The evidence for an Old Earth is covered in Fr. Robinson’s book. Here are some good links on evolution
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/
https://biologos.org/

Aside from the fact that evidence is not synonymous with proof, there are different ways of interpreting the evidence.  The famous MM experiment is a classic example.  The results stunned the scientific world in the 19th and going into the 20th Centuries in so far as they were seen as seemingly irrefutable evidence for a motionless earth.  For philosophical reasons a motionless earth was totally unacceptable to the powers that be in the scientific community and elsewhere.  Voila -- Finally, the immoral (adulterous, plagiarizing, and child abandoning) and atheistic Einstein and his fantastical notions encompassed in the Special Theory of Relativity to the rescue and the rest is the diseased history of cosmogony and cosmology.

Believe me I have reflected on it -- reflected on it a good deal as have a good number of top notch and honest scientists who are on record as being very wary and knowledgeable of the blind arrogance and presumption which sad to say are a large part of the real landscape in their profession.  Some scientists are driven by money, others by power, others by security, others by a God-less philosophical disposition, others by an ideological agenda, and many by some combination of the afore-mentioned.  Still others are driven by an impartial God fearing desire for the truth and nothing but the truth regardless of the cost.  I think it is quite safe to say that this latter group makes up a small minority

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Scientists are people like everyone else: complex and motivated by various things. And like other people, they make mistakes. But other scientists review and criticize them. Cases of intentionally falsified results are rare, because even in a tenure system it has consequences including ending careers.

Your argumentation is silly and I’ve already answered you. The Fathers are not infallible on science. Listen to St. Augustine.

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7].”

This quote from Augustine applies perfectly  to people like you and Lad. Geocentrism and the idea of a young Earth are no longer scientifically tenable. You embarrass Christians by holding these views

.
No, this quote from Augustine applies perfectly to flat-earthers, not to Pax Vobis and Ladislaus. Geocentrism and a young earth are absolutely in complete accord with historical fact, observed reality and all physical evidence honestly investigated. No problem.

The P-38s crashed in south Greenland near the shore, which accuмulates a lot of snow and has and had many melt cycles every year. An ice core was not taken and tested by standard methods.

The GISP2 ice core was taken at a different location in central Greenland with different conditions. Melt cycles are rare there, and the layers would not look the same.

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf discusses this.

.
Of course, the glaring contradiction of observed fact with the golden calf false god of evolution and vast ages was utterly untenable for Modernist science so they had to scrape the bottom of the barrel for explanations. The fact remains, that WHEREVER cross sections are taken of snowfall in ice packs the same patterns (of varying details, obviously) are found. Wherever the sections are examined honestly, they are seen for what they are. They form quickly. End of story.
.
The P-38 did not "crash." So you're wrong, again. Wrong, wrong, wrong. HAHAHA
.
It landed quite safely, thank you very much, and all the crew survived. In fact, it was one of several such planes in a squadron, ALL of which landed safely and ALL the crew members survived. They picked the plane in the best condition, but there has been talk of going back there to get another one. They were amazed to see how well-preserved and intact the planes were, with no major structural damage. Historical facts have a way of getting in the way, eh? The P-38 was DISASSEMBLED and brought up in pieces, to be restored and re-assembled *NOT REBUILT* (except for the engines obviously), and took to the air again, a fully functional fighter plane from WWII. They even used the original propellers (but the tires needed to be replaced). Not only that, it remains to this day an air-worthy plane and is flown on rare occasions, by very qualified and honored pilots only, of course.
.
Crashed planes cannot be disassembled and re-assembled and brought back to flying condition unless they are rebuilt. So you're wrong again. Wrong, wrong, wrong. HAHAHA
.
They did not take any core samples but they didn't have to. They had to bore a huge well, so to speak, through the ice pack, large enough to pull up the sections of the P-38 they had come to retrieve. The well they bored took the place of a core sample. As the well was bored, there were observers who went down into the hole, who had the opportunity to look closely at the patterns of strata right there in front of their faces on the ice wall all around them, and they reported that the strata they saw was indistinguishable from the strata of snowpack core samples taken all over the arctic, not only in Greenland. So you're wrong again. Wrong, wrong, wrong. HAHAHA
.
.
I can't wait for StanleyN's response, like, Standard practice for a core sample is to examine the core REMOVED from the hole. What they did with the P-38 was to look at the hole that was left. The hole walls are not the same thing as the core sample so the two can't be compared. Prove me wrong.
.

You don't get to be the Director of such a place unless you "play the game" and worship the god of science.  All truly christian scientists are ignored, demoted or given no grant $, hence they have no status in the scientific community and so their views are marginalized.  

I think there is some circular reasoning here. What is a "truly christian scientist", do you think?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Scientists are people like everyone else: complex and motivated by various things. And like other people, they make mistakes. But other scientists review and criticize them. Cases of intentionally falsified results are rare, because even in a tenure system it has consequences including ending careers.

I'm not sure why you're not sure what I'm getting at.  I don't speak in riddles and steer away from trade jargon.

That's right, "other scientists review and criticize them."  Indeed, and thanks for reminding me of just one more thing that has a significant influence on our secular priests -- peer pressure which can easily make the peer pressure that a bullied fifth grader experiences feel like child's play be comparison!

Don't for a moment think that review and criticism by fellow scientists (not to mention private or government administrators) is impartial more often than not.  In the real world of scientists, much like the real world for the rest of us mere mortals, pure impartiality in judgement of others and their work is a myth.  It is the rare exception, not the general rule.

Conformity to a whole host of things for better or for worse and often for the worse is the rule.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world.

No way that scientific review and criticism exists in some sort of a beautiful vacuum!   Full size articles and even entire books have been written on this well docuмented subject by honest scientists (who are often and immediately branded as axe to grind malcontents simply because they dare to jump outside the pc corral or one or more of the reigning status quo scientific paradigms.

Stan, reading your last sentence here has me thinking more and more that you may just be a professional or amateur apologist for the supposed  "scientific sanctity" of the scientific establishment.  It is the typical high sounding claim of the scientific establishment that simply doesn't hold up under close scrutiny.  Nevertheless, you can be assured of having the majority of the scientific community back you up on it (at least in public) because to do otherwise brings down "consequences including ending careers."

I thought a new thread had been created since my vision was kind of blurry:


Modern Silence and the SSPX.

Time out everyone -   


Banezian is a priest.  He told us so around the time he first joined Cath Info.  Just wanted to remind everyone.


OK - time in!    :boxer: