The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
reasonable? A man rising from the dead? Is that reasonable?

“Genesis does not contain purified myths.” Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1909.

It is not for science to say what God can and cannot do. It is not for science to say, this part of the Bible is plausible but this part isn’t.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Once again, not doctrine, but a 1909 commission. In the very first paragraph of the document, however, it is stated that it has long been the unanimous tradition and the opinion of the Fathers that the Genesis accounts are adapted from pagan texts and purified.
 
grannymh said:
Just a thought. Pagans were descended from Adam and Eve since there were only two sole parents of the human species.🙂
Click to expand...
In fact, the Hebrews themselves were not monotheists until Elijah made them henotheists. It is not until Isaiah that we see the emergence of monotheism.

My source? Dominicans. From providence. No they have not been excommunicated. Yes, they are awesome.
 
Caritasregat said:
Once again, not doctrine, but a 1909 commission. In the very first paragraph of the document, however, it is stated that it has long been the unanimous tradition and the opinion of the Fathers that the Genesis accounts are adapted from pagan texts and purified.
Click to expand...
Since The Fathers, Church Councils, Scriptures, St. Thomas Aquinas, doctors of the Church, Popes, and other writers are quoted or referenced in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church,* this is an excellent source for official Catholic teaching*.* In my humble opinion, this would be the final source. The additional teaching documents usually expand on the basic Catholic Deposit of Faith.
 
Philipp said:
That’s what we are trying to determine by lab, flume, paleohydraulics and field studies. Based on the apparent coexistence of man and dinosaurs in the so-called Cretaceous, C-14 dating of fossil wood world-wide along with Dinosaur and Neanderthal bone collagen it would be 23,000 to 40,000 RC years. But are C-14 years really reliable? Some scientists suggest C-14 give way too old ages for their bones.

AND the presence of dinosaur depictions world wide by many cultures in the late 3000 years suggest dinosaur and man were together within historical time. Therefore 🤷
Click to expand...
What?

Can you clarify this please? What is “RC”? What does “3000” mean?
 
itinerant1 said:
Really? Cite your source and produce the link. (YEC sites are not admissible.)
Click to expand...
It’s on this site someplace, probably more than one place. I’ll look and see if I can find it. If you get tired of waiting, you can go there and search “redshift” and “red shift”. Those searches pull up a bunch of articles and I haven’t looked through them yet.

LATE EDIT: from holoscience.com/news.php?article=bqx15w21 is the quote below.

Arp’s paper “Companion Galaxies on the Ends of Spiral Arms” was submitted to the prestigious Astrophysical Journal. The editor at the time, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, scribbled his comment across the corner of Arp’s paper. In the background is Arp’s image of the large, active spiral galaxy NGC 7603 with its companion attached by a bridge of matter to a spiral arm. The redshift of the larger galaxy is 8,700 km/sec and the smaller, 17,000 km/sec. According to the redshift-distance equation, the companion galaxy should be a far-distant background object with no possible connection to NGC 7603. Since then, two small quasars with far more discordant redshifts have been found in the bridge. And in another celebrated instance, a supposedly distant quasar has been found in front of an opaque, much nearer galaxy. Credits: document image - DVD, 2003Universe: The Cosmology Quest; NGC7603 image - M. Lopez-Corredoira and C. M. Gutierrez, Two emission line objects with z > 0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion.

And another, from this article holoscience.com/news.php?article=a57ya4dj

It is this kind of thinking that has allowed the big bang theory to persist when it should have collapsed the instant it came into contact with real life—the observations that highly redshifted objects (quasars) are connected to low redshift galaxies. In simple terms, redshift is not a measure of an expanding universe.
This site is definitely not YEC. In fact, these guys seem to be mildly anti-religious if anything. They base their work on a Nobel Prize winner’s work, and are published regularly in IEEE publications (Electrical Engineering).

ALSO: I’m not a YEC’r. Never was. If there is evidence for it, I’ll look at it. But neither am I a Science worshiper. I’m an engineer and I know that science has limits, which some people seem reluctant to admit (not speaking of you here).
 
