Young Earth v. Old Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter algran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jcrichton said:
Hi, ROBIN!

Why would it terrify you if after billions and billions of spent dollars science discovers that there is life only on earth?

Maran atha!

Angel
Click to expand...
The billions and billions we spend on science has nothing to do with whether there is life in the universe or not. If we didn’t spend a dime in all the time of mankind, it would make no difference. You miss the whole point.

If we find life or even evidence of life on Mars or Anywhere other than earth, it means that the universe is probably Teeming with Life. With the Billions of “milky ways” out there why would God only make a living creator that was sentient on earth? Therefore “Aliens” probably would exist. Probably in thousands or even millions of different varieties (species). Where does mankind stand among them. Did God only make US Special? Only We were given a soul? Only We were picked for Salvation? The thought is alarming. It is mind boggling.

On the other hand, regardless whether we spend billions looking for it or not a red cent, if we never find any evidence of life in the universe; not even microbes, with billions and billions of probable life-supporting planets; why did God Waste all that? 13.2 billion light-years of potential life-supporting materials. Why would He pick one tiny grain of sand on the whole beach and put life only it? How terrifying lonely mankind really is- to be the only sentient life (or any kind of life) in the entire cosmos. That would sound more like we were only an accident (just as non-believers propose) than if the universe was teeming with life.

It isn’t a matter of money at all. Its a matter of immense philosophical and theological importance.
 
(Barbarian notes that scientists are now learning to predict how future strains of antibiotic resistance might evolve)
…so why do you suppose we continue to encounter new strains that are impervious to the solutions which man continues to engineer?
Click to expand...
Bacteria have extremely short generation times, and so evolve rapidly. Worse, they can do lateral gene transfer between species, which increases the problem.

Hall’s work is now leveling the playing field a bit as scientists begin to predict the directions resistance might take in the future.
 
(Barbarian notes that acceptance of evolution is slowly increasing among Americans)
…but could there not be a different cause-effect issue? …say, "the more people ignore Yahweh God the more they are willing to accept all theories that deny God’s existence?
Click to expand...
Not likely. First, more people are reporting that God is important in their lives. Second, evolutionary theory does not deny God’s existence. Popes Pius XII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI would not have acknowledged it, if it were so.

It’s mostly an effect of better education. The more you know about science, the more you understand evolution.
 
Barbarian observes:
Wonder, if he gets sick, if he’s going to reject “atheistic” antibiotic protocols.

Or if his toilet backs up, he’ll refuse to consider “atheistic” plumbing.

Or…
…so all plumbers too do not believe in God?
Click to expand...
That’s the thing. There are many world-class scientists who believe in God. One of the greatest living biologists, Francisco Ayala, is a devout Roman Catholic. He is a major authority on evolution and population genetics.

I bet many plumbers are devout Christians, too, even if plumbing (like science) is methodologically naturalistic.
 
Quote:
…but could there not be a different cause-effect issue? …say, "the more people ignore Yahweh God the more they are willing to accept all theories that deny God’s existence?

Science is a human discipline in learning how the universe is put together. Science is based on observation, on cause and effect, on discovery, each of its principals building one upon another. There should not be a chasm between one’s Faith and science. There should be ethical concerns on certain ways science does things, and perhaps laws passed to curb them, such as with regard to human-animal hybrids, or embryonic stem-cell research, eeuthanasia, etc. One’s Faith should enlighten and give guidance to scientific discoveries, not prohibit them.
 
The_Barbarian said:
(Barbarian notes that acceptance of evolution is slowly increasing among Americans)

Not likely. First, more people are reporting that God is important in their lives. Second, evolutionary theory does not deny God’s existence. Popes Pius XII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI would not have acknowledged it, if it were so.

It’s mostly an effect of better education. The more you know about science, the more you understand evolution.
Click to expand...
Humani Generis tells Catholics that Adam and Eve were our first parents.

Pope John Paul II did not give a blanket approbation for all theories of evolution and indicated some went against Catholic teaching.

Pope Benedict XVI stated that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.

The document titled Human Persons Created in the Image of God tells Catholics that a random form of evolution without divine providence cannot exist.

The more you know about the critical role of divine providence in the creation of life, the more you will see textbook evolution as an incomplete answer that does not fully inform the average person.

God bless,
Ed
 
jcrichton said:
…so you know for a fact that not a single scientist believe in God?
Click to expand...
I know for a fact that many different scientists believe in a great many different Gods and in none. However, none of those scientists mention their respective Gods in their scientific work. Science does not involve God because science is defined as the study of the natural, not the study of the supernatural.

You may have heard of Professor Michael Behe, who is Catholic and a proponent of Intelligent Design. He recently (2004) produced a scientific paper: Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. That paper contains no mention of God, so in a literal sense it is “Godless”. That says nothing about Behe’s actual beliefs. I have no idea what the beliefs of Behe’s co-author, David Snoke, are - nor would I expect them to be mentioned in a scientific paper.

rossum
 
Barbarian concerning the idea that evolution is gaining acceptance because people are losing faith in God:
Not likely. First, more people are reporting that God is important in their lives. Second, evolutionary theory does not deny God’s existence. Popes Pius XII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI would not have acknowledged it, if it were so.

