Was the world created in 7 days?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 7777777Now
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TylerAlex said:
precisely… but my response was to Tim’s assertion where he stated that because the concept of heaven and resurrection were supernatural, they were outside of science and cannot be debated.
Click to expand...
You are almost right. The concepts of heaven and the resurrection are supernatural and not explainable by science. They are miracles. I never suggested that they can’t be debated, only that they cannot be explained by science. Do you suggest that the resurrection, heaven and the soul can be explained by science?
The argument made seems like a adolescent, playground game of “you cannot get me inside this square because”… (fill in the blanks with your own example).
Click to expand...
Then you don’t understand science to begin with.
If you want to take a scientific approach to refuting God’s word about Genesis, then take the same litmus test to it ALL.
Click to expand...
OK, using your litmus test, ALL Scriptures must be taken literally. So, how long did Christ remain on earth after the resurrection?

Peace

Tim
 
LJN21 said:
There is no observable data that Macro evolution has ever happened. That is simple conjecture made up by those that want to push God out of the question. School teach macro evolution as Fact and squelch any attempt to provide any alternate theory.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. There is plenty of evidence for macroevolution. You have been deceived!

Peace

Tim
 
VociMike said:
Do you believe there is observable data indicating that the universe, and the earth, are billions of years old?
Click to expand...
General speaking I think its more plausible than the world is 15,000 years old.

At the same time I wonder IF God did create everything in a literal week what would stuff have dated as that same day?

There is so much that if people would look through at through the lens of creation I feel like we could learn.

Every now and then someone will publish pictures of stars being “born” by the time those pictures get to us its like a time machine back 100’s of light years (another reason I’m inclined to think the earth is billions of years old) we could be viewing creation.
 
Orogeny said:
That is incorrect. There is plenty of evidence for macroevolution. You have been deceived!

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Tim,
Do you believe that rather than God creating a Man (Adam), out of the dust - that we evolved over billions of years from a single cell life form?
 
SemperFidelis said:
Well how can you have faith in a Church that rejects it’s traditions and leads all of its followers into false teaching? Evolution will never be proved, it will always be only a theory. Why would the Church get behind a science that not only contradicts sacred scripture and previous teachings but is still ONLY A THEORY? IT IS NOT PROVEN. The teachings on original sin and a literal interpretation of Genesis are infallible teachings that supposedly cannot be reversed, but we shall see. So far this will not keep me out of the Catholic Church as I believe everything else she teaches, but if they change it, I’m gone.
Click to expand...
Before you leave your search, Check our B16’s book Jesus of Nazareth. In the introduction B 16 addresses the different methods of exegeses of scripture and shows the dangers some theologeons have presented in thier methods. It could be a jumping point to a deeper understanding on how the Church looks at interpertation. Myself I had to leave the debate of Genesis behind for a while, concentrate on Jesus, his life, message and come back to Genesis. JP II talks in Theology of the Body about Geneisis, the fall etc. have been real eye opening. For me this debate over 6 days of creation, evolution, creationism, etc. seems to be more of a distraction then faith confirming and those that oppose the truth glee with joy over that.

I trust the magisterium, for I trust the Holy Spirit is going keep it focused on the truth of Christ.

I didn’t have that confidence when I was ouside of the Church.
 
Uh this thing called tradition…you know the early Church fathers, the Magisterium up until recently."
Click to expand...
The magesterium is still in place. You don’t seem to think so. Can you give some references to back up your assertion?
Does the theory of gravity or relativity contradict any doctrine of the Church? No it doesn’t so it is umimportant. Does evolution contradict the doctrine of original sin (an infallible doctrine btw)? You bet.
Click to expand...
Actually, gravitational theory does relate to the motion of planets around the sun. Since the Church in the past taught that the sun orbits the earth, I think that gravitational theory does contradict a past teaching of the Church.

As far as relativity goes, that plays a huge role in determining the age of the universe. How does a very old universe fit into the 6 day creation story of Genesis?
Are any of these documents infallible? No, with the exception of Pius XII’s humani generis, and this goes along way of accepting evolution and in facts warns about it.
Click to expand...
Of course not. I didn’t claim that they are. They are part of the magesterium of the Church, though.

