A
Why do fundamentalists believe the world is 6000-10000 years old?
- Status
C
cassini
Guest
Albert, (Also as a student of science i cannot accept claims of a soul without evidence.) can I presume you are an atheist. If so why not post this on your profile. Once this is known we see you are in the wrong thread because this is a discussion of faith and science . What point is there in me looking for a universally accepted dating method when there are none as this thread shows. My truth is faith based and that assures for me which scientific interpretation is truth also.
Here is my position:
**The Source of the Church’s Science
Science (scientia) is knowledge, and the highest accumulation of knowledge is wisdom, and wisdom is the science of the Catholic Church. Wisdom is attained on four levels of knowing. Beginning with the lowest value of knowledge and rising to the highest level, these grades are, (1): knowledge of the simple building blocks of the world surmised through the senses, something even animals are capable of; level (2): knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment, critically tested, systematised and brought under general principles (empirical science), reserved of course to man; level (3): knowledge acquired through philosophy, the search for causes by reason, and level (4): comprehension from theology, our understanding of things from both reason and revelation of God, and how He relates to the universe and man.
Anti-Christian science has surrounded itself with a number of boundary stakes driven into scientific ground, and has thus limited its own freedom of progress and growth. The ‘science without presupposition’ is entangled in its own axiom, and for no other reason than its aversion to Christianity. On the other hand, the scientist who accepts the teaching of Christ need not fall back on a single arbitrary postulate. If he/she is a philosopher, one starts from the premises dictated by reason. In the world around us we recognise the natural revelation of a Creator, and by logical deductions concluded from the contingency of things created to the Being Uncreated. The same reasoning gives us an understanding of the spirituality and immortality of the soul. From both results combined we concluded further to moral obligations and the existence of the natural law. Thus prepared one can start into any scientific research without the necessity of erecting boundary stakes for the purpose of justifying any prejudices. If one wants to go further and put our faith upon a scientific basis, we may take the books called the Sacred Scriptures as a starting point, apply methodical criticism to their authenticity, and find them just as reliable as any other historical record. Their contents, prophecies, and miracles convince us of the Divinity of Christ, and from the testimony of Jesus Christ we accept the entire supernatural revelation. We have constructed the science of our faith without any other than scientific premises. Thus the science of the Christian is the only one that gives freedom of research and progress; its boundaries are none but the pale of truth.
Anti-Christian science, on the contrary, is the slave of its own preconceived ethics, and from such prejudiced axioms and suppositions are derived the heliocentric system and much of the cosmological and evolutionary ‘sciences’ propagated today.
The demand for unlimited freedom in science is unreasonable and unjust, because it always leads to licence and rebellion. There is no unlimited freedom in the world and liberty overstepping its boundaries inevitably leads to evil. Freedom is not the greatest boon or the final end of man; it is given to us as a means to reach our end. Within our own mind, man feels bound to truth. As we see nature around us bound to certain laws, we know we too must remain within certain laws. But these judgments are the best that are formed in accordance with the rules of logic. Opinions are free only where certainty cannot be reached. Scientific theories are free as long as they rest on probabilities. It is ironic that the freest of all in their thinking are the ignorant. The more freedom of opinion, the less science.
The long held cry for anti-Christian or unlimited freedom in science is for licence. Whenever science steps outside of the constraints of the logical, the physical and the ethical, it falls into error, into misfortune, into licence. This may be summed up by saying that unlimited freedom in science is a rebellion against both supernatural and natural revelation. If God pleases to reveal Himself in any way whatever, man is obliged to accept the revelation, and no arbitrary axiom will dispense him from this duty. When anti-Christian science repudiates the claim of Jesus Christ as Son of God, it necessarily repudiates the Father Who sent Him, and the Holy Ghost Who proceeds from both. Anti-Christian science, we find, leads to atheism. Atheism is an acquired state, and one has to work hard to sustain it. In the face of the natural law, however, which binds man to know and serve our Creator, pleading ignorance of the triune God is as much a rebellion against Him as shutting Him out of the world. Once God is excluded then there is need of an idol; the necessity lies in human nature. The idol created by anti-Christian science - the emancipation of the mind and will from God, from idealism to subjectivism - is the human ego.
Science that is changed then is not developed but abandoned. Similarly, faith changed is faith abandoned. True development is shown in the parable of the mustard seed that grows into a tree without destroying the organic connection between the root and the smallest branches.**
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Why would i when it asks for ones religion. Why don’t you post on your profile all the deities that you don’t have a belief in? Why don’t you post in your interests all the things your are not interested in?
Religion - Atheism
Hobbies - Not collecting stamps
^^ it is the exact same, atheist is a meaningless word.
S
spn82756
Guest
Hi Cassini…I have it bookmarked at work…not here. But I believe that if you look in the FAQ they address the issue. No rudeness or sarcasm intended.
C
cassini
Guest
Gee Albert, you are one complicated person. Why then didn’t you list yourself as a ‘NONE’?
Tell you what Albert, I now see it is a waste of time debating with a NONER. Have a good life.
S
spn82756
Guest
Oh come on. We have not been showing a lot of Christian charity in this post. Including myself. I don’t think Jesus is looking down at us with a smile.
To those who have much…much is expected. We have the grace to believe…but we can’t be fishers of men by cutting people off.