It’s mostly an effect of better education. The more you know about science, the more you understand evolution.
Humani Generis tells Catholics that Adam and Eve were our first parents.
Click to expand...
Yep. Perfectly compatible with evolutionary theory.
Pope John Paul II did not give a blanket approbation for all theories of evolution and indicated some went against Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, the one scientists use is not one of those.
Pope Benedict XVI stated that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.
Click to expand...
Good for him. Nothing in science is ever proven, since logical certainty is not part of the process. And there are dozens of journals (as there are in all other sciences) dedicated to the remaining problems in evolution.
The document titled Human Persons Created in the Image of God tells Catholics that a random form of evolution without divine providence cannot exist.
Click to expand...
Yep. Darwin’s great discovery was that it wasn’t random. And of course, no scientific theory can deny divine providence.
The more you know about the critical role of divine providence in the creation of life, the more you will see textbook evolution as an incomplete answer
Click to expand...
You’re starting to catch on, Ed. Science textbooks only address the physical universe. As the Pope wrote, that’s how it’s supposed to be. For God, you have to use other ways of knowing.
 
Consistent with proclaiming the Word of God and in response to many scientists who are using evolutionary theory to say it negates a role for God, my Catholic brothers and sisters need to be reminded of the incompleteness of the biology textbook, especially regarding their true identities as individually desired and created by God. Too often, individual scientists proclaim their atheism and use Darwin’s theory as their justification.

God bless,
Ed
 
I have an interesting theory that you may appreciate. Before I describe my theory, I like what one person wrote a while ago in this thread about the fact that’s not really the “science” that’s important in reading about the Creation, but the great fact that God created all.

O.k. my theory - I could easily believe that God created all in 6 days since He could do anything. But where is it written that the 6 days were consecutive days?

My second theory on the subject is more in terms of God’s Word to the people at the time that the Bible was written. Could they understand the concept of “billions”, especially, “billions of years”? Maybe God sent the Word on creation in a way that is comprehensible to the one listening. Further; notice how God’s promise to Abraham is not specific in such a great number but more stated in a general way …

“I will bless you abundantly and make your descendants as countless as the stars of the sky and the sands of the seashore” Gen. 22:17

Could God have created all in 6 consecutive days - of course. Did He? How does that piece of knowledge derail you from His messages to His children?

Just a thought or two
Peace in Christ
Joe
 
"and the evening and the morning were the third (fourth, etc.) day.
Genesis 1:13 on.

God bless,
Ed
 
Hi edwest. How does that make it consecutive days?

God bless you too 🙂

Joe
 
Consistent with proclaiming the Word of God and in response to many scientists who are using evolutionary theory to say it negates a role for God, my Catholic brothers and sisters need to be reminded of the incompleteness of the biology textbook, especially regarding their true identities as individually desired and created by God. Too often, individual scientists proclaim their atheism and use Darwin’s theory as their justification.
Click to expand...
Ed, how about naming some of those scientists? Any significant ones? Any at all?

I’ll freely admit that I don’t know of any. It would be kind of odd, since scientists recognize that science can’t address the supernatural, or even say whether or not it exists.

Tell us the names of some of these scientists, Ed.
 
The_Barbarian said:
Ed, how about naming some of those scientists? Any significant ones? Any at all?

I’ll freely admit that I don’t know of any. It would be kind of odd, since scientists recognize that science can’t address the supernatural, or even say whether or not it exists.

Tell us the names of some of these scientists, Ed.
Click to expand...
**If he mentions Dawkins or Hawkings I’ll puke! ** :hypno:
 
(Barbarian asks if Ed knows even one scientist who says that evolutionary theory rules out God)
This might help:
Click to expand...
stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Nope. Not at all. I read through twice, and not even one scientist who says that evolutionary theory rules out God.

Can you name even one, Ed? Let’s relax the standards a bit. Doesn’t have to be a major scientist. How about any scientist who accepts evolutionary theory, but thinks it rules out God?

Just one would be something. Can you do that?
 
SFTor said:
What you just stated here is the exact opposite of how science considers its knowledge. Nothing is ever proven, nothing is ever true in science. It is just the best understanding we have at the time. Anyone can put forward a new theory. If it fits the data better than previous theories the old theories will be abandoned.

That goes for evolution as well. If someone could demonstrate convincingly that it was all done by little green men from the Andromeda galaxy, or by God, this would be the new scientific understanding. When it comes to God, science is silent on it. It does not concern itself with religion when it comes to trying to explain the world. Religion is always free to say “God did it,” and science will have no comment. It wouldn’t know how, although individual scientists may voice their opinion. They do, some on the side of divine participation, some against.

P.S. The only science we know is above all this is the science of creating a good pilsner.
Click to expand...
…I may be getting the wrong information… please bear with me… all science text books represent evolution as fact; every program I’ve seen or try to watch on the science, history, national geographic… channels present all theories as fact; scientist have assured us that the sun will go nova or extinguish itself in a few more millions of years; scientists claimed that the universe was so old it was so decrepit (my term) it was actually folding upon itself (true, that was prior to the Hubble); the atom was the tiniest particle… oh, wait… no the neutron… or is it the subatomic particles… then there’s the “not possible for any living creature to exist in such…” and don’t forget the “yep extinct” or “nope no new species ever…”

I may be listening to the wrong scientists or maybe I do not speak their lingo but I do recall some historical accounts that blood-letting was the sure cure for all that ills you… and more recently “we have eradicated tb” (my term); oh, wait a new never expect strain just came back with fury… (no. not the horse).

…pilsner? …and here I was completely convinced that it was Jose Cuervo’s Tequila–they even had a catchy tune way back! 😛

Maran atha!

Angel
 
SFTor said:
You can, with scientific measurement methods. And in the end I suppose that the scientific understanding of macro-evolution fits comfortably within the Biblical narrative.
Click to expand...
…except that there’s no point of origin (…in the beginning God created the Heavens (universe) and the earth…)–unless there’s some special quantum mechanics formula that can substantiate “nothing’s” point of origin, I cannot se how.

I am skeptical about your second statement, as I do not see the scientific community searching for God through science; rather, I see it as employing science in their effor to exclude the existence of Yahweh God.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top