Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Richca said:
As far as the assumed 4.5 billion year age of our solar system, I’m not saying that this presumed age is actually true or true science, it may be fairly accurate and if it is, fine. I’m just showing that this presumed age is not in conflict with the essentials of progressive creationism.
Click to expand...
The way I put it together is that everything is created simultaneously, “Now”.
Each moment, each individual “now” participates within the universal symphony that is all time and space.
A Planck time (the time it takes a photon to travel the smallest distance possible to determine, which in seconds is 1/10 to mutliplied by itself 43 times) and all that occurs over what we understand to be 4.5 billion years would be known for eternity.
How are we to understand how God creates from eternity?
Of course it all popped up simultaneously, but in terms of our relationship with the universe as finite participants in time, we may understand in as having taken billions of years.

As to an expanding universe, whether right or wrong, I see it as the related to the structure and relationships inherent in matter, created in a stepwise fashion over many hundreds of thousands of years - the yin to the yang that would be gravitational forces that seek to bring it all back to the one primal material being from which it was formed.

Oops, I should have read further.

What you say here:
Richca said:
(continued)

And if God didn’t do it instantaneously (creation of our solar system) but in some sort of step-wise fashion such as adding planets or comets to it after some time, the earth after the sun, I still say it was God who did it, not natural processes. Accordingly, whether God created the whole solar system instantaneously or over millions of years, it was his business and up to him according to his will and wisdom. Time is not a factor to Him as He exists and acts outside of time in eternity. The point is that He did it, not natural processes is what I’m saying. Possibly, a minority of some comets, meteors, asteroids and such like more minor and smaller objects of our solar system may have been captured into our system by natural processes working under Divine Providence. Although, even these smaller astronomical objects were probably created by God and not natural processess. Maybe some tiny ones somehow form naturally from exploding stars. But, I’m very skeptical of how much forming by natural processes can be done if any of whatever objects in outer space from scattered material floating around.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
Although Adam was not directly formed from mud, he was descended from living stuff that was.
Click to expand...
If Adam was already alive, why did God breath into him “life”?

And if Adam was already alive when God breathed into him, why does Genesis 2:7 he “became a living being”?

How does it make sense to say that a being that is already alive gets “life” breathed into him, which transforms him into a “living being”?
 
I didn’t flunk primary school; in fact, I breezed through it - it took me only ten years to get from Grade 1 to Grade 7. Highschool took me a little longer - 20 years. I managed to get into university after I convinced the administrators that I was “special”.
 
Glark said:
If Adam was already alive, why did God breath into him “life”?
Click to expand...
Why indeed? This is not a theology I adhere to in any literal sense. I think it was clear to the writers of Genesis that humans were qualitatively different from other species, and that they explained this to themselves as God breathing a special ‘life’ into humans that was different from the life he had bestowed on other things.
Glark said:
I managed to get into university after I convinced the administrators that I was “special”.
Click to expand...
You’ve certainly convinced me.
 
Gorgias said:
You need to read the narrative in context, my friend. In Genesis 2, God also creates the animals “from the ground”, but… does He “breathe the breath of life” into them? No… He doesn’t. And therefore, the distinction that the narrative itself makes is that the “breath of life” from God is what makes a human, human.
Click to expand...
I take your point, but the term, “the breath of life”, is not unique to Genesis 2:7 and humans, It is used in reference to all forms of animal life, as is evident in Genesis 6:17, 7:15, 22. Therefore, I believe it can be argued that the life of all creatures is a result of God’s “breath”.
The implication here is that, having been given the breath of life from God, Adam became a human.
Click to expand...
Adam became “nephesh”. But “nephesh” isn’t a code-word for “human” or “person” or spiritual “soul”. It refers to life (human or animal), as opposed to the absence of life. Thus, in Genesis 2:7, it is used in a Before-and-After sense - inanimate matter (“dust of the ground”) becomes living matter (“nephesh”).

Furthermore,
If Adam was already alive, why did God breath into him “life”?

And if Adam was already alive when God breathed into him, why does Genesis 2:7 he “became a living being”?

