you mean you take the two different creation stories literally, which is a different kind of truth. your final statement about science is cartoonish.No, it seems to me that while I back the Creation stories and therefore believe, from the geneological ages, that the Earth is about 6000 years old, some people believe in the Big Bang, which is not a Creation story, but an accident, a denial of God’s Creation.
so have fun with the 6k deal.283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements… for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.”121 (159, 341)
…
286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: “By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.”123
These people make me totally nuts. Mostly it’s Protestants of a fundamentalist bent, but there are some Catholics in the mix too. And they will tell you things like that men and dinosaurs shared caves together, and that God created all the strata of the earth and the fossils therein to somehow test our faith, and that he placed light waves in the sky 6000 years ago that just seem to be from millions and billions of years ago.So do you think that basically all science is a giant conspiracy against God?
I wouldn’t use terms like “old earth”, its a creationists’ phrase, and they’re famous for manipulating facts and twisting science.I support Old Earth. …,
I am a Computer Scientist myself. I believe Science is a useful tool for man, but I believe that, when given a Creation Story, why deny it with an accidental explosion?So do you think that basically all science is a giant conspiracy against God?
The Big Bang theory does not deny God’s creation, instead it seems to affirm there is an ultimate creator because something had to be the ultimate cause from which the Big Bang came from.No, it seems to me that while I back the Creation stories and therefore believe, from the geneological ages, that the Earth is about 6000 years old, some people believe in the Big Bang, which is not a Creation story, but an accident, a denial of God’s Creation.
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.
that’s about as bad (and by bad I mean totally inaccurate parody) a summary as I’ve ever seen, anywhere.I am a Computer Scientist myself. I believe Science is a useful tool for man, but I believe that, when given a Creation Story, why deny it with an accidental explosion?
The Big Bang would have resulted in some big pieces and some small pieces, like any explosion. Since this is not the case, but we have billions and billions of evenly sized particles (Stars), the Big Bang Theory is a poor theory in my opinion.
Who in the world claims it was an “accidental explosion”??? Like nothingness just got unstable one (non) day in the (non) heat and blew up into the universe??? That is just beyond caricature.I am a Computer Scientist myself. I believe Science is a useful tool for man, but I believe that, when given a Creation Story, why deny it with an accidental explosion?
Wow. There was not a bunch of stuff that exploded, so the stuff would be in big pieces and small pieces. The stuff itself came into existence at the BB, along with space and time. There is no other explosion you can point to and say that.The Big Bang would have resulted in some big pieces and some small pieces, like any explosion. Since this is not the case, but we have billions and billions of evenly sized particles (Stars), the Big Bang Theory is a poor theory in my opinion.
The CCC does not claim the Big Bang Theory is a reality.that’s about as bad (and by bad I mean totally inaccurate parody) a summary as I’ve ever seen, anywhere.
no one here is ridiculing your faith, have the courtesy not to misrepresent science.
why do you disagree with the CCC?
As far as Church teaching goes, She only states that the Earth, the Heavens and the rest were created by God. She doesn’t say how.So show us where the Church insists on 6 24-hour days of creation and a 6000 year old earth, and where the Church denies the Big Bang. Otherwise you’re just being more Catholic than the pope.
I am a Computer Scientist myself. I believe Science is a useful tool for man, but I believe that, when given a Creation Story, why deny it with an accidental explosion?
The Big Bang would have resulted in some big pieces and some small pieces, like any explosion. Since this is not the case, but we have billions and billions of evenly sized particles (Stars), the Big Bang Theory is a poor theory in my opinion.
Brilliant.Your understanding of the BB is flawed, I think. To use the phrase, “Hand waving” is to say that from the Giant Mass at the Beginning the Creation “came into existence”. From what I heard, it was scientifically explained as an explosion, because some scientists claim that the
Universe is constantly expanding, as from an origin.
I’m amazed that SOMEBODY actually doesn’t deny the logic of my argument.Brilliant.
How about the DNA evidence that puts the Y chromosome “Mitochondrial Eve” 200,000 years ago. One estimate has it 338 K years ago. Really tough to square with a young Earth. I look at A&E as allegory. The Catechism supports this as well. Emphasis mine
I think I addressed it. It’s allegory. Per the Catechism“formation of matter” and “expansion” are very vague, but then I don’t expect scientists to actually explain how the universe started.
From Adam on, their ages at the time of death and their ages at the time their progeny were born are written in Genesis. If the years are given from the beginning, what do you have to say about this dichotomy between Genesis and this “13 billion years” old universe?
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality** in symbolic language** when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.
You do realize (s)he was being sarcastic?I’m amazed that SOMEBODY actually doesn’t deny the logic of my argument.