The 6000 Year Earth

[Verisimilitude]

Right. Just so you know, it’s this type of response that is nothing but empty rhetoric, and totally uncharitable. If you have a rebuttal to provide, feel free to do so.

When someone is caught stealing they are rightly called a thief and it isn’t uncharitable to identify them as such. I did not say evolution was evil and I never claimed to support the global flood, nor have I suggested I accept a 6000 year old Earth, yet you are convinced it is what I claim. This may be my last rebuttal to you since you do not read or comprehend fully what I write.

I have vehemently argued against anything that has rock solid evidence that it didn’t literally happen as Biblical literalists understand it (such as denying a global flood or 6000 year old earth, which just happen to be positions the “Magesterium” has no problem with). I just said that a special creation is quite possible and not contradictory to science. How is that not supernatural? I’m a Christian. I believe in one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.

I would ask you to explain how a supernatural ‘special creation’ does not contradict the scientific theory but I have lost interest in your responses.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states in one place, in regard to the parable of Lazarus that, “St. Augustine (De Gen. ad Litt., viii, 7) doubts whether we can take literally the description of the other world.” St. Augustine agrees that at least one parable is not literal. I guess I’m in good company.

Nancy Pelosi cited St. Augustine inappropriately too so the actual company you keep might not be as good as you think unless of course you think she was correct. The last line of the link:
“On this matter at least, the church and science are in agreement.”

If the Magesterium taught that the earth was literally 6000 years old and that there was a literal flood that covered the whole earth, it would be clear that it was not guided by the Holy Spirit, and so, yes, that would be good reason to reject it as an authority.

Why do you cite it for anything if you doubt it, and if you claim not to doubt it why aren’t you Catholic?

More empty rhetoric.

Do you understand why a convicted thief still claims to be innocent as they are taken from the courtroom to jail?

 

[StAnastasia]

I just said that a special creation is quite possible and not contradictory to science.

How is special creation detectable? Does it have any meaning?

 

[ckempston]

When someone is caught stealing they are rightly called a thief and it isn’t uncharitable to identify them as such. I did not say evolution was evil and I never claimed to support the global flood, nor have I suggested I accept a 6000 year old Earth, yet you are convinced it is what I claim. This may be my last rebuttal to you since you do not read or comprehend fully what I write.

Yet another underhanded, uncharitable comment. This is why I stopped discussing with you before. I’ve made no such accusations. I did not say, “You believe…” I said, “Biblical literalists believe…” And you did indeed imply that belief in evolution causes people to support abortion. What you have thus far provided have not been rebuttals, but similar empty rhetoric.

I would ask you to explain how a supernatural ‘special creation’ does not contradict the scientific theory but I have lost interest in your responses.

Nancy Pelosi cited St. Augustine inappropriately too so the actual company you keep might not be as good as you think unless of course you think she was correct. The last line of the link:
“On this matter at least, the church and science are in agreement.”

Why do you cite it for anything if you doubt it, and if you claim not to doubt it why aren’t you Catholic?

It’s completely reasonable, when debating a point, to appeal to something that the other person would consider an authority, or at the very least would consider a credible reference.

Do you understand why a convicted thief still claims to be innocent as they are taken from the courtroom to jail?

Yeah, I do. I’ll be sure to pray for you.

 

[ckempston]

How is special creation detectable? Does it have any meaning?

It’s not detectable by science; neither is God, for that matter. We simply do not have evidence, that I know of, that would demand that we abandon belief in special creation, even if we can’t say exactly how it was done. On the other hand, with regard to something like the flood, we do have very good evidence that leads us to believe that such a thing never literally happened.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I add these just in the interests of accuracy and thoroughness;

Genesis

25 And to Heber were born two sons: the name of the one was Phaleg, because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother’s name Jectan.

8 Exodus

21 And when Moses had stretched forth his hand over the sea, the Lord took it away by a strong and burning wind blowing all the night, and turned it into dry ground: and the water was divided.

The earth was divided possibly as the water was divided, though maybe not by the exact same mechanism.

I do not care about Ussher, whoeverhewas.
The age of the earth and the flood were different events. The reason why the earth divided 130 years after the flood in the time of Peleg is simple. Continental plates are really big, and take a long time to accelerate, so the division which had its origins in the flood only began to show its final effect in the time of Peleg 130 years later.

