Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Many of the Church Fathers and saints also believed Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, and Jonah were all strictly historical works. As more actual history and archaeology was revealed, it became evident that these stories were better acknowledged as historical fictions or wisdom. And not because of a sinister plot to discredit them, but due to the overwhelming evidence that the original authors’ true purpose was not to convey a strict historical account akin to the notion of modern historical works.
 
edwest211 said:
… How? …
… When? …
… How do we know? …
… How much? …

… Does anyone have the answers? …
Click to expand...
Yes. We do. We really do, based on solid observation and sensible inference. If you want to know, you can find out. If you don’t, and let’s face it you really don’t, then never mind. Stick to your faith in your salvation and be happy.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
edwest211:
… How? …
… When? …
… How do we know? …
… How much? …

… Does anyone have the answers? …
Click to expand...
Yes. We do. We really do, based on solid observation and sensible inference. If you want to know, you can find out. If you don’t, and let’s face it you really don’t, then never mind. Stick to your faith in your salvation and be happy.
Click to expand...
We have faith that in the beginning; God created the heavens and the Earth.
 
For me, I don’t believe in a young Earth. If you do, fine, but with the science favoring an old earth and the related science I cannot come to that conclusion. Add in how the Church has said we aren’t necessitated to a six-day Creation, I see no reason to deny the evidence. It would be akin to me to say ensoulment doesn’t occur at conception in favor of delayed Humanization as some of the early theologians held.

But at the same time, not taking Genesis as literal history doesn’t cause me to throw it away. It causes me to appreciate it more. To see Creation and how Genesis contradicted other creation stories of Sumer helps emphasize the Truths it teaches. Unlike Sumerian lore, Earth was not an accident. It was intended. Man was not made to be slaves, but to be loved. And God is the one who did it.
With the Flood, again those contrasts are great. God controlled The Flood. He wasn’t scared like the Sumerian gods who fled it. God didn’t send it as population control. He told us to be fruitful and multiply. And He gave time for those that were wicked to repent and be saved. He didn’t loose punishment without warning. And by water clearing away the wickedness of the world, we have a preamble to baptism.

If I insisted on a literalistic interpretation, I would miss those. If I dismissed the billions of years from the beginning until now, I would miss just how awesome God’s power is. (Truth be told evolution amazes me more at God’s handiwork than a literalistic Genesis interpretation.)
And when I see Fundamentalists who insist a person must take Genesis literally, I pity the poor souls that saw the evidence against a literalistic interpretation and were faced with the false dichotomy of God or Science. When instead they are compatible. Because for me, not taking Genesis literalistically doesn’t weaken my faith. It strengthens it.
 
My reading of Genesis says “the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) were created before the “six days” of creation (which begin in v.3). So it seems to me there were two distinct stages of creation. There is no Scriptural indication of how long after the earth was created that the “six days” stage of creation began - it could have been anywhere between a very short period of time and a very long period of time.

If science is to be believed, the earth is billions of years old, which can be accomodated by my reading of Genesis. However, I suspect the science surrounding the age of the earth is exaggerated in order to accomodate belief in evolution, a process which requires billions of years.

The Fathers almost unanimously believed in a young earth - perhaps because they had no scientific reason to think otherwise. This uniformity of YE-belief is reflected in the Church’s Roman Martyrology, which states that the earth was created in 5199 BC.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
and a thousand years are like one day in his sight
Click to expand...
I don’t believe this passage has anything to do with the age of the earth. Rather, its meaning is simlpy that God exists outside of time.
 
Last edited:
“semper_catholicus said:
The Bible talks about God creating everything in 6 days in other places too, like Exodus 20:11
Click to expand...

I disagree. Exodus 20:11 says “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them”. I believe this passage is referring only to the “six days” of creation, which didn’t include the creation of the earth. A clue to the this meaning of this Scripture lies in the mention of “the sea” - ie, the sea is part of the earth, so why mention the earth AND the sea?

Furthermore, in Genesis 1, “heaven … earth … sea” are the names given to the earth’s atmosphere, dry land and the oceans respectively - all of which were created during the “six days” of creation, which in turn came after the creation of the “heavens and the earth” in v.1.
 
Last edited:
So goes the story. The trouble with this story is, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that suggests micro leads to macro - it is a belief, not a demonstrable fact.
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
How do you explain fossils?
Click to expand...
How do you know what the fossil record says? My guess is, you don’t - you merely believe what a cult of atheist scientists have told you. These same (extremely biased) scientists will also tell you that life can arise naturally from inanimate matter, that there is no evidence of design in nature, that all miracles are fantasy, that there is no life after death and that there is no God.

Do you think it’s wise to rely of such people to inform you about the origins of life? I don’t, because the truth is not in them.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
So goes the story. The trouble with this story is, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that suggests micro leads to macro - it is a belief, not a demonstrable fact.
Click to expand...
You need to look harder. Tauber and Tauber (1977) shows macroevolution – a new species – caused by three small microevolutionary changes.

rossum
 
Glark said:
God doesn’t need the sun to know how long 24 hours is.
Click to expand...
Nor do we. 24 hours is 24 x 60 x 60 = 86400 seconds, and a second is defined as “the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.”

No mention of the sun there.

rossum
 
Glark said:
How do you know what the fossil record says?

My guess is, you don’t - you merely believe what a cult of atheist scientists have told you. These same (extremely biased) scientists will also tell you that life can arise naturally from inanimate matter, that there is no evidence of design in nature, that all miracles are fantasy, that there is no life after death and that there is no God.

Do you think it’s wise to rely of such people to inform you about the origins of life? I don’t, because the truth is not in them.
Click to expand...
Scurrilous nonsense. Amazing Grace, there are lots of places you can find out for yourself about fossils without having to rely on the authority of anybody. Unlike Creationists. Has Glark ever read Genesis in Hebrew?

My guess is, he hasn’t - he merely believes what a cult of extreme Creationists have told him. These same (extremely biased) Creationists have also told him that fruit-trees existed before the sun, that Noah’s ark could fit five million animals, that snakes speak English and that God has a beard.

Do you think it’s wise to rely of such people to inform you about the origins of life? I don’t, because the truth is not in them.
 
Last edited:
Sweetheart, my BS degree is in biology, and I definitely wasnt aware of any atheist science cults at my Catholic college. Get back to me when you’ve taken an actual biology class.
 
Last edited:
Psalm 33.V6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made; by the breath of his mouth, all their host.
V9 For he spoke and it was made; he commanded , and it stood forth.
This is describing creation which came into existence as described in Genesis Ch.1
Moses wrote the first five books (Pentateuch ) Deut.9:10 " Then the Lord delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and in them were all the words which the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire, in the day of the assembly.
Moses states in Ex.20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.
This is the basis of our seven day week - six days of work and one day of rest. This passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of _Seven LIteral Days _ based on the Creation week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest.
This teaching is based on the Law of Moses as recorded in Exodus 20, where we find the 'Ten Commandments ’ - the six-day Creation week being the basis for the Fourth Commandment
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top