The earth is only 6000 years old.

[Bob_Crowley]

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 ]

There is a “vast fossil record” much of which appears to have been laid down as the result some overarching cataclysm/s. Whole schools of fish are entombed; thousands of woolly mammoths are found frozen to death; billions of fossils are buried together; trees are found upside down in coal beds; and the sheer mass of fossil fuel, the energy capital on which we live today; indicates the fecundity of the world that was buried.

And there’s not much evidence of “missing links” either, despite all the hoo haa.

 

[itinerant1]

There is a “vast fossil record” much of which appears to have been laid down as the result some overarching cataclysm/s. Whole schools of fish are entombed; thousands of woolly mammoths are found frozen to death; billions of fossils are buried together; trees are found upside down in coal beds; and the sheer mass of fossil fuel, the energy capital on which we live today; indicates the fecundity of the world that was buried.

And there’s not much evidence of “missing links” either, despite all the hoo haa.

Despite the geological anomalies, real and apparent (many have been adequately explained), and your personal estimation of “missing links”, which we cannot discuss here, the scientific evidence for an ancient earth remains rock solid.

 

[Deconi]

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.

Do you accept ANY of these…and then look for an explanation of them??..or do you now reject them all, in light of your ‘newfound’, scientific, intellect?!

 

[itinerant1]

Do you accept ANY of these…and then look for an explanation of them??..or do you now reject them all, in light of your ‘newfound’, scientific, intellect?!

It is not a matter of accepting or rejecting as your imagination suggests; but it is one of correctly interpreting a Biblical text by identifying its *genus litterarium *the author chose to convey his message; and discerning just what that message is (as distinct from its setting).

Judging from your odd remark, this appears to be a task you are incapable of doing with any competence.

 

[kalt]

There is a “vast fossil record” much of which appears to have been laid down as the result some overarching cataclysm/s. Whole schools of fish are entombed; thousands of woolly mammoths are found frozen to death; billions of fossils are buried together; trees are found upside down in coal beds; and the sheer mass of fossil fuel, the energy capital on which we live today; indicates the fecundity of the world that was buried.

And there’s not much evidence of “missing links” either, despite all the hoo haa.

I’m curious. What “missing link” would have to be found to satisfy your definition of one? Whenever a new “missing link” is found, the naysayers point out that a “missing link” with fewer differences could fit in between. They say that this as proof that evolution hasn’t happened. Then when a fossil is found that fits between the first two, which is what the naysayers is still missing, they divide the difference again and say that the newly found “missing link” doesn’t count, because the new, smaller difference and be divided yet again.

That makes no sense to me. You can start at 2 and approach 1 by dividing the difference in half, but you can never reach 1. If you keep dividing the difference, you will never reach 1. I think this is what the naysayers are doing in an attempt to say that 1 doesn’t exist. At some point, to get to 1, you have to stop dividing and take a full step.

 

[Jon_Hus]

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.

Hi Justin,

Does your past life pastor have a name and number that we can call or write to to get more information on the age of the earth?

 

[jimmy]

The photos are taken with black and white and colorized later. Prove to me different.

Prove to me both that that is true and that it even matters. Why is it my jo to prove to you? I showed you a photo, either you will accept it or reject it. You sound like one of the morons who doubt that Jesus existed because the gospels were written by Christians. Everything can be doubted when it comes down to it, but the fact is that we have reasonable proof for the scientific theories of today. Your whole case is built on the statement, ‘prove it’, which isn’t a case at all.

 

[edwest2]

I’m curious. What “missing link” would have to be found to satisfy your definition of one? Whenever a new “missing link” is found, the naysayers point out that a “missing link” with fewer differences could fit in between. They say that this as proof that evolution hasn’t happened. Then when a fossil is found that fits between the first two, which is what the naysayers is still missing, they divide the difference again and say that the newly found “missing link” doesn’t count, because the new, smaller difference and be divided yet again.

