Do Christians really believe the earth is really 6,000 yrs old?

[Orogeny]

Tim let me clarify what I was posting as perhaps I misunderstood your original point. The reason I brought Ventastega into the discussion was due to the fact that Ventastega was viewed as the “midpoint” between the fish Tiktaalik and land animals.

No, the reason you brought it in was that you found it on a YEC site when you googled Tiktaalik. You should have just read my links and responded to them.
Oh, and by the way, when you copy and paste from another site, you should credit that site.

The hypothesis being that sea creatures evolved into land creatures. Ventastega although a later species than Tiktaalik was also more primitive. So it appears the authors of the Tiktaalik find are proposing that Tiktaalik actually took a step backwards in evolution which wouldn’t make sense.

You haven’t read anything but a YEC site, have you. Try responding to what I posted about transitional forms as well as Tiktaalik without quoting from Answers in Genesis.

Following that framework one could just as easily say that alligators, crocodiles, etc. represent transitional species, since they have features that allow them to live in and out of the water. It’s almost like saying that a creature that can fly but also has land habits originated from a land-based species. Then identifying any species that has both attributes as being a transitory species. So this is crude but you start with a duck that can walk and fly and say that it is a transitory species of a shark to an eagle.

You need to cite AIG for that.

OK, then perhaps you could give us your definition of a transitional species. Is it possible to even have a transitional species in your opinion?

The only reason I mentioned Menton was because he had an interesting explanation that stemmed from purely a creationist point of view that I found interesting.

Of course he does and of course you do. You are both YECs. There is no other way to explain it other than bu using “an interesting explanation that stemmed from purely a creationist point of view”.

Peace

Tim

 

[tobinatorstark]

I don’t see a link should I create one?

Obviously you didn’t look in the Sacred Scripture section or don’t want to check

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=306083

 

[survive]

I don’t see why it’s so important; after all, there was no such thing as a day in the earth-perspective sense the first day, for the hardline young-earthers, so sticking to the 7-earth-day story won’t save the literal interpretation completely no matter what. Anyway, if it’s all literal, when Jesus said, “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees,” was that cube or powdered dry yeast, and is it in the stores now?
As to the metaphor-only hardliners, doesn’t it seem like something God would do, to use word for a reason? Sure, they weren’t all earth days, but isn’t it consistent that the numbers would mean something specific? I chose a theory, which I posted earlier, that fits the science astonishingly well, and the principle that the numbers wouldn’t be in the text for no reason at all.
One is renewal and beginning. Two is organization. Three is proliferation. Four is clarification. Five is growth and specialization. Six is man. Seven is completeness.

 

[NDfan]

No, the reason you brought it in was that you found it on a YEC site when you googled Tiktaalik. You should have just read my links and responded to them.
Oh, and by the way, when you copy and paste from another site, you should credit that site.You haven’t read anything but a YEC site, have you. Try responding to what I posted about transitional forms as well as Tiktaalik without quoting from Answers in Genesis.You need to cite AIG for that.

Tim what is a YEC site and Answers in Genesis?? If I quote from a site I can promise I will cite it.

OK, then perhaps you could give us your definition of a transitional species. Is it possible to even have a transitional species in your opinion?Of course he does and of course you do. You are both YECs. There is no other way to explain it other than bu using “an interesting explanation that stemmed from purely a creationist point of view”.

Peace

Tim

Again what is YEC.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Doesn’t your church allow one to believe in a young earth? If it does, why do you reject creationists so strongly?

Because they are - to use the technical term - idiots, without a leg to stand on Nonsense is nonsense, allowed or not.​

 

[Orogeny]

Tim what is a YEC site and Answers in Genesis?? If I quote from a site I can promise I will cite it.

YEC = young earth creationist.

Are you saying you have not visited Answers in Genesis? Really? Are you sure?

