The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
Why are you concerned about this? What does it matter? Are you only trying to get people to accept an idea? So what if people believe the earth is only 6000 or 10,000 years old? They won’t be able to drive a car? Tie their shoes? What?

God bless,
Ed

Choose Jesus.
 
Trying to make the molecular understanding fit? Moving closer and closer to IDvolution a step at a time.🙂

Selectionism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution

Charles Darwin proposed that evolution occurs primarily by natural selection, but this view has been controversial from the beginning. Two of the major opposing views have been mutationism and neutralism. Early molecular studies suggested that most amino acid substitutions in proteins are neutral or nearly neutral and the functional change of proteins occurs by a few key amino acid substitutions. This suggestion generated an intense controversy over selectionism and neutralism. This controversy is partially caused by Kimura’s definition of neutrality, which was too strict http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol22/issue12/fulltext/2318/f1.gif If we define neutral mutations as the mutations that do not change the function of gene products appreciably, many controversies disappear because slightly deleterious and slightly advantageous mutations are engulfed by neutral mutations.

more…
 
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
The “timeless deity” perhaps created in six days so he could send a message to man to relax on day seven as He did; and, for man to think about the Person who created the universe and life “at once” during each of the six days. Perhaps had man followed that simple instruction of resting on the seventh day to comtemplate creation and the creator we might not have gotten into all the troubles we have gotten into through the centuries. But to paraphrase Augustine: I’ll just have to go along with what He said in scripture Genesis 1-11. And so will I along with about 50% of the American people.

Thus I’m just grateful for folks like the church fathers, Fr. Victor, Fr. O’connell and the good folks at www.kolbecenter.org for giving us logical and scientific reasons to defend the beliefs that Christ and Genesis 1-11 have taught us. Yes indeed, your are correct, God could have done it anyway he wanted including the Big Bang, but that way with all its baggage (evolutionism) is NOT how He said he did it. 😉
 
Yet more support for IDvolution: A banner day - WOW.

Judge Rules DNA is Unique Because it Carries Functional Information

…see also The Cell at 98, 104 (“Today the idea that DNA carries genetic information in its long chain of nucleotides is so fundamental to biological thought that it is sometimes difficult to realize the enormous intellectual gap that it filled. . . . DNA is relatively inert chemically.”

…**This informational quality is unique **among the chemical compounds found in our bodies, and it would be erroneous to view DNA as “no different]” than other chemicals previously the subject of patents.

…The information encoded in DNA is not information about its own molecular structure incidental to its biological function, as is the case with adrenaline or other chemicals found in the body. Rather, the information encoded by DNA reflects its primary biological function: directing the synthesis of other molecules in the body – namely, proteins, “biological molecules of enormous importance” which “catalyze biochemical reactions” and constitute the “major structural materials of the animal body.” O’Farrell, 854 F.2d at 895-96

…DNA, and in particular the ordering of its nucleotides, therefore serves as the physical embodiment of laws of nature – those that define the construction of the human body. Any “information” that may be embodied by adrenaline and similar molecules serves no comparable function, and none of the declarations submitted by Myriad support such a conclusion. Consequently, the use of simple analogies comparing DNA with chemical compounds previously the subject of patents cannot replace consideration of the distinctive characteristics of DNA.
 
Thank you buffalo. It appears the “it’s just a chemical or collection of chemicals” idea is falling apart for DNA. The Baylor story may be an April Fool’s “joke” but it’s hard to tell. Obviously, Intelligent Design is the enemy – 😃

God bless,
Ed

Choose Jesus.
 
Thank you buffalo. It appears the “it’s just a chemical or collection of chemicals” idea is falling apart for DNA. The Baylor story may be an April Fool’s “joke” but it’s hard to tell. Obviously, Intelligent Design is the enemy – 😃

God bless,
Ed

Choose Jesus.
Yeah, I couldn’t tell if it was a joke or not.
 
Please provide the link to this speech or at least the link to the Conference.
I guess the proceedings of the Notre Dame Conference are not out yet. Here is a reference to his Angelicum talk:

angelicumstoq.com/services

Prof. Carroll’s Conference on Creation & Evolution

Prof. William Carroll presented a conference on “Creation and the Foundation of Evolution”. This conference of Nov. 14, 2008, opened this year’s series of public international conferences on Dialogue between Science & Theology through the mediation of Philosophy.

Prof. Carrol examined the ways in which creation and evolution have been opposed, and argued that a return to Thomas Aquinas’ analysis of creation and the natural sciences offers considerable promise for disentangling much of the contemporary confusion about the relationship between creation and evolution.
 
Why are you concerned about this? What does it matter? Are you only trying to get people to accept an idea? So what if people believe the earth is only 6000 or 10,000 years old? They won’t be able to drive a car? Tie their shoes? What?
They should not be allowed to educate children.
 
They should not be allowed to educate children.
Who is going to stop them? I’m sure you’ve seen the polls showing how many in the US believe man was created in his current form 6000 years ago, while some indicate 10,000. There are plenty of non-public school situations where people are taught this.

God bless,
Ed

Choose Jesus.
 
A couple of points
Code:
Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Christians (Catholics and Protestants) and most Muslims insist that the early stories in Genesis are true. Sorry, but this is nonsense, and turns more and more educated and insightful people against religion. 

