Young Earth v. Old Earth

[jcrichton]

There are different hypotheses about what happened at the Big Bang. Many hypotheses we can reject; for example some proposals result in a universe consisting entirely of hydrogen. The fact that we are here now and observing the particular universe that we observe restricts the range of possible conditions at the Big Bang. Thus we can have limited knowledge of what happened in the past, even though there was no human observer to see it. If a tree has 180 rings then I can be reasonably sure that it started growing 180 years ago, even if nobody was there to observe the event.

It is possible that time started at the Big Bang, but we have enough evidence to show that it was a very long time ago - more than 13 billion years.

rossum

Yet, while there is factual information on the age of trees, we do not know exactly what happened during that very first moment of Creation (the energy that was released, embeded or spent; the emergence of the various particles, minerals, etc. and the matamorphoses that ensued…); we have what seems to be the final product and we are attempting to back-engineer it.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Sometimes though I question how a person would ever successfully prove that there were in fact no other species that possessed intellect, reason, or the ability to pose, postulate and understand…

and sometimes I think that even if this could be found in other species that humans would still possess something special for simply being created in God’s image…

do you think that the possession of intellect is what is meant when it is said that humans were made in God’s image?

I’ve read some of the doctors of the church who seem to speak in this fashion as though the soul were essentially intellectual, and I can see the relationship between this belief and Greek philosophy (ie. the ‘psyche’ in the Greek conception of the soul), although I’ve never really found if it had basis in the holy tradition that came from the Hebrews… that doesn’t necessarily mean its untrue, but I do sometimes question it

God Bless,

Hi, M D!

…ever watched the movie “Jaws” or “Orca?” Ever heard (live or tv) someone speak about their animals as “son” or “baby?” Hollo-wood has conditioned man to think that animals are just shy of being human; some people swear that they are above humans–I think that house cats actually do think that they are!

The fact is that they can teach us a few things… but they are not our equal. Being Created in the image and likeness of God places us above all Creation–not even the angels were created with such generous attributes! Yahweh God calls to us from the Old Testament (“you are gods…” and “be perfect for I Am Perfect…”) and Jesus solidifies this call (“I no longer call you servants…”) as He enables us to become as the Creator.

I believe that being created in God’s image and likeness means more than having intelligence (animals have demonstrated that they are more intelligent than what scientists have believed)… it means that we have an untapped potential to know God and His Way… it means that we can advance our understanding of the world and universe as Knowledge is unfolded ("…nothing new under the sun…"); it means that we can understand the mechanism of snow and think of it as nothing extraordinary while being owed by a snowflake’s intricate geometric design…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[SFTor]

There’s a pretty interesting book by Jack Horner, professor of anthropology at the University of Montana, titled “The Wisdom of Bones”. He talks about the excavations he made with his team around Lake Turkana in Northeastern Africa.

One of the things he found was a (appx.) 2 million year old bone with a surface covered with wild cell growth. Having no explanation for what he was looking at he sent it to a bone surgeon friend at the University of California at Berkeley.

The response from his friend was that this Homo Erectus woman had suffered from hypervitaminosis A—a condition caused by an excessive intake of vitamin A, something you typically get from ingesting the liver of a predator (predators store amounts of vitamin A in their livers that are toxic to humans.) The condition causes the sheath around the bone to loosen, and makes any motion excrutiatingly painful.

Based on the amount of cell growth on the bone the surgeon could estimate that the person had lived for sixty days after contracting the condition. He went on to suggest that during that time the woman would have been completely dependent on care from others for her survival. Someone brought her water and food during her time of suffering, for two months.

I find the story tremendously touching. Compassion and care was in evidence two million years ago.

Human dignity and was alive already then. Let’s forget about this 6,000 year nonsense.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Thanks. I was at one time, a pretty good stand-up comic. The most important thing you learn is how do deal with hecklers.

Sometimes people don’t think they are.

It’s directly observed. “Conjecture” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

I mean it to be: a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved.

Tell us about those. I hadn’t heard.

