The earth is only 6000 years old.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Justin_Mee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How does it denigrate human reason? Does it denigrate an ape’s mind to say it differs from that of a snail “in degree only”?

(Itinerant1, I may not be able to reply tp you for two days, as I’m leaving town to deliver a sermon tomorrow in a rural area that enjoys no Internet access.)

StAnastasia
The difference between a snail and ape’s mind, extremely great as it is, is still one of degree only. However, the difference between the human and ape mind is not one of “degree” only, but of “kind”.

Neo-darwinist have realized Darwin’s error on this point and have asserted that the mind of man differs in “kind”. For instance, Gaylord Simpson says that man in regard to his body, differs in degree only from the apes, but regarding his mind, he differs in kind.

Darwin at least tried to be consistent in his view by pointing to apes and higher animals and asserting that they possesed certain human characteristics or qualities in a rudimentary form. However, we know that man possesses cognitive characteristics that no animal posseses even in rudimentary form.

There was an article late last year in Scientific American in which the researcher explains what he thinks are “unique” cognitive abilities of man. His position is closer to the truth than was Simpson’s but I don’t think he goes far enough in correctly identifying the nature of this difference in “kind”.

I plan to work up a critique on the SA article in which I will show its limitations and that the difference in “kind” is truly a radical difference. This can be done by explaining the fundamental difference between perceptual thinking and conceptual thinking.

The view of Charles Darwin is scientifically outdated and philosophically flawed.
 
If one chooses to discuss dubious claims, my humble suggestion is to check the wording of various statements made on the behalf of various positions.

It seems to me, that the key claim should not be which design. Neither should the key claim be age. The key claim should stand on the word is, Is meaning is.🙂

The earth is designed.
If it were only that simple. 🤷 There are different theories that attempt to explain design. Some theories just have it all mixxxxed up philosophically.

The different positions about design is a rich topic and merits its own thread. I would be willing to discuss the subject and I would show where Paley and Behe get it wrong, while Aristotle, St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas and Jacques Maritain get it right.
 
The way I see it, different Christians have different interpretations of Genesis, and, at least one of those interpretations contradicts reality.
That is absolutely correct. In fact, St. Augustine (354 - 430 A.D.) warned Christians not to advance interpretations of the Bible that contradict what natural science knows to be the case. YECs refuse to listen to sound exegetical advice.
 
Pope Pius XII was no supporter of YEC. Pius XII was an enthusiastic advocate of the Big Bang theory, which originated with Abbé Lemaître.

Here is an excerpt from the Address of Pope Pius XII to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, November 22, 1951 which by its nature suggests just how truly alien YEC thinking is to the Catholic Church:

+++
C. THE UNIVERSE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

In the future:

31.
If the scientist turns his attention from the present state of the universe to the future, even the very remote future, he finds himself constrained to recognize, both in the macrocosm and in the microcosm, that the world is growing old. In the course of billions of years, even the apparently inexhaustible quantities of atomic nuclei lost utilizable energy and, so to speak, matter becomes like an extinct and scoriform volcano. And the thought comes spontaneously that if this present cosmos, today so pulsating with rhythm and life is, as we have seen, insufficient to explain itself, with still less reason, will any such explanation be forthcoming from the cosmos over which, in its own way, the shadow of death will have passed.

In the past:

32.
Let us now turn our attention to the past. The farther back we go, the more matter presents itself as always more enriched with free energy, and as a theater of vast cosmic disturbances. Thus everything seems to indicate that the material universe had in finite times a mighty beginning, provided as it was with an indescribably vast abundance of energy reserves, in virture of which, at first rapidly and then with increasing slowness, it evolved into its present state.

33. This naturally brings to mind two questions:
Is science in a position to state when this mighty beginning of the cosmos took place? And, secondly, what was the initial or primitive state of the universe?

34. The most competent experts in atomic physics, in collaboration with astronomers and astrophysicists, have attempted to shed light on these two difficult but extremely interesting problems.

D. THE BEGINNING IN TIME

35.
First of all, to quote some figures-which aim at nothing else than to give an order of magnitude fixing the dawn of our universe, that is to say, to its beginning in time- science has at its disposal various means, each of which is more or less independent from the other, although all converge. We point them out briefly:

(1) recession of the spiral nebulae or galaxies:

36. The examination of various spiral nebulae, especially as carried out by Edwin W. Hubble at the Mount Wilson Observatory, has led to the significant conclusion, presented with all due reservations, that these distant systems of galaxies tend to move away from one another with such velocity that, in the space of 1,300 million years, the distance between such spiral nebulae is doubled. If we look back into the past at the time required for this process of the “expanding universe,” it follows that, from one to ten billion years ago, the matter of the spiral nebulae was compressed into a relatively restricted space, at the time the cosmic processes had their beginning.

(2) The age of the solid crust of the earth:

37. To calculate the age of original radioactive substances, very approximate data are taken from the transformation of the isotope of uranium 238 into an isotope of lead (RaG), or of an isotope of uranium 235 into actinium D (AcD), and of the isotope of thorium 232 into thorium D (ThD). The mass of helium thereby formed can serve as a means of control. This leads to the conclusion that the average age of the oldest minerals is at the most five billion years.

