The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[grannymh]

No granny, these subject are not discussed in science literature, because scientists and theologians recognize a literal interpretation of the Bible as nonsensical.

All one needed to do was to translate the items into scientific jargon.

The science part of the items can be found in science literature beginning with Charles Darwin and continuing today with Richard Dawkins. For example, number three is the “Out of Africa” theory referenced by Francisco J. Ayala in The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins, 1995.

Even those who recognize Catholic teaching in Scripture are capable of reading scientific literature and learning from it.

Easter Blessings,
granny

John 20: 24-31

 

[StAnastasia]

All one needed to do was to translate the items into scientific jargon]

The scientific discussion of the origins of the human species in Africa is unrelated to do with the theological discussion of the expulsion of “Adam” and “Eve” from the “Garden of Eden.”

 

[buffalo]

That merely begs the question. There remains unaddressed in your post the objection that “intelligent design”, as conceived by the ID movement, is not even a scientific concept. If it is not a scientific notion, but rather a philosophical concept, however confused by ID theorists, then science itself, by its very nature, is incapable of providing “odds for design.” It becomes philosophical when we ask who the designer is, not before.

Furthermore, if we grant for the sake of argument, that the odds for “intelligent design” could be calculated, that calculation, as any calculation regarding probabilities, cannot suffice as a conclusive proof. It remains only probable, a probability that itself is highly contingent on currently known facts and their interpretations. Yup, this was stated at the outset. - and evo as well cannot be proven either.

Furthermore, if a mathematical demonstration of “intelligent design” was possible, at least in theory, which I think that it is not, it would remain inconclusive based on Godel’s incompleteness theorem for all none-trivial mathematical expressions.

In addition, if one grants that an organism is “intelligently designed” it does not necessarily follow that ID’s explanation of that design is correct, as the designed organism may have originated by means of secondary causes in such a manner that is not consistent with or admissible to ID theorists. That has to be proven as well - where did the information originate?

And, you have claimed that your “IDvolution” is not “creationist.” However, you made that claim right after I posed objections to it based on your notion of “kinds”, to which you have yet to respond. Perhaps, the objection is fatal to your idea and therefore you chose to ignore it. What type of creationism are you accusing IDvolution of being?

Even more important is the question, “How long ago did God supposedly “breathe” all of this genetic info into the “kinds””? Ask Him

Unless you can adequately address these and other questions and objections to your idea, then you have no logical grounds or other justification for that which you continue to claim; and as a direct consequence of this, your ideas deserve no credence. You have effectively undercut your own position.

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I really do appreciate your challenges as this helps flesh out the idea. If it will stick it has to withstand your derision. :yup:

 

[buffalo]

A fundamentalist minister explained that to me one time. God created the light from distant galaxies already reaching the earth when the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

I could hardly believe what I was hearing.

It is the young universe created to appear as an old universe trick that God pulled during Creation Week. It’s a much more impressive trick than pulling a rabbit out of a hat, don’t you think?

The real Creation act by God manifests infinite wisdom and power. The fundamentalist God isn’t near as smart or powerful – “Ignore that man behind the curtain.” (Wizard of Oz)

Using my tape measure analogy - how fast can God unroll or roll up the measuring tape? How fast can man do it?

 

[buffalo]

You argument is totally without merit.

What God “could” do is irrelvant to the discussion. A man can spin off any kind of wild theory and then claim it must be so because God is capable of doing things the way so imagined. However, the illogic and hubris is glaring.

Furthermore, the claim of Protestant fundamentalists, and certain Catholic followers of their ideas, that God recently created the universe as an old appearing universe, makes God out to be a trickster.

Furthermore, there is no sound reason for God’s to create a universe that is an intrinsically chronological paradox. God is also Reason, and creates according to His Reason.

Genesis does not teach science, nor does it “teach” its pre-scientific cosmology, which was common to the sacred writers and audiences of Genesis. The claim for a young universe is based on a superficial and false reading of Genesis. This was explained in the excerpt by Dr. Ludwig Ott in one of my previous posts.

Scientific journals will not debate the pre-scientific notions in *Genesis. *However, science has already proven that the earth is not flat; that there is no solid firmament; that the earth does not rest on a body of suspended water; that rainwater is not stored above the firmament; that the earth is not stationary, and other such pre-scientific notions found in the Old Testament.

As Cardinal Schonborn said “A 6,000 year old earth is nonsense.” That is the bottom line. A discussion thread about the fundamentalists’ unrealistic view of the world and the Bible is literally a discussion about nonsensical ideas. It belittles God and Jesus to drag them into a discussion about nonsensical ideas, as you so frequently do.