If abiogenic petroleum sources are indeed found to be abundant, it would mean Earth contains vast reserves of untapped petroleum and, since other rocky objects formed from the same raw material as Earth, that crude oil might exist on other planets or moons in the solar system, scientists say.

No, it’s “Missing Lynx”;

Models?

and they found it.

My 10th grade text book must have gotten it wrong.

“Missing link” is not a scientific term. The proper term is “transitional”, and there are many, many of them.

A rose by any other name.

Would you like to learn about some of them?

I know them well enough to conclude modern man did not evolve from a lower species. It makes for neat pictures:


“All biology can tell you is that my nearest relative is a chimpanzee and about when we had a common ancestor,” he said. “But biology can’t tell us what the common ancestor looked like, what shaped that evolutionary change or at what rate that change took place.”

I’ll admit it could be a possibility but I don’t think it likely.

It seems unlikely that anything is going to change that one; the accidental discovery of the predicted microwave background at just the right temperature seems to have nailed that one.

I think we should stop being so sure of ourselves each time we nail something in science. There are 8 planets now instead of 9 in the solar system and even little things matter.

Yep. But He’s a remarkable God. And a lot more capable than creationists are willing to let Him be.

He is that.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

Only that I do not think I am an evolutionary being, and if I am not I suspect most other life forms are not either. Nothing explains the randomness of what evolves into what and that suggests we are either accidental by evolution or created by evolution or intelligent design. I do not believe we are accidental but rather purposefull and it just does not sit well theologically that we evolved from the ape or other species.

True. Which is why the Church says that it’s consistent with our faith.

True…because we don’t know for sure and that is why I think it conjecture. I don’t deny the science, I largley deny the conclusions with respect to life on the planet and particularly the human role in it. I think there is room for both evolution and creation at the table of ideas with respect to old earth or new earth.

 

[SFTor]

why isn’t God not a “she?”

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Eden existed on a different plane and dimension.

Young Earth and Old Earth are both true!

If anyone tried to travel from our plane to Eden’s plane they would be stopped by the angel with the sword!

Eden exists in present day Iraq on a different plane and dimension.

It is as real beneath the accidents of present day and time Iraq as Jesus is present beneath the accidents of bread and wine in the Eucharist!

For all the Catholics out there who believe in the substantial presence of Jesus in the eucharist–whether old earth evolution believers or young earth literal creationist believers–do you have any problem with my explanation?

 

[D_M]

Hi, M D!

…ever watched the movie “Jaws” or “Orca?” Ever heard (live or tv) someone speak about their animals as “son” or “baby?” Hollo-wood has conditioned man to think that animals are just shy of being human; some people swear that they are above humans–I think that house cats actually do think that they are!

The fact is that they can teach us a few things… but they are not our equal. Being Created in the image and likeness of God places us above all Creation–not even the angels were created with such generous attributes! Yahweh God calls to us from the Old Testament (“you are gods…” and “be perfect for I Am Perfect…”) and Jesus solidifies this call (“I no longer call you servants…”) as He enables us to become as the Creator.

I believe that being created in God’s image and likeness means more than having intelligence (animals have demonstrated that they are more intelligent than what scientists have believed)… it means that we have an untapped potential to know God and His Way… it means that we can advance our understanding of the world and universe as Knowledge is unfolded ("…nothing new under the sun…"); it means that we can understand the mechanism of snow and think of it as nothing extraordinary while being owed by a snowflake’s intricate geometric design…

Maran atha!

Angel

Hi jcrichton!

I’ve seen jaws, but I am not aware of ‘Orca’… I have known people who talk to their pets… and there are people who value animal life over human life (e.g. in the Hindu faith cows are worshipped as sacred, which is a title that I think humans fall short of, or perhaps more true to the western world, there are perhaps people who spend more money on things like birdseed than they do on actually feeding the poor)

Are we sure that the angels could not have been created in God’s image? Admittedly the bible does not appear to make any specific mention to the creation of the angels, although I’ve heard people make either claim (ie. that some say they have God’s image, and others say that they don’t)…

It’s an interesting understanding that you have of the creation in God’s image to mean an untapped potential to know God…I wonder though, if you are not averse to critical analysis… if the angels were not created in God’s image than does that mean they do not know God? or rather are limited in the degree they may know God?

for instance, is it then true that the angels then could not understand the mechanism of snow or be awed by its design (to quote the example you used above)?