Peace

Tim

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Why is this still an issue? The Bible is not intended to be a science book; its purpose is to spread the word of God. Science likewise cannot ascertain whether God exists or not. Think a little harder: can evolution work without matter to work itself on? If not, where did matter come from?

Exactly what I wondered on discovering this was still being debated. http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/ruinkai/rolleyea.gif​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Tim what is a YEC site and Answers in Genesis?? If I quote from a site I can promise I will cite it.

Again what is YEC.

YEC = Young Earth Creation/ist/ism ​

 

[Orogeny]

NDFan:

Originally Posted by NDfan

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Tim what is a YEC site and Answers in Genesis?? If I quote from a site I can promise I will cite it.

Again what is YEC.

YEC = Young Earth Creation/ist/ism ​

I’ll be a bit surprised if NDFan comes back to this discussion. If he does, I’m interested in why he didn’t credit the source of some of his posting even though he claimes that he would.

Peace

Tim

 

[santodomingo]

Doesn’t your church allow one to believe in a young earth? If it does, why do you reject creationists so strongly?

I don´t think it´s a question of what we´re “allowed to believe”. Rather, we should look to use our God-given intelligence and figure out what is most rational.

The CC also “allows” us to believe the moon is made of green cheese. You won´t find any about that in the Cathechism or encyclicals of past centuries, simply because it is not a matter of faith.

Let´s be reasonable. Science informs us about the natural aspect of the world, and religion informs about the supernatural.

 

[cthulhubryan]

The Earth is 6,000 years old.

The Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon

God has pre-determined whom he will save and nothing you do can make you selected if you are not or unselected if you are.

These are a few of the wonderful things to come from the Calvinist tradition including the date from James Ussher.

 

[M_Castoreno]

I don’t think it matters how old the earth is I think it matters do you believe in Christ. If you do all this other is nonsense. It makes for interesting topics but I don’t need science to tell me that miracles happen. I don’t need to know how global the flood was to know that when I accepted Christ into my life my world changed for the better. But we always have to remember that there are some people Like Thomas, who want hard cold facts. They can’t believe with out evidence. We as Christians should be that evidence.

 

[jastor]

***Do Christians really believe the earth is 6,000 yrs old? ***

Do you really think God has a 24 hour clock?


Who’s to say that our time is parallel?

I am pretty confident that we share a huge time difference.

 

[Contarini]

Doesn’t your church allow one to believe in a young earth? If it does, why do you reject creationists so strongly?

One can reject what seem to be illogical views without being told by one’s Church to do so. Given that the Catholic Church doesn’t enforce a young earth view, naturally most Catholics find young-earth theories unreasonable and harmful to the faith (in the sense that when you saddle Christianity with a lot of unnecessary baggage, you harm it). The fact is that no one would believe in a young earth if not compelled to do so by their religious views.

However, there are Catholics who believe in a young earth, and from the Catholic Church’s point of view they are not violating any Church teaching by doing so–they are Catholics in perfectly good standing.

Edwin

 

[cthulhubryan]

***Do Christians really believe the earth is 6,000 yrs old? ***

Do you really think God has a 24 hour clock?


Who’s to say that our time is parallel?

I am pretty confident that we share a huge time difference.

A child asks God: Is it true that a million dollars is but a penny to you?
God: Yes my child
Child: So, is a million years to you just a second?
God: Of course my child
Child: God, can I have a penny.
God: Of course, in just a second.

 

[nebula]

No. I believe in God, I believe that Christ is my mediator and yet I accept the theory of evolution as the best scietnific explanation of the rise of our physical persons and the big bang theory as describing the beginnings of the universe. I do not believe in a God that wants to toy with us and gives us false information.

 

[vera_dicere]

Time means nothing to God, He sits outside of time. For Him billions and billions of our little human years are just the blink of a big eye. I see no contradiction between being a devoute Catholic and beleiving in the Earth being really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really old.

I think it was Gallilo who said “I don’t beleive the same God who endowed us with sense and reason intended us to forgo their use”.