The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
itinerant1 said:
I read some of the articles at Kolbe Center and was I shocked at what I found: illogical statements, ungrounded assumptions, misrepresentations of Church teachings and miraculous apparitions, and so on. Scary stuff at Kolbe Center! :eek:
Click to expand...
I wonder how Fr. Kolbe’s name got mixed up with this. I don’t know whether or not he was a YEC.
 
“Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”” (from Dinosaur Shocker)

The assertion in the above quote, that the Bible teaches a recent creation, is the basis for YEC’s rejecting scientific evidence for an earth that is 4.5 or so billions of years old. However, the Bible does not actually “teach” that the earth is a recent creation.

The young earth interpretation involves an extrapolation of and sometimes forced interpretation of various texts in the Old and New Testaments. Nonetheless, the Biblical authors had no concern whatsoever with “teaching” anything about the age of the earth, a scientific fact of which they were completely unaware, as were the intended audiences of the sacred texts.

Supposing, though, we take literally, and as scientifically accurate a biblical text that at least appears to indicate a young earth. By employing the same logic and consistent hermeneutic one must then take literally and assert that the bible teaches the existence of the firmament as a metal bowl, which is the literal meaning of rakia.

We can add to this cosmological list those other relevant factors, such as a flat earth that floats on a body of water; that the earth is stationary; the sun literally rises and sets, and other such ancient semitic pre-scientific cosmological ideas depicted in the Bible.

For some reason, the creationsists in this thread have continued to evade this problem with their biblical literalism, an issue which is the crux of the matter.
 
StAnastasia said:
I wonder how Fr. Kolbe’s name got mixed up with this. I don’t know whether or not he was a YEC.
Click to expand...
I think the creationist Kolbecenter.org is just using the name of a modern saint even though Fr. Kolbe is not associated with creationism ideology.

Fr. Kolbe is known, rather, for his evangelism, opposition to Freemasonary, assisting war refugees, and other great endeavors. See St. Maximilian Kolbe
 
I just read “A Summary of Theistic Evolution” by Dr. Robert Bennett which is posted at Kolbecenter.org. Oddly, Bennett’s description of theistic evolution does not describe any version of theistic evolution I have ever come across. Much less is Bennett’s essay even remotely accurate in regard to theistic evolution theory in general.

“A Summary of Theistic Evolution” is nothing but a long-winded strawman argument. The blatant mischaracterizations found in every paragraph of the essay are indicative of the fact Bennett is extemely ignorant of the topic he attempts to address, or, he is being intellectually dishonest.

To post such utter nonesense as Bennett’s essay bespeaks the Kolbe Center’s profound incompetence in regard to matters theological, philosophical and scientific.
 
larkin31 said:
Thanks.

The specimen is 68 million years old.

And here is a paragraph in the middle of the article:
Click to expand...
This is an out-of-context quote from the middle “For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science.”

From some previous research regarding a special category of Catholic miracles, it was easy to accept a kind of scientific explanation for what was considered a miracle. Scientists who actually examined the effects of a particular miracle described these effects as extraordinary phenomena. This is way different than “invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science” quoted above. In other words, this was not a “god of the gaps” instance nor was it breaking the rules of science. Rather, for some unknown reason, the rules of science were suspended in this particular, individual instance. (Note: Catholics are not required to believe in modern miracles.)

Easter Blessings,
granny

John 20: 24-31
 
itinerant1 said:
I read some of the articles at Kolbe Center and was I shocked at what I found: illogical statements, ungrounded assumptions, misrepresentations of Church teachings and miraculous apparitions, and so on. Scary stuff at Kolbe Center! :eek:
Click to expand...
Being a direct descendent of Thomas the Apostle, now I have to go and read for myself.😃
 
itinerant1 said:
“Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”” (from Dinosaur Shocker)

The assertion in the above quote, that the Bible teaches a recent creation, is the basis for YEC’s rejecting scientific evidence for an earth that is 4.5 or so billions of years old. However, the Bible does not actually “teach” that the earth is a recent creation.

The young earth interpretation involves an extrapolation of and sometimes forced interpretation of various texts in the Old and New Testaments. Nonetheless, the Biblical authors had no concern whatsoever with “teaching” anything about the age of the earth, a scientific fact of which they were completely unaware, as were the intended audiences of the sacred texts.

Supposing, though, we take literally, and as scientifically accurate a biblical text that at least appears to indicate a young earth. By employing the same logic and consistent hermeneutic one must then take literally and assert that the bible teaches the existence of the firmament as a metal bowl, which is the literal meaning of rakia.

