YEC

[anon5216]

Why should I believe the scientist over God. putting science, men or whatever ahead of God’s word is idolatry

Words are symbols. Putting symbols in place of God is idolatry.

Putting an incorrect interpretation of those symbols in place of God is even worse.

 

[tobinatorstark]

This is one of the things that puzzles me and because i am not versed on my bible texts very well i cant quantify my puzzlement. But im sure that in all of the OT and NT their must be a lot that is contradicted by modern science and modern understanding of the world.

Mabey im wrong and their is not. But if their is why do people get to cherry pick what they believe. When clearly not affecting issues of salvation but affecting the way in which you live and percieve the world. Such as the post above me. Why accept modern medicine and reject the OTs remedies. Is it soley about selfish self preservation?

Im really curious about this, and unfortunatly i know of no YECs in my day to day life to conduct a debate with so my knowledge of arguments in their favour is very weak. Which is why i would like them to come here and debate with me.

I just want to learn more about your beliefs.

modern science should have no part to do with biblical matters. Yet people want to drag science into biblical matters to prove what is and isn’t true or possible in the Bible. That is wrong. weather one accepts Young Earth or Old Earth, that is there business. I base all my reasoning off of biblical matters and not science. I could type out the chronology found in the Bible to prove my point for a young Earth, but you want scientific proof over God.

 

[edwest2]

This is what i dont understand, how on earth can the catholic church justify not making a decision one way or the other. Clearly it makes a big difference to peoples world view, and its not like its a small gap we are talking BILLIONS of years.

I know of no evidence to support YEC. But a lot of evidence to support a much older earth. Are their any YEC folks who inhabit here who can give eveidence outside of scripture for thinking the world is 6000 years old ?

Perhaps it is not a lack of understanding on your part but a strong desire for the Church to fulfill a desire of yours; namely, to declare the Earth is old. The Catholic Church has not infallibly ruled as to the age of the earth.

So-called ancient bacteria have been brought back to life. If you look at ancient insects preserved in amber, it is not only obvious they can walk but fly. In other words, they were fully formed and functional. Carbon 14 has been found in supposedly ancient stone. And there are fossilized trees that pass through thousands of years of rock strata which cannot occur if they were gradually deposited. The trees would have rotted or eroded away.

I think it is also valuable to ignore the labels: YEC, OEC and whatever, and just look at the information for what it is.

Peace,
Ed

 

[DavWan]

One can believe in YEC without being heretical. I am not aware of any Magisterial figure today who does however. From what I have read, the Pope believes in evolution but insists that a Catholic understanding of the role of God be recognized.

It is permissable to believe in the 7 Days as figurative (as some of the ECF did). [It’s in Denzinger, though I don’t have the paragraph number at the moment]

We do need to remember that Science is not the enemy of Faith. Philosophies taken from Science that holds God did not have a role in creation are to be rejected. However, we do not need to fear Scientific discoveries that indicate the age of Earth as being over 4 billion years old as “disproving” Genesis 1-3.

Evolution can be believed so long as the beliefs conform to what the Church requires in Humani Generis

 

[edwest2]

Using Humani Generis as the example.

1. Adam and Eve were two individuals. There were no other Adams.
2. The study of evolution was permitted but was limited to true experts and arguements for and against.

Pope Benedict has stated that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory. Also, the Catholic Church does not give a blanket approval of all theories of evolution.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

This would all fit together nicely if the speed of light was much faster at the beginning. For example say on “day1” (inflation) it was hundreds of magnitudes greater and then on “day2” it slowed by some magnitudes. Has anyone done an analysis to see how this would chart out?

Then the age issues would be reconciled. A compacted creation if you will.

 

[Squishy]

Perhaps it is not a lack of understanding on your part but a strong desire for the Church to fulfill a desire of yours; namely, to declare the Earth is old. The Catholic Church has not infallibly ruled as to the age of the earth.

So-called ancient bacteria have been brought back to life. If you look at ancient insects preserved in amber, it is not only obvious they can walk but fly. In other words, they were fully formed and functional. Carbon 14 has been found in supposedly ancient stone. And there are fossilized trees that pass through thousands of years of rock strata which cannot occur if they were gradually deposited. The trees would have rotted or eroded away.

I think it is also valuable to ignore the labels: YEC, OEC and whatever, and just look at the information for what it is.