More for Itinerant1 on redshift:
Code: 
												 													 													 	[Cluster  Collisions](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050428cluster.htm)
													[Fingers  of God](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018fingers-god.htm)
													[Gravitational  Lensing Misused Again](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050816glmisuse.htm)
													[Gravitational  Lensing Used As Excuse Again](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050822lensagain.htm)
													[Halton  Arp: A Modern Day Galileo](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051102arp-galileo.htm)
													[Having  Faith in Edwin Hubble](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041109hubble-redshift.htm)
													[Orion  Stellar Nursery](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050602orion.htm)
													[Quasar  in Front of a Galaxy](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041001quasar-galaxy.htm)
													[Quasars  in Infrared are Still Nearby](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050808quasarnearby.htm)
													[Redshift  Rosetta Stone](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041028redshift-rosetta.htm)
													[Stephan's  Quintet Rekindles Controversy](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060419stephansquintet.htm)
													[The  Picture that Won’t Go Away](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050610arptest.htm)
													[The  Pleiades Problem](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050601pleiades-problem.htm)
													[The  Search for Two Numbers](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040903redshift.htm)
													[The  Universe According to Arp](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050106universe-arp.htm)
													[Thirty  Years Later](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050211thirtyyears.htm)
 
Caritasregat said:
First of all, both of the creation accounts in Genesis were adopted from pagan texts by the Jewish temple scribes centuries after they were written. I don’t think any reasonable Catholic takes them as literal accounts of how creation actually happened.

Secondly, God has the power to change his creation. Science may say that it’s impossible to raise someone from the dead, Jesus could still have done it. First/second hand accounts swear by it. Now, science shows us that there is no way two people could have thousands of kids, living until they were 960 years old, having their kids intermarry and end up with what we have now. There is a substantial difference b/w ancient texts which are “iffy” yet interpreted through the Spirit and more recent apostolic accounts (as the Pauline letters) which can be backed up historically.
Click to expand...
Suggested Reading: The Toledoths of Genesis
 
ricmat said:
More for Itinerant1 on redshift:
Code: 
                                                                                                                                                               [Cluster  Collisions](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050428cluster.htm)
                                                    [Fingers  of God](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018fingers-god.htm)
                                                    [Gravitational  Lensing Misused Again](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050816glmisuse.htm)
                                                    [Gravitational  Lensing Used As Excuse Again](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050822lensagain.htm)
                                                    [Halton  Arp: A Modern Day Galileo](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051102arp-galileo.htm)
                                                    [Having  Faith in Edwin Hubble](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041109hubble-redshift.htm)
                                                    [Orion  Stellar Nursery](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050602orion.htm)
                                                    [Quasar  in Front of a Galaxy](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041001quasar-galaxy.htm)
                                                    [Quasars  in Infrared are Still Nearby](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050808quasarnearby.htm)
                                                    [Redshift  Rosetta Stone](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041028redshift-rosetta.htm)
                                                    [Stephan's  Quintet Rekindles Controversy](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060419stephansquintet.htm)
                                                    [The  Picture that Won’t Go Away](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050610arptest.htm)
                                                    [The  Pleiades Problem](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050601pleiades-problem.htm)
                                                    [The  Search for Two Numbers](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040903redshift.htm)
                                                    [The  Universe According to Arp](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050106universe-arp.htm)
                                                    [Thirty  Years Later](http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050211thirtyyears.htm)
Click to expand...
I don’t see where you answered my post in regard to whether David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill have published any new theory regarding the physical origin of the universe in mainstream physics or astronomical journals. I would like to see what their views are, which so far you have not presented, and what the responses of other scientists are to those views.
 
ricmat said:
It’s on this site someplace, probably more than one place. I’ll look and see if I can find it. If you get tired of waiting, you can go there and search “redshift” and “red shift”. Those searches pull up a bunch of articles and I haven’t looked through them yet.

LATE EDIT: from holoscience.com/news.php?article=bqx15w21 is the quote below.

Arp’s paper “Companion Galaxies on the Ends of Spiral Arms” was submitted to the prestigious Astrophysical Journal. The editor at the time, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, scribbled his comment across the corner of Arp’s paper. In the background is Arp’s image of the large, active spiral galaxy NGC 7603 with its companion attached by a bridge of matter to a spiral arm. The redshift of the larger galaxy is 8,700 km/sec and the smaller, 17,000 km/sec. According to the redshift-distance equation, the companion galaxy should be a far-distant background object with no possible connection to NGC 7603. Since then, two small quasars with far more discordant redshifts have been found in the bridge. And in another celebrated instance, a supposedly distant quasar has been found in front of an opaque, much nearer galaxy. Credits: document image - Universe: The Cosmology Quest DVD, 2003; NGC7603 image - M. Lopez-Corredoira and C. M. Gutierrez, Two emission line objects with z > 0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion.

