How Old Is The Earth?

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
all this quibbling
What you call "quibbling" are basic concerns of charity, respect for truth and the ninth commandment, which by the way translate into Canon law.

According to the English translation atp.396 of https://isidore.co/calibre/legacy/g... Co - Benedict XIV, Pope & Peters, E_7786.pdf :

Canon 1325 said:
§ 2. After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.


That clause which I emphasized is "quibbling" also to you ?

the real point: there is a radical irreconcilability between Guénonism (or any form of esotericism in general) and Catholicism

Yawn. Yet another self-appointed heresy detector. Personally, I prefer to quote official documents of the Catholic Church when accusing some doctrine or someone of heresy, which is no small matter to me.

He despised the idea of eternal salvation or damnation, peculiar to Catholicism

What ? Eternal heaven and hell exist in Islam also, not as minor concerns, and Guénon ended his life living as a Muslim.

He (...) champions a Gnosis or “metaphysics” which leads to the supreme identification with the undifferentiated Absolute

And how does that disagree with the Catholic idea of Beatific vision ? Guénon wrote that the Hindu nirvana is "obviously of a much higher level" than the Christian paradise, but like Catholic author Borella and others I find that not obvious at all, doubtful and unwarranted. By the way, some "Catholic Guenonians" argue that it's the other way round, that the Christian absolute heaven & absolute hell are of a "higher level" than the Hindu reincarnation cycles with their relative heavens and relative hells.
 

Vyck

Pigeon
The idea of evolution was not a problem to the othodox church fathers.

Saint Gregory of Nyssa
"the Days of creation should be understood not literally ("For a thousand years in Thine eyes, O Lord, are but as yesterday that is past, and as a watch in the night.") but as periods!"

Orthodoxy has neither a textual nor a doctrinal basis to reject evolutionism. Neither does it make sense for Orthodox Christians to indulge the current fashion of irrationality. see thi link: St. Augustine Believes Evolution

Obviously the theory of evolution is used today for the purpose of getting God out of the equation, but Darvin as well as Lamarck were fundamentally wrong because they did not predict the nation of genetic information. You can assume that a computer was formed by various methods, but the information on the HDD cannot be accidental.
 
Guenon sucks.

He is merely a gateway drug for the infidel to break the shackles of the internalized worldview the modern world indoctrinates you in such as atheism, materialism, hedonism, darwinism, scientism, individualism etc. etc.

I would recommend Evola over him as far as the school of traditionalism goes. Evola is very insightful not necessarily in his metaphysical writings although they are interesting but more so in his political and lifestyle writings. An overall Joy to read such as Nietzsche is. But not for those weak in faith, as reading these men could be your ticket to heresy and apostasy.
 

Elipe

Kingfisher
I'm new here, so I just read the rules for the first time about an hour ago. I happen to agree with Slide Rule, but that does not mean I want to be called a Satanist, or accused of Satanic advocacy, because my Church has a teaching principle in conflict with yours. Alright?
Yes, YEC is wrong. The Devil sends his errors in pairs so that the faithful running from one will stumble into another. That is why I hold to the findings of the Catholic Magisterium in matters of what is literal and what is not.
Physician, heal thyself. And when you're a newbie talking to a older member, it's usually not a good idea to lecture them on the rules. They didn't stay around this long by breaking the rules.

Also, not once did I call anybody a Satanist or accused someone of Satanic advocacy. If you are referring to my sarcastic reference to his self-appellation as a Devil's Advocate, the rules of semantics applies bidirectionally. If you would interpret my reference as sincere rather than sarcastic, then you must also interpret his self-appellation as sincere rather than figuratively.

You can replace 'morning' and 'evening' with 'beginning' and 'end'. It's not as complicated as you make it out to be. The creation account is written in symbols and metaphors. As said, you view this through modern eyes. You have to understand how man thought of and viewed the world in ancient, even pre-ancient days.
This is the kind of response I typically get from theistic evolutionists, who will often insist on word substitutions like this that just simply don't show up in the text and isn't supported by the semantic context of the verse or lines up with the literary style of the rest of the book or subsection of the book, and then claim that I just "don't understand" what the text really says. On that note, I find it striking that when you say I need to understand how ancient man thought and perceived things, you got the relationship between the time of day and "beginning"/"end" backwards with respect to the Hebrew reckoning of time. The Hebrews didn't consider the morning to be the beginning of a calendar day, but rather, the evening.

