Churches rejecting science altogether

[Betterave]

Yes, I accept the geological account of a 13.7 billion year old universe, and a 4.5 billion year old earth, rather than the Earth Diver myth of prehistoric North Americans, or the prescientific myth of Genesis 1-11.

What you wrote previously expressed an awareness that this “rather than” constitutes a false dichotomy… What happened?

Of course, I accept the theology of creation, but that is substantially differwnt than accepting the myths as literally true accounts of the formation of the world.

Can’t you see that it is also substantially different from accepting the myths merely as ‘quaint Middle Eastern stories’? (Also, I’m sure you’re aware that “‘Literally true’ = ?” is a significant problem that needs to be addressed before you can responsibly make the claim you make here.)

 

[Betterave]

Yes, I accept the geological account of a 13.7 billion year old universe, and a 4.5 billion year old earth, rather than the Earth Diver myth of prehistoric North Americans, or the prescientific myth of Genesis 1-11. Of course, I accept the theology of creation, but that is substantially differwnt than accepting the myths as literally true accounts of the formation of the world.

Also, minor technical point, it is my understanding that a 13.7 billion year old universe really doesn’t form part of the geological account of the 4.5 billion year old Earth.

 

[irishpatrick]

No, it’s not guesses. It is solid geological science, based upon years of research and reams of geological evidence. Compare that to the creation story in Genesis, which was penned thousands of years ago by Hebrew authors who had no knowledge of how the world works, but who made guesses based on their own limited world view, and crafted a nice theological story.

I accept the science as the explanation of the way the world words, and I accept the theology of the Genesis account.

I too accept science as “an” explanation of how the world works–it is often wrong and often flawed because it is from flawed humans, yet science has contributed enormously to humanity.

The Bible, however, is not flawed, it has been inspired by God and God does not make mistakes. It does not matter that the Bible was written thousands of years ago, God was still God then.

BTW, the writers of the NT also believed in a literal flood, and that was less than 2,000 years ago.

Further, will Jesus’ return be literal, or just a myth? Will He literally come to judge the living and the dead, or is that a myth? Will there literally be a Great Tribulation and an anti-christ and all the other near end-times events? Did Jesus really rise from the dead, or is that a fable? Did Jesus really do those miracles, or were they just fakes?

Did Jesus die on the cross, and if yes, did He die for our sins and did it do any good?

 

[buffalo]

Yes, I accept the geological account of a 13.7 billion year old universe, and a 4.5 billion year old earth, rather than the Earth Diver myth of prehistoric North Americans, or the prescientific myth of Genesis 1-11. Of course, I accept the theology of creation, but that is substantially differwnt than accepting the myths as literally true accounts of the formation of the world.

It is very interesting the similarities that the creation accounts have. It is also quite interesting that the flood accounts are similar too.

 

[buffalo]

All of this is simply human theories created when people take a look at what they think is evidence, and then they extrapolate the data into a model they believe works. The truth is those are basically “guesses,” and not much more.

Foundational is the worldview they accept. The human reasoning will conform to this worldview.

The question on the table is what worldview do you accept?

One of God?
Materialism?

After a time the consensual literature bends to the specific worldview and that is what gets taught and argued.

It is truly courageous to go against the grain despite the taunting and name calling one gets from the mainstream. Here is a guy who did. It took 50 years or more for scientists to finally accept catastrophism (once again)

J Harlen Bretz

 

[irishpatrick]

Foundational is the worldview they accept. The human reasoning will conform to this worldview.

The question on the table is what worldview do you accept?

One of God?
Materialism?

After a time the consensual literature bends to the specific worldview and that is what gets taught and argued.

It is truly courageous to go against the grain despite the taunting and name calling one gets from the mainstream. Here is a guy who did. It took 50 years or more for scientists to finally accept catastrophism (once again)

J Harlen Bretz

Yet, what is amazing is that people who do the attacking think of themselves as enlightened and as intellectuals.

BTW, I have felt for many years that the west and southwest often looks to me as evidence of the great flood. I also think that the Dinosaurs were killed during the flood. Scientists scoff at both because they come from a foundation that things in the past MUST be dictated by what they think they know today. Funnily enough, the Dinosaurs, and many other animals, are known to have suffered what seems to be a near instant extintion event…yet no-one ever seems to say, “I wonder if…?”

IMO, the great oceans of the world are filled with flood waters from the event that happened in Noah’s day.

 

[grannymh]

No, it’s not guesses. It is solid geological science, based upon years of research and reams of geological evidence. Compare that to the creation story in Genesis, which was penned thousands of years ago by Hebrew authors who had no knowledge of how the world works, but who made guesses based on their own limited world view, and crafted a nice theological story.

I accept the science as the explanation of the way the world words, and I accept the theology of the Genesis account.

What is the Catholic theology of the Genesis account and in which chapters is it located?
Or do you accept the secular account which is based on science?

 

[StAnastasia]

What is the Catholic theology of the Genesis account and in which chapters is it located?
Or do you accept the secular account which is based on science?

