The 6000 Year Earth

[StAnastasia]

It’s all mythological nonsense anyway … but if religion works for you (whatever religion) then cool

That’s one opinion.

 

[christian1]

CKempston said: I think an interesting question to ask people who hold this view is what happened to the water after it “receded”? What these individuals do is try to give some “natural” explanation for where the water originated, all the while ignoring a “natural” explanation for where the water went afterwards. Clearly, whether the flood was global or local, or whether it took place where it appears to in the Biblical timeline or some remote time before this, it was a miraculous event. I find it ironic that these young-earthers can’t just call it miraculous. Instead they try to come up with all these “natural” explanations, but what they end up with are some serious inconsistencies.

---

I have to agree with you on this. If he did create the world and man in six days, why should we want to prove it scientifically. We just as well prove a man can walk on water, raise the dead and change water into wine.

We don’t try to prove them because they are seen and believed to be acts that violate the natural laws of man. Which makes them miraculous. Your not supposed to find scientific evidence to support the supernatural because they are two entirely different laws.

But just out of curiousity. Have you heard of Dake’s theory concerning the age of the earth? I find it to be at least biblically sound (more than anything else I’ve seen anyway) and it also supports the million year old earth theory as well.

It’s not that science needs to agree with God. But neither does it mean the conclusions and findings that science makes should be any gauge as to what God did supernaturally. If we can believe He is and raised His Son from the dead or any other supernatural event, then the six day creation thing should be just another matter of faith. At this point, we are simply too curious probably for our own good.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by heiscominginthe
If you read your bible, it tells you who died before the flood and Adam indeed was dead.

The Flood came in the six hundredth year (Genesis 8:13; it was dried up in the first month of the six hundred first year). Adam and the other guys lived eight or nine hundred yea. Since all flesh died that was not on board the ark, I can only conclude that Adam and Methuselah the other dudes were stowaways on Noah’s Ark. Perhaps I’m missing a crucial verse…

6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

So according to your theory, Noah was born close to the time Adam was created.

 

[StAnastasia]

6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. So according to your theory, Noah was born close to the time Adam was created.

Noah and Adam were mythical figures of great theological significance, so I’m not worried about when either “lived” with respect to the other.

 

[buffalo]

Noah and Adam were mythical figures of great theological significance, so I’m not worried about when either “lived” with respect to the other.

Catholic sources?

 

[christian1]

St. Anastasia said:
Noah and Adam were mythical figures of great theological significance, so I’m not worried about when either “lived” with respect to the other.

---

Then I guess Jesus was a little misguided when he said the following:

Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark

But then, alot of people think that Jesus was mystical as well. Is this your belief?

 

[buffalo]

St. Anastasia said:
Noah and Adam were mythical figures of great theological significance, so I’m not worried about when either “lived” with respect to the other.

---

Then I guess Jesus was a little misguided when he said the following:

Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark

But then, alot of people think that Jesus was mystical as well. Is this your belief?

You will find very quickly that StA is a heretic.

 

[adriancombe]

There is no such evidence, which is why no scientists take this seriously, and why this sort of claim is confined harmlessly to obscure Internet fora.

That is not precisely true. There is considerable evidence that radiometric decay rates were orders of magnitude higher in the conditions of the early universe. See answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/acceleration.asp

Frankly, I am surprised that scientists still argue about these matters. I’m no astrophysicist, but didn’t Einstein prove time dilation in connection with increased velocity/gravity? Both velocity and gravity conditions would have been different in the early exponentially expanding universe, and no one seems to be allowing for that.
In other words: according to the special theory of relativity, the speed of light is absolute - time is not. Two completely different sets of chronological data can both be true depending on the respective space-time curvatures of the observer’s locations.

-Adrian

 

[rjs1]

Once again I have seen how any attempt to discuss the theory of evolution on this website is doomed. Anyone who raises any objections to Darwin’s theory is jumped upon as though they were ignorant, unscientific and, shock horror, a person who took the Bible literally.

