The earth is only 6000 years old.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Justin_Mee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aspirant said:
Whether one calls it a “religion” or not, the faith tenet of strong atheism makes a greater ontological claim than many other religions ever do. It requires not only active faith, but active faith in a logical contradiction.
Click to expand...
Kudos! 👍
 
larkin31 said:
Not all pride is a sin, I don’t think.
Click to expand...
Hurting another human being for a believe that the Church does not say we must deny, but on the other hand leaves it up to the individual is, in fact, sinful if the statesments made towards the believer is a form of detraction, which is a sin. :eek:

And your mama wears combat boots. So there. 😉
 
The human being is created with an innate orientation toward the good in general. This inner dynamic orientation is what makes freedom of choice possible. Rational will chooses particular goods under the dynamic of this orientation toward the good in general, which is God.

Pagans misidentified that in which the highest good consists by imagining things of this world to be god. In consequence, they put their faith in false gods.

The atheist goes a step further, by not only putting faith in the becoming of the universe, but by “denying” the existence of God, the Highest Good. But the atheist cannot prove the non-existence of God, and hence his belief is a full-blown act of faith, but in reverse gear from how God created human nature.

I hope the atheists here on CAF are not offended by my next comment: Pope Paul VI at times spoke of atheism in terms of a psychological disorder. Pope Paul VI had some very good reason for this theoretical position, infinitely better reasons than Dawkins had for his lame assertion that belief in God is the result of a virus that has infected humanity.

Atheism is both a logical and psychological contradiction. Yet, I think the only good argument for atheism is an argument from all the evil in the world. How could a God who is reputed to be all good and loving permit such natural and moral evils on this planet?
One might suspect that the Judeo-Christian tradition has falsified God’s portfolio. :rolleyes:
 
edwest2 said:
Why do you feel the need to defend an old earth as opposed to one that is 6000 years old?
Click to expand...
Actually, it is you who feels the need to defend a 6,000-year-old earth, treating 2,000-year-old writings as 100% accurate and final. It is you who will not change that position, no matter what new evidence, observations, or evidence arises. Can you imagine if that type of thinking was applied anywhere else in life? :eek:

Conversely for science, the estimated minimum age of the earth has increased, (changed), several times over the past 150 years, as new discoveries and observations were made. Lord Kelvin theorized that the age of the earth was between 20 million and 400 million years. That was back in the mid-1800’s.

I feel the need to teach students the most updated and accurate information, and with enthusiasm! I feel the need to teach students the closest explanation and understanding of reality, and how our world works.

The magnitude of error of the 6,000-year-old earth model is so great, it is the equivalent of claiming that a mere 25 feet separate New York and San Francisco. It boggles the mind. :eek:
 
eucharisteo said:
Hurting another human being for a believe that the Church does not say we must deny, but on the other hand leaves it up to the individual is, in fact, sinful if the statesments made towards the believer is a form of detraction, which is a sin. :eek:

And your mama wears combat boots. So there. 😉
Click to expand...
If you cannot handle arguments against your uninformed assumptions, then you should try another thread. Your ad hominem remarks are uncalled for. Obviously you cannot engage the issues in an informed and logical manner.

BTW, Cardinal Schonborn says creationism is not an acceptable theological position. Perhaps you should write to the Cardinal and tell him he has committed a sin. 😃
 
Oh My! It looks like the sun will be setting on another day without anyone having posted any evidence for the earth being 6,000 years old. Waiting, waiting, :juggle:
 
Mr_Skeptic said:
Actually, it is you who feels the need to defend a 6,000-year-old earth, treating 2,000-year-old writings as 100% accurate and final. It is you who will not change that position, no matter what new evidence, observations, or evidence arises. Can you imagine if that type of thinking was applied anywhere else in life? :eek:

Conversely for science, the estimated minimum age of the earth has increased, (changed), several times over the past 150 years, as new discoveries and observations were made. Lord Kelvin theorized that the age of the earth was between 20 million and 400 million years. That was back in the mid-1800’s.

I feel the need to teach students the most updated and accurate information, and with enthusiasm! I feel the need to teach students the closest explanation and understanding of reality, and how our world works.

