F
feed_me
Guest
Wait you mean that the dinos actually survived the winter? Wait I thougth it was the winter that kill them off.
- Status
W
winc
Guest
do you really know Catholic teaching - go on then reproduce the Catholic Doctrine of Creation so we can all know you as a Catholic creationist - wincThanks for that suggestion - but I do know Catholic teaching.
Many of the sources quoted in this kind of “debate” are by individuals and groups which rely on a kind of biblical numerology to predict the coming rapture/end times/apocalypse too.
Junk science in the service of a very questionable agenda.
W
winc
Guest
by winter presumably you mean the ice age - it was the Flood that killed off most of the Dinosaurs - the ones on the Ark could not adapt and mostly also became extinct - winc
J
johnnyjones
Guest
I guess your addressing me. Show the wrongness of the sources, I don’t need jokes. Catholicism teaches a literal Adam & Eve. You can design a new environment for them other then what sacred scripture reports and you can also pick and choose what stories from the OT you want to believe.
R
rossum
Guest
Thank you for the reference.
Please read your sources. The Mount Saint Helens date was an Potassium-Argon date, not a Carbon date. Your source has many errors, and you have compounded them by misquoting it.
The reference given, “CIN Tech Journal 10(3), pp. 335-343” is incorrect, since it is the CEN (Creation Ex Nihilo) Technical Journal. Another indication that your source is careless and unreliable.
That particular date was from a xenocryst, see here.
As I suspected, your source is of low quality, error prone and unreliable.
rossum
T
triumphguy
Guest
Well I went to your source, and the first thing I did was check the author.
I googled Kent Hovind and Harold M. Lind
Kent Hovind: (from wiki)
First off, he’s Baptist, not a Catholic and so not a good source for Catholic theology.
His credibility:
So he’s not above messing about with figures!
His academic background:
His doctoral dissertation:
He also runs a theme park Dinoloand.
Even other creationists discount his theories:
And then he gets into conspiracy theories. And they are really whacky.
Go ahead believe in Creationism: but please check your sources and do not get taken in by charlatans!!! Use Catholic scientists, use Catholic sources. And use your common sense!
Just because something looks like it makes sense (like the joke above) doesn’t mean that it does. Give things a second look. Check on the writers before you trust them.
What makes me utterly sick is that decent Catholics start reading this dross and because they are trying to be sincere in their belief get sucked into ridiculous and spurious science.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
I don’t trust everything but the church entirely. Why do you trust the high percentage of academia that are atheists supporting non theistic evolution as a Catholic??? You think all the scientists are theistic evolutionists. You just blew the whole basis of your argument! I used the first source that I had on a list but there were several different areas of dispute from that source and not everyone of them is wrong.
A Baptist instead of a Catholic for a source? How bout your Atheists instead of a Catholic? The Catholic church does not tell me I must believe in theistic evolution and it makes me sick that you keep ramming your interpretation of Genesis down my throat and telling me it MUST BE theistic evolution. You and I have the written word of God but you choose the doctrines of men over sacred scripture. Tell me where else you know Gods word to be wrong in the OT. No Red Sea parting? No Flood? How about the ten commandments? Should we believe them?
Science is in total opposition to a man laying dead in a tomb for three days coming to life again. Do you believe that? Are you telling me right now that no one credible does not believe in evolution or that there are holes in carbon dating or other measurement tools promoting the theory??? Think before answering.
T
triumphguy
Guest
You sound angry.
You have your belief in creationism, but please don’t expect me just to believe because you link to someone who is an absolute charlatan, a fake academic and a convicted criminal.
If you want people to believe then give them something credible.
This is what the Church teaches today:
This is what Pope Benedict said in 2007:
It is clear that we can both believe in evolution, and the creation of the universe as described by science without letting go of God as the “prime mover.”
T
triumphguy
Guest
As to my own beliefs which you question:
I believe in the Resurrection because I believe in Jesus. I believe in Jesus because I have a personal relationship with him, because he is alive in my life. For me the Resurrection makes intellectual sense as it is the absolute epitome of what we were created to be - one with God. Christ is the alpha and the omega. In between we have science - which is just a thoughtful observation of that which God created.
I believe in the Resurrection because I believe in Jesus. I believe in Jesus because I have a personal relationship with him, because he is alive in my life. For me the Resurrection makes intellectual sense as it is the absolute epitome of what we were created to be - one with God. Christ is the alpha and the omega. In between we have science - which is just a thoughtful observation of that which God created.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
It takes as much faith to believe in the miracle of the resurrection as it does to believe in the creation account. Why? Because both are incomprehensible by human standards. So at the start you have taken the same leap of faith I have . There is no contradiction to that. I would assume you lean more towards doubting the Genesis account because the church has allowed the belief in theistic evolution mainly because they have an open mind to new scientific revelations. Most in the evolutionary camp are Atheist or at the minimum agnostic. They teach a creation without God. Those are the majority of people you get your science from. I have worked at two universities.
