R
ribozyme
Guest
Arigato, that was a rather interesting article. I thank you for bringing it to my attention.
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
Better equipment had the effect of putting a stop to any decay in the speed of light?
D
Dan_Brown_2
Guest
Sorry but what has this got ot do with the earth universe being 8000 years old?
S
ssejllenrad
Guest
Wow! Nice connection on the Creation+Big Bang ideas…
S
ssejllenrad
Guest
I thought we’re talkin bout 6000 years old? How did it become 8000? Must be a typo man…
M
mlchance
Guest
No. Deferring to the expertise of the Catholic Church, all that I must positively affirm about the first three chapters of Genesis are:
- Creation by God at the beginning of time
- Special creation of Man; the formation of the first woman from the first man
- The unity of the human race
- Their initial state of justice, integrity and immortality
- The testing of Adam and Eve by a positive precept
- Their temptation and sin under the influence of the Devil
- Their expulsion from Paradise
- The promise of a Redeemer
- These chapters relate to real events, not myths, legends, or mere allegories or symbols.
- Not all words and sentences need be understood in the literal sense; those which have been variously interpreted by the Church Fathers and theologians may be understood according to one’s own judgement, subject to the Faith.
- We need not expect scientific exactitude in expressing the inner nature of visible things or to read the complete order of creation. The word day may be taken as a natural day or a certain space of time, and this question may be freely discussed.
J
jemfinch
Guest
Uh, because the arguments for it aren’t compelling?
Ask yourself why you bemoaned our lack of faith in scientific dogma rather than defending the dogma itself.
If only you could apply such fervor to worthwhile pursuits
Last I checked, it was you, and not the Young Earth Creationists, that are bashing people.
Jeremy
R
ribozyme
Guest
Nope, we evolved from lower life forms so the concept of creation from the dust of the Earth is contradicts the evidence. But are you going to accuse me (and the vast majority of scientists who believe in human evolution) of “deifying science” for pointing this out?
M
mlchance
Guest
Nope. I’m going to accuse of you setting up a strawman that completely ignores the point of my post, in which nowhere is “the concept of creation from the dust of the Earth” found.
But whatever it keeps for you to keep on believing those scientistic dogmas of yours.
– Mark L. Chance.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Hmm… lol “scientific dogma,” now that is an excellent oxymoron.Nope. I’m going to accuse of you setting up a strawman that completely ignores the point of my post, in which nowhere is “the concept of creation from the dust of the Earth” found.
But whatever it keeps for you to keep on believing those scientistic dogmas of yours.
– Mark L. Chance.
So what scientific dogmas do I believe in?No… you said those veruses in Genesis refere to real events and are not allegorical. So I thought you think that they are real events.
So what is the “special creation of man”? Could evolution be compatable with Catholicism and your assertion that “These chapters relate to real events, not myths, legends, or mere allegories or symbols.” Does the special creation refer to humans being created de novo (like from the dust of the earth), and not evolved from a species of great apes?
M
mlchance
Guest
RIF. That’s not what I said.Hmm… lol “scientific dogma,” now that is an excellent oxymoron.
You don’t even know what the Church means by the term, and yet you feel qualified to pass judgment on the idea? Interesting. That must be why you think citing Richard Dawkins on theological matters is a good idea: A lack of knowledge about a subject equals knowledge of the subject. Very interesting indeed.
– Mark L. Chance.
R
ribozyme
Guest
So enlighten me about the so-called “special creation.” When I hear special creation, it usually means a literal interpretation of the Genesis account.
Well, Richard Dawkins cited Anthony Kenny, who I might add was a Catholic priest. I only cited him because of a former priest’s objection regarding transubstantiation (so he knows the doctrine of transubstantiation) and I thought it was valid. One should remember Anthony Kenny is a philosopher too, unlike Dawkins.
Here’s the quote again:
Notice how Dawkins does not rely on his own opinion on transubstantiation, but that of Anthony Kenny’s
Richard Dawkins:
M
mlchance
Guest
Actually, in Catholic parlance, it doesn’t means that. How distressing for you that must be: that what you’ve thought you’ve known all this time is wrong!
If only there were some way you could acquire knowledge with the click of a mouse.
– Mark L. Chance.
J
JimG
Guest
It is quite true that in Catholic theology concerning transubstantiation, the word “substance” is used in the Thomistic (and Aristotelian) sense, not in the modern sense.
When we use the word “substance” we think of some material that is perceptible to the senses.
The Thomistic use of the word means the reality of the object, but distinguishes it from those things that are perceptible to the senses. In the Thomist usage we can never directly perceive the substance of any object; rather we perceive objects by means of their “appearances” or “accidents.”
In transubstantiation, the underlying substance is changed, but the appearances remain, although not inhering in any object.
An analogy for the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation would be to view it as a hologram or even a black hole, (the appearances), through which one comes into contact with the unseen underlying substance, which is Christ.
Now, I’m sure that most theologians would probably not use such an analogy, but it is reasonable. When you divide the accidents–i.e. the consecrated host or wine, the underlying substance of Christ is not divided; because the appearances are not ‘attached’ to the substance.
When we use the word “substance” we think of some material that is perceptible to the senses.
The Thomistic use of the word means the reality of the object, but distinguishes it from those things that are perceptible to the senses. In the Thomist usage we can never directly perceive the substance of any object; rather we perceive objects by means of their “appearances” or “accidents.”
In transubstantiation, the underlying substance is changed, but the appearances remain, although not inhering in any object.
An analogy for the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation would be to view it as a hologram or even a black hole, (the appearances), through which one comes into contact with the unseen underlying substance, which is Christ.