The magnitude of error of the 6,000-year-old earth model is so great, it is the equivalent of claiming that a mere 25 feet separate New York and San Francisco. It boggles the mind. :eek:
Click to expand...
My God would want you to teach the best scientific evidence for the age of the earth.
 
eucharisteo said:
Hurting another human being for a believe that the Church does not say we must deny, but on the other hand leaves it up to the individual is, in fact, sinful if the statesments made towards the believer is a form of detraction, which is a sin.
Click to expand...
I tried reading this three times. Can you rephrase this to make it clearer?
 
Mr_Skeptic said:
Actually, it is you who feels the need to defend a 6,000-year-old earth, treating 2,000-year-old writings as 100% accurate and final. It is you who will not change that position, no matter what new evidence, observations, or evidence arises. Can you imagine if that type of thinking was applied anywhere else in life? :eek:

Conversely for science, the estimated minimum age of the earth has increased, (changed), several times over the past 150 years, as new discoveries and observations were made. Lord Kelvin theorized that the age of the earth was between 20 million and 400 million years. That was back in the mid-1800’s.

I feel the need to teach students the most updated and accurate information, and with enthusiasm! I feel the need to teach students the closest explanation and understanding of reality, and how our world works.
Click to expand...
I read an article in the New York Times about an instructor who was well qualified, with a background in the military, trying to teach his ‘fundamentalist’ students about evolution. One of his visual aids was early drawings of Mickey Mouse compared to later versions. This was his grand explanation of change over time. It was beyond ridiculous. Walt Disney consciously made choices to modify the Mouse.

The only reason the age of the earth is brought up here is to add support to a theory that denies certain fundamental truths. I have read a great deal about how the age of the earth has been calculated. I have also done some reading about planet formation and the early earth. How parts of it were once underwater and how other parts were changed by volcanos. There are also anomolies in the geological record but these are rarely mentioned.

All we have here, and will continue to have, is a clash of orthodoxies. Do you honestly think the Catholic Church missed a little detail by allowing Catholics to believe the earth is only thousands of years old? An oversight on their part?

I have also been studying the redshift of distant objects in space. Strangely, according to this method of measuring distance, some of these objects are moving faster than the speed of light (referred to as superluminal in the literature). Did you know that?

I was there during the space race. I picked up every book and magazine I could to learn all I could. I study science to this day, but the ideological problem inherent in a question like this amounts to a Mount Everest. The current plan, as I see it, is to merge the Secular Creation Story as found in Biology texts with a new, ultra-symbolic, and therefore, partly meaningless interpretation of part of the Bible. This way, anti-theists can easily discard as irrelevant the only item Catholics are allowed to believe: God puts a soul into each body.

Are you teaching your students that reality shows they are only animals, programmed by their genes, with brains that are self-modifying and self-upgrading and that all this happened for no particular reason?

Peace,
Ed
 
It is timely that I am looking further into Cardinal Schonborn’s views on creation and evolution.

Schonborn says,

“The Catholic position on “creationism” is clear. Saint Thomas Aquinas says one should “not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that make it ridiculous, because they are in obvious contradiction with reason.” It is nonsense to maintain that the world is only six thousand years old. An attempt to prove such a notion scientifically means provoking what Saint Thomas calls irrisio infidelium, the mockery of unbelievers. Exposing the faith to mockery with false arguments of this kind is not right; indeed it is specifically rejected.” (Chance or Purpose, p. 37-38)

As the good Cardinal has stated, “The Catholic position on “creationism” is clear.” Hence, it should be repentance, sackcloth and ashes this Lent for supporters of “creationism.” The Church does not want your provocation of irrisio infidelium.
 
I think the Church is more concerned about the mockery of believers. Challenges to this particular theory are worthwhile. Or do you think the Church missed the fact that it allows Catholics to believe the earth is only thousands of years old? An oversight on their part?

For the record, I think the earth is younger than advertised. A precise 6000 years? No.

Let me repeat that: younger than advertised.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I think the Church is more concerned about the mockery of believers. Challenges to this particular theory are worthwhile. Or do you think the Church missed the fact that it allows Catholics to believe the earth is only thousands of years old? An oversight on their part?

For the record, I think the earth is younger than advertised. A precise 6000 years? No.

Let me repeat that: younger than advertised.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
“The Catholic position on “creationism” is clear.” Your views are not Catholic.
 
edwest2 said:
For the record, I think the earth is younger than advertised. A precise 6000 years? No.
Click to expand...
Give us the date range you think is most accurate, and, tell us how you arrived at those numbers. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top