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.
cassini said:
No seriously spn, what do you find unbelievable or incorrect about the sentence of mine you posted.
Click to expand...
I didn’t take it to mean your wife was actually waiting. I thought you were being humorous in the disagreement. That’s all. 🙂
 
spn82756 said:
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!!! 👍
Click to expand...
there are references to them in the Bible but not as Dinosaurs as that word was not coined till many centuries later - btw they neither could or would catch humans but even if they could it would be a mere morsel with a horrible taste even avoided by wild animals today if presented with a decent alternative,Dinosaurs are first mentioned in the Bible at Gen.1:24-26 created at the same time as humans and as herbivores neither was in dread of the other - the dread only came after the flood when they both became carnivores - twinc
 
spn82756 said:
I didn’t take it to mean your wife was actually waiting. I thought you were being humorous in the disagreement. That’s all. 🙂
Click to expand...
My wife is done up to the nine’s sitting waiting for her CA drug addict husband to get off the computer , to stop fighting with others and give it up for the new year.

Some chance, yes?
 
cassini said:
My wife is done up to the nine’s sitting waiting for her CA drug addict husband to get off the computer , to stop fighting with others and give it up for the new year.

Some chance, yes?
Click to expand...
make the break. 🙂 I’m off with my wife shortly too.
 
spn82756 said:
So…as the last Book of the Bible says…Jesus will look like a sheep with seven horns?
Click to expand...
of course once again you are mistaken - absolutely mistaken - for Genesis is the first and not the last book of the Bible - twinc
 
twinc said:
of course once again you are mistaken - absolutely mistaken - for Genesis is the first and not the last book of the Bible - twinc
Click to expand...
No the last book is Revelation. That’s where Jesus is described as sheep with seven horns.

I did say THE LAST BOOK. I didn’t call it genesis.
 
spn82756 said:
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
Click to expand...
Here is what Pope Benedict has to say:

[

Pope Benedict XVI](http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm)

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.
“…we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error.”

Peace,
Ed
 
cassini said:
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…
Click to expand...
cassini,

Pope Benedict XVI just recently said after a many year investigation that the church was wrong for censoring Galileo. I see this as just correcting a human error from the past. After all we are human and we do make mistakes.

Go with Gods Grace!
 
edwest2 said:
Here is what Pope Benedict has to say:

[

Pope Benedict XVI](http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm)

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.
“…we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error.”

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed,

I would agree with the Pope, but I still am unsure we came from the apes. As I said in an earlier post, some of the new DNA studies show man with some radically different genes than the Apes. I agree that many are the same, but the ones that differ are extraordinary in some cases.

Go with Gods Grace!
 
twinc said:
there are references to them in the Bible but not as Dinosaurs as that word was not coined till many centuries later - btw they neither could or would catch humans but even if they could it would be a mere morsel with a horrible taste even avoided by wild animals today if presented with a decent alternative,Dinosaurs are first mentioned in the Bible at Gen.1:24-26 created at the same time as humans and as herbivores neither was in dread of the other - the dread only came after the flood when they both became carnivores - twinc
Click to expand...
No bible scholar of any repute, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish, who knows the background of these images of creatures in Genesis and other parts of the Bible, believes they are references to dinosaurs.

The dinosaur interpretation is modern, idiosyncratic, and totally lacking in evidence.
 
twinc said:
there are references to them in the Bible but not as Dinosaurs as that word was not coined till many centuries later - btw they neither could or would catch humans but even if they could it would be a mere morsel with a horrible taste even avoided by wild animals today if presented with a decent alternative,Dinosaurs are first mentioned in the Bible at Gen.1:24-26 created at the same time as humans and as herbivores neither was in dread of the other - the dread only came after the flood when they both became carnivores - twinc
Click to expand...
Nobody got it until modern creationists spotted it. Gimme a break! 😛
 
steve711 said:
cassini,

Pope Benedict XVI just recently said after a many year investigation that the church was wrong for censoring Galileo. I see this as just correcting a human error from the past. After all we are human and we do make mistakes.

Go with Gods Grace!
Click to expand...
Would you mind posting a source for the comment you attribute to Pope Benedict?

Thank you,
Ed
 
itinerant1 said:
No bible scholar of any repute, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish, who knows the background of these images of creatures in Genesis and other parts of the Bible, believes they are references to dinosaurs.

The dinosaur interpretation is modern, idiosyncratic, and totally lacking in evidence.
Click to expand...
now here is a strange demand especially by those who would suggest that Dinosaurs became extinct millions of years before humans appeared on the scene - btw Behemoth at Job 40:15 with tail like the trunk of a cedar tree sounds like a dragon/dinosaur.Guess what a tail like a cedar tree would cover and then guess what an elephant’s or a rhino or hippo tail covers - check it out at your local zoo - twinc
 
itinerant1 said:
Nobody got it until modern creationists spotted it. Gimme a break! 😛
Click to expand...
so what’s so strange about that.On another thread it was stated that Catholic biblical scholars had been studying the Bible for over 2000years.They did not it seems spot the errors,contradictions etc that are thrown up by non biblical scholars or put them to right etc - twinc
 
twinc said:
so what’s so strange about that.On another thread it was stated that Catholic biblical scholars had been studying the Bible for over 2000years.They did not it seems spot the errors,contradictions etc that are thrown up by non biblical scholars or put them to right etc - twinc
Click to expand...
To be fair, rather a lot of the errors and contradictions have been checked out many times in the past - plus, rather a lot of them are the usual case of maliciously/ignorantly out-of-context interpretations that any half decent theologian would spot a mile off as being rather silly, at my guess…

It doesn’t really matter what conclusions theologians came up with in the past regarding behemoths and leviathans - how conclusive would they be? All this stuff is pretty much down to interpretation. Genesis, whether you read it literally, literalistically, semi-literally, essentially, metaphorically or as a primitive folk tale best ignored always appears to me to be rather too much of a fragmentary summary, focusing on certain relevant bits, to be the exclusive source of knowledge regarding the early history of the Earth

In the same way, the fragmentary evidence remaining makes me somewhat skeptical of the many proclamatins by evolutionists that we’re expected to believe in as conclusive as well…

Regardless of all this, we had a term, “Dragon” which historically generally referred to big lizardy beasts. Whether they are considered to be the “Behemoths” or not, they are certainly referred to in Christian legend. After a while, people stopped referring to encounters with especially big lizardy beasts (other than crocodiles and Kimodo Dragons, presumably, which aren’t quite as big as those in legend) so it was assumed they’d never existed (although Kimodo dragons, being referred to as such, demonstrate that actually, they still did, linguistically speaking!).

Then people start digging up ancient remains of staggeringly big lizardy beasts. Do they say “aha! Dragons existed afterall!”? Nope. They call them dinosaurs, and maintain they have no relation to the big lizardy beasts of legend, which, despite appearing in legends throughout the world, are assumed to be the product of myths based on, like, a universal fear of snakes :rolleyes:

It just seems rather mindbogglingly assumptious to me 🤷
 
edwest2 said:
Would you mind posting a source for the comment you attribute to Pope Benedict?

Thank you,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed,

I am sorry, I thought that our current Pope had said something along the lines that Pope John Paul II had about Galileo but I can not find it now. But I know I read it somewhere.

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