Possibly. But we only have provisional copies, translations and interpretations of that original truth.
Fortunately, Catholics have not only the Sacred Scriptures (we gave our Protestant brothers the original canon of books for inclusion), we also have Sacred Tradition and the constant teaching of the Magisterium. All guided by the Holy Spirit to protect us from error.
Well yeah. Who could argue with that. The stars look like they’re billions of years old. The planet appears to be billions of years old. Yet they’re apparently quite young. All the scientific evidence we have gathered covering every single aspect of the physical world and it seems that the only bits we got wrong were the ones contradicting Genesis.Freddy:
“If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools” ( If, Rudyard Kipling).
Nice try, Fred but no brass ring. You’ve got it backwards: That which He has revealed are the only certain truths. All the rest is merely provisional.
Thank you.o_mlly:
Well yeah. Who could argue with that.
Constant? Is Dum Diversas still in effect so we can have non-Christian slaves?
Needs a new thread.
Yes.
I would say not so fast on that one. Much of the old dating is based on radiometric dating and those results are built on “a ton of” assumptions and are highly inconsistent. Why does the earth still have polar magnetism and why hasn’t it worn out yet? Why do we still have comets? Why isn’t the sea saltier? Why do we have carbon-14 dates showing rocks to be “young” among K-Ar dates showing the rocks to be “old”? Why do we have unweathered edges at unconformities in the geologic records where gaps like 500 million years in the geologic record are believed to be present? Why do we have unweathered fossil trees (polystrate trees) lying across layers of rock that, per conventional science, should have taken millions of years to form?
I wouldn’t even give on this one. The redshifts in observed light as evidence of distance and age of stars assumed by Hubble is under scientific review. The shifts may have other causes. Stay tuned.Freddy:
Yes.
All? One only has to look at experiments conducted in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s and Einstein’s workarounds to see this is not necessarily true. Remember, they cannot let the Divine foot in the door.
Polystrate trees are not-uncommon and are evidence of rapid deposition of sediments (as in a local flood or volcanic eruption.)
Including ours.Freddy:
Yes.
Does no such thing.
Then it’s lucky that we have other methods of measurement to test the results. Parallax and the colour spectrum for example. Unless trigonometry is under review as well?stoplooklisten:
I wouldn’t even give on this one. The redshifts in observed light as evidence of distance and age of stars assumed by Hubble is under scientific review. The shifts may have other causes. Stay tuned.Freddy:
Yes.
Then show us the references for a narrow genetic bottleneck in kangaroos and aardvarks within the last, say 30,000 years. Just to help you we already have such evidence for cheetahs, you can look at that evidence and duplicate it for kangaroos and aardvarks.
The issue you raised is age, not distance. Parallax is limited to nearby stars. More importantly, all are dependent on the unproven hypothesis of the Big Bang. Stay tuned: Remember all science is provisional.
Remember, all interpretations of the Bible are provisional. When was the last time you killed a witch?
Nope. Not all, just most. When was the last time your contradicted yourself and said, “that’s OK, in my worldview I can be wrong and right at the same time”.
Many posts ago I did with the genetic mapping. Like usual you ignored it because it does not fit with your worldview.
Reference or post number please. I do remember a discussion on genetic bottlenecks in humans, which gave a minimum figure of about 500,000 years ago, which was before Homo sapiens evolved, so any bottleneck did not happen in our species, but in an ancestral species.