People before the thought of the Big Bang, Solar System, Evolution, etc don’t count.So, I wonder what traditional Catholic doctrine speaks about creationism. Well, here’s a good start: kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/
I guess many early Church fathers, popes, and saints were deceitful, ignorant, lying, illogical, etc…
Whether the earth is young or old (the Catholic Church allows both points of view), your comments were unnecessary and uncalled for. You are lumping a lot of faithful Catholic men and women with your diatribe against young earth creationists, and unless you were there “In the beginning”, I’ll gladly take your opinion with a grain of salt.
Indeed God envelopes scienceBack in the 1970s, all the way to here, here’s what I got: “Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in him.”
We can’t put God in a lab. The supernatural is outside the boundary of current science.
Peace,
Ed
Welcome to CA.The Bible is indeed a science book in the original Hebrew
Your understanding of science is faulty. You are repeating a common strawman put about by Genesis literalists. Anyone with any scientific knowledge will recognise it for the rubbish it is.In the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded.
Using incorrect caricatures of science is only likely to turn people away from your version of Christianity.That is the pre borns philosophy and we are called to bring people to Christ.
Science confirms some interpretations of Genesis. Other interpretations of Genesis are contrary to science. In particular the YEC interpretation is falsified by science. There is more than one interpretation of scripture possible; some of those interpretations are confirmed by science while others are not.Science confirms the creation account so use it.
Your logic is faulty. Here is a sentence: “Oprah Winfrey is President of the USA and Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” The first part of that sentence is false. Does logic require that the second part is also false? Your logic fails here. Many books contain a mixture of truth and falsehood. “War and Peace” is a work of fiction, it is not true, however parts of it are true. It describes Napoleon invading Russia and a big battle at Borodino. Both those events are historically true. A single book may contain both truth and fiction.If that book is false then so are the rest, such logic goes
Love that you brought that quote up!“The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
rossum
[/noparse] tags to separate other people’s comments from your own.
I would like to know which parts of the Bible have been taken over by current science.
Genetics has shown that the story of Jacob, Laban and the sheep is not correct. Different types of sticks do not affect the genetic characteristics of sheep. Geography has shown that Satan cannot have shown Jesus “all” the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain because the Earth is a sphere.
As far as I can see everything has been confirmed.
…It would be easier for everyone if you used the “Quote” button at the bottom right of each post you are replying to, and added further [noparse]
[/noparse] tags to separate other people’s comments from your own.
Thanks, I can do it or one post but not for more than one
Genetics has shown that the story of Jacob, Laban and the sheep is not correct. Different types of sticks do not affect the genetic characteristics of sheep.
*Correct but this was patently not a science part of the Bible but a supernatural act of God evidently if you continue reading the events of Jacob.
*
Geography has shown that Satan cannot have shown Jesus “all” the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain because the Earth is a sphere.
Again this is not part of the science in the Bible but another supernatural act but this time by Satan. When I say the science of the Bible, I am talking about such things as the earth as a sphere suspended on nothing and the water circulatory system for example. Is that your best examples?
That depends on what interpretation you are using. If you interpret the story of Noah’s Flood as a parable, then science has no problem. If you interpret the story of Noah’s Flood as literal history describing a real worldwide flood then science has shown that such an interpretation is incorrect. At most the flood was local, covering modern Iraq.
Yes but who’s Science? Your faith in science seems higher than your faith in the word of God. I respect applied science but dating of more than perhaps a few thousand years is s spurious business. With arbitrary guesstimates. Hardly pure science, since no one knows for example how much background radiation there was so long ago. I suggest the Cambrian condensed fossil record chimes with the flood account. So much water would exert a tremendous force of weight,
Your scientific credibility just took a huge hit. Chuck Missler has no apparent idea of the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. He has no idea of the scale, or the timescale, of the process of abiogenesis. Peanut butter, however good it tastes, does not refute abiogenesis, unless his jar is the size of a planet and he leaves it on the shelf for 500,000,000 years.
*Chuck Missler is a former engineer and a polymath to boot. Yes he is slightly Biblicly biased but on the whole he is spot on. I don’t agree with everything he says but he is the best Biblical scholar outside of the Holy Spirit.
*
Probably YEC, and so having a very literal interpretation of the Bible. You talk about the “pre-born” so being “born again” is probably important in your theology. That combination would tend to make you some sort of conservative Protestant. Am I right?
No, it does not. I am not religious at all but I am a new man in Christ as is referred to at least twice in the NT including from our Lord Himself. As I have said earlier I am also not a Young earth creationist as there was a few million years between day’s 1 and 2 but thereafter were 24 hour days. *
*
I do not claim I am right but assert things from Revelation only
If there is one correct interpretation, then there are 1,000 incorrect interpretations floating around as well. Everyone claims that their interpretation is the right one. Googling round Chuck Missler, there were a number of theological sites saying, “Chuck Missler is theologically right” and “Chuck Missler is theologically wrong”. Almost whatever position some Christian holds, there will be other Christians saying that position is wrong.
Yes but it is always best to check something for oneself don’t you think?
