The earth is only 6000 years old.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Justin_Mee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
St Thomas:

I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

Since science is provisional what certainty do we have?
 
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. 😃
Perhaps you should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not overly emphasis one Cardinal as the solo scriptura of the faith. It appears insecurity is getting the best of you and you are having difficulty handling someone that lends you a counter option for people to accept the warm feeling of a God responsible for our creation in lieu of cold scientific primordial soup at the base of evolutionary monkeys. My wife says “you may be from an ape but I’m not, I’m created by God.” If you are agnostic or atheist you must be from a monkey and proud of it. Good for you, at least you’re comfortable with your heritage.

Some of you are completely ignoring what I have written and instead of lending a charitable okay I see your general point you attack what I’ve written. Anyway, I just realized that I’m speaking to a mix group of people here that may not be Catholic. But it appears that the Catholics are the ones engaging publicly in a less than charitable manner. So on behalf of Catholics, usurping my authority, I apologize for the lack of catechesis you are witnessing. This kind of behavior ran me off many years ago to a fundamentalist church that ultimately practiced similar methods of winning arguments. “Destroy anyone that opposes your beliefs” is the game they play.

So if you are Catholic and making these harsh remarks to anyone that chooses to believe in creation you are undoubtedly in the wrong. If you want to “debate” evolutionary science then fine. But don’t bash everyone that disagrees with you. I know people that say computers are magic. Are you going to attack them too? Leave them alone. Take your debate to a scientific community rather than those that accept at the core of their belief God is the creator.

So NOW, where’s that ignore button so I stop getting attacked by monkeys. Who runs the zoo anyhow?
 
St Thomas:

I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

Since science is provisional what certainty do we have?
We know certainly that the earth is not flat; that it does not rest on pillars; that there is no firmament; that there are no waters above the non-existing firmament; that the sun does not revolve around the earth, and that the earth is significantly older than what the YECs fantasize.
 
“The Catholic position on “creationism” is clear.” Your views are not Catholic.
All Catholics by definition are Creationists. If you are referring to a reading of scripture that does not seek to understand what the author was trying to convey then I agree it would not be Catholic.

However, we know what the constant understanding and teaching of the Church has been, that is, what the author was trying to convey.

So either we got it wrong and the Holy Spirit was not offering protection or there is more to the story. I think there is more to the story. It lies in the intersection of faith and empirical science, not scientific story telling, fraught with the failure to reason properly because of a priori bias. We must be careful of human pride and the limits of our intellect.
 
We know certainly that the earth is not flat; that it does not rest on pillars; that there is no firmament; that there are no waters above the non-existing firmament; that the sun does not revolve around the earth, and that the earth is significantly older than what the YECs fantasize.
I have linked the flat earth myth many times. won’t waste my time.

Science has now found huge amounts of water in space. (so no certainty)

G vs H - (not proven with certainty) Cannot do so until we are outside frame of reference.

Age - speculated and not proven with certainty. Based on assumptions that are provisional and could be overturned.
 
All Catholics by definition are Creationists. If you are referring to a reading of scripture that does not seek to understand what the author was trying to convey then I agree it would not be Catholic.

However, we know what the constant understanding and teaching of the Church has been, that is, what the author was trying to convey.

So either we got it wrong and the Holy Spirit was not offering protection or there is more to the story. I think there is more to the story. It lies in the intersection of faith and empirical science, not scientific story telling, fraught with the failure to reason properly because of a priori bias. We must be careful of human pride and the limits of our intellect.
First, you are using a different meaning of “creationist” than what I and the Cardinal Schonborn quote clearly intended. So, your comment is irrelevant to the discussion.

Second, your personal reading of Genesis and other parts of the Bible, and what the Biblical authors intended to teach, is flat out wrong on many points. Furthermore, it is universal that fundamentalists hold to inadequate notions of divine inspiration.

YEC is not Catholic; it is not Biblical; it is not scientific, and it is not logically coherent.
 
St Thomas:

I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

Since science is provisional what certainty do we have?
Thank you buffalo. Do we have here, an honest exchange of views or that ancient tactic of creating a breach in the wall of truth? The truth will set us free. Yet most posts here appear to be designed to reach particular goals: stamp out fundamentalism, stamp out creationism and stamp out literalism. And this with the greatest urgency. Reason has been co-opted by a small group that simply repeats certain words and phrases. Reality being a big one today.

As I wrote previously, the prestigious Scientific American doubted the “alleged” flights of the Wright Brothers. Lord Kelvin stated in 1895 that heavier than air flying machines are impossible. In less than 45 years we had jets, supersonic rockets and the atomic bomb.

I am looking forward to other scientific advances but I warn my fellow Catholics to look closely at any idea that says you and I came from nothing and will die to nothing.

Sincerely,
Ed
 
First, you are using a different meaning of “creationist” than what I and the Cardinal Schonborn quote clearly intended. So, your comment is irrelevant to the discussion.

Second, your personal reading of Genesis and other parts of the Bible, and what the Biblical authors intended to teach, is flat out wrong on many points. Furthermore, it is universal that fundamentalists hold to inadequate notions of divine inspiration.

YEC is not Catholic; it is not Biblical; it is not scientific, and it is not logically coherent.
They are not my personal readings. I refer to the constant teaching and understanding of the Church.

When did Catholic Church change its teaching about ages? Do you have year? A document to back it up?
 
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**
 
Thank you buffalo. Do we have here, an honest exchange of views or that ancient tactic of creating a breach in the wall of truth? The truth will set us free. Yet most posts here appear to be designed to reach particular goals: stamp out fundamentalism, stamp out creationism and stamp out literalism. And this with the greatest urgency. Reason has been co-opted by a small group that simply repeats certain words and phrases. Reality being a big one today.

