Was the world created in 7 days?

[TylerAlex]

] is that I tend not to read material by an avowed anti-semite who has been publicly rebuked by Carl Keating and who is now a persona nongrata with EWTN.

Liberal talk… can’t tackle the argument or issue, you go after the author on personal attacks.

Let’s review YOUR history and the example of your life… should we be reading your material?

Funny how people might have a problem with Sungenis, but if it came from the mouth of Oprah (or insert your own secularist) you would be fine with it.

 

[Orogeny]

There are reasons not to accept many of what Scripture says if you use that argument. There is a way to test the loaves and fishes…and, scientifically, they CANNOT account for it. It just so happens that there is no device to measure or explain the process… does that make it a myth?

No, there is no way to show, though evidence, that it didn’t happen. It cannot be explained scientifically, but that is what makes it a miracle. I don’t reject miracles, just the opposite. The difference is that there is evidence that creation didn’t occur as described in Genesis.

Regarding the evidence you speak about on evolution and an old earth- the jury is still out. There is no definitive answer yet… and ten years from now, the current theories will have changed and “new discoveries will be made.”

No, the jury is not out. The jury has spoken very loudly and the science is very, very good. The earth is ~4.6 billion years old.

Science changes it’s mind all the time. They conveniently add a “few extra billion years here or there” to the creation theory when “new information” makes their opinion irrelevent. The pieces don’t add up.

That’s because science is self correcting in that any new evidence (data) must be explained. Theories are explanations of the data. If the data suggests that the theory is wrong, a new theory must be developed to explain both the new AND the old data. It’s not a matter of science “changing it’s mind”.

So… when you trust science over God- when there is a conflict like this one, you have chosen a side. Human understanding (excluding Magestrium) has decided that the Bible is to be broken up in literal and non-literal interpretations, not God.

Strawman. I don’t trust science over God. Science is the study of God’s creation. I can’t separate the two. You are, though. You are saying that science and God can’t co-exist.

Why is it so important to prove God is right, and not just accept that He is?

I don’t understand this question. What makes you think that I think God is wrong or needs to be proven right?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

] is that I tend not to read material by an avowed anti-semite who has been publicly rebuked by Carl Keating and who is now a persona nongrata with EWTN.

If a guy you do not like finds the truth of a certain matter, does the fact you dislike him or his other views negate the truth?

 

[buffalo]

My thoughts -

God had a vision. He created His vision and then created the systems to sustain the vision.

 

[Orogeny]

Liberal talk… can’t tackle the argument or issue, you go after the author on personal attacks.

So, do you believe that we Catholics MUST accept that the universe revolves around the Earth? Do you have the same issues with Jews that Sungenis does?

Let’s review YOUR history and the example of your life… should we be reading your material?

(name removed by moderator) isn’t (at least as far as I know) a professional apologist. Sungenis is and his views reflect directly on the Church, so it is important. You will find that he is not held highly by many Catholic apolgists because of his extreme views.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

If a guy you do not like finds the truth of a certain matter, does the fact you dislike him or his other views negate the truth?

No, but it will certainly make it much less likely that I will accept what he says. That is why Sungenis’ views on things like geocentrism, Jews and, at times, the Pope hurt the cause that he is trying to serve.

Peace

Tim

 

[TylerAlex]

No, there is no way to show, though evidence, that it didn’t happen. It cannot be explained scientifically, but that is what makes it a miracle.

So… anything that science cannot explain is a miracle? Isn’t that like granting God sovereignty over only things that humans cannot understand?

That’s because science is self correcting in that any new evidence (data) must be explained. Theories are explanations of the data. If the data suggests that the theory is wrong, a new theory must be developed to explain both the new AND the old data. It’s not a matter of science “changing it’s mind”.

Oh… so science can then basically go around poking holes in anything it wants and coming up with these new ideas, and then when it contradicted, it has the ability to just make up new ones? Where is the accountability?

Strawman. I don’t trust science over God. Science is the study of God’s creation. I can’t separate the two. You are, though. You are saying that science and God can’t co-exist.I don’t understand this question. What makes you think that I think God is wrong or needs to be proven right?

I never said science and God cannot co-exist. I said when there is a conflict between what God has said, and what science believes, that I side with God.

Listen, you and I can go back and forth on this. You give science much more credit over issues of conflict with God than I do… you will have to resolve that somewhere down the line when science fails to support what you believe.

 

[Orogeny]

So… anything that science cannot explain is a miracle? Isn’t that like granting God sovereignty over only things that humans cannot understand?

Nope. There are plenty of things that science cannot explain, otherwise there would be no more scientists. God has sovereignty over everything, natural or supernatural.