And another, from this article holoscience.com/news.php?article=a57ya4dj

It is this kind of thinking that has allowed the big bang theory to persist when it should have collapsed the instant it came into contact with real life—the observations that highly redshifted objects (quasars) are connected to low redshift galaxies. In simple terms, redshift is not a measure of an expanding universe.
This site is definitely not YEC. In fact, these guys seem to be mildly anti-religious if anything. They base their work on a Nobel Prize winner’s work, and are published regularly in IEEE publications (Electrical Engineering).

ALSO: I’m not a YEC’r. Never was. If there is evidence for it, I’ll look at it. But neither am I a Science worshiper. I’m an engineer and I know that science has limits, which some people seem reluctant to admit (not speaking of you here).
Click to expand...
Sounds interesting. Arp is certainly a qualified astronomer. It will take me some time to look over his views and read his book to get an adequate idea of his position.
 
ricmat said:
It’s on this site someplace, probably more than one place. I’ll look and see if I can find it. If you get tired of waiting, you can go there and search “redshift” and “red shift”. Those searches pull up a bunch of articles and I haven’t looked through them yet.

LATE EDIT: from holoscience.com/news.php?article=bqx15w21 is the quote below.

Arp’s paper “Companion Galaxies on the Ends of Spiral Arms” was submitted to the prestigious Astrophysical Journal. The editor at the time, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, scribbled his comment across the corner of Arp’s paper. In the background is Arp’s image of the large, active spiral galaxy NGC 7603 with its companion attached by a bridge of matter to a spiral arm. The redshift of the larger galaxy is 8,700 km/sec and the smaller, 17,000 km/sec. According to the redshift-distance equation, the companion galaxy should be a far-distant background object with no possible connection to NGC 7603. Since then, two small quasars with far more discordant redshifts have been found in the bridge. And in another celebrated instance, a supposedly distant quasar has been found in front of an opaque, much nearer galaxy. Credits: document image - Universe: The Cosmology Quest DVD, 2003; NGC7603 image - M. Lopez-Corredoira and C. M. Gutierrez, Two emission line objects with z > 0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion.

And another, from this article holoscience.com/news.php?article=a57ya4dj

It is this kind of thinking that has allowed the big bang theory to persist when it should have collapsed the instant it came into contact with real life—the observations that highly redshifted objects (quasars) are connected to low redshift galaxies. In simple terms, redshift is not a measure of an expanding universe.
This site is definitely not YEC. In fact, these guys seem to be mildly anti-religious if anything. They base their work on a Nobel Prize winner’s work, and are published regularly in IEEE publications (Electrical Engineering).

ALSO: I’m not a YEC’r. Never was. If there is evidence for it, I’ll look at it. But neither am I a Science worshiper. I’m an engineer and I know that science has limits, which some people seem reluctant to admit (not speaking of you here).
Click to expand...
I just started looking through Arp’s paper Intrinsic Redshifts in Quasars and Galaxies and something occurred to me that will be a real problem for Arp’s model of the universe. Hubble said, “…if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions.” This was Hubble’s early view and it is the one Arp is endorsing.

Accordingly, in Hubble’s early view of the universe, it is a universe that must be infinite. This is a perfectly logical view in itself, while reason and philosophy cannot “conclusively” prove the contrary position. However, we know from Revelation that the universe had a beginning in time. It remains to be decided what kind of problems a *truly finite *universe understanding presents for Arp’s non-realistic model (“non-realistic” in the sense that the universe, in the Judeo-christian tradition is actually finite).

Hypothetically, if Arp started with the notion of a finite universe one wonders how that would have affected his interpretations of certain cosmological phenomena.

Back to redshift evaluation…
 
A quick additional note on Arp’s ardent belief in the eternity of the universe…The negative aspect: Eternalism is an idea as old as ancient paganism. In modern times eternalism comes dressed up in scientific garb. In addition to Halton C. Arp, modern adherents of eternalistic views include Narlikar, Wickramasinghe and Hoyle.

