Author Topic: Winona STAS -- Young Earth or Old Earth (Read 4418 times)

Mat183 · « **on:** **Yesterday** at 06:20:45 PM »

What were the Winona years at STAS like in terms of any formal instruction or lack thereof concerning young earth vs. old earth, or was the topic largely ignored or met with a degree of indifferentism?

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** **Yesterday** at 06:36:46 PM »

Quote from: Mat183 on Yesterday at 06:20:45 PM

What were the Winona years at STAS like in terms of any formal instruction or lack thereof concerning young earth vs. old earth, or was the topic largely ignored or met with a degree of indifferentism?

When I was there, the topic never came up.

Of course, just like the SSPX before 2012, "the tree hadn't been shaken yet". In other words, there at the Seminary was Paul Robinson, who apparently believed in Evolution. But it never came up publicly, at least in my classes or spiritual conferences.

The phrase "preaching to the choir" comes to mind. If the subject was ignored, it was because we were not just a bunch of Trads but supposedly the most serious/fervent of Trads, being as we were considering giving our lives to God in the Priesthood. It was presumed we weren't pro-abortion, pro-evolution, etc.

If the topic came up at all, it was always 100% the Trad Catholic position on everything. But that was around the turn of the Millennium, under Bp Williamson.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** **Yesterday** at 10:56:22 PM »

So, when I was there the topic came up only very briefly in discussing the Holy Office under St. Pius X, where it was in fact permitted to hold that the term "day" before the creation of the sun, could in fact have referred to some epoch of time rather than a 24-hour period. That would not do violence to the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, since that would just be a metaphorical use of language. There's much of that in Hebrew, since the vocabulary is actually very limited, and so they will use figurative expression, and there of course could be an etymological relationship too, where the root of the word has something in it that suggests it could be applied to multiple concrete things, i.e. where the root is something more abstract, and could indeed refer to a 24-hour day, but then could also some other specific application of the root abstract notion. So, for instance, one might use the expression that "my hour has come", without necessarily referring to the typical concrete application of the term to "60 minutes exactly".

But that was it, an implication that one MIGHT hold to an old earth, without error against the faith ... though an explanation such as above may have been helpful to avoid the impression that these decisions were arbitrary. Why is it OK to believe in a metaphorcal day, but not in a metaphorical "parting of the Red Sea" or a metaphorcal "great flood"?

Mat183 · « **Reply #3 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:31:04 PM »

Has anyone "listening" to this thread or even just these words of mine here run across any reputed science supposedly proving the Earth to be millions, if not billions, of years old that has not been thoroughly debunked by at least some good solid, albeit perhaps not mainstream, scientists?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:56:25 PM »

Quote from: Mat183 on Yesterday at 11:31:04 PM

Has anyone "listening" to this thread or even just these words of mine here run across any reputed science supposedly proving the Earth to be millions, if not billions, of years old that has not been thoroughly debunked by at least some good solid, albeit perhaps not mainstream, scientists?

Well, they typically rely on things like carbon dating, which they claim to be reliable proof, and then they do some speculation based on their assumptions about how the universe came to be and how long it should have taken ... according to their assumed model and paradigm. Kolbe Center does a great job of debunking carbon dating and other dating methods. They also engage in circular dating, where they use various strata to date things in them, but then use the things in strata to date the strata.

cassini · « **Reply #5 on:** **Today** at 05:44:00 AM »

Quote from: Mat183 on Yesterday at 11:31:04 PM

Has anyone "listening" to this thread or even just these words of mine here run across any reputed science supposedly proving the Earth to be millions, if not billions, of years old that has not been thoroughly debunked by at least some good solid, albeit perhaps not mainstream, scientists?

Uniformitarianism (Global Earth Formation over Long Ages)

After Kant’s and Laplace’s 1755-1796 theory of an evolved solar system took hold, it became crucial to produce ‘proof’ for the long-ages necessary for an evolved Earth. It was then that Charles Lyell, Adam Sedgwick, Roderick Murchison and other men of the Geological Society of London, founded in 1807 who invented a way to extend the Enlightenment’s age of the Earth. In his 1982 book The Rise of the Evolution Fraud, Malcolm Bowden quotes an 1830 letter from Lyell to one Poulett Scrope - who was about to review the first volume of Lyell’s The Principles of Geology, a thesis on uniformitarianism for rocks, saying ‘I am sure you may get into Quarterly Review what will free science from Moses.’ Mr Bowden goes further and presents a record of this geological and Biblical revolution, one exactly similar to the heliocentric fraud wherein assumptions and theories were upheld as empirical probabilities and then claimed as facts and laws by powerful and influential men in the media, as well as men who filled all the important ‘scientific’ administrations in universities and teaching institutions, and who in turn ensured their theories were placed as history in all textbooks for adults and children since that time.