I know many intelligent Catholics, some of whom are priests, who have strong objections to the theory of evolution and who can provide scientific data for their objections.

To see one of the Catholic posters on this thread actually call Adam a mythological figure, in spite of the Church’s explicit statement that there WAS an Adam and an Eve, is shocking.

Too many Catholics no longer take the Bible seriously. They need to read again what the Church says about the inerrancy of Scripture. It might offend their semi-agnostic beliefs and risk their facing critcism at multi-ideological dinner parties, but if they just open up their minds to what some of the non conformist scientists are now saying, they would see that the theory of evolution has major flaws in it and needs to be scrutinised more carefully.

 

[StAnastasia]

I know many intelligent Catholics, some of whom are priests, who have strong objections to the theory of evolution and who can provide scientific data for their objections.

Do you have examples of such Catholics? Do they publish their findings regularly? Do they present papers at conferences? Do they try to convince Pope Benedict, who has said that evolution is virtually certain? Doing these things would be the best way to start.

 

[StAnastasia]

You will find very quickly that StA is a heretic.

Heretic, schmeretic.

 

[Orogeny]

I know many intelligent Catholics, some of whom are priests, who have strong objections to the theory of evolution and who can provide scientific data for their objections.

Then present the scientific data. Otherwise, I will consider that claim to be made up.

By the way, I know numerous priests who accept the science of evolution. I guess that neutralizes your argument.

Too many Catholics no longer take the Bible seriously. They need to read again what the Church says about the inerrancy of Scripture. It might offend their semi-agnostic beliefs and risk their facing critcism at multi-ideological dinner parties, but if they just open up their minds to what some of the non conformist scientists are now saying, they would see that the theory of evolution has major flaws in it and needs to be scrutinised more carefully.

Bring on the sicentific evidence that refutes evolution. Better yet, write up an article for a scientific journal, document your findings and start the process of winning your Nobel prize. Otherwise, you are just like everyone else who says that there are major flaws in the theory of evolution. Wrong.

Peace

Tim

 

[StAnastasia]

Too many Catholics no longer take the Bible seriously. They need to read again what the Church says about the inerrancy of Scripture. It might offend their semi-agnostic beliefs and risk their facing critcism at multi-ideological dinner parties, but if they just open up their minds to what some of the non conformist scientists are now saying, they would see that the theory of evolution has major flaws in it and needs to be scrutinised more carefully.

rjs, you’re being silly in this note. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Complaining that Catholics do not take the Bible seriously because they do not interpret it entirely literally shows only that you have little or no training in biblical interpretation. I know of no Catholic seminary where students are taught that the bible is to be read literally, and yet these are seminaries run by good, holy, and learned men and women, turning out priests with a solid education.

To call the majority of Catholics who do not share your fundamenalist and literalist views “semi-agnostic” is just plain insulting. I have numerous friends and colleagues who are both Catholic priests and evolutionary biologists or scholars in some related science. They serve as priests and as good scientists as well. They do not perceive the contradiction you perceive between science and religious faith.

I suggest you read widely in the area of Catholicism and science, starting with the book of that title published last year.

StAnastasia

 

[rossum]

That is not precisely true. There is considerable evidence that radiometric decay rates were orders of magnitude higher in the conditions of the early universe. See answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/acceleration.asp

Did you read that piece?For over 50 years, however, some theoreticians had suggested that negatron decay could be altered in the case of a nucleus bereft of its electrons (as occurs in a plasma state).
Are you aware of what the “plasma state” that Woodmorappe refers to is? A plasma is an extremely hot gas where electrons have been stripped from their atoms. The centre of the Sun is a plasma - the outermost layers are too cool to form a plasma and are normal gas. Radiometric dating measures the time since a given rock solidified. Whatever happened before solidification has no impact on radiometric dating. Heating all the rocks on earth to plasma temperatures would gasify the rock, and kill all life on earth. This is an interesting scientific results being applied in completely the wrong place. The radiometric ages measuresd are correct to within the given errors.

