A
- Status
S
ShynSup
Guest
I ve crossed so many atheists in my life and your attitude is quite similar.
If it was all refuted by science its clear that ealy earth creationists will no exist anymore.
Also, saint agustine belived in a 6000year old earth, and so I do.
S
ShynSup
Guest
Ahhaha this guy.Maybe I’m not as calm as Jimmy Akin when he explained the biblical unicorn
(Rhinoceros), but there is a very special group of Christians out there who will
ripely damn anybody who does not adhere to Creationist models such as this,
“man and dinosaurs together as proven in Job”, which will lead some rational
people to leave Christianity and become atheists. ALSO, also, there’s people
out there who NEED the Bible to say certain things, and will hold on to faulty
applications of texts such as Job, but when reality comes crashing in, they’ll
realize that the Bible isn’t 100% literal, maybe science has something. TWO
possible things happen then: 1) Christians will go on in the faith undisturbed
by facts and scholarly thoughts, or 2) will forsake religion in favor of science.
You speak of “LOVE”, well love sometimes has to be harsh. At least
I’m not afraid to say how foolish it is to use the Book of Job to prove
how Man and Dinosaurs lived together, for if I care at all, I will speak
out against such misapplications of Scripture.
And the aggression, Jesus was rather harsh, yelling at people, calling them
Sons of the Devil, and so forth, so don’t give me that “Oh Jesus is so NICE
and you’re NOT!” Sh’Tuff.
uh, better English por fayvwa?
Im on ipad, thats why sometimes i miss the spacebar.
Sorry if its that hard for your comprehension.
Actually how old are you? You seem rather young.
S
ShynSup
Guest
We are all married by God himself.
But anyways, what I was referring is that there will be no marriage in heaven. Not Eden.
And also, when I meant that Adam and Eve werent married I actually meant the sacrament, if not, we can assume they were married from the moment of eve creation.
S
ShynSup
Guest
We will not me married in heaven, its indissoluble before death.Are you insinuating, then, that Jesus was in error when he specifically used Genesis 2 to defend the indissolubility marriage between one man and one woman?
R
Ron_in_minden
Guest
It does seem my original post got side tracked, however I am finding the other comments most interesting and enlightening.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
My attitude seems similar to atheists to you because you are a Creationist. This is exact-
ly what I was talking about before, that ostracizing element to Creationism, comparing me
to atheists because my rational mind contradicts your views of the natural world. That, by
the way, is also you making ad hominem, not to mention guilt by association, two logical
fallacies in one sentence (though I could “hasty generalization”).
NOW PLEASE WORK ON YOUR GRAMMAR! From what I can read, your claim is that
young earth creationists still exist, therefore science is wrong. This is another logical fal-
lacy, Argument from Incredulity, which claims that one’s personal belief against a propo-
sition is evidence for it being incorrect. That’s not how it works.
There are people to this very day who still argue that the Earth is flat. Is the Earth
truly flat, not spherical, against all observations, simply by virtue of a people’s dis-
belief of what science has presented?
Saint Augustine had no science to back up his thoughts and did not make it doctrine
to believe in the 6000 year old earth deal. He also appraised non-believers for being a-
ble to understand so much about the natural world while at them same time scorning
Christians for trying to explain it using Scripture, calling it a shame.
S
ShynSup
Guest
“They [pagans] are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of [man as] many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed” (ibid., 12:10).
“Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37).”
So yea, if ther was truly evidence, the church would already said that early creationism is a hersey.
To conclude you are calling the church, ignorant and incredule as the people who still believe the earth is flat.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Why should the church say anything? Should the church be the authority on physics or biology or gold mining?“They [pagans] are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of [man as] many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed” (ibid., 12:10).
“Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37).”
So yea, if ther was truly evidence, the church would already said that early creationism is a hersey.
To conclude you are calling the church, ignorant and incredule as the people who still believe the earth is flat.
This is not the church 's issue. They are a spiritual and theological institution. Neither of the creation theories is against the Christian theology so they have no reason to say one way or the other. Even if it was proven completely by science (which I’d say it is).
It seems by the couple threads i have interacted with you on, you are highly influenced by Protestant fundamentalism. Fundamentalist HAVE to believe in a young earth. I would just urge you to focus more on Catholic sources.
As for Augustine, as the good deacon mentioned you are reading him and inferring far too much.
Augustine most likely believed the sun went around the earth, but Of course with today’s scientific knowledge he would not hold such a position. You can’t judge science based entirely on someone from the 4th century.
Now if the universe is so young, why are their galaxies and stats we can see with our telescopes that are billions of light years away.
1 billion light years means the light we are seeing today left that star 1 billion years ago. It’s been traveling at the speed of light for 1 billion years before we see it.
How do you explain the erosion of something like the Grand Canyon?
How do you explain the uplift if the mountains occurring in 6000 years?
There is so much science to support an old earth. Young earth creationism is a religious belief not a scientific one:
Check this out:
catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis
S
ShynSup
Guest
The church does care. As it cares for evolution and the big bang and all those theories. It hasn’t taken a side right now, because there is no enough evidence to deny or complete accept one.
Augustine is basing his believes in the Scripture and so I am.
Thats what I meant to you being like an atheist. There is no scientific proving God either.
Do you know faith? Does the word ring any bells?
And no, I am not a protestant. Nor I am influenced by them in the slightest
.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
The church cares about exploring God’s creation. Last I checked the Bible was not a science book. There is no mention of the Big Bang.
Science is something that supports faith. We don’t need faith to explore our world. We need our brains.
There are volumes written against your position. Only a few wacko fundamentalist hold it.
But if you want faith instead of science. Have at it.
