Why do fundamentalists believe the world is 6000-10000 years old?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gift_from_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
What you believe and what the Vatican believes are two different things. I suggest you read your Bible and your Catechism regarding the first man, the creation of the first woman, Original Sin, and the reason Jesus Christ was born. It is critical to your salvation to know:

Romans 5:12 “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned…”

Science, today, is a stumblingblock and an impediment. It is now a propaganda device. It is ideology not science.
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
What I believe fits well within what the Church teaches. JPII affirmed evolution as a plausable theory and so has Benedict. I know why Jesus came. Because we are fallen.

I posted a link to evolution from the Catholic Encyclopedia available through CAF. I also posted a link from the SSPX website which confirms evolution…directed by God… as a plausable theory.

Steve
 
I personally believe in our Lord Jesus Christ was and is our Redeemer. I also believe that the more science learns about our DNA the more likely the Idea of man evolving from the great apes is less likely to be excepted by evolutionist. As of late, scientist have found some DNA strands to be so radically different in man vs apes it has caused confusion, especially if you believe man has only been here 10,000 years.

I myself, believe in animal and plant evolution, but believe man is outside of this theory. Those in the science community that believe man evolved from apes, are the ones who push Darwinism (No God Theory), but I believe they will find it harder and harder to connect us to animals in the future as we learn more and more about our genetic makeup. I suppose the some scientist can still refuse to believe it, as humans do have free will, but to me science just may answer this question for us believers.

Go with Gods Grace!
 
steve711 said:
I personally believe in our Lord Jesus Christ was and is our Redeemer. I also believe that the more science learns about our DNA the more likely the Idea of man evolving from the great apes is less likely to be excepted by evolutionist. As of late, scientist have found some DNA strands to be so radically different in man vs apes it has caused confusion, especially if you believe man has only been here 10,000 years.

I myself, believe in animal and plant evolution, but believe man is outside of this theory. Those in the science community that believe man evolved from apes, are the ones who push Darwinism (No God Theory), but I believe they will find it harder and harder to connect us to animals in the future as we learn more and more about our genetic makeup. I suppose the some scientist can still refuse to believe it, as humans do have free will, but to me science just may answer this question for us believers.

Go with Gods Grace!
Click to expand...
Hi Steve…

You present an interesting and different argument about the creation of man. I happen to believe that we did evolve. BUT…science may eventually prove otherwise. For me… man is fallen. It is through Jesus Christ that we are reconciled. For me…we don’t know the mind of God. Nothing is impossible for him. Even if we evolved from apes…there is nothing to say that God didn’t at some point say " I have now created man in the image I intended". Whether evolved or not.

Peace
Steve
 
spn82756 said:
Hi Steve…

You present an interesting and different argument about the creation of man. I happen to believe that we did evolve. BUT…science may eventually prove otherwise. For me… man is fallen. It is through Jesus Christ that we are reconciled. For me…we don’t know the mind of God. Nothing is impossible for him. Even if we evolved from apes…there is nothing to say that God didn’t at some point say " I have now created man in the image I intended". Whether evolved or not.

Peace
Steve
Click to expand...
HJere we go again “there is nothing to say that God didnt at some point say” etc - exactly ,but we do know what He did say so why not just stick with it instead of conjecturing and imagining and phantasy etc - twinc
 
twinc said:
HJere we go again “there is nothing to say that God didnt at some point say” etc - exactly ,but we do know what He did say so why not just stick with it instead of conjecturing and imagining and phantasy etc - twinc
Click to expand...
And…where do the dinosaurs with meat eating teeth come from? And please don’t say those were for eating lush vegetation. That would completely discredit your answer.
 
steve711 said:
I personally believe in our Lord Jesus Christ was and is our Redeemer. I also believe that the more science learns about our DNA the more likely the Idea of man evolving from the great apes is less likely to be excepted by evolutionist. As of late, scientist have found some DNA strands to be so radically different in man vs apes it has caused confusion, especially if you believe man has only been here 10,000 years.

I myself, believe in animal and plant evolution, but believe man is outside of this theory. Those in the science community that believe man evolved from apes, are the ones who push Darwinism (No God Theory), but I believe they will find it harder and harder to connect us to animals in the future as we learn more and more about our genetic makeup. I suppose the some scientist can still refuse to believe it, as humans do have free will, but to me science just may answer this question for us believers.