I’m thinking especially of the angels in scripture that speak of God’s glory throughout all creation.

are the angels unable to understand natural laws?

Sometimes I think trying to understand God’s image is about as fruitful as trying to understand God Himself… maybe the very nature of the image is like unto the Divine it resembles, in that we are unable to comprehend it and what it means, but nevertheless are able to know that it is there?

God Bless,

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding macroevolution:
It’s directly observed. “Conjecture” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

I mean it to be: a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved.

That has no meaning in science, since nothing in science is proven or disproven.

Regarding changing consensus on oil and diamonds:
Tell us about those. I hadn’t heard.

If abiogenic petroleum sources are indeed found to be abundant, it would mean Earth contains vast reserves of untapped petroleum and, since other rocky objects formed from the same raw material as Earth, that crude oil might exist on other planets or moons in the solar system, scientists say.

That is a rather odd theory, and it’s far from accepted by petroleum geologists. And so far, those “oceans of petroleum” haven’t been found where the theory says they are supposed to be. Lack of evidence is hard on a theory.

Barbarian observes:
No, it’s “Missing Lynx” and they found it.

My 10th grade text book must have gotten it wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2007/08/18/sm_lynx18.jpg

Pretty rare now, but still in existence.

Barbarian explains:
“Missing link” is not a scientific term. The proper term is “transitional”, and there are many, many of them. Would you like to learn about some of them?

A rose by any other name.

Guess not.

I know them well enough to conclude modern man did not evolve from a lower species.

“Lower” has no meaning in evolution, but we certainly did evolve from other species of primates.

The picture is hooey, of course. The tree is quite branchy.

All biology can tell you is that my nearest relative is a chimpanzee and about when we had a common ancestor,” he said.

Actually, Neandertals are much more like us genetically and anatomically.

Barbarian on big bang:
It seems unlikely that anything is going to change that one; the accidental discovery of the predicted microwave background at just the right temperature seems to have nailed that one.

I think we should stop being so sure of ourselves each time we nail something in science. There are 8 planets now instead of 9 in the solar system and even little things matter.

You’ve been fooled by a name change. Nothing changed except an agreement on what to call a planet.

Barbarian on God the Creator, as opposed to the “designer”:
Yep. But He’s a remarkable God. And a lot more capable than creationists are willing to let Him be.

Barbarian remarks:
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

Only that I do not think I am an evolutionary being, and if I am not I suspect most other life forms are not either.

As Pope Benedict says, all species evolved from a common ancestor.

Nothing explains the randomness of what evolves into what and that suggests we are either accidental by evolution or created by evolution or intelligent design.

Neither. As the Church teaches, even contingent processes are used by God.

I do not believe we are accidental but rather purposefull and it just does not sit well theologically that we evolved from the ape or other species.

For a Catholic, it does. Maybe not for some other religions. Too bad for them.

 

[D_M]

why isn’t God not a “she?”

It’s simply not traditional I think… we believe that God does not have gender, and therefore one would think that She would be just as correct or incorrect as He, but the written tradition has simply always used He, and therefore we tend to use the maculine pronouns (perhaps to keep things less confusing)

I’ve heard a priest at homily claim that God is our Mother.

Some feminist christians have tried to change the use of pronouns in the bible into feminine forms.

Although also, maybe since Jesus who is God incarnate, came in the form of a man that perhaps adds more weight to the tradition of masculine pronouns.

Good question.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Barbarian, regarding macroevolution:
It’s directly observed. “Conjecture” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

Maybe you should try your hand at stand-up again.

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian -

Please stop using illogical statements like nothing in science is proven or disproven; that just doesn’t make any sense.

In a courtroom, both the the prosecution and the defense use evidence to prove or disprove that a person did or did not commit a crime. Obviously, your statement about science is illogical and nonfunctional in the real world.