The verse clearly communicates the idea that it was the separation of the light from the darkness that defined day and night, and an ancient reader or listener of this verse would have conceptualized it as such. As for insisting that there was some metaphorical or spiritual meaning beneath the verse: perhaps there is some deeper truth to be glinted from that verse that would apply to an individual's spiritual life, but in the context of describing the physical creation of the universe, it just strikes me as grasping at straws to reconcile secular science with Scripture with the implied understanding that secular science was the greater authority.

If science or prevailing wisdom had not proclaimed that the universe was billions of years old, we would not be having this discussion. It would be widely accepted that the world was made in six days and that the Lord rested from His work on the seventh, just as it is widely accepted that Christ rested in the tomb three days, and not three periods of indistinct length such as thousands of years.

My opposition to the theistic evolutionary perspective rests in the fact that excessively interpreting Scripture as metaphor tends to metaphorize away the significant portions of the faith like the cornerstone that is the Resurrection, as many apostates are known to do these days in which Jesus Christ is merely a metaphor for homosexual acceptance. This Jesus Christ alluded to when He told His listeners that if they disbelieved Moses, they would not believe Him.

Science is a Christian practice corrupted by The Devil over many centuries. I would argue that the corruption begins with the Reformation and ends with The Woke.
Yeah, yeah, the eternal evil Protestants that ruined everything because your church was selling indulgences. I really wish Catholics wouldn't say things like this, especially in a time when their current Pope is a man of very, very questionable character.
 

MFV

Chicken
Physician, heal thyself. And when you're a newbie talking to a older member, it's usually not a good idea to lecture them on the rules. They didn't stay around this long by breaking the rules.

Also, not once did I call anybody a Satanist or accused someone of Satanic advocacy. If you are referring to my sarcastic reference to his self-appellation as a Devil's Advocate, the rules of semantics applies bidirectionally. If you would interpret my reference as sincere rather than sarcastic, then you must also interpret his self-appellation as sincere rather than figuratively.


This is the kind of response I typically get from theistic evolutionists, who will often insist on word substitutions like this that just simply don't show up in the text and isn't supported by the semantic context of the verse or lines up with the literary style of the rest of the book or subsection of the book, and then claim that I just "don't understand" what the text really says. On that note, I find it striking that when you say I need to understand how ancient man thought and perceived things, you got the relationship between the time of day and "beginning"/"end" backwards with respect to the Hebrew reckoning of time. The Hebrews didn't consider the morning to be the beginning of a calendar day, but rather, the evening.

The verse clearly communicates the idea that it was the separation of the light from the darkness that defined day and night, and an ancient reader or listener of this verse would have conceptualized it as such. As for insisting that there was some metaphorical or spiritual meaning beneath the verse: perhaps there is some deeper truth to be glinted from that verse that would apply to an individual's spiritual life, but in the context of describing the physical creation of the universe, it just strikes me as grasping at straws to reconcile secular science with Scripture with the implied understanding that secular science was the greater authority.

If science or prevailing wisdom had not proclaimed that the universe was billions of years old, we would not be having this discussion. It would be widely accepted that the world was made in six days and that the Lord rested from His work on the seventh, just as it is widely accepted that Christ rested in the tomb three days, and not three periods of indistinct length such as thousands of years.

My opposition to the theistic evolutionary perspective rests in the fact that excessively interpreting Scripture as metaphor tends to metaphorize away the significant portions of the faith like the cornerstone that is the Resurrection, as many apostates are known to do these days in which Jesus Christ is merely a metaphor for homosexual acceptance. This Jesus Christ alluded to when He told His listeners that if they disbelieved Moses, they would not believe Him.


Yeah, yeah, the eternal evil Protestants that ruined everything because your church was selling indulgences. I really wish Catholics wouldn't say things like this, especially in a time when their current Pope is a man of very, very questionable character.

You may not break the rules even if you are an older member. Roosh wants us to get along, or he would not have put his do and nots into his forum guidelines. Do not defend your sarcasm or give some convoluted philosophical explanation for it. Apologize and do better.

As for your style, it's not for me if you want to discuss the Church. I mention the Catholic Magisterium as my teaching authority, and I am blameless in doing so.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Guenon sucks.
(...)
I would recommend Evola over him as far as the school of traditionalism goes. Evola is very insightful not necessarily in his metaphysical writings although they are interesting but more so in his political and lifestyle writings. An overall Joy to read such as Nietzsche is. But not for those weak in faith, as reading these men could be your ticket to heresy and apostasy.

