The earth is only 6000 years old.

[buffalo]

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.

Please tell me which one of these is wrong:

• God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
  (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
• Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
• Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
• Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
• The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
• The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
• Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
• Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
• After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
• Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
• The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
• We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
• All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
• The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
• St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
• The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
• Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
  (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
• Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

 

[itinerant1]

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.

You are not paying very close attention to the Bible or to science.

The OT portrays the earth as flat.

But what is really telling about your disconnect from the facts is your statement about huge amounts of water in space. Why would anyone think this corresponds to the OT idea of a storehouse for the clouds, rain, snow, and hail that are let down on the earth through floodgates in the firmament?

Apparently, you do not even accept the modern science of meteorology, which explains how clouds are formed, what cause rain, and so on.

You think clouds, rain, hail and snow are caused by water somewhere out in space that scientists have detected? Maybe you should do some reading at a fun site for kids about weather: Weather Wiz Kids

And you hold doubts that the earth revolves around the sun. Oh, my gosh! What does one say to that? Obviously, either you are not familiar with the evidence for heliocentrism, or you just arbitrarily dismiss the facts it because they does agree with your fundamentalist ideology.

Age dating of the earth is fairly reliable, and I am sure you do not know much at all that is accurate about the various dating methods, so I won’t waste my time responding to your uninformed comment.

So, where is your proof for an earth that is much younger than 4.5 billion years? You wouldn’t believe such a thing without good, solid evidence, now would you? What are your dating methods?

 

[itinerant1]

Please tell me which one of these is wrong:

• God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
  (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
• Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
• Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
• Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
• The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
• The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
• Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
• Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
• After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
• Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
• The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
• We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
• All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
• The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
• St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
• The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
• Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
  (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
• Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

How did I know you were going to post this? I was just waiting. Every time you post it, and maybe Edwest does too, I show the various errors in the list. Then you wait until everyone has forgotten about the false statements in the list you have posted and then you try it again.

Either you have a short memory, or you are not being very intellectually honest.

 

[itinerant1]

Let’s look at a few statements in Buffalo’s list, both the good and the bad:

1. “The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I).”

I like this statement because it rules out the possibility of a special creation of new species. And If ID theory requires special creation for systems that are “irreducibly complex” then ID theory contradicts Catholic teaching.

2. “All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church).”

This is absolutely false. There was no consensus of the Fathers on the six days of creation. For example, Origen gave Genesis 1 an allegorical interpretation. St. Augustine held that everything was created at once. St. Gregory of Nyssa and his school are another exception. And even though Aquinas is not one of the Church Fathers, he was the leading theologian of the Middle Ages, and he followed in Augustine’s steps when he said “A direct creation in six days is favored by a superficial reading of Scripture.” That should be enough names to indicate there was no true consensus on the six days.

**3. **“St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302).”

This is not what Unam Sanctam says. The statement above reads more into Unam Sanctam than is there. Unam Sanctam is concerned with the typology of the Ark and makes no pronouncement its historicity, but remains within the literary tradition of the Noah and the Ark. Here is a translation of the text:

“There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.”

Contrary to item # 3*, Unam Sanctam* makes no mention of Peter or Christ confirming a global flood.

**4. **“Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis).”

This is a reasonable and cautious statement to make at the time. I might add that one can reasonably argue that since the time of Humani Generis, there are now many more pros than cons to evolution theory.

5***. *“Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.”

To understand this statement correctly, the reader must properly distinguish between “evolution” and “evolutionism.”

Well, that was a brief look at Buffalo’s alleged magisterial documents that support fundamentalism. I see no support for “creationism” anywhere in entire list that was previously posted.

 

[StAnastasia]

In “Finding Darwin’s God” we find it again appears: “random, undirected process of mutation had produced the ‘right’ kind of variation for natural selection to act upon” (p. 51) “a random, undirected process like evolution” (p. 102) “blind, random, undirected evolution [could] have produced such an intricate set of structures and organs, so brilliantly dedicated to a single purpose” (p. 137) “the random, undirected processes of mutation and natural selection” (p. 145) “Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected” (p. 244) So where was he lying? Please provide me a citation where he admits the above is incorrect.

"Dear XXXXXX,

"While I’m used to the ways in which the classic out-of-context quotation is employed to misrepresent one’s views, usually this is done one quotation at a time. It’s a pleasure to see five of them bundled into one tight, misleading package as we have here.

"The common thread in all of these out-of-context quotations is that they seek to present me as someone who affirms that evolution is “random and undirected” and therefore could not be part of a Divine plan. My actual views, as shown very clearly in “Finding Darwin’s God” and in my other books, articles, and public talks are very much in the Catholic tradition, and echo (in my own poor way) the views of writers such as Augustine and Aquinas. Even though we may pray for God to affect the weather, our health, or world peace, we do not object to those who study the physical, biological, or political causes of each of these processes. Asserting that it rained today because of a combination of physical factors including humidity, temperature, and wind direction does not amount to an embrace of atheism. The revelation that God is the author of all things natural places all of nature, including the evolutionary process, fully within His Providential sphere.

