I must have misread your post. I thought it said someone had taken a scientific approach to a young earth. Did you link to the wrong article?
But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.
You’ll have to back up that thought. If anyone reads Genesis, you’ll see that the writer includes certain words that seem to indicate a 24 hour day. However, the Church has not made a final determination, while some post here in a “carved in stone - believe it now!” way.
Haha, my point is this: I am not an expert in any field of science, and therefore must believe what someone else is telling me when they claim to be an expert. As I have no way of verifying the validity of any credentialing or to test what one scientist says vs another I am just as likely to pick the one I like better out of my ignorance. I’m sure that is what most people do on any given subject, even if they don’t think so. So in my mind what I just posted was as valid as anything that was posted previously due to the fact that I am simply taking someone else’s word for it. From what I have observed thus far, science is as much a matter of opinion as it is a correlation of data. That is, until the truth is so plane as to be undeniable by anyone (like the fact that the Earth is round). I like making post’s on things I know almost nothing about
Your understanding and use of science is wrong.Haha, my point is this: I am not an expert in any field of science, and therefore must believe what someone else is telling me when they claim to be an expert. As I have no way of verifying the validity of any credentialing or to test what one scientist says vs another I am just as likely to pick the one I like better out of my ignorance. I’m sure that is what most people do on any given subject, even if they don’t think so. So in my mind what I just posted was as valid as anything that was posted previously due to the fact that I am simply taking someone else’s word for it. From what I have observed thus far, science is as much a matter of opinion as it is a correlation of data. That is, until the truth is so plane as to be undeniable by anyone (like the fact that the Earth is round). I like making post’s on things I know almost nothing about
This shows that you do not have an understanding of science.
I too wish someone would explain this. Much like the age of the earth, I assume the Church doesn’t make a claim as to whether the sky is a dome holding back water from above or not…and we are free to believe it or not. And, like the age of the earth, it doesn’t affect the fundamentals of faith one way or another. Yet, I don’t see the a contingent of literalists making this claim…fearing if it is not true, the whole truth of the Bible somehow will be called into question.
Ok, I suppose it would have been better to say that in order for me to gain the knowledge necessary to understand the test’s being conducted, the data being received, and turn that into some kind of hypothesis I would need to spend a substantial amount of time studying. A biologist can’t transfer to physics over night can they? When a physicist says something is true in their field the biologist is likely to have to take their word for it. So perhaps it was you who misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I’m not saying that after a lot of study a person couldn’t come to the same conclusion as the specialist, I’m saying that if I had to do that in every field of science I would never get anywhere, and therefore am forced to take the specialist’s word for it. I just have to hope that the specialist is basing what they are saying on scientific evidence and not personal opinion.
I think the misunderstanding is yours. But nice try.
The question wasn’t whether or not man evolved or was created, it was about the age of the Earth.
Which he deals with…else I wouldn’t have offered it.
Perhaps you are paraphrasing the good Cardinal. Because, it sounds like you are saying that science and faith are mutually exclusive which is false. Not only is it false but one cannot exist without the other. Science speaks to faith and faith to science and sometimes they conflict and comment outside their respective fields. Without faith science would have destroyed mankind long ago. Without science, the very things we believe in to the death would be no more than hearsay. It is science that has confirmed many miracles in the Church, and it is faith that has advanced many scientific discoveries. They do indeed comment outside of their fields. Eucharistic miracles, The shroud of Turin, Incorruptible bodies, even the dancing of the sun. These use science to speak to faith. And without faith, who knows what dark hole some science would have gotten us into. Like a weapon that could split atoms to kill people, or a method to somehow control ovulation so we could ravage women at our want with no consequence… wait. Bad examples but you get the idea. Science and faith cannot contradict. One has to be wrong if they do. In my experience it is never faith. But others have different opinions.Which he deals with…else I wouldn’t have offered it.
I’ll save you the hassle…
I talked to the good Cardinal by phone through CA Live a year or so ago and asked exactly this question.
His response was that both science and religion err whenever they seek to speak outside of their respective fields. Science is not qualified to speak on religion, nor is religion qualified to speak on science.
The Young Earth (he said) is shown wrong by the very fact that it takes light years at 186,000 miles per second for light from distant stars to reach us, That being the case, it indicates to us that the universe has been around far longer than a mere 6,000 years. This has little effect on my faith as is also true of the actual age of the earth. The Bible is not a science textbook and shouldn’t be expected to ever function as one.
We have to trust scientists not to outright lie about their data, but we shouldn’t blindly accept their conclusions. That’s what I was taught, anyway- that a scientist can validly come to any conclusion he wants, so what we should be interested in is the data, not the concluding statements at the end of a lab report.
His response was that both science and religion err whenever they seek to speak outside of their respective fields. Science is not qualified to speak on religion, nor is religion qualified to speak on science.
The Young Earth (he said) is shown wrong by the very fact that it takes light years at 186,000 miles per second for light from distant stars to reach us, That being the case, it indicates to us that the universe has been around far longer than a mere 6,000 years. This has little effect on my faith as is also true of the actual age of the earth. The Bible is not a science textbook and shouldn’t be expected to ever function as one.
Faith and science do indeed complement each other. However, it’s possible to misapply them. The scientific method is one of our finest tools for understanding the natural world, but it was never meant to answer questions about morality or our purpose as human beings. Likewise, the Bible is a message from God that tells us about morality and salvation, but it was never meant to be used as a science textbook.
It is constantly treated as a science textbook here. And then, based on no science whatsoever, certain posters claim “You Bible is wrong, here here and here because science tells me so.” That is a real problem. No one can say the Bible is not a science textbook and then deny parts of it based on nothing but what the posters proclaim to be science.Which he deals with…else I wouldn’t have offered it.
I’ll save you the hassle…
I talked to the good Cardinal by phone through CA Live a year or so ago and asked exactly this question.
His response was that both science and religion err whenever they seek to speak outside of their respective fields. Science is not qualified to speak on religion, nor is religion qualified to speak on science.
The Young Earth (he said) is shown wrong by the very fact that it takes light years at 186,000 miles per second for light from distant stars to reach us, That being the case, it indicates to us that the universe has been around far longer than a mere 6,000 years. This has little effect on my faith as is also true of the actual age of the earth. The Bible is not a science textbook and shouldn’t be expected to ever function as one.