Frankly, I am surprised that scientists still argue about these matters. I’m no astrophysicist, but didn’t Einstein prove time dilation in connection with increased velocity/gravity? Both velocity and gravity conditions would have been different in the early exponentially expanding universe, and no one seems to be allowing for that.

Conditions were indeed different, and scientists have allowed for that. However the early universe was about 13.5 billion years ago, while the early earth was about 4.5 billion years ago. The earth did not form in the early universe but in a 9 billion year old universe, when such conditions as you mention were rare.

In both cases the science you talk about is correct, but it is not applicable to the earth. The earth is not plasma and it was not present at the time of the formation of the universe.

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

In both cases the science you talk about is correct, but it is not applicable to the earth. The earth is not plasma and it was not present at the time of the formation of the universe.rossum

Rossum, what is sad about Woodmorappe and his ilk is that they construct this elaborate fantasyland that is totally irrelevant to science:

“This exciting demonstration that isotopic ‘clocks’ can be accelerated at least a billion-fold is good news to creationist scholars… The myth of the virtual invincibility of radioactive decay to external forces has been decisively shattered, and the door to further research has now been swung wide open.”

Meanwhile, science continues to progress as if “creationist scholars” are invisible to it, and Christian and other theologies likewise progress as if YEC didn’t exist. Sadly, the people who have to bear the brunt of the creationist nonsense are public school teachers, who confront YECs in the classroom all the time. YECs will not propose papers to national conferences to present their ideas, so they use unwitting students and their parents as proxies to attack science at the level of schools. Or they vent impotently on Internet fora.

It’s truly pathetic, and such a monumental disservice to young people. My fellow parents and I were thrilled at our Catholic school’s back-to-school night last September, when the biology teacher – who also teaches some of the religion classes – opened the proceedings by announcing that there is no contradiction between evolution and religious belief.

StAnastasia

 

[avflf]

StAnastasia wrote:
*[God didn’t cause untruths to be written. Divine inspiration does not mean that God dictated the bible word for word. God inspired authors and editors who themselves were embedded in their own times, cultures and economic classes.] *

“Inspiration” is defined, theologically, as (a) “a divine influence **directly **and **immediately **exerted upon the mind or soul of a man” and (b) “the divine quality of the writings or words of men so influenced” – Hamlyn’s Encyclopaedic World Dictionary
“Holy” as in Holy Bible/Writ/Scriptures is defined as “referring to the divine, that which has its sanctity **directly **from God”,
I don’t know what your definition of these words is but according to the above definitions it does not give anyone much room to maneuver when it comes down to jotting God’s thoughts. Either one accepts “inspiration” or one doesn’t and if the Bible was not inspired it renders it to the category of a novel. To say, on the other hand, that some of it was inspired but other parts were not begs the question “which parts were and were not inspired, according to your interpretation?” If one believes Genesis as inspired, but not the Gospels because unbelievers have convincing arguments that cast doubt in Jesus physical existence will such one be still regarded as a Catholic, or even a Christian ?

*[So if one telephone number in the New York phone book is wrong, the whole book is untrustworthy?] *

I don’t seem to recall when it was decided to regard the NY phone book as “inspired”.

[Did I say I don’t believe in the Bible?]

No, I suppose not in so many words, but the way you seem to believe, in a selective manner, reminds me of the letter to the church in Laodicea (Rev 3:15)

 

[StAnastasia]

“Inspiration” is defined, theologically, as (a) “a divine influence **directly **and **immediately **exerted upon the mind or soul of a man” and (b) “the divine quality of the writings or words of men so influenced” – Hamlyn’s Encyclopaedic World Dictionary

You need to be more precise. Along the continuum from automatic writing to vague imaginings to just making stuff up, where does your theology of inspiration lie? Were the authors/redactors of Genesis unconscious while God used their fingers to write on the parchment? Or were they semi-conscious but not really aware of what they were writing? Or were they hearing and taking down literal dictation? Or were they sometimes working with preexisting literature that they recrafted in light of their own cultural and economic context?