Then those anti-theists are incorrect. Some parts of the Bible are factually correct. Other parts of the Bible are not, and should be taken as parables, not literal history.
Not all of Scripture is historical. Much is prophetic and has duel and more meanings. For example the OT Prophets such as Ezekiel were given the Word on the fate of the Jewish people for two periods of time. Only Jesus used Parables in the NT in person and in the OT usually in dreams and visions. The rest is all actual. Don’t box God in. He is Awesome
May the Holy Spirit Bless yourossum
That’s only your opinion. This is just another “test for compliance” here. There will be more in an attempt to purge any lingering “creationists” from Catholic ranks. For some, it’s job one.I think the best words would be indoctrinated, lazy, misinformed…Willfully Ignorant
So what? Will creationists forget how to use their cell phones or how to drive or use their computer? Will the earth explode? What?People before the thought of the Big Bang, Solar System, Evolution, etc don’t count.
Did that ever come to mind?
Creationism is a MODERN movement that sets out to deny many scientific claims.
I don’t necessarily have too much against people who believe in the literal interpretation,
but when it reaches the point of “DESPITE WHAT SCIENCE SAYS,” and so forth, then
I get very *very *vexed.
What way?Indeed God envelopes science
but much of science works and comes from Heaven.
But his Glory will be evident very soon in any case. You will see that God created the ice age as well. God gave us brains to use for his Glory so lets bring people to him in every way
That is kinda over-exaggerating, but there are FACTS and REASON and LOGIC, and theSo what? Will creationists forget how to use their cell phones or how to drive or use their computer? Will the earth explode? What?
Peace,
Ed
You’re kinda erring a little.There are several posts I wish to address so here goes
1 the truth can often be rude - God’s Truth is the only Truth worth anything and is never rude.
Uh, and this means what? Forced searches of students’ belongings to ensure they are not carrying “creationist” literature into public schools? Secret wiretaps of public school board meetings? Interrogation of teachers “suspected” of teaching anything like creationism or intelligent design?That is kinda over-exaggerating, but there are FACTS and REASON and LOGIC, and the
Creationists have an agenda to toss it all in the trash. NOT ALL, but Creationism can be
so desperate, it will try to pass “Intelligent Design” off as “Science”, infiltrate public and
private schools into teaching in SCIENCE classes “Intelligent Design” along side Evolu-
tion and the Big Bang, and flat out LIE !!!
It is such a shame that even logical people support that.
? I think you got it totally backwards. It’s the Creationists who areUh, and this means what? Forced searches of students’ belongings to ensure they are not carrying “creationist” literature into public schools? Secret wiretaps of public school board meetings? Interrogation of teachers “suspected” of teaching anything like creationism or intelligent design?
No, but that’s kinda missing the point.Say I’m 15 years old and I’m taught Intelligent Design in my private school. What happens? Oh I learn about science and pass my tests, but does that mean I can’t get a job as a programmer or electrical engineer or physicist? Even though I think “intelligent design” makes sense?
So we should degenerate in our educational programs,Let’s broaden that thought a bit. How many teenagers even graduate from high school today? Why are there so many illiterate people in this country? There are a lot of good-paying jobs out there where being a Last Tuesdayist doesn’t matter.
Uh… I told you before, Creationists infiltrating the education system tryingCreationists have an agenda? Like what?
So, what happens if they get their way? What would be the practical results? That is the issue. I ask that you do not avoid dodging the issue. You are quite worked up about the threat and I’m not getting a convincing “this is what will happen.”? I think you got it totally backwards. It’s the Creationists who are
actually getting public schools to actually teach Intelligent Design.
No, but that’s kinda missing the point.
So we should degenerate in our educational programs,
teach false science as fact, are you hearing yourself,
just because religious nuts are intentionally ignorant
of factual scientific data?
Uh… I told you before, Creationists infiltrating the education system trying
to force religious fundamentalism as an alternative to science. EXAMPLE:On November 8, 2005 , the Board of Education voted to instruct science students along the lines of the Discovery Institute , that evolution
could not rule out a supernatural or theistic source, that evolution itself was not fact but only a theory* and one in crisis, and that ID must
be considered a viable alternative to evolution.
* The word theory does not
mean “guess”, one of the
many bold lies of which
Creationists support.
“Practical,” not much I suppose, but it’s lie that I burn over.So, what happens if they get their way? What would be the practical results? That is the issue. I ask that you do not avoid dodging the issue. You are quite worked up about the threat and I’m not getting a convincing “this is what will happen.”
Peace,
Ed
Ed, I trust the educated Catholics to keep the creationists out of their private schools, let alone the creationists that are forcing their agenda into the public schools.That’s only your opinion. This is just another “test for compliance” here. There will be more in an attempt to purge any lingering “creationists” from Catholic ranks. For some, it’s job one.
We now return you to the regularly scheduled rant.
Peace,
Ed
Probably no one person fits all of those categories all at once; but most people who are creationists fit into one or more of them.Do you really think that everyone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old is “Deceitful, Ignorant, Lying, Illogical, Misdirect-
ing, Cunning, Scheming, Disinformative, Duplicitous, Falsifying, Unreli-
able, (See More Using Thesaurus)…” ???