B
buffalo
Guest
Like they are dependent?
- Status
L
larkin31
Guest
The problem is that when one uses this chronology to try to compute an age for the earth, it gives one a number far far far too young for all the other scientific evidence that is accumulating and looking to be much more reliable and much much more likely to be true.
B
buffalo
Guest
What is the date you are assuming?
I
itinerant1
Guest
***“It is nonsense to maintain that the world is only six thousand years old.” ***
– Cardinal Christoph Schonborn
Cardinal Christoph Schonborn speaks about the difference between believing in creation and “creationism.” He says,
"Yet believing in God the Creator is not identical with the way that, in some Christian circles, people try to understand the six days of creation spoken of in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis as if this had been literally reported, as six chronological days, and try by all possible arguments, even scientific ones, to prove that the earth is about six thousand years old. Attempts like that to take the Bible literally, as if it were making scientific statements at this point, are what is called “fundamentalism…”
“The Catholic position on “creationism” is clear. Saint Thomas Aquinas says that 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 explicitly to be rejected.”
(Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith, pp. 37-38)
M
Moro_Rock
Guest
A love of truth and a seeking after truth is never ridiculous Jesus said [Matt 5:11] Blessed are you when men reproach you, and persecute you, and speaking falsely , say all manner of evil against you, for my sake for so did they persecute the prophets who were before you":bible1:
E
edwest2
Guest
So the Church continues to allow people to believe the earth is only thousands of years old. Not 6000, but thousands. All your statement suggests is that the Church made a mistake. As buffalo pointed out elsewhere, we cannot know the age of the earth with certainty because science is provisional.
Your argument is with the Church.
God bless,
Ed
M
Mr_Skeptic
Guest
That’s true.
There is nothing in science that is “known with absolute certainty”. That type of mindset is typically reserved for the religious.
L
larkin31
Guest
recent scientific consensus is approximately 4.5 billion years (4,500,000,000)
strict Biblical chronology points to an earth about 6000 years old
the first is 7 hundred thousand times greater than the second
E
edwest2
Guest
I find that hard to believe since those who support the billions of years idea seem to want to say it very often and insist that it is true. Which raises another question: If this matter is settled as far they know or believe then why bring it up so often here?That’s true.
There is nothing in science that is “known with absolute certainty”. That type of mindset is typically reserved for the religious.
God bless,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Read this:
Interpreting the Genealogies of Genesis
Ussher made a few mistakes. So we should at least understand the genealogies.
H
hugh_miller
Guest
What I find neat about this pro-test-ant Bishop’s remarks is that they perhaps best describe his actions. And most religiously amusing from a Catholic point of view is that his own mother, according to what I have read, refused to join her son in his attacks on Catholicism. She remained a Catholic. Maybe she even slapped his face when she read what he said, like the mother of the gangster in the movie, “The Gangster” Ha! Hurrah for mom. 
M
Mr_Skeptic
Guest
And to think that up until recent history, the non-believer was all but silent. What we’re witnessing here is that for the first time in history, non-believers are finally speaking out, globally and instantaneously. Also, I don’t know any scientist who treats a theory as “true”. I don’t know where you’re getting that stuff.
There aren’t many topics which have not been discussed repeatedly and for years. The age of the earth topic comes up with less frequency than the trinity, faith vs works, abortion, gay marriage, hell, and a slew of other topics. You might be overly sensitive to this particular topic, and maybe that’s why it seems like its brought up “so often”.
G
Glassman96
Guest
In 2Peter 3: 8 But there is one thing, my friends, that you must never forget: that with the Lord, ‘a day’ can mean a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day. With that being said, we can assume that in the 6 day creation plus the day of rest, that equals 7000 years. The only time span that I cannot find is from the time God made Adam and Eve to the time of the fall. At the time of the fall Adam and Eve were not the only people on earth. Cain and Able were the first two born to Adam and Eve after the fall. If I remember correctly in the lost books of the Bible, God told Adam and Eve that He was going to send His covenant to man in 5500 years which is when Jesus arrived. So, add another 2000 years and you have a total of 14,500 years that we know of. I’m not saying that this is accurate.
L
larkin31
Guest
Ed, we are simply answering the Catholic who started the thread on the topic.
“…the billions of years idea”? That is an puzzling way to put it. Do you consider an old earth not much more than conjecture?
L
larkin31
Guest
these two men do not even agree on all the details, but even this pushes Adam back only to 10,000 bc.
but thanks
B
buffalo
Guest
Right and that aligns better with archaeological findings.
The question I am interested in is when did Adam and Eve live.
E
edwest2
Guest
I’ll tell you exactly where I’m getting that stuff. It’s from the current fight against creationism movement. No other opinion can possibly be held by anyone from this day forward. Oh, it’s presented in wishy-washy terminology like “most likely to be true,” “the evidence shows” and similar, but that’s where I’m getting this from, including posts here. A scientist even got a humanist award for his valiant fight against creationism.
Science and the worship of the mind of man, it’s idolatry. So insisting something is true is not a search for the truth, it’s just attempting to support an ideology. That’s why I’m skeptical regarding claims about the age of the earth.
God bless,
Ed
L
larkin31
Guest
“archeological findings” for the the age of first homo sapiens or earliest human settlements or age of the earth?
“Findings” for what? Ancient Jewish cultures?
L
larkin31
Guest
Do you visit a doctor? Been to the hospital? Read about distant galaxies? Take antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals? Do you believe in a balanced diet, and the need of the brain for oxygen? Do you know how long a light wave takes to travel from the sun before it warms your skin? Would you like to know why it warms your skin? Do you have any interest in the mysteries and wonders buried in the earth or still living at the bottom of our oceans?
That you call the curiosity about our world and our universe and our own species or mind a form of blasphemous “idolatry” dismays me and strengthens my cause as a teacher to keep spreading my wonder at the mysteries of the material world around us. Thank you for re-confirming my purpose! Young minds are terrible things to waste.
B
buffalo
Guest
This old gem - if it weren’t for evolution science would not advance. What a crock.
The pursuit of knowledge (science) goes on regardless of the idea of evolution. In fact most discoveries are advanced through trial and error.
Are you making a case here that if it wasn’t for evolutionary theory we would be stuck in the mud?
- Status