‘Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that “the present is the key to the past” and is functioning at the same rate. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism’s modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism. Uniformitarianism was formulated by British naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the geologist James Hutton, which was refined by John Playfair and popularised by Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology in 1830. The term uniformitarianism was coined by William Whewell, who also coined the term catastrophism for the idea that Earth was shaped by a series of sudden, short-lived, violent events.’--- Wiki.

OK, let us test the above:There is no scientific way to determine the age of the moon or any planet for certain. But consider this for what its worth: When we were told that men were to be sent to the moon, scientists said that the moon is 4.6 billion years old. So, with meteors and falling cosmic dust on the Moon at today’s calculated rate for such cosmic debris, with nothing to burn them/it, no water or wind to cement or pack them/it, there should be up to 35 feet of dust in places on the Moon’s surface. Indeed, two probes, Ranger and Surveyor, constructed with long legs for that deep dust expected, were sent to investigate the Moon’s surface 15 times from 1961 to 1968. As it turned out, they tell us, they found only around an inch or so of powder evenly distributed on the moon’s surface, 6,000 years of it according to their own calculations based on their science of uniformitarianism.

Uniformitarianism is essential to the theory that layers of sedimentary rock found all over the world were laid down during different ages over 4.5 billion years.

‘Sedimentary rocks form by an accuмulation of layers in a variety of environments such as the sea floor, lake or desert. The sediment will eventually consolidate to become rock strata (layers). Generally, the lowest layers are older than the upper layers and any plant or animal remains [fossils] they contain will be older, as will any minerals that formed during or soon after the deposition.’--GNS science website.

Is that a fact now? Well, experiments conducted at the University of Colorado by sedimentologist Guy Berthault between 1985 and 1990 have shattered all conceived assertions that the lowest layers are older than the upper layers. In fact, Berthault, testing sedimentation with sediments in tanks of moving waters, found sediments are laid down in a sideways motion, demonstrating the bottom strata of deposits can well be younger than the top strata further back along the path of any deposit. As regards the claim that different layer of sediments were deposited one on top of the other over millions of years, well that was conjured up using the fossils found throughout all the layers. Berthault’s sideways findings were published in his book Principles of geologic dating in question and then in the French scientific review Fusion. Here below is how Peter Wilders describes how the ‘scientific’ world reacted.

‘First was the classical and normally most effective tactic of silence. By not replying to the docuмentation sent to them, the Geological Society, in this case that of France, blocked all dialogue on it. The author of the experiments countered their tactics by sending a copy of the scientific journal to all the 1,200 or so active members of the society. In this way, everyone in the geological community in France was made aware of the experiment results. The society retaliated by attacking the experimenter from authority, i.e., they claimed that all the geologists for three centuries could not be wrong; therefore, the evidence could be safely ignored. The success of such a method depended upon the geologists being united. Most were, but a few responded independently saying they were interested… Supportive geologists fearing for their credibility and, therefore livelihood, wait in the wings.’- P. Wilders.

Wilders goes on to say that the final rejection of Berthault’s evidence came from the Catholic hierarchy as might be expected. They placed a letter in the Geological Society’s half-yearly newsletter and, giving no heed at all to the empirical evidence supplied by sedimentologist Berthault, they accused the scientist of ‘pseudoscience and creationism.’ By attacking his personal credibility, they knew that most geologists would not take his work seriously.

Mountainous layers of sedimentation used to invent long-ages

Now consider examples of these sediments found worldwide in the photos above, some of them over and under the lie of the land, especially the mountains of deposits. How in the name of reason did such mountains of sediments form after many ‘local’ floods? For this to occur, the waters had to keep rising higher than these mountains. ‘Local’ waters could not, and do not, reach such heights as common sense will tell you. Yes, some were lifted up by earth-movements but that only applies to those with bends in them like picture 2, not the clean upright layers in picture 1 and 3. Only Noah’s one massive global flood, as depicted in Genesis, could have caused such mountains of sediments found worldwide. It tells of a deluge of rain and underground water bursting from under the Earth, covering even mountains of the time, causing sediments to fall to the bottom and entrapping creatures in their ability to flee the rising water, before receding, with declining running waters then gouging gaps in the sediments, leaving the mountain-high ranges and deep river valleys throughout the Earth as depicted above. The evolutionists then used the same sediments to age the world, using lined pictures like the one on the right above, separating layers as billions of years apart, giving these separations names that supposedly represent different time eras on Earth laid down by local floods. They did this by way of the fossils found in them, claiming they contained a history of evolving creatures, from the simple to the complex.

cassini · « **Reply #6 on:** **Today** at 05:56:52 AM »

Quote from: Mat183 on Yesterday at 11:31:04 PM

Has anyone "listening" to this thread or even just these words of mine here run across any reputed science supposedly proving the Earth to be millions, if not billions, of years old that has not been thoroughly debunked by at least some good solid, albeit perhaps not mainstream, scientists?

