The earth is only 6000 years old.

[SugarMagnolia]

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.

Can anyone explain how this can be taught with a straight face
My best guess is that the people who believe this have not received a basic education. It’s an embarrassment that in one of the richest nations on earth we are unable to provide a solid elementary school education to all of our citizens. Unfortunately this “belief” has become tied to a religion, which gives it a protection that no other false idea could ever have. Imagine if parents pulled their children out of school to home school them because those parents didn’t believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and so didn’t what their children to be taught proper mathematics or if parents believed that adjectives were heresy and didn’t want their children to be taught proper grammar? We would not allow it. We would insist that their children be properly educated. But they claim their religion is against science so they they’re allowed to teach children anything they like. Then those children grow up and perpetuate this sort of thinking with a straight face.

 

[Deconi]

Respectfully, the passage I quoted is from a Dogmatic Constitution of an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. The Catholic faith does not allow us the option of believing that the human authors of scripture were merely taking dictation.

All of it, not merely some of it, was authentic magisterial teaching.

Hmm… you’re somehow arguing my point!

The ‘pen’ is the scribing instrument of The Author. The Author moves the pen. In our exchange, now moot, that is what occurred when Moses, Esther, et al, wrote what they did, through inspiration. They did not write what was told them, nor captured what was ‘dictated’ them. In the truest sense, they were the pen of The Author, for they wrote word for word what He willed; not what they thought/felt He said or meant!

Your earlier post implied that examinations of the lives and times of the scribes made a difference to the meaning of Scripture, at least from my vantage.

 

[Deconi]

Read Dei Verbum. To say they were pens is to take a non-Catholic (protestant) position.

Reading it again will be 27th time. Clearly, you mistake pen for secretary…but the point is now moot. -see above.

 

[itinerant1]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=675&pictureid=5622

This picture represents the world of the ancient Hebrews. The picture is from the New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. This pre-scientific Babylonian view of the world is the same one shared by the Mesopotamians, Canaanites, and other Semitic tribes.

Below are Biblical references to this world view.

Abyss
“…and darkness covered the abyss (Gn 1:2)

According to the ancient Semites the “abyss” was the primordial ocean. God divided the abyss into salt-water seas (Gn 1:9 ff), and fresh water:
[a] “God said, ‘Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.’ And so it was. God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault. God called the vault ‘heaven’. (Gn 1:6 ff )”

Rakia; vault, firmament or dome:
[a] “The heavens declare the glory of God, the vault of heaven proclaims his handiwork (Ps 19:1)”
**“Alleluia! Praise God in his holy place, praise him in the heavenly vault of his power (Ps 150:1)”
[c] “Over the heads of the living creatures was what looked like a solid surface glittering like crystal, spread out over their heads, above them, and under the solid surface, their wings were spread out straight, touching one another, and each had a pair covering its body (Ez 1:22-23”)."
[d] “Beyond the solid surface above their heads, there was what seemed like a sapphire, in the form of a throne. High above on the form of a throne was a form with the appearance of a human being (Ez 1:26).”
[e] “Then, in vision I saw that above the solid surface over the heads of the winged creatures there was above them something like sapphire, which seemed to be like a throne. (Ez 10:1).”

The fresh water is contained under the earth, and above the dome (“rakia,” vault, firmament) of the sky, which holds the upper waters in place:
[a] “…and waters above the firmament (Ps. 148:4)”.
** “Waters above the heavens! Bless the Lord (Dn 3:60)”.

For the ancient Hebrews, and their Mesopotamian and Canaanite neighbors, the vault of the sky (firmament) was a solid dome. The English word “firmament” is derived from the Latin “firmamentum”, which represents the Greek “stereoma”, “a hard object”. These terms translate the Hebrew “rakia”, which designates a thin, beaten metal plate. The conception of the sky in Genesis is that of a thin bowl-shaped surface that covers the earth.

Rainwater (Gn 7:4, 12) pours down through apertures in the vault:
[a] “…and the sluices of heaven opened (Gn 7:11).”
** “The springs of the deep and the sluices of heaven were stopped (Gn 8:2”).
[c] “The equerry on whose arm the king was leaning retorted to Elisha, ‘Even if Yahweh made windows in the sky, could this word come true?’ ‘You will see it with your own eyes,’ Elisha replied, ‘though you will eat none of it.’ (2 K 7:2)”

In addition to the fresh water (clouds, rain, hail and snow) held above the firmament, fresh water was contained under the earth:
[a] “He collects the waters of the sea like a dam, he stores away the abyss in his treasure-house (Ps 33:7).”
** “The waters have made it grow, the deep has made it tall, pouring its rivers round the place where it is planted, sending rivulets to all the wild trees (Ez 31:4).”