Oh… so science can then basically go around poking holes in anything it wants and coming up with these new ideas, and then when it contradicted, it has the ability to just make up new ones? Where is the accountability?

Science is limited to what can be observed either directly or indirectly. If a theory is developed that explains all observations of a particular phenomena and, at a later time, new observations are made that don’t fit into the theory, the theory must be modified. I’m not sure why that is an issue. It works. As far as accountability, of course there is accountability. What makes you think there isn’t accountability?

I never said science and God cannot co-exist. I said when there is a conflict between what God has said, and what science believes, that I side with God.

You are making the mistake of completely discounting the possibility that what science says is what God is saying. Why, when science is the study of His creation, do you continue to do that?

Listen, you and I can go back and forth on this. You give science much more credit over issues of conflict with God than I do… you will have to resolve that somewhere down the line when science fails to support what you believe.

Another strawman. I disagree that there is a conflict between God and science.

Peace

Tim

 

[TylerAlex]

You are making the mistake of completely discounting the possibility that what science says is what God is saying. Why, when science is the study of His creation, do you continue to do that?Another strawman. I disagree that there is a conflict between God and science.

Peace

Tim

Show me one text book where it says “science: the study of God’s creation.”

You are naive and ignorant if you do not believe that there is an inherent conflict between science and God.

Take a poll… let’s see how many people on these boards believe that there is/is not a conflict between God and science. I say the vote would be overwhelmingly that there is/can be a conflict. Science cannot explain supernatural things in a Godly way, like: souls, resurrection, heaven, Eucharist, angels, etc… When it cannot explain them, it primarily assumes that they really do not exist. I have never seen a text book say “we cannot explain this, thus it is assumed to be of divine origin.”

That’s not a confict?

Don’t even get me started on science and abortion. What about stem cell research? How about cloning?

Science, almost inherently, tries to find a natural way to explain things so that they can leave God out of the picture. My assumption is that there are few scientists that dualy hold a orthodox Christian (let alone Catholic) faith and a determined pursuit of the sciences. It is a rarity.

You try to fit God in a box made for science… but He doesn’t fit nicely. It is like you give science a capital (S) and God a lower case (g).

 

[Orogeny]

Show me one text book where it says “science: the study of God’s creation.”

Show me where in scriptures it says that science and God are mutually exclusive.

There are no textbooks that I know of that make that statement as that is a statement based on faith. I believe in God and I believe that all of nature is His creation. Science is the study of nature. Therefore, …

You are naive and ignorant if you do not believe that there is an inherent conflict between science and God.

Well, go ahead and pick one for me because you will be wrong either way. I appreciate that.

Take a poll… let’s see how many people on these boards believe that there is/is not a conflict between God and science. I say the vote would be overwhelmingly that there is/can be a conflict.

So what? That is totally irrelevant.

Science cannot explain supernatural things in a Godly way, like: souls, resurrection, heaven, Eucharist, angels, etc…

That is correct.

When it cannot explain them, it primarily assumes that they really do not exist.

Nope. Science doesn’t say that at all. There are plenty of scientists that say that, but those are statements of faith on their part.

I have never seen a text book say “we cannot explain this, thus it is assumed to be of divine origin.”

Ha! You need to look into Intelligent Design. That is PRECISELY what they say.

That’s not a confict?

No, it’s not.

Don’t even get me started on science and abortion. What about stem cell research? How about cloning?

Those are all moral issues, not scientific issues. Do you blame porn on the internet on the scientists that developed microchips?

Science, almost inherently, tries to find a natural way to explain things so that they can leave God out of the picture.

Science absolutely tries to find natural explanations for things. That is what science does. You don’t use God as the reason that differential calculus works, why verbs are conjugated the way they are or why D-Day refers to the allied invasion of France on June 6, 1944. Are those subjects in conflict with God?

My assumption is that there are few scientists that dualy hold a orthodox Christian (let alone Catholic) faith and a determined pursuit of the sciences. It is a rarity.

What do you consider to be an “orthodox Christian” faith? I am fully Catholic. I accept each and every thing we say in the Nicene Creed each Sunday. I accept the teachings of the Church. I am a scientist. Do I fit in your definition?

You try to fit God in a box made for science… but He doesn’t fit nicely. It is like you give science a capital (S) and God a lower case (g).

No, I try to understand the magesty of God by using the intelligence He gave me to study His creation.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Show me one text book where it says “science: the study of God’s creation.”

You are naive and ignorant if you do not believe that there is an inherent conflict between science and God.

