The earth is only 6000 years old.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Justin_Mee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
Dawkins and the 100,000 other biologists in the US, and the hundreds of thousands of scientists elsewhere in the world and in other disciplines. Balancing this consensus is that of (1) Ed, (2) Granny, (3) Buffalo, (4) Prieldedi, (5) Cassini, and (6) Hugh Miller. Let’s say 200,000 highly trained scientists against six who can’t agree on methods, processes, or a common fixed date. Hmmmm, let me think about this.
Click to expand...
It only takes one to bring the truth to many. One only has to look at history to see the effects of a single individual.

The argument form popularity is weak.
 
StAnastasia said:
Granny, since the CCC is silent on the matter, can you tell me whether having an immortal soul is connected in some way to having human DNA? In the absence of your response, I shall assume that “immortal soul” is a vacuous concept, a quaint holdover from the prescientific era of dualism. Of course, perhaps it’s not vacuous, but you have yet to offer any support for the concept in relation to empirical reality.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
As my Irish mother would say: One can lead a horse to water; but one cannot make it drink.

It is your choice to investigate the teachings of Catholicism or to ignore that opportunity and come away thirsty. It is your choice to assume anything you wish; however, it is you who is responsible for that choice. Neither my speaking nor my silence will prevent you from using your intellect and will.

I have already led you to the living waters of Catholicism. I cannot make you drink.

Blessings,
granny

*Isaiah, Chapter 55 * titled “An Invitation to Grace”
All you who are thirsty, come to the water!
 
buffalo said:
It only takes one to bring the truth to many. One only has to look at history to see the effects of a single individual.

The argument form popularity is weak.
Click to expand...
i agree with this statement

truth is not a democracy
 
StAnastasia said:
Dawkins and the 100,000 other biologists in the US, and the hundreds of thousands of scientists elsewhere in the world and in other disciplines. Balancing this consensus is that of (1) Ed, (2) Granny, (3) Buffalo, (4) Prieldedi, (5) Cassini, and (6) Hugh Miller.
Click to expand...
(7) God
 
grannymh said:
I have already led you to the living waters of Catholicism. I cannot make you drink. Blessings, granny
Click to expand...
Thanks, Granny – that’s the well from which I drink. Since you refuse even to discuss the question of the soul in relation to the complete human person, I’m willing to drop that subject, and get back to discussing whether Catholics might accept that the earth is 6001 years old, or even older.
 
StAnastasia said:
Dawkins and the 100,000 other biologists in the US, and the hundreds of thousands of scientists elsewhere in the world and in other disciplines. Balancing this consensus is that of (1) Ed, (2) Granny, (3) Buffalo, (4) Prieldedi, (5) Cassini, and (6) Hugh Miller. Let’s say 200,000 highly trained scientists against six who can’t agree on methods, processes, or a common fixed date. Hmmmm, let me think about this.
Click to expand...
Until you and your fellow University scientists do the experimental research that other scientists are doing by checking the anomalies you are just blowing so much hot air. And I’m sure you, Rosssum et al.will continue to bloviate until the cows come home on every blog that comes up on origins because that is your occupational speciality. It is NOT us Catholics who agree with the church fathers to prove they are right it’s up to you evol ones to prove that your so called scilence trumps our faith.😛
 
buffalo said:
St Augustine? St Thomas? Both believed in a young earth.
Click to expand...
I don’t think they would have worded it that way; we believe in God, whereas we accept scientific evidence. They were clever blokes who lived at time when everyone else accepted a young earth as well. Were they to pop in today for a visit, think they would be more impressed with the Smithsonian or the Jet Propulsion Laboratory or the UCMP than they would be with Answers-in-Genesis’ religious Disneyland.
 
Philipp said:
Until you and your fellow University scientists do the experimental research that other scientists are doing by checking the anomalies you are just blowing so much hot air. And I’m sure you, Rosssum et al.will continue to bloviate until the cows come home on every blog that comes up on origins because that is your occupational speciality. It is NOT us Catholics who agree with the church fathers to prove they are right it’s up to you evol ones to prove that your so called scilence trumps our faith.😛
Click to expand...
Sorry Philipp, but I’m with the Church on this one, not your breakaway sect of Young Earth Catholics. The Rome conference last March on that forbidden topic was a superb event, and showed the depth of thinking among Catholics on the issue of the age of the earth.

To be sure, the breakaway 6000 year people felt left out, so they held their own event.
 
Little did I know, when I started this thread, how it would evolve. It was a simple little question that had bothered me for some time. After 100 posts or so, I stopped reading. Now I wonder if we are any closer to a rational explanation of either side of the controversy.
 
StAnastasia said:
I don’t think they would have worded it that way; we believe in God, whereas we accept scientific evidence. They were clever blokes who lived at time when everyone else accepted a young earth as well. Were they to pop in today for a visit, think they would be more impressed with the Smithsonian or the Jet Propulsion Laboratory or the UCMP than they would be with Answers-in-Genesis’ religious Disneyland.
Click to expand...
They believed in it because it was Revealed. That is the crux of the argument. If Scripture and the constant teaching and belief of the Church was non-existent there would be nothing to discuss. Since it is so, the only recourse is to claim Scripture has it wrong.

Or to make the claim that Scripture is not speaking to it. It also has to deny history.

The ECF’s since they were so spiritually in tune might not care much about science.
 
Justin_Mee said:
Little did I know, when I started this thread, how it would evolve. It was a simple little question that had bothered me for some time. After 100 posts or so, I stopped reading. Now I wonder if we are any closer to a rational explanation of either side of the controversy.
Click to expand...
Justin, you might as well ask whether we are closer to a rational explanation of either side of the controversy of whether or not the Nazi holocaust happened. There are those who vehemently deny it ever occurred, just as there are those who deny the antiquity of the earth. Reason will accomplish nothing with those folk.
 
StAnastasia said:
Thanks, Granny – that’s the well from which I drink. Since you refuse even to discuss the question of the soul in relation to the complete human person, I’m willing to drop that subject, and get back to discussing whether Catholics might accept that the earth is 6001 years old, or even older.
Click to expand...
The soul in relation to the complete human person is another version of Cartesian dualism. There is no need for me to discuss that on this thread.
 
Actually it has nothing to do with Cartesian dualism, but we need not discuss it.
grannymh said:
The soul in relation to the complete human person is another version of Cartesian dualism. There is no need for me to discuss that on this thread.
Click to expand...
 
StAnastasia said:
Actually, it wasn’t. Unless by “revelation” you refer to the work of James Ussher and other calculators.
Click to expand...
Ussher lived long after the ECF’s. He is irrelevant to the ECF’s.

Your claim is the ECF’s thought billions. No way.

We should really be arguing either a younger earth or older earth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top