Fresh water under the earth wells forth as springs and fountains:
[a] “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, and on the seventeenth day of the month, that very day all the springs of the great deep burst through, and the sluices of heaven opened (Gn 7:11).”
** “The springs of the deep and the sluices of heaven were stopped up and the heavy rain from heaven was held back (Gn 8:2).”
[c] “Through his knowledge the depths were cleft open, and the clouds distil the dew (Prv 3:20).”

The world******** or universe is imagined as a vast edifice, supported with pillars resting upon foundations laid in the abyss. There are chambers or storehouses for light and darkness, wind, snow and hail. The earth itself is a flat disc or platform (“Or who stretched the measuring line across it”), with edges (“to grasp the earth by its edges”) and is supported by pillars (“What supports its pillars at their bases?”).

Select verses from the Book of Job, Ch. 38 relevant to cosmology:
4 Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundations? Tell me, since you are so well-informed!
5 Who decided its dimensions, do you know? Or who stretched the measuring line across it?
6 What supports its pillars at their bases? Who laid its cornerstone

13 to grasp the earth by its edges and shake the wicked out of it?

16 Have you been right down to the sources of the sea and walked about at the bottom of the Abyss?

19 Which is the way to the home of the Light, and where does darkness live? -

22 Have you visited the place where the snow is stored? Have you seen the stores of hail, 23 which I keep for times of distress, for days of battle and war?

The Earth does not move:
“tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firm, it cannot be moved (1 Chr 16:30),”

“The world is indeed set firm, it can never be shaken; your throne is set firm from of old, from all eternity you exist (Ps 93:2).”

“Say among the nations, ‘Yahweh is king.’ The world is set firm, it cannot be moved. He will judge the nations with justice (Ps 96:10).”

“You fixed the earth on its foundations, for ever and ever it shall not be shaken (Ps 104:5).”

For additional discussion of Hebrew cosmology you can go to this page:
A COMMON COSMOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT WORLD**

 

[itinerant1]

There is ‘water’ in the heavens, if you accept the planets of ice lauded in 2005 - 2008 as being ‘just’ beyond the solar system.

Bu that is not the ancient Semitic view, according to which clouds, rain, hail, and snow were let down through sluices in the firmament. Planets just beyond the solar system are a bit far away to water Hebrew crops and fields.

Problem is the YEC stigma of 6000 - 10000year old earth. All I know suggests a ‘younger’ earth than the figures lauded and banded about. It actually MAY be a billion years. During school it was 20billion, then refined to 13billion before I finished school. Now, it’s 4.5 billion!..you see where I’m going with this.

It looks like you are confusing the age of the universe with the age of the earth. The age of the universe was refined down to 13 and something billion years, while the earth is 4.5 billion years.

In fact, the Vatican has meteorite its lead astronomer dated at 4 and something billion years, and because of the meteorite’s chemical constitution it is believed to have originated from Mars. I have picture of the Pope holding the small meteorite and he looks completely awed.

 

[itinerant1]

Hi itinerant1,

I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of my rhetorical question and concede that its implication does not necessarily follow. I am gratified that you and I agree that it is possible that there could be an evolutionary theory that is compatible with the Catholic faith.

My entire post, and the question, taken in context, was trying to emphasize my reluctance to place any trust in what has come to be called “science”. I use the modifier “modern” to designate a distinction I draw. I believe that man may profitably glorify God and edify himself by studies of the created universe. I think St. Albert the Great was an example of this. It has always been the position of the Catholic Church that studies of this kind will lead one closer to God. I believe this wholeheartedly.

When science ceases to be religiously edifying, as seems to be the case for a century and a half or more, I become suspicious. This is why I distinguish “modern science” from science. No less than St. Albert the Great, or the many uncanonized Catholic and Christian scientists of the ages, modern scientists perceive nature through a worldview that affects their findings. I don’t claim to be able to undermine or even understand their relativity theory, string theories, magnets (I believe in those without understanding), or even algebra for that matter. Nor do I intend to understand them. It is over my head and I don’t believe as I stated before that many of the masses who proclaim their belief in the conclusions of modern science understand these things either. Well, algebra perhaps. Regardless of the accuracy of that speculation, I would pesonally be taking it in on authority without understanding it at first, in a way similar as to how I accept supernatural revelation. Just as most modern scientists reject the authority of God to declare supernatural revelation to His Holy Church, so I reject the authority of most modern scientiists when they declare natural revelation to me.

