Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gorgias said:
There are myriads of claims I don’t bother to dispute. Unsurprisingly, they’re the ones that are vacuous.
Click to expand...
Translation: “That evo-denying potato, Glark, is right - I can’t demonstrate how the discovery that life evolved from microbes is useful to science. 🦄 But I can’t admit that, so I’ll save face by calling his claim vacuous.💡 Yep, that’ll fool everyone.🏁 I’m a freakin’ genius!” 😂
Because the grounds of literalistic Scriptural interpretation are that there is no such thing as ‘assumption’, but only the literal words of Scripture on their face.
Click to expand...
Now you are making up your own rules. ✋:policeman: Logical deduction violates which law of exegesis? I believe a case can be made for Day 1 starting in verse 3 - unless you can point out Scripture that precludes it.

By the way, it’s kinda ironic that you are so concerned about me keeping my literal interpretation strictly literal, when the evolutionist’s figurative interpretation of “day” in Genesis 1 is anything but consistent. No one would argue that the “day(s)” in Genesis 1:14-18 are figurative - this passage obviously refers to literal days.🙈
You admitted that your particular claims of creationism still survive in the face of a billions-years-old universe / earth.
Click to expand...
Not “still survive”, but “may” survive. If memory serves, I said my interpretation may accommodate scientific claims of an old earth, but I also said I suspect the age of the earth has been greatly exaggerated by scientists in order to accommodate billions of years of evolution.

Anyhow, for the record, if the earth is old, I seriously doubt if it dates back billions of years.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
One hopes that you’re just joking, and that you know a bit more about how rock strata are used to infer age…
Click to expand...
Yes, I make the big joking; but interrpreting rock strata is far from an exact science - plenty of room there for mistakes and tall tales.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Or if they got jumbled up they will be transitionals.
Click to expand...
Hey that’s funny - wish I’d thought of that one! With that sort of jumbled-up thinking, you would make an excellent evolution scientist.
 
Last edited:
Onthisrock84 said:
Nah. The Church is smarter than that. Genesis is not meant to be taken completely literally, the first 11 chapters anyways
Click to expand...
Ah, here it is at last … someone has proffered the totally insane “First Eleven Chapters of Genesis are Figurarive” theory of theistic evolution!
Not to mention the Hebrew word for day used could be taken to be an “age”.
Click to expand...
“Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work … For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them” - Exodus 20:9-11.

This passage strongly suggests that each of the six days of creation was not an “age”, but 24 hrs.
 
Last edited:
“bobperk said:
All it takes is a tooth and a few nearby skull fragments to come up with whole species of men. Teilhard and his motley crew were jet-setting here and there, patching bones and teeth together into all sorts of this- and that-men. Quite a frenzy!
Click to expand...

Satan is “the father of lies”.

Poor Teilhard should have been confined to a mental asylum. It’s scary to know that many Catholic revere him.
 
Last edited:
What about the “Nebraska Man” farce? It’s common knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Translation: “That evo-denying potato, Glark, is right - I can’t demonstrate how the discovery that life evolved from microbes is useful to science. 🦄 But I can’t admit that, so I’ll save face by calling his claim vacuous.💡 Yep, that’ll fool everyone.🏁 I’m a freakin’ genius!”
Click to expand...
Wrong translation. It’s more like “it’s nonsensical to claim that theoretical science must, by definition, have practical application, and I’ve already made the case for that assertion, so any attempt to get me to provide an example of something I refute is fruitless.”
Glark said:
Now you are making up your own rules.
Click to expand...
I’m really not. If you want to claim that one must follow the letter of the Scripture, then you must do so, too. If you want to start making claims outside the words on the page, then you can’t tell others that they may not do so.
Glark said:
No one would argue that the “day(s)” in Genesis 1:14-18 are figurative - this passage obviously refers to literal days.
Click to expand...
🤣 🤣 🤣

@Glark… lots of folks argue that the ‘days’ are figurative! :roll_eyes:
Glark said:
I don’t know about that - once I swept a floor and the dust suddenly turned into a pony.
Click to expand...
Bunny. The term is “dust bunny”. 🤣
 
Glark said:
Poor Teilhard should have been confined to a mental asylum. It’s scary to know that many Catholic revere him.
Click to expand...
It is disheartening to hear that many in the Church today want the monitum on his writings lifted. But not surprising.
 
