought.

 

[abcdefg]

CCC can’t give an answer to the age of the earth. this however is answered in Baltimore Catechism

**Q. 345. How many years passed from the time Adam sinned till the time the Redeemer came? **

A. About 4,000 years passed from the time Adam sinned till the time the Redeemer came.

Adam lived for 930 years. so earth is about 7000 years old now. you can say 10000 or even 20000 years is about 7000 years. but definately not 4 570 000 000 years.

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

CCC can’t give an answer to the age of the earth. this however is answered in Baltimore Catechism

**Q. 345. How many years passed from the time Adam sinned till the time the Redeemer came? **

A. About 4,000 years passed from the time Adam sinned till the time the Redeemer came.

Adam lived for 930 years. so earth is about 7000 years old now. you can say 10000 or even 20000 years is about 7000 years. but definately not 4 570 000 000 years.

Are you telling us the Baltimore Catechism takes precedence over the main Catechism of the Catholic Church.
By the way, nobody really belives the earth is only 7000 years old!! All I have read in these threads and the links people have given to various sites, letters etc clearly indicates that the Church accepts that the earth is around 5 billion years old. I don’t see why that should matter anyway as we all know God is the Creator.

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

Are you telling us the Baltimore Catechism takes precedence over the main Catechism of the Catholic Church.
By the way, nobody really belives the earth is only 7000 years old!! All I have read in these threads and the links people have given to various sites, letters etc clearly indicates that the Church accepts that the earth is around 5 billion years old. I don’t see why that should matter anyway as we all know God is the Creator.

Did Baltimore Catechism contradicts CCC? No. CCC says don’t know the answer, so whatever doesn’t contradict.

Does BC accurately portray Catholic Church’s teaching of that day?
Is BC old enough to be considered a tradition?
By what authority you say Baltimore Catechism is wrong?

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

Did Baltimore Catechism contradicts CCC? No. CCC says don’t know the answer, so whatever doesn’t contradict.

Does BC accurately portray Catholic Church’s teaching of that day?
Is BC old enough to be considered a tradition?
By what authority you say Baltimore Catechism is wrong?

Who said it was wrong? I asked you a question which you still didn’t answer. The CCC is the official Catechism of the Catholic Church for everyone. I’m assuming that Baltimore is a town in the USA and is not another name for the whole world.

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

Who said it was wrong? I asked you a question which you still didn’t answer. The CCC is the official Catechism of the Catholic Church for everyone. I’m assuming that Baltimore is a town in the USA and is not another name for the whole world.

The 1st Catechism is called Roman Catechism or Catechism of Trent as it’s published under the authority of Council of Trent
Is Trent the name for the whole world?

Baltimore Catechism is the result of the Council of Baltimore.

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

The 1st Catechism is called Roman Catechism or Catechism of Trent as it’s published under the authority of Council of Trent
Is Trent the name for the whole world?

Baltimore Catechism is the result of the Council of Baltimore.

You still haven’t answered my question. Are you telling us that the CCC is not the official Catechism that we should refer to when the Pope, Bishops and Priests tell us to read the Catechism to know the teachings of the Church.

John Paul II wote in the CCC:

QUOTE
The Doctrinal Value of the Text

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 22:32 as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.
UNQOTE

I accept whatever the CCC states. If it said the age of the earth was 7000 years I would accept it. If it said it was 5 billion years I would accept it. As it makes no statement about the age of the earth it means it is left open and the Church does not teach the age of the earth is 7000 years.

 

[abcdefg]

Don’t blame Protestants of being sola scriptula. sola CCC is no where better.
CCC isn’t the only souce of truth. Tradition, Bible both are.
Whether earth is 7000 or 5B years old doesn’t affect the correctness of CCC.
you can only say Church doesn’t teach earth is ~7000 years now. that doesn’t mean Church opposes earth is ~7000 years or tradition hasn’t taught earth isn’t ~7000 years or the age of earth can’t be known
I, as a Catholic, decide to accept tradition. you sure have your choice.

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

Don’t blame Protestants of being sola scriptula. sola CCC is no where better.
CCC isn’t the only souce of truth. Tradition, Bible both are.
Whether earth is 7000 or 5B years old doesn’t affect the correctness of CCC.
you can only say Church doesn’t teach earth is ~7000 years now. that doesn’t mean Church opposes earth is ~7000 years or tradition hasn’t taught earth isn’t 7000 years.
I, as a Catholic, decide to accept tradition. you sure have your choice.

You are right. We can choose to accept 7000 or 5 billion but neither of us can say that the Church teaches one or the other. Sorry if I misunderstood you but in an earlier post I thought you said it is the Church teaching that the earth is 7000 years old and that clearly is not the case.

On a separate issue what tradition do you mean?
I might be wrong but the quick search I did indicated the BC was published just over 100 years ago. I hardly think that can be construed as Tradition.

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

You are right. We can choose to accept 7000 or 5 billion but neither of us can say that the Church teaches one or the other. Sorry if I misunderstood you but in an earlier post I thought you said it is the Church teaching that the earth is 7000 years old and that clearly is not the case.

I never say Church teaches NOW one must accept Creationism/young earth theory. however I insist tradition has taught so

thistle:

On a separate issue what tradition do you mean?
I might be wrong but the quick search I did indicated the BC was published just over 100 years ago. I hardly think that can be construed as Tradition.

Compared with CCC, it’s tradition, isn’t it? btw do you think Church’s teaching on this subject ever changed before Baltimore Catechism?

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

I never say Church teaches NOW one must accept Creationism/young earth theory. however I insist tradition has taught so

Compared with CCC, it’s tradition, isn’t it? btw do you think Church’s teaching on this subject ever changed before Baltimore Catechism?

**Its only the official Church teaching that counts ** and that is based on scripture and Tradition.

By the way for my own interest do you know of a Baltimore Catechism online that I can look at to see where it states the age of the earth?