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.
A sound warning by St. Augustine against the misuse of Scripture:



Cardinal Bellarmine, during the Galileo controversy issued a similar warning in the year 1616:

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
 
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
Genesis has not been abandoned by the Church. See the document Communion and Stewardship to see how Aquinas is quoted by the Church. It is obvious to any observer here that the issue involves not science, but a type of power struggle where one side is more concerned about promoting certain ideas. The current enemies list includes: fundamentalism, creationism, established literal interpretations of the Bible, and the fact that the Church does hold to the special creation of the first woman from Adam’s side.

What is also clear is an attempt to create a “one size fits all” worldview that glosses over the things the Church teaches are true and held in the Deposit of Faith. That way, the faithful can feel justified along with non-believers. In Communion and Stewardship, the writer links to Humani Generis and indicates that certain theories are simply incompatible with Church teaching. In other words, certain pronouncements are subject to the authority of the Church. The Church has left the earth’s age without a definitive answer, which is fine.

The Church is also interested in hearing about ideas and reviewing other information. However, the Hebrew calendar, which starts one year before Creation, indicates an age range for the earth that puts it within the fundamentalist interpretation.

As I’ve pointed out in the past, science has degenerated into a tool for spreading distorted information.

Peace,
Ed
 
This discussion is not about Vatican II. Church Fathers have been shown several times in this thread to indicate that the Bible and Genesis in particular are not a science book.
The very first line of Genesis:

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter

It took until recently for science to affirm what Scripture knew long ago.

Looks pretty scientific to me.
 
40.png
spn82756:
Wow…so now the Vatican is full of non-believers. I think you are now bordering on being other than Catholic.

The Pontifical Academy of Science is made up of atheists. Check it out for yourself.

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Crisis of Faith
 
A sound warning by St. Augustine against the misuse of Scripture:

“And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy making mistakes on the subject which they know perfectly; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, know by direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt?.. (De Genesi ad litteram, lib. I, cap. XIX)
I hadn’t read these before. Excellent quotes. Thank you.

St Paul’s words about being a fool for Christ do not apply to areas of intellectual endeavour!
 
The Pontifical Academy of Science is made up of atheists. Check it out for yourself.

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Crisis of Faith
The article sounds like “sour grapes”. Just put a negative spin on the PAS because creationists are not recognized in the scientific field.

It’s not accurate to say the PAS is made up of atheists. It is accurate to say instead, the PAS is non-sectarian in its choice of members, as it should be. The objective of the PAS is the promotion of scientific research, and science properly understood is not a sectarian endeavor. For example no mathematician does Catholic Math simply because there is no such thing.

Furthermore, the views of any individual member do not represent the PAS, yet Keane likes to misrepresent this fact. Keane’s creationist bias is distorting since he equates adherence to evolution theory as tantamount to atheism and heresy. That position is laughable at best.

The PAS is not what Keane and his ilk want it to be so they unfairly attack it. If the PAS was structured according to Keane’s views, it could not effectively promote scientific research and would thus fail in its mission.

And what is Keane’s fixation on evolution when the PAS deals with astronomy, chemistry, earth and environment sciences, multiple life sciences, mathematics, application of science, philosophy and history of science, epistemology, physics, and other disciplines? Keane has an axe to grind, which hardly makes for an objective assessment.

Keane falsely implies that evolution theory necessarily contradicts Church teaching about Origins. Furthermore, he makes utterly false claims such as, “Why does the PAS have a pro-evolution stance when macroevolution has been shown to be impossible?” On the other hand, I can cite I.D. theorists who find irrefutable evidence for speciation both in the laboratory and in the field…

So who is Keane fooling here? Himself and anyone else unfamiliar with evolution research.

There are too many dubious assertions made by Keane to deal with here. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Crisis of Faith is little more than creationist claptrap and impossible for me to take seriously. 😛
 
The very first line of Genesis:

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter

It took until recently for science to affirm what Scripture knew long ago.