It should be noted that belief in an eternally existing universe is a scientifically untestable belief. Furthermore, eternalism involves an endorsement of an infinite quantity, and that belief entails the sort of “mischief” with which Eddington once said science should have nothing to do.
 
itinerant1 said:
I don’t see where you answered my post in regard to whether David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill have published any new theory regarding the physical origin of the universe in mainstream physics or astronomical journals. I would like to see what their views are, which so far you have not presented, and what the responses of other scientists are to those views.
Click to expand...
I never claimed that David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill published a new theory on the origin of the universe.

I merely question the validity of the whole idea of redshift, and provided some links (which is what I thought you were requesting.).
 
StAnastasia said:
Guy Berthault and his ilk are (mostly) harmless cranks:

“Guy Berthault (1) is an outspoken critic of the conclusions that practically every professional geologist accepts about the chronology for the laying down of the sediments in the geological record. Monsieur Berthault claims to have demonstrated that all the strata in the geological record could have been laid down rapidly, that his findings revolutionise geology, and that a young earth can be supported by the science. Berthault is a Young Earth Creationist who is an adviser to the Kolbe Center (2), an ultra-conservative traditional Roman Catholic creationist propaganda group (Kolbe Center’s “advisers” also include Bob Sungenis (3) whose absurd geocentrist ideas I address here). Unusually for Young Earth Creationist apologetics, Berthault bases his claims on work that he has published in peer reviewed scientific journals (4), (5), (6) and this fact has been gleefully trumpeted by other religiously motivated Young Earth Creationists. So, does he represent a real challenge to the entire professional geological community? In this article, I show that he does not.”

evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
Click to expand...
PHILIPP, one of the “ilk” says: Since the above was so, shall we call it, “intense” I thought it appropriate to let Peter Wilders, an Englishman, respond. Peter is a close associate of the Frenchman Guy Berthault. He would know best how to bring us up to date in correct English. My final comment to the above “Intense remarks” is that Guy Berthault’s technical reports must really be a burr on the Saint’s Darwinian saddle as she/he rides off into the sunset.

“*St Anastasia asks whether Guy Berthault’s experimental research represents a real challenge to geology. Those with specialised professional knowledge of sedimentology knows it does for the simple reason it is based upon hard peer-reviewed published facts tested in the laboratory and confirmed in the field by qualified sedimentologists. St Anastasia’s defence is a 2003 critique by Alex MacAndrew, not of Berthault’s published articles but a video on www.noevolution.org. Berthault sent a point by point refutation to MacAndrew. A request for it to be published ion his website alongside the latter’s critique was refused. The value of MacAndrew’s critique can be judged by its final sentence which contains the words: Guy Berthault’s claims simply do not stand up to detailed scrutiny. Hardly a serious comment for work scrutinised by two Academy of Sciences and a Geological Society and accepted for publication. To mention this most relevant fact in the discussion is considered by SA as “gleeful trumpeting”. He or she attempts to color readers’ opinions by unsupported and totally false charges of Berthault being a young earth creationist. Such tactics should warn readers against those using pseudo science and religion to undermine there adversaries. The fact that his work, approved by professional sedimentologists showing the rapid formation of rocks, is being used by a few evolutionists to classify him as a creationist, is, in my view, an insult to the person and to the scientific method.”🙂
*
visit sedimentology.fr/ for his papers etc
 
ricmat said:
ALSO: I’m not a YEC’r. Never was. If there is evidence for it, I’ll look at it. But neither am I a Science worshiper. I’m an engineer and I know that science has limits, which some people seem reluctant to admit (not speaking of you here).
Click to expand...
I’m not a lot of things, including not a YEC’r. However, I find the tools used for measuring age and what is measured most interesting. I have never lost the five-year-old’s love for dinosaurs.

In addition, I often wonder what would happen if age tools, or the various principles of aging, were used on pre-history bones. There is oodles of interesting stuff to learn.

Blessings,
granny

Human life should be respected from the moment of conception.
 
itinerant1 said:
A quick additional note on Arp’s ardent belief in the eternity of the universe…The negative aspect: Eternalism is an idea as old as ancient paganism. In modern times eternalism comes dressed up in scientific garb. In addition to Halton C. Arp, modern adherents of eternalistic views include Narlikar, Wickramasinghe and Hoyle.

