"What is the age of the earth?"

[PhilVaz]

ThirdDay << Are you the Phil that Dr. Sungenis is addressing here? >>

Yes I am, and is he the Robert that I comprehensively addressed here?

Including, in three parts: all historical issues, the Pontifical Academy of Science, all the Catholic documents and statements Sungenis brings up, all the scientific evidence for an old earth that Sungenis ignores, his bogus young earth claims, some of the doctrinal or theological questions, etc:

Catholic Theistic Evolution vs. Six-Day Creation

I repeat: there is no question the earth is very, very old. No one of note questions this. And yes, that means, on this question, Dr. Robert Sungenis is no one of note. Dalrymple is one of the leading experts on the question (he is agnostic). There is also this authoritative book (expensive, but you can find at your local university library):

“We now know, to within 1% or better and from a variety of evidence, that the age of the Earth-Moon-meteorite system is about 4.51 - 4.55 Ga [billions of years old].” (G. Brent Dalrymple, from “The Age of the Earth in the Twentieth Century: A Problem (Mostly) Solved” in The Age of the Earth From 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by C.L.E. Lewis and S.J. Knell [Geological Society, 2001], page 219)

But I still love Sungenis Not By books! (minus the young earth stuff at the end of Bread Alone). This topic has been done many times in here. Search!

I mis-linked the ITC article: Communion and Stewardship by the ITC and (then) Cardinal Ratzinger (paragraphs 62 and following especially)

Phil P

 

[Third_Day]

Ok. Just wanted to make sure you knew that the Big Bang theory, like science and western civilization, is a product of the Church.

The Big Bang “Theory” is a product of one priest not of the teaching Church. Agree?

 

[Barbkw]

"Your assesment of the ancient Egyptians as a culture is hopelessly reductionist."

Even today, humans are a primitive people compared to the knowlege and ability of our Eternal Father.

Israelites and Egyptians in the days of Moses were a primitive people capable of understanding the creation events of the Earth and Universe as it was explained by our Eternal Father.

He didn’t attempt to explain to Moses higher mathematics, particle physics, astrophysics, the elemental chart, space time, planetary motion, etc.

P.S. Do you always use “blasting” as a way to express yourself in conversations with people?

 

[Barbkw]

They were advanced in comparison to some cultures of their day. They were also very primitive people.

As are we.

 

[Barbkw]

Interesting site, it shows some of the unearthed tools, etc.

puffin.creighton.edu/museums/cohagan/egypt_build.htm

“In the Great Pyramid alone, it took 20,000 to 30,000 workers constantly working for 23 years to complete the pyramid. These people had to be fed, and they fed them with bread.”

 

[Cat_Herder]

The Big Bang “Theory” is a product of one priest not of the teaching Church. Agree?

Of course. I went out of the way in my prior posts to emphasize that the young earth position may be held by a Catholic.

I do think it is an invitation to attack by militant Atheists, though, and that it tends to bolster the false dichotomy between science and religion that was wrought by the Reformation.

 

[Barbkw]

Interesting connection here to the original Young Earth hypothesis:

From Wikipedia:

"The Egyptian pyramids are ancient pyramid-shaped masonry structures located in Egypt.

There are 138 pyramids discovered in Egypt as of 2008.[1][2] Most were built as tombs for the country’s Pharaohs and their consorts during the Old and Middle Kingdom periods.[3][4][5]

The earliest known Egyptian pyramids are found at Saqqara, northwest of Memphis. The earliest among these is the Pyramid of Djoser (constructed 2630 BCE–2611 BCE) which was built during the third dynasty. This pyramid and its surrounding complex were designed by the architect Imhotep, and are generally considered to be the world’s oldest monumental structures constructed of dressed masonry."

2630 years before Christ and 2000 years after Christ = half the age of the Earth (if you believe the Earth to only be 10,000 years old).

Possible?

Formation of the Earth, heat reduction, plate techtonics, Ice Age(s), etc. all in 5,000 years all the while humans are fighting off T-Rex for survival.

 

[Barbkw]

I repeat:

“Formation of the Earth, heat reduction, plate techtonics, Ice Age(s), etc. all in 5,000 years all the while humans are fighting off T-Rex for survival.”

