The earth is only 6000 years old.

[Young_Thinker]

Humans coming from slime is one of the few things the polar extremes of young-earth creationism and atheistic evolutionism actually agree on!

Very funny! However, “slime” does not have good implications(at least for the creationists).

 

[buffalo]

Thank you, but I do not think that that would really address the problem of the Nephilim, whom were giants.

Nephilim -

Nephilim

and

who were the Nephilim

 

[Young_Thinker]

Nephilim -

Nephilim

and

who were the Nephilim

I appreciate those articles.

 

[aspirant]

“slime” does not have good implications(at least for the creationists).

It may not have nice connotations for creationists, yet there it is in Genesis 2:7-- עָפָר, soil, debris, dust, dirt.

 

[Young_Thinker]

It may not have nice connotations for creationists, yet there it is in Genesis 2:7-- עָפָר, soil, debris, dust, dirt.

I know.

 

[Philena]

It is against Catholic teaching to say Adam and Eve had children without Original Sin

I was not aware of that. Do you have a citation?

 

[aspirant]

I was not aware of that. Do you have a citation?

.Humani Generis

 

[edwest2]

Thanks.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

There are serious observational problems about current cosmology that were addressed in this conference:

hiltonratcliffe.com/article008.htm

Among them: “In the last three years, observational evidence has accumulated challenging two of the most fundamental stanchions of BBT (Big Bang Theory): That cosmological redshift indicates universal expansion; and that the microwave background (CMBR) originates promordially, beyond all visible structure.”
Peace,
Ed

Questioning the evidence for expansion is one thing, but a young “creationist” universe is not an option with scientists who question the evidence for expansion. Einstein originally favored a steady-state model, but later was convinced by the evidence for Le Maitre’s model.

Questions regarding the significance of the red-shift, CMBR, etc., “if” valid, could hypothetically give us a much older universe:

“The question remains, if quasars are at cosmological distances and Lyα lines do represent Hydrogen cloud separation, then why in an expanding universe are they, locally and on average, equally spaced over a range of redshifts? By extrapolating the data back to a virtual beginning, when the Hydrogen clouds were on average at atomic spacing, we get an age for the Universe of 6 x 1027 years—that is 5 x 1017 times the presently accepted age!”

 

[itinerant1]

Questioning the evidence for expansion is one thing, but a young “creationist” universe is not an option with scientists who question the evidence for expansion. Einstein originally favored a steady-state model, but later was convinced by the evidence for Le Maitre’s model.

Questions regarding the significance of the red-shift, CMBR, etc., “if” valid, could hypothetically give us a much older universe:

“The question remains, if quasars are at cosmological distances and Lyα lines do represent Hydrogen cloud separation, then why in an expanding universe are they, locally and on average, equally spaced over a range of redshifts? By extrapolating the data back to a virtual beginning, when the Hydrogen clouds were on average at atomic spacing, we get an age for the Universe of 6 x 1027 years—that is 5 x 1017 times the presently accepted age!”

My exponents were corrupted in export. I hate it when that happens:
**Universe of 6 x 1027 (27th) years—that is 5 x 1017 (17th) times the presently accepted age! **

 

[edwest2]

My exponents were corrupted in export. I hate it when that happens:
**Universe of 6 x 1027 (27th) years—that is 5 x 1017 (17th) times the presently accepted age! **

And with errors like that, at that magnitude, it inspires skepticism as opposed to the idea that it is all set in concrete right now. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the earth is much, much younger, regardless of whatever they decide on the age of the universe.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

And with errors like that, at that magnitude, it inspires skepticism as opposed to the idea that it is all set in concrete right now. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the earth is much, much younger, regardless of whatever they decide on the age of the universe.

Peace,
Ed

1. Since there is no absolutely no sound scientific reason to suspect that the earth could be much younger than what is currently estimated, what do you base your statement on?

Also,

1. How do explain the flat earth in the O.T.?
2. How do you explain the solid dome or firmament which holds the waters and clouds up above it?
3. How do you explain the floodgates or apertures that let the rain down?
4. How do you explain the waters under the earth, upon which the flat earth floats?
5. How do you explain the conception in the O.T. of a flat earth that does not move?