"As Benedict XVI stated in 2007: “… there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” I think that the Pope had it exactly right, and my writing reflect that.

Sincerely,
Ken

Kenneth R. Miller
Professor of Biology
Brown University"

 

[itinerant1]

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.

There is no Hebrew word in the Bible regarding the Earth that can be translated as a sphere. The Hebrews were flat-earthers and were content with that view.

On the other hand, there were ancient Greek thinkers who believed the world was round. This belief may go back in Greek history as far as the 8th century B.C. The Greek scholar Eratosthenes of Cyrene (267 BC) actually estimated the circumference of the Earth with amazing accuracy.

So, I don’t think one can make an argument for the existence of God from knowledge of the shape of the Earth, though I could prove from the very existence of the Earth or even the existence of a tree that God exists, but that is a different story.

 

[eucharisteo]

There is no Hebrew word in the Bible regarding the Earth that can be translated as a sphere. The Hebrews were flat-earthers and were content with that view.

On the other hand, there were ancient Greek thinkers who believed the world was round. This belief may go back in Greek history as far as the 8th century B.C. The Greek scholar Eratosthenes of Cyrene (267 BC) actually estimated the circumference of the Earth with amazing accuracy.

So, I don’t think one can make an argument for the existence of God from knowledge of the shape of the Earth, though I could prove from the very existence of the Earth or even the existence of a tree that God exists, but that is a different story.

so

Your a scientist
a theologian
and an expert in ancient languages.

I am so honored to meet you.

O brother. They say one is born every minute.

 

[itinerant1]

You argue to win arguments. I argue to win souls. Which one is the greater deed?

But your arguments are causing me to lose faith.

 

[eucharisteo]

But your arguments are causing me to lose faith.

So my arguments are to gain the souls of the lost. Are you admitting that you’re lost yet?

Just how old are you. My guess so far is you’re somewhere between diapers and drivers ed based on the intensity of your determination to be right.

 

[StAnastasia]

.

"Dear XXXXXX, (continued)

p. 51: If you look at the context of this quotation, you will see that it is part of a narrative called “Evolution as a Creative Force” that begins on page 47. On page 48 I wrote:

“The opponents of evolution never deny that mutations produce variation, but they do argue that mutations, being unpredictable in their effects and random in their occurrence, cannot produce beneficial improvements for natural selection to work upon. In sort, mutations just mess things up.”

What I sought to do in my narrative, of course, was to explain how the actual scientific evidence refutes that viewpoint. I wanted to show that “random” mutations could indeed produce benefit for the living forms in which they occur. So, I then cited mutations in bacteria, insects, and viruses that are indeed beneficial in the very ways that the critics of evolution regard as impossible. Summing up these mutations I wrote:

“In short, that random undirected process of mutation had produced the “right” kind of variation for natural selection to act upon, even within the body of one individual. Evolution may have made us, but that does not mean that it is always our friend. It made the bad guys, too.”

The reason I wrote “bad guys,” was because each of the beneficial mutations I cited are actually bad news for us, because they made bacteria or viruses more lethal, or render our best pesticides ineffective. I used the words “random” and “undirected” because that’s how the critics of evolution describe the process, and the best way to address those critics is by contrasting the experimental scientific facts with their own characterizations of the evolutionary process.

Does the individual who cited the p. 51 passage wish to claim that evolution is non-random and “directed” by a higher power? If so, that would have to be one heck of a diabolical higher power, because the mutations in question produce disease, famine, and death. Would any reasonable person claim to see God’s hand in directing such things? I doubt it.

Let’s move on.

p. 102: This is a classic out-of-context quotation, because it extracts just 6 words, “a random, undirected process like evolution,” out of a sentence that I actually used to characterize the views of advocates of intelligent design (ID), so that I might contrast them with my own views. It’s obvious why the person posting this little snippet didn’t bother to use the full sentence, because that would have made this point clear. What I actually wrote was:

“What is one to make of this? Quite simply, that the advocates of design are faced with a logical contradiction. They would like to claim that the perfection of design seen in living organisms cannot possibly have been achieved by a random, undirected process like evolution, and that an intelligent agent is required to account for such perfection. But when one looks at the record the products of this intelligent design consistently fail to survive.”

Once again, those “random” and “undirected” terms are used because that’s how the critics of evolution characterize the process.

p. 137: Same thing here. I used the language of evolution’s critics to characterize their objections to the process, not my own views. Describing the intricacy of the echolocation systems of bats I asked:

“How could blind, random, undirected evolution possible have produced such an intricate set of structures and organs, so brilliantly dedicated to a single purpose?”