Looks pretty scientific to me.
Good grief! What are you thinking, sir?

Science can neither affirm or deny creatio ex nihilo since Creation is beyond the scope and competence of the natural sciences.
 
A sound warning by St. Augustine against the misuse of Scripture:

“It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth and the sky, or the other elements of this world—respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide from the mark as east is from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.

“It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement.”

(De Genesi ad litteram, lib. I, cap. XIX)

Cardinal Bellarmine, during the Galileo controversy issued a similar warning in the year 1616:

“I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve around the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.”
Creation
See also: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis
In “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis” Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require.
An allegorical interpretation of Genesis is a symbolic, rather than literal, reading of the biblical Book of Genesis. An allegorical interpretation does not necessarily preclude a literal interpretation; interpreters such as Origen of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo maintained that the Bible is true on multiple levels at the same time.

It seems itinerant like the age of the earth etc., there are different interpretations of the Fathers also.

However, you picked the wrong one to give an example of:
Bellarmine was a 100% literalist regarding a fixed earth- moving sun interpretation. Before he wrote the passage you selected here is a record of what puts your quote in context.

‘With regard to the opinion of Copernicus, Bellarmine, who heads the Congregations that deal with such matters, told me himself that he holds it to be heretical, and that the doctrine of the earth’s motion is beyond all doubt whatever (senza dubbio aleuno) contrary to Scripture.'

----Letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo on January 12, 1615, Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Antonio
Favaro, vol. X11, pp.129-131.


With this knowledge in mind we can now read your quote. It was written in the present tense (April 12, 1615) It states the OBVIOUS but is not worded as your version tries to make it:

’Third. I say that if there were if Galileo had one] a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But as for myself, I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the centre and the earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun really is in the centre and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. '

That was one year before a papal decree decided the matter for the Church. Oh yes, I know, the Church’s decree was dropped like a hot potatoe when you scientists got at churchmen from 1741 on. But you know what itinerant: Bellarmine’s other words will give you a clue:

**‘I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.’ **

It never was proven and the Church’s papal decree was never abrogated in keeping with its immutibility. But it does show that PERSONAL OPINIONS from Popes down, all can be wrong on this issue. This was the first literal/metaphor case in the Church’s history and the literal remains the OFFICIAL CHURCH INTERPRETATION.

As yet the Church has not defined on the age of the earth so we can have different opinions. But ‘science’ has already shown itself to be a fraud when claiming proof, just like, in my opinion, proof for age etc.
 
It never was proven and the Church’s papal decree was never abrogated in keeping with its immutibility. But it does show that PERSONAL OPINIONS from Popes down, all can be wrong on this issue. This was the first literal/metaphor case in the Church’s history and the literal remains the OFFICIAL CHURCH INTERPRETATION.
I think my quote of Bellarmine was appropriate without the context. The reason for this, is that despite Bellarmine’s personal interpretation of Scripture, the point that is crucial for understanding the context is that Galileo did not as of then have the required scientific proof. Bellarmine was being more of a scientist in this matter than was Galileo. On the other hand, Galileo’s Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615 showed himself more adept at interpreting Scripture than were many of the churchmen at the time.

In light of the problems caused by the Protestants, the papacy was not going to cut Galileo any slack, and required of him scientific proof before opening up scripture passages to a different interpretation. Had Galileo presented irrefutable evidence for the Copernican model then Bellarmine would have re-interpreted those passages about the sun in Scripture differently. And this is the part I quoted so, I see your point but I think the historical context really supports my excerpting Bellarmine’s statement as being most appropriate.

Furthermore, even a cursory review of the literature of the day show many scholars and theologians accepting the Copernican model and interpreting Scripture consistently with that model. Of course, Copernicus created a model that was aesthetically pleasing, while lacking the supporting scientific proof.

Still, Galileo was never censored by the Church for his scientific views. The first pope who heard his case permitted him to teach his theory, but just not as fact. So Galileo published his theory within a fictitious dialogue, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo). He was given written permission by the Cardinal to do so.