I would argue the opposite. The interesting part in Evola's work is the material he uses, not his often pompous and childish interpretations. Evola is the typical lukewarm "perennialist" which falls in all the obvious traps (including the political trap, just like some Americans used to worhsip Trump when he was president).
 

Elipe

Kingfisher
You may not break the rules even if you are an older member. Roosh wants us to get along, or he would not have put his do and nots into his forum guidelines. Do not defend your sarcasm or give some convoluted philosophical explanation for it. Apologize and do better.

As for your style, it's not for me if you want to discuss the Church. I mention the Catholic Magisterium as my teaching authority, and I am blameless in doing so.
I have done nothing to violate the rules. As such, there is nothing for me to apologize for. You, however, have accused YEC of being of Satanic origin, which is a violation of the rule you quoted at me. In doing so, you have also accused Roosh of holding a Satanic belief. You should apologize to him, as he is the host of this online establishment.
 

MFV

Chicken
I have done nothing to violate the rules. As such, there is nothing for me to apologize for. You, however, have accused YEC of being of Satanic origin, which is a violation of the rule you quoted at me. In doing so, you have also accused Roosh of holding a Satanic belief. You should apologize to him, as he is the host of this online establishment.
Let us get someone involved just this once. I will seek a moderator who can help see the path for both of us.
 

Ecclesiastes​

1:9

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

I struggle with the above- referenced verse more than others, because obviously there are new things under the sun every day, like Tinder, the internet, etc. Even though, sexual immorality itself is not new, the means by which sexual immorality is accomplished do change. I believe we, as Christians need to understand and be aware of these changes. I often feel like this verse leads one to inaction, or passivity. One of several perceived contradictions I've noticed in reading the Bible. Maybe I am misinterpreting. Thoughts?
Oppemheimer believed they had only rediscovered the atom bomb. Call me wacky, but i wouldnt be surprised if pre flood people had tech we wouldnt expect of them. We are still discovering things about ancient structures we had no idea about, like the pyramids containing encoded accurate measurements of the circumference of the Earth and Moon.
 

Vyck

Pigeon
"When God created the animals, they were fully grown. In other words, on the day after Creation there were some animals that were already many years old. There were animals living alongside parents that were not physically born from those parents. If a scientist was present on this day, he would estimate the ages of the animals based on their size and maturity, but again, everything was only one day old."

"I don’t know exactly how old the Earth is, but I don’t believe it to be older than 10,000 years. Since I don’t work in a dinosaur museum, there is nothing in my daily personal experience that begins to even hint to an age older than that. What I notice on my path to salvation is that there is nothing new under the sun, and that what was written in the Holy Bible about man and faith has not at all clashed with what I encounter experientially. The Bible speaks to me, the scientists lie to me, and so I have thrown in my lot with God, for I cannot have two masters."

You are obviously influenced by heretical hazardous Protestant doctrines. Never the holy fathers of the Orthodox Church have argument that God created the world in 6 calendar days (24 hours ). In the orthodox church there were two currents, Antiochian and Alexandrian. The parents of the church in Alexandria interpreted everything in the Old Testament figuratively. Not days of creation but periods in the genealogy of the bible they saw not people but generations, dynasti es if you will. The parents of the church in Antioch interpreted everything in the Old Testament literally (almost in a Protestant way). The Alexandrian vision won over time. The Orthodox Church, unlike the Catholic Church, has never sealed its authority on scientific matters. And for very good reasons too.

Protestant creationism that leaves no room for "retreat" on evoltionism it is one of the reasons why many young Protestants lose their faith when they arrived at College or University. Orthodoxy and Catholicism that leave room for interpretation they are doing very well in this regard... well...until some recent convert appears on the scene. :)

See the link I posted above ...
 

FourMarks

Pigeon
You are obviously influenced by heretical hazardous Protestant doctrines. Never the holy fathers of the Orthodox Church have argument that God created the world in 6 calendar days (24 hours ). In the orthodox church there were two currents, Antiochian and Alexandrian. The parents of the church in Alexandria interpreted everything in the Old Testament figuratively. Not days of creation but periods in the genealogy of the bible they saw not people but generations, dynasti es if you will. The parents of the church in Antioch interpreted everything in the Old Testament literally (almost in a Protestant way). The Alexandrian vision won over time. The Orthodox Church, unlike the Catholic Church, has never sealed its authority on scientific matters. And for very good reasons too.
Did you not see the link I posted? I’ll post this again:
Did you not see the link I posted? I’ll post this again:

“The Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation”, The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation

Both the Council of Trent and Vatican Council I taught that no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture “contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.” In the words of Fr. Victor Warkulwiz:​


“The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unanimously agreed that Genesis 1-11 is an inerrant literal historical account of the beginning of the world and the human species as related by the prophet Moses under divine inspiration. This does not mean that they agreed on every point in its interpretation, but their differences were accidental and not essential. Pope Leo XIII, following St. Augustine, affirmed the Catholic rule for interpreting Sacred Scripture, ‘not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.’”