How does it make sense to say that a being that is already alive gets “life” breathed into him, which transforms him into a “living being”?
 
Last edited:
Watching an interesting program on television about how we know nothing about dark matter.

I will post a link later.
 
edwest211 said:
Dark Matter was introduced a while back in an attempt to explain the “missing” matter in our current field of view. But the deepest Hubble space image still shows faint galaxies in the background. The fact is scientists don’t know how big the universe is. And they aren’t sure about planet formation either.

ScienceDaily

‘Monster’ planet discovery challenges formation theory​

A giant planet, which should not exist according to planet formation theory, has been discovered around a distant star.
Click to expand...
Good post.

More later.
 
The lecture was presented during a first-year course (called “Environment Science”). It wasn’t presented as paganism - that is my description of it. I suspect it was the personal belief of the female lecturer (a lot of environmentalists hold pagan beliefs and there is possibly a link to feminism there as well). Anyhow, it took up the entire hour and I was left wondering why this pagan belief was being taught in a science course.

In short, the Gaia “theory” holds that the earth is a gigantic, self-regulating organism that possess some kind of consciousness and intelligence.
 
Many of the studies generally enveloped by the term Gaia hypothesis have been well worthwhile and contributed hugely to our understanding of global systems which have particular relevance to climate change. Unfortunately the name Gaia itself has had the effect of attracting the attention of various fringe interests with limited scientific justification.

The hypothesis holds that the entire earth, including both biotic and abiotic constituents, can be thought of as a co-ordinated mechanism for the maintenance of its own homeostasis. How useful this idea is is open to dispute. Although the earth certainly does contain several feedback systems, there is no suggestion that it is either either conscious or intelligent in any specific sense; these terms have been used by analogy but taken up as literal in some quarters.
 
Glark said:
The lecture was presented during a first-year course (called “Environment Science”). It wasn’t presented as paganism - that is my description of it. I suspect it was the personal belief of the female lecturer (a lot of environmentalists hold pagan beliefs and there is possibly a link to feminism there as well). Anyhow, it took up the entire hour and I was left wondering why this pagan belief was being taught in a science course.

In short, the Gaia “theory” holds that the earth is a gigantic, self-regulating organism that possess some kind of consciousness and intelligence.
Click to expand...
It would help if the students learned / knew chemistry as well as philosophy.
 
If that’s what was taught that’s weird and messed up. If it was taught as metaphor that makes more sense. As Hugh points out the name has nothing to do with paganism other than a name but there’s certainly individual nuts in all walks of life.

Paganism and feminism have nothing to do with each other. That’s a strange connection.
 
edwest211 said:
Dark Matter was introduced a while back in an attempt to explain the “missing” matter in our current field of view. But the deepest Hubble space image still shows faint galaxies in the background. The fact is scientists don’t know how big the universe is. And they aren’t sure about planet formation either.

ScienceDaily

‘Monster’ planet discovery challenges formation theory​

A giant planet, which should not exist according to planet formation theory, has been discovered around a distant star.
Click to expand...
Here is the excellent “Dark Matter” program I was searching for.

https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/spaces-deepest-secrets/full-episodes/curse-of-dark-matter
 
Dan123 said:
Paganism and feminism have nothing to do with each other. That’s a strange connection.
Click to expand...
I would suggest you don’t know much about the origins of feminism. Try visiting a feminist bookshop sometime - you will find most of the books therein are devoted to the occult and pagan religion. Many of the leading Suffragettes were involved in the occult.

Feminism is not new and was invented by Satan way back with Eve in the garden of Eden. St. Paul had to deal with a version of feminism in his missionary travels. Marxists/Commiunists came up with political version for the modern era, but its pagan/occult roots are still there, lurking just below the surface.

Feminism is pure 666, but it sounds like this demonic “wolf in sheep’s clothing” has slipped under your radar.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t take much notice of the Gaia lecture, to be honest. I thought is was laughably unscientific and irrelevant.
 
I once dated a guy who was a young earth creationist baptist. I was struck by how willing he was to believe young earth creationism while not accepting the eucharist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top