(3) The age of meteorites:

38. The preceding method adopted to determine the age of meteorites has led to practically the same figure of five billion years. This is a result which acquires special importance by reason of the fact that the meteorites come from outside our earth and, apart from the terrestrial minerals are the only examples of celestial bodies which can be studied in scientific laboratories.

(4) The stability of the systems of double stars and starry masses:

39. The oscillations of gravitation between these systems, as also the attrition resulting from tides, again limit their stability within a period of from five to ten billion years. 40. Although these figures may seem astounding, nevertheless, even to the simplest of the faithful, they bring no new or different concept from the one they learned in the opening words of Genesis: “In the beginning . . .,” that is to say; at the beginning of things in time. The figures We have quoted clothe these words in a concrete and almost mathematical expression, while from them there springs forth a new source of consolation for those who share the esteem of the Apostle for that divinely inspired Scripture which is always useful “for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing” (2 Tim., 3, 16).
 
If it were only that simple. 🤷 There are different theories that attempt to explain design. Some theories just have it all mixxxxed up philosophically.

The different positions about design is a rich topic and merits its own thread. I would be willing to discuss the subject and I would show where Paley and Behe get it wrong, while Aristotle, St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas and Jacques Maritain get it right.
Sounds like the turf war which I read about awhile back in a Catholic magazine…
Do you think it is time to clear the air? I do. 😉

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
That is absolutely correct. In fact, St. Augustine (354 - 430 A.D.) warned Christians not to advance interpretations of the Bible that contradict what natural science knows to be the case. YECs refuse to listen to sound exegetical advice.
Science goes in harmony with the Bible. I don’t know if the earth was created 6000 years ago but I know that life was created 6000 years ago.
 
If it was then somebody forgot to tell this 13,000 year old tree.

rossum
This is with the assumption that the growing speed of the tree was the same all the time.

EDIT: assumption which I have not read in the article to be based on anything solid

EDIT 2: from what I understood from the article, it’s not an ‘it’, it’s a ‘they’
 
(This response is addressed to the YECs on CAF as well as to the atheists.)
Thank you so much for a very interesting series of posts. It will take me a month of Sundays to respond to what I want to respond to.

My “response” would also be addressed to those who consider themselves Catholics; but who practice “mindless biblical literalism” in reverse to fit their own set of beliefs. Because there is symbolism and figurative language in the beginning of Genesis, they twist real events, such as the two sole parents of the human species, into some kind of theological symbolism.

Because there are all kinds of ways in which the various science disciplines can study the earth and what is above, the assumption is made that the various science disciplines also have the final word on human nature. Many persons forget that the realm of science is only the material and physical. Therefore, they lose sight of the spiritual and thus they lose sight of the true human nature which is an unique, intimate unification of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body.

Granted, that figuring out Genesis is extremely difficult. That is why the Catholic Church depends on Divine Revelation regarding what is doctrine and what falls into the realm of debatable science.

In my humble opinion, the best source for Catholic teaching is the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4

Or use this handy link for the Catechism www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

www.CatholicsComeHomeRockford.org
www.CatholicsComeHome.org
 
If it’s very likely true, why appeal to any religious figure? I’m constantly reminded here that science is silent about God and the supernatural.
Because I saw that you registered here as a Catholic, and it is well-known that Catholic doctrine accepts both an old earth and evolutionary principles. And you were accusing others who accept an old earth of attempting to “convert” you, so that seemed a bizarre remark from a Catholic who was being told Catholic doctrine.
 
Science goes in harmony with the Bible. I don’t know if the earth was created 6000 years ago but I know that life was created 6000 years ago.
The oldest microbial fossils known, are nearly 3.5 billion years old.
 
What is the method they used to determine that? And please tell the name of fossil, if you know it.
I can answer that - let’s see - the earth is 4BYO and we think these are the earliest and they must have occurred early on to fit our theory (to give evo time) so therefore they are that old.
 
Because I saw that you registered here as a Catholic, and it is well-known that Catholic doctrine accepts both an old earth and evolutionary principles. And you were accusing others who accept an old earth of attempting to “convert” you, so that seemed a bizarre remark from a Catholic who was being told Catholic doctrine.
Catholic doctrine ??? No way.

The age of the earth, acceptance of both an old earth and evolutionary principles are not, and I repeat are **not **any kind of Catholic doctrine. They are part of the scientific realm. Therefore anyone, Catholic or not, pope or peasant, can debate the scientific issues regarding the material and physical world.

FYI – the actual Catholic doctrine is that God is the Creator.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life with the Creator.
 
I can answer that - let’s see - the earth is 4BYO and we think these are the earliest and they must have occurred early on to fit our theory (to give evo time) so therefore they are that old.
Your post says you have little or no background in the earth or life sciences.
 
My question is how do they know that they are that old? What method do they use? How did they arrive at the [correct of incorrect] logical deduction that it has that age?
You also asked - “And please tell the name of fossil, if you know it.” I gave you that. Cyanobacteria is your starting point. Do some research of your own, and you’ll find out how microbial fossils are dated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top