Ludwig Ott, in *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *explains the Catholic position. So, next time you imagine there is something Catholic in your “creationist” views, recall what Ott has said.

God cannot be a trickster. He is under no obligation to show us everything He does. The trickster argument is bogus. According to your argument God should have infused total knowledge to us at birth.

If one walks on the beach and sees a left footprint as far as he can see should he conclude that a trickster was at work?

I do not claim a 6000 year old earth.

Do you know what the Jewish word firmament means?

 

[buffalo]

It does not take much background in geology to see how questionable are so many of your claims, including the ones you stated above. This strongly suggests that your judgements in scientific matters are motivated more by a non-scientific agenda rather than by an objective consideration of physical data.

Regardless of what you may think about my stated observation, you have presented dubious “scientific” arguments for your position. So the situation dictates that I go with the best evidence in regard to the actual ancient age (and not the creationists’ fictitious age) of the earth and the universe.

I do not think Phillipp will be intimidated by your itinerant rants.:nope:

 

[Philipp]

Playing with fruit jars in your kitchen does not constitute science. No wonder your experiment wasn’t reported in Nature or Science.

I think it was very revealing to others and fun for my daughter and I. Her exhibit influenced one judge of the 8th grade exhibits to dump evolutionary goggledegook mythology to teaching both Intelligent design and evolution as possible theories of orgins. She no longer brainwashes her students by teaching only evolutionary mythology in her Catholic high school course.

However, I gave you plenty of technical papers that say the same thing as the fruit jar experiment and also showed that the sedimentary layers in the geologic column were deposited so raplidly the long ages for evolution to have occurred don’t exist. Totally ignored as I expected

But you know something, I can hardly believe what I am seeing in this thread. It appears that I have mistakenly got onto a Dawkins web site.

Anastasia and all of the champions of evolution in this forum deny the teaching of all of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Councils that there ever was a time when the universe was complete “having its parts complete” with sinless Adam and Eve living in perfect harmony with God, with each other, and with every creature, as the kind and queen of the universe.

Instead they embrace a man-made philosophy, whose advent was predicted by St. Peter in 2 Peter Chapter 3, which holds that “things have always been the same,” “the present is the key to the past,” and the origin of the different kinds of living things can be explained entirely in terms of natural processes. The theistic evolutionists want to restrict the creative activity of God to the moment of the Big Bang and deny that His special creative activity extended to the creation of all of the different kinds of creatures, including man. This appears to be the basic difference between us.

The search for “truth in science” will continue without them and may the following hypothesis replace the theistic one foisted upon discussion groups on Catholic Answers:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

 

[ricmat]

But you know something, I can hardly believe what I am seeing in this thread. It appears that I have mistakenly got onto a Dawkins web site.

Anastasia and all of the champions of evolution in this forum deny the teaching of all of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Councils that there ever was a time when the universe was complete “having its parts complete” with sinless Adam and Eve living in perfect harmony with God, with each other, and with every creature, as the kind and queen of the universe.

Instead they embrace a man-made philosophy, whose advent was predicted by St. Peter in 2 Peter Chapter 3, which holds that “things have always been the same,” “the present is the key to the past,” and the origin of the different kinds of living things can be explained entirely in terms of natural processes. The theistic evolutionists want to restrict the creative activity of God to the moment of the Big Bang and deny that His special creative activity extended to the creation of all of the different kinds of creatures, including man. This appears to be the basic difference between us.

The folks you refer to seem to have replaced God with capital S science. They think, they believe, they KNOW that science is correct (even if it is different than it was last week), and if it conflicts with religion then, well, religion is wrong.

They miss a very important point. Science works with “models”, and models are never the real thing. They are approximations. Approximations which can be totally overturned at any time by new information. The approximations are often useful and have produced much good for mankind, but they are not the real thing. And what science does not know totally overwhelms what science does know. Engineers understand this. Some scientists understand this. People with common sense understand this. Those caught up in the pride of life don’t see this because they prefer to think that man has become God, capable of knowing all things and if we don’t know it now, it’s just a matter of time and the asymptotic rise to knowing all will have been reached. The tower will finally be completed. Without God being involved, thank you.

Common sense tells us that we will never know as much as God, or that we will understand “reality” in any way closely corresponding to way the Author of reality created it. Again I say, the approximations of reality are often useful, but they are not the thing itself. And approximations are always wrong.

God gives us enough talents to appreciate his works, to see their beauty and majesty. He allows us to stand in awe of his creations by seeing what is very small, and very large. He does this to nudge us into humility, for that is the beginning of wisdom. What we see here instead are rants insisting on “peer review by the right people”, “credentials”, “qualifications”, the “scientific ignorance” of other people. And what are those things but “pride inflaters?” My Pride is bigger than your Pride, so I win.