Take a poll… let’s see how many people on these boards believe that there is/is not a conflict between God and science. I say the vote would be overwhelmingly that there is/can be a conflict. Science cannot explain supernatural things in a Godly way, like: souls, resurrection, heaven, Eucharist, angels, etc… When it cannot explain them, it primarily assumes that they really do not exist. I have never seen a text book say “we cannot explain this, thus it is assumed to be of divine origin.”

That’s not a confict?

Don’t even get me started on science and abortion. What about stem cell research? How about cloning?

Science, almost inherently, tries to find a natural way to explain things so that they can leave God out of the picture. My assumption is that there are few scientists that dualy hold a orthodox Christian (let alone Catholic) faith and a determined pursuit of the sciences. It is a rarity.

You try to fit God in a box made for science… but He doesn’t fit nicely. It is like you give science a capital (S) and God a lower case (g).

Faith and reason cannot be opposed for they flow from the same God. Science is a subset of reason. I think that is where the rub is. We have to properly understand and reason out our observations mindful that we are just humans limited by our intellect and 5 senses.

Faith and science are not opposed with our correct application of reason.

 

[TylerAlex]

You are naive and ignorant if you do not believe that there is an inherent conflict between science and God.

Alright… I stepped over line saying that. My apologies.

Perhaps there is a semantic difference between our interpretations of science/conflict/God/nature because we just do not seem to relating to each other very effectively. I am not asking you to agree with me, but there is a “conflict” here I am not understanding.

I will walk away from this topic over the weekend and give it some more thought later.

Thanks for the dialogue.

 

[Orogeny]

Alright… I stepped over line saying that. My apologies.

No problem! I have sort of gotten used to that on these forums.

I will walk away from this topic over the weekend and give it some more thought later.

Thanks for the dialogue.

I enjoy these give and takes. I look forward to continuing this at a later time if that happens.

Peace

Tim

 

[Sixtus]

VociMike said:

For those who insist that the Genesis creation account is literally true, how do you explain that the two different accounts are, well, different?

It is not well known by fundamentalists that there are two accounts in Genesis of creation

Neither is it so well known that there were established human communities before Genesis was written. So Adam and Eve could not have been the first of human existence.

But it appears that something went wrong early on in creation. No doubt fuelled by man’s greed, envy, lust, covetiousness and hurfulness. So all the old sins may have been there from the moment that man was able to reason. No doubt the first purpose man used for his new-found reason was to further his own personal interests against the interests of community and neighbour.

 

[Hellisreal]

Dear Carol Marie,

Please know I have kept you in my daily prayers and have talked to my Priest about this too, as I wondered if I could have been complicit in your feeling scandalized and he gave me some wise words, which I hope you will think about also.

He told me that there is a “mob” mentality that can prevade on forums such as this, everyone here is well meaning, but not fully aware of you Carol- of your heart and spirituality. The comments you see here as well intentioned as they may be, could end up being very hurtful to you, even scandalous.

You are not any less a Catholic for thinking what you do, or any less a Catholic for being a convert- you have JUST as much right to say what you feel as a CRADLE who (while being well-intentioned) is intimidating, and possibly humilitating you (not realizing it)

I personally apologize if I have been a source of consternation to you, and I am very certain that everyone here (even if they hold another view) has been greatly concerned about you, and praying for you.

His advice was to seek your spiritual director, or any priest you feel you can speak to about this. Forums are fantastic for so many things. But, if you ever feel that you can no longer be a Catholic or question your faith over a fourm, you must realize that no one here can be a substitute for a real time converstation.

Did you read Die Verbum? Please try to go through it, it will help you so very much. I have been digging up links I hope to post to you Via PM that also may help too. In the next few days. Also, please try to forgive us all if you can find it in your heart to do so.

I am so very worried about you sister, and I can tell you I do love you no matter what you do end up doing. But, dont give up so fast. I have every intention of doing anything I can and so do many others here, to make sure you know that you are not “wrong”! for feeling this way!!!

I am bad at writing., so forgive me for that.

Just ignore that and see I care and I care **no matter what **you do.

 

[freesoulhope]

right. because snakes can’t talk.

Crackers turn into Jesus but snakes can’t talk.