I await your detailed responses to the questions above.

 

[itinerant1]

And with errors like that, at that magnitude, it inspires skepticism as opposed to the idea that it is all set in concrete right now. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the earth is much, much younger, regardless of whatever they decide on the age of the universe.

Peace,
Ed

Interesting how you will so readily accept as legitimate the scientific investigations that question the evidence for the expansion of the universe, but you refuse to accept any scientific proof for the ancient age of the earth, or for a universe that is billions of years old.

The cognitive dissonance of your position is glaring. You point to disputes about scientific theories as if the disputers must be right, but in the final analysis, you do not accept the theories of either side. That is truly mind-boggling!
It is boggling enough to make one’s head spin. :ballspin:

 

[itinerant1]

And with errors like that, at that magnitude, it inspires skepticism as opposed to the idea that it is all set in concrete right now. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the earth is much, much younger, regardless of whatever they decide on the age of the universe.

Peace,
Ed

It has never been the nature of scientific theories to be “set in stone”. The more encompassing a theory is the more we can expect it to change with the accumulation of new data and better ways of interpreting the data.

Science advances as it approximates the truth, attaining ever more accurate descriptions of the world. Cosmological views have changed dramatically over the centuries.

The ancient Hebrews did not even have a scientific cosmology. Only in the 20th century did man achieve a truly scientific view of the universe. 300 or 500 years from now our understanding of biological and cosmological evolution should be very different from what it is now. That is just how science works.

It wasn’t too long ago, the 17th century, that some Church authorities insisted the earth could not revolve around the sun because such an idea contradicts Scripture.

But here we are in the 21st century and still find Biblical fundamentalists advocating retro-science with a sun that revolves around the earth. And there are the 21st century YECs with their sectarian, retro-hermeneutics and anti-science.

The fundamentalists’ defense of their views that says the Church does not prohibit belief in a young earth and a direct creation in six days is no defense or justification whatsoever because these are scientifically laden matters, and the Church does not make pronouncements on science. However, the current mind of the Church, including the current pope and the previous pope, accept the ancient age of the earth and reputable evolution science.

In addition, modern Catholic Biblical scholarship is as it should be – neither creationist nor fundamentalist.

 

[edwest2]

It has never been the nature of scientific theories to be “set in stone”. The more encompassing a theory is the more we can expect it to change with the accumulation of new data and better ways of interpreting the data.

Science advances as it approximates the truth, attaining ever more accurate descriptions of the world. Cosmological views have changed dramatically over the centuries.

The ancient Hebrews did not even have a scientific cosmology. Only in the 20th century did man achieve a truly scientific view of the universe. 300 or 500 years from now our understanding of biological and cosmological evolution should be very different from what it is now. That is just how science works.

It wasn’t too long ago, the 17th century, that some Church authorities insisted the earth could not revolve around the sun because such an idea contradicts Scripture.

But here we are in the 21st century and still find Biblical fundamentalists advocating retro-science with a sun that revolves around the earth. And there are the 21st century YECs with their sectarian, retro-hermeneutics and anti-science.

The fundamentalists’ defense of their views that says the Church does not prohibit belief in a young earth and a direct creation in six days is no defense or justification whatsoever because these are scientifically laden matters, and the Church does not make pronouncements on science. However, the current mind of the Church, including the current pope and the previous pope, accept the ancient age of the earth and reputable evolution science.

In addition, modern Catholic Biblical scholarship is as it should be – neither creationist nor fundamentalist.

It can be argued that it “is at it should be” only from your point of view. The Church does comment on science, which is why purely scientific subjects like this one always need non-scientific promotional comments from the Church.

And what does the date on the calendar have to do with anything? Did wisdom, or knowledge or enlightenment pour into anyone’s head the moment the calendar went from the 20th to 21st Century?

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

---

I will always regard as suspect, any scientific theory that needs to be bracketed by positive comments from the leaders of any religion.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

It can be argued that it “is at it should be” only from your point of view. The Church does comment on science, which is why purely scientific subjects like this one always need non-scientific promotional comments from the Church.

