The earth is only 6000 years old.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Justin_Mee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
Different but related topics.
Click to expand...
I know.

If life never occurred on this planet, (besides the fact that we wouldn’t be here to discuss this…but let’s say we’re studying from another planet), the age of the earth could still be examined and discussed. 😉
 
Justin_Mee said:
In my past life as a protestant, the preacher always said that the earth is only 6000 years old and only heathens believed otherwise. I just could not buy into that and my questions went unanswered. It is one in a long, long line of teachings that led me to the true Church. Can anyone explain how this can be taught with a straight face. The nearest answer I received was that when God made the earth, He made the triobites and cephalopods already formed in the rocks. So, such evidence means nothing.
Click to expand...
The funny thing about that is that the “6000 years” theory comes from an bishop of the Church of Ireland in the 17th century. Your preacher would most likely have been horrified by most of the other things Bishop Ussher believed. 🙂

However wrong it might have been, though, +Ussher’s attempt to establish a Biblical chronology was the first stirring of a real attempt at scientific historiography. Even though we don’t have to agree with his conclusions now, his method was certainly solid, and it’s the same method that has been used to develop successive theories of evolution.
 
Mr_Skeptic said:
I know.

If life never occurred on this planet, (besides the fact that we wouldn’t be here to discuss this…but let’s say we’re studying from another planet), the age of the earth could still be examined and discussed. 😉
Click to expand...
To be sure, I wonder why Young Earth Creationists seldom dispute the age of other planets, which may be older or younger than the earth.
 
Palaeologos said:
However wrong it might have been, though, +Ussher’s attempt to establish a Biblical chronology was the first stirring of a real attempt at scientific historiography. Even though we don’t have to agree with his conclusions now, his method was certainly solid, and it’s the same method that has been used to develop successive theories of evolution.
Click to expand...
Actually, Paleologos, John Lightfoot seems to have beaten Ussher to the punch in this regard by a few years. Nevertheless, you are quite right that together they helped initiate a critical reading of both the Bible and earth history that had carried monumental consequences for both geology and biology in the nineteenth century.

StAnastasia
 
larkin31 said:
The last quote bothers me, too. But that is it. And are these quotes all that you mean? Do you even have any idea how broadly these texts are currently used?

And is your point that the description of natural selection as “purposeless” and “undirected” is inaccurate or that it is counter to your belief in a divine purpose?
Click to expand...
My beliefs are not at issue. My point is, the texts have been polluted with a materialist dogma that is in heavy rotation here. The only accuracy required here is to just say yes to a completely materialist dogma that is also being promoted in the real world.

I suggest you consider this for a moment: there is a clash of orthodoxies occurring today. Job one is to stamp out anything that even vaguely looks like creationism in order to replace it with a 'no God necessary" version of creation.

I don’t know if that concerns you, but I think it should.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
My beliefs are not at issue. My point is, the texts have been polluted with a materialist dogma that is in heavy rotation here. The only accuracy required here is to just say yes to a completely materialist dogma that is also being promoted in the real world.
Click to expand...
This is a false claim. This is not the “only” accuracy required in texts. And let me remind you: these are science and biology texts: their purpose is to study the material world. They should be focusing exclusively on the material world. Other classes can investigate other considerations. For example, in my literature classes, we discuss love and God and the universe and heaven and philosophy and morality and “purpose,” etc.
I suggest you consider this for a moment: there is a clash of orthodoxies occurring today. Job one is to stamp out anything that even vaguely looks like creationism in order to replace it with a 'no God necessary" version of creation.
Click to expand...
There is very little clashing over this in science classes. Creationism has no scientific theory to offer. When and if it does, it can come into the science curriculum.
 
As someone who works in the media, I see where threads like this come from and why the clash is occurring. It’s too bad the age of the earth requires a dogma to support it. I once considered science neutral but no longer. It is being used today as - see, this and only this, is true.

Too bad.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
As someone who works in the media, I see where threads like this come from and why the clash is occurring. It’s too bad the age of the earth requires a dogma to support it. I once considered science neutral but no longer. It is being used today as - see, this and only this, is true.Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, who on this forum are you accusing of materialism?
 
Palaeologos said:
The funny thing about that is that the “6000 years” theory comes from an bishop of the Church of Ireland in the 17th century. Your preacher would most likely have been horrified by most of the other things Bishop Ussher believed. 🙂

However wrong it might have been, though, +Ussher’s attempt to establish a Biblical chronology was the first stirring of a real attempt at scientific historiography. Even though we don’t have to agree with his conclusions now, his method was certainly solid, and it’s the same method that has been used to develop successive theories of evolution.
Click to expand...
Ussher was an Anglican Bishop.
 
StAnastasia said:
who on this forum are you accusing of materialism?
Click to expand...
There are some people who think of materialism in terms of the philosophy which indicates that all reality is matter. This is not a real view of the world because the spiritual does exist.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55
 
edwest2 said:
As someone who works in the media, I see where threads like this come from and why the clash is occurring. It’s too bad the age of the earth requires a dogma to support it. I once considered science neutral but no longer. It is being used today as - see, this and only this, is true.
Click to expand...
You are paying too much attention to sensationalist media, or judging from rancorous internet chatrooms.

There is no debate about this in the world of science because creationism has no scientific theory (which Miller admitted on the witness stand in the Dover trial, and which no creationist has disputed).

The research that evolutionary theory draws upon is done in separate subfields. Are you claiming that chemistry, say, is corrupted by a materialistic bias? You did not address any of my specific points above.
 
StAnastasia said:
Buffalo, I have read your links. I just don’t happen to agree with you, and not agreeing with Buffalo is hardly a crime. There is a diversity of opinion within the Catholic Church on many issues, as I’m sure you agree. We can respectfully agree to disagree, and still remain within the same church.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church remains one in doctrine. There is no diversity of opinion regarding the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

The poster is actually referring to individuals who have a diversity of opinions, not to the Catholic Church itself.
 
larkin31 said:
You are paying too much attention to sensationalist media, or judging from rancorous internet chatrooms.

There is no debate about this in the world of science because creationism has no scientific theory (which Miller admitted on the witness stand in the Dover trial, and which no creationist has disputed).

The research that evolutionary theory draws upon is done in separate subfields. Are you claiming that chemistry, say, is corrupted by a materialistic bias? You did not address any of my specific points above.
Click to expand...
In my humble opinion, chemistry has a materialistic basis not bias because chemistry deals with the material/physical aspects of reality.
 
larkin31 said:
Does this mean that to fight evolution we should teach false data about the age of the earth?
Click to expand...
Like I wrote earlier, science has become another tool to promote an ideology. Apparently, if someone is taught the wrong age of the earth, they won’t be able to drive a car or operate a cell phone or tie their shoes. The (secular) apocalypse will be upon us.

God bless,
Ed

🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top