We can add to this cosmological list those other relevant factors, such as a flat earth that floats on a body of water; that the earth is stationary; the sun literally rises and sets, and other such ancient semitic pre-scientific cosmological ideas depicted in the Bible.

For some reason, the creationsists in this thread have continued to evade this problem with their biblical literalism, an issue which is the crux of the matter.
Click to expand...
I have a serious silly question. Let’s say that some dinosaurs did live more recently than the old original ones. Would the rock, sand, or earth surrounding a recent dinosauar have to be the same age as the dinosaur?
 
grannymh said:
I have a serious silly question. Let’s say that some dinosaurs did live more recently than the old original ones.
Click to expand...
Some did, we call them birds nowadays. Think “Kentucky Fried Dinosaur”. 🙂
Would the rock, sand, or earth surrounding a recent dinosauar have to be the same age as the dinosaur?
Click to expand...
Mostly yes. We can find fossil birds in younger rocks than non-avian dinosaurs.

rossum
 
The dinosaur-bird link appears to be artificial. The following letter was written by the Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, at the Smithsonian Institution.

trueorigin.org/birdevoletter.asp

God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
 
itinerant1 said:
I think the creationist Kolbecenter.org is just using the name of a modern saint even though Fr. Kolbe is not associated with creationism ideology. Fr. Kolbe is known, rather, for his evangelism, opposition to Freemasonary, assisting war refugees, and other great endeavors. See St. Maximilian Kolbe
Click to expand...
I know that about him. So why choose Fr. Kolbe, rather than some other saint as the patron of YECism? I don’t know the history of the center or why they chose him as patron. I’ll write to ask, and post it here.

The ways of YECs and geocentrists are hidden to me. Robert Vasa of the diocese of Baker is now a YEC, and I hear he is attempting to encourage that scientific perspective in his diocese.
 
edwest2 said:
The dinosaur-bird link appears to be artificial. The following letter was written by the Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, at the Smithsonian Institution.

trueorigin.org/birdevoletter.asp
Click to expand...
I am disappointed in you Ed, you can do better than this. Archaoeraptor was a fraud, and identified as such by the scientific community. We cannot deduce anything about the dino-bird link from such a fraud.

The solid evidence for the dino-bird link rests on other fossils such as: Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Epidendrosaurus, Psittacosaurus, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Juravenator, Sinocalliopteryx, Velociraptor, Similicaudipteryx, Epidexipteryx, Anchiornis and Tianyulong. None of those fossils is fraudulent.

Does the existence of fraudulent relics disprove Christianity? Of course not, we cannot deduce anything from frauds. Neither does the existence of a single fraudulent fossil disprove the dino-bird link. Such hypotheses are built on much more than a single fossil.

rossum
 
larkin31 said:
“Any NORMAL person…” ??

And we are supposed to take what follows this seriously? When you base your commentary on a premise based on the word “normal”? This reminds me of some of my students who say that “normal” kids don’t read poetry.

Well, well.

Jesus and his first followers weren’t particularly “normal,” either, were they?
Click to expand...
You’re right Jesus was not normal. That crazy Guy talked about the flood of Noah as did some of his associates like the first Pope, St. Peter. I would consider the normal thoughtful Christian of today would accept everything Christ taught including history. Apparently you are not the normal Christian.

Since you’re prone to play the word game to the hilt: What is it that you don’t understand about “concordant radiocarbon dates in the following paragraph?” :rolleyes:

In the summer of 2005 after reading the Science article a team of scientists and volunteers met in Glendive MT and “sawed open” large femur bones of a Triceratops and an Hadrosaur. They took samples of the hard outer bone structure and the inner bone samples which were dried-up, easily crushable Haversian structures and sent them to a C-14 lab for extraction of bone collagen and the Calcium fraction of the bone bioapatite. They obtained **concordant ages **between the collagen and the CaCO3 which cinched the fact that there was NO contamination. Visit www.dinosaurc14ages.com for actual photos and the C-14 dates in the range of 23,000 to 31,000 C-14 years. The paper was part of a book containing the scientific proceedings of a conference held at the CNR (National Research Council) entitled, “Evolution: The decline of an hypothesis” and published under the auspicious of the National Research Council of Italy. If you are Catholic I suggest you go to www.kolbecenter.org where you will find a 50 some articles that will help guide you in understanding your faith and origins including one that challenges the long age dating methods.😃
 
Two ‘heretical’ points?
Code: 
There is so much to react to (proper English?) that I will tackle only a couple matters raised along the way.