Peace,
Ed

 

[historyb]

There some people dealing with this joker in another forum and the Barb thinks he knows everything. His pride knows no bounds

 

[AirLiner]

I remember being a very strict YE creationist because I preferred the 6 day creation story and didn’t like evolution. However after studying Catholic doctrine more I realized that an old earth doesnt’ contradict with Genesis and that the Bible isn’t made any less significant by scientific theories. The Catholic Church says that evolution and scripture don’t conflict and its true. Right now I believe that we don’t exactly know how the universe was created, but we do know that God was involved.

 

[edwest2]

What’s true? Any theory of evolution that does not allow for a causal role for divine providence in the creation of life in the universe is against Catholic teaching. This is from Human Persons Created in the Image of God.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Deconi]

I remember being a very strict YE creationist because I preferred the 6 day creation story and didn’t like evolution. However after studying Catholic doctrine more I realized that an old earth doesnt’ contradict with Genesis and that the Bible isn’t made any less significant by scientific theories. The Catholic Church says that evolution and scripture don’t conflict and its true. Right now I believe that we don’t exactly know how the universe was created, but we do know that God was involved.

Science is the study of “truth.” Evolution is not a “truth” but the search of IT. Where it is problematic is when its proponents assert that it IS FACTUAL truth! BULL!

Old Earth, Young Earth? No ‘life’ on Earth supports billions of years. I’ve studied it long enough to say that and leave it there! Those who want to argue about it are at the portion of the road I’ve already passed, so I don’t bother, for they will arrive where I am,… in time. I need to venture on!!

I do not believe the Earth is 6000years either. The evidence points further…but NOT through evolutionary theories.

True science is the study and utilisation of what is ALREADY PROVIDED to further human existence.

Having brought the world into the atomic age by showing how to split the atom and harness it’s ‘power,’ we in NZ have been given a different problem to solve; the rising cost of driving around on petrolium.

We hope to be driving around on far cheaper fuel in 5 - 7years, in the same cars with, very little, to NO modifications.

**NOW, THAT’S SCIENCE !! **

 

[The_Barbarian]

Please stop using illogical statements like nothing in science is proven or disproven; that just doesn’t make any sense.

It’s true. Science is inductive, going to a general conclusion from particulars. It makes inferences from evidence, not logical proofs from universals. This is why people have told you that all truth in science is provisional on new evidence.

In a courtroom, both the the prosecution and the defense use evidence to prove or disprove that a person did or did not commit a crime.

Notice that the “proof” in law is not logical certainty, but “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That is not proof, as the word is used in math and science.

Obviously, your statement about science is illogical and nonfunctional in the real world.

It’s the way things work. Here’s a place to learn about it:

**About 1600 A.D., it became apparent to several people - Galileo Galilei in Italy, Francis Bacon in England, Tycho Brahe in Denmark, and others - that there were no subtle logical errors in Aristotle’s use of the deductive method. The problem was that the deductive method, while wildly successful in mathematics, did not fit well with scientific investigations of nature.

In order to use the deductive method, you need to start with axioms - simple true statements about the way the world works. Then you use these axioms to build your logical system of nature. If your axioms are true, everything that follows will be true, but Galileo and his contemporaries realized that the problem was that it was enormously difficult to determine “simple true statements about the way the world works”. In fact, they realized that it should be the goal of science - not the starting place - to determine what the “simple true statements about the way the world works” really are!

Since 1600, the inductive method has been incredibly successful in investigating nature - surely far more successful than its originators could have imagined. The inductive method of investigation has become so entrenched in science that it is often referred to as the scientific method.**…

**The inductive method (usually called the scientific method) is the deductive method “turned upside down”. The deductive method starts with a few true statements (axioms) with the goal of proving many true statements (theorems) that logically follow from them. The inductive method starts with many observations of nature, with the goal of finding a few, powerful statements about how nature works (laws and theories).

In the deductive method, logic is the authority. If a statement follows logically from the axioms of the system, it must be true. In the scientific method, observation of nature is the authority. If an idea conflicts with what happens in nature, the idea must be changed or abandoned.**

So science can’t, for example, prove that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. It can only say that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of that idea.