Confusion and mis-communication ensued when the matter was reviewed by the next pope who new nothing of Galileo’s written permission and so it was, and unfortunately so, decided that Galileo be censored for disobedience. Hence, he Galileo was not censored for his scientific views as is often thought. So, the popes’ private opinions on Scripture don’t play into this matter with the import you seem to give it.

As for the age of the earth, I go with scientific consensus of an ancient earth as being an established fact. And so far, there are no credible arguments to contra-indicate an earth billions of years old.
 
No. I’m saying that this is the year 5,771. And there is a reason for that. It is explained in the link in my original post.Peace,
Ed
The Jewish Calendar is not significant to the issue.

First, only a small percentage of Jews believe in a young earth, perhaps as many as 5%.

Second, and I must just make quick comments, and post key excerpts from Jewish sources showing that the old Jewish belief in an ancient earth and ancient universe was suppressed and then resurrected:

There is no traditional count calculating the supposed age of the universe pre-dating rabbinic Judaism, and even the calculation of Yose ben Halafta was not accepted as usable for legal dating until many years afterward.

“The hardening of this near-6000 year old date came in part from the Ari, Rabbi Isaac Luria. The Ari dismissed ancient Jewish teaching about a very old universe, instead insisting those many thousands of years (or billions in one ancient calculation) were all “spiritual” and had no physical presence. In the Ari’s mind, the world was physically young.”

The young earth idea in Judaism is a later development than the ancient earth belief.

“The Ari’s system of kabbala became the accepted one of Jewish mysticism and served as the basis for the messianic pretensions of Shabbatai Tzvi and the theology of the hasidic movement. It also became the normative kabbala of the non-hasidic rabbinic elite in both Europe and the Middle East. This coincided with Christian attempts to date creation, the most famous of which is that of James Ussher, which roughly corresponds to Yose ben Halafta’s.”

This led to the belief that a near-6000 year old universe was an indisputable halakhic fact. However, this far from being true.

Hence, “when certain haredi rabbis – Rabbi Elyashiv, for example – insist that a 5769 year old universe is the halakha, and that any deviance from it is heresy, they are basing this ‘halakhic’ judgment on very flimsy grounds.”

Note:

Sefer Temunah comments on the “Shmita Theory”, the idea that sabbatical cycles existed before the creation of Adam, and that those cycles – those years – were actual physical years.

Sefer Temunah states that we are in the 6th 7,000-year sabbatical cycle and that the world is 42,000 years old.

Because of the spread of Lurianic Kabbalah, Shitat Sefer Temunah (Shmita Theory) became less and less known. Only those few scholars who studied ancient kabbalistic works were aware of it.

Could The World Have Been Created ‘Old’?
  1. No Jewish source exists to support this contention.
  2. To make the world appear to be billions of years old when it is really 6000 years old is problematic:
    a. It makes G-d appear to be deceptive.
    b. If one accepts the idea that G-d created an ‘old’ world, why not say the world was created 5 minutes ago and we with it, with all of our memories, etc. ready-made?
    c. Again, there is no Jewish source for this idea. It was invented by the 19th century Christian apologist Philip Henry Gosse.

In his work Otzar HaHayyim, Yizhak of Acco writes that, because the sabbatical cycles referred to in Shitat Sefer Temunah existed before Adam, they must be measured in Divine years, not human years.
1. Therefore, Sefer Temunah is speaking of Divine years when it states that the world is 42,000 years old;
2. According to midrashic sources, a Divine day is 1,000 earth-years long.
3. A Divine year would therefore equal 365,250 earth years,
4. So, according to Yitzhak of Acco, the universe would be 42,000 x 365,250 earth-years old, and
5. That calculation comes out to 15.3 billion years, very close to current estimates for the Big Bang. :eek:
 
The Jewish Calendar is not significant to the issue.

First, only a small percentage of Jews believe in a young earth, perhaps as many as 5%.