In my opinion, studies of the natural universe done through a lens of godlessness yields results that will be skewed. I don’t have any interest in any so-called science that claims to be neutral regarding the existence of God. Over time, doctrines have been developed and theories proposed that are in my opinion, deliberately, designedly and pointedly irreligious. Regarding the moral law, I don’t believe in separation of church and state. Regarding the natural law, I don’t believe in separation of church and science. Modern man errs if he thinks that no guidance is needed from the Church in these areas.

Respectfully,

Rory

There is good science and there is the abuse of science. Merely because a scientist is an atheist, it does not follow that he is abusing science. In fact, a good number of atheistic scientists were appalled and critical of the evolutionist Richard Dawkins, for his book “The God Delusion.” For example, the well-known historian of science and Darwinist Michael Ruse said, “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist…”

If you are interested in religion and science, you might be interested in the study by Fr. Karl A. Kneller, S.J.; “Christianity and the Leaders of Modern Science: A Contribution to the History of Culture during the Nineteenth Century” The majority of truly great scientists during this period were believers and many were Catholic, and a good number believed in evolution, though not in Darwin’s particular version. By understanding the 19th century better, one can more objectively judge the 20th century.

Culture has become more secularized in the 20th century and so naturally more of the people that go into the science fields are not religious. But I suspect there other professions have an even higher rate of atheists, notably college and university English departments have been more politicized than the science departments.

 

[itinerant1]

Very simple: Humans didn’t do it, God painted those caves to make it appear as if men did.

BTW, I’ve always wonder why God didn’t paint dinosaurs. :whacky:

Spot on! I like your sense of humor.

 

[itinerant1]

One more note:

Scientists are continually performing useful experiments and making important discoveries. Consider this one: “Scientists tell us that the fastest animal on earth, with a top speed of 120 ft/sec, is a cow that has been dropped out of a helicopter.” (Dave Barry)

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

The exact and precise age of the earth is not known. However, science has a pretty good grasp on the minimum age of the earth. Using various dating methodologies, the age of the earth is said to be at least 4.5 billion years old.

 

[aspirant]

Hmm… you’re somehow arguing my point!

Just the opposite. Dei Verbum completely rules out the reduction of the scriptural authors to mere “pens.” A pen is a mere tool with no will of its own that makes no contribution of its own in terms of literary style, etc. The Catholic Church, on the contrary, teaches that the human authors of scripture are true authors who make unique contributions to the texts. It is their intentions in which the literal sense of scripture is discerned.

 

[edwest2]

Can anyone explain how this can be taught with a straight face
My best guess is that the people who believe this have not received a basic education. It’s an embarrassment that in one of the richest nations on earth we are unable to provide a solid elementary school education to all of our citizens. Unfortunately this “belief” has become tied to a religion, which gives it a protection that no other false idea could ever have. Imagine if parents pulled their children out of school to home school them because those parents didn’t believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and so didn’t what their children to be taught proper mathematics or if parents believed that adjectives were heresy and didn’t want their children to be taught proper grammar? We would not allow it. We would insist that their children be properly educated. But they claim their religion is against science so they they’re allowed to teach children anything they like. Then those children grow up and perpetuate this sort of thinking with a straight face.

Where does this embarrassment come from? I have been hearing for decades how this problem has continued. It seems every time a politician runs for office he promises more money for schools, and apparently, more money never gets there, or if it does, it’s not enough.

And here, it appears that only the lack of a belief regarding the age of the earth is of any consequence. There are young people who lack basic skills upon entering their first year of college. Only a low percentage of the population knows how to read.

The focus here is on promoting one idea, and one idea only, as if that idea encompasses all of education. And all of science.

Religion is not usually against science, but I see people quoting this or that Pope regarding science. Why is that? Isn’t the scientific data able to stand on its own without the endorsement of religious leaders? Apparently not.

And people today, especially in the United States, are properly concerned for their children since anti-theist scientists appear on TV and use science to eliminate God. The pagan secular media also reinforces their views. So parents should be concerned. I am sure seeing billboards that proclaim: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief, sends the clear message that a new idol is to be worshipped and that their beliefs should be discarded.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

If you are interested in religion and science, you might be interested in the study by Fr. Karl A. Kneller, S.J.; “Christianity and the Leaders of Modern Science: A Contribution to the History of Culture during the Nineteenth Century” The majority of truly great scientists during this period were believers and many were Catholic, and a good number believed in evolution, though not in Darwin’s particular version. By understanding the 19th century better, one can more objectively judge the 20th century.