1. Jesus can turn himself into a cracker if he wants, but Satan is not a talking snake; neither do I think that God would aid and abet in allowing the devil to “disguise” himself as a talking snake.
2. The devil would only disguise himself as a talking snake, if being a talking snake was going to give him a tactical advantage over the human soul; I don’t see it. The devil doesn’t need to disguise himself as a snake; he only needs to tempt you in the spirit; tempt you into deciding that worldly pleasures, such as being your own God, is more beneficial then being subject to God.
3. The genesis story speaks of the snake, not as a creature that has been possessed by a demon, but as a creature with the permanent nature of a snake. So, what are you saying? That Satan is a snake? I’m sorry, but that story doesn’t work; it doesn’t conform to the revelation that Satan is an angel. Maybe somebody can post the verse in genesis, when the snake is first introduced, so that we can all analyze and realize that it’s a mythical story representing the first tragic fall of the human race from God.
4. It is more reasonable that the writer used the “image” of a talking snake, because a snake is poisonous and it is cunning. It will strike at the heal, and its head shall be crushed. If the talking snake was punished and forced to roam the earth with no legs, then there is a talking snake out there that is in fact the devil.

Which do you think is more reasonable?

Science is not the enemy; evolution is not the enemy. Please don’t give yourself to needless conflict and doubt by allowing you’re self to be a victim of an age old assumption.

Yes genesis is true; but don’t take it literally when it’s clearly using allegorical/metaphorical/simile language. It’s written like a dream; like eastern or hindu mythical stories. Why would God put a tree, with the knoledge of good and evil in it, in a garden? If it is Gods will that such a place should exist, with such a tree, then such a place should exist today. The gospels are written like historical eyewitness accounts, and the authors are testifying to the literality of the story. Genesis does not say that it is a literal eyewitness account, neither does it claim to be a vision of how the world was literally created; instead it is just a story. I find no allegory or metaphorical imagery involved in the gospels so far as they speak about certain things that Jesus is said to have done. I see nothing written about talking snakes!

 

[Hellisreal]

I missed the “cracker” comment by Carol marie.

…

I guess I better leave that one alone. That was rude and uncalled for no matter WHAT struggles she is having! IMHO.

Sorry Carol, but that was really hurtful. Not to us, but to Jesus Christ.

Good day now.

 

[freesoulhope]

The story of Adam and Eve have the same kind of writting style as Jesus’s parables; Using imagery and metaphore as away of explaining something that is true; but the imagery involved is not literally true. Nobody expects people to take the book of revelation as literal, so why think of the book of genesis in any other way?

 

[LJN21]

1. Jesus can turn himself into a cracker if he wants, but Satan is not a talking snake; neither do I think that God would aid and abet in allowing the devil to “disguise” himself as a talking snake.
2. The devil would only disguise himself as a talking snake, if being a talking snake was going to give him a tactical advantage over the human soul; I don’t see it. The devil doesn’t need to disguise himself as a snake; he only needs to tempt you in the spirit; tempt you into deciding that worldly pleasures, such as being your own God, is more beneficial then being subject to God.
3. The genesis story speaks of the snake, not as a creature that has been possessed by a demon, but as a creature with the permanent nature of a snake. So, what are you saying? That Satan is a snake? I’m sorry, but that story doesn’t work; it doesn’t conform to the revelation that Satan is an angel. Maybe somebody can post the verse in genesis, when the snake is first introduced, so that we can all analyze and realize that it’s a mythical story representing the first tragic fall of the human race from God.
4. It is more reasonable that the writer used the “image” of a talking snake, because a snake is poisonous and it is cunning. It will strike at the heal, and its head shall be crushed. If the talking snake was punished and forced to roam the earth with no legs, then there is a talking snake out there that is in fact the devil.

Which do you think is more reasonable?

Science is not the enemy; evolution is not the enemy. Please don’t give yourself to needless conflict and doubt by allowing you’re self to be a victim of an age old assumption.

Yes genesis is true; but don’t take it literally when it’s clearly using allegorical/metaphorical/simile language. It’s written like a dream; like eastern or hindu mythical stories. Why would God put a tree, with the knoledge of good and evil in it, in a garden? If it is Gods will that such a place should exist, with such a tree, then such a place should exist today. The gospels are written like historical eyewitness accounts, and the authors are testifying to the literality of the story. Genesis does not say that it is a literal eyewitness account, neither does it claim to be a vision of how the world was literally created; instead it is just a story. I find no allegory or metaphorical imagery involved in the gospels so far as they speak about certain things that Jesus is said to have done. I see nothing written about talking snakes!

There are actually many case where God allows the Devil to have certain powers, even to bestow his followers with powers. How else would Pharaohs magicians be able to perform the same “miracles” as Moses? (Or is that Myth too ) There are also many current examples as anyone that knows anyone or that have actually been in the occult before.

 

[SemperFidelis]

VociMike said:

Neither is it so well known that there were established human communities before Genesis was written. So Adam and Eve could not have been the first of human existence.

I may be wrong but I’m pretty sure it is a REQUIRED Catholic belief to believe that Adam and Eve are the first and only original set of humans.