The earliest known civilization found is believed to have originated at Sumar 4500-4000 BC.

Young Earth supporters (10,000 year old Earth) would have to believe that within a span of 4,000 years - the formed Earth established its proper position in the Universe on a life sustaining planetary axis, it cooled to agreeable life temperatures, with exact amounts of oxygen, proper amounts of water, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric layers and gravity, ozone, internal magnetic field, solar shields, established seasons, ocean currents, ocean salinity, food for all its plants and animals, an orbiting Moon and Sun with protective outer planets to shield asteroids, etc.

 

[lao_tzu]

I don’t have a problem with Christians believing in the Young Earth.

Of course. I went out of the way in my prior posts to emphasize that the young earth position may be held by a Catholic.

I do think it is an invitation to attack by militant Atheists, though, and that it tends to bolster the false dichotomy between science and religion that was wrought by the Reformation.

Greetings.

I have to say that I don’t understand this attitude. You don’t have to be a “militant” atheist to recognize that belief in a young earth is a non-starter for anyone who’s gone to the trouble to examine the evidence. If the pushback against this isn’t to come from their fellow adherents, then who else but atheists are left to elaborate on the obvious? How can this help but be seen as a self-inflicted embarrassment of religion? If you can’t bring yourself to correct your errant fellow adherents, you are part of the problem. Were I more militant, myself, I’d congratulate you. As I’m not, I encourage you instead to re-examine your tolerance.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Barbkw]

I’m not going to argue to the point of dividing Christianity along a Young Earth / Old Earth line.

The answer to the question of how God brought the Earth and our Universe into existance isn’t of primary importance to the faith.

I enjoy learning about the methods of earth sciences. I watch program after program. I’m not a scientist, just interested in what treasures the Universe, Earth, and humanity are.

However, I also know that earth science puts most people I know - to sleep.

We as Christians know that God created our Universe and our Earth. Some people need to know the when, where, how, why of it all.

Other people, know that He did “it” , and they aren’t interested in the science.

 

[buffalo]

10,000 years or older.

Interpreting the Genealogies of Genesis

One other point. Since Genesis 1 appears to be written from God’'s perspective consider this:

Imagine God looking at a rolled up measuring tape of 7 layers. Then imagine man who lives on the graduations. To look back we have to travel the graduations.

 

[lao_tzu]

We as Christians know that God created our Universe and our Earth. Some people need to know the when, where, how, why of it all.

Hello again, Barbkw,

Put it this way. These folks are arguing for belief in and worship of a god who created a universe. This is a fairly fundamental part of theism. Not just any universe, you understand, but our universe. When they direct our attention to a universe that is not ours, that is obviously not ours, and directly contradicts the existence of our universe, then, to the extent that one believes in a god that created this universe, they’re arguing for belief in a different god.

Any theistic religion worth its salt would call that heresy. Or so it seems to me.

There are plenty of conceptions of god I can appreciate, even if I don’t accept them for one reason or another. The “first cause” god or the “moral ideal” god can at least be discussed philosophically as broadly philosophically possible. But the god who created this universe 6000 or 10,000 years ago? We’re not guessing here. We know that god does not exist. I don’t see what damage would ensue from cutting off those who insist on such a god. On the other hand, it’s quite easy to see the damage that ensues from accommodating them. Discovering that you’ve been misled by your religious leaders can be devastating to one’s faith. I know plenty of former YECs who’ve turned atheist, and I’d imagine you do, too.

In fact, you’re conversing with one right now.

As ever, Jesse

 

[bkayw]

Jesse,

In our computer age, it’s much easier to find the articles and the authors who can explain earth sciences.

It takes expert instructors in astrophysics to explain how Sacred Scripture is the only religious book that properly sequences the formation of the universe and the Earth.

Have you ever checked out astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross’ ministry? He was an aethist and found truth about the creation of the Universe (only) in the Christian Bible.

reasons.org/about-us/hugh-ross-testimony

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8403960082035484286#

There are various youtube videos of his online concerning Young Earth vs Old Earth and Creationist vs Evolutionist. ( He and the person he debates are Protestants).

 

[edwest2]

Funny. You have three choices.

A) Young
B) Old
C) Doesn’t matter

It is interesting how those scientifically minded need to force scientific conclusions onto Biblical events.