Radiocarbon 14 Dating

‘Radiocarbon dating (also referred to as simply carbon dating or carbon-14 dating) is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon, a radioactive isotope of carbon. The method was developed in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago by Willard Libby who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work in 1960. It is based on the fact that radiocarbon (14C) is constantly being created in the atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen. The resulting 14C combines with atmospheric oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide which is incorporated into plants by photosynthesis. Animals then acquire 14C by eating the plants. When the animal or plant dies, it stops exchanging carbon with its environment, and thereafter the amount of 14C it contains begins to decrease as the 14C undergoes radioactive decay. Measuring the amount of 14C in a sample from a dead plant or animal, such as a piece of wood or a fragment of bone, provides information that can be used to calculate when the animal or plant died. The older a sample is, the less 14C there is to be detected, and because the half-life of 14C (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years, the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by this process date to around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit accurate analysis of older samples.’--- Wikipedia

Now go google and find out when the evolution of flora and fauna began; life that must undergo a radio-carbon period. The website NewScientist begins with ‘Pinning down when specific events occurred is often tricky. For this, biologists depend mainly on dating the rocks in which fossils are found, and by looking at the “molecular clocks” in the DNA of living organisms.’ Because of the problems in making up ages that never occurred, they start with an assumed 3 billion years. Given 50 to 100 thousand-year fossils are the only ones that can have some Carbon 14 left in them, how come an investigation by the Kolbe Center states that every single fossil they examined from around the world had carbon 14 still in them, with none at more than 6-8,000 years of it?

‘“You read statements in books that such or such a society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old,” he commented, “but we learn rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is about the first dynasty of Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established.”’--- A. J. White, Radio-Carbon Dating, Cardiff, Wales, 1955, p.10.

Radioactive Halos

Radioactive halos left behind in rocks

Sedimentary formations would have to include aspects of atomic radiation left behind in certain rocks, but that science did not begin until 1895. It seems that there is radioactivity going on within some rocks and it leaves behind evidence of this activity and decay. As one would expect it is a complicated science and is of course also used to age the Earth at billions of years old, just like the layers of sediments themselves and the fossils found in them are also used by the evolutionists to convince all it took millions of years ago. Well, just as God had a Domenico Cassini who falsified Kepler’s and Newton’s astronomy; an Elmendorf who falsified Foucault’s Pendulum, a Berthault who showed how Earth’s sediments really form; the nuclear science of rocks also had its man who found the history of radiation in them. His name is Robert Gentry (1933-2020) and he wrote up his findings in his book Creation’s Tiny Mystery in which he also tells us of the rejections he received from the ‘expert’ scientists in his field, exactly the same response Berthault experienced. In 1962, when he first proposed that he write a thesis on earlier investigations of the radioactive history of rock as his PhD, it was rejected on the basis that this science had already ended and any find other than that could challenge their years of evolutionary opinion. Such was Gentry’s determination to do the retesting; he began it on his own premises, at his own expense, whereas he said, many millions of taxpayers’ dollars were given to the evolutionists to pursue their propaganda, there being no funding for something that might contradict their findings. So how does one go about dating a piece of granite for example? You crush it, he said in his lecture, found on his website below, do some chemistry on it, and extract chemical elements out of it like uranium, an active radiation, and examine the halos left after activity. To make a long story short, Gentry found halos in certain metamorphic rocks like granite that were part of God’s original Creation, with little or no time in their decay. In other words, he said, it was God’s marker, left behind when the Creator created that kind of rock instantly. Because his findings made the radioactive Earth-ageing business redundant, his work was ignored. Gentry challenged them to try to prove his instant creation wrong, which none could or ever did. Now whereas Gentry’s find does not age the Earth, it falsifies the evolutionists from using radiation to ‘prove’ the earth is billions of years old, (www.halos.com).

Author Topic: Winona STAS -- Young Earth or Old Earth (Read 4418 times)

Mat183

Winona STAS -- Young Earth or Old Earth

Matthew

Re: Winona STAS -- Young Earth or Old Earth

Ladislaus

Re: Winona STAS -- Young Earth or Old Earth

Mat183

Re: Winona STAS -- Young Earth or Old Earth

Ladislaus

Re: Winona STAS -- Young Earth or Old Earth

cassini

Re: Winona STAS -- Young Earth or Old Earth

cassini

Re: Winona STAS -- Young Earth or Old Earth