S
ShynSup
Guest
No there is no mention of the big bang in the bible, but they are those who use the big bang theory to prove God does no exist, and others that say God used the big bang to create the universe, the same as if he used evolution to create life, or its diversity.
We all know the scriptures reject such ways of thinking, and so does the church.
Actually on these matters, science is founded on faith.
Anyways, if you like science and the world consent so much, you should start turning an atheist and believe in evolution, they say they got evidence, in fact, 55% of scientists believe in evolution, so yea.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
I believe in all the Catholic Church teaches sir! I believe in God and it no way has anything to do with the fact that I believe in both the Big Bang and evolution.
There is no reason to divorce God from evolution. And far more than 55% of scientists believe in evolutionary theory. Where do you get this junk?
Did you know it was a CATHOLIC priest that developed the Big Bang Theory! And that it is the single greatest cosmological argument for Gods existence!
Fundamentalist like you the reject such science because it means the earth is much older.
S
ShynSup
Guest
Yes I knew that.
About the %, Gallup Poll 1997.
W8 what? You believe in the big bang and evolution?
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Nice current 16 year old stats. Also how do they define evolution in the poll? I’d buy that number who believe in evolution without God but I’m guessing another 40% believe in theistic evolution.
Yes I 100% believe in the Big Bang and Evolution. They both support my faith.
When I was fundamentalist young earth creationist, I was fed so much junk science and bll crp that it made me sick. It made me nearly walk away from the faith because it was so ludicrous.
Thank God he pointed me to the truth in the works of so many intelligent design and theistic evolution theory holders who are not just compatible with ground breaking science but present answers to the gaps scientist have when they remove God.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
“An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that “99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution”. A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.”
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
S
ShynSup
Guest
You haven’t be taught that wikipedia is not a good site? At least go for the real source…
Anyways, thanks for the update.
Regarding your beliefs, you are in total conflict with the bible.
Don’t you think that if God used the big bang to create the universe there would be such explanation or at least a mention in the bible?
God created Man, and from his rib Woman. Man did not evolved from a common ancestor.
I can actually believe I found a catholic that believes in evolution. Big bang is more discussable, but evolution!
Evolution states birds evolved from land animals, Genesis clearly states that first birds were created, then land animals… Man you need to research and redefine your beliefs quite drastically, evolution is a lie made up by satan to destroy the church and the catholic faith. You are just denying the bible.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
You must live a very sheltered life if you have never met a Catholic who holds a theory of evolution. I imagine you may meet a few more on this thread.
This is my position, exactly as POPE PIUS XII stated it:
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Wikipedia is a perfectly acceptable site. Far better than any sites you have referenced (zero).
Here’s another link.
There are hundreds online. Look them up.
“However, sufficient evidence exists in support of evolution to convince 99.85% of America’s earth and life scientists that the theory is valid. Evolution is the key unifying theory that unifies many different branches of science, from cosmology to biology.”
religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm
G
Gorgias
Guest
I think you might consider reading the context of that quote from Augustine; you’re misconstruing what he’s saying, I’m afraid.
In the first sentences of the chapter you’ve quoted, Augustine says, “Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been.” In other words, Augustine isn’t arguing against a particular theory of the beginning of human life, but rather, he’s arguing against those who argued that creation and human life itself had no beginning – it just always existed! (That, by the way, was one of the theories of Greek philosophy – that the world just always was; if I recall correctly, Aquinas gave Aristotle a pass on that notion, by virtue of the fact that we could not know, through observation alone, that this wasn’t true (that is, that the only way we know about creation is through divine revelation).
Let’s look, then, at what Augustine says to prove his point that creation and human life were at some point created:
- “they say what they think, not what they know.” In other words, the particular claims that Augustine is truly railing against here are actually claims that aren’t based on observation or ‘science’, but rather, are simply stories that philosophers dreamt up.
- “They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years.” In other words, there are some people who are misled by fictional stories about ‘history’, such as the ‘histories’ given by the ancient Egyptians.
- The Egyptians’ history totals 13,000 years.
- The Greeks’ history totals 2018 years.
- Even if one wishes to claim that the Egyptian ‘year’ was only four months, the Egyptian claim fails, since 2018*3= 6054 years is still way short of the Egyptian claim of 13000.
This is, frankly, a stunning argument. If Augustine were trying to prove anything, then clearly, he would be able to compare the longevity of these empires – or, at the very least, of the Macedonians and Persians – against the corresponding lengths mentioned in the Bible! Yet… Augustine doesn’t do this. Why could that be? Clearly, it would be a stronger case to demonstrate that the Egyptian claims about Macedonians and Persians are explicitly refuted by the Scriptural claims about these empires! But, why does Augustine defer?
I would offer that Augustine isn’t trying to make an exact case about the number of years that humans have existed: rather, he’s simply demonstrating that the orders of magnitude of claims of an eternal (or even great) span of years for the existence of humanity are skewed, when based only on fictional ‘historical’ accounts.
Is Augustine really saying that the Scriptures are reliable, as historical and scientific data? If we want to believe that Augustine takes Scripture at face value, in terms of scientific value, then we have to suggest that he was schizophrenic, since, as (name removed by moderator) pointed out, Augustine asserted that Scripture does not necessarily give a scientific account of the origin of the universe. In that same chapter that (name removed by moderator) quoted, Augustine explains why it’s a bad thing to take Scripture literally when science already knows that the literal interpretation is flawed: “If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.”
On one hand, you claim that Augustine is making an assertion for a 6000-year-old earth; on the other, we see both that Augustine allows for science to make scientific claims over against the Bible and that he wishes that those who do not know science (and do not understand Scripture) would stop making Christian belief look bad. Take your pick: I think I’ll stand with Augustine’s lack of discomfort at letting science do science and Scriptures do theology.
- Status