A quick look at wine: collect grapes, clean, ferment, and drink. Jesus turns water into wine instantly, and the wine steward declares it to be superior quality. The trickster God is revealed - to not be a trickster at all.

The age of the universe is based on an idea by an astronomer named Hubble. He identified something called redshift. As the theory goes, objects moving away from earth shift into the red end of the visual spectrum. Later, after certain anomolies appeared, even he thought it might be flawed. What anomolies? First, some distant objects are moving away at better than the speed of light. Second, there are redshifts that do not appear to be distance related.

Next are polystrate fossils. Trees, for example, that pass through many layers representing a large amount of geological time. Such trees, had they been exposed to normal erosion, would have rotted away in a short time.

About the pyramids. A group of Japanese got permission from the Egyptian government to build a small scale pyramid in Egypt. After much planning, and using modern equipment, they could not do it.

The age of the earth can also be referenced to the Hewbrew calendar which starts one year before Creation. Currently, it is the year 5771.

God bless,
Ed

 

[lao_tzu]

Jesse,

In our computer age, it’s much easier to find the articles and the authors who can explain earth sciences.

It takes expert instructors in astrophysics to explain how Sacred Scripture is the only religious book that properly sequences the formation of the universe and the Earth.

Have you ever checked out astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross’ ministry? He was an aethist and found truth about the creation of the Universe (only) in the Christian Bible.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8403960082035484286#docid=4573765317181517627

There are various youtube videos of his online concerning Young Earth vs Old Earth and Creationist vs Evolutionist.

Hello bkayw,

Honestly, it doesn’t require astrophysics to explain the cosmology of the Ancient Near East and how well it’s duplicated in Genesis, and even more so in Job. While there’s no physical analogue to the star-embedded firmament holding back the waters, I could cite works running from the Enuma Elish to the Eridu Genesis across a period of 1900 years prior to the writing of Genesis that contain the same elements.

The attempt to draw out a description of creation from these texts is wrong-headed in my view. It’s clear to me that the writers were using the cosmology of the time that “everyone knew” in order to tell a story about their gods, and the writers of Genesis continued this tradition, replacing the earlier creators from Enki to Marduk with the Hebrew god. When you read the midrash, the ancient commentaries that accompanied these texts, it’s quite clear that the original audience wasn’t looking for lessons in cosmology, let alone literal interpretations. Genesis itself contains two widely divergent views of their god in chapters 1 and 2, and it was the aspects of this god as a creator that concerned them, not the creation itself.

Ross is an interesting fellow, but his rejection of biological evolution is unacceptable, and is yet another example of a scientist embarrassing himself by writing outside his field of expertise. His localized flood that nevertheless encompassed all of humanity is not merely blind to the origins of the tale, but false to fact. Humans have never been gathered together inside a single river valley within the geological record. Anatomically modern humanity traces back about 200,000 years to its origins in south central Africa, from which it spread out eastward across the continent from there before crossing out of Africa into the ANE some 150,000 years later. Geographically dense populations didn’t exist until after the invention of agriculture some 10,000 years ago, and even then were spread out across three separate flood plains, including Mesopotamia, the Nile, and the Indus valley civilizations. You don’t learn about this by studying astrophysics, and Ross would be well advised to look beyond astrophysics before he chooses to write about this again.

I’m far more impressed with scholars such as Ken Miller (a Catholic just by the way) who begin with the acknowledged science and then draw out their theology without first backing up 2500 years to put on the ill-fitting suit of a primitive and since rightly displaced cosmology. I recommend to you his book, Finding Darwin’s God.

As ever, Jesse

 

[lao_tzu]

Jesse,

In our computer age, it’s much easier to find the articles and the authors who can explain earth sciences.

It takes expert instructors in astrophysics to explain how Sacred Scripture is the only religious book that properly sequences the formation of the universe and the Earth.

Have you ever checked out astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross’ ministry? He was an aethist and found truth about the creation of the Universe (only) in the Christian Bible.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8403960082035484286#docid=4573765317181517627

There are various youtube videos of his online concerning Young Earth vs Old Earth and Creationist vs Evolutionist.

