E
edwest211
Guest
Very nice turn of phrase. You assume I’m a literal six day whatever. I did state I believe the dating methods are wrong.
- Status
T
Techno2000
Guest
Angels can carry things like animals.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Let me get this straight. God created the universe. He could not get the animals to the ark?
E
edwest211
Guest
Who said He couldn’t? Oh wait… implied, strongly implied.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Has anybody here argued otherwise? You seem to be throwing a red herring here.
B
buffalo
Guest
You seemed to assert that several times even when explaining to your son.
To clear it up - Could God have intervened to get the animals to the ark?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I do. I believe you claimed you were. But now you quote all this multi-million year stuff to support half an argument, and at the same time say you think it’s all wrong. I’m not surprised you don’t make it clear what you believe - you don’t appear really to know yourself.
R
Richca
Guest
Either that or Noah sailed around the world and picked them up
On a more serious note, I do believe the Flood was an historical event, Noah was a historical man, God caused the Flood and wiped out humanity except for Noah and his family and the story also involves the death of all the land animals of flesh except for the ones in the Ark. The story of the Flood can involve interpretative difficulties and it also involves deep theological mysteries. Was the Flood a local event according to the known ‘world’ at the time or worldwide? Unfortunately, we can’t ask the sacred writer personally to give us an interpretation of the Flood story or answers to various questions that may come to our mind. It’s a fascinating story of the Bible in which the various details are simply not easily interpreted according to my present knowledge. For example, did the sacred writer combine some historical fact with some non-historical details? I don’t know but I never assume some text of scripture is not literally true or historical unless there is a very good reason for believing otherwise.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Hi Techno. Obviously you believe something very different from buffalo, who thinks the animals all walked across land-bridges to get to the ark.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Fair enough. In this case there is indeed a very good reason for believing otherwise.
E
edwest211
Guest
Nice word play. There is good information out there but the dates are wrong. The dates are wrong. Evolution, as described here, needs millions of years to do something. If those millions of years went away, it doesn’t mean certain things did not happen, only that they occurred across a much, much shorter time frame. For others reading, an illustration of my position from Catholic Answers:
“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”
Opinions don’t matter. My opinion is not based on nothing or a label. If the Church can say one thing about the universe - infallibly - but has not come to a final conclusion about the age of the earth, then I am free to contest the dates. I have other reasons as well. But the dogma being repeated here is “my view or the highway.” Too bad. That’s not how debates work. “Long ages or you are a - insert label here.” It’s not that cut and dried.
What I believe is based on a lot of things. Self-labeling or being labeled does not appeal to me.
I can say that evolution, like a driverless car careening down the road, with no direction or intention - makes living things, but this careening car needs millions of years to make the right mistakes so living things can allegedly evolve. Another proposal is Intelligent Design - infallibly ordered and directed. A lot - a very lot - of time saved. Things are designed - they just don’t look designed. They are designed. Working that way as opposed to the “accident machine” that evolution supposedly is, leads to quicker, integrated results that work.
“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”
Opinions don’t matter. My opinion is not based on nothing or a label. If the Church can say one thing about the universe - infallibly - but has not come to a final conclusion about the age of the earth, then I am free to contest the dates. I have other reasons as well. But the dogma being repeated here is “my view or the highway.” Too bad. That’s not how debates work. “Long ages or you are a - insert label here.” It’s not that cut and dried.
What I believe is based on a lot of things. Self-labeling or being labeled does not appeal to me.
I can say that evolution, like a driverless car careening down the road, with no direction or intention - makes living things, but this careening car needs millions of years to make the right mistakes so living things can allegedly evolve. Another proposal is Intelligent Design - infallibly ordered and directed. A lot - a very lot - of time saved. Things are designed - they just don’t look designed. They are designed. Working that way as opposed to the “accident machine” that evolution supposedly is, leads to quicker, integrated results that work.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
That was one possibility. The necessary kinds could all have been living nearby.
G
Glark
Guest
My reading of it is this: The first day started when God created light (Genesis 1:3). This light is then followed by an “evening” and a “morning” (v.5), thus completing “one day”. So the first day begins with light and ends with light (“morning”)’ with night in between. I can’t see anything cryptic about this description, as it is perfectly consistent with how we understand one 24-hour day to be. Ditto for the description of the other five days mentioned.
G
Glark
Guest
I gave up studying evolution a long time ago. It’s too full of uncertainties, assumptions and untestable stories to be taken seriously as science. My name for it is “Biology for Space Cadets” … and it’s 100% useless, to boot.
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and LYING WONDERS”. 2Thess2:8-9
“And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and LYING WONDERS”. 2Thess2:8-9
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Speaking of Dr. Collin Patterson, he wrote this: “It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test” (from a letter written to Luther Sunderland, 1979).
Unfortunately for the credibility of Evolutionism, it is built on a mountain of such untestable stories - that “are not part of science.”
Unfortunately for the credibility of Evolutionism, it is built on a mountain of such untestable stories - that “are not part of science.”
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Sure. Could the story of Noah be an allegorical story meant to teach about faith and God’s covenant, and not intended to be an historical record?
G
Glark
Guest
I’m aware of the quote you provided, but it doesn’t explain why Gould said the lack of transitionals is “the trade secret of paleontology.” The fact that paleontology has a “trade secret” means it has something to hide.
Gould also wrote this:
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradulaism:
- Stasis…
- Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed”."
I might be biased, but these don’t sound like the words of a paleontologist who has a great deal of confidence in the transitionals offered by the fossil record.
And let’s not forget Gould’s mate, Niles Eldredge: “We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports (gradual change), all the while really knowing that it does not”.
And “it has been the paleontologists … who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality.”
The words of David M. Raup (Prof. of Geology, University of Chicago) aren’t very encouraging either:
“Also there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions (in the fossil record). In general, these have not been found - yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.”
Likewise, this from David Raup, (from an essay in Godfrey’s Scientists Confront Creationism):
“Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups … Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin’s time … We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and little has changed … and the basic situation is not much changed … We actuallty have fewer examples of smooth tranistions than we had in Darwin’s time, because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid”
… “If Darwin were writing today he would still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between the major groups of organisms.”
Dawkins seems to think Archaeopteryx is the one and only transitional between dinosaurs and birds: “To put up a single famous fossil like Archaeopteryx panders to a fallacy.” That being so, one fossil hardly represents a strong argument (hence Dawkins’ “panders to a fallacy” comment).
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Expressing a belief, regardless of how dogmatically, isn’t the same as making a statement of fact. The Church, for example, holds many dogmas of belief, but she doesn’t claim they are facts. I’ve yet to encounter a creationist claiming it is a fact that God created life in six literal days. Such people may well exist, but I haven’t come across one yet. However, I have encountered scientists who claim Darwinian evolution it is a fact.
I haven’t noticed any “deliberate, known untruths” that have been presented by evo-infidels on this site.
Supporting a Church teaching (a literal six-days interpretation of the creation account in Genesis) that is almost 2000 years old has the effect of turning folks away from the Faith? In that case, you’d better inform the Pope of this, so he can get that counter-productive teaching tossed out.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
The Covenant He made when He set the bow in the sky was never to flood again.
Over 70 cultures has an account of the flood.
- Status