The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[ricmat]

You would have to argue fairly strenuously to justify your claim that the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, or the Institute for Creation Research have added a single ounce to humanity’s store of knowledge.

I don’t know anything about Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research, but if they have brought to mankind a greater sense of humility standing before our Creator, they have done more for humanity than science has.

Lack of knowledge will not keep you out of Heaven. But too much Pride will.

 

[larkin31]

Uhm! why is it that evos almost always lose debates with so-called Creationists to a point that evos have now quit debating?? So who is making the real contributions?

Contributions to science? Not Creationists! They do not add any scientific knowledge of any kind.

 

[grannymh]

Aquinas and the Big Bang

It was easy to skim this article by William E. Carroll, Professor of History at Cornell College in Mt. Vernon, Iowa. I did spot some interesting paragraphs which makes it worth going back to. I have a print copy.

This is what I asked for: How about some neo-Thomistic comments on our earth age and workings of nature? If Big Bang cosmology is your first choice, I accept that and will learn from it.

Nonetheless, I am thinking more along the lines of articles by the likes of Michael W. Tkacz, associate professor of philosophy at Gonzaga University. I already have his article “Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design” This Rock, November 2008. What is even more informative is “Letters” *This Rock, *January 2009.

Frankly, I should really have asked for the facts on Thomistic Science.

No big deal. I need to cut posting and get back to sorting out the scientific evidence regarding the two sole parents of the human species.

I do wonder what scientists neo-Thomists use. Do you know?

Easter Blessings to all,
granny

 

[larkin31]

I don’t know anything about Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research, but if they have brought to mankind a greater sense of humility standing before our Creator, they have done more for humanity than science has.

This is such ********. Honestly. Tell this to anyone who has been saved by antibiotics or surgery or other forms of medicine. Tell that to generations of families who no longer have to watch their children be crippled by polio or die of small pox or measles or the plague or tuberculosis. Tell this to the doctors working right now in Haiti. This scientific work saves God’s creations from great great unnecessary suffering and death while on this planet and leads to many productive and righteous longer lives.

I find your remarks incredibly insensitive and offensive and uneducated about what the study of science has done to help relieve suffering all over the planet. There is no reason that the folks who work in science are not also humble servants in the effort to aid their fellow humans.

 

[itinerant1]

I think the Church has a different view from those presented in the Biology textbook.

Chance or Purpose, page 63.

“This passage is talking about the famous ‘missing links.’ The intermediate forms that are missing. If it is true that everything developed from one first seed, then there ought to be innumerable transitional stages, but noone [sic] has yet discovered any of them.”

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

Actually, that statement contradicts everything else Schonborn has said about evolution. I have not yet discovered the reason for his contradictory statement…still looking though.

Aside from the fact Schonborn has contradicted himself, the statement is easily disproved by the numerous transitional fossils that have been discovered, as well as what are called “living fossils.” Since transitional forms are a matter for the sciences, the sciences will have the last word.

The only place where I must disagree on the “subject” of transitional forms involves materialist evolution theory in the matter of transitional forms in the hominid line. There can be no typical transitional form from pre-human to truly rational human. “Rational animal” is an all or none phenomenon; there can be no transitional forms that are partly human, which is different than saying that the transitional form has human-like characteristics such as bi-pedal mobility.

There is a leap between “brute” animal and “rational” animal, one that is not necessarily reflected or detected in genetics (I have some speculations on that matter) or physiology. “Rational” animal is a difference in “kind” that is radical, not superficial.

I will post, later, some of the examples of truly transitional forms among “lower” animals.

 

[ricmat]

I don’t know anything about Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research, but if they have brought to mankind a greater sense of humility standing before our Creator, they have done more for humanity than science has.

Lack of knowledge will not keep you out of Heaven. But too much Pride will.

