Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Right. Now please explain how your logic got you from my criticsm of three paragraphs to “Glark considers the CCC a tissue of nonsense from end to end”.
I look forward to your reply.
 
You neglected to add to this list my recent post in whch I stated that I consider most of the CCC to be traditional Catholicism.
 
Glark said:
Right. Now please explain how your logic got you from my criticsm of three paragraphs to “Glark considers the CCC a tissue of nonsense from end to end”.

I look forward to your reply.
Click to expand...
My logic? I did not use my logic at all. Creationists do not understand logic. I used the same “pseudo-logic of sweeping generalisation” that led to this:
Glark said:
Hugh’s opinion of the Bible is that it is only slightly more credible than a Scientology publication.
Click to expand...
and this:
Glark said:
You forgot to mention that evolution is incompatible with Scripture. But this is understandable - most theistic evolutionists seem to have never even heard of the Bible.
Click to expand...
And as for this:
Glark said:
You neglected to add to this list my recent post in whch I stated that I consider most of the CCC to be traditional Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course I neglected it. That’s how Creationists pursue their arguments, so I assumed you’d understand perfectly.
 
So nothing exploded into everything, and it makes a well ordered universe? Usually explosions cause disorder and chaos rather than order.
 
Big Bang doesn’t say the universe came from nothing. It describes a high energy singularity expanding and cooling into the universe we see around us today. Describing it as an explosion is inaccurate at best and dishonest at worst. In addition she specifically said she believes God created it. Do you think he’s incapable of such a feat? I’m not sure what the basis of your objection is, what limits are you imposing on God that would make him unable to cause an entire universe to spring forth from a single point?
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Creationists do not understand logic.
Click to expand...
From my perspective, it’s the other way around.
It is all creation and evolutionary theory makes assumptions that are not only clearly inconsistant with reality, but superficial and ignorant of what is life itself.
 
Dan123 said:
Big Bang doesn’t say the universe came from nothing. It describes a high energy singularity expanding and cooling into the universe we see around us today. Describing it as an explosion is inaccurate at best and dishonest at worst. In addition she specifically said she believes God created it.
Click to expand...
The universe did come from from nothing. The plasma did not cool, it was “solidified” into the subatomic particles that were then used to create atoms,. These are new forms of being, a new whole that is made up of constituent parts, repeated a myriad of times. And, these in turn were the building blocks of a new type of creation, ultimately life, which expresses itself as a soul-matter unity which grows and reproduces. Cooling was a by-product of the process of creation.

Why express things in terms of things happening by themselves, when they clearly don’t. We ourselves do not bring ourselves into existence; it is given to us. I know because I am known, the object of God’s omniscience, in spite of whatever I may pretend to be. I was reminded recently of St. Catherine of Siena’s having heard God say to her, “Remember that I am and you are not.”

The Big Bang has been a misnomer.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
So why are scientific studies into the hypothesis of Darwinian evolution even referred to, since it is not a scientific discovery and has provided no scientific knowledge?
Click to expand...
First of all, it doesn’t reference “Darwinian evolution.”

Second, it’s only referencing the studies themselves. If you want to take the studies and make claims based on them, have at it. 😉
Glark said:
I had come to the predetermined conclusion that #283 was in error before I had even read it?
Click to expand...
Nah. I’m guessing you took a whole 1/10 of a second after reading it to come to your conclusion. :roll_eyes: 😉
 
Gorgias said:
science investigates “the origins of the world and of man”… which, of course, it does!
Click to expand...
It doesn’t really. Resting on the physical sciences as the final truth, it is as effective at getting to its goal as is a boxer with one hand tied behind his back.

But, it does attempt to replay the tape of time, trying to put together the fragments of what was into a picture of what might have been. It’s very difficult to do and requiring multiple assumptions to place the mosaic tiles into a coherent image. One such assumption is that was is, has always been, that mutation rather than creation is what took place. This would be in accordance with pantheistic understandings, but is not consistant with revealed truth.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
One such assumption is that was is, has always been, that mutation rather than creation is what took place. This would be in accordance with pantheistic understandings, but is not consistant with revealed truth.
Click to expand...
Evolution, properly speaking, doesn’t require the ‘belief’ of an eternal universe. Individuals might reach that conclusion, but we as Christians would dispute that – after all, it’s a belief and not a scientific fact.

One can assent to theories of evolution without assenting to an uncreated universe.

Moreover, evolution (properly speaking) doesn’t require the ‘belief’ in an ateleological, undirected universe. An individual might reach that conclusion, as well, but we as Christians would dispute that claim, also – again, it’s only a ‘belief’, and not proven by empirical observation.

One may assent to theories of evolution without assenting to claims of arbitrary, undirected, goal-less existence.

So, yeah… I stand by my assertion: science investigates the origins of the world and of man. As you say, its effectiveness at finding answers is hindered by the difficulty of the project. But, they find truths here and there, and then attempt to stitch a tapestry from the pieces in their possession.

(The Catechism, of course, is only referencing the pieces – not any particular constructed narrative, regardless of what that narrative might claim. 😉 )
 
Last edited:
Glad to see that you think the majority of Catholics including recent popes are delusional.
 
Last edited:
God was obviously the first cause behind the Big Bang. Monsignor Lemaitre first developed the Big Bang model after all.
 
Bottom line:

Theistic evolution - fallen man with flawed human reasoning qualifies himself to be a competent judge as to the truth of Revelation. Wow! Hubris…
 
buffalo said:
Even priest physicists can be wrong. We are now starting to understand Copernicus was wrong.
Click to expand...
Since you are right and the rest of the Church isn’t, including popes, bishops, theologians and so on, why don’t you find your own church? That way, you can surround yourself with ditto-heads that agree with everything you believe.
 
AndrewAxland said:
Since you are right and the rest of the Church isn’t, including popes, bishops, theologians and so on, why don’t you find your own church? That way, you can surround yourself with ditto-heads that agree with everything you believe.
Click to expand...
I simply quote and believe the constant and firm teaching of the Church?

When did it change and what Magisterial document changed it per your claims?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top