I received a reply to a private message from someone’s post on this board that I respect. He is factual…but gentle. St Francis said to spread to Gosple…and if you have too…then use words.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
You too, i wish you no harm. However it is of the up most importance that we pass on our scientific knowledge to the future generations. Ideas like the earth is 10000 years old are extremely dangerous, if accepted by the masses they have the potential to deepen the gap between the general public and science. This in turn could have drastic consequences to our society in general. If the people turn their back on reason, and in this case empirical evidence, the best case scenario is the society will no longer be able to compete on the world stage. The worst case is not worth thinking about.
C
cassini
Guest
Spn, but the Bible also tells us not to waste pearls throwing them at swine (metaphor) and to wipe our feet and go. Some people are here to try to undermine faith and have no intention of believing.Oh come on. We have not been showing a lot of Christian charity in this post. Including myself. I don’t think Jesus is looking down at us with a smile.
To those who have much…much is expected. We have the grace to believe…but we can’t be fishers of men by cutting people off.
I received a reply to a private message from someone’s post on this board that I respect. He is factual…but gentle. St Francis said to spread to Gosple…and if you have too…then use words.
The long held cry for anti-Christian or unlimited freedom in science is for licence. Whenever science steps outside of the constraints of the logical, the physical and the ethical, it falls into error, into misfortune, into licence. This may be summed up by saying that unlimited freedom in science is a rebellion against both supernatural and natural revelation. If God pleases to reveal Himself in any way whatever, man is obliged to accept the revelation, and no arbitrary axiom will dispense him from this duty. When anti-Christian science repudiates the claim of Jesus Christ as Son of God, it necessarily repudiates the Father Who sent Him, and the Holy Ghost Who proceeds from both. Anti-Christian science, we find, leads to atheism. Atheism is an acquired state, and one has to work hard to sustain it. In the face of the natural law, however, which binds man to know and serve our Creator, pleading ignorance of the triune God is as much a rebellion against Him as shutting Him out of the world. Once God is excluded then there is need of an idol; the necessity lies in human nature. The idol created by anti-Christian science - the emancipation of the mind and will from God, from idealism to subjectivism - is the human ego.
S
spn82756
Guest
How do we win a soul that doesn’t believe?
R
rossum
Guest
C
cassini
Guest
Pray that God will someday give that gift to them. It has happened the hardest of atheists. Arguing science with them exclusive of revelation converted nobody.
B
buffalo
Guest
Bogus alert.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Sorry, but i am 100% serious.
E
edwest2
Guest
It appears that a fake secular apocalypse will occur if people refuse to embrace what some call science. This is from a patterned list of assertions that are being widely promoted now but which have no basis.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
I
itinerant1
Guest
Clearly indeed does science show that the earth is very old. To assert a 10, 000 year old earth or any such young age is grounded on a prejudice and defiance of reason.
However, you have your own logical problem when you say, “as a student of science i cannot accept claims of a soul without evidence.” The non-material soul is a subject of inquiry that lies outside the scope and competence of the natural sciences. Accordingly, the natural sciences cannot prove or disprove the soul’s existence.
Furthermore, if you assume that only the natural sciences give us knowledge of reality, then that position can only be supported by meta-scientific arguments, i.e. philosophical demonstration. Hence, any such argument stemming from the epistemology of scientism would thereby encounter an intrinsic contradiction and failure from the outset, as has always been the case, historically.
S
SunnaB16
Guest
Albert:
please read that second post again.
.
I wasn`t disputing the age of the Earth.
The only issue was THE AGE OF THE HUMAN RACE.
If you look at the first post, that should be evident, as well.
Sorry, but I`m a bit touchy about being branded a Young Earther. No friend of Duane Gish and Co.
Regarding the immortal soul: how can you call yourself a Catholic, and yet deny the Church
If you do deny the existence of the human soul, how do you explain the vast difference between our thinking ability and the capabilities of even the highest of the non-human animals. Please don`t come out with something about brain development. Man is a rational animal, and it IS the human soul which ultimately separates us. As already stated, the human spiritual soul is THE SEAT OF THE INTELLECT AND THE WILl, the same as with the angels.
please read that second post again.
.
I wasn`t disputing the age of the Earth.
The only issue was THE AGE OF THE HUMAN RACE.
If you look at the first post, that should be evident, as well.
Sorry, but I`m a bit touchy about being branded a Young Earther. No friend of Duane Gish and Co.
Regarding the immortal soul: how can you call yourself a Catholic, and yet deny the Church
s DOGMA re our human soul. You cant have it both ways!If you do deny the existence of the human soul, how do you explain the vast difference between our thinking ability and the capabilities of even the highest of the non-human animals. Please don`t come out with something about brain development. Man is a rational animal, and it IS the human soul which ultimately separates us. As already stated, the human spiritual soul is THE SEAT OF THE INTELLECT AND THE WILl, the same as with the angels.
G
geometer
Guest
I have already learned about talkorigins. I disrespect anyone who uses them as a resource. My only guess is that they are Marxists. Only Marxists have sincere interest in promoting evolution. It is a completely useless idea to everyone else.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Albert does not claim to be Catholic. He is atheist or agnostic.
S
SunnaB16
Guest
Albert:
sorry, I got mixed up.
You`re not a Catholic.
The 20 minute edit allowance time isn`t enough for some of us.
sorry, I got mixed up.
You`re not a Catholic.
The 20 minute edit allowance time isn`t enough for some of us.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Your statement that, “Only Marxists have sincere interest in promoting evolution” lacks historical support. Where did you come up with such an idea? Darwin was not a Marxist. Neither was Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, or many orthodox Catholic scientists who adhere to a particular theory of evolution.
Evolution theory was around before Marxism and evolution theories are supported and adhered to by many non-Marxists.
- Status