Second, and I must just make quick comments, and post key excerpts from Jewish sources showing that the old Jewish belief in an ancient earth and ancient universe was suppressed and then resurrected:

There is no traditional count calculating the supposed age of the universe pre-dating rabbinic Judaism, and even the calculation of Yose ben Halafta was not accepted as usable for legal dating until many years afterward.

“The hardening of this near-6000 year old date came in part from the Ari, Rabbi Isaac Luria. The Ari dismissed ancient Jewish teaching about a very old universe, instead insisting those many thousands of years (or billions in one ancient calculation) were all “spiritual” and had no physical presence. In the Ari’s mind, the world was physically young.”

The young earth idea in Judaism is a later development than the ancient earth belief.

“The Ari’s system of kabbala became the accepted one of Jewish mysticism and served as the basis for the messianic pretensions of Shabbatai Tzvi and the theology of the hasidic movement. It also became the normative kabbala of the non-hasidic rabbinic elite in both Europe and the Middle East. This coincided with Christian attempts to date creation, the most famous of which is that of James Ussher, which roughly corresponds to Yose ben Halafta’s.”

This led to the belief that a near-6000 year old universe was an indisputable halakhic fact. However, this far from being true.

Hence, “when certain haredi rabbis – Rabbi Elyashiv, for example – insist that a 5769 year old universe is the halakha, and that any deviance from it is heresy, they are basing this ‘halakhic’ judgment on very flimsy grounds.”

Note:

Sefer Temunah comments on the “Shmita Theory”, the idea that sabbatical cycles existed before the creation of Adam, and that those cycles – those years – were actual physical years.

Sefer Temunah states that we are in the 6th 7,000-year sabbatical cycle and that the world is 42,000 years old.

Because of the spread of Lurianic Kabbalah, Shitat Sefer Temunah (Shmita Theory) became less and less known. Only those few scholars who studied ancient kabbalistic works were aware of it.

Could The World Have Been Created ‘Old’?
  1. No Jewish source exists to support this contention.
  2. To make the world appear to be billions of years old when it is really 6000 years old is problematic:
    a. It makes G-d appear to be deceptive.
    b. If one accepts the idea that G-d created an ‘old’ world, why not say the world was created 5 minutes ago and we with it, with all of our memories, etc. ready-made?
    c. Again, there is no Jewish source for this idea. It was invented by the 19th century Christian apologist Philip Henry Gosse.

In his work Otzar HaHayyim, Yizhak of Acco writes that, because the sabbatical cycles referred to in Shitat Sefer Temunah existed before Adam, they must be measured in Divine years, not human years.
1. Therefore, Sefer Temunah is speaking of Divine years when it states that the world is 42,000 years old;
2. According to midrashic sources, a Divine day is 1,000 earth-years long.
3. A Divine year would therefore equal 365,250 earth years,
4. So, according to Yitzhak of Acco, the universe would be 42,000 x 365,250 earth-years old, and
5. That calculation comes out to 15.3 billion years, very close to current estimates for the Big Bang. :eek:
Hmmm…I knew that science was wrong! Off by 1.6 billion years!!! :eek:
 
The article sounds like “sour grapes”. Just put a negative spin on the PAS because creationists are not recognized in the scientific field.

It’s not accurate to say the PAS is made up of atheists. It is accurate to say instead, the PAS is non-sectarian in its choice of members, as it should be. The objective of the PAS is the promotion of scientific research, and science properly understood is not a sectarian endeavor. For example no mathematician does Catholic Math simply because there is no such thing.

Furthermore, the views of any individual member do not represent the PAS, yet Keane likes to misrepresent this fact. Keane’s creationist bias is distorting since he equates adherence to evolution theory as tantamount to atheism and heresy. That position is laughable at best.

The PAS is not what Keane and his ilk want it to be so they unfairly attack it. If the PAS was structured according to Keane’s views, it could not effectively promote scientific research and would thus fail in its mission.