As I wrote previously, the prestigious Scientific American doubted the “alledged” flights of the Wright Brothers. Lord Kelvin stated in 1895 that heavier than air flyimg machines are impossible. In less than 45 years we had jets, supersonic rockets and the atomic bomb.

I am looking forward to other scientific advances but I warn my fellow Catholics to look closely at any idea that says you and I came from nothing and will die to nothing.

Sincerely,
Ed
Well Ed, I have a desire to know the truth wherever it leads. Where complications crop up I need a Magisterial document that can clear it up. I have a hard time with the idea that - oh we believe this and that now and that means the constant teaching of the Church was in error.

And now - fellow Catholics preaching scientism.
 
We know certainly that the earth is not flat; that it does not rest on pillars; that there is no firmament; that there are no waters above the non-existing firmament; that the sun does not revolve around the earth, and that the earth is significantly older than what the YECs fantasize.
Are you saying my house is not flat?🤷 Then why does my bubble say it is level? Actually I know a step grandparent that believed in the flat earth and that the travel to space was an elaborate hoax. Pretty funny. But we did not argue against the 90 year of man that died in the early 80’s. That’s not charity.

And for your clarification I really do not believe in a Young Earth. I believe that my God, opposed to the one you put in a box like the fundamentalist, is omnipotent and can do anything He desires, like create a universe that appears to be old. But do I believe that’s what He did is absolutely not relevant. You argue to win arguments. I argue to win souls. Which one is the greater deed?🤷
 
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
Can’t you be more specific? This is hardly an answer.
 
Well Ed, I have a desire to know the truth wherever it leads. Where complications crop up I need a Magisterial document that can clear it up. I have a hard time with the idea that - oh we believe this and that now and that means the constant teaching of the Church was in error.

And now - fellow Catholics preaching scientism.
Scientism is my only problem.

Truth wherever it leads? I wonder what some would do here if it went in the wrong direction. Honest inquiry never bothered me but the recent politicizing of this issue is a big concern.

Peace,
Ed
 
Well Ed, I have a desire to know the truth wherever it leads. Where complications crop up I need a Magisterial document that can clear it up. I have a hard time with the idea that - oh we believe this and that now and that means the constant teaching of the Church was in error.

And now - fellow Catholics preaching scientism.
Of course there is no teaching of the Church that supports fundamentalist creationism, so your remark is just as disingenuous as your one about scientism.

BTW, where is that evidence for an earth that is 6,000 years old. Still waiting…:rolleyes:
 
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.
There is no doubt that humans have a difficult time visualizing abstract concepts.

You argument has to be - they got this wrong and so too we got it wrong for so long and now we figured it out and therefore Scripture cannot be correct.

The issue is that the constant teaching and understanding of the Church was guaranteed to be protected by the Holy Spirit. No such protection did the ancient Hebrews have.

Let us take this example -

The ancients - Adam and Eve - real

Catholic Church today - Adam and Eve - real
 
Of course there is no teaching of the Church that supports fundamentalist creationism, so your remark is just as disingenuous as your one about scientism.

BTW, where is that evidence for an earth that is 6,000 years old. Still waiting…:rolleyes:
I have a ton of evidence but either threw it out because of its source or really went down that argument many years ago to find it a red herring argument for or against the existence of God. It proves nothing. The evidence could have been forged as well and the geological interpretation could also have been misinterpreted to support creationist views. One evidence for the existence of God is that only God could have known the earth was a sphere. Somewhere in scripture the earth is described that way. Forgot most of this stuff I used to memorize. I gave a speech about it once for fun. I’m a geographer. When I was young, coming from a Protestant faith, trying to rectify evolutionary theory almost cost me my faith in God. After years of studying science I bounced back and forth and ultimately just rejected all evolutionary theory because it caused too much internal strife and I saw it as pointless to allow it that way. I overly simplified it. Then I continued my studies and finally came to a conclusion opposite of what my fundamentalist brethren dictated as necessary to believe for salvation. My point is that it is pointlessly selfish to continue to argue with someone, another Catholic, on a non-Catholic thread about something that the Church does not require us to believe. That does NOT say that the educated within the ranks of the clergy reject it. The Church does not require we believe in Marian Apparitions, for example, to be in communion with the Church, only that it seems odd that someone would not believe in them; however the Church says that the apparitions do not contradict the Teachings of the Catholic Church.
 
Of course there is no teaching of the Church that supports fundamentalist creationism, so your remark is just as disingenuous as your one about scientism.

BTW, where is that evidence for an earth that is 6,000 years old. Still waiting…:rolleyes:
Just so I am clear - define fundamental creationism.

I do not claim 6000 years - I have repeatedly stated no younger than around 12,000 years. Read my posts.

Where is the evidence? The historical evidence of the genealogies. The known history of settlements and civilizations. The recording of history is evidence. Now science and history should align don’t you think? If they don’t one of then is wrong. Which one you ask? Well of course - Scripture is wrong, you say. I argue for the inerrancy of Scripture. Now I will follow St Thomas’ advice - make sure there is certainty.

There has to be a harmony.
 
There is no doubt that humans have a difficult time visualizing abstract concepts.

You argument has to be - they got this wrong and so too we got it wrong for so long and now we figured it out and therefore Scripture cannot be correct.

The issue is that the constant teaching and understanding of the Church was guaranteed to be protected by the Holy Spirit. No such protection did the ancient Hebrews have.

Let us take this example -

The ancients - Adam and Eve - real

Catholic Church today - Adam and Eve - real
Like I said, it is universal with fundamentalists – they do not correctly understand biblical inspiration and inerrancy. Your post shows that you have an inaccurate, and non-Catholic understanding of this subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top