Peace,
Ed

To be honest i think this is the basis of why i came here in the first place. I wanted to find out how its possible for people to believe something when the majority of the evidence points to something different. I really dont want this to turn into an evolution debate. All i was trying to figure out is how people can reconsile believing something that is not required by the catholic church when their is evidence to the countery, and the catholic church allows teaching of this as well.

 

[Squishy]

This would all fit together nicely if the speed of light was much faster at the beginning. For example say on “day1” (inflation) it was hundreds of magnitudes greater and then on “day2” it slowed by some magnitudes. Has anyone done an analysis to see how this would chart out?

Then the age issues would be reconciled. A compacted creation if you will.

This is my mind would still leave some questions. Mainly Dinasours/people living together. But it would be one way to bring everyone under the same teachings, if these could be reconsiled

 

[The_Barbarian]

This would all fit together nicely if the speed of light was much faster at the beginning. For example say on “day1” (inflation) it was hundreds of magnitudes greater and then on “day2” it slowed by some magnitudes. Has anyone done an analysis to see how this would chart out?

Yep. You could pull out whatever numbers you wanted to make it work, and paste them in. But there’s a problem.

You see, the speed of light determines a host of other physical constants, like rates of radioactive decay.

Here we explore some simple implications of the poorly done science supporting the idea of extensive accelerated radioactive decay, specifically those advocated by the ICR in the RATE (“Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth”) document and at Answers in Genesis. Accelerated radioactive decay is occasionally invoked by creationists to explain radiometric dating results. By retreating to this position, they are essentially abandoning claims that isochron dating is seriously flawed. Here we examine some simple requirements for accelerated decay to effectively “mimic” the appearance of long ratioisotopic ages and some of the problems with currently proposed mechanisms for accelerating decay rates.
homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/rate/index.html

That’s just the start. If the speed of light was significantly faster in the past, so would the amount of ionizing radiation from the crust. Enough, in fact, to fry living things.

Then the age issues would be reconciled. A compacted creation if you will.

With broiled dinosaur on the side.

 

[buffalo]

Yep. You could pull out whatever numbers you wanted to make it work, and paste them in. But there’s a problem.

You see, the speed of light determines a host of other physical constants, like rates of radioactive decay.

Here we explore some simple implications of the poorly done science supporting the idea of extensive accelerated radioactive decay, specifically those advocated by the ICR in the RATE (“Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth”) document and at Answers in Genesis. Accelerated radioactive decay is occasionally invoked by creationists to explain radiometric dating results. By retreating to this position, they are essentially abandoning claims that isochron dating is seriously flawed. Here we examine some simple requirements for accelerated decay to effectively “mimic” the appearance of long ratioisotopic ages and some of the problems with currently proposed mechanisms for accelerating decay rates.
homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/rate/index.html

That’s just the start. If the speed of light was significantly faster in the past, so would the amount of ionizing radiation from the crust. Enough, in fact, to fry living things.

With broiled dinosaur on the side.

Sure, but at some time it would slow and therefore cool as well as distance being increased as the universe expanded.

 

[Namesake]

modern science should have no part to do with biblical matters. Yet people want to drag science into biblical matters to prove what is and isn’t true or possible in the Bible. That is wrong. weather one accepts Young Earth or Old Earth, that is there business. I base all my reasoning off of biblical matters and not science. I could type out the chronology found in the Bible to prove my point for a young Earth, but you want scientific proof over God.

Are you really comfortable living with a bronze age understanding of nature? Do you want to live that way and have penicillin too?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Sure, but at some time it would slow and therefore cool as well as distance being increased as the universe expanded.

This would be in the Earth itself. So the idea of the Earth being a few thousands of years old is out of the question. Adam would have been zapped by lethal doses of radiation, was would the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Are you really comfortable living with a bronze age understanding of nature? Do you want to live that way and have penicillin too?

All I am stating is that Science should have no part in biblical matters, health matters is different.

 

[Namesake]

All I am stating is that Science should have no part in biblical matters, health matters is different.

What happens when science shows that “biblical matters” can’t have happened just as the Bible describes?

 

[tobinatorstark]

What happens when science shows that “biblical matters” can’t have happened just as the Bible describes?

To deny the events that happened in the Bible is denying God’s infallable word. If you don’t believe the events in the Bible then take your beef up with God on your judgment day. I believe in the Bible and the historical event like Noah’s Ark and Moses and David and Goliath existed. God gave us science for medical purposes as we are called to respect the physician. When science says that a specific biblical matter couldn’t have happened the way the Bible says then you listen to the Bible and the Catholic Church instead of science.