Likewise, science could not prove that atoms were hard little balls of different masses in the 1700s. It could only say that the evidence at the time indicated that to be true. Later evidence showed that to be not quite true, and the theory was thereby modified.
batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Inductive.html

 

[The_Barbarian]

There some people dealing with this joker in another forum and the Barb thinks he knows everything. His pride knows no bounds

Whoa. Are you the historyb on that other forum who claims that Catholics worship idols?

christchat.com/showthread.php?t=2395&highlight=worship+idols

I thought I recognized your style.

 

[historyb]

That was a long time ago and I am a Catholic in full standing, I am in the Brothers and Sisters of Penance and the Militia Immaculata. You are prideful and think you know everything, you should have been banned. Now your infecting these fine people with your atheism and couching it in Catholicism, you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing whoa to you on that great and terrible day of the Lord.

Don’t respond, I put you on ignore.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Please stop using illogical statements like nothing in science is proven or disproven; that just doesn’t make any sense.

It’s true. Science is inductive, going to a general conclusion from particulars. It makes inferences from evidence, not logical proofs from universals. This is why people have told you that all truth in science is provisional on new evidence.

In a courtroom, both the the prosecution and the defense use evidence to prove or disprove that a person did or did not commit a crime.

Notice that the “proof” in law is not logical certainty, but “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That is not proof, as the word is used in math and science.

Obviously, your statement about science is illogical and nonfunctional in the real world.

It’s the way things work. Here’s a place to learn about it:

**About 1600 A.D., it became apparent to several people - Galileo Galilei in Italy, Francis Bacon in England, Tycho Brahe in Denmark, and others - that there were no subtle logical errors in Aristotle’s use of the deductive method. The problem was that the deductive method, while wildly successful in mathematics, did not fit well with scientific investigations of nature.

In order to use the deductive method, you need to start with axioms - simple true statements about the way the world works. Then you use these axioms to build your logical system of nature. If your axioms are true, everything that follows will be true, but Galileo and his contemporaries realized that the problem was that it was enormously difficult to determine “simple true statements about the way the world works”. In fact, they realized that it should be the goal of science - not the starting place - to determine what the “simple true statements about the way the world works” really are!

Since 1600, the inductive method has been incredibly successful in investigating nature - surely far more successful than its originators could have imagined. The inductive method of investigation has become so entrenched in science that it is often referred to as the scientific method.**…

**The inductive method (usually called the scientific method) is the deductive method “turned upside down”. The deductive method starts with a few true statements (axioms) with the goal of proving many true statements (theorems) that logically follow from them. The inductive method starts with many observations of nature, with the goal of finding a few, powerful statements about how nature works (laws and theories).

In the deductive method, logic is the authority. If a statement follows logically from the axioms of the system, it must be true. In the scientific method, observation of nature is the authority. If an idea conflicts with what happens in nature, the idea must be changed or abandoned.**

So science can’t, for example, prove that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. It can only say that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of that idea.

Likewise, science could not prove that atoms were hard little balls of different masses in the 1700s. It could only say that the evidence at the time indicated that to be true. Later evidence showed that to be not quite true, and the theory was thereby modified.
batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Inductive.html

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that historyb claimed that Catholics worship idols)

That was a long time ago

November, 2007 to be precise.
christchat.com/showpost.php?p=29016&postcount=2

You told me that you knew these things because you were a former Catholic. And there was a lot more misrepresentations about worshiping Mary as a goddess, and so on.

You are prideful and think you know everything, you should have been banned. Now your infecting these fine people with your atheism and couching it in Catholicism, you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing whoa to you on that great and terrible day of the Lord.

I’m just a little concerned that you’re one thing here and another there. And since you asserted that you knew all those things as a practicing former Catholic, how did the truth change so fast?

I can imagine a person totally ignorant of Catholicism saying such things, but a person who had actually been a Catholic? Sorry, not plausible.

Don’t respond, I put you on ignore.

No problem. Just tying up some loose ends. (BTW, almost everyone who puts people on ignore, goes back and looks anyway)