Hello bkayw,

Honestly, it doesn’t require astrophysics to explain the cosmology of the Ancient Near East and how well it’s duplicated in Genesis, and even more so in Job. While there’s no physical analogue to the star-embedded firmament holding back the waters, I could cite works running from the Enuma Elish to the Eridu Genesis across a period of 1900 years prior to the writing of Genesis that contain the same elements.

The attempt to draw out a description of creation from these texts is wrong-headed in my view. It’s clear to me that the writers were using the cosmology of the time that “everyone knew” in order to tell a story about their gods, and the writers of Genesis continued this tradition, replacing the earlier creators from Enki to Marduk with the Hebrew god. When you read the midrash, the ancient commentaries that accompanied these texts, it’s quite clear that the original audience wasn’t looking for lessons in cosmology, let alone literal interpretations. Genesis itself contains two widely divergent views of their god in chapters 1 and 2, and it was the aspects of this god as a creator that concerned them, not the creation itself.

Ross is an interesting fellow, but his rejection of biological evolution is unacceptable, and is yet another example of a scientist embarrassing himself by writing outside his field of expertise. His localized flood that nevertheless encompassed all of humanity is not merely blind to the origins of the tale, but false to fact. Humans have never been gathered together inside a single river valley within the geological record. Anatomically modern humanity traces back about 200,000 years to its origins in south central Africa, from which it spread out eastward across the continent from there before crossing out of Africa into the ANE some 150,000 years later. Geographically dense populations didn’t exist until after the invention of agriculture some 10,000 years ago, and even then were spread out across three separate flood plains, including Mesopotamia, the Nile, and the Indus valley civilizations. You don’t learn about this by studying astrophysics, and Ross would be well advised to look beyond astrophysics before he chooses to write about this again.

I’m far more impressed with scholars such as Ken Miller (a Catholic just by the way) who begin with the acknowledged science and then draw out their theology without first backing up 2500 years to put on the ill-fitting suit of a primitive and since rightly displaced cosmology. I recommend to you his book, Finding Darwin’s God.

As ever, Jesse

 

[lao_tzu]

Jesse,

In our computer age, it’s much easier to find the articles and the authors who can explain earth sciences.

It takes expert instructors in astrophysics to explain how Sacred Scripture is the only religious book that properly sequences the formation of the universe and the Earth.

Have you ever checked out astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross’ ministry? He was an aethist and found truth about the creation of the Universe (only) in the Christian Bible.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8403960082035484286#docid=4573765317181517627

There are various youtube videos of his online concerning Young Earth vs Old Earth and Creationist vs Evolutionist.

Hello bkayw,

Honestly, it doesn’t require astrophysics to explain the cosmology of the Ancient Near East and how well it’s duplicated in Genesis, and even more so in Job. While there’s no physical analogue to the star-embedded firmament holding back the waters, I could cite works running from the Enuma Elish to the Eridu Genesis across a period of 1900 years prior to the writing of Genesis that contain the same elements.

The attempt to draw out a description of creation from these texts is wrong-headed in my view. It’s clear to me that the writers were using the cosmology of the time that “everyone knew” in order to tell a story about their gods, and the writers of Genesis continued this tradition, replacing the earlier creators from Enki to Marduk with the Hebrew god. When you read the midrash, the ancient commentaries that accompanied these texts, it’s quite clear that the original audience wasn’t looking for lessons in cosmology, let alone literal interpretations. Genesis itself contains two widely divergent views of their god in chapters 1 and 2, and it was the aspects of this god as a creator that concerned them, not the creation itself.

Ross is an interesting fellow, but his rejection of biological evolution is unacceptable, and is yet another example of a scientist embarrassing himself by writing outside his field of expertise. His localized flood that nevertheless encompassed all of humanity is not merely blind to the origins of the tale, but false to fact. Humans have never been gathered together inside a single river valley within the geological record. Anatomically modern humanity traces back about 200,000 years to its origins in south central Africa, from which it spread out eastward across the continent from there before crossing out of Africa into the ANE some 150,000 years later. Geographically dense populations didn’t exist until after the invention of agriculture some 10,000 years ago, and even then were spread out across three separate flood plains, including Mesopotamia, the Nile, and the Indus valley civilizations. You don’t learn about this by studying astrophysics, and Ross would be well advised to look beyond astrophysics before he chooses to write about this again.

