Are Catholics creationists?

[choy]

Twinc, I’m assuming you are creationist, given your response, and I’ve always wanted to ask this. How do you account for Radiocarbon-dating or dating radioactive materials or how far away stars are from the earth, etc?

Is God trying to trick us?

i’m not a scientist, but here’s my theories on these:

one contention of creationists that a lot of these methods have not been proven to be constant over time. for example the carbon decay is believed to be constant throughout. but has anyone observed something over an extended period of time to conclusively prove this? there may be things in the past that may have influenced rapid decay that may make us think that something is much older

same for stars. are we sure first that they are that far away? the method to determine the distance travelled of light is the redshift. correct me if i’m wrong but this may be a good way to determine distance, but not time. for all we know light travels instanteneously in interstellar space. how can i say that? have we observed light travel away from any gravitational influence? we all know that black holes are super dense that even light cannot escape. so if a black hole can gravitationally influence light, why not interstellar space where there is hardly any gravity from a nearby star?

my theories of course are products of my wild imagination. they are by no means scientific. if in the future they prove to be, you heard it here first! LOL. but the point is, there are a lot of things left to be learned in science and the facts we have today by no means disprove a young earth and a young universe.

 

[StAnastasia]

Then you will have no issue with science studying and formulizing ID.

Of course not – study away!

 

[StAnastasia]

The point is, there are a lot of things left to be learned in science and the facts we have today by no means disprove a young earth and a young universe.

You are wrong that “the facts we have today by no means disprove a young earth and a young universe.” You are right that “there are a lot of things left to be learned in science.”

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

To find absolute proof is one thing - and I don’t know of anybody who is trying to do that.

Nor do I.

 

[buffalo]

Of course not – study away!

Seems a bit of a concession…

 

[StAnastasia]

Seems a bit of a concession…

Not a concession at all. If someone wants to study the possibility of transmuting lead into gold, or the terrestrial effect of Mars when it is in the House of Gemini, that’s fine with me. Of course, there might be public policy debates about the appropriateness of using public funding to support such research, but that’s another matter.

 

[Chipper]

see:

catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

catholic.com/library/Creation_Out_of_Nothing.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309fea3.asp

This openening is from one of your links:

Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact “that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4),

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37).

---

I am going to (name removed by moderator)ut my two cents:

It seems to me that the whole argument of Creationism Vs. Evolution comes down to a factor of time. Due to it being virtually impossible to come up with an answer of “HOW” God created man. For, if we knew “HOW” God created man we could create man ourselves, out of the dust or clay of the earth. The only thing left to discover is “Time”.

This is where I come in, allow me to first expand. Creationists and Evolutionists are both correct. Like it or not they are both correct. If God created man out of the Dust, then this is a form of Evolution. How else can it be? He would have taken the particles of Dirt, reform them (evolution) into cellular groups or something (Evolution of dirt to cells), then the cells would have been reformed and “Intelligently Designed” into a larger group, eventually with a man popping out.

The only question left is “How fast did he do it”? Six twenty four hour cycles? Or a billion years? A 24 hour cycle is based on the Earth’s Revolution, a “MAN’S VIEW”, and not based on God’s reference to time. God is outside of time. The Genesis Creation took place before Man had a chance to define time. Time was not defined as a 24 hour cycle as of yet. As stated above a thousand years is as one day.

In addition I have found at least 17 references in the Old Testament where God “STRETCHED” the heavens. When the heavens are stretched, time and space are stretched. In God’s view it is instantaneous. So we now have an instantaneous time stretch, viewed by Man’s instruments as a billion years, but in fact, perhaps one day or one second in God’s view.

This is my argument. Our instruments will record a billion years, whereas GOD’S Word says one day.

In order to defend a pure Creationist viewpoint, one must first tie down the definition of “TIME”. In order to defend a purely evolutionary viewpoint, on must also first tie down the definition of “TIME”. When you are dealing with the viewpoint of God, then you better ask God what the definition of “TIME” is.

 

[StAnastasia]

In order to defend a pure Creationist viewpoint, one must first tie down the definition of “TIME”. In order to defend a purely evolutionary viewpoint, on must also first tie down the definition of “TIME”. When you are dealing with the viewpoint of God, then you better ask God what the definition of “TIME” is.

Chipper, I appreciate your two cents. I think this is an appropriate way to look at it, since a transcendent God is outside of time. Creation takes place in time, which along with space came into being with the “Big Bang.” 13.7 billion years is a lot of time, but is irrelevant to an eternal God.

StAnastasia

 

[AmberDale]

Creationism , I have always understood, is the belief that the universe has a Creator. That behind it all there is a God. Evolution is, so I see it, no more than an effort to make sense of this creation. But those who attempt to use this research to answer the question of why there is evil in the world will fail.

