I
itinerant1
Guest
Except fundamentalists.
Why do fundamentalists believe the world is 6000-10000 years old?
- Status
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Thereâs a line in the Bible which goes something vaguely like âdo not rely on philosophers and scientists to explain the world to you: they will notâ. Science is limited by what evidence is available, and, more critically, what we have the slightest chance of understanding from it. Both are limited by their material nature. I suspect your thinking is modernistically orthodox: We are taught to look to Science as the ultimate authority, but ultimately Science has made at least as many false proclamations of conclusivity as any religion, by the worst interpretation, if not more.
Science then was not what it is now, and was influenced by different ideologies. It also had not attained the level of exalted status it has today. The only reason anyone really feels the need to justify themselves to any authority is because that authority has the power and influence to demand it.
And actually, at least looking at St. Augustine, they *did * try and explain theologically revealed truths scientifically. But no religion worth itâs salt would limit itself to what Science can deterimine, or to what can be scientifically expressed. The scientific is but one among many methods of philosophical investigation, brilliant for understanding the physical mechanics of the world as of themselves, pants if/where there is anything beyond that - including the possibility of anything beyond that
Science is an industry, an authority, a power. So is religion. It is inevitable, given our sadly shallow natures, that they would conflict with each other, because they inconvenience each other
C
cassini
Guest
Where in Godâs name did you get that âevery celestial body would have to be lined up 100% perfectlyâ tym? And who says âgravityâ is a pulling force? Couldnât it be a pushing force?
Look tjm, your physics were invented by Isaac Newton to comply with heliocentrism with its ellipses in the following manner:
**âThis method, of which the germ was contained in the scientific revolution initiated at the turn of the seventeenth century by Francis Bacon and which has since been adopted by every branch of science and by countless pseudo-sciences such as politics, economics, the social sciences, and even art, religion, ethics and psychology, is as follows. Take a phenomenon that can be observed, produce a mathematical measurement for it that fits, concoct a hypothesis which, however far fetched, could possibly account for the phenomenon, and finally call the hypothesis and the mathematical formula that supports it a law and regardless of whether or not there is any theoretical justification for it whatever, apply it throughout the universe. And that is all that the famous Law of Gravitation consists of.â **
Oh, âand beyond reasonable doubtsâ may be ok for science where nobody gives a damn and error has little consequence, but not for faith. Actual proof is necessary according to the Church.
I
itinerant1
Guest
That doesnât sound familiar. Do you have a reference?
J
JDaniel
Guest
Itinerant:
Thank you very much for both lists. Seems I own several of the books but havenât started on them yet. Good. Iâll start with them.
God Bless,
jd
L
latin_rite
Guest
Leave him alone he is a âtheosopherâ.
Anyway⌠When i worked at a Christian school as a young lad. I was talking to this guy who worked there. He was studying to be a lawyer. A Very smart man⌠He didânt believe in dinosaurs. he said all the fossils were fake. He also didnât believe in aliens. I said why not? God is very powerful . Highly intelligent. Seems to admire hard work. Why would someone that powerful, that intelligent, that hard working not make other worlds with living things on them? Which he thought about for a while and said yeah why not?
But back on subject⌠He believed the world was only 6,000 years old. He thought dinosaurs were /are all fake/never existed. Didnât know you could see satellites with the naked eye. And he home schooled. A fine example as to why home schooling isnât that good of an idea in all cases.
T
tjm190
Guest
Gravity is a pull- both objects are pulled towards their center of gravity. For the Earth to be at the center, the sum of the pulls on it must be zero. Otherwise, it would move.
Can you name anything that has been âactuallyâ proven?
A
alongexpected
Guest
Um, no. Besides from a creation âscientistâ Iâve never read from anyone who disagrees with the fact that the Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old.
B
buffalo
Guest
When you are able to show me official Magisterial documents that show the change and the date.
Huh? Time is not linear somehow translates to cyclical? Where did you get that from?
My arguments are consistent with the constant understanding and teaching of the Church. Your claims are pure scientism.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Neither creation account even remotely suggests there were humans prior to Adam and Eve. The purpose of the second account is to represent the first humans. It would be a logical contradiction to say there were humans prior to the first humans.
The two different accounts of creation actually form a unity. The difference represents different aspects of God. In the first account, God is âaboveâ the world that he creates. The second account reveals God as also being intimately involved with His creation.
It is a mistake in genre identification to take this for a literal chronological sequence between the two stories.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I donât know what you are talking about here.
Thatâs not even a remotely accurate interpretation of what I said.
Oh, yes. I recall now the dogma of the speedy filmstrip. How could I have forgotten that?
You think everything that is not YEC is scientism. Gimme a break.
P
pzona
Guest
Fair enough. Let me clear up my thinking though: I believe that science is the ultimate authority only on the natural, observable world. There are questions that science will never be able to answer, such as âwhy are we here?â Like I said in the thread I linked to in my original post, science answers different questions than religion does.