For the first five centuries of the Church, all of the Fathers believed and proclaimed:

-that less than 6,000 years had passed from the creation of the world to the birth of Jesus.

-that the creation of the cosmos took place in six 24 hour days or in an instant of time

-that God created the different kinds of living things instantly and immediately

-that Adam was created from the dust of the earth and Eve from his side

-that God ceased to create new kinds of creatures after the creation of Adam

-that the Original Sin of Adam shattered the perfect harmony of the first-created world and brought human death, deformity, and disease into the world.

*******
Collection of Church Teachings on Origins
The following list is taken from the Kolbe Center, and is available for free, all credit goes to Hugh Owen for his great work.
  • God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning. (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
  • Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)
  • Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
  • Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
  • Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
  • The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III;Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
  • The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
  • Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
  • Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
  • After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
  • Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
  • The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
  • We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
  • All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
  • The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
  • St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
  • The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
  • Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
  • Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.
So the perfidious scientists tell us the earth is Billions of years old and the Church was deceiving the whole world for eighteen hundred years until Darwin saved us from fundamentalism? I trust the modern scientists as much as Elias trusted the priests of Baal.

Protestant creationism that leaves no room for "retreat" on evoltionism it is one of the reasons why many young Protestants lose their faith when they arrived at College or University. Orthodoxy and Catholicism that leave room for interpretation they are doing very well in this regard... well...until some recent convert appears on the scene.
See the link I posted above ...
That’s why? What do you suppose, then, is the reason that so many young CATHOLICS lose their faith when they arrive at College or University?
 
Last edited:

Joe316

Robin
Protestant creationism that leaves no room for "retreat" on evoltionism it is one of the reasons why many young Protestants lose their faith when they arrived at College or University. Orthodoxy and Catholicism that leave room for interpretation they are doing very well in this regard... well...until some recent convert appears on the scene. :)

No Christian denomination has "to do well" to align with scientism preached at "college" or "university". (Why did you capitalize those? Are these religions too?). It's science which needs to align with the biblical truth.

What the red-pilled man notices ist that most "scientists" (in many fields) are just plain hoaxers and that's a good reason to question their theories. You can perfectly do that as an atheist, then go to the Old Testament to look for answers. And then get the confirmation from the New Testament.
 

Vyck

Pigeon
-that the creation of the cosmos took place in six 24 hour days or in an instant of time
:) Our 24-hour day comes from the ancient Egyptians who divided day-time into 10 hours, Jews, Romans, and Byzantines had different methods of measuring time/

that is the link St. Augustine Believes Evolution

I only see Catholic sources, that is a heterodox denomination condemned by the Eastern: Catholic, Apostolic, Evangelical and Orthodox Church.

That’s why? What do you suppose, then, is the reason that so many young CATHOLICS lose their faith when they arrive at College or University?

They are part of a heterodox church with numerous skeletons in the closet crusades, inquisition, burning of witches,however, I have the impression that they do not lose their faith too easily.

In the Orthodox Church, ecumenical councils are the cornerstone in the interpretation of scripture/
 

FourMarks

Pigeon
:) Our 24-hour day comes from the ancient Egyptians who divided day-time into 10 hours, Jews, Romans, and Byzantines had different methods of measuring time/

that is the link St. Augustine Believes Evolution

I only see Catholic sources, that is a heterodox denomination condemned by the Eastern: Catholic, Apostolic, Evangelical and Orthodox Church.



They are part of a heterodox church with numerous skeletons in the closet crusades, inquisition, burning of witches,however, I have the impression that they do not lose their faith too easily.

In the Orthodox Church, ecumenical councils are the cornerstone in the interpretation of scripture/
Frank Schaeffer, is that you?
 

Joe316

Robin
:) Our 24-hour day comes from the ancient Egyptians who divided day-time into 10 hours, Jews, Romans, and Byzantines had different methods of measuring time/

The "24 hour day" is defined by the relationship between the full revolution of the planet Earth and the time duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the fundamental unperturbed ground-state of the caesium-133 atom. Which is roughly 24 times 60 times 60 = 86,400.