St. Peter had no credentials. Mother Teresa had no PhD in theology. But they’ve done more for the world than those theologians who wish to overturn Catholicism and decide for themselves what is good and what is evil, those who see virtue in their own disobedience to the Church.

They close their minds, eyes, and ears to anything but the daily changing scientific “truth”, which is merely an approximation of reality, and it’s god Pride. And the irony is that as an idol, it’s not even a very good one. They say “We see” but in fact they are the blind ones. They are on the way to becoming like their idols, unable to hear, see, or speak the real Truth. But they are happy and arrogant in their self-deception.

 

[StAnastasia]

Science works with “models”, and models are never the real thing. They are approximations. Approximations which can be totally overturned at any time by new information. The approximations are often useful and have produced much good for mankind, but they are not the real thing.

Quite right – this is how science works. You describe it very well!

 

[StAnastasia]

Anastasia and all of the champions of evolution in this forum deny the teaching of all of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Councils…]

No, we don’t deny the fathers, etc. We merely recognize that the pre-scientific opinions of the fathers on physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and geography are no more relevant than the pre-scientific opinions of the historic figures of any other religious tradition. Their theological opinions are very important.

 

[buffalo]

Playing with fruit jars in your kitchen does not constitute science. No wonder your experiment wasn’t reported in Nature or Science.

StA - thank you for this.

This is exactly the point. Gravity can be demonstrated simply, repeatedly and predictably in a lab or in a child’s science project. Now this can too. This is empirical science demonstrated by a child. Kudos.

A point awarded to Phillip and StA for bringing this to our attention.

 

[edwest2]

Considering how often this subject is brought up, it is worth noting that it has less to do with promoting science than it does with promoting a worldview. Accepting this worldview has become very important. Why? It appears that non-theists want their secular creation story to line up with the Christian Creation story, except without God. Christians can tack on God if they want to but only if the unintelligent, self-starting and self-upgrading process of evolution is allowed to stand alone in its Godless grandeur.

Non-theists want the Biology textbook to be the standard. Who cares if you throw in God or the soul? They are invisible, easy to discard concepts.

Reading Communion and Stewardship, it is clear that if a process occurred, God was a direct causal agent. He cannot be excluded or applied in some mythical, illogical way. St. Thomas Aquinas is also quoted and his references to contingent and necessary events includes the fact that they occur infallibly through the action of divine providence. Or they simply cannot exist.

The secular world needs this justification – chaos into order – nothing into something – as a foundation for their worldview.

“We are so smart now” does not come even an inch closer to what God knows. The mind of man has become the font of knowledge for some. An idol for worship.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[StAnastasia]

This is exactly the point. Gravity can be demonstrated simply, repeatedly and predictably in a lab or in a child’s science project. Now this can too. This is empirical science demonstrated by a child. Kudos.:

Sorry, gravity is not proven by a child’s experiment. Gravity is a theory to explain the fact of things falling.

 

[buffalo]

Sorry, gravity is not proven by a child’s experiment. Gravity is a theory to explain the fact of things falling.

Call it what you want - the phenomenon can be demonstrated easily and simply by a child. Just like Phillips daughter did hers easily. You and your kid could try it to prove it to yourself.

 

[Philipp]

StA - thank you for this.

This is exactly the point. Gravity can be demonstrated simply, repeatedly and predictably in a lab or in a child’s science project. Now this can too. This is empirical science demonstrated by a child. Kudos.

A point awarded to Phillip and StA for bringing this to our attention.

I thank both StA and particular for buffalo for their observations. I will copy and send this to my daughter who is now 33. I suspect that it will bring back memories. Perhaps some day she and her husband will have their four year old adopted son, Santiago who hails from Guatamala perform the same experiment.

I also hope that AtA and associates at their Catholic University will try similar experiments whether in jars or in more complicated flumes as has some of the scientists who have had their papers peer reviewed by the Russian Academy of Sciences, The French Academy of Sciences, the national Research Council of Italy, a Chinese Publication, Science Magazine and Nature.

I kinda of like the motto used by some folks for sedimentology studies that I’ve noted on a web site.

Swim Against the Stream - Even a Dead Fish Can Go With the Flow

 

[Philipp]

CONTINUED

This little poem kinda of sums up my part in this discussion. No offense met but I do hope folks in academia will take up the challenge and do a little research on their own.

***Big Jack Horner sat in a corner
scraping a dinosaur bone.
Some soft tissue appeared
And he said, “Just what I feared!
Evolution’s long ages are gone!” ***

Swim against the stream, even a dead fish can go with the flow

 

[eucharisteo]

Some people are evolved from apes and some people are created by God. It’s easy, you choose.