I donât feel like science is influenced by any ideology, aside from the search for truth and how things work. Thatâs merely my perspective though.
Iâve never heard of this, but then again, Iâve never actually looked up science in the early church. I imagine that it went something like religious people attempting science today though. Usually a religious person will take something from the Bible and try to find evidence to support it, while ignoring or erroneously interpreting data in order to confirm their hypothesis. I admit that some scientists do the same to try and disprove ideas with apparent religious implications. I think that what should have happened was: St. Augustine should have gone to the proper researchers with the information (in the form of a hypothesis or prediction) he had gained from the Bible and asked them to investigate it. This is generally how scientific hypotheses are approached, and it would have done wonders for science-church relations in the long run. Also, given that time in history, itâs less likely that science would intentionally draw anti-Biblical conclusions in order to discredit religion.
True. Sad, but true.
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Itâll give it a good try - âbecause of a sheer accidentâ is the prevailing one
Modern scientific practice is underpinned by a rather exclusive idea - specifically, that if something cannot be interpreted scientifically, it is best assumed that there is a more rational explanation, and that will neccesarily be taken as the more reasonable one. As we reach the stage where there is little of experience which is not expected to justify itself according to these principles, Science becomes universally exclusivist. This is Scientism, and it essentially rejects all other forms of philosophical interpretation and belief in attempting to find the truth. And it is an ideology which permeates modern life
Because Science can only interpret things based on the assumption of material causality. Concepts and experiences of the supernatural are inevitably rejected as unprovable, since, well, thereâs no way to scientifically investigate them as thoroughly as any alternative material causation
Part of Darwinâs inspiration, as I understand it, was that he thought various forms of life too cruel to have been created by God. Although Iâve covered that before, I thinkâŚ
Scientific authority? But thatâs the thing - there wasnât much in the way of scientific authority! In fact, St. Augustine was probably as much of a scientific authority as anyone else, at the time. Most of the most learned men for many years were Church scholars.St. Augustine, incientally, was also probably one of the first to consider evolutionary possibilities!
one-eternal-day.com/2009/05/st-augustine-scripture-and-evolution.html
Which is why the Church is rather amenable to the idea of evolution - but allows skepticism about it also!
âBest laid plansâ and allâŚ
I
itinerant1
Guest
On a different note: anyone for physics and art? See liquid sculpture using high-speed photography.
C
cassini
Guest
There are many theories for gravity tym, you just believe Isaac Newtonâs. If you want I can give you an account of another proposed at the time of Isaac Newton. But the Masonic Royal Society of London wanted one that would get the earth moving and contradict the Bible and the Churchâs stand on it.
Of course I can, dinosaurs do exist, their fossils have been found and their tracks along with human footprints were sold by the Indians for yearsâŚ
What cannot be proven however is how old is the world, did life evolve, did man evolve, where did he get intelligence that give him choices, that the earth is part of the solar system, that the Solar system was formed from a Gas ball, that the world began 14.5 billion years ago with a big bang, how far away the stars are. etc., etc.
Now note it is with unprovable science that the Modernists attack the literal revelations in Scripture and the traditional understanding of creation, the fall, original sin etc.
So far tym, you have given this thread the best case for the FAITH we creationists hold.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Donât get me wrong the rest were nearly as obtuse, but this is a classic!
You do realize we have sent probs to almost all the major planets??
youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
C
cassini
Guest
Albert old pal, The âSOLAR SYSTEMâ is the name given to the hypothesis that the earth is but one of the planets orbiting the sun.
The EARTH SYSTEM, that I hold, has the sun with its orbiting planets orbiting the earth.
Now both are hypoteses in the sphere of science. Not so in the sphere of faith wherein geocentrism is confirmen by revelation.
So, when I say the earth cannot be proven to be part of the Solar System in future you will now be able to understand the language I use.
As for the âyou are hereâ I have no problem with that picture. All it shows is the earth, sun and planets. My Earth system - your Solar system.
Viewed the video Albert. I enjoyed it, the music was superb, and the narrative was very pleasant. Sagan was like yourself Albert, a noner, wasnât he, so he would leave out that it was Godâs FOOTSTOOL, the place He created before the universe to accommodate the greatest act of His love, mankind, and thereafter their salvation by way of His becoming a man only to die for us. Accordingly, I would think the âblue dotâ deserved its proper name and place in the universe. Can you guys even imagine a geocentric wording to this video. Alas, you never will, not on your lives, yes?
G
greylorn
Guest
Gravity is the consequence of space being warped by the presence of concentrated energy forms, notably matter.
The geometry of the universe may not be such as to allow a center to be mathematically defined. Draw a long, rambling, squiggly line that meets its origin, thereby describing an enclosure. Try to find the center of it.
A center of the universe could be defined in several ways, if it actually is definable. You seem to like null gravity and apparently zero relative motion of a body at the center. Both are impossible. If the body contains any mass, its own space is warped, which prevents it from being at the center of anything whatsoever.