And what does the date on the calendar have to do with anything? Did wisdom, or knowledge or enlightenment pour into anyone’s head the moment the calendar went from the 20th to 21st Century?

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

---

I will always regard as suspect, any scientific theory that needs to be bracketed by positive comments from the leaders of any religion.

Peace,
Ed

Your “calendar” comment is lame and it suggests you have very little, if any, background in the history of science.

You like to repeatedly quote Benedict’s critique about Monod’s view, but have you not quoted from Benedict’s views about modern science in general, or his favorable remarks about sound evolution theory?

Why do you quote from Pope Benedict at all when he is certainly not in your creationist/fundamentalist camp?

All you are doing now is obfuscating the issue. Try instead a little intellectual honesty and start by answering my six questions about O.T. cosmology rather than putting up your usual smokescreen. This is all a recognizable pattern with your responses.

 

[edwest2]

I study the history of science all the time. I used to enjoy certain aspects of science until the politics came in which is trying to turn actual science into an ideology.

romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/04/pope_benedict_x.html

It is unfortunate that being labeled a creationist or fundamentalist matters. As you pointed out previously, the Church allows a creationist viewpoint. Why don’t you write the Vatican expressing your views? Since it is clear that if you think there is no justification for a creationist position then the Church must be in error.

Ed

 

[itinerant1]

I study the history of science all the time. I used to enjoy certain aspects of science until the politics came in which is trying to turn actual science into an ideology.

romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/04/pope_benedict_x.html

It is unfortunate that being labeled a creationist or fundamentalist matters. As you pointed out previously, the Church allows a creationist viewpoint. Why don’t you write the Vatican expressing your views? Since it is clear that if you think there is no justification for a creationist position then the Church must be in error.

Ed

Allowing and approving are two different things. I never said the Church “approves” of creationism. Protestant originated fundamentalism, as modern history reveals, has never found a home in the Catholic Church.

Creationism, says the Vatican’s lead astronomer, Bro. Guy Consolmagno, is not science, and it is bad religion. That is why it does matter – creationism has been an embarrassment to the Church.

Write the Vatican? LOL

Who in the Holy See is a fundamentalist/creationist?

 

[itinerant1]

I see that Ed West is still avoiding answering my questions about Old Testament cosmology.

 

[itinerant1]

Below is an example of how outsiders view “creationists.” The quote is provided as an example to support of my earlier statement that creationism is an embarrassment to the Church. Fortunately, this observation receives some qualification from the fact many educated non-Christians distinguish between creationism and mainline Catholic views.

“I have encountered a few ‘creationists’ and because they were usually nice, intelligent people, I have been unable to decide whether they were really mad or only pretending to be mad. If I was a religious person, I would consider creationism nothing less than blasphemy. Do its adherents imagine that God is a cosmic hoaxer who has created the whole vast fossil record for the sole purpose of misleading humankind ?”
– Sir Arthur Charles Clarke

[Sri Lankabhimanya Sir Arthur Charles Clarke, CBE, FRAS (16 December 1917 – 19 March 2008) was a British science fiction author, inventor, and futurist, most famous for the novel *2001: A Space Odyssey, written in collaboration with director Stanley Kubrick, a collaboration which also produced the film of the same name; and as a host and commentator in the British television series Mysterious World. For many years, Robert A. Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke were known as the “Big Three” of science fiction.

Clarke served in the Royal Air Force as a radar instructor and technician from 1941–1946. He proposed a satellite communication systems in 1945 which won him the Franklin Institute Stuart Ballantine Gold Medal in 1963. He was the chairman of the British Interplanetary Society from 1947–1950 and again in 1953. Later, he helped fight for the preservation of lowland gorillas.

Clarke emigrated to Sri Lanka in 1956 largely to pursue his interest in scuba diving, and lived there until his death. He was knighted by British monarchy in 1998,and was awarded Sri Lanka’s highest civil honour, Sri Lankabhimanya, in 2005. Source: Wikipedia ]