The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[itinerant1]

This is why you need to read SITC. This is EXACTLY what it addresses. Please find the time.

I will give the book a fair and objective read, but that does not mean you should not be prepared to eat crow.

 

[buffalo]

Edwest2 previously made a post about the official Jewish calendar as supposed evidence for a young earth. However, does Ed’s contention agree with what Jews think? Or, is Ed’s post just creationist skewing of the picture?

Here are some rich statements to consider. Ed, or anyone else, is welcome to challenge any of these statements if they so choose.

In his commentary on the Torah, Rabbi Bahya ben Asher (11th century, Spain) concludes that there were many time systems occurring in the universe long before the spans of history that man is familiar with. Based on the Kabbalah he calculates that the Earth is billions of years old.

Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Moses Maimonides and Gersonides held that not every statement in Genesis is meant literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great Rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point that did not contradict any fundamentals of faith, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly.

A literal interpretation of the biblical Creation story among classic rabbinic commentators is uncommon. Thus Bible commentator Abraham Ibn Ezra (11th Century) wrote,

“If there appears something in the Torah which contradicts reason…then here one should seek for the solution in a figurative interpretation…the narrative of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for instance, can only be understood in a figurative sense.”

Today, most Jewish denominations accept the science of evolutionary theory and do not see it as incompatible with traditional Judaism, thus endorsing the stance of theistic evolution. It is often taught that “the Torah not be viewed as a textbook”

Jewish commentators do not have the protection of the Holy Spirit.

 

[itinerant1]

There are bigoted zealots on both sides of the issue.

Anti-ID folks almost always point to the Discovery Institute as being the standard bearers for the ID movement. When it suits their needs.

But if one looks at the FAQs on the Discovery web site with regard to this very issue of “getting ID into science classrooms”, or that the purpose of ID is to “overthrow Darwin”, then those anti-ID folks say that the Discovery Institute must be ignored. Or that they have a secret agenda. Or that they don’t really represent the ID side correctly. And when presented with a suggestion to read what even it’s critics describe as the best available scientific book from the ID side on the origin of life, they don’t have time, or they’ve heard it all before. Or they read a review of the book by someone who actually never read the book (Ayala’s). And he must be a good source right? He just won the Templeton Prize. What a joke.

Have an open mind. Although one’s Pride may be deflated somewhat in the process.

I am not sure what the situation is all about, but every time in the past that I attempted to view the Discovery web site my browser starts flashing virus warnings and refuses to load the site’s pages.

 

[buffalo]

ID has nothing to offer from a scientific, philosophical or theological perspective.

Thomistic principles provide the correction to ID’s skewed philosophical ideas about design. However, it is not realistic to assume ID theorists will accept correction since they are wedded to an ideology. Imagine how an ID theorist might respond to a Thomist showing him his marriage to Ms. ID-ology is invalid and should be annulled.

ID theory involves a critically flawed strategy. Instead of those of us who would like to spend time just addressing Darwinian ideology, we have to also address the errors of YEC and ID theory. In this sense, YEC and ID theory serve only to retard the advancement of Catholic ideas and classical philosophical principles, not to mention the natural sciences.

ID the science presents a real alternative to evolution. This coupled with molecular biology findings actually supports it and undermines evolution. The evolution camp is scared stiff.

“You will know them by their fruits”

Which of these bring someone to God?

1. Thomism
2. ID
3. Evolution

Both 1 and 2 understand creation to be frontloaded.

Thomism and ID understood in their proper domains are not in conflict.

 

[itinerant1]

Jewish commentators do not have the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, you would be at wits end to explain how your comment has any relevance. I guess you don’t care much for logic or relevance or meaningful communication. Just say anything whatsoever even if it is totally impertinent.

This is exactly what I mean by YEC’s and ID supporters wasting everyone’s time.

Your fundamentalist/creationist interpretations of Scripture have neither the protection of the Holy Spirit or the support of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the YEC position is highly irrational, a problem not shared by the positions of the Jewish commentators.

