G
Glark
Guest
None.
This is not releveant to the thread. The PSC doesn’t concern itself with the interpretation of Scripture.
Last edited:
- Status
G
Glark
Guest
I agree, but I think you’ve missed my point.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
You probably missed mine, I am a scientist.
G
Gorgias
Guest
So, we’re allowed ‘mystery’, but only literal mystery, and never allegorical mystery? Uhh… whatever.
The funny thing is that you focus on these words, “there was evening, and morning, the Nth day”, without recognizing the cadence found in the narrative. It’s a poem. And we all know poems are always historically, scientifically literal, right?
No… according to me, the reason for the seven “day” creation was to give voice to the notion of Sabbath rest… which was enshrined in covenant with the Mosaic law.
You. You’re the one insisting on literalistic interpretation, remember?
A history book that describes literal events must be in accord with science… or else it’s a lie, no? You can’t have it both ways: if it’s literal, and historical, it must fit with scientific reality.
Fine. Just one example, to demonstrate to you that you’re making claims that you can’t support:
In Exodus 14, we see a reference to the “evening watch” (or the “watch before the dawn”). Yes, even in the Pentateuch, we see that the ancients had divisions of time less than a ‘day’.
There’s an ‘ex cathedra teaching’ that creation was six 24-hour days? OK, I’m game. Please cite it.
G
Glark
Guest
What do you scientist in?
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Retired now, analytical chemistry, chemistry of pollution, geology.
My fav soft rock man is a very devout catholic. Dinosaurs and devotions. Great name for a book!
My fav soft rock man is a very devout catholic. Dinosaurs and devotions. Great name for a book!
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Try it some time. You might be surprised…
G
Gorgias
Guest
So… creation (including creation of living creatures) took six 24-hour days, but the earth could be billions of years old while living creatures only 5778 years old? Umm… contradict yourself much?
E
ericc
Guest
That’s fine if you want to have some fun. But that hardly discredit my explanation.
G
Glark
Guest
I have asked a few preists:
My late uncle was a priest - clueless.
The parish priest in my home town - clueless.
The parish priest I have now - clueless.
For the majority of priests, I would imagine evolution and how to fit it
into Scripture are the furtherest things from their minds. Not a fault, just a fact.
The odd Jesuit might think about it.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
I have a soft rock in my head.
G
Glark
Guest
How have I contradicted myself?So… creation (including creation of living creatures) took six 24-hour days, but the earth could be billions of years old while living creatures only 5778 years old? Umm… contradict yourself much?
Last edited:
D
dixieagle
Guest
It never fails to amaze me how some Catholics - despite pronouncements from multiple Popes that evolution is not incompatible with our faith - act like fundamentalists on this subject.
Our son-in-law is one of the most devout Catholics I know, and a highly respected evolutionary biologist with tenure at a major university. His opinion on the subject is thus: “Evolution is God’s modus operandi.” I agree completely, and don’t bother myself for a minute wondering about the complexities. As long as I know God is the ultimate Creator, I don’t need anything else.
Our son-in-law is one of the most devout Catholics I know, and a highly respected evolutionary biologist with tenure at a major university. His opinion on the subject is thus: “Evolution is God’s modus operandi.” I agree completely, and don’t bother myself for a minute wondering about the complexities. As long as I know God is the ultimate Creator, I don’t need anything else.
R
Rau
Guest
Surely there is a message in that? The truths of scripture neither lie in gardens or snakes or the sciences, nor are they contradicted by them.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
The bible says the creation of the universe and the planet earth in particular took no longer than 7 days. If one takes genesis literally this is estimated to have occurred 6,000–12,000 years ago
I don’t see how you can remain consistent with your train of thought if you are willing to accept an old universe. Unless of course you view creation as an allegory. In which case i still don’t understand why you reject evolution as a possibility. Forget the science, explain to me why the mere possibility of it would conflict with the faith?
I don’t see how you can remain consistent with your train of thought if you are willing to accept an old universe. Unless of course you view creation as an allegory. In which case i still don’t understand why you reject evolution as a possibility. Forget the science, explain to me why the mere possibility of it would conflict with the faith?
R
Rau
Guest
I can believe that. What’s clear is that you don’t at all find fault with the scientific process or tools - you are largely blind to those - rather you (unlike Christ’s Church) feel bound to take a literal interpretation of various Bible texts, and will not be influenced by anything not in accordance with that literal interpretation.
Consistency is not of concern to Glark. His reasoning starts and ends with the belief that the relevant Bible texts are to be understood as providing literal, historical temporal descriptions of actions God took to directly create life on earth. Mind you I have read on a Creationists’ website that genesis requires the entire universe to be created in the quite recent past too. So his position is not as extreme as some.
R
rossum
Guest
Not always. He calls part of His creation “not good” at Genesis 2:18.
Put death in the “not good” part of creation if you wish.
And eating a plant seed causes it to die. You yourself are agreeing here that death was present before the fall.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Biology. Have a look at parthenogenic lizards.
Happens all the time, see here for just one example.
You are confusing Substance and Accident. In Thomist terms, science only deals with Accident, not Substance.
Science shown that a man in a death-like coma can revive after three days. The blood and water from Jesus’ side shows that the spear missed his heart and hit the Thoracic lymph duct, which sits above the heart. Given that the spear entered at an upwards angle then that is perfectly possible scientifically.
Are you saying that the world God created is false and misleading? Is your God a version of Loki/Trickster, who made the world to deceive people? The correct interpretation of scripture must match with the correct interpretation of the world. See the Galileo affair for a good example of this.
Your YEC interpretation of scripture is wrong because it does not match with the work of God. The YEC God is a deceiver; the Christian God is not.
rossum
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Rossum i anm going to pick you up on the reason blood and water came from the side of Jesus.
Its likely He was in hypovolemic shock, firstly from the whipping. It would have been brutal, given the instrument used. Metal balls and bone studded leather thongs. 39 lashes was the norm, and led to blood loss, flesh being stripped off, bowels being exposed. Jesus likely was given more then 39 lashes. He was also beaten up by the guards and that crown of thorns, marine thorns, would have pierced his skull in places.
Hypovolmic shock leads to a build up of fluid callef pericardial effusion , around the heart and pleural effusion around the lungs. So when Jesus was pierced both the lungs and heart would have been pierced, leading to blood and water from the wound.
This has been studied extensively.
Lets make no mistake. Jesus was dead, He had given up His life.
(John 19:34).
Its likely He was in hypovolemic shock, firstly from the whipping. It would have been brutal, given the instrument used. Metal balls and bone studded leather thongs. 39 lashes was the norm, and led to blood loss, flesh being stripped off, bowels being exposed. Jesus likely was given more then 39 lashes. He was also beaten up by the guards and that crown of thorns, marine thorns, would have pierced his skull in places.
Hypovolmic shock leads to a build up of fluid callef pericardial effusion , around the heart and pleural effusion around the lungs. So when Jesus was pierced both the lungs and heart would have been pierced, leading to blood and water from the wound.
This has been studied extensively.
Lets make no mistake. Jesus was dead, He had given up His life.
(John 19:34).
Last edited:
- Status