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

 

[grannymh]

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

That is Genesis 1:1

I do understand why you skip other verses in the first three chapters of Genesis. However, regarding human origin, original sin, and the need for a Savor, the Catholic Church will not change its doctrines no matter how many theologians want to substitute their own dynamic ideas.

 

[StAnastasia]

IMO, the great oceans of the world are filled with flood waters from the event that happened in Noah’s day.

The American Scientific Affiliation in Naperville. Il;, is gong to include an interesting discussion on Monday, August 1: Paul Seely, “An Answer to Whitcomb and Morris’s The Genesis Flood.”

 

[irishpatrick]

The American Scientific Affiliation in Naperville. Il;, is gong to include an interesting discussion on Monday, August 1: Paul Seely, “An Answer to Whitcomb and Morris’s The Genesis Flood.”

That should be interesting. I wonder if they will record it for podcasting?

 

[StAnastasia]

That should be interesting. I wonder if they will record it for podcasting?

All ASA questions are recorded and archived.

 

[ricmat]

No, it’s not guesses. It is solid geological science, based upon years of research and reams of geological evidence.

It IS guesses, “educated guesses” if you prefer. God alone knows how creation really works, we estimate, we approximate, we model, but we are guessing nonetheless.

Science is based on imperfect models of reality. The models are quite useful, I used them for 30+ years as an electrical engineer. The models are not perfect. The models change. New models replace old models, and those who continue to believe the old ones are laughed at by those who believe that the new ones are “really” true. And on, and on.

Compare that to the creation story in Genesis, which was penned thousands of years ago by Hebrew authors who had no knowledge of how the world works, but who made guesses based on their own limited world view, and crafted a nice theological story.

I accept the science as the explanation of the way the world words, and I accept the theology of the Genesis account.

If you accept science as the explanation for the world works, you will be disappointed eventually.

The “nice theological story” you refer to was written by God. It seems to me that, as always, you have more faith in science than you do in God. You seem to be diminishing God at the expense of science. Catholic theologians should focus more on God and less on how wonderful science is.

usccb.org/nab/bible/wisdom/wisdom13.htm

 

[donsnow]

I was simply showing that StA’s claim that there is no water vapor in space is wrong.

Now here is something interesting about the edge of the solar system and its effect on what we actually see. Does the frothiness change the light we observe?

A Big Surprise from the Edge of the Solar System

Thanks, buffalo,

"Tiny bubbles, in the … " oh, that’s different.

There’s been some scifi stories of conjecture, about the heliosheath. I remember one presented the idea that humanity would feel uncomfortable, outside the sun’s magnetic field.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

It is now clear that the earth has suffered catastrophies. Uniformatarianism is not the solution to the geological record.

The Mystery of the Megaflood

and

Paleocurrents

True. However, the shadow of Uniformtarianism still occludes some evolutionists thinking.

 

[Peter_John]

You simply cannot say that. Knowledge and facts change all the time. For example, the way we see the world today is quite obviously not the way the world has always been, and when one thinks of a global flood they must take into account enough water to cover Mt. Everest at over 29-thousand feet (a seemingly impossible event). However, no matter what we think we know now, we simply do not know when the flood took place, nor do we know how the world was configured in those days. We see the world today, we ponder how things work today, and we extroplate backwards making grand assumptions (i.e. Mt. Everest had to be 29-thousand feet high back then because it is so today) and those assumptions can easily be wrong since we are basing on what we see and know today.

I think God has just a bit of an edge on our intellectual abilities…would you not agree?

Yes God does, but the occasional inability of those who claim to speak for him here to actually interpret accurately is a testament of history. By their interpretation 350 years ago God said the Sun went around the Earth. Therefore, they sometimes confound the message when they it does not involve strictly spiritual matters.

 

[irishpatrick]

Yes God does, but the occasional inability of those who claim to speak for him here to actually interpret accurately is a testament of history. By their interpretation 350 years ago God said the Sun went around the Earth. Therefore, they sometimes confound the message when they it does not involve strictly spiritual matters.

I agree…humans (religious and secular) are fallible and make mistakes. God does not (obviously).

 

[donsnow]

I agree…humans (religious and secular) are fallible and make mistakes. God does not (obviously).

Hi, irishpatrick,

Now, there’s a profound philosophical observation (please read literally, no sarcasm intended).

God loves you,
Don

 

[irishpatrick]

Hi, irishpatrick,

Now, there’s a profound philosophical observation (please read literally, no sarcasm intended).

God loves you,
Don

Thank you.

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes God does, but the occasional inability of those who claim to speak for him here to actually interpret accurately is a testament of history. By their interpretation 350 years ago God said the Sun went around the Earth. Therefore, they sometimes confound the message when they it does not involve strictly spiritual matters.

Peter John, the sun does yet voyage around the earth. This weekend I traveled to the University of California in Santa Barbara, to meet some scholar friends from Africa who are on a month-long Fulbright course in religious pluralism. As the sun dipped down into the Pacific Ocean in the evening, I heard only a faint hiss of steam as Phoebus’ fiery chariot plunged into the water (it was too far away for us to hear much sound). I know the sun did plunge into the water, for a great cloud of fog surged upward, and within the hour this cloud overcame the seashore!

StAnastasia