It is difficult to understand how you cannot be totally embarrassed for making such a useless and irrelevant response.

 

[itinerant1]

ID the science presents a real alternative to evolution. This coupled with molecular biology findings actually supports it and undermines evolution. The evolution camp is scared stiff.

“You will know them by their fruits”

Which of these bring someone to God?

1. Thomism
2. ID
3. Evolution

Both 1 and 2 understand creation to be frontloaded.

Thomism and ID understood in their proper domains are not in conflict.

Good grief!..arbitrarily reading ID speculations about creation being “frontloaded” into Thomism. Gimme a break.

 

[buffalo]

Of course, you would be at wits end to explain how your comment has any relevance. I guess you don’t care much for logic or relevance or meaningful communication. Just say anything whatsoever even if it is totally impertinent.

This is exactly what I mean by YEC’s and ID supporters wasting everyone’s time.

Your fundamentalist/creationist interpretations of Scripture have neither the protection of the Holy Spirit or the support of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the YEC position is highly irrational, a problem not shared by the positions of the Jewish commentators.

It is difficult to understand how you cannot be totally embarrassed for making such a useless and irrelevant response.

Oh really - you are going to bring Jewish commentators into the discussion? Hmmm- do you do the same about the Trinity or other Catholic Dogma?

Do I need to post the Dogmas of the Catholic Church again?

 

[itinerant1]

Oh really - you are going to bring Jewish commentators into the discussion? Hmmm- do you do the same about the Trinity or other Catholic Dogma?

Do I need to post the Dogmas of the Catholic Church again?

It was Edwest who brought the Jewish Calendar into the discussion. Hence, your comment, once more, is highly irrelevant.

Post your Dogmas. Is it the list that I already have shown not to consist completely of Dogma but includes misrepresentations of the Church Fathers among other interesting little twists.

I’m done for today with seeing logic and reason being twisted like a pretzel. Have a good day.

 

[buffalo]

Good grief!..arbitrarily reading ID speculations about creation being “frontloaded” into Thomism. Gimme a break.

Let’s break it down then.

Do Thomists believe creation is front loaded or not?

 

[buffalo]

It was Edwest who brought the Jewish Calendar into the discussion. Hence, your comment, once more, is highly irrelevant.

Post your Dogmas. Is it the list that I already have shown not to consist completely of Dogma but includes misrepresentations of the Church Fathers among other interesting little twists.

I’m done for today with seeing logic and reason being twisted like a pretzel. Have a good day.

Your claim is you disproved Church dogmas? I will eagerly await the Magisterial announcement.

Did you have a bad day?

 

[grannymh]

ID has nothing to offer from a scientific, philosophical or theological perspective.

Thomistic principles provide the correction to ID’s skewed philosophical ideas about design. However, it is not realistic to assume ID theorists will accept correction since they are wedded to an ideology. Imagine how an ID theorist might respond to a Thomist showing him his marriage to Ms. ID-ology is invalid and should be annulled.

ID theory involves a critically flawed strategy. Instead of those of us who would like to spend time just addressing Darwinian ideology, we have to also address the errors of YEC and ID theory. In this sense, YEC and ID theory serve only to retard the advancement of Catholic ideas and classical philosophical principles, not to mention the natural sciences.

For your information, my original post referred to defending the true nature of Adam and Eve . The follow up post referred to the real issue for Catholics regarding the source of human nature. Your explanation of your position is appreciated.

Apparently, I view Catholicism, ID, Thomism, religions other than Catholic and atheism from a people perspective. The people I have met do have a lot to offer and I am grateful for what has been shared. And that includes you.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

I am not sure what the situation is all about, but every time in the past that I attempted to view the Discovery web site my browser starts flashing virus warnings and refuses to load the site’s pages.

Gold!

 

[ricmat]

I will give the book a fair and objective read, but that does not mean you should not be prepared to eat crow.