Who really believes, for example, that God regretted that he created humankind, then drowns everybody but eight people - and whole ark and two animals fable? Nice to tell children, as long as we explain that it's a story from long ago, a legend based on a likely event, a major flood, with some spiritual lessons perhaps, but not factual in detail. Think of all the innocent chiildren, some still in the womb, who would have drowned. And all those innocent animals, too. The work of a our loving God? I don't think so.

 Or, that different languages were God's punishment for building a tower into the sky - a tower probably only a fraction of the height of many skycrapers today.

 Or, the 'rib story' of the creation of Eve as Adam's 'helpmate'.

 Christians need to embrace a reasonable faith and not one that defies logic, history, and its own morality. They should openly acknowledge that much is scripture is primitive and explain what moral lessons are in these fables when there are any.Those ancient believers had no effective telescopes nor microscopes, so their opinions were based on considerable speculation plus a major dose of myth borrowed from other religions and the culture at the time.. What makes Christianity look silly is when it insists that the Holy Spirit guarded each and every word in the Bible - obviously absurd!

 God bless people of faith, and may they turn from myth, superstition, and bigotry. And I mean every faith - Catholic, Protestant, yes, and Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. We all are pilgrims in this magnificant but mysterious world and none of us knows all that much. Let us respect the views of one another, however they may differ from our own.
 
Why are you concerned about this? What does it matter? Are you only trying to get people to accept an idea? So what if people believe the earth is only 6000 or 10,000 years old? They won’t be able to drive a car? Tie their shoes? What?
Two reasons.

1 Some people want to put the 6,000 year old Earth into science lessons rather than religion lessons. I have a science degree and I do not want to see a subject I love degraded by the inclusion of unscientific nonsense based on a minority interpretation of the scripture of a religion I do not follow.

2 The Buddha divided religions into useful and not useful. Catholic Christianity falls into the useful group. Given that Catholicism has more adherents and more influence in the West than Buddhism I would prefer to see Catholicism prosper rather than disappear. By trying to make Catholicism synonymous with scientific absurdity proponents of a young Earth are hindering Catholicism rather than helping it.

I do have my disagreements with Catholicism but on the whole it is a force for good.

rossum
 
** Or, that different languages were God’s punishment for building a tower into the sky - a tower probably only a fraction of the height of many skycrapers today.**

Yes, and look what God allowed to happen to the World Trade Center towers. Ziggurats of their day.
 
Two reasons.

1 Some people want to put the 6,000 year old Earth into science lessons rather than religion lessons. I have a science degree and I do not want to see a subject I love degraded by the inclusion of unscientific nonsense based on a minority interpretation of the scripture of a religion I do not follow.

2 The Buddha divided religions into useful and not useful. Catholic Christianity falls into the useful group. Given that Catholicism has more adherents and more influence in the West than Buddhism I would prefer to see Catholicism prosper rather than disappear. By trying to make Catholicism synonymous with scientific absurdity proponents of a young Earth are hindering Catholicism rather than helping it.

I do have my disagreements with Catholicism but on the whole it is a force for good.

rossum
I don’t understand how those who promote a young earth will be hindered by anyone posting here. Those people are operating outside of the circle of people I know. As usual, someone will go to court about this.

“scientific absurdity”? At one time, I took it on faith – that is, I believed those in authority – that that was the case. After reading Signature in the Cell, I have further doubts regarding science’s current treatment of the subject of how life came to be. And just a quick look online has shown problems with distance relationships regarding objects in space.

“hindering Catholicism”? That’s a nice thought but how does a discussion like this one hinder anything?

No, I think the real issue is simple. It was articulated on a non-theist web site. This isn’t just about science but a battle for all knowledge. This leads to the obvious conclusion that if knowledge is power then whoever is in control of disseminating it is indeed in power.

In the marketplace of ideas, all ideas are considered. In fact, a recent anarchist rant is “Question everything.” Apparently, this idea about the age of the earth cannot be considered without mention of dire consequences. If some want to believe the earth is 10,000 years old, again, So what?

By the way, if it came up for a vote, I would vote against teaching Creationism in public schools. Second, I don’t think the earth is 6000 years old.

God bless,
Ed

Choose Jesus.
 
** Christians need to embrace a reasonable faith and not one that defies logic, history, and its own morality…**

Roy5, as a Catholic theologian sensitive to interfaith dialogue, I agree with much of what you say. But isn’t “reasonable faith” an oxymoron? Doesn’t religious faith by definition stand outside of reason? Don’t the claims of Jews and Christians and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists by definition fall outside of reason? Isn’t that what faith is all about?
 
Uhhhh! Ed and I did - if you would follow the posts. 😉
It is an April Fool, the author says so in the last line.

Ed said (post #721) “The Baylor story may be an April Fool’s “joke” but it’s hard to tell.”
You said (post #722) “Yeah, I couldn’t tell if it was a joke or not.”

rossum
 
Code:
 Or, that different languages were God's punishment for building a tower into the sky - a tower probably only a fraction of the height of many skycrapers today.
Yes, and look what God allowed to happen to the World Trade Center towers. Ziggurats of their day.
Uh…the Babel story is not about building skyscrapers too high. It’s about Pride - not needing God (in this case, to reach Heaven). Perhaps this misunderstanding is what makes some people here immune to reminders that Pride is a bad thing. :idea:
Note: Roy, I’m not thinking of you…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top