I might be wrong, but I think there is a difference in todays terms from “Creationists” and people who believe in “Intelligent Design”.
I would say a lot of Catholics are more into the Intelligent Design belief. We believe God created/designed but we also don’t completely dismiss the Science.

If Science were 100 percent accurate and the Bible were interpreted 100 percent as God intended there would be no need for “reconciliation”. It would match.

 

[edwest2]

While there are godless atheistic evolutionists, there are also Christians who are evolutionists. As a Ph.D. biologist and a Roman Catholic, I am one of the latter. You sound anti-science. Reason and faith are not in conflict.

What is a Christian evolutionist? Do you believe man is just another animal? Do you agree with Stephen Jay Gould that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently?

Anti-science? My friends roll their eyes often because I spend most of my free time studying science and they’re afraid I’m going to start talking to them about it.

The word “reason” has been appropriated by a small special interest group.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

i’m not a scientist, but here’s my theories on these:

one contention of creationists that a lot of these methods have not been proven to be constant over time. for example the carbon decay is believed to be constant throughout. but has anyone observed something over an extended period of time to conclusively prove this? there may be things in the past that may have influenced rapid decay that may make us think that something is much older

same for stars. are we sure first that they are that far away? the method to determine the distance travelled of light is the redshift. correct me if i’m wrong but this may be a good way to determine distance, but not time. for all we know light travels instanteneously in interstellar space. how can i say that? have we observed light travel away from any gravitational influence? we all know that black holes are super dense that even light cannot escape. so if a black hole can gravitationally influence light, why not interstellar space where there is hardly any gravity from a nearby star?

my theories of course are products of my wild imagination. they are by no means scientific. if in the future they prove to be, you heard it here first! LOL. but the point is, there are a lot of things left to be learned in science and the facts we have today by no means disprove a young earth and a young universe.

Not all redshift is caused by distance. But, today, the global mass marketing campaign must be finished. That’s why Catholics are being told to ‘just say yes’ to evolution. The mind of man is being exalted, right now, today, not God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

This openening is from one of your links:

Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact “that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4),

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37).

---

I am going to (name removed by moderator)ut my two cents:

It seems to me that the whole argument of Creationism Vs. Evolution comes down to a factor of time. Due to it being virtually impossible to come up with an answer of “HOW” God created man. For, if we knew “HOW” God created man we could create man ourselves, out of the dust or clay of the earth. The only thing left to discover is “Time”.

This is where I come in, allow me to first expand. Creationists and Evolutionists are both correct. Like it or not they are both correct. If God created man out of the Dust, then this is a form of Evolution. How else can it be? He would have taken the particles of Dirt, reform them (evolution) into cellular groups or something (Evolution of dirt to cells), then the cells would have been reformed and “Intelligently Designed” into a larger group, eventually with a man popping out.

The only question left is “How fast did he do it”? Six twenty four hour cycles? Or a billion years? A 24 hour cycle is based on the Earth’s Revolution, a “MAN’S VIEW”, and not based on God’s reference to time. God is outside of time. The Genesis Creation took place before Man had a chance to define time. Time was not defined as a 24 hour cycle as of yet. As stated above a thousand years is as one day.

In addition I have found at least 17 references in the Old Testament where God “STRETCHED” the heavens. When the heavens are stretched, time and space are stretched. In God’s view it is instantaneous. So we now have an instantaneous time stretch, viewed by Man’s instruments as a billion years, but in fact, perhaps one day or one second in God’s view.

This is my argument. Our instruments will record a billion years, whereas GOD’S Word says one day.

In order to defend a pure Creationist viewpoint, one must first tie down the definition of “TIME”. In order to defend a purely evolutionary viewpoint, on must also first tie down the definition of “TIME”. When you are dealing with the viewpoint of God, then you better ask God what the definition of “TIME” is.

Incorrect. All one has to do is look at all of the anomolous historical information. Polystrate trees passing through many layers of rock, some extending into coal seams, and much more.

Redshift as a distance phenomenon is being reevaluated right now.

And why bother discussing the Bible in scientific terms if the Bible is not a science book? What’s the point? There are no peer reviewed scientific papers that analyze Genesis or any other part of the Bible. I’m reminded all the time that science is silent about God and the supernatural.

And by the way, the Bible was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. No prophecy was made by the will of man. Or do you think that God never spoke through the prophets?

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

And by the way, the Bible was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. No prophecy was made by the will of man. Or do you think that God never spoke through the prophets?Peace,Ed

Ed, this is a “creationist” lie that you repeat time after time, no matter how often you are corrected. Does the truth mean nothing to you as a Catholic? I think truth should matter to you.