I just went back through your last couple of hundred posts again and i see two (count them…two) that aren’t connected to evolution. Nice to see that you’re making the effort to gain other interests.

But seriously, I have NEVER seen such a single minded fixation with one subject in all that time on 5 or more forums covering literally thousands of posters in well over ten years. It truly is one of the most bizarre examples of a psychological obsessiveness that I am likely ever to see.

And it’s not like you are posting anything to contradict what is being posted. You are not even making any attempts to enter into any type of dicussion. It’s all schoolyard level taunts and ridicule.

Truly extraordinary.
 
Glark has once or twice mentioned cricket. Not so much recently, for some reason.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Ah, here it is at last … someone has proffered the totally insane “First Eleven Chapters of Genesis are Figurarive” theory of theistic evolution!
Click to expand...
This is the mental challenge for most.

Believe Scripture, or do violence to it based on man’s reasoning of provisional science. Our modern society is increasingly taking the scientism position. This is the modern error and philosophically untenable.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
our understanding of the character of God clearly isn’t, as I see his loving creative imagination much more clearly in evolution than in simultaneous spontaneous creation.
Click to expand...
Everything is spontaneous coming from eternity.
Events did have a beginning and they appeared in a step-wise fashion.
In each step, we see the creation of more complex forms of being utilizing components that had been brought existence in creating the new unity of things in themselves.

The entire universe is “alive” in that “things”, events exist in themselves. Different forms of matter, let’s say subatomic particles, can be thought of as not inanimate if we consider that the are what they are in themselves, doing what they do, having the properties they have, individual and/or a part of a larger system of being, such as ourselves sitting here a unity of a myriad of such events, and much more, one person in relation to all that is other to oneself.
The first person was a spontaneous event, a new creation, a new form of being whereby and through whom all creation returns to its Creator.

Clearly the matter that is contained within our soul has its own properties. It interacts with the matter around us, incorporating it into our own being when we eat, allowing us in the moment to participate in the physical universe as causal agents, perceiving, thinking, feeling and acting in time and space. There are glitches within the system that is oneself and negative interactions with the world and between our different bodily components. These random events outside the control of the greater organizing principle that is the human soul bring disorder. Matter in itself did not bring about the creation of mankind which is a new form of being. And natural selection is merely death, nowhere close to the shaper of humanity.

We exist as individual selves - beings in relation to the universe of which we are a part, sharing in its spiritual, psychological and physical dimensions. We are clearly now on a journey towards God, although history and the daily news would have us believe otherwise. That journey began with the fall and God’s plan for salvation in Jesus Christ. I am suggesting that the fall which took place in time and space, effected the connection between eternity and each moment so that it’s impact is felt on everything that is was and will be. The shape of the world was transformed from its beginning to its end, contaminated by sin and it’s consequence, death. What evolutionary thinking imagines are the driving forces behind diversity, I see as that which hampers it.
 
Last edited:
As if Holy Moses, instead of writing two separate books, somehow inserted this invisible divide that started at chapter 12, marking a distinct departure from the 11 chapters before it. But nobody until the modernists noticed it. 🤔
 
bobperk said:
As if Holy Moses, instead of writing two separate books, somehow inserted this invisible divide that started at chapter 12, marking a distinct departure from the 11 chapters before it. But nobody until the modernists noticed it. 🤔
Click to expand...
No one did. It was only after historical criticism and modern science found all these errors. The Holy Spirit was sleeping all those years.
 
Glark said:
Ah, here it is at last … someone has proffered the totally insane “First Eleven Chapters of Genesis are Figurarive” theory of theistic evolution!
Click to expand...
Right… 'cause a literal talking snake, and a literal boat to hold multiple pairs of every living animal on earth are so much more reasonable than a “figurative interpretation”… :roll_eyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top