This is such ********. Honestly. Tell this to anyone who has been saved by antibiotics or surgery or other forms of medicine. Tell that to generations of families who no longer have to watch their children be crippled by polio or die of small pox or measles or the plague or tuberculosis. Tell this to the doctors working right now in Haiti. This scientific work saves God’s creations from great great unnecessary suffering and death while on this planet and leads to many productive and righteous longer lives.

I find your remarks incredibly insensitive and offensive and uneducated about what the study of science has done to help relieve suffering all over the planet. There is no reason that the folks who work in science are not also humble servants in the effort to aid their fellow humans.

Wow, such righteous indignation!

You miss the point. I didn’t say that science had done nothing. Science has done a lot, as you point out.

But if we gain the world, and lose our souls, we have lost everything. **You didn’t post the second part of my post: “Lack of knowledge will not keep you out of Heaven. But too much Pride will.” ** As almost anyone here can see, those whose Faith in Science exceeds their faith in God tend to have much pride. They call their “opponents” ignorant, quaint, uneducated, and so forth.

Being an agnostic, I suppose you don’t believe that Heaven is more important than science, or that God is more important than science.

But as a Catholic, I know that knowledge is not everything. And that knowledge without wisdom is dangerous. And that wisdom without humility is impossible.

 

[itinerant1]

It was easy to skim this article by William E. Carroll, Professor of History at Cornell College in Mt. Vernon, Iowa. I did spot some interesting paragraphs which makes it worth going back to. I have a print copy.

This is what I asked for: How about some neo-Thomistic comments on our earth age and workings of nature? If Big Bang cosmology is your first choice, I accept that and will learn from it.

Nonetheless, I am thinking more along the lines of articles by the likes of Michael W. Tkacz, associate professor of philosophy at Gonzaga University. I already have his article “Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design” This Rock, November 2008. What is even more informative is “Letters” *This Rock, *January 2009.

Frankly, I should really have asked for the facts on Thomistic Science.

No big deal. I need to cut posting and get back to sorting out the scientific evidence regarding the two sole parents of the human species.

I do wonder what scientists neo-Thomists use. Do you know?

Easter Blessings to all,
granny

Thomism is a philosophy and theology. There no such thing as Thomistic science.

However, many Thomists deal with the philosophical aspects of the various sciences, including evolution science. Thomists in any age will use the science that appears to them to be reliable.

Yet, Thomistic philosophical concepts are independent of the science of the day, except insofar as any scientific discovery has suggested the need to make slight modifications to certain philosophical concepts.

Dr. Bonnett’s book The Origin of the Human Species is written from a Thomistic perspective. You would benefit by going back and re-reading his book. Also, look over the Real View Books site. Fr. Jaki has written extensively on science and religion from the perspective of a Thomist.

Anything else I could suggest will be even more philosophically technical and presume of the reader a solid background in Thomistic philosophy.

 

[itinerant1]

Wow, such righteous indignation!

You miss the point. I didn’t say that science had done nothing. Science has done a lot, as you point out.

But if we gain the world, and lose our souls, we have lost everything. **You didn’t post the second part of my post: “Lack of knowledge will not keep you out of Heaven. But too much Pride will.” ** As almost anyone here can see, those whose Faith in Science exceeds their faith in God tend to have much pride. They call their “opponents” ignorant, quaint, uneducated, and so forth.

Being an agnostic, I suppose you don’t believe that Heaven is more important than science, or that God is more important than science.

But as a Catholic, I know that knowledge is not everything. And that knowledge without wisdom is dangerous. And that wisdom without humility is impossible.

The subject of this thread is “The earth is only 6000 years old (II)”, not agnosticism or atheism. And Rossum is a Buddhist but he runs circles around you when it come to science and logical argument.

 

[Philipp]

Aquinas and the Big Bang

There are lots of scientific problems with the Big Bang being valid but why would God take 13.5 billion years? He could have created by what modern science calls a “Big Bang” but have it happen instantly as Augustine proposed God could have done in the heavens as on the earth. But we all know how academia works: Cosmologists and astrophysicists are getting paid well for studying the possible side effects of a Big Bang cosmology and to make sure that they stay within the range of whatever long ages are in vogue at the time of their reports. I wonder what cosmologists would come up with if they did their computer modeling based on an instantaneous creation? Of course it would be only fair to give 100’s of them 20 or so years pumping in the variables and the observations to see if an instantaneous creation were feasible from a scientific point of view.