Go with Gods Grace!
Click to expand...
so why not accept the more feasible wacky alternative that the monkeys and apes evolved from man.For man finding he was vulnerable decided to take refuge in the trees rather than being pretty safe in the trees decided to come down and be vulnerable - just does not compute - twinc
 
twinc said:
so why not accept the more feasible wacky alternative that the monkeys and apes evolved from man.For man finding he was vulnerable decided to take refuge in the trees rather than being pretty safe in the trees decided to come down and be vulnerable - just does not compute - twinc
Click to expand...
Now you’ve shown your knowledge of science. Nowhere is their a claim that resembles your claim about apes evolving from man. Unless it’s some wacko answers in genesis type site.
 
spn82756 said:
And…where do the dinosaurs with meat eating teeth come from? And please don’t say those were for eating lush vegetation. That would completely discredit your answer.
Click to expand...
what are you talking about meat eating teeth,when they could not catch anything to eat and even if, never in sufficient quantity or numbers to fill their emptiness - but after the Flood they could have become meat eaters - btw since many have weird,wacky and way out scenarios,let me suggest a reasonable and likely scenario.All the green lush and luxuriant fruit and veg has been flattened and submerged by a cataclysm and,furthermore,meat on the hoof is also not to be seen nor easily caught.What is easily seen and caught are other big juicy dinosaurs - so carefully and with gusto starting at the large rear rump steaks the dinosaurs ate themselves into history and extinction and their bones are found together in many parts of the world as there was no running away after a bite from those big jaws and teeth - twinc
 
buffalo said:
On evolution in Rome - report from PAS meeting
…My observations from this extraordinary experience are quite disturbing. All the academicians are scientists of the highest level and the papers presented were truly of top quality. However, unfortunately many of the academicians are atheists. The remainder are supporters of the theory of evolution but allow for the possibility of God’s influence on its course. The applause after the presentations of atheists was much more enthusiastic than after the speeches of believers. In all the discussions after the papers the main confrontation was between atheists and theists on whether God is necessary or redundant in explaining evolutionary processes. Among the speakers and polemists there was not a single critic of the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...
Buffalo, what is more disturbing is that Pope Pius XII in his encyclical - the last ‘semi-official’ church instruction on the question of origins wrote:
  1. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
  2. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith/
And here we have the PAS all one sided barring any creationists from membership or putting the other side in debates on origins.
 
rossum said:
You can add Saint Thomas Aquinas to the list as well:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”
  • Summa
    Over the years the Catholic Church has learned some valuable lessons, which the Genesis literalists seem intent on forgetting.
rossum
Click to expand...
more likely unlearnt some valuable lessons,such as never to apologise when it is not wrong nor can it be - twinc
 
twinc said:
what are you talking about meat eating teeth,when they could not catch anything to eat and even if, never in sufficient quantity or numbers to fill their emptiness - but after the Flood they could have become meat eaters - btw since many have weird,wacky and way out scenarios,let me suggest a reasonable and likely scenario.All the green lush and luxuriant fruit and veg has been flattened and submerged by a cataclysm and,furthermore,meat on the hoof is also not to be seen nor easily caught.What is easily seen and caught are other big juicy dinosaurs - so carefully and with gusto starting at the large rear rump steaks the dinosaurs ate themselves into history and extinction and their bones are found together in many parts of the world as there was no running away after a bite from those big jaws and teeth - twinc
Click to expand...
Well…now there go. They couldn’t catch anything. But then you go onto say that they ate the meat of other big dinos. If that was after the flood…then why aren’t there numerous references to them in the Bible? Oh…that’s right…they couldn’t catch humans so they are relevant.

Twinc…you’re amazing. You’ve just turned science on its head!!! 👍
 
cassini said:
Buffalo, what is more disturbing is that Pope Pius XII in his encyclical - the last ‘semi-official’ church instruction on the question of origins wrote:
  1. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
  2. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith/
And here we have the PAS all one sided barring any creationists from membership or putting the other side in debates on origins.
Click to expand...
Actually, I fail to understand why so few can understand this? It is so obvious.

