The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[itinerant1]

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.

An actual global flood is not a reasonable interpretation of the Deluge account. Aside from the significant fact that scientific and other evidence for a global flood is sorely lacking, the extent of the deluge in the Noah story is symbolic of God’s justice, which reaches to the ends of the earth.

References to the Deluge in the NT are made within the biblical literary tradition and do not constitute evidence for a global deluge.

 

[rossum]

KFD once had Pteradactyl Wings in barbecue sauce on the menu. It never really caught on, though. Too skimpy.

Yeah, but at least you didn’t get any feathers stuck in your teeth.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Human genome at ten: Life is complicated
The more biologists look, the more complexity there seems to be. Erika Check Hayden asks if there’s a way to make life simpler.

…Instead, as sequencing and other new technologies spew forth data, the complexity of biology has seemed to grow by orders of magnitude. Delving into it has been like zooming into a Mandelbrot set — a space that is determined by a simple equation, but that reveals ever more intricate patterns as one peers closer at its boundary.

…“When we started out, the idea was that signalling pathways were fairly simple and linear,” says Tony Pawson, a cell biologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario. “Now, we appreciate that the signalling information in cells is organized through networks of information rather than simple discrete pathways. It’s infinitely more complex.”​

Is this a prediction satisfied by evolution? or by IDvolution?

 

[itinerant1]

Human genome at ten: Life is complicated

The more biologists look, the more complexity there seems to be. Erika Check Hayden asks if there’s a way to make life simpler.

…Instead, as sequencing and other new technologies spew forth data, the complexity of biology has seemed to grow by orders of magnitude. Delving into it has been like zooming into a Mandelbrot set — a space that is determined by a simple equation, but that reveals ever more intricate patterns as one peers closer at its boundary.

…“When we started out, the idea was that signalling pathways were fairly simple and linear,” says Tony Pawson, a cell biologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario. “Now, we appreciate that the signalling information in cells is organized through networks of information rather than simple discrete pathways. It’s infinitely more complex.”​

Is this a prediction satisfied by evolution? or by IDvolution?

The intelligibility of even the least thing in nature is infinite.

If you are taking the biblical “kinds” for a scientifically accurate term, then you need to be consistent in regard to the entire text and take the firmament, a metal bowl (rakia), for an accurate portrayal of the world.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you buffalo.

So much for “junk DNA.”

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[Justin_Mee]

I check back every once in awhile to see what my simple little OP in 6000 (I) has become. I am amazed that nearly 2K posts later it is still being cussed and discussed. I hope it remains civil but I’m not going to read 2,000 posts to find out. Have fun.

BTW, I am a now a 2 day old Catholic and loving every minute of it.

 

[buffalo]

I check back every once in awhile to see what my simple little OP in 6000 (I) has become. I am amazed that nearly 2K posts later it is still being cussed and discussed. I hope it remains civil but I’m not going to read 2,000 posts to find out. Have fun.

BTW, I am a now a 2 day old Catholic and loving every minute of it.

The fascinating thing is new findings are being brought to light on every page.

 

[buffalo]

Thank you buffalo.

So much for “junk DNA.”

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

Yup! :yup: Junk DNA is now in the junk heap.

 

[grannymh]

The intelligibility of even the least thing in nature is infinite.

If you are taking the biblical “kinds” for a scientifically accurate term, then you need to be consistent in regard to the entire text and take the firmament, a metal bowl (rakia), for an accurate portrayal of the world.

Haven’t a clue what biblical “kinds” would include the firmament. Do know that in the material/physical realm, “kind” is another word for species. Species refers to living organisms which propagate. Don’t believe that the firmament, no matter how it is described, has descendents. Please don’t get caught up in some kind of fundamentalism.

 

[grannymh]

I check back every once in awhile to see what my simple little OP in 6000 (I) has become. I am amazed that nearly 2K posts later it is still being cussed and discussed. I hope it remains civil but I’m not going to read 2,000 posts to find out. Have fun.

BTW, I am a now a 2 day old Catholic and loving every minute of it.

I am so happy for you. How wonderful.

Special Easter Blessings to you for your whole life,
granny

John 20:24-31

 

[itinerant1]

Haven’t a clue what biblical “kinds” would include the firmament. Do know that in the material/physical realm, “kind” is another word for species. Species refers to living organisms which propagate. Don’t believe that the firmament, no matter how it is described, has descendents. Please don’t get caught up in some kind of fundamentalism.

You are misreading my post. Give it another shot.

 

[itinerant1]

Since biological evolution requires billions of years, as Darwin correctly thought, the fact of evolution remains pertinent to the age of the earth. So, I have collected several quotes from Pope John II on the subject of evolution for further consideration.

In his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul declared: “Today . . . a half-century after the appearance of [Humani generis, the encyclical of Pope Pius XII], some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”

In an address to a Symposium on Evolution in April 1985 he had stated: “Rightly comprehended, faith in creation or a correctly understood teaching of evolution does not create obstacles: Evolution in fact pre supposes creation; creation situates itself in the light of evolution as an event which extends itself through time – as a continual creation – in which God becomes visible to the eyes of the believers as ‘Creator of heaven and earth.’”