"I then answered that question in the same way that Charles Darwin might have, and in the same way that Richard Dawkins did in his book The Blind Watchmaker. I suppose that a rabid critic of evolution might seize upon the fact that I cite Dawkins, and then argue that I’m an atheist in disguise. But keep it mind that it’s Dawkins’ brilliant biological arguments on echolocation that I cite, while making it very, very clear that I reject his anti-theological views thoroughly and completely (see Chapter 6 of Finding Darwin’s God to support his point).

"p. 145: Once again, at this point in my book I use the words “random” and “undirected” to echo the words of evolution’s critics, not to represent my own views. On this page I was in the midst of describing how evolutionary processes could produce a novel gene with new properties:

“How could these cells have reconstructed the information from the missing gene in such a short time, using only the random, undirected processes of mutation and natural selection? The answer is that these bacteria didn’t make the new galactosidase enzyme from scratch. They made it by tinkering with another gene …”

"p. 244: Here, once again, the out-of-context quotation completely misrepresents the sense of my book and the arguments I made on the pages that surround the quote. In a passage titled “Taking the Scenic Route” I addressed the objections that many Christians make to the age of the earth and the length of the evolutionary pathway that led, only after billions of years, to the appearance of our species on this planet. As I noted, to some Christians, this along is enough to rule evolution out. If God wanted us to exist, He should have made us right away. To answer that, I wrote:

“Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected. Even if God can intervene in nature, why should He when nature can do a perfectly find job of achieving His aims all by itself? It was God, after all, who chose the universal constants that made life possible.”

“What I argued, as seen from the full context, is that natural processes can be seen as part of God’s own plan, as executing his own choices for creation and as reflecting the will of the Creator Himself. This is very much in the Christian tradition of seeking to understand nature in the context of God’s Divine plan for his work.”

Sincerely,

Ken

 

[itinerant1]

So my arguments are to gain the souls of the lost. Are you admitting that you’re lost yet?

Just how old are you. My guess so far is you’re somewhere between diapers and drivers ed based on the intensity of your determination to be right.

I think you have a real problem trying to be relevant, or perhaps you don’t even try. Think again what the topic of this thread is. I am not interested in your continual off-topic comments. I thought you would have grasped that by now, but apparently not.

Thank you and good-bye.

 

[StAnastasia]

I think you have a real problem trying to be relevant, or perhaps you don’t even try. Think again what the topic of this thread is. I am not interested in your continual off-topic comments. I thought you would have grasped that by now, but apparently not. Thank you and good-bye.

Itinerant1, I’m sorry to see you depart because of the pointless antics and ad hominem attacks of this person. Your contributions have been learned.

 

[eucharisteo]

there, feel better now?

 

[aspirant]

What’s the logical contradiction?

A “strong” atheist actually asserts that “there is no God.” In order to know that God does not exist, as he asserts, the strong atheist would have to know all of existence. But omniscience is a divine attribute. In order to know that God does not exist, one would have to be divine. This is intrinsically contradictory.

I am curious, however, why you say there is evidence.

The Catholic faith forbids fideism. “The same holy mother church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason: ‘ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made’… If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.”

In logic, the burden of proof is on the one who asserts the existence of something

In logic, the burden of proof is on anyone who actually makes an assertion, whether they assert existence or nonexistence. The “weak” atheist, who does not actually assert that God does not exist, bears no burden. The “strong” atheist bears the same burden as the theist, because he does make an assertion.

Atheism is only in the smallest way like religious faith

Strong atheism involves a very firm faith indeed, comparable to religious faith excepting the fact that strong atheism is utterly irrational.

Perhaps you should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not overly emphasis one Cardinal as the solo scriptura of the faith.

It is amusing to read this in light of the fact that the “one Cardinal” in question was the editorial secretary for the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread closed pending moderator review.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Please remember the topic of this thread.

You may continue the discussion as long as all participants remain charitable and respectful.

 

[StAnastasia]

On the other hand, there were ancient Greek thinkers who believed the world was round. This belief may go back in Greek history as far as the 8th century B.C. The Greek scholar Eratosthenes of Cyrene (267 BC) actually estimated the circumference of the Earth with amazing accuracy.

Aristotle had four demonstrations of the sphericity of the earth, which seem to have had no impact on the worldview of the ancient Hebrew writers. Their scriptures presuppose a flat-earth view, not surprising for a relatively untraveled group.

 

[larkin31]

there has still been no evidence, beyond Biblical chronology, presented that suggests an earth only 6000 years old

 

[StAnastasia]

there has still been no evidence, beyond Biblical chronology, presented that suggests an earth only 6000 years old

I know. Sadly, evidence is not sufficient to change a strong conviction. I don’t know how YECs live in a world of airplanes, antibiotics, petroleum and paleontology, but somehow they manage.

 

[edwest2]

there has still been no evidence, beyond Biblical chronology, presented that suggests an earth only 6000 years old

And what’s wrong with Biblical chronology? The Church allows Catholics to believe the earth is only thousands of years old. Do you think that’s an oversight on their part?

Or do you think science can disprove miracles? God still performs miracles today.

Peace,
Ed