“Geologists find nothing anomalous about polystrate trees found in Carboniferous coal-bearing strata being associated with marine or brackish water fossils. Because they lived on subsiding coastal plains or pull-apart basins open to the coast, it was quite frequent for subsidence to periodically outpace the accumulation of sediments such that adjacent shallow marine waters would periodically inundate coastal plains in which the polystrate trees were buried. As a result, sediments, containing marine fossils, would periodically accumulate within these areas before being replaced by coastal swamps as sediments either filled in the shallow sea or sea level fell. Also, according to ecological reconstructions by geologists, specific assemblages of the types of trees found as polystrate fossils occupied brackish water, even saline coastal swamps much like modern mangrove swamps. Thus, finding marine and brackish water fossils associated with these polystrate trees is no different than finding brackish water or marine animals living in modern mangrove swamps”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

 

[edwest2]

The truth matters to me. That is why I know there is no good explanation for polystrate trees and other anomolies. Wikipedia is just a bunch of comments that could be cobbled together by anybody.

It would appear the polystrate trees were rapidly buried due to water, otherwise, had they been gradually buried, they would have rotted away long before. I’ve encountered wood in swampy and marshy areas and I know how it behaves after relatively short exposure to such conditions.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

It would appear the polystrate trees were rapidly buried due to water, otherwise, had they been gradually buried, they would have rotted away long before. I’ve encountered wood in swampy and marshy areas and I know how it behaves after relatively short exposure to such conditions.ace,Ed

I’m not sure the truth does matter to you. “Polystrate” is a term not much used by geologists outside YEC circles. Read more widely in professional geological journals and you’ll see why the idea of a global flood in the time of Noah is an absurdity.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

You are right that “there are a lot of things left to be learned in science.”

StAnastasia

Here is something I learned about the human bottleneck and the possibility of a real Adam & Eve.

What exactly is a human bottleneck (reduced population)?
The following is from a brief internet search.

From www.bbc.co.uk “With over 6 billion people living in the world today, human beings are a phenomenally successful animal. But our species, Homo sapiens, once came close to outright extinction.”

“Clues from genetics, archaeology and geology suggest our ancestors were nearly wiped out by one or more environmental catastrophes in the Late Pleistocene period. At one point, the numbers of modern humans living in the world may have dwindled to as few as 10,000 people.”

“Professor David Goldstein, a molecular biologist at University College in London, has uncovered evidence of a very ancient population bottleneck. A bottleneck is an event that reduces the genetic difference, or diversity, in a population of animals”

From Francisco J. Ayala, “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins”

“Neither the mtDNA results nor the ZFY results lead to the conclusion that narrow population bottlenecks consisting of one or very few couples have occurred in human ancestral history.”

In my humble opinion, the operating definition is – A human bottleneck (reduced population) is an event that reduces the genetic difference or diversity within the human population and which takes place sometime within the human population’s ancestral history.

Quite simply, the human bottleneck theory describes an event which had a specific action on the current human population sometime in their ancestral history.

Therefore, the human bottleneck theory is non-informative about the point of origin of the human species.

Therefore, the possibility of two sole parents of the human species does exist.

Blessings,
granny

The universe and all humanity are a joy to behold.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not sure the truth does matter to you. “Polystrate” is a term not much used by geologists outside YEC circles. Read more widely in professional geological journals and you’ll see why the idea of a global flood in the time of Noah is an absurdity.

StAnastasia

Hello, geologists are now coming to terms with catastrophism. So should you.

 

[edwest2]

I’m not sure the truth does matter to you. “Polystrate” is a term not much used by geologists outside YEC circles. Read more widely in professional geological journals and you’ll see why the idea of a global flood in the time of Noah is an absurdity.

StAnastasia

It appears you worship the mind of man, not truth. Church teaching can be overturned by the mind of man according to you.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Therefore, the human bottleneck theory is non-informative about the point of origin of the human species. Therefore, the possibility of two sole parents of the human species does exist.

Actually, the evidence you have unwittingly cited militates against your view. Still, if you think you have genetic proof of a single human ancestral pair, why not present it to the Genetics Society of America? I’m sure they would want to hear about it. Here’s the 2010 conference URL:
mohb.org/2010/

 

[grannymh]

Actually, the evidence you have unwittingly cited militates against your view. Still, if you think you have genetic proof of a single human ancestral pair, why not present it to the Genetics Society of America? I’m sure they would want to hear about it. Here’s the 2010 conference URL:
mohb.org/2010/

What evidence did I cite?