But what is your evidence that division in the fabric of the earth is intended ? Why must the text mean that, & not some other kind of division ? The continental US is divided into 48 states - does “divided” mean “divided by motions in the earth’s crust” ? No - it means “divided by administrative divisions”. Alasdka is “divided” from those states - by the Canada-US border, not by continental drift.​

The context in which there is mention of Peleg, is about the distribution of the descendants of Noah generally, then of Shem in particular, Peleg being in the line of worthies between Shem & Abram. If the words “in his = Peleg’s] time…divided” refer to divisions between those descendants, or even between the Shemides, they would fit the context admirably. What is there in that context - of Gen.10 & 11 - that requires, or makes likely, a reference to continental drift ?

See.

Thanks but - how on earth does the Exodus quotation explain the meaning of the quotation about Peleg in Genesis ?​

As to Ussher’s dating, it’s important because it provides dates for the Flood & the birth of Peleg, which was important for what was in my post that answered yours.

James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, was a very distinguished scholar & Churchman - I think you should care, if only because his dates made their way into Catholic Bibles, such as the Haydock edition people sometimes talk about His dates for the events of the Bible are so well known, that the 70 or so other systems of dates worked out by others such as Catholics, Anglicans & others have been completely overshadowed.

I still don’t see where you find a reference to continental drift in that passage about the crossing of the Sea…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How is special creation detectable? Does it have any meaning?

How does detect a theological notion,or any other idea, by scientific means ? That would be an inappropriate method for science - and so, silly. It can’t be done. Which is why the answer is of course “No” to the first question. Theologically, one can make a case for it - whether it would be a good one, is another matter.​

So much of the Fundamentalist case is ruined by carelessness about method…

 

[Thing]

But what is your evidence that division in the fabric of the earth is intended ? Why must the text mean that, & not some other kind of division ? The continental US is divided into 48 states - does “divided” mean “divided by motions in the earth’s crust” ? No - it means “divided by administrative divisions”. Alasdka is “divided” from those states - by the Canada-US border, not by continental drift.​

…

Hey… this is’nt easy. I have to twist things to make them mean what I want.
So here goes again, we’ll start with; “…all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened:”

The seas, or oceans, were presumably, or possibly, called, the great deep, and fountains on the ocean floors, real or imaginary - it does’nt matter, fed the oceans and seas. The ‘fountains of the great deep were broken up’ meaning, in effect, that the ocean floors were broken up during the flood.
Anyway, setting that aside for the moment, we get back to Peleg. Peleg lived long after Noahs descendants spread across the earth. By the second or third generations the nations and lands had already been divided. Peleg was at least of the fifth generation. And whereas with the other descendants of Noah the land was indeed divided it was always refered to as the division of ‘lands’ or ‘nations’. But when we reach this individual, Peleg, the discription is of the division of the ‘earth’. Which is a bit different. Coupled to the fact that the nations and lands had already been divided long before Peleg was born, it would be unusual to say that during Pelegs particular lifetime that the earth was divided.
Peleg was named to mark a particular event in this chronology, his name means the earth was divided.
And,
I only mentioned the parting of the red sea as another comparative discription in the OT of something physical being ‘divided’; and the water was divided; and the earth was divided, and the nations were divided, and the land was divided, see. A sort of precedent, sort of.

 

[StAnastasia]

The seas, or oceans, were presumably, or possibly, called, the great deep, and fountains on the ocean floors, real or imaginary - it does’nt matter, fed the oceans and seas. The ‘fountains of the great deep were broken up’ meaning, in effect, that the ocean floors were broken up during the flood.

There are no fountains of the deep, for the sea floor is composed of basalt lying on top of the semi-molten mantle. The “fountains of the deep” is a poetic expression employed by a pre-scientific people with no understanding of marine geology, no tested theories about plate tectonics, and no acquaintance with continental drift and seafloor spreading. Anyone who interprets “the fountains of the deep” literally is either geologically ignorant, or full of new wine (Acts 2:13).

Happy Holy Saturday
StAnastasia

 

[Thing]

There are no fountains of the deep, for the sea floor is composed of basalt lying on top of the semi-molten mantle. The “fountains of the deep” is a poetic expression employed by a pre-scientific people with no understanding of marine geology, no tested theories about plate tectonics, and no acquaintance with continental drift and seafloor spreading. Anyone who interprets “the fountains of the deep” literally is either geologically ignorant, or full of new wine (Acts 2:13).