And what is Keane’s fixation on evolution when the PAS deals with astronomy, chemistry, earth and environment sciences, multiple life sciences, mathematics, application of science, philosophy and history of science, epistemology, physics, and other disciplines? Keane has an axe to grind, which hardly makes for an objective assessment.

Keane falsely implies that evolution theory necessarily contradicts Church teaching about Origins. Furthermore, he makes utterly false claims such as, “Why does the PAS have a pro-evolution stance when macroevolution has been shown to be impossible?” On the other hand, I can cite I.D. theorists who find irrefutable evidence for speciation both in the laboratory and in the field…

So who is Keane fooling here? Himself and anyone else unfamiliar with evolution research.

There are too many dubious assertions made by Keane to deal with here. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Crisis of Faith is little more than creationist claptrap and impossible for me to take seriously. 😛
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.
 
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.
I don’t see how this has anything to do with believers that accept evolution as God directed creation. Of course atheists are going to clap loudest for those that leave God out of creation. The Vatican doesn’t leave God out of creation…but accepts the possibility of a God guided 13.7 billion year old universe. That is what I believe. That in no way is critical to my salvation and belief in Christ as the savior of the world. This thread will never get anywhere. Not when some can claim that 6 inch daggers in the mouths of gigantic creatures that no longer exist were for eating vegetation.
 
I don’t see how this has anything to do with believers that accept evolution as God directed creation. Of course atheists are going to clap loudest for those that leave God out of creation. The Vatican doesn’t leave God out of creation…but accepts the possibility of a God guided 13.7 billion year old universe. That is what I believe. That in no way is critical to my salvation and belief in Christ as the savior of the world. This thread will never get anywhere. Not when some can claim that 6 inch daggers in the mouths of gigantic creatures that no longer exist were for eating vegetation.
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
 
Hi Steve. For 1800 years, Christians took the revelations of Genesis as literal as all the Fathers, doctors, popes clergy and laity did throughout time. Theology was built upon these revelations.Then came scientific or more properly metaphysical assumptions. Now it is one thing for secular society to accept the findings of SOME science, quite another to apply it to dogmas and doctrines of the Church as absolute facts. The Church’s queen is theology. The Church’s belief is total in dogmas backed up with doctrines. Until these ‘Sciences’ came along there was COMPLETE harmony with all dogmas, doctrines and natural philosophy.

Now you know well that the sciences we talk about are extrapolated theories, not absolutes that are found in other sciences. But these metaphysical assumptions demanded changes in the theology of creation. When applied they caused CHAOS. Science and theology overlapped and there the problem lies. Up to 1833 theology was queen and revelation superceded scientific theories. But after that revelation was ‘watered down’ to accommodate scientific theories and metaphysical assumptions. Of course the hierarchy and clergy carried on as though the dogmas and doctrines held firm without loss of revelation. Metaphor is the magic word. It can make anything be anything in the modern Catholic Church. So what if science complicates a dogma, sure we can go on and say it doesn’t and pretend it doesn’t. Then all Catholics are happy, scientist Catholics the happiest, they have their cake and eat it.

Except those Catholics who refuse scientific theories to form their theology. But they can easily be discounted and discredited can’t they, just bring along some scientists from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the new advisers to the Catholic Church, a hall full of non-believers…
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!
 
There are things science cannot explain. Eve was formed by God from Adam’s side. Both were real individual people. It is not the fault of science, that some, using a false philosophy, post here to say: “Your Bible is wrong, here, here and here.”

When people pay to put up billboards that read; “Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.” don’t you think they really believe that? How about the people driving by?

I went to Catholic school also but I was taught to believe the Word of God.

Peace,
Ed
Ed,

I am not a Darwinist, as he never mentioned God or Jesus in anything he did. I do believe in the Earth being older that 6000-10000 years old.

I also believe science is a gift from God, yes it can be used wrongly, but it also has been used to do many great things.

Go with Gods Grace!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top