The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sideline said:
buffalo, you’ve shown us 4 pictures of something made of wood from Fox News. Really? Can’t you see that there is no difference between what you just showed us, and pictures of aliens on the cover of National Geographic?

You do see that, don’t you? I mean really, you must see that it isn’t good evidence for Noah’s Ark right? Those pictures don’t even prove that it is a boat, let alone the Ark. I mean really, the picture that they gave of Noah’s Ark was a 14th century painting of something that wasn’t even shaped the way it was in the Bible.

Please, please tell me that you that you see the problem with those pictures as evidence.
Click to expand...
I agree it is premature, but newsworthy nonetheless. Only time will tell.
 
itinerant1 said:
Catholicism does not defend the position that the earth is young. Such an idea, that the earth is young, is the product of a Protestant fundamentalism that has gained some support amongst individual Catholics who think they know better than the Catholic Church.

Catholicism cannot be judged on the views of a Protestant influenced sectarian minority amonst it ranks.
Click to expand...
I see that, as I said in my post. Apparently a few of you missed that. I am Relieved that catholics (and other theists) have the option to accept the reality of what we do know.

I have met many Protestants who are also allowed to totally disregard the young earth fallacy.

They so far, have been ones considered “mainstream” and closer to a Liturgical faith. When I hear a young earth christian tell me I am wrong for rejecting a young earth position, I run like mad. There is no reasoning with such a person.
 
buffalo said:
I agree it is premature, but newsworthy nonetheless. Only time will tell.
Click to expand...
I just want to test something out.

You understand what cherry-picking and confirmation bias are, right? I’m not asking if you think this is a case of it, I am just asking if you know what they mean.

Let’s see if we can establish any shared frame of reference.
 
Sideline said:
I just want to test something out.

You understand what cherry-picking and confirmation bias are, right? I’m not asking if you think this is a case of it, I am just asking if you know what they mean.

Let’s see if we can establish any shared frame of reference.
Click to expand...
Duh.
 
Sideline said:
buffalo, you’ve shown us 4 pictures of something made of wood from Fox News. Really? Can’t you see that there is no difference between what you just showed us, and pictures of aliens on the cover of National Geographic?
…Please, please tell me that you that you see the problem with those pictures as evidence.
Click to expand...
Faux news? Is that different from the National Enquirer? This whole thing smells of a hoax being foisted on the public.
 
grannymh said:
While this post uses the name of Jesus Christ, it does not represent Catholic theology regarding God’s relationship to the beginning of the human species, what constitutes human nature, and the effects of the first man’s sin.

Blessings,
granny

Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put paragraph numbers and topics such as Adam, etc. in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Click to expand...
Amen for pointing that out, granny. Besides the blasphemous conclusion that Christ’s human nature is nothing more than a highly evolved ape.
 
buffalo said:
Duh.
Click to expand...
Okay, I’ll take that as a yes. Sorry if I come across as being patronizing, but I really don’t understand people who deny evolution and think the Earth could only be thousands of years old. It is so absolutely foreign to me that I can’t wrap my head around it.

I can… sort of… understand people who say, “I don’t care what the evidence is. I take it on faith that God created the Earth in six days, and that every species was created separately.” But people who look at the evidence and decide that virtually everyone who spends their lives studying history, biology, archaeology, geology, and astronomy could be wrong… that just baffles me.

Again, I know I’m sounding like a jerk and I apologize for that, but I just don’t see how you can understand the concept of cherry-picking and confirmation bias, and post that link. Think about what this article is saying:

***“We found a wooden structure on the side of a mountain that we think might be where the ark landed. It seems like it could have had animals in it. Even though this structure is made of wooden beams, we decided to date it with carbon-14 dating alone instead of comparing the results to tree ring dating which would give better results. We aren’t announcing which lab or labs did the dating. There is also no evidence of flooding in the region; we have good archaeological data of the surrounding region and there is no sign of a flood interrupting the culture; we have neither displayed or disclosed the discovery of any feces or other animal traces that would confirm that there was a large diversity of animal life in the structure; there is no evidence of a massive migration of animals proceeding out from that point 4,800 years ago. We are ignoring that for a flood to reach that altitude it would take more water than is currently in the world. We are ignoring the fact that every objective test has shown that the human race could not have bottle necked to that level 4,800 years ago.” ***

It is, in short, farcical to think that anyone could be “99.9% sure” that this could be the ark. It is farcical to think that there is any significant chance that this could be the ark.
 