For that it doesn't matter at all how ancient Egyptian divided time.

Creation happened in 6 times 86,400 seconds = 518,400 seconds. Half a million seconds is much shorter than "billions of years" proclaimed by Bible deniers.
 

Vyck

Pigeon
No Christian denomination has "to do well" to align with scientism preached at "college" or "university". (Why did you capitalize those? Are these religions too?). It's science which needs to align with the biblical truth.
We have to align ourselves with reality, because genesis is obviously uses a lot figurative language, God could not explain to some desert people that he used genetic engineering and put information into DNA. Therefore we do not have to impose a certain vision because this problem is irrelevant for salvation.

By imposing a certain vision we will turn people away from God and salvation. We already have enough argument that science cannot and will never be able to explain from where the information in DNA came from, which could not be self-write alone for sure.
 

Elipe

Kingfisher
Creation happened in 6 times 86,400 seconds = 518,400 seconds. Half a million seconds is much shorter than "billions of years" proclaimed by Bible deniers.
There is evidence that the Earth's rotation is slowing, so technically creation probably happened in less time than that. But overall, you are right.

We have to align ourselves with reality
Which is still subject to interpretation, especially when one discusses the distant past. The science of the past is a sister science of forensics, which is largely filling in gaps. Geological epochs (without a time machine) cannot be experientially studied, only estimated based on the present and on assumptions about the past that influence how one extrapolates the data points into the past.

Colleges and universities teach a particular viewpoint on how you extrapolate the data points, but outright ban any discussion of alternative methods of extrapolating those data points. In layman's terms, you're not allowed to consider any scientific alternative to the mainstream secular narrative.
 

Vyck

Pigeon
Creation happened in 6 times 86,400 seconds = 518,400 seconds. Half a million seconds is much shorter than "billions of years" proclaimed by Bible deniers.
We do not know the time in which God operates, this is the whole argument. Then you prepare the ground for the atheists, who will come to ask us "why would he need any time". And they really asking that question. We remain on the safe side declaring that we simply do not know, but we are ready to find out more. These kinds of absolute declarations are similar to: "the earth is at the center of the universe" (this seems to indicate the scripture for Catholics of the Middle Ages).
 

Elipe

Kingfisher
We do not know the time in which God operates, this is the whole argument. Then you prepare the ground for the atheists, who will come to ask us "why would he need any time". And they really asking that question. We remain on the safe side declaring that we simply do not know, but we are ready to find out more. These kinds of absolute declarations are similar to: "the earth is at the center of the universe" (this seems to indicate the scripture for Catholics of the Middle Ages).
Considering that Genesis 1 basically sets the basis for the human week, that of (in older times before Sunday also became a weekend day) six days of work and a weekend day (the Sabbath) to rest, I would assign a much higher probability to God having done this over a full week rather than by some other arbitrary measure of time.

The answer for the atheists is this: that this established by example the week as the basic cyclical unit of human life.

And as for the Earth being at the center of the universe, that was never a direct assertion from Scripture. That was endogenetically read into the text because the prevailing wisdom as held by astronomers dating back to Babylon was geocentrism. A good warning for those who would take the word of the prevailing wisdom (e.g. mainstream science) over Scripture.
 

FourMarks

Pigeon
A noted computer scientist at Yale University, by the name of David Gelernter, recently came out against Darwinism. He said that the fossil evidence just was not there to support it. He explains that according to Darwin’s theory, the fossil evidence had to show fossils of very simple beings which eventually evolved into higher beings. Darwin himself expressed concern about the absence of these fossils, but was sure that in the course of time (now about 150 years) the fossils which prove the theory would be found. They have not been found.

The fact of the matter is that evolution was concocted by atheists in the 19th century who needed to destroy the Creator. The most fundamental religious truth is that of creation. It is the basis of all religion, since it is the basis of the relationship of creature to Creator, which includes adoration, submission to the Creator’s laws, external signs of dependence upon the Creator, reverence, and many other aspects of religion.
Evolution also destroys the notion of original sin, and thereby ultimately destroys the notion redemption from sin, and the need of a Savior of the human race.It reduces mankind to being merely morality-free, advanced ape-like hominids, who may act as they please, just as the animals do. What this system does not explain is how these sophisticated animals, advanced though they be, can understand immaterial things, such as beauty, art, proportion, justice, even the notion of immateriality itself. Nor does it explain why human beings crave immaterial things far more than material things: love, honor, respect, trust, justice, punishment of criminality, politics.
 
Top