1. This whole business of prayer. Sometimes it seems that many Christians believe that God will alter his intended will - change his mind - depending upon the prayers said. I recall a German friend years ago who said how her German family had prayed and prayed and prayer - good Catholics - for Germany to win and save Europe from the Bolsheviks and the Jews. Do such prayers have any impact? And how can God be omniscient - know everything, even in advance - and yet his actions be influenced by our prayers? Maybe this should have a separate thread? I recall how Pat Robertson said that the prayers he had encouraged kept a hurricane from hitting his area of Virginia? So, do we really believe that's the way prayer works? Sounds fishy to me.

 2. Now as to the crucifixion - and here is rank and stark heresy. Christ is our model, our example, and our redeemer. I adore and magnify Jesus. However, sometimes I think as follows. Jesus endured horrendous pain on Good Friday as he was scourged and crucified. True. But he knew that in three days he would rise from the grave and reign eternally as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. When I think of Christ on the cross I think of all the innocent people who have (and still do) endure bitter injury. He represents them to me, and his suffering calls us to work for justice and righteousness in the world. What does the Lord require of thee (quoting scripture). Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God. Nothing about doctrine or church affiliation. Sometimes I even wonder if our passion story is a relic of those primitive times when people thought a blood sacrifice - including humans - was the only way to please and pacify a just God.

 These two points may not fit well under this thread, but they came up in postings above.

 Enough heresies. I'll go back to chores I need to complete. God forgive me if I'm in any way blasphemous and may he bless everybody.
 
grannymh said:
I have a serious silly question. Let’s say that some dinosaurs did live more recently than the old original ones. Would the rock, sand, or earth surrounding a recent dinosauar have to be the same age as the dinosaur?
Click to expand...
It’s not a silly question at all. The rock, sand or clay could be younger or older depending on a number of factors. But suffice it to say the soils etc. in which the fossils are buried can be C-14 dated if they contain carbon like the 10 % carbon content on the Colorado shale from Wyoming I reported in a previous post of 45,130 ± 270 C-14 years before the present.

What is so damaging to claims by geologists that hold to the so-called absolute old ages is that fact that even though the above age for instance is near the limit of the equipment the precision of ± 270 is quite good and sort of rules out machine “noise” or other contamination. Concordant dates between fractions in dinosaur bones is another challenge to old ages and are far more absolute than any one date for one fraction of bone. Also the AMS method counts every atom of C12, C13 and C14.

The message is very simple. If scientists are to determine true chronologies for the earth and its fossils then C-14 date all fossils containing carbon and compare with ages for fossils trapped in volcanic matrials. Our youth should be exposed to both methods and not have to listen day in and day out to the so-called alleged absolute ages which are being challenged as not being absolute.

There are a few interesting articles on K/Ar dating that gives a critique of K/Ar dating. This same author has an even better article on C-14 dating but i can’t find it right now. got to go.🙂

creation-science-prophecy.com/K-Ar-dating.htm
 
Philipp said:
It’s not a silly question at all. The rock, sand or clay could be younger or older depending on a number of factors. But suffice it to say the soils etc. in which the fossils are buried can be C-14 dated if they contain carbon like the 10 % carbon content on the Colorado shale from Wyoming I reported in a previous post of 45,130 ± 270 C-14 years before the present.
Click to expand...
I believe I have already explained that C-14 dating does NOT work on inorganic material, for example - shale. Why you keep talking like it is possible, I do not know. The fact that C-14 dating does not work on inorganic material renders pretty much everything you’ve said in the last few posts completely false.
 
grannymh said:
I have a serious silly question. Let’s say that some dinosaurs did live more recently than the old original ones. Would the rock, sand, or earth surrounding a recent dinosauar have to be the same age as the dinosaur?
Click to expand...
Was the rock that a T. Rex stubbed his big toe on the same age as the T. Rex?

There are different ways in which animals become fossilized, and the means have varying implications for “age”. One can find many introductions to the fascinating subject of fossilization on the WWW. Try this one for starters: How Fossils Were Formed
 
StAnastasia said:
I know that about him. So why choose Fr. Kolbe, rather than some other saint as the patron of YECism? I don’t know the history of the center or why they chose him as patron. I’ll write to ask, and post it here.

The ways of YECs and geocentrists are hidden to me. Robert Vasa of the diocese of Baker is now a YEC, and I hear he is attempting to encourage that scientific perspective in his diocese.
Click to expand...
Poor Fr. Kolbe, a great mind, one well studied in theology and philosophy now has his name associated with religious fundamentalism.

The site actually existed for a number of years before it became a haven for creationist rambling. Before the creationist focus of the site, it was not clear what the site’s creator had in mind for web site, what its focus was intended to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top