Another useful source is Catholicism and Science:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...ordia.ca/Bookstore/products/9780313331909.jpg

amazon.com/Catholicism-Science-Greenwood-Guides-Religion/dp/0313331901/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267129509&sr=8-1

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

The focus here is on promoting one idea, and one idea only, as if that idea encompasses all of education. And all of science.

The focus should be on teaching the best explanations of wherever the evidence and observations lead. Else, under the feel-good auspices of “teaching all sides and let the children decide”, we should be giving flat-earth equal time and legitimacy as modern geology. We should be giving the Ptolemy’s geocentric model equal time and legitimacy as Copernicus’ heliocentric model. We should be giving astrology equal time and legitimacy as astronomy. We should be giving alchemy equal time and legitimacy as chemistry.

The possibilities should definitely be narrowed down to the models that actually work - not every single, half-baked or obsolete idea that’s out there, unless you really want to confuse the students and lower the bar for science.

 

[StAnastasia]

The focus should be on teaching the best explanations of wherever the evidence and observations lead. Else, under the feel-good auspices of “teaching all sides and let the children decide”, we should be giving flat-earth equal time and legitimacy as modern geology. We should be giving the Ptolemy’s geocentric model equal time and legitimacy as Copernicus’ heliocentric model. We should be giving astrology equal time and legitimacy as astronomy. We should be giving alchemy equal time and legitimacy as chemistry.

The possibilities should definitely be narrowed down to the models that actually work - not every single, half-baked or obsolete idea that’s out there, unless you really want to confuse the students and lower the bar for science.

Mr Skeptic, I would refine that to say the most coherent explanation. The explanations offered by Young Earth and Intelligent Design Creationism are simply incoherent, and therefore not worth spending precious class time on. But if we are going to teach all sides, we should include numerology and holocaust denial.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

Mr Skeptic, I would refine that to say the most coherent explanation. The explanations offered by Young Earth and Intelligent Design Creationism are simply incoherent, and therefore not worth spending precious class time on. But if we are going to teach all sides, we should include numerology and holocaust denial.

There are many competing ideas in science. Most of them are coherent, but scant few will make it to the top and beat out the competition. I agree, however, that Young Earth Creationism is simply - incoherent.

Many different disciplines and methodologies have to be grossly flawed in order for the old earth model to be wrong. Further, even if someone summarily dismisses all of them as grossly flawed, the much harder task faces them head-on - explain how all these grossly flawed disciplines and methodologies, instead of being erratic and all over the board with no consistency, actually confirm and support each other.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

But if we are going to teach all sides, we should include numerology and holocaust denial.

I’ll see that and raise to - give all the creation myths of the world, equal time and legitimacy.

 

[itinerant1]

The problem with “teach all sides” in science class is the advocates of this approach want equal time for views that are not science. “Teach all sides” would not constitute a teaching of competing scientific theories. For instance, “creation science” is not science, and so it has no place in the science curriculum as a competing scientific viewpoint.

Furthermore, presenting “creation science” would just confuse the students as to the nature and methods of the natural sciences.

For those who believe there are ideological problems with neo-Darwinism, all I will say here is I maintain that promoting the flawed ideas of fundamentalist creationism or Intelligent Design theory is not the solution.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

The problem with “teach all sides” in science class is the advocates of this approach want equal time for views that are not science. “Teach all sides” would not constitute a teaching of competing scientific theories. For instance, “creation science” is not science, and so it has no place in the science curriculum as a competing scientific viewpoint.

Furthermore, presenting “creation science” would just confuse the students as to the nature and methods of the natural sciences.

For those who believe there are ideological problems with neo-Darwinism, all I will say here is I maintain that promoting the flawed ideas of fundamentalist creationism or Intelligent Design theory is not the solution.

I agree.

Overall and widespread, Darwin’s predictions have been confirmed and further supported by later and more modern/advanced technological and methodological studies. Over 150 years later, with the most scrutinizing peers, with the all the latest and advanced technology of the 21st century, biological evolution has not been falsified. That’s got to say something for the theory!

 

[StAnastasia]

I’ll see that and raise to - give all the creation myths of the world, equal time and legitimacy.

I do teach creation stories, a lot of them: Mayan, Hindu, Hebrew, Norse, North American native, Hawaiian, African, Maori.

 

[Young_Thinker]

I do teach creation stories, a lot of them: Mayan, Hindu, Hebrew, Norse, North American native, Hawaiian, African, Maori.

How interesting! For instance, I read that the Hindus believe that the world is quite old.