The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
grannymh said:
How does philosophy explain God keeping the earth in existence? Seriously.
Click to expand...
The answer is that it is all magic. :rolleyes:

Actually, I will say something in regard to organisms, which will also apply to non-living matter too as far as its very existence or act of being is concerned. In regard to organisms, the explanation applies to their activities or operations and to their very act of existing. (Existence is an act that is differentiated from a thing’s essence.)

Now, the answer is rather complex, but I will at least state something to give you an a limited idea. The problem with Intelligent Design theory is that it attributes to the “Designer” an efficacy that God has originally given to created things. So, what then, we must ask, is the relation of God to creation as far as a creatures’ actions are concerned? And what are God’s actions in relation to the very subsistence of created things?

The answer involves two apparently contradictory but necessary truths. The apparent contradiction is resolved at a level of metaphysical analysis that would be too much to explain here. So, the two truths are (1) God does whatever creatures do, and (2) creatures themselves do whatever they do.

That is, what each does, is done in a very different way.

God is intimately present in the substance of creatures and their operations . But the intimacy of the assistance He gives them leaves their individual efficacy absolutely intact.

Because God is the supreme Act-of-Being, he is everywhere present and acting by His efficacy. He is intimately present in the very esse whose operation proceeds from creatures. He supports them and animates them from within. Creatures neither are nor do anything except by Him, just as they would not originally exist without Him. Now this would appear to submerge creatures into the divine efficacy, but as noted above, creatures still retain their own being and efficacy.
 
grannymh said:
How does philosophy explain God keeping the earth in existence? Seriously.
Click to expand...
itinerant1 said:
The answer is that it is all magic. :rolleyes:

Actually, I will say something in regard to organisms, which will also apply to non-living matter too as far as its very existence or act of being is concerned. In regard to organisms, the explanation applies to their activities or operations and to their very act of existing. (Existence is an act that is differentiated from a thing’s essence.)

Now, the answer is rather complex, but I will at least state something to give you an a limited idea. The problem with Intelligent Design theory is that it attributes to the “Designer” an efficacy that God has originally given to created things. So, what then, we must ask, is the relation of God to creation as far as a creatures’ actions are concerned? And what are God’s actions in relation to the very subsistence of created things?

The answer involves two apparently contradictory but necessary truths. The apparent contradiction is resolved at a level of metaphysical analysis that would be too much to explain here. So, the two truths are (1) God does whatever creatures do, and (2) creatures themselves do whatever they do.

That is, what each does, is done in a very different way.

God is intimately present in the substance of creatures and their operations . But the intimacy of the assistance He gives them leaves their individual efficacy absolutely intact.

Because God is the supreme Act-of-Being, he is everywhere present and acting by His efficacy. He is intimately present in the very esse whose operation proceeds from creatures. He supports them and animates them from within. Creatures neither are nor do anything except by Him, just as they would not originally exist without Him. Now this would appear to submerge creatures into the divine efficacy, but as noted above, creatures still retain their own being and efficacy.
Click to expand...
:hmmm:

I am thinking about something I had read about secondary causes. Your sentence below adds maintaining existence
Creatures neither are nor do anything except by Him, just as they would not originally exist without Him.
Click to expand...
No offense intended. But I am wondering if some neo-Thomists are reading more into Intelligent Design than what is really there. But debating Intelligent Design as a philosophy is not my intention. Perhaps I should have been more specific and asked – How does Thomistic philosophy explain God keeping the earth in existence?

In any case, thank you sincerely for the above explanation. It adds another piece to the puzzle of creation.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.
 
