The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[itinerant1]

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.

I agree that a 6,000 year old earth is nonsense, but I cannot agree that the OT contains nonsense. It may seem that it appears nonsensical when one does not understand the various texts in their cultural and literary context.

The ancient Hebrews would re-write pagan myths and incorporate correct theological concepts. Any text that you might consider a myth most likely expresses a Divine message in the context of figurative language and merely human ideas.

I think you have yet to understand the Bible in its cultural and literary context, and correctly identify the genus litterarium of any specific text.

 

[Philipp]

Remind people not to consult you in matters having anything to do with science.

Feelings mutual, pal.

 

[itinerant1]

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.

Social Darwinism is not the same thing as evolution science. Hence your argument is just as irrelevant to the thread topic as is Koble Center’s creationism is to real science and sound biblical hermeneutics.

 

[ricmat]

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.

I was judging science’s contributions to humanity by those things you listed in your post…which I mentioned above…

and by my own experience as an engineer, amateur astronomer, and professional geek.

It was very clear what you wrote, and belief in science has NOTHING to do with pride or faith.

I wasn’t talking about belief in science. I was talking about Faith in Science exceeding faith in God.

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.

Well, I agree with that up to a point. But there are also many scientific advances which were done with the purpose of increasing human suffering. But as I said already, science has done many wonderful things too.

And yes, I am indeed righteously indignant when in fell swoops scientific advances are tossed aside in the name of later rewards in heaven.

Did I say “toss aside scientific advances…” I don’t think so.

Certainly, scientific advances can be used for great benefit. But Faith in Something Else is not as good as faith in God when it comes to heaven.

I’m not saying that science always leads to pride or leads away from God. But I do think there’s a temptation there. And some fall to that temptation.

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.

LOL I bet I’m older than you are.

Yes, I bow in God’s presence with as much humility as I can muster.

Of course there are many good agnostics and atheists and theists of many stripes who are all good, caring, compassionate people. But why do you assume above that those who bow humbly to God are not the same people dripping antibiotic into an African child’s mouth (or inventing the antibiotic, etc.)? The science chapter in “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” provides a good summary of what Catholic scientists have done for humanity.

You talk about goodness, but what is the source of goodness? God is all holy, good, beautiful, just, and loving. God is the source / fountain of ALL those things, and the ONLY source of those things. Non-theists often do those good things, but without recognizing that the ultimate source is God. Without God, none of those things would exist. Without God, the universe would not exist, and we would not exist.

 

[Philipp]

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.

You might be well advised to get the book, Genesis 1-11 by Fr. Victor Warkulwiz, I think it’s spelled. As Catholic theologian who also has a Ph.D. in science with many years of research he will help you work your way through those chapters of Genesis with the correct understanding of theology and science. :thumbsup:Can be ordered through Amazon or www.kolbecenter.org or go to his web sites: www.genesis1-11.org/
or www.perpetualadoration.org/sf2009.htm

 

[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.

Can you be less vague? What is the “science” you are referring to? Who are the scientists? What universities have Thomists who are dealing with the philosophy aspects of evolution science?

In the famous CAF words – Citations please.

Dr. Bonnette’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.

Dr. Dennis Bonnette is an excellent Catholic philosopher. His book is a winner. website is www.drbonnette.com

All I need now is the scientific researchers to back up what you said: “Thomists in any age will use the science that appears to them to be reliable.”

Easter Blessings to All
granny

 

[StAnastasia]

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.

AiG and ICR are as devoid of humility as they are of intellectual honesty.

 

[Nec5]

AiG and ICR are as devoid of humility as they are of intellectual honesty.

Proof por favor?

 

[StAnastasia]

You might be well advised to get the book, Genesis 1-11 by Fr. Victor Warkulwiz, I think it’s spelled. As Catholic theologian who also has a Ph.D. in science with many years of research he will help you work your way through those chapters of Genesis with the correct understanding of theology and science. :thumbsup:Can be ordered through Amazon or www.kolbecenter.org or go to his web sites: www.genesis1-11.org/
or www.perpetualadoration.org/sf2009.htm

Warkulwicz’ book is a useless hodgepodge of YEC nonsense. It is about as devoid of scientific understanding as it is possible to be. That’s why no scientists give him a second thought.

 

[StAnastasia]

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.

Bill spoke at the conference on “Science, Theology and the Ontological Quest” last November. He ripped Intelligent Design to shreds in his brilliant talk on Thomistic philosophy.

 

[grannymh]

Bill spoke at the conference on “Science, Theology and the Ontological Quest” last November. He ripped Intelligent Design to shreds in his brilliant talk on Thomistic philosophy.

Please provide the link to this speech or at least the link to the Conference.

Bill’s article on the Big Bang did not sound, at least to me, so aggressive. But then I come from a tough background, though in those days tough was expressed in polite terms.

Since the Big Bang is related to the age of the earth, the link to Bill’s article is in post 672 above. I would be interested in your take on it.

Easter Blessings to All,
granny

 

[rossum]

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.

There are lots of scientific problems with the a 6 day creation being valid but why would God take 144 hours? 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.

You need to look more carefully at your argument here Philipp. To a timeless deity there is no difference between a 144 hour creation and a 13.5 billion year creation. To a timeless God neither interval is of any significance. Your argument against a 13.5 billion year creation is equally effective against a 144 hour creation.

rossum

 

[rossum]

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

Guilty. Twice a week I run two laps round the estate where I live. I do indeed ‘run in circles’.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Guilty. Twice a week I run two laps round the estate where I live. I do indeed ‘run in circles’.

rossum

Wednesday, my very good, long time friend reminded me that I used to talk in circles. I believe she was implying that I still talk in circles and probably write in circles. If it is true that a circle is a circle is a circle, then I’m guilty just like you.
I would like some chocolate with my tea, please.

 

[ricmat]

AiG and ICR are as devoid of humility as they are of intellectual honesty.

According to…oh, you. I’ve been cautioned by others to avoid biased sources. Should I listen to you?

In any case, my point was not about organizations themselves being humble as it was about where they try to lead people to. Do these organizations try to lead people away from a belief in God as our creator, or towards a position that we don’t need God? As I said, I’m not familiar with them, but I doubt that this is where they lead folks. Their science may be deficient (I haven’t been to their sites), but even if it is, if they’re leading people towards God, that’s good. And as we know, their “deficient” science may turn out in the end to be correct, since science is provisional, and we have no way to prove that it is moving asymptotically towards Absolute Truth.

Out of curiosity, which of the organizations that you frequently mention in a positive light are humble?

.

 

[ricmat]

Guilty. Twice a week I run two laps round the estate where I live. I do indeed ‘run in circles’.

I’ll bet there are some Zen Buddhist “zingers” with regards to one always returning to where one started, or something like that…

.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

AiG and ICR are as devoid of humility as they are of intellectual honesty.

Amen to that.

 

[buffalo]

AiG and ICR are as devoid of humility as they are of intellectual honesty.

Hmmm -

Let’s see - materialistic working biologists are intellectually honest?

The atheists?

How does one go about defining intellectual honesty?

 

[grannymh]

Hmmm -

How does one go about defining intellectual honesty?

For an example, check out granny

 

[hugh_miller]

Warkulwicz’ book is a useless hodgepodge of YEC nonsense. It is about as devoid of scientific understanding as it is possible to be. That’s why no scientists give him a second thought.

Reference please for the above review!