The earth is only 6000 years old.

[grannymh]

If you please, is this an infallible teaching? Can you show me a encyclical or some other document from the Church saying this please?

It is in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church*. Also there is reference in Humani Generis. I am traveling and do not have my usual source material. If no one has answered your question, let me know.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

There is no natural science in 'God did it". “God did it” is a theological statement. Theological statements do not answer scientific questions.

Theological statements answer the questions that natural science can’t answer.

In other words, the limitation of science to the material and physical world does not mean that the spiritual world is non-existence.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55

 

[itinerant1]

C’mon, you know how this works. The PAS tells the Church what science has come up with to keep them abreast. I don’t think the church is making money, however, as you well know the Church has heretical problems right now. There is much disbelief even in the Vatican.

Pope JPII said -

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

For anyone to make an argument that science is pure is an absurdity. We need to demand facts and truth from science without ideology (evolutionary spin). They need to be put to the test. Guess where ID fits in?

The Church has always had problems with heresy (Gnosticism, Arianism, Protestantism, Modernism, etc.) so you would have to be more specific, such as to explain how theological heresy has anything to do with the various scientific means of dating the earth, which have become quite reliable.

The objective of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is to promote the various natural sciences. Have you ever read a history of the PAS? Have you read any of its publications?

The problem with your argument is that it assumes that the PAS is wrong on major scientific issues and it wrongly advises the Popes, who you give no credit for having a mind of their own. You speak of the Popes as they are merely puppets of the PAS. Well, I don’t buy it. I think your position is just creationist’ spin on the Vatican, the Popes, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences because creationists are not included or taken seriously by the PAS, etc. And neither do I think creationists or ID theorists should be included in the PAS.

Just consider the fact that YECs in this thread have presented, in my estimate, not a single solid argument to support their position. Why would the Vatican even be interested in YEC? Your answer is that it is because of heresy in the Church. LOL.

YEC is the error and religious superstition that finds its cure in science: “Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

ID theory is not science, it’s just neo-Paleyism – creationism with a psuedo-scientific veneer, just as Darwinian ideology (not Darwinian science) is just philosophical materialism in scientific garb.

You want truth from science without ideology. Fair enough. But your own ideology keeps you from recognizing scientific truth. I will assert that YECs have an intellectual blind spot when it comes to recognizing scientific truth.

 

[grannymh]

I suppose you consider that the Catholic Church is also perpetuating fraud and making a buck off of it.

Consider what COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP has to say. Note that the reference to “a discredited concordism” points to the errors of any concordist interpretations of Genesis 1 in which interpreters attempt to find a concordism between a literal reading with cosmological facts or scientific facts about the world. This eliminates as unacceptable or discredited any creationist readings of the Six Days.

+++

1. Science and the stewardship of knowledge

62. The endeavor to understand the universe has marked human culture in every period and in nearly every society. In the perspective of the Christian faith, this endeavor is precisely an instance of the stewardship which human beings exercise in accordance with God’s plan. Without embracing a discredited concordism, Christians have the responsibility to locate the modern scientific understanding of the universe within the context of the theology of creation. The place of human beings in the history of this evolving universe, as it has been charted by modern sciences, can only be seen in its complete reality in the light of faith, as a personal history of the engagement of the triune God with creaturely persons.

63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996).

Pardon me. I don’t see Genesis mentioned.

 

[StAnastasia]

That’s just the point. It is a self-perpetuating fraud, intolerant of any objection and people are making money off it.

More lies.

 

[StAnastasia]

I have and am.

What are you doing to change it – presenting papers at conferences? Writing scholarly books? Contacting the NCCB or the Vatican? Trying to convert the pope away from acceptance of evolution?

 

[edwest2]

Communion and Stewardship clearly shows that Pope John Paul II was not just looking at one favored theory but at more than one. The criteria for what the Church does not accept is clearly laid out.

“In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

Science cannot study miracles.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

The Church has always had problems with heresy (Gnosticism, Arianism, Protestantism, Modernism, etc.) so you would have to be more specific, such as to explain how theological heresy has anything to do with the various scientific means of dating the earth, which have become quite reliable.

The objective of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is to promote the various natural sciences. Have you ever read a history of the PAS? Have you read any of its publications?

The problem with your argument is that it assumes that the PAS is wrong on major scientific issues and it wrongly advises the Popes, who you give no credit for having a mind of their own. You speak of the Popes as they are merely puppets of the PAS. Well, I don’t buy it. I think your position is just creationist’ spin on the Vatican, the Popes, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences because creationists are not included or taken seriously by the PAS, etc. And neither do I think creationists or ID theorists should be included in the PAS.

Just consider the fact that YECs in this thread have presented, in my estimate, not a single solid argument to support their position. Why would the Vatican even be interested in YEC? Your answer is that it is because of heresy in the Church. LOL.