In your theology, were the hexateuchal redactors “inspired” in the same way and to the same degree as the authors of the prophetic literature? What about the collector of the wisdom literature, or the formulators of the apodictic traditions in Exodus and Deuteronomy? Was the Genesis/Exodus editor conscious or unconscious while weaving together the J and the P stories of creation, flood, Exodus and the Sinai experience?

StAnastasia

 

[avflf]

You need to be more precise. Along the continuum from automatic writing to vague imaginings to just making stuff up, where does your theology of inspiration lie? Were the authors/redactors of Genesis unconscious while God used their fingers to write on the parchment? Or were they semi-conscious but not really aware of what they were writing? Or were they hearing and taking down literal dictation? Or were they sometimes working with preexisting literature that they recrafted in light of their own cultural and economic context?

In your theology, were the hexateuchal redactors “inspired” in the same way and to the same degree as the authors of the prophetic literature? What about the collector of the wisdom literature, or the formulators of the apodictic traditions in Exodus and Deuteronomy? Was the Genesis/Exodus editor conscious or unconscious while weaving together the J and the P stories of creation, flood, Exodus and the Sinai experience?

StAnastasia

I don’t have to be precise at all. Either it is the “holy” Bible or isn’t, that’s my question. You’re the one that must redefine your beliefs. Were the writers in a trance, semi-conscious or sleep walking is not the problem. Were they given the texts that they wrote by revelation/inspiration directly from the divine Mind, as the Book itself asserts, or did they compile the stories from older sources, plagiarizing and rearranging them to fit their “history” and their folk heroes? If the first is true then by all means call the Book “holy” and worthy of the attention it gets, but if the latter is indeed the way it came about then treat it as any other book that has been written and do not con the masses by presenting it as the “unerring” Word of God. It is that simple.

 

[StAnastasia]

I don’t have to be precise at all. Either it is the “holy” Bible or isn’t, that’s my question. You’re the one that must redefine your beliefs. Were the writers in a trance, semi-conscious or sleep walking is not the problem. Were they given the texts that they wrote by revelation/inspiration directly from the divine Mind, as the Book itself asserts, or did they compile the stories from older sources, plagiarizing and rearranging them to fit their “history” and their folk heroes? If the first is true then by all means call the Book “holy” and worthy of the attention it gets, but if the latter is indeed the way it came about then treat it as any other book that has been written and do not con the masses by presenting it as the “unerring” Word of God. It is that simple.

avflf, your black-and-white theory of biblical inspiration is breathtaking in its simplicity and its naivete. Having you considered proposing a discussion on the topic to the Catholic Biblical Association? (cba.cua.edu/; their meeting will be at Creighton in August, cba.cua.edu/meet72.cfm) They might or might not accept your proposal for their next conference, as this ground was already fought over a century ago. However, if you do get a hearing you might get some valuable but critical feedback.

StAnastasia

 

[avflf]

avflf, your black-and-white theory of biblical inspiration is breathtaking in its simplicity and its naivete. Having you considered proposing a discussion on the topic to the Catholic Biblical Association? (cba.cua.edu/; their meeting will be at Creighton in August, cba.cua.edu/meet72.cfm) They might or might not accept your proposal for their next conference, as this ground was already fought over a century ago. However, if you do get a hearing you might get some valuable but critical feedback.

StAnastasia

Thanks StAnastasia. I would indeed take up the offer if only I could afford it. You wouldn’t like to sponsor me, would you?
As for my simplicity and naivety I seem to recall a saying by Jesus - Mat 18:3 Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Let’s agree to disagree, OK?