Philipp said:
(1) You completely ignored the fact that Dr. Renne, a leading chronologist in anthropological studies had indeed provided a date of 1.3 million years using Ar/Ar, when the closer to the truth dates were the C-14 dating ones from 27,000 to 36,000 C-14 years. Here is the reference for Ar/Ar dating. eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/uoc–a4h112805.php.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. Look back to my post #1257. I said: “Good find. It appears that the date given by the Liverpool team is doubtful.” The Liverpool date is doubtful precisely because of Renne’s much older Ar-Ar date. How have you determined that the C-14 date is “much closer to the truth” than the Ar-Ar date?
(2) You then quoted only the statement on C-14 dating that claimed C-14 is not reliable in dating materials older than about 50,000 years which has absolutely nothing to do with the intra-evolutionary squabble between direct carbon dating of the fossils vs. Ar/Ar dating that are separated by a factor of > 50 times, id !,300,000/36,000 years, minimum.
Click to expand...
If the Ar-Ar date of 1.3 Ma is correct then the sample is much older than 50,000 years and C-14 dating is unreliable, as your own source says. In such a situation the C-14 date is worthless and you cannot rely on it to show anything. Think back to my example of you standing on a set of kitchen scales which tells you that your weight is ten pounds. All you are measuring is the limits of the scales, not your actual weight. Similarly, if the ash is 1.3 My old, then the C-14 ‘date’ is a measure of the sensitivity of the lab’s equipment, not a real measure of age of the sample.
(3) Do you get it folks? Ar/Ar gave a date a huge 50 times greater than what C-14 dating gave; not even in the same ball park. Like a major minerologist Dr. Marie Claire van Oosterwyck has stated: ***Ages provided by radiometric dating such as K/Ar etc. give meaningless ages. ***
Click to expand...
Source and context please. The Bible says “There is no God”, and it says it twice, but the context changes the meaning greatly.

In the context we are talking here, the C-14 ‘date’ is meaningless, it is not a date it is a property of the lab equipment used.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
Nested hiearchies are part of design. We see it all the time. It can be part of design but doesn’t have to be.
Click to expand...
NO NO NO! It DOES have to be. 10 million species and they ALL fit perfectly in to nested hierarchies. I WILL NOT let you avoid the question! If you do not believe we evolved then please provide me one example out of the 10 MILLION species that violates the nested sets, or explain to me why god did, or had to, create all life in a nested set of hierarchies.
 
buffalo said:
Can you say IDvolution? Will you say IDvolution?
Click to expand...
I am able to speak, write or type - “IDvolution”.

See? I just did it. 😃

I’m just as confident in your ability to speak, write or type - “Gamovolution”. 😉
 
grannymh said:
The current human species has its own **individual nest **which is not shared with any other species. 😃
How and why the current human species rates its own place in the hierarchies is debatable.
Click to expand...
Err no. :confused: If this was a phone call i would hang up… Education time…

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Primates

Family: Hominidae

Subfamily: Homininae

Tribe: Hominini

Genus: Homo

Species: H. sapiens

Please violate, or…Try again. 👍
 
Hooding_Trees said:
Err no. :confused: If this was a phone call i would hang up… Education time…

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Primates

Family: Hominidae

Subfamily: Homininae

Tribe: Hominini

Genus: Homo

Species: H. sapiens

Please violate, or…Try again. 👍
Click to expand...
Please define human species.
 
Question/comment about the example of the two different scales, one with a low limit.

If I understand example correctly, the only time the two different scales would match is when the object weighed is under the low limit. If C-14 dating is correct under 50,000 years, then all items under 50,000 years would have to be correct. So there should be no argument about these items. Calling these items doubtful would be just an opinion. It would be the dating at 50,000 years which would be doubtful.

Blessings,
granny

Earth in springtime renews one’s faith in the future.
 
Just FYI: This is an excerpt from an informative discussion of the evidence for evolution and an old earth from a Catholic perspective**:****
**
Summary of the Evidence for the Age of the Earth
The development and refinement of modern instrumentation and radiometric dating methods based on the decays of isotopes of uranium, potassium, rubidium, samarium, rhenium, and lutetium to their respective daughter products lead, argon, strontium, neodymium, osmium, and hafnium beginning in the mid-1950s and continuing to the present finally produced the answer to the question of the antiquity of the earth.

We can be confident that the minimum age for the earth exceeds 4 billion years – the evidence is abundant and compelling. Rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all the continents, but four especially well-studied areas: the Superior region of North America, the Isua-Godthaab area of western Greenland, the Pilbara block in the northern part of Western Australia, and Swaziland in southern Africa, where rocks 3.5 billion years or more in age have been found, carefully mapped, thoroughly studied, and dated by more than one radiometric method.