YEC is the error and religious superstition that finds its cure in science: “Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

ID theory is not science, it’s just neo-Paleyism – creationism with a psuedo-scientific veneer, just as Darwinian ideology (not Darwinian science) is just philosophical materialism in scientific garb.

You want truth from science without ideology. Fair enough. But your own ideology keeps you from recognizing scientific truth. I will assert that YECs have an intellectual blind spot when it comes to recognizing scientific truth.

Look at the makeup of the PAS. Atheists and evolutionists.

So the church is listening to the PAS. And the Church should so she understands the popular theories of the day.

Yours is a reductionist argument. The argument is that science has the last word of the age of the earth (something that is extremely limited by its own definition), ignoring history and Revelation which have at minimum an equal say.

I admit I do believe the PAS is biased with an a priori worldview. Now the question is whether the Church knows this or not. She could know and be silent until science finds its own errors or she can be active in its purification. I do not profess to know which of these it is.

Evidence - what evidence would convince you? Give me a few examples.

Getting back to the design argument - do you deny design exists? How do we know it when we see it?

 

[itinerant1]

Theological statements answer the questions that natural science can’t answer.

In other words, the limitation of science to the material and physical world does not mean that the spiritual world is non-existence.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55

You are confused about my post. Scientific questions are about the natural world, the quantitative aspects of things and their relations. Science does not inquire into non-physical reality. Hence, a truly scientific question can only have a scientific answer.

Gregor Mendel had questions about the inheritance of specific traits. He formulated laws governing inheritance. Now we speak of dominant and recessive phenotypes, and so on. We don’t say “God did it” to exlpain the characteristics of F1 or F2 generations; neither do we quote from *Genesis *when trying to explain genotypes and phenotypic expressions.

 

[grannymh]

StAnastasia:
I see you are on the forums. When you have time, I’m interested in your replies to some serious issues, here and on other threads which were closed before you had a change to reply. So much has been left hanging.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55

 

[buffalo]

More lies.

Prove your claim that science is a volunteer effort.

 

[itinerant1]

Pardon me. I don’t see Genesis mentioned.

That’s because you have not read the document. I provided a link since the entire document should be read.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

That’s why scientists have to leave a large [billions of years ] margin for error

And, you’re getting that from where? Your Sunday School teacher? Your Pastor? Your Priest? Whoever is filling your head with this nonsense is lying to you. At best, they’re extremely ignorant on the subject. Either way, its not very good.

The estimated margin of error for the age of the earth is aprox 1%…less than 50,000 years. Not billions of years. Good grief.

 

[itinerant1]

Look at the makeup of the PAS. Atheists and evolutionists.

And theists. The method of the natural sciences is called methodological naturalism. When science stays within its proper domain, it should make no difference what one’s personal beliefs are. An atheist or Hindu looking through a VLT sees the same stars as do Jesuit astronomers at the Vatican Observatory. Or, do you think Church sponsored observatories see only Catholic stars and planets, while secular sponsored observatories see only godless celestial bodies?

Yours is a reductionist argument. The argument is that science has the last word of the age of the earth (something that is extremely limited by its own definition), ignoring history and Revelation which have at minimum an equal say.

Only science should decide on the age of the earth because that is a proper object of study for the natural sciences. Revelation has said nothing to say about the age of the earth. God left these things for the mind of man to discover.

Creationists’ attacks on science denigrate the human mind and the various God-given gifts of science.

I admit I do believe the PAS is biased with an a priori worldview.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The PAS certainly comprises people of various worldviews and religious beliefs. To claim that “PAS is biased with an a priori worldview” makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain yourself.

Now the question is whether the Church knows this or not. She could know and be silent until science finds its own errors or she can be active in its purification. I do not profess to know which of these it is.

The anti-scientific stance of YECs precludes them from properly judging science or the Church’s attitude toward science. Of these facts, I have no doubt…

Evidence - what evidence would convince you? Give me a few examples.

You have demonstrated in these threads that you are immune to scientific evidence.

Getting back to the design argument - do you deny design exists? How do we know it when we see it?

Which design argument? Paley’s, Aristotle’s, Behe’s, Alfred E. Neuman’s, Aquinas’, St. Paul’s?

What does “design” have to do with the dubious claim that the earth is mere 6,000 years old?

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

Evidence - what evidence would convince you? Give me a few examples.

If lunar and meteorite samples dated to only thousands of years old, that would get my attention!

 

[StAnastasia]

Prove your claim that science is a volunteer effort.

More buffalo lies. I made no such claim. Buffalo is a stranger to truth.

 

[itinerant1]

It’s tragic that YEC’s discount most sciences such as biology, paleontology, archeology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics, and much more.

For instance, YECs do not allow that our solar system was formed in a nebula about 5 billion years ago. YEC’s must totally discount the activities of stellar nurseries. They cannot accept that there are young stars and old stars.

Since our sun is composed of heavier elements it is probably a second or third generation star. Of course, the contraction of proto stars, which usually lasts about 50 million years must be, for the YECs, a scientific fallacy.