Of course Evolutionism needs all those 13.5 billion or more years to keep their “Sacred Cow” alive but for two major reasons the “Sacred Cow” is dead from a Catholic point of view: (1) The words of scripture says everything was created at once and
(2) Christ’s miracles were also at once. Why should he go against what he said happened during the creation period? and in his life on earth? To help evolutionism? Come on give Him a break!

The scientific reasons appear to be as intense against those long ages for the alleged Big Bang as the theological ones. So I don’t think it proper or justifiable for Carroll to put words in poor old St. Thomas’s theology in support of a Big Bang with its long ages as evolutionism has tried to do to Augustine. Shame on them all.

 

[ricmat]

The subject of this thread is “The earth is only 6000 years old (II)”, not agnosticism or atheism.

You’re right. I got off track.

And Rossum is a Buddhist but he runs circles around you when it come to science and logical argument.

So now you accuse our good friend Rossum of running in circles?

Was that supposed to be an insult?
Luk 6:22 Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man.
Luk 6:23 Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven.

 

[grannymh]

The text concerns a materialist version of evolution, a theory in which materialist ideology has been grafted on to evolution science. However, there is not one theory of evolution, so the critique of philosophical materialism has no relevance to what is being discussed here recently, though I have criticized materialist evolution many times in previous posts.

Furthermore, it is a decades-old creationist trick, when discussing science or theistic evolution, to change the subject to materialist evolution. This is just one example of creationists being unable to maintain logical discussion.

In my humble opinion, anytime one discusses science, one is discussing a discipline based on the philosophy of materialism which is that all reality is material/physical.
When evolution is considered a science, its philosophical position is that the nature or being of all living things is matter.

By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent.
Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of spiritual existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

Regarding the age of the earth.
The critique of philosophical materialism does have a place because it aptly describes earth as matter. At this point, Thomists can show that the order and design evident in nature, mountains and valleys, is precisely what makes natural science possible. Rivers do not depend on chance, they depend on the design which comes from the combination, H2O. Thomists can go beyond the philosophy of materialism. They can freely observe human nature as an unique unification of spirit/matter, soul and body.

Another way is to describe one of the tools used is the unity of creation which can mean that all parts of creation fit together to make the whole–in other words there is the unity found in the design and design represents unity. How is that for a truthful circular argument?

One of the relevant comments which Michael W. Tkacz, associate professor of philosophy, Gonzaga University, uses is: “In the Thomistic view, the teachings of the faith are fully compatible with what we learn of nature through scientific research, provided we both understand those divine teachings correctly and we do our scientific research consistently and rigorously.” (This Rock magazine, November 2008)

Regarding the age of the earth.
There has been a lot of discussion about how to determine the age. This fits right in with the Thomistic instruction as given by Michael Tkacz (see above reference). “Into this medieval debate comes Aquinas, who reasoned thus: God is the author of all truth; the aim of scientific research is the truth; therefore there can be no fundamental incompatibility between the two. Provided, we understand Christian doctrine properly and do our science well, we will find the truth.”

Easter Blessings to all,
granny

 

[itinerant1]

In my humble opinion, anytime one discusses science, one is discussing a discipline based on the philosophy of materialism which is that all reality is material/physical.

Thomists will not agree with your humble opinion. This you would know if you were familiar with the Thomistic distinctions of the formal and material objects of the natural sciences in comparison with philosophy.

The natural sciences study the quantifiable aspects of things and their interactions. The methods and subject matter of the sciences in no sense implies or requires the scientist to believe that all reality is physical.

 

[itinerant1]

You’re right. I got off track.

So now you accuse our good friend Rossum of running in circles?