 

[Squishy]

To deny the events that happened in the Bible is denying God’s infallable word. If you don’t believe the events in the Bible then take your beef up with God on your judgment day. I believe in the Bible and the historical event like Noah’s Ark and Moses and David and Goliath existed. God gave us science for medical purposes as we are called to respect the physician. When science says that a specific biblical matter couldn’t have happened the way the Bible says then you listen to the Bible and the Catholic Church instead of science.

Thats just it though. The catholic church doesn’t say one way or another what to believe in the case of earth age. Science most certainly does though. Why still cling to the idea of a young earth when almost all the evidence points to a much older earth, the church even allows for a much older earth. So i do not see why you would cling to the idea that its only 6000 years old.

Do you interperate all the bible word for word as fact?

 

[anon5216]

To deny the events that happened in the Bible is denying God’s infallable word. If you don’t believe the events in the Bible then take your beef up with God on your judgment day. I believe in the Bible and the historical event like Noah’s Ark and Moses and David and Goliath existed. God gave us science for medical purposes as we are called to respect the physician. When science says that a specific biblical matter couldn’t have happened the way the Bible says then you listen to the Bible and the Catholic Church instead of science.

You’re assuming that the Bible is God’s infallible word.
As far as the Old Testament is concerned, Archaeology is throwing much doubt on the veracity of it. It looks more and more like a compilation of miscellaneous older legends set up to serve the purpose of nation building. Creating myths for this purpose was (and is) a common strategy.

Since there is no direct way to actually prove the Bible is the infallible word of God, we have to use science to check the claims made therein.
The closer science looks, the more those writings look like a set of myths serving as political propaganda circa 7th century BCE. There is no covenant with God in the Old Testament. It was a big mistake for the early Christians to accept those so called scriptures.

I believe that some of the saints such as Padre Pio prove that spiritual attainment is possible via the Catholic Church, but a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible as a whole is detrimental to large quantities of people achieving those kinds of spiritual results.

 

[Lucas3]

It’s worth reading Pope Benedict’s book, “In the Beginning.” He describes the prevailing world view when Genesis was written. Basically, it was believed that the world had been made by evil gods. So God commissioned the writing of Genesis, to emphasise that creation was created good.

I’ve also been trawling through Christopher West’s “The Theology of the Body Explained.” (What an amazing book, by the way!) In this Pope JP2’s view is that the ages of man can be divided into Original Man (pre-fall), Historical Man (now) and Eschatological Man (Resurrection and New Heavens/Earth). The problem is that early Genesis deals with original man, which is largely pre-historical. Therefore, much of the language is mythical.

What I haven’t yet got to grips with is how the truth of creation and man’s fall is integrated into an scientific view of evolution. Any ideas?

 

[tobinatorstark]

Thats just it though. The catholic church doesn’t say one way or another what to believe in the case of earth age. Science most certainly does though. Why still cling to the idea of a young earth when almost all the evidence points to a much older earth, the church even allows for a much older earth. So i do not see why you would cling to the idea that its only 6000 years old.

Do you interperate all the bible word for word as fact?

The church has no official opinion. We can believe whatever we want to on this matter. I choose to believe in young earth. You choose to believe in old earth. The chronology in my Bibles suggest young earth and I am going to trust the Bible on that one instead of science. As far as the Bible being literal, I accept that is all fact. However the parables that Jesus told weren’t of real people or else they would have had their name mentioned.

 

[tobinatorstark]

You’re assuming that the Bible is God’s infallible word.
As far as the Old Testament is concerned, Archaeology is throwing much doubt on the veracity of it. It looks more and more like a compilation of miscellaneous older legends set up to serve the purpose of nation building. Creating myths for this purpose was (and is) a common strategy.

Since there is no direct way to actually prove the Bible is the infallible word of God, we have to use science to check the claims made therein.
The closer science looks, the more those writings look like a set of myths serving as political propaganda circa 7th century BCE. There is no covenant with God in the Old Testament. It was a big mistake for the early Christians to accept those so called scriptures.

I believe that some of the saints such as Padre Pio prove that spiritual attainment is possible via the Catholic Church, but a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible as a whole is detrimental to large quantities of people achieving those kinds of spiritual results.

Why should science be involved with biblical matters??? It doesn’t belong with biblical matters. As a Christian believing that the Bible is a bunch of myth seems wrong and I am not going to deny anything that is stated in the Bible.