The Bible teaches how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go. It is the Young Earth Creationests that say that the Earth is 10,000 (or less)
years old. Old Earth Creationests have no problem with a 4.5 billion year old Earth.
‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’. God created mankind in his image. How God created the earth and the rest of the universe and how it all evolved over time, I will leave to the scientists to figure out. Because the intelligence of those scientists, and their very being is also created by God. God gave us intelligence to think, ponder, and search for him. For me, advances in astronomy, genetics and other sciences has strengthened my faith in our amazing God!I suggest you begin with what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about Scripture. It is very enlightening: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm.
Does this mean that all of the descriptions of God in the Bible are 100% accurate? Does God have physical body parts (e.g., arms and legs), does he have feathered wings? Is Jesus a lamb?
The Scriptures, especially the Old Testament, represent many different literary genres. Different genres require different methods of interpretation.
yes, but remember there is literal interpretation and a literal in the sense of that time and place. inerrant does not mean perfect.
The fact is that if “creationists” had argued in harmony with the Bible instead of insisting that creation was only 6 literal days long only about 6,000 years ago…then perhaps the true creation account could be taught or at least stated in public learning. this is another reason why am still a semi-creationist. one believes that the dinosaurs or their descendents lived with man until the age of job before father Abraham and maybe ( this would be s’well ) until at least 178ish years ago. lions have enemies and so, do chickens geez;
Considering the mounds on mounds of evidence suggesting a very old universe, lack of dinosaurs for the last 65 million years of the fossil record, and the obvious problems of carnivores surviving without being able to kill prey (or certain wasps even being able to reproduce) id say the only logical case for the bible would be to interprate it rather than read it literally.
creationism is a belief that has been around for quite a while; whereas, most intelligent design theories are 70 or less years new. most creationism theories at the core reside on God as creator, age of the earth and sometimes all of creation less than a few hundred million years to 6,000 and some years old, at at least a few biblical tales literally in the “modern” sense, and attempts to find evidence of “young-ness”. while most intelligent design theories take a christian atheist or deist view and has at the least; to seek evidence of design in nature, no undirected processes, DNA research, life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the “Cambrian” explosion, and is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.
How did Catholics, in your view, possibly get along for nearly 2000 years without ID? ID is a very recent theory, originating in the 80s and 90s, I believe.Oh, come on!
Not every person who subscribes to the Creation theory thinks the universe is 6000 years old.
How you be Catholic and not believe in Intelligent Design?
true but early man, history, legends, and the bible have other names for God’s dinos.The word dinosaur derives from two greek words (deinos) “terrible, powerful, wondrous” + (sauros) “lizard”. So what would a person prior to 1841 call a giant, powerful, wondrous lizard if they saw one? The answer to that question is really quite obvious especially if we look back into the historical record for evidence of giant, powerful, wondrous lizards. just a few of them are; lizard, monster, creature, dragon, tannin, Nerluc, etc …
finnally here is just a fraction of correct dinosaur depictions centuries before the "modern" dinosaur discoveries Native American Petroglyphs. Cave and cliff drawings in Utah and Colorado crudely depict certain dinosaur species (dated from 400 A.D. to 1300 A.D.).I clicked on your links. Not credible. Henry Morris is a fundamentalist “Young Earth Creationist” in the extreme. His book “Scientific Creationism” is a misnomer. “Creationism” yes. “Scientific” no. He does not have the credentials to make the assertions that he makes.
just showed 3 quarters of links for cool pictures and ancient and early history dinosaur name sources. but, not for content or accuracy. the other link ( s8int.com ) is mostly historically and symbolically accurete and also is not a creationist webisite but a semi-christian reseasrch one.the childcraft one was using for a simplistic child perspective. ( like innocence, questioning )
No, it’s not recent. Thomas Aquinas:
No, it’s not recent. Thomas Aquinas:
"Objection 1: It would seem that the world is not governed by anyone. For it belongs to those things to be governed, which move or work for an end. But natural things which make up the greater part of the world do not move, or work for an end; for they have no knowledge of their end. Therefore the world is not governed.
"Objection 2: Further, those things are governed which are moved towards an object. But the world does not appear to be so directed, but has stability in itself. Therefore it is not governed.
"Objection 3: Further, what is necessarily determined by its own nature to one particular thing, does not require any external principle of government. But the principal parts of the world are by a certain necessity determined to something particular in their actions and movements. Therefore the world does not require to be governed.
"On the contrary, It is written (Wis. 14:3): “But Thou, O Father, governest all things by Thy Providence.” And Boethius says (De Consol. iii): “Thou Who governest this universe by mandate eternal.”
"I answer that, Certain ancient philosophers denied the government of the world, saying that all things happened by chance. But such an opinion can be refuted as impossible in two ways. First, by observation of things themselves: for we observe that in nature things happen always or nearly always for the best; which would not be the case unless some sort of providence directed nature towards good as an end; which is to govern. Wherefore the unfailing order we observe in things is a sign of their being governed; for instance, if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order, as Tullius says (De Nat. Deorum ii), quoting Aristotle *Cleanthes]. Secondly, this is clear from a consideration of Divine goodness, which, as we have said above (Q[44], A[4]; Q[65], A[2]), was the cause of the production of things in existence. For as “it belongs to the best to produce the best,” it is not fitting that the supreme goodness of God should produce things without giving them their perfection. Now a thing’s ultimate perfection consists in the attainment of its end. Therefore it belongs to the Divine goodness, as it brought things into existence, so to lead them to their end: and this is to govern.
"Reply to Objection 1: A thing moves or operates for an end in two ways. First, in moving itself to the end, as man and other rational creatures; and such things have knowledge of their end, and of the means to the end. Secondly, a thing is said to move or operate for an end, as though moved or directed by another thereto, as an arrow directed to the target by the archer, who knows the end unknown to the arrow. Wherefore, as the movement of the arrow towards a definite end shows clearly that it is directed by someone with knowledge, so the unvarying course of natural things which are without knowledge, shows clearly that the world is governed by some reason.
"Reply to Objection 2: In all created things there is a stable element, at least primary matter; and something belonging to movement, if under movement we include operation. And things need governing as to both: because even that which is stable, since it is created from nothing, would return to nothingness were it not sustained by a governing hand, as will be explained later (Q[104], A[1]).
“Reply to Objection 3: The natural necessity inherent in those beings which are determined to a particular thing, is a kind of impression from God, directing them to their end; as the necessity whereby an arrow is moved so as to fly towards a certain point is an impression from the archer, and not from the arrow. But there is a difference, inasmuch as that which creatures receive from God is their nature, while that which natural things receive from man in addition to their nature is somewhat violent. Wherefore, as the violent necessity in the movement of the arrow shows the action of the archer, so the natural necessity of things shows the government of Divine Providence.”
thank You. Is beautifull.
God bless
Peace,
Ed