The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ricmat said:
Thank you for the detailed response.

After reading this, IMO it looks like the DNA (all living creatures’ DNA?) contains the ability to make certain limited modifications to itself, but then cannot pass any “knowledge” gained (in terms of particular pathogens) to its offspring. But the offspring would have the same ability for modifications (unless a disadvantageous mutation occurred in the DNA which describes the development of the immune system).
Click to expand...
Yes - it can make adaptations to the core.

But it can pass knowledge to offspring - epigenetics.
 
buffalo said:
Yes - it can make adaptations to the core.

But it can pass knowledge to offspring - epigenetics.
Click to expand...
If I missed the difinition of “core” please point me to it. Otherwise, how does one define core? Thanks.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.
 
All living organisms have the same 500 or so basic genes.(core) These have been preserved since the beginning. This core is what the language of DNA regulates through switching circuits that give instructions on how to build a finished creature. It is driven by the cell not genes. The cell you received from your mother. As you can see we are descended from Eve, the first. A certain animal from its mother. This is how the kinds are preserved and stay the same through time.
 
grannymh said:
Trickster is an illogical conclusion. The earth is the earth created by God with clear purpose. “God created everything for man, but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to Him:” Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 358.

Do the tools of created humanity surpass God? Perhaps we need to reevaluate the tools in order to seek knowledge which is ultimately beyond us.

Blessings,
granny

Please use this handy link for the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Click to expand...
I don’t see how this responds to the problematic position that asserts the universe is young but that God created it to appear as if it had been around for 13-15 billion years.

God is a God of reason and his universe is intelligible. But if the universe is only 6, 000 years old yet scientifically dates to be 13 - 15 billion years old then we have a radical disconnect with knowledge and reality. Human reason can no longer be trusted to investigate and study creation. Nor can humans put trust in a Creator who would arbitrarily deceive humans in this manner.

There is a profound cognitive dissonance in the idea that God recently created (6 - 10, 000 years ago) the universe in an advanced stage. This position is merely a concession by some “creationists” to scientific facts while stubbornly holding onto their fundamentalism and flawed biblical literalism.

Your response indicates either you misunderstood the original issue, or that you are a
young-earth-made-to-look-old creationist. Which is it say you?
 
itinerant1 said:
What makes it bogus?
Click to expand...
Because the assumptions that we make about our observations could be wrong.

God cannot deceive or be deceived, but man can deceive himself.

Revelation is true for God revealed it. Man pursues truth, but is not truth. He can fail at deriving truth as pagans and others in the past have. If Revelation never occurred what would be the limits of our knowledge? What could we know?

God being outside our frame knew this and in His wisdom gave us fundamental knowledge to illuminate our reasoning. These fundamental truths hold for all time.

So back to the question - if one sees left footprints on the beach as far as he can see should he conclude a deceiver was at work? Science is provisional - everyone agrees. Does this mean when we come to new understandings a deceiver was at work?

We observe saltations in the fossil record but gradualism has to be so. Is God tricking us?

It is a bogus argument and I recommend it not be used.
 
larkin31 said:
No Biblical indication of this. A very odd idea.
Click to expand...
It’s very Biblical:

Please point out the tricks in the following:

Jesus walking across the water.
Jesus turns water into wine.
Jesus raises Lazarus from the Dead.
Jesus’ bodily ressurection.

As Catholics, we should not treat God as if He cannot perform miracles.

God bless,
Ed
 
buffalo said:
Because the assumptions that we make about our observations could be wrong.

God cannot deceive or be deceived, but man can deceive himself.

Revelation is true for God revealed it. Man pursues truth, but is not truth. He can fail at deriving truth as pagans and others in the past have. If Revelation never occurred what would be the limits of our knowledge? What could we know?

God being outside our frame knew this and in His wisdom gave us fundamental knowledge to illuminate our reasoning. These fundamental truths hold for all time.

So back to the question - if one sees left footprints on the beach as far as he can see should he conclude a deceiver was at work? Science is provisional - everyone agrees. Does this mean when we come to new understandings a deceiver was at work?

We observe saltations in the fossil record but gradualism has to be so. Is God tricking us?

It is a bogus argument and I recommend it not be used.
Click to expand...
God has not Revealed that He created a young cosmos to look old, but man can deceive himself into thinking that God acted thus – that ideology is called “creationism”.

I agree with Cardinal Schonborn who said “creationism” has no place in the Catholic Church.

In light of Schonborn’s remarks about “creationism”, in which he is voicing the mind of the Church, you should consider biblical literalism to be highly provisional and subject to correction by biblical authorities.

Creationists set themselves up as the authoritative judges on biblical interpretation and scientific conclusions. The problem with that mindset needs no further comment from me.

I have every reason to maintain that “creationism”, in said form, makes God out to be a trickster, and no reason to abandon it.
 
edwest2 said:
It’s very Biblical:

Please point out the tricks in the following:

Jesus walking across the water.
Jesus turns water into wine.
Jesus raises Lazarus from the Dead.
Jesus’ bodily ressurection.