I think you’re looking at this from the wrong perspective. This isn’t about itinterant1 winning, or ricmat winning. It’s just about an interesting science book. If you think there are some scientific errors in the book, I’m curious to know what they are. And if you were to say that it’s the greatest book you ever read (so I’m exaggerating here), I would just say glad you enjoyed it, and that would be it.

BTW - the first few chapters of the book review the different methodologies of science, and the history of scientific thinking on the origin of life. You may be tempted to skip over it, but I found it to be fascinating just from a historical perspective.

 

[Philipp]

Thanks for the above, I was unaware of the that review.

It would be good for the advancement of science and the search for truth in science for a school district to try and drag the hypothesis of evolution into an appeals court of three unbaised judges. The school district could ask the judges to rule on the requirement to teach evolution as a fact when its key paleontologists have not found any real “scientific evidence” that are factual. Then let the opponents from ID and those with data from sedimentology to chronology studies have their day in court. along side that of scientists from the evolution camp. That would be good for America and the world to see:thumbsup:

I haven’t checked all the posts but I don’t think that the ID web site noted below was mentioned. Are you aware of it? A friend of mine picked up a brochure when in Colorado, I believe and I now have their web site in my files.
arn.org/ "Access Research Network"

Let me know what you think of it. I suspect some of their scientists would like to be invited to present their’s and other scientists findings that support ID as a scientific research endeavor in a three judge or more appeals court of law along with other scientists. Here are a few topics.

Science Literature | In The News | The ID Report

Science Literature

Design Principles in bird feathers and avian respiration
2010-03-22T18:21:54Z

Design Principles in the flight autostabilizer of fruit flies
2010-03-18T19:34:33Z

Design principles in a gastropod mollusc
2010-03-12T21:22:37Z

Design principles in spider silk
2010-03-08T11:43:47Z

 

[ricmat]

I am not sure what the situation is all about, but every time in the past that I attempted to view the Discovery web site my browser starts flashing virus warnings and refuses to load the site’s pages.

My computer is loaded with anti-malware software, and I never had a problem. Perhaps your browser has mutated in a bad way

 

[ricmat]

Gold!

For someone called Mr Skeptic, I would have expected him to try the site himself to prove that it had viruses on it.

So Mr “Skeptic” just takes the word of someone else?

Gold!

 

[grannymh]

ID has nothing to offer from a scientific, philosophical or theological perspective.

Thomistic principles provide the correction to ID’s skewed philosophical ideas about design. However, it is not realistic to assume ID theorists will accept correction since they are wedded to an ideology. Imagine how an ID theorist might respond to a Thomist showing him his marriage to Ms. ID-ology is invalid and should be annulled.

ID theory involves a critically flawed strategy. Instead of those of us who would like to spend time just addressing Darwinian ideology, we have to also address the errors of YEC and ID theory. In this sense, YEC and ID theory serve only to retard the advancement of Catholic ideas and classical philosophical principles, not to mention the natural sciences.

Just read ricmat’s post where he says: “This isn’t about itinterant1 winning, or ricmat winning.” The above reply (post 478) sounds very much like one side needing to be the winner over the other side. ID vs. Thomism. Maybe there is a kind of “winning” when it comes to philosophy. Or as my Irish Mother would say: even the worst of us can serve as a good example. Don’t ask how this fits. It took me years to figure it out. Hint. Both my Mother and Dad saw some good in everything.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

…

 

[ricmat]

I’m done for today with seeing logic and reason being twisted like a pretzel. Have a good day.

Sounds like Mr. Spock. Except he likes pretzels. Especially the chocolate coated ones.

And…how do you really know that logic and reason are NOT inherently twisted like a pretzel, hmm?

I’ve heard a rumor that if you take string theory and extrapolate it into 39 dimensions, logic and reason become very pretzel-like.

 

[itinerant1]

…

You don’t believe in Thor? Well, here is a Flash music video that may make you a believer in the god of the Vikings.