Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Glark said:
How many fossils have you actually examined? Two? Three? Do you have a Ph.d in paleontology and how many decades have you spent studying the entire fossil record - not by reading about about it, but by actually studying it first-hand? If you haven’t been trained in paleontology and haven’t devoted several decades studying the entire fossil record, I’d say your “knowledge” of fossils amounts to precious little, and what little you do “know” is based entirely on the views of others (99.99% of whom are probably evo-obsessed atheists).
Click to expand...
You meanie! You have no idea about Grace’s qualifications. Have you a phD in Theology? The last educational qualifications you admitted to were ‘passing out of Primary School’, and a proud ignorance of the word ‘farrago’.
If you haven’t noticed the atheist dominance of Origins science, then maybe you have problems with your eyes and ears. And are you really so naive as to think the influence of “atheist science” hasn’t contaminated Catholic universities?
Click to expand...
The rise of atheist science is directly related to the Fundamentalist Protestantism expressed by most of the Creationists on this thread.
Plus you didn’t answer my question: Do you think it’s wise to rely on a bunch of God-haters to inform you about the origins of life?
Click to expand...
Does it matter? With friends like you, God doesn’t need enemies.
 
Glark said:
If fundamentalists are folks who take the Word of God seriously, as per Church teaching, what do you call folks, like you, who have very little or no respect for Scripture? (If you are an atheist, ignore the question.)
Click to expand...
Fundamentalists don’t take the word of God seriously at all! For thread after thread we have been trying to investigate what the theology of Creation really is, and all we get is infantile sniping at evolution. I’d like to concentrate here on Young Earth theology. Does it exist as a useful expression of anything, or were the first few books of the bible only written for the single purpose of attempting to refute Evolution?
Glark said:
I believe evolution is incompatible with Scripture.
Click to expand...
You are entitled to your opinion. The Catholic Church is entitled to its opinion. I’ll go with the Church.
Glark said:
This is one reason I believe evolutionism is a full-blown cult. Dissenters will not be tolerated in this totalitarian regime, which, by the way, I think is demonically inspired.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Creationists have been tolerated in this discussion ad nauseam. Their opinions, such as they are, have been graciously considered by Evolutionists, and our rejection of literalism carefully explained.
Glark said:
What I see is that humans have been intensively breeding plants and animals for thousands of years and have come with a lot of “changes”, but I’ve never seen anything that makes me think a dog, for example, can evolve into a non-dog.
Click to expand...
Quite. As you know nothing about evolution, why not stick to your faith in Creationism and concentrate on what it’s worth?
Glark said:
Don’t worry, Carmel; Hugh’s opinion of the Bible is that it is only slightly more credible than a Scientology publication.
Click to expand...
Carmel is not worried at all. To a good Creationist, Evolution should be irrelevant to faith. Concentrate on the message of Creation, not on petty defensiveness.
Glark said:
God created all maner of creatures, some of them with overlapping or common features. Evolutionists have arranged fossils of these creatures into a pattern that looks like evolutionary progression, but they don’t fool me.
Click to expand...
They clearly do.
Fossils remind me of crop circles.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
Last edited:
Is this fossil an example of a transitional animal from one kind to another?

Or is this just a weird kind of animal that existed, with features that show that our animal taxonomy system needs much improvement?

You see. All we truly know is that this is a fossil of an animal that existed a long time ago. This is the fact and that’s about it. Anything else is theory.

Now, if you think this fossil you showed is transitional, then you probably believe the one below is transitional as well (even though it is not considered so by taxonomists) just because it has features of mammals, reptiles and birds.
 
Some useful sarcasm:


click here google youtube the earth
 
Last edited:
Aulef said:
Is this fossil an example of a transitional animal from one kind to another?
Or is this just a weird kind of animal that existed, with features that show that our animal taxonomy system needs much improvement?
You see. All we truly know is that this is a fossil of an animal that existed a long time ago. This is the fact and that’s about it. Anything else is theory.
Now, if you think this fossil you showed is transitional, then you probably believe the one below is transitional as well (even though it is not considered so by taxonomists) just because it has features of mammals, reptiles and birds.
Click to expand...
It’s such a shame that you know so little about evolution that it would take several posts even to begin to sort out the confusion you appear to be suffering from. I wouldn’t pursue it, if I were you. Why not go back to Genesis? If archaeopteryx and all the other extinct ‘kinds’ were part of God’s wonderful creation, why did he kill them all off? Did they all die in the flood? Or at some other time? Is there a theological message there, and if so, what is it? Was archaeopteryx evil?

The thing is, I know neither you, Glark nor any of the other Fundamentalist Protestants really want to know anything about Evolution, but I really would like to know what you find in Creationism. I keep asking, but all we seem to get is that the only point of Genesis is to oppose Evolution. There must be more to it than that, surely? Can anyone help? Why did God create dinosaurs, if all he was going to do was kill them all off again?
 
Aulef said:
Now, if you think this fossil you showed is transitional, then you probably believe the one below is transitional as well (even though it is not considered so by taxonomists) just because it has features of mammals, reptiles and birds.
Click to expand...
A platypus does not have any features specific to birds – merely a superficial resemblance in the upper jaw. It is a genuine transitional, showing features from Therapsid reptiles (egg laying) and mammals (hair, single jaw bone and milk).

rossum
 
For Bible believers, not cafeteria catholics or atheists have you considered that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time ? The Bible clearly tells that there was no death until the sin of our first parents. What if the reptile that entered the garden
wasn’t a small snake in an adjacent tree , but , in fact was in the form of a dinosaur ? Bearing in mind that there were small and medium sized dinosaurs also Scott Hahn believes that there was an element of menace or implied threat associated with that encounter.
 
Stop asking people how old they are. It literally has NOTHING to do with the arguments at hand.
 
Yeah, it actually does have some bearing. If they’re a teenager who’s never taken a college-level science course, then they might wanna refrain from commenting on topics where their knowledge is limited.
 
Carmel said:
wasn’t a small snake in an adjacent tree , but , in fact was in the form of a dinosaur ? Bearing in mind that there were small and medium sized dinosaurs also Scott Hahn believes that there was an element of menace or implied threat associated with that encounter.
Click to expand...
And you said “Darwinists” were the imaginative ones…
 
In my experience, whenever you ask someone their age, it’s usually to silence them, then ridicule them, and discredit them, and then keep them from saying anything on this forum.
 
semper_catholicus said:
In my experience, whenever you ask someone their age, it’s usually to silence them, then ridicule them, and discredit them, and then keep them from saying anything on this forum.
Click to expand...
I don’t keep anyone from saying anything based on their age: only point out where their life experience might limit the helpfulness of their contributions. I find it far more offensive that people who (presumably) haven’t studied biology at a college level are dismissing my degree as evidence of “brainwashing,” rather than considering that maybe, just maybe, I might actually know what I’m talking about.
 
Last edited:
Ah, LifeSiteNews. That bastion of scientific integrity.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top