I find it interesting that one of the documents I referred you to that you question based on an infallibility argument you turn right around and use to support your position. Nice try.
The teaching authority of the Church hasn’t declared one way or the other on evolution so I dont’ have to accept anything. Whatever happened to today’s Magisterium following the dogma of accepting the teaching authority of the past.
Click to expand...
If a teaching was not infallible, the teaching can be modified.
Let me say this one more time nice and slow. THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AND THE MAGISTERIUM UP UNTIL VATICAN II UNANIMISOULY INTERPRETED GENESIS LITERALLY. Apparently we can just throw that fact out the window in today’s world. I chalk this up to modernism.
Click to expand...
Then let me reply very slowly so that you can answer this: The early church fathers and the magesterium almost unanimously accepted that the sun orbits the earth. Should we still hold to that teaching?

And by the way, your slow quote would have been a surprise to St. Augustine.

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
Who defines false teaching, you or the Church? It seems to me that there are quite a few people who for some reason feel that they have more knowledge or insight than does the church that God established and that is guided by the Holy Spirit. I guess in some people’s minds, personal interpretation of scripture and truth is more important than the teaching of the Chruch.
Click to expand...
You went onto to post:

Do you believe that the sun orbits the earth? The Church used to hold that as true.

Hmmm… so the Church can make mistakes - obviously.

So if the Church were to say that the Genesis account is a Myth - surely I could disagree & chalk it up as one more mistake - correct?
 
carol_marie said:
Tim,
Do you believe that rather than God creating a Man (Adam), out of the dust - that we evolved over billions of years from a single cell life form?
Click to expand...
I believe our physical bodies evolved and at some point, God ensouled the first humans (Adam and Eve). The soul has not evolved because it is a special creation.

Peace

Tim
 
I’ll stick my usual two cents in here.

This is in complete harmony with Scripture and reason.

God could have supernaturally created Adam and then Eve with preternatural gifts and inserted them in the timeline anywhere He wished, regardless of what may have been happening on the earth and universe at the time.
 
Hi Tyler,

The bible must be interpreted within the context of the Bible itself. To state this in an extreme form, you cannot interpret one single passage without takin into account the whole bible.

Additionally, the teaching of the Church must be taken into account. All the things you worry about, like the doctrine of original sin is covered elsewhere in the Bible (notably in St. Paul’s writings and also in the teaching of the Church.

It is also wrong to say that any passage of the Bible is a “myth”. A particular passage may take the form of a particular pre-existing myth, but the doctrine it is meant to teach is always true. The main teachings we get from the creation story are :

.God is a personal God

. God is the source of all things

. God has a special purpose for man

. Man’s origin was tainted by sin, but redemption is assured

I suggest you read this article on Cardinal Ratzinger’s (Benedict XVI’s) reading of Genesis.

Verbum
 
carol_marie said:
Tim,
Do you believe that rather than God creating a Man (Adam), out of the dust - that we evolved over billions of years from a single cell life form?
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t the second possibility be better stated as “that He created us through evolution over billions of years from a single cell life form”?

I can’t state strongly enough that evolution, if true, does not in any way eliminate God (no matter what some secular proponents may think).
 
buffalo said:
I’ll stick my usual two cents in here.

This is in complete harmony with Scripture and reason.

God could have supernaturally created Adam and then Eve with preternatural gifts and inserted them in the timeline anywhere He wished, regardless of what may have been happening on the earth and universe at the time.
Click to expand...
I agree with that.

I think the idea we evolved form apes and this ape/man thing was given a spirit is ludicrous.
 
LJN21 said:
I agree with that.

I think the idea we evolved form apes and this ape/man thing was given a spirit is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
OK, but then why is the idea that we were created from dust, and this dust/man thing was given a spirit, not equally ludicrous? Help me understand how one is ludicrous and the other is not.
 
VociMike said:
OK, but then why is the idea that we were created from dust, and this dust/man thing was given a spirit, not equally ludicrous? Help me understand how one is ludicrous and the other is not.
Click to expand...
Because with one your an ape, and slowly over time your now some how man. The point at which you became man is kinda … fuzzy. No pun intended.

The other your clay, God breaths life in you and your man with a spirit.
 
To LNJ21:

Was it the reference to layman-level info that you took offense to? Why? I’m a geologist, but layman-level info is much prefered by me because it is easier to understand. Do you require more technical stuff? If so, I can provide it to you so that you won’t be offended.

Peace

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top