That makes no sense to me. You can start at 2 and approach 1 by dividing the difference in half, but you can never reach 1. If you keep dividing the difference, you will never reach 1. I think this is what the naysayers are doing in an attempt to say that 1 doesn’t exist. At some point, to get to 1, you have to stop dividing and take a full step.

What makes no sense to me is this ultra-orthodox belief and faith in science. Especially this version of science. It must be preached daily. It must not be questioned lest you get called names. It must be shouted from the house tops. It is the truth that must be known by the ignorant because it is this truth that is the most important truth of all. Why, without this truth, all human progress will end.

Puh leeez.

Peace,
Ed

 

[aspirant]

correctly interpreting a Biblical text by identifying its *genus litterarium *the author chose to convey his message; and discerning just what that message is

Whenever a new “missing link” is found, the naysayers point out that a “missing link” with fewer differences could fit in between. They say that this as proof that evolution hasn’t happened. Then when a fossil is found that fits between the first two, which is what the naysayers is still missing, they divide the difference again and say that the newly found “missing link” doesn’t count, because the new, smaller difference and be divided yet again.

It’s Zeno’s Fossil Paradox!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Following this thread and reading all the posts, I must say that Itinerant1’s posts are not only compelling, but loaded with interesting points, facts, quotes, and citations that are just first-rate. I agree whole-heartedly with his assessments of the age of the earth and the data as well as flexibility we have with Scripture to determine the truth here. Itinerant, just awesome, dude. Loved your posts.

 

[Justin_Mee]

Well, would a Catholic please post a clear, concise Catholic response to the question? What exactly is the Catholic view on the age of the earth?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My understanding is that the Catholic Church doesn’t have an exact, concrete, official teaching on this subject because it respects the different views and allows the individual to make that determination. This has nothing to do with morality, theology, salvation, or ecclesiastical matters so it is left up to the layman to do his own research and analysis. That’s my take at least. The only real definite requirement is that we believe in the The Fall and the concupiscence that followed and continues to encase our souls. These are details the Church wisely leaves up to science. I’m also encouraged that Benedict seems open to evolutionary thinking at times and is willing to date the earth in a, what I feel is, far more accurate, ancient manner. I don’t buy the 6,000 year thing for one second–or 50,000 for that matter.

Well, would a Catholic please post a clear, concise Catholic response to the question? What exactly is the Catholic view on the age of the earth?

 

[aspirant]

My understanding is that the Catholic Church doesn’t have an exact, concrete, official teaching on this subject because it respects the different views and allows the individual to make that determination. This has nothing to do with morality, theology, salvation, or ecclesiastical matters so it is left up to the layman to do his own research and analysis… These are details the Church wisely leaves up to science. I’m also encouraged that Benedict seems open to evolutionary thinking at times and is willing to date the earth in a, what I feel is, far more accurate, ancient manner.

I think this old article is helpful.

 

[edwest2]

Well, would a Catholic please post a clear, concise Catholic response to the question? What exactly is the Catholic view on the age of the earth?

“The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age - that it has not existed from all eternity - but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Source: catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Peace,
Ed

 

[kalt]

What makes no sense to me is this ultra-orthodox belief and faith in science. Especially this version of science. It must be preached daily. It must not be questioned lest you get called names. It must be shouted from the house tops. It is the truth that must be known by the ignorant because it is this truth that is the most important truth of all. Why, without this truth, all human progress will end.

Puh leeez.

Peace,
Ed

What version of science are you talking about. I’m not sure that there are different versions.???

I’m sure that evolutionary science can be ignored and we’ll still have advances in computer tech, etc. I’m not sure that a scientist can ingnore evolution fact and make advances in the biological sciences, though. Imagine trying to make flu vaccine without taking evolution into account. Rodent poison, too. As rodents become immune to the poison, we have to change the poisons used. (The rodents that are resistent to the poison live to reproduce, and eventually most of the population is immune.)