I’m far more impressed with scholars such as Ken Miller (a Catholic just by the way) who begin with the acknowledged science and then draw out their theology without first backing up 2500 years to put on the ill-fitting suit of a primitive and since rightly displaced cosmology. I recommend to you his book, Finding Darwin’s God.

As ever, Jesse

 

[edwest2]

Hello bkayw,

Honestly, it doesn’t require astrophysics to explain the cosmology of the Ancient Near East and how well it’s duplicated in Genesis, and even more so in Job. While there’s no physical analogue to the star-embedded firmament holding back the waters, I could cite works running from the Enuma Elish to the Eridu Genesis across a period of 1900 years prior to the writing of Genesis that contain the same elements.

The attempt to draw out a description of creation from these texts is wrong-headed in my view. It’s clear to me that the writers were using the cosmology of the time that “everyone knew” in order to tell a story about their gods, and the writers of Genesis continued this tradition, replacing the earlier creators from Enki to Marduk with the Hebrew god. When you read the midrash, the ancient commentaries that accompanied these texts, it’s quite clear that the original audience wasn’t looking for lessons in cosmology, let alone literal interpretations. Genesis itself contains two widely divergent views of their god in chapters 1 and 2, and it was the aspects of this god as a creator that concerned them, not the creation itself.

Ross is an interesting fellow, but his rejection of biological evolution is unacceptable, and is yet another example of a scientist embarrassing himself by writing outside his field of expertise. His localized flood that nevertheless encompassed all of humanity is not merely blind to the origins of the tale, but false to fact. Humans have never been gathered together inside a single river valley within the geological record. Anatomically modern humanity traces back about 200,000 years to its origins in south central Africa, from which it spread out eastward across the continent from there before crossing out of Africa into the ANE some 150,000 years later. Geographically dense populations didn’t exist until after the invention of agriculture some 10,000 years ago, and even then were spread out across three separate flood plains, including Mesopotamia, the Nile, and the Indus valley civilizations. You don’t learn about this by studying astrophysics, and Ross would be well advised to look beyond astrophysics before he chooses to write about this again.

I’m far more impressed with scholars such as Ken Miller (a Catholic just by the way) who begin with the acknowledged science and then draw out their theology without first backing up 2500 years to put on the ill-fitting suit of a primitive and since rightly displaced cosmology. I recommend to you his book, Finding Darwin’s God.

As ever, Jesse

I think Mr. Miller has discredited himself. Your argument is just a repeat of many that have gone before: ancient peoples, limited knowledge, accounts written as primitive cosmological concepts. Literally true? You’ve got to be kidding.

How is rejection of biological evolution unacceptable? What does it matter?

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Here are examples of personal philosophy in Biology textbooks. This is crossing the line by giving students the ideological conclusions of others along with purported facts. Thereby, leading them in a certain ideological direction. Definitely wrong.

We can see this in current biology textbooks:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Funny. You have three choices.

A) Young
B) Old
C) Doesn’t matter

It is interesting how those scientifically minded need to force scientific conclusions onto Biblical events.

A quick look at wine: collect grapes, clean, ferment, and drink. Jesus turns water into wine instantly, and the wine steward declares it to be superior quality. The trickster God is revealed - to not be a trickster at all.

The age of the universe is based on an idea by an astronomer named Hubble. He identified something called redshift. As the theory goes, objects moving away from earth shift into the red end of the visual spectrum. Later, after certain anomolies appeared, even he thought it might be flawed. What anomolies? First, some distant objects are moving away at better than the speed of light. Second, there are redshifts that do not appear to be distance related.

Next are polystrate fossils. Trees, for example, that pass through many layers representing a large amount of geological time. Such trees, had they been exposed to normal erosion, would have rotted away in a short time.

About the pyramids. A group of Japanese got permission from the Egyptian government to build a small scale pyramid in Egypt. After much planning, and using modern equipment, they could not do it.

The age of the earth can also be referenced to the Hewbrew calendar which starts one year before Creation. Currently, it is the year 5771.

God bless,
Ed

A question I have pondered for a while now - Why are even the farthest light sources always so clear with Hubble?