Happy Holy Saturday
StAnastasia

I wish I was full of new wine. I already said that I don’t think its important about the fountains. The bit I pointed to was their location and the fact that they, and their immediate location, were broken up during the flood.
They did not know about the mid-atlantic ridge or plate techtonics, I know, but what they described, could at a pinch, be the continental plates breaking under the seas. Something in the deep was broken up. :coffeeread:

 

[heiscominginthe]

Of course, after the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets floated away and melted during the flood, God could have miraculously recreated them after the flood to appear as if ice cores show they are 150,000 years old. But would that be biblical?

Sorry friend, but the icecaps did not exist prior to the flood.

When the flood was over, the Lord used wind to blow the waters from off the land. Much of the water went to the poles, freezing as the further north and further south it went. Thus what scientists call the iceage which is silly. The remaining waters are held in our oceans by gravity and the wind.

 

[Verisimilitude]

It’s completely reasonable, when debating a point, to appeal to something that the other person would consider an authority, or at the very least would consider a credible reference.

No, it’s an offensive method of a disingenuous debating style that should be roundly condemned by a rational thinking person with conviction. For a non-Catholic Christian, the little-bit-o-truth in all faiths theory making faith formation nothing more than a religious Wal-Mart denies the authority that defines Christianity because you stray from the full truth from that authority. Unless you yourself consider it a credible authority it is hypocritical to cite it in support of your argument.

(This is off topic but I’ll get it back on) Do you think this is true, good and valid?

(Remember) when the angels said: “O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word “Be!” - and he was! i.e. 'Îsa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)] from Him, his name will be the Messiah 'Îsa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah.”
( سورة آل عمران , Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #45)

As a Catholic I would take no issue with the underlined, but would with the plural of angel and “The” Word, not “a”, but what do I gain citing this to a Moslem in the manner you did to me? They will say "Yes, that is true so you should also believe:

And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One. Yet when he hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say: This is mere magic.
( سورة الصف , As-Saff, Chapter #61, Verse #6)

Your style of debate is no different than when a Moslem cites John 14:26 as proof of Mohammed’s legitimate prophetic call like that sura above. Reject it all as there is no truth in it not found elsewhere more fully. If you find some fault with Church teaching reject it all.

Special offer for Wal-Mart shoppers:

Islamic creationism is the belief that the universe (including humanity) was directly created by God as explained in the Qur’an or Genesis. While contemporary Islam tends to take religious texts literally, it usually views Genesis as a corrupted version of God’s message.~wiki
Islam & Evolution symposium Saturday, April 04, 2009

Thus, while it may be wrong to say that accepting evolutionary explanations for life on Earth does not make a person more likely to become an atheist, it does seem appropriate to say that anyone who consciously considers and accepts evolution should think about it long and hard enough to cause them to seriously question some of their traditional religious and theistic beliefs. Such beliefs may not be abandoned, but they may not continue untouched. ~ atheism.about.com

Hence it is called “the theory of evolution”, or “the theory of descent”, since it implies the descent of the present from extinct species. This theory is opposed to the theory of constancy, which assumes the immutability of organic species. The scientific theory of evolution, therefore, does not concern itself with the origin of life. It merely inquires into the genetic relations of systematic species, genera, and families, and endeavours to arrange them according to natural series of descent (genetic trees).~ NewAdvent

I was looking for some reconciliation between science and theology. For the non-religious and religious disparity the reconciliation is a belief in God. For the religious it is a right belief in God.

Human evolution vs. plant and animal evolution

To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man’s body, is per se not improbable, and was propounded by St. Augustine (see AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, SAINT, under V. Augustinism in History). The actual proofs of the descent of man’s body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. And the human soul could not have been derived through natural evolution from that of the brute, since it is of a spiritual nature; for which reason we must refer its origin to a creative act on the part of God.
newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

The Buddhist talks genetics in support of evolution but doesn’t explain the origin of life in evolution by natural or divine means though does posit a remarkable natural human population explosion of zero to 10,000 humans to account for our genetic diversity. The Catholic theologian offers comment on all but how the origin of life and evolution speak through the Scripture. Then there is you and your debate style in agreement in part to the Buddhist and Catholic theologian on a few science ‘truths’, but doubtless you would be in disagreement on truths of faith so I am not sure what is gained.