Was that supposed to be an insult?
Luk 6:22 Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man.
Luk 6:23 Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven.

I intend no insult (at least not this time. LOL) I am suggesting that you back off from making personal remarks. I recognize the problem because I fall into that trap enough times…

And don’t hide behind Bible quotes either. That’s pouring it on little thick when one plays the part of the persecuted…

You can take my advice or leave. It’s up to you.

 

[Roy5]

I haven’t read all the postings on this thread, so I probably am repeating what already has been said.

The 6000 year idea makes sense if you take the Bible literally, and trace back the generations as listed in Genesis - and also the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3 (traced through Joseph, by the way).

So, we need to discard the silly notion advanced by many fundamentalists of all flavors -Jews, Christians, and Muslims - that we should look to the scriptures as presenting a correct genealogical record. Obviously it doesn't.

Let's face it: the first eleven chapters of Genesis are a mixture of legend, fable, and outright myth. And there is much other nonsense in the Old Testament as well. Does anyone out ther really believe that God commanded Joshua to slaughter every inhabitant of Jericho or that the Lord ordered Saul to murder every last Amalekite? I would never worship a god who demanded such atrocities.

 

[ricmat]

I intend no insult (at least not this time. LOL) I am suggesting that you back off from making personal remarks. I recognize the problem because I fall into that trap enough times…

And don’t hide behind Bible quotes either. That’s pouring it on little thick when one plays the part of the persecuted…

You can take my advice or leave. It’s up to you.

The way I took it (and take it), is that your comment, as are many of your comments to many people, was intended as an insult. A minor one in my case. But certainly not persecution.

“Hide behind Bible quotes?” On a Catholic web forum? I thought it was something you should see, for your benefit. And that others should see, for their consolation.

Thank you for allowing me to “take your advice or leave it.” I didn’t realize that I had that option without you saying so explicitly.

.

 

[larkin31]

Wow, such righteous indignation!

You miss the point. I didn’t say that science had done nothing. Science has done a lot, as you point out.

But if we gain the world, and lose our souls, we have lost everything. **You didn’t post the second part of my post: “Lack of knowledge will not keep you out of Heaven. But too much Pride will.” ** As almost anyone here can see, those whose Faith in Science exceeds their faith in God tend to have much pride. They call their “opponents” ignorant, quaint, uneducated, and so forth.

Being an agnostic, I suppose you don’t believe that Heaven is more important than science, or that God is more important than science.

But as a Catholic, I know that knowledge is not everything. And that knowledge without wisdom is dangerous. And that wisdom without humility is impossible.

Don’t judge science’s contributions to humanity by a bunch of blow-hard internet posters. It was very clear what you wrote, and belief in science has NOTHING to do with pride or faith.

For all you know–unless you are claiming to know God’s purposes intimately–every advance science has ever made is indeed exactly part of the divine plan to put our intelligence and tools and maybe even pride to the benefit of reducing suffering while on this planet.

And yes, I am indeed righteously indignant when in fell swoops scientific advances are tossed aside in the name of later rewards in heaven. Typically this is only done by the young or by those who have just not thought enough about the billions of people that science has healed and fed, particularly over the past 100 years or so. While you may be worrying about bowing humbly in prayer at a god’s feet, someone else is dripping an antibiotic into an African child’s mouth and saving him or her from early death.

 

[grannymh]

Thomists will not agree with your humble opinion. This you would know if you were familiar with the Thomistic distinctions of the formal and material objects of the natural sciences in comparison with philosophy.

The natural sciences study the quantifiable aspects of things and their interactions. The methods and subject matter of the sciences in no sense implies or requires the scientist to believe that all reality is physical.

I am not comparing science; I am describing it.

Obviously, we all agree with you that the subject matter of science does not require the person to believe that all reality is physical. In post 687, I made that very clear coming from the scientific point of view.

What may be helpful is to walk into a science lab and check what is under the proverbial microscope. It is always something of the material/physical world. In post 687, I pointed out that the immaterial cannot be put under a natural science microscope. So, now what is the real subject matter of science?