 

[StAnastasia]

I also hope that AtA and associates at their Catholic University will try similar experiments whether in jars or in more complicated flumes as has some of the scientists who have had their papers peer reviewed by the Russian Academy of Sciences, The French Academy of Sciences, the national Research Council of Italy, a Chinese Publication, Science Magazine and Nature. )

Scientists at my Catholic university have tried such geological and biological experiments and have moved well beyond them.

 

[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.

Again I ask for the reference or review of Fr. Victor’s book entitled: The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11. It is a compendium and defense of traditional Catholic Theology of Origins.

Fr. Victor Warkulwiz, M.S.S. also has a Ph. D. in physics so in addition the cover points out that the book is “Everything a Catholic needs to know to uphold the lilteral trught of Genesis 1-11.” Perhaps as a modernist theologian [like Teilhard Chardin] you don’t like the competition?

 

[hugh_miller]

I have no problem with Dr Berthault’s work being applied where relevant. Unfortunately Dr Berthault tries to apply it where it is not relevant and that leads him into error.

Please indicate any academic institution where members are required to sign a Darwinian “Declaration of Faith” which requires them to ignore inconvenient evidence. AiG has one, now you show me one from the other side. For starters, where did Dr Berthault do his research? [PHILIPP SAYS >> Unwritten rule: you get fired if you talk or write about any other theory of origins but evolution unless you are tenured or emeritus]

The problem was not only xenoliths, it was that Dr Snelling was using a completely inappropriate dating method. The laboratory he used said that its equipment cound not distinguish K/Ar dates less than 2 million years old and yet Dr Snelling gave it a young sample to date. That is not good science, it is awful science and deserves all the criticism it received. The numbers he got are more a reflection of the dating lab’s equipment than the actual date of the rocks.

YECs are frantically flailing around looking for something, anything, to justify their ludicrously short timescale for the age of the Earth. Since they do not have enough faith in their Biblical interpretation to let it stand on its own, they look for outside support in science. They can find no good science to back them up, so they are reduced to using junk science is a feeble attempt to prop up their theologically and scientifically failed position.

rossum

Guy Berthault’s sedimentology research has undermined the Geologic column to such an extent and perhaps has spurred other researchers to investigate old problems like how mudstones form. Now it appears that two thirds of the geologic sedimentary column which was formed rapid movement of mud carrying waters. Google mudstones. Another report shows that ripples in sand dunes were formed also by rapidly moving water and NOT by sand storms.

DR. SNELLING’S REPLY TO YOUR ABOVE COMMENT:

You are certainly quite correct that I have heard before the same response that Rossun posted in defence of the laboratory who did the potassium-argon dating of the recent New Zealand lava flows for me.

---

However, Rossun has been deceived by those who are peddling lies. The laboratory in question was told when my samples were submitted to them that they came from young lava flows, and at the time I submitted the samples to the laboratory they never claimed that their equipment could not distinguish potassium-argon dates less than 2 million years. In fact, it was only after they did the potassium-argon dating of my samples and they found out I was a creationist, that the laboratory put out the story that their laboratory equipment could not distinguish potassium-argon dates less than 2 million years old. It was an attempt to save face and to make me look bad. In fact, it wasn’t the scientist at the laboratory who did the analyses for me who put out that story, but his successor who was given his job after he was ‘retired’. At no time was I dishonest with the laboratory regarding the samples I sent them.

---

Furthermore, if what I did was not good science, then the same criticism should be levelled at potassium-argon dating experts such as G. Brent Dalrymple, who, like others has also potassium-argon dated young volcanic rocks, even those less than 2 million years old. They too have shown that young and recent volcanic rocks can and do produce anomalously old potassium-argon ‘dates’. So if I am guilty of bad science, then so are these potassium-argon dating experts! Alternately, if they do such dating of young and recent volcanic rocks with the potassium-argon dating method and their work is declared good science by being published in leading scientific journals, then my work on the young volcanic rocks in New Zealand should be equally regarded as good science and be allowed to be published in similar leading scientific journals. But I guarantee that because I am a creationist, such will not happen! Rossun is simply showing his philosophical bias against those who would challenge the millions of years status quo established by the radioactive dating methods.

---

---

PHILIPP’s COMMENT: The lab should have made a special disclaimer when accepting samples such as: Save your money, Do not send samples from volcanic material that are less than 2 million years old as our equipment will not work right in that range . Perhaps that’s like saying: Do not send us dinosaur bones containing collagen for C-14 dating as such species are 65 million years or older.