I don’t shop at Wal-Mart and there is no need to buy what you all are trying to sell which is a scientifically explained Creation through evolution, without minimizing or defining the Creative act.

 

[Orogeny]

Sorry friend, but the icecaps did not exist prior to the flood.

I missed that part in Genesis. Could you give us a citation? Since you are a biblical literalist, I know that you can point it out in scriptures, right?

When the flood was over, the Lord used wind to blow the waters from off the land. Much of the water went to the poles, freezing as the further north and further south it went. Thus what scientists call the iceage which is silly. The remaining waters are held in our oceans by gravity and the wind.

So you are claiming that the earth was not covered by water? Why wasn’t there any water at the poles prior to the waters of the flood receding? Again, do you have a scriptural basis for this or are you just trying to convince yourself that you are right?

Peace

Tim

 

[jargon631]

well…when i was just a wee slip of a lad resisting the mind-warping being dished out by the sda, the 6000 year old earth concept was tossed about as if it was common knowledge…nobody, however, was able to prove it to me biblically and i was considered to be “that troublesome boy” for asking that and many other questions…lol…i am a deist…i believe in a creator…i just dont think it matters when it was created…6 million years ago…6 thousand years ago…or 46 years ago on october 18, 1962…lol…o.k., im just kidding about that last date…frederick…:extrahappy:

 

[StAnastasia]

I was looking for some reconciliation between science and theology. For the non-religious and religious disparity the reconciliation is a belief in God. For the religious it is a right belief in God.

As a Catholic theologian, I was not aware that science and religion need to be reconciled. They can inform each other at important points, but they are no more enemies than are gardening and chess. I have numerous friends who are both Catholic priests and biologists, or chemists, or astronomers.

Happy Easter! Christos Aneste!
StAnastasia

 

[heiscominginthe]

I missed that part in Genesis. Could you give us a citation? Since you are a biblical literalist, I know that you can point it out in scriptures, right?

You will find your answer in either psalms or proverbs. It has been awhile since I had to reply on the icecaps.

 

[Feanor2]

I think when these fine Evangelicals get to Heaven the Lord is going to be like:

“Come on- I gave you all these smart scientists for a REASON you know!!!”

 

[StAnastasia]

You will find your answer in either psalms or proverbs. It has been awhile since I had to reply on the icecaps.

Psalms and Proverbs have no answer to the ice caps question.

 

[Orogeny]

You will find your answer in either psalms or proverbs. It has been awhile since I had to reply on the icecaps.

Psalms and/or Proverbs has a teaching about polar ice caps? Reference please.

Also, you forgot to give me a citation from scripture that says that the entire earth was not covered by the global flood. You can include that along with the reference to either Psalms or Proverbs.

Peace

Tim

 

[Thing]

As a thought;

Did you know that when the dinosaurs walked the earth there were no icecaps. Icecaps form naturally simply because of the shape of the earth, its a globe, and naturally the suns rays heat the poles much less than equatorial regions because the angle of the earths poles does not allow the same amount of suns rays to fall on polar regions.

What type of conditions, what kind of physical system had the earth in the age of dinosaurs. The seas were shallow and warm, the land was flat, a few meters above sea level with no mountains. Why were there no polar icecaps, the shape of the earth is the same, obviously. Did the earth have some extra feature we don’t know about which kept it globally tropical.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

it’s quite plain that a literalist reading of the Bible says that the Earth is flat, disc-shaped, and covered by a beaten metal shield to keep the waters above out. The shield has valves in - the windows of heaven - so the waters above can come in to cause rain, and above it are storehouses of snow and hail. Clouds are the dust raised by the Almighty’s feet as he walks on this shield - a shield where the stars are afixed.

Straight out of pre-biblical Babylonian cosmology, and if you build a tower high enough, you can reach the Firmament and Heaven.

As a guide to moral behaviour, the Bible is excellent. As a Science textbook… not so much. And it’s wonderful watching Bible Literalists pick and choose which bits to be literal about. While I may think a Fundamentalist platgyean is wrong, I can at least respect his honesty.