My question was in response to another’s post, but I’m curious about your opinion, too. What transitional fossil would satisfy your definition of one? We’ll use humans since we all know the most about humans. What would a transitional fossil look like?

 

[Dokimas]

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.

I’m curious where does the OT say that the world is flat? I haven’t looked at all the posts so if the answer is there, please be patient with me. TY.

 

[edwest2]

What version of science are you talking about. I’m not sure that there are different versions.???

I’m sure that evolutionary science can be ignored and we’ll still have advances in computer tech, etc. I’m not sure that a scientist can ingnore evolution fact and make advances in the biological sciences, though. Imagine trying to make flu vaccine without taking evolution into account. Rodent poison, too. As rodents become immune to the poison, we have to change the poisons used. (The rodents that are resistent to the poison live to reproduce, and eventually most of the population is immune.)

My question was in response to another’s post, but I’m curious about your opinion, too. What transitional fossil would satisfy your definition of one? We’ll use humans since we all know the most about humans. What would a transitional fossil look like?

I have imagined making a flu vaccine. Here’s an article by a member of the NAS that will inform you about how things actually work:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/

Transitional fossil? I have seen a photo of an ancient insect trapped in amber with legs and wings that appeared fully functional. It is possible that Cardinal Schoenborn is right - there are no transitional fossils. Yes, there were dinosaurs but now they’re gone.

Regarding humans. Look at the skeleton of an ape and look at the skeleton of a man. How many length and angle adjustments would be required to turn the ape skeleton into a human skeleton? Not that many.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Dokimas]

Regarding humans. Look at the skeleton of an ape and look at the skeleton of a man. How many length and angle adjustments would be required to turn the ape skeleton into a human skeleton? Not that many.

Peace,
Ed

How about the human brain?

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

If you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old, you have to completely disregard science, geology, and astronomy.

The Genesis account is not and was never meant to be a scientific explanation of the origins of the earth.

The earth is old. The argument that the earth was made “with an apearance of age” is so silly. Why would God want to fool us?

I think that the immense age of the universe puts me in even more awe of God.

It isn’t only a matter of disregarding modern geology and astronomy; it as at the core, not trusting the “revelations” of modern geology and astronomy. I understand trusting God on faith, but why should we trust modern science? I don’t think 10% of the people who profess to follow modern science understand what they are talking about. Its just a desire to not seem stupid. Maybe you do understand modern science. If so, I haven’t looked into the matter and have no arguments from the realm of the natural order. So you are correct; I have slight regard for the conclusions modern science and I believe in a young earth.

I don’t think God created the earth with an appearance of age, nor do I assume that light has a constant speed. I don’t think we are in a position to judge whether or not the earth has an appearance of age. I haven’t seen any other earths. There is no point of reference. As to the stars, maybe they are closer than we think. Or maybe light moves faster in deep space or at the beginning of creation. I am not sure that the distance of light years is constant. I don’t think God made the light before He made the star from which the light emanates. I do agree that God would not try to fool the faithful in that respect. But I see no reason why He is obligated to open the eyes of faithless academics who seem determined to see a godless and purposeless universe.

I am aware that some in the Vatican are more favorable to evolutionary theories and an ancient earth. That’s fine for them and for you too. I am not calling anybody heretics. I do think it is an overreaction to recent events such as the infamous Galileo incident where the Church comes off looking kind of backwards. Maybe we were. I don’t know. But if some Catholics want modern scientists to think we are completely on board with all the implications that they would have us swallow, the same Catholics will, in my opinion, end up faithless. Since the doctrine of original sin is non-negotiable, faithful Catholics will always have to disregard the conclusions of modern evolutionary theory. If I have to disregard that, why should I trust modern science when it tries to say how old the earth is?

 

[edwest2]

How about the human brain?

Here is an article that I hope you’ll find useful:

news-medical.net/news/20091118/Brain-size-does-not-affect-animals-capability-for-intelligent-behavior-says-new-research.aspx

Peace,
Ed