I will have to read more than a short article by Michael Tkacz. Tkacz refers to Aquinas reasoning that as God is the author of all truth and the aim of scientific research is the truth, therefore there can be no fundamental incompatibility between the two. Provided, we understand Christian doctrine properly and do our science well, we will find truth. For the ordinary person, this is understandable.

Easter Blessings to All,
granny

 

[grannymh]

Thomism is a philosophy and theology. There no such thing as Thomistic science.

However, many Thomists deal with the philosophical aspects of the various sciences, including evolution science. Thomists in any age will use the science that appears to them to be reliable.

Yet, Thomistic philosophical concepts are independent of the science of the day, except insofar as any scientific discovery has suggested the need to make slight modifications to certain philosophical concepts.

Dr. Bonnett’s book The Origin of the Human Species is written from a Thomistic perspective. You would benefit by going back and re-reading his book. Also, look over the Real View Books site. Fr. Jaki has written extensively on science and religion from the perspective of a Thomist.

Anything else I could suggest will be even more philosophically technical and presume of the reader a solid background in Thomistic philosophy.

 

[itinerant1]

The way I took it (and take it), is that your comment, as are many of your comments to many people, was intended as an insult. A minor one in my case. But certainly not persecution.

“Hide behind Bible quotes?” On a Catholic web forum? I thought it was something you should see, for your benefit. And that others should see, for their consolation.

Thank you for allowing me to “take your advice or leave it.” I didn’t realize that I had that option without you saying so explicitly.

.

A sarcastic response on your part indeed. It’s vintage ricmat.

 

[Philipp]

This is such ********. Honestly. Tell this to anyone who has been saved by antibiotics or surgery or other forms of medicine. Tell that to generations of families who no longer have to watch their children be crippled by polio or die of small pox or measles or the plague or tuberculosis. Tell this to the doctors working right now in Haiti. This scientific work saves God’s creations from great great unnecessary suffering and death while on this planet and leads to many productive and righteous longer lives.

I find your remarks incredibly insensitive and offensive and uneducated about what the study of science has done to help relieve suffering all over the planet. There is no reason that the folks who work in science are not also humble servants in the effort to aid their fellow humans.

Science did all the above without seeking assistance from evolutionism; some progress was eventually made in spite of many in main stream science accepting evolutionism. I suggest all view www.kolbecenter.org and go to FEATURES and then to ARTICLES. Here are a few of 50 some titles of articles that most of you might like to review in light of our discussions:

The first two topics show the wonderful contributions of evolutionism to the advancement of science and the relief of human suffering.

Evolution and the Culture of Death

The Negative Impact of Evolutionary Hypothesis on Scientific Research

A Tale of Two Scientists & World Population

Are the Ica Stones Authentic?

Evolution’s Well-Oiled Propaganda

Is the Vatican’s Astronomer a Deist?

Radio Dating: Specious Creativity

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Crisis of Faith

Biology Eliminates Evolution

Did Woman Evolve from the Beasts?

The Influence of Geology on Catholic Exegesis

The Influence of Geology on Catholic Exegesis

A Summary of Theistic Evolution

An Objective Ancestry Test for Fossil Bones

Why Faithful Catholics Should Oppose Evolution

By the way it was a scientist who believed in Creation who developed the MRI; however I do not know if his belief in instant creation helped him with his design of such beneficial equipment. However, every intelligent and educated person is aware that Adolf Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin believed and practised their belief in evolution by killing off the undesirable humans that they deemed might interfer with the upward evolution of their view of mankind and progress.

A good priest and a creationist I know and corresponded with in the 1970/1980’s barely escaped from Mao’s China with his life. He wrote a book in which he put the lie to Teilhard Chardin’s evolutionary deceits and the agnostics who helped get his books printed. His name, Fr. Patrick O’connel, RIP; now that was a direct contribution to the advancement of science back in 1965 or so.