This is the new:

Scientocracy Rules
Creating Consensus Is the PC Way to Get Smart

Set to inspirational choir music and glorious scenes of a rugged green shoreline, Carl Sagan opened his television documentary *Cosmos *by declaring that “the Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” The famous astronomer then outlined a plan for humanity’s salvation:
For the first time, we have the power to decide the fate of our planet and ourselves. This is a time of great danger. But our species is young and curious and brave. It shows much promise. In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it. I believe our future depends powerfully on how well we understand this Cosmos on which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky.
Imagine a world where Sagan and his followers controlled science, media, politics, and most everything else. We might call it a “Scientocracy.” And for Sagan’s followers, that goal is reachable, so long as we let scientism—the pretension that science can solve all of our problems—govern society.

more…
 
spn82756 said:
Now you’ve shown your knowledge of science. Nowhere is their a claim that resembles your claim about apes evolving from man. Unless it’s some wacko answers in genesis type site.
Click to expand...
of course you are mistaken again for wacky answers are found outside Genesis and not in Genesis.This you do not seem to realise for some unknown reason - twinc
 
buffalo said:
Actually, I fail to understand why so few can understand this? It is so obvious.

This is the new:

Scientocracy Rules
Creating Consensus Is the PC Way to Get Smart

Set to inspirational choir music and glorious scenes of a rugged green shoreline, Carl Sagan opened his television documentary *Cosmos *by declaring that “the Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” The famous astronomer then outlined a plan for humanity’s salvation: For the first time, we have the power to decide the fate of our planet and ourselves. This is a time of great danger. But our species is young and curious and brave. It shows much promise. In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it. I believe our future depends powerfully on how well we understand this Cosmos on which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky.
Imagine a world where Sagan and his followers controlled science, media, politics, and most everything else. We might call it a “Scientocracy.” And for Sagan’s followers, that goal is reachable, so long as we let scientism—the pretension that science can solve all of our problems—govern society.

more…
Click to expand...
What the heck does an atheist have to do with believers that accept evolution as the way God created. BTW…water freezes at 32 degrees F. Pagans discovered that before monotheists. And current atheist physicists believe water freezes at 32F. Obviously…as Catholics we cannot accept that. Atheists believe it. :banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
twinc said:
of course you are mistaken again for wacky answers are found outside Genesis and not in Genesis.This you do not seem to realise for some unknown reason - twinc
Click to expand...
So…as the last Book of the Bible says…Jesus will look like a sheep with seven horns?
 
steve711 said:
Cassini,

I understand what you are saying, but remember many Catholic scientist of the time were condemned or silenced by the church. I am not blaming anyone here, but there were mistakes made in the early church and early science, after all we are human and not perfect. But how do you explain the Catholic Church recently saying they were wrong to silence some Catholic scientist like Leonardo Di Vinci and Galileo. And how do you explain the Vatican having it’s own telescope to study the night sky. If this was the church of 1800, none of these things would exist.

I want to ask you, is it wrong for us scientist/engineers to use are God given gifts to explore and understand our surroundings, planet, and universe. I know that mistakes are made, but we must at least try.

Go with Gods Grace!
Click to expand...
Don’t know about Leonardo, but Galileo was allowed carry on star gazing after being told not to present his theory as a fact contrary to Scripture. As regards astronomy, wow had Rome got some astronomers at the time of Galileo, the BEST in the world. They confirmed all Galileo had seen but knew the relative movement between the earth and sun cannot be determined scientifically, a metaphysical assumption has to be made for Copernicanism, a belief in Scripture for geocentrism.

Point is steve, the Church never supressed science and Pope Pius IX condemned anyone for saying the opposite. The Church never stopped anyone stargazing and perfecting the measurements of cosmic bodies. They stopped scientists interpreting Scripture according to hypotheses, just as Pope Pius XII diid in Humani Generis (see post above). Happy new year all, off to party now…
 
cassini said:
The Church never stopped anyone stargazing and perfecting the measurements of cosmic bodies. They stopped scientists interpreting Scripture according to hypotheses, just as Pope Pius XII diid in Humani Generis (see post above). Happy new year all, off to party now…
Click to expand...
WHAT???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top