StAnastasia said:
Faux news? Is that different from the National Enquirer? This whole thing smells of a hoax being foisted on the public.
Click to expand...
Oops… I just realized that I had said National Geographic rather than National Inquirer. :o

I agree. There are so many groups trying to find an ark in that region, that it wouldn’t surprise me if some locals came to the conclusion that it would be good for the local economy to help them find an ark from time to time.
 
Sideline said:
Okay, I’ll take that as a yes. Sorry if I come across as being patronizing, but I really don’t understand people who deny evolution and think the Earth could only be thousands of years old. It is so absolutely foreign to me that I can’t wrap my head around it.

I can… sort of… understand people who say, “I don’t care what the evidence is. I take it on faith that God created the Earth in six days, and that every species was created separately.” But people who look at the evidence and decide that virtually everyone who spends their lives studying history, biology, archaeology, geology, and astronomy could be wrong… that just baffles me.

Again, I know I’m sounding like a jerk and I apologize for that, but I just don’t see how you can understand the concept of cherry-picking and confirmation bias, and post that link. Think about what this article is saying:

***“We found a wooden structure on the side of a mountain that we think might be where the ark landed. It seems like it could have had animals in it. Even though this structure is made of wooden beams, we decided to date it with carbon-14 dating alone instead of comparing the results to tree ring dating which would give better results. We aren’t announcing which lab or labs did the dating. There is also no evidence of flooding in the region; we have good archaeological data of the surrounding region and there is no sign of a flood interrupting the culture; we have neither displayed or disclosed the discovery of any feces or other animal traces that would confirm that there was a large diversity of animal life in the structure; there is no evidence of a massive migration of animals proceeding out from that point 4,800 years ago. We are ignoring that for a flood to reach that altitude it would take more water than is currently in the world. We are ignoring the fact that every objective test has shown that the human race could not have bottle necked to that level 4,800 years ago.” ***

It is, in short, farcical to think that anyone could be “99.9% sure” that this could be the ark. It is farcical to think that there is any significant chance that this could be the ark.
Click to expand...
I am not claiming it is the ark. I linked the story and pictures. As I posted before, we will see what happens.

Now it seems you just joined this thread. Go over the last couple of hundred posts or so.
 
StAnastasia said:
Contrary to what you may think, “Adam” and “Eve” are not proper names like “Dick” and “Jane.” “Adam” means “man” and symbolizes humanity formed from “Adma” or “earth” (it’s a play on words in Hebrew). “Eve” means “mother of all.”

Hominids continued to evolve after their split from that of the other great apes, which also continued to evolve. Brain size increased along with tool use: “Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in Africa in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago. By the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic 50,000 BP (Before Present), full behavioral modernity, including language, music and other cultural universals had developed.”

Those are the scientific facts of the matter. Now for the theology. As human behavioral modernity evolved, a significant aspect of this was religion and morality, evidenced by altruism, grave burials, and other practices. Humans developed religious awareness and sensitivity to metaphysics and to God’s self-disclosure, or revelation. Humans also developed and awareness of their capacity for temptation and falling into sin, hence the story of the serpent and the forbidden fruit.

The theological significance of the Adam and Eve story therefore is that it establishes in human experience the premises of salvation history, culminating in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ.

SAnastasia
Click to expand...
What? Haven’t you read Romans? Through one man, sin entered the world? One man.

Your theology sounds 100% exactly like Evolutionary Psychology and reduces man to a sack of walking, talking chemicals.

Who was Jesus? Some guy? Why did He die again? And for who?

God bless,
Ed
 
StAnastasia said:
Faux news? Is that different from the National Enquirer? This whole thing smells of a hoax being foisted on the public.
Click to expand...
By Hoax do you mean something like Obama was born in Hawaii? But as commander in chief he gets away without showing his ‘original’ birth certificate? Yet military personnel are required to do so? Even Faux news is on obama’s side when it comes to the Birthers demands. 😃

Some of my favorite other hoax’s are evolution and the Biggy Bang that brought us all into the world. Duh! Some of the “junk sciences” from the past are:

Perpetual motion machines
Phlogiston lhypothesis of heat
Philosopher’s stone turning lead to gold

And heading to the pile of ljunk sciences in the future are:

Cold fusion hypothesis
Man-made global warmilng hypothesis
Evolution hypothesis - mud changing into people
by unknown prcesses over millions and billions of years. Duh!