Meteorites are the oldest and most primitive rocks available for earthbound scientists to study. The majority of the 70 or so well-dated meteorites have individual Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, Pb-Pb and 40Ar / 39Ar ages of 4.4 to 4.6 billion years. Internal and whole-rock isochron ages determined by Rb-Sr, Lu-Hf, Sm-Nd, Pb-Pb, and Re-Os methods, as well as other isotopic evidence, shows the major meteorite types were formed within a few tens of millions of years between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years ago.
All hypotheses for formation of our solar system call for the planets, including earth and the asteroids, to be formed within a very short interval of time. Thus, the ages of meteorites are relevant to the age of the earth and suggest that the earth and the other solid bodies of the solar system formed about 4.5 to 4.6 billion years ago (Dalrymple, pages 398-401). "We now know, to within 1% or better and from a variety of evidence, that the age of the Earth-Moon-meteorite system is about 4.51 - 4.55 Ga [billions of years old]." (G. Brent Dalrymple, from “The Age of the Earth in the Twentieth Century: A Problem (Mostly) Solved” in The Age of the Earth From 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by C.L.E. Lewis and S.J. Knell [Geological Society, 2001], page 219)
 
grannymh said:
Question/comment about the example of the two different scales, one with a low limit.

If I understand example correctly, the only time the two different scales would match is when the object weighed is under the low limit. If C-14 dating is correct under 50,000 years, then all items under 50,000 years would have to be correct. So there should be no argument about these items. Calling these items doubtful would be just an opinion. It would be the dating at 50,000 years which would be doubtful.
Click to expand...
Correct. Objects less than 50,000 years old will get consistent ages from Argon-Argon and C-14 dating. Objects more than that age will get an age from Ar-Ar dating and a spurious number related to the equipment used in the lab from C-14 tests.

rossum
 
Hooding_Trees said:
I don’t know what your asking here? We are talking about classification and nested sets, which homo sapiens sapiens along with EVERY other species fit into perfectly.
Click to expand...
“Please define human species” means what it asks. There has to be some definition which defines each classification and nested sets as you mention.Your EVERY other species doesn’t fit into the same nested set or classification – or do they?
 
rossum said:
An interesting piece of work, thank you for the link.

We have known that genes have on/off switches for a long time. It now appears that they have fast/slow switches as well.

rossum
Click to expand...
How do genes which have on/off switches work in the development of the human species?
 
grannymh said:
Question/comment about the example of the two different scales, one with a low limit.

If I understand example correctly, the only time the two different scales would match is when the object weighed is under the low limit. If C-14 dating is correct under 50,000 years, then all items under 50,000 years would have to be correct. So there should be no argument about these items. Calling these items doubtful would be just an opinion. It would be the dating at 50,000 years which would be doubtful.

Blessings,
granny

Earth in springtime renews one’s faith in the future.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the corrected scale explanation Granymh. Of course Rossum et al. are in a state of denial regarding C-14 dating of dinosaur bone collagen etc in the range of 23,000- 33,000 C-14 years. His latest demand is that C-14 dates must agree with Ar/Ar dates and other methods that are “absolute ages.”🤷 Nonetheless it has reminded me of an experiment I’ve thought about for some time which like dating of shale has never been performed >>> Test for C-14 content of some meteorites containing carbon.

The solution of course is for main stream scientists to continue to test for C-14 date fossils vs. whatever the claims in age are regarding the geologic column. But meteors thought to be part of the original creation including chondritic and carbonaceous meteorites should also be tested for C-14 as have diamonds and other rocks containing carbon on or within the earth. Chondritics contain contain roughtly 0.1 to 0.3 % carbon, the carbonaceous ones contain up to 2% carbon with the ureilites from Russia containing upwards to 4 % carbon based on an Internet search.

Some meteorites are also reported to contain organic compounds like has been reported for the moon Titan. So maybe we don’t have to wait to test for C-14 in the hydrocarbons of Titan. The problem will be to convince the scientists of the repositories for these meteorites that the experiment would add to the knowledge of science. Of course if they have the mind-set of some folks on this thread the experiments will never happen.😃

Of course the C-14 content, if any, would be at or near the sensitiivty of the equipment so the specific equipment that was used to C-14 date earthly diamonds in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 C-14 years should be employed. Also several samples from one of the ureilites should be used to see if concordant ages could be obtained like with individual dinosaur bones and individual diamonds. They could then add this data to the long list of earthly rocks that have been used to test the sensitivity of the AMS dating equipment. Whether C-14 is found or not, the experiments might be a wake- up-call for those with an open mind regarding origins.😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top