It should be noted that belief in an eternally existing universe is a scientifically untestable belief. Furthermore, eternalism involves an endorsement of an infinite quantity, and that belief entails the sort of “mischief” with which Eddington once said science should have nothing to do.
Click to expand...
Obviously, on the surface, the big bang theory is more friendly to religion than the eternal universe idea. But I suppose that since we are “in time” and God is outside of it, he could create what appears to us to be an eternal universe. I’m not saying that this is what happened, but just leaving the door open. But at this point I do believe in a finite universe (time and space).

I’d like to note that the electric-universe guys can be wrong about the eternal universe, but still correct on other details where they disagree with conventional cosmological explanations. One basic premise that they have is that there are massive electrical currents flowing through space, and that these currents explain many of the objects and phenomena that are observed via telescopes, spectrometers, etc. I think they actually have something here.

But a few years ago, I had an email exchange with them, and asked what I thought was a fairly simple question. “If these electrical currents power the stars, and the universe is eternal, how does the ‘battery’ get recharged?” I guess they didn’t have an answer to that because our email exchange abruptly ended. I wasn’t trying to kill the conversation, I really wanted to know what answer they might have.

Still…not counting the eternal universe idea, I think they may have some good ideas and they do have a proven record of successful predictions (with no band-aids needed). You can read through their site if you are interested.
 
The Church has ruled infallibly that the universe has a finite age. This annoys some people to no end since they consider that:

A) The Church has no competence to answer such questions.
B) Such an answer is unscientific since Divine Revelation cannot be proven by science.
C) They have a keep your religion out of my science attitude.

Obviously, as the Church has noted in the past in Humani Generis and Communion and Stewardship, there are points where scientific questions and findings touch upon Revealed Truths.

The problem with the electric universe is also true for the electron. It has been possible to image large atoms and guess what? They are spherical. Now what keeps the electron spinning around the nucleus? Shouldn’t it just run down after billions of years? Decay and dissipate back into energy or nothing?

There are some fundamental questions out there that still need answers.

insidescience.org/research/first_detailed_photos_of_atoms

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The Church has ruled infallibly that the universe has a finite age. This annoys some people to no end
Click to expand...
It probably does. It doesn’t bother me, however. I said above that God might have created a universe that APPEARS to be eternal, not that it was eternal.
edwest2 said:
The problem with the electric universe is also true for the electron. It has been possible to image large atoms and guess what? They are spherical. Now what keeps the electron spinning around the nucleus? Shouldn’t it just run down after billions of years? Decay and dissipate back into energy or nothing?
Click to expand...
You are correct. That’s why I mentioned in a previous post my question to the electric universe guys about “How does the battery get recharged to keep the eternal universe running?” I was trying to point out to them that their eternal universe idea still had some “issues.”

Ed, I got into this electric universe discussion because you brought up the issue of redshift being incorrectly correlated with distance (and/or time since the beginning). I agree with you. The electric universe folks agree with you that something is fishy in redshift land (although they are wrong on the eternal universe).

If you are looking for something to debunk the Scientific Truth (note the caps - that means I’m using that term sarcastically) that says the universe is 13.71 billion years old, this may be it. Why not accept this gift instead of trying to bite the hand that gives it to you?

You do realize that they can be wrong on the eternal universe, but correct about the redshift interpretation being wrong, don’t you?
 
ricmat said:
It probably does. It doesn’t bother me, however. I said above that God might have created a universe that APPEARS to be eternal, not that it was eternal.

You are correct. That’s why I mentioned in a previous post my question to the electric universe guys about “How does the battery get recharged to keep the eternal universe running?” I was trying to point out to them that their eternal universe idea still had some “issues.”

Ed, I got into this electric universe discussion because you brought up the issue of redshift being incorrectly correlated with distance (and/or time since the beginning). I agree with you. The electric universe folks agree with you that something is fishy in redshift land (although they are wrong on the eternal universe).

If you are looking for something to debunk the Scientific Truth (note the caps - that means I’m using that term sarcastically) that says the universe is 13.71 billion years old, this may be it. Why not accept this gift instead of trying to bite the hand that gives it to you?

You do realize that they can be wrong on the eternal universe, but correct about the redshift interpretation being wrong, don’t you?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. I’m sorry if it looked like I was arguing with you. Sometimes I’m just thinking out loud.

To clarify: I spoke with a friend of mine who pointed out how fishy the whole redshift issue was. He’s taught at the professor level. It looks like this will be a fruitful area of scientific study. I hope people keep investigating it.

I really think the whole electric universe idea is fascinating but again, where does the energy come from to keep everything going?

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