Not all in the church embrace evolution and Adam & Eve are still taught as real people. The real people concept is something to dwell on. Real people , fake environment, “poetic story”, it doesn’t fit. Jesus told monotheistic Jews that he as a Carpenter from Nazareth was the GOD OF ABRAHAM in the flesh. Is that not a hard or complex thing to say? I would venture to say it would be easier to say man “developed over time” than to say such a thing to the Hebrews in that time and place especially. They wanted to kill him! No mention of our origins being different in the NT than from the old though. God tells us about his nature but doesn’t tell us how we "really’ came into existence.
You can critisize my source and some parts of it deserve that but many an esteemed and knowledgeable person does not believe in evolution. You say you have no problem with me believing in Genesis. I think you do. You come forth with guns blazing as a staunch evolutionist. I will defend my position as you will. I will admit my belief is based more in faith and the study of scripture than your acceptance that the measurement of time is foolproof. Much of scripture has to be chopped away to avoid a real Genesis account, even the NT.
I can never except that God made my great grandparents apes or some simian creature until he tells me Himself… Jesus would have revealed our true nature to us as he revealed his true nature with astounding complexity.
C
Contarini
Guest
There are few if any Christians who don’t believe in dinosaurs. Adherents of “flood geology” and “young-earth creationism” argue that dinosaurs existed relatively recently and probably died out shortly after the flood (with a few possible exceptions). There are Catholics who hold to this view, but it is mostly held by Protestants (and in fact flood geology was largely a Seventh-Day Adventist belief for a long time) and there is certainly no official Catholic teaching that says you have to believe in it. The most recent authoritative statement on the subject, Pius XII’s Humani Generis (which was written in the 40s, I think–so one might wish for further updates from the Vatican!), made it clear that Catholics can believe in an “old earth” and even in the evolution of the human body.
Time doesn’t matter to God in the way it does to us. Another way of looking at it is that we must be darned important to God if He took so long to prepare earth for our arrival!
But I tend to agree with C. S. Lewis in Perelandra–creation is a great dance and you can point to all kinds of things in it and say, “that is the center.” God creates out of joy and generosity, not necessity.
God presumably created dinosaurs because He found them beautiful–because they reflected something of Himself (in Thomistic terms, everything God creates is a certain way in which God knows himself as imitable). My daughter’s fascination with dinosaurs supports God’s good judgment in this matter
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
T
triumphguy
Guest
Tell you what:
Let’s play True or False
I’ve shown sources from Church documents. Based on these…
The Catholic Church allows me to believe in evolution and it also allows me to believe the universe is billions of years old. True or False?
Based on Church teaching I (me not you) can believe that God is the Creator, the all powerful, the First Mover, and still believe in evolution. True or False
This belief does not make me less of a Catholic. nor is it sinful or prideful. True or False?
I don’t care if a scientist is an atheist or a theist or a Catholic as long as he/she is honest and a good scientist. Facts are facts: it’s either raining or it’s not - my belief or lack of belief in God doesn’t change that. So I can take the data of scientists (after all even an atheist can measure data) and use it to support my belief in an all powerful God. And again the Church allows me to.
W
winc
Guest
come home soon - you have ventured or been drawn down the wrong tracks as warned against by the Church which advised and advises us to consult the experts and specialists in both and all the disciplines of Theology and Science - these can and may be found together and in unity at www.kolbecenter.org - winc
W
winc
Guest
you tell me - winc
F
friendster324
Guest
Genesis isn’t science :banghead:
Please watch this and start reading Genesis “literally”: youtube.com/watch?v=5bKa92eLkQM
Please watch this and start reading Genesis “literally”: youtube.com/watch?v=5bKa92eLkQM
W
winc
Guest
pseudo science is not real science - winc
J
johnnyjones
Guest
True , false and true. False because you must believe in theistic evolution as a Catholic not just “evolution”.
Now address my questions the same way with true or false which there was a skipping over of.
Many of the OT stories are as impossible as the Genesis account to believe and can not be excepted as fact. True or false.
When Jesus, St. Paul and other NT writers reference Genesis and the people in the account it is entirely symbolic. True or false.
I am allowed by the church to believe that Genesis is a literal account. True or false.
Again, I assume you except every miracle of the NT by God that flies in the face of the laws of nature. Stepping back to the OT you become skeptical. Is not the same Jesus present in spirit as God in the OT?
Could you ever be shown evidence that disproves the miracles of Jesus?You may ponder some new revelation and contemplate it but your faith would keep you strong in Christ. I look at the “evidence” for evolution. I ponder it. Some of it is conjecture. Some of it is the fear of ostracism by peers in academia. The parts that have sensible leanings are adaptations and the basic studies of physics and biology.
Why it makes sense to you that Jesus would tell us the hardest and most complex sayings but leave out our “true” origins I will never know. Only you can answer that.
T
triumphguy
Guest
Ron L Conte is into predictions which don’t and will never come true.
Is Pope Benedict black? Did Hilary Clinton become president and change her stance on abortion?
We have enough to think about as Christians living day to day, rather than worrying about apparitions, and tribulations, and secret prophesies.
B
buffalo
Guest
These are the doctrines of the Church:
- God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
(Lateran IV; Vatican Council I) - Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
- Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
- Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
- Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
- The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
- The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
- Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
- Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
- After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
- Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
- The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
- We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
- All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
- The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
- St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
- The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
- Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
(Pius XII, Humani Generis) - Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.
- Status