As Catholics, we should not treat God as if He cannot perform miracles.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
God does not multiply miracles needlessly. There is no need for the creationists’ trick miracle of God creating the universe in an advanced state.

What may take a genuine miracle is for creationists to see through their own sophistries and errant approach to Biblical interpretation.
 
buffalo said:
All living organisms have the same 500 or so basic genes.(core) These have been preserved since the beginning. This core is what the language of DNA regulates through switching circuits that give instructions on how to build a finished creature. It is driven by the cell not genes. The cell you received from your mother. As you can see we are descended from Eve, the first. A certain animal from its mother. This is how the kinds are preserved and stay the same through time.
Click to expand...
I think that you have a number of things technically wrong in these claims, particularly in the bolded part.

First, who has mapped the 500 core genes and connected them to what makes a “finished creature”? I have never heard that claim before, but maybe it is true.

Second, What do you mean that the building of the creature “is driven by the cell, not genes”? That does not sound like a scientific term. Which part of DNA transcription into proteins do you mean “is driven by the cell”? The “cell” is not a single entity, but rather a container holding many parts. So which parts do you mean, and how many actually come from the ovum? (This is the only “cell” that comes from the mother)

Do you mean that the nucleus of one species cannot be transferred into the another cell without it becoming the “finished creature” of the host cell? Or that DNA, if placed elsewhere, will make only the “host” cell creature? And do stem cells operate this way, too?
 
itinerant1 said:
God has not Revealed that He created a young cosmos to look old, but man can deceive himself into thinking that God acted thus – that ideology is called “creationism”.

I agree with Cardinal Schonborn who said “creationism” has no place in the Catholic Church.

In light of Schonborn’s remarks about “creationism”, in which he is voicing the mind of the Church, you should consider biblical literalism to be highly provisional and subject to correction by biblical authorities.

Creationists set themselves up as the authoritative judges on biblical interpretation and scientific conclusions. The problem with that mindset needs no further comment from me.

I have every reason to maintain that “creationism”, in said form, makes God out to be a trickster, and no reason to abandon it.
Click to expand...
Not so - the doctrine of creation has been a constant belief and teaching of the Church until very recently. Did God deceive us in the past? Is the Cardinal condemning St Augustine? In the scope of time - the belief in a younger earth has been what - 5-6000 years? Old earth what - say 200 years? Something is amiss here.

The argument is bogus.
 
buffalo said:
Not so - the doctrine of creation has been a constant belief and teaching of the Church until very recently. Did God deceive us in the past? Is the Cardinal condemning St Augustine? In the scope of time - the belief in a younger earth has been what - 5-6000 years? Old earth what - say 200 years? Something is amiss here.

The argument is bogus.
Click to expand...
This is a strong example of man’s ignorance in natural science being filled, erroneously, by religious myth. It has happened many many times before in other religious creation myths.
 
itinerant1 said:
God does not multiply miracles needlessly. There is no need for the creationists’ trick miracle of God creating the universe in an advanced state.

What may take a genuine miracle is for creationists to see through their own sophistries and errant approach to Biblical interpretation.
Click to expand...
You make no attempt to understand creationism and establish yourself as an authority on evolutionism.

Do you know what year it is right now on the Hebrew calendar? Would you contact the very rational Israeli government and tell them to fix the problem?

God bless,
Ed

It’s the year 5770 by the way.
 
buffalo said:
Sudden changes are the issue. Punctuated equilibrium the attempted answer. It is in crisis.
Click to expand...
Actually Gould overstated the implications of punctuated equilibrium. PE is consistent with gradualness. It is a matter of which time scale one is using to look at natural progression.

Darwin’s theory, if one reads him carefully, accounts for PE. Surprise! There is no genuine crisis. I can explain the time scale factor in detail if one wants to see the consistency of gradualness with PE.
 
edwest2 said:
You make no attempt to understand creationism and establish yourself as an authority on evolutionism.

Do you know what year it is right now on the Hebrew calendar? Would you contact the very rational Israeli government and tell them to fix the problem?

God bless,
Ed

It’s the year 5770 by the way.
Click to expand...
If they post here, I will!
 
edwest2 said:
You make no attempt to understand creationism and establish yourself as an authority on evolutionism.

Do you know what year it is right now on the Hebrew calendar? Would you contact the very rational Israeli government and tell them to fix the problem?

God bless,
Ed

It’s the year 5770 by the way.
Click to expand...
And you think that is some kind of meaningful response?
 
Stephen Jay Gould, a minor deity in the pantheon of evolutionists. He doesn’t believe God did anything and further said that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently.

Father Coyne exemplifies this type of thinking which Cardinal Schoenborn refers to on page 169 of Chance or Purpose?

“When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely.”

Footnote: “For example, Fr. George V. Coyne, S.J., in Der Spiegel, no. 52, December 22, 2000.”

God bless,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top