“All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality, which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its Inventor, its Creator”
(General Audience, July 10, 1985).

“However, the doctrine of faith invariably affirms that man’s spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings. However, the human soul, on which man’s humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature” (General Audience, April 16, 1986).

In his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope explained that materialist, reductionist and spiritualist forms of evolutionary theory could not be reconciled with Christianity.

 

[itinerant1]

When an appeal to the Consensus of the Fathers is misguided…

All too often on CAF, creationists will make a reference to the “Consensus of the Fathers” to support the literalism of their interpretation of Genesis 1. However, this appeal is sorely misguided and misleading for the reasons Dr. Ludwig Ott explains in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

"…as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation, is possible here. The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger faith.

Further, in these scientific matters there is no virtue in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists… Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God properly understood." (Ott, page 92)

"As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific…

The Biblical account of the duration and order of Creation is merely a literary clothing of the religious truth that the whole world was called into existence by the creative word of God. The Sacred Writer utilized for this purpose the pre-scientific picture of the world existing at the time. The numeral six of the days of Creation is to be understood as an anthropomorphism.

God’s work of creation represented in schematic form (opus distinctionis – opus ornatus) by the picture of a human working week, the termination of the work by the picture of the Sabbath rest. The purpose of this literary device is to manifest Divine approval of the working week and the Sabbath rest." (Ott, page 93, cf. Exod 20:8)

 

[grannymh]

You are misreading my post. Give it another shot.

And maybe you are misreading mine?

Even if someone wants to put down literalism, fundamentalism, YEC, creationism, ID, or whatever, it is not worth the trouble. The focus should be how human nature is different from the earth’s natural condition.

What should earth age tell us about human nature? Maybe nothing. Having an old earth does not change the fact that there were two sole parents of the human species. The earth could have existed long before Adam and Eve. Their appearance was not dependent on the earth’s development over time. Their appearance depended on God Who created their human nature to be spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body.

What I am curious about is if there could be a difference between the earth’s age and fossils. As I remember learning about early earth, there were volcanoes, lakes drying up, a land bridge between Alaska and Russia, glaciers covering Wisconsin and so on. If the earth’s surface was changing and moving, it would seem to me that older earth formations could break up and recover populations, dinosaurs as well humans, which were younger in age.

Could the methods used in dating determine if an area was suitable for the original human family? The area would have to be relatively stable in order to provide nourishment, both plants and animals. Does earth age itself determine its Creator?

In other words, in my humble opinion, proving Scripture verses as literal or figurative should not be the point of science exploration. In my naive view, science should seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge itself.

Easter Blessings,
granny

John 20: 24-31

 

[grannymh]

What is truly important about the age of the earth is the fact that God created earth as a place for the pinnacle of His creation which is the human being.

 

[buffalo]

In other words, in my humble opinion, proving Scripture verses as literal or figurative should not be the point of science exploration. In my naive view, science should seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge itself.

Easter Blessings,
granny

John 20: 24-31

I would add that science should seek truth.

 

[buffalo]

Since biological evolution requires billions of years, as Darwin correctly thought, the fact of evolution remains pertinent to the age of the earth. So, I have collected several quotes from Pope John II on the subject of evolution for further consideration.

In his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul declared: “Today . . . a half-century after the appearance of [Humani generis, the encyclical of Pope Pius XII], some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”

In an address to a Symposium on Evolution in April 1985 he had stated: “Rightly comprehended, faith in creation or a correctly understood teaching of evolution does not create obstacles: Evolution in fact pre* supposes creation; creation situates itself in the light of evolution as an event which extends itself through time – as a continual creation – in which God becomes visible to the eyes of the believers as ‘Creator of heaven and earth.’”

“All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality, which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its Inventor, its Creator”
(General Audience, July 10, 1985).

“However, the doctrine of faith invariably affirms that man’s spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings. However, the human soul, on which man’s humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature” (General Audience, April 16, 1986).

In his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope explained that materialist, reductionist and spiritualist forms of evolutionary theory could not be reconciled with Christianity.

We should also be listening to Pope Benedict XVI and future popes as the data coming in has something to say. Much of the recent data JPII had no knowledge of.

 

[buffalo]

What is truly important about the age of the earth is the fact that God created earth as a place for the pinnacle of His creation which is the human being.

Excellent! - the earth is indeed a privileged place for life as well as for an observer to view God’s creation.

 

[itinerant1]

We should also be listening to Pope Benedict XVI and future popes as the data coming in has something to say. Much of the recent data JPII had no knowledge of.

Your post is largely non-informative. Is there something specific you can say about “recent data” and Pope Benedict XVI, who endorses theistic evolution theory?

 

[buffalo]

Pope BXVI

“While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity [that have arisen from the positive aspects of modernity], we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.” Pope’s Regensburg Address