But there is nothing new under the sun either as one of our church fathers have pointed out:

Hippolytus of Rome, an early Father of the Church who lived in the second century (d. 235), wrote:

But Leucippus, an associate of Zeno…affirms things to be infinite, and always in motion, and that generation and change exist continuously…And he asserts that worlds are produced when many bodies are congregated and flow together from the surrounding space to a common point, so that by mutual contact they made substances of the same figure and similar in form come into connection; and when thus intertwined, there are transmutations into other bodies, and that created things wax and wane through necessity…”

Regarding the alleged discovery of the wooden beams on the 13,000 foot level of Mt. Aararat there is video also which I found on the internet.

Thanks Buffalo for posting that interesting report. That C-14 date is fascinating but I’m waiting to see if the wood is impregnated with pitch before even considerilng it as the Ark of Noah and even with pitch that would not prove it. The Turks and Chinese have got a lot of research to do before drawing any conclusions one way or the other. But God bless them for performing the research.

Now if we can just get the evos to C-14 date the fossils, Ha! Fat chance. Most are just a bit too arrogant to get their hands dirty with fossils and real experimentation to check on fossil chronologies using C-14 as those in the Italian reference at the CNR. But some day a main stream science team will break through the fog of censorship and watch the fur fly.😃
 
hugh_r.miller said:
But some day a main stream science team will break through the fog of censorship and watch the fur fly.😃
Click to expand...
We can wait for that. Meanwhile, science can continue with its work, and Arkian adventurers can continue with their Arkian treasure hunts. What the heck, it’s fun being in the mountains even if you never find a thing!
 
hugh_r.miller said:
By Hoax do you mean something like Obama was born in Hawaii? But as commander in chief he gets away without showing his ‘original’ birth certificate? Yet military personnel are required to do so? Even Faux news is on obama’s side when it comes to the Birthers demands. 😃

Some of my favorite other hoax’s are evolution and the Biggy Bang that brought us all into the world. Duh! Some of the “junk sciences” from the past are:

Perpetual motion machines
Phlogiston lhypothesis of heat
Philosopher’s stone turning lead to gold

And heading to the pile of ljunk sciences in the future are:

Cold fusion hypothesis
Man-made global warmilng hypothesis
Evolution hypothesis - mud changing into people
by unknown prcesses over millions and billions of years. Duh!

But there is nothing new under the sun either as one of our church fathers have pointed out:

Hippolytus of Rome, an early Father of the Church who lived in the second century (d. 235), wrote:

But Leucippus, an associate of Zeno…affirms things to be infinite, and always in motion, and that generation and change exist continuously…And he asserts that worlds are produced when many bodies are congregated and flow together from the surrounding space to a common point, so that by mutual contact they made substances of the same figure and similar in form come into connection; and when thus intertwined, there are transmutations into other bodies, and that created things wax and wane through necessity…”

Regarding the alleged discovery of the wooden beams on the 13,000 foot level of Mt. Aararat there is video also which I found on the internet.

Thanks Buffalo for posting that interesting report. That C-14 date is fascinating but I’m waiting to see if the wood is impregnated with pitch before even considerilng it as the Ark of Noah and even with pitch that would not prove it. The Turks and Chinese have got a lot of research to do before drawing any conclusions one way or the other. But God bless them for performing the research.

Now if we can just get the evos to C-14 date the fossils, Ha! Fat chance. Most are just a bit too arrogant to get their hands dirty with fossils and real experimentation to check on fossil chronologies using C-14 as those in the Italian reference at the CNR. But some day a main stream science team will break through the fog of censorship and watch the fur fly.😃
Click to expand...
Um, excuse me while I wonder when young earthers ever relied on carbon dating before now?
 
Sideline said:
Okay, I’ll take that as a yes. Sorry if I come across as being patronizing, but I really don’t understand people who deny evolution and think the Earth could only be thousands of years old. It is so absolutely foreign to me that I can’t wrap my head around it.
Click to expand...
In reality, one should separate the above into three distinct issues. 1. age of the earth. 2. evolution of non-human living organisms. 3.evolution of human beings.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is the answer to the question --Is there a future?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top