Moreover, such a centered planet will be perceived to move from the perspective of any other planet or observation point. Thus it will be impossible to verify that the planet does not move and is not subject to gravitational forces.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Excerpt from The Triumph Of The Heliocentric Theory
The next major development [after Galileo] was the generalization of Keplerâs laws in 1687 by Isaac Newton (1642-1727). His generalized form of Keplerâs laws showed that the Sun and planets all revolve around the solar systemâs center of mass. Telescopic observations of solar system objects gave indications of their size and when used in the generalized Keplerâs laws, soon showed that the Sun is much larger and more massive than even Jupiter (the largest and most massive planet). Thus the center of the solar system, around which Earth revolves, is always in or near the Sun. Earth orbits the Sun much more than the Sun orbits Earth.
Another demonstration of Earthâs orbital motion is the aberration of starlight. Astronomical observations and celestial mechanics indicate that Earth should have a 16-19 mi/sec (25-30 km/sec) orbital velocity around the solar systemâs center which continuously changes its direction due to the gravitational effect of the Sun. James Bradleyâs (1693-1762) attempt to determine the parallaxes of stars starting in 1725 with a telescope rigidly fixed in a chimney soon found that the apparent positions of the stars shifted along elliptical paths. These ellipses were 90° out of phase with the parallax ellipse for a nearby star on a distant background that is expected to be produced by Earthâs motion around the Sun.
Moreover the ellipsesâ semi-major axes were always 20.5", with no variation from the different distances of the stars. These same size ellipses were soon understood to be the yearly paths of the aberrations of the apparent positions of the stars caused by the addition of Earthâs constantly changing orbital velocity to the vacuum velocity of the light arriving from the stars (whose true positions are at the centers of the aberrational ellipses). These ellipses show that Earth does indeed have the expected orbital velocity around the solar systemâs center of mass.
Final proof of the heliocentric theory for the solar system came in 1838, when F.W. Bessel (1784-1846) determined the first firm trigonometric parallax for the two stars of 61 Cygni (Gliese 820). Their parallax (difference in apparent direction of an object as seen from two different points) ellipses were consistent with orbital motion of Earth around the Sun.
The next major development [after Galileo] was the generalization of Keplerâs laws in 1687 by Isaac Newton (1642-1727). His generalized form of Keplerâs laws showed that the Sun and planets all revolve around the solar systemâs center of mass. Telescopic observations of solar system objects gave indications of their size and when used in the generalized Keplerâs laws, soon showed that the Sun is much larger and more massive than even Jupiter (the largest and most massive planet). Thus the center of the solar system, around which Earth revolves, is always in or near the Sun. Earth orbits the Sun much more than the Sun orbits Earth.
Another demonstration of Earthâs orbital motion is the aberration of starlight. Astronomical observations and celestial mechanics indicate that Earth should have a 16-19 mi/sec (25-30 km/sec) orbital velocity around the solar systemâs center which continuously changes its direction due to the gravitational effect of the Sun. James Bradleyâs (1693-1762) attempt to determine the parallaxes of stars starting in 1725 with a telescope rigidly fixed in a chimney soon found that the apparent positions of the stars shifted along elliptical paths. These ellipses were 90° out of phase with the parallax ellipse for a nearby star on a distant background that is expected to be produced by Earthâs motion around the Sun.
Moreover the ellipsesâ semi-major axes were always 20.5", with no variation from the different distances of the stars. These same size ellipses were soon understood to be the yearly paths of the aberrations of the apparent positions of the stars caused by the addition of Earthâs constantly changing orbital velocity to the vacuum velocity of the light arriving from the stars (whose true positions are at the centers of the aberrational ellipses). These ellipses show that Earth does indeed have the expected orbital velocity around the solar systemâs center of mass.
Final proof of the heliocentric theory for the solar system came in 1838, when F.W. Bessel (1784-1846) determined the first firm trigonometric parallax for the two stars of 61 Cygni (Gliese 820). Their parallax (difference in apparent direction of an object as seen from two different points) ellipses were consistent with orbital motion of Earth around the Sun.
D
Deacon_Joseph
Guest
Why are dinosaurs always brought into this discussion? I have been asked this question many times. If the empirical sciences can show that the dinosaurs existed, then they probably did exist. Pope John Paul II is quoted as saying, "God is the creator, and weâll leave the explanation up to the scientific community to help us understand the worldâ.
The Earth is over 4 billion years old. The covenant between man and God began around 10,000 or 6,000 years ago. Godâs covenant with man is the Bible. That is the documentation of Godâs covenant. The dinosaurs lived on the Earth and became extinct before Godâs covenant with man, so they donât necessarily need to be in the Bible.
Donât forget the Vatican has had The Pontifical Academy of Sciences since around 1603. The last two Popes have had no problem with the empirical sciences. Remember what Pope John Paul II said, âFAITH and REASON are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to contemplation of truthâ.
- Status