Star formation, though, is all fascinating …even such facts as when a temperature of about 27,000,000°F is reached, nuclear fusion begins at the core of the Sun. This is the nuclear reaction in which hydrogen atoms are converted to helium atoms plus energy.

What is bad religion and non-science is to assert that all of this happened 6,000 years ago. It is bad religion because according to the YEC view, God is a trickster who is fooling all of the scientists into thinking solar system is billions of years old.
I don’t know of anyone in the Vatican who thinks its okay for Catholics to believe that the Creator is a trickster.

It is anti-science and anti-reason for YECs to discount the research of countless dedicated scientists.The Church upholds faith and reason. It is a strange God that the YECs have faith in, while denigrating human reason, that which separates man from the animals.

Why that is just what Darwin did – denigrate human reason when he claimed the mind of man differs “in degree only” from the mind of anthropoid apes. Darwin attacked the human mind based on a materialist view of the world. YECs attack the human mind based on a mindless biblical literalism and a wholly inadequate conception of God’s creative activity and providence.

 

[gentle_atheist]

What is bad religion and non-science is to assert that all of this happened 6,000 years ago. It is bad religion because according to the YEC view, God is a trickster who is fooling all of the scientists into thinking solar system is billions of years old.

…It is a strange God that the YECs have faith in, while denigrating human reason, that which separates man from the animals.

…YECs attack the human mind based on a mindless biblical literalism and a wholly inadequate conception of God’s creative activity and providence.

This is way too harsh. What you call “mindless biblical literalism” is, in fact, an honest, straightforward reading of the Bible. You refuse to admit the dichotomy between science and the Bible. YECs have the courage to say that the science is wrong. Do you have the courage to say that the Bible is wrong?

 

[hugh_miller]

This one has the basics:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19861008en.html

God bless,
Ed

SUBJECT: Encourage Pope Benedict to appoint an independent committee to investigate why the PAS only promotes descent from a common ancestor over eons of time without a thorough review of the earth sciences and new research.

**Thanks Ed for posting the above link and Buffalo for your observations on the PAS. **It seems to answer the question that we have had only two first parents called Adam and Eve, not many pairs erupting from a common ancestor (s). I suspect this will cause more vigorous discussion but the one paragraph below in Italics seems to be key and in particular the third sentence as it points out that bodily death is a result of original sin. So I think it fair to conclude that when man sinned this was the first time death entered creation. Revelation teaches the above so revelation must be history. If revelation be history then in the plain sense of the Word a world-wide flood occurred as all cultures mention the event in various ways as does of course scripture.

It is also quite apparent that Vatican appointed scientists should consider that the events in Genesis are truly historical and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences should be looking to earth sciences for evidences that support those historical events. BUT the PAS continually ignores such events as if they were NOT historical but mere stories. I therefore would like to see Pope Benedict appoint an independent committee to investigate why there has been no such investigation into the science that might support scripture. Below is the paragraph.

***“Finally the whole of human existence on earth is subject to the fear of death, which according to revelation is clearly connected with original sin. Sin itself is synonymous with spiritual death, because through sin man has lost sanctifying grace, the source of supernatural life. The sign and consequence of original sin is bodily death, such as it has been experienced since that time by all humanity. Man was created by God for immortality. Death appears as a tragic leap in the dark, and is the consequence of sin, as if by an immanent logic, but especially as the punishment of God. Such is the teaching of revelation and such is the faith of the Church. Without sin, the end of the earthly trial would not have been so dramatic.” ***

****However enter the chronology of dating the Geologic Column of the earth. Massive graveyards [death] of all kinds of sea and land animals - trillions of fossils are deep in the rocks as exemplified by the 5000 foot Grand Canyon. The chronology accepted by main stream science of 600 million years to the Cambrian strata is based on false assumptions of Lyellian geology of the 19th century and is under vigorous challenges. About ~1925 it was roughly 12 M years ago for the demise of the dinosaurs for example. This was extended to 65 millions years ago by radioactive decay methods like K/Ar, Ar/Ar, Thoriuim, Uranium series etc. which are also now under vigorous challenges. Other decay methods used for dating meteorites and ancient lava sites in Australia and Greenland suggest an age of the earth about 4.5 billion years BP. But C-14 dating of the fossils from dinosaurs to diamonds suggest those ages are 2000 to 100,000 times too old. ****

---

Thus I think it would be helpful to sort of summarize the various methods of determining chronologies as developed by Lyell and by science in the last 60 or so years giving the inherent flaws of each. Send them to the PAS with copies to the Pope with the suggestion to appoint an independent committee to determine why such a study has not been forthcoming. The results of such a study could help give a rough estimate of what might constitute “real ages” thus eliminating the confusion on origins caused by PAS ignoring the vast number of anomalies that deviate from the so-called Main Stream scientific paradigm of origins – descent from a common ancestor.

What say ye?

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

The way I see it, different Christians have different interpretations of Genesis, and, at least one of those interpretations contradicts reality.