Now, I’m sure that most theologians would probably not use such an analogy, but it is reasonable. When you divide the accidents–i.e. the consecrated host or wine, the underlying substance of Christ is not divided; because the appearances are not ‘attached’ to the substance.
R
ribozyme
Guest
I will look at the article later when I have some time, so I thank you. Nope, I am not some egomaniac who considers himself infallible. I do not find it distressing that I am wrong, in fact, one should acknowledge that they are wrong in science, and not subbornly adhere to a hypothesis when it is falsified.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Hi Dan, last I checked God is a God of Truth, therefore it is against his nature to create something to be a lie. I do not think God would create light in transit because it would give a false reading, and thus be a lie which is contray to God’s nature.
L
Liberian
Guest
Jim,
Note that I said “apparent decrease.” The true speed of light had been constant throughout the ages. Better equipment shrank the error bars.
Note that I said “apparent decrease.” The true speed of light had been constant throughout the ages. Better equipment shrank the error bars.
- Liberian
J
JimG
Guest
Thanks for the clarification. I think that the current “standard model” of cosmology postulates an very brief “inflationary” period in cosmic expansion soon after the big bang, during which expansion occurred at a tremendously accelerated pace. At least one scientist has proposed in place of the “inflationary” period, an increased velocity of light during that time.
M
MilesXpisti
Guest
A theory that is quoted a lot, especially by people that have no real grasp of cosmology. Such a phenomenon could occur, given particular caveats, not the least of which relies on the Earth being at the center or near center of the Universe (I will not belabor to call modern geocentrism into question). Also, the Earth, given its place at the center of the universe would have little or not inertial movement to incur dilation effects. Remember, time slows down for only for things moving at high velocities or generating high gravity. If it were the case that Earth were a contained in gravity well, a disproportionately great curvature of space-time, not only would it probably make human life impossible, but observable light from stars would blueshift as it passed through Earth’s gravitational field. There is also the issue of observable dilation effects throughout the universe, of which only those regarding redshifting/Hubble’s Law is observed.
M
MojeIme1981
Guest
Please first think logically: God’s power is unlimited, so He could have created the world in as many days as he wanted, therefore I am quite sure that it was in 6 literal 24hour days as it is said in Genesis. In fact, God even didn’t need these 6 days, He could have done it momentary if He wanted to. Every Christian should be able to accept the unlimited Power of God.
But what concerns some Christians are the “obvious” scientific “proofs”, which indicate a “billion of years” universe. They are afraid of persecution by their “scientific” friends who claim to know the past, who are more “cool” then their fundamental Christian brothers.
Well Biblical Creation scientists have found many scientific evidence of a young earth universe, and also have shown many counter evidence against billion of years “evidence”. Everyone who earnestly seeks the truth should get familiar with these evidences. If you don’t give the Biblical creationists a chance then obviously you never wanted to allow a young universe. From the beginning on, then you have wished for a billion of years universe, so that you can be acceptable to your “cool” friends who don’t need a God.
Note, this is not a philosophical question, it’s logical, and I, having an electrical college degree and doing some serious programming as my job, do know how much 2+2 is. In contrast to the philosophy peoples who easily loose out of sight the unlimited power of God and other logic.
The one particular topic, and the hardest as well is the problem of distant light, mentioned here. There are a few acceptable explanations to it. I personally agree with it, that before the Fall, when everything was still “very good”, the speed of light was instantaneous, and therefore no problem for light to come from any galaxy within a blink of an eye. Before the Fall, there also were no suffering and no death. So obviously after the Fall some physical laws must have changed, because after the Fall the possibility of death was introduces to this world. As well, so the speed of light has changed. Why is it for Christian so hard to believe that before the Fall the speed of light was unlimited??? Because someone who does not need a God says that there never was a Fall, and some of you believe them?
If you anyhow, accept billions of years, then you have got a lot of troubles of what was before the Fall, what God has thought with His words “very good”. In a “billions of years” scenario “Very good” then also includes suffering, pain and death (violent ones also). There are just too many Theological, Scientific and Logical arguments in favour for young earth, that I am always disappointed when I see Christians still arguing in favour for billions of years.
My personal opinion is that God intentionally has created the world so that the “billons of years” theory has its points. That way He left the people full freedom in choosing their believe system, as well as He gives them full freedom in every other aspect.
The Catholic official standpoint of not being specific about this topic is of course in full harmony with the fact that the Catholic Holy Church has survived 2000 years of existence with a high degree of consistency. Try to imagine what kind of persecution would follow in our today’s world against that Churhc if they would boldly reject the “evidence” (as they should
)
But what concerns some Christians are the “obvious” scientific “proofs”, which indicate a “billion of years” universe. They are afraid of persecution by their “scientific” friends who claim to know the past, who are more “cool” then their fundamental Christian brothers.
Well Biblical Creation scientists have found many scientific evidence of a young earth universe, and also have shown many counter evidence against billion of years “evidence”. Everyone who earnestly seeks the truth should get familiar with these evidences. If you don’t give the Biblical creationists a chance then obviously you never wanted to allow a young universe. From the beginning on, then you have wished for a billion of years universe, so that you can be acceptable to your “cool” friends who don’t need a God.
Note, this is not a philosophical question, it’s logical, and I, having an electrical college degree and doing some serious programming as my job, do know how much 2+2 is. In contrast to the philosophy peoples who easily loose out of sight the unlimited power of God and other logic.
The one particular topic, and the hardest as well is the problem of distant light, mentioned here. There are a few acceptable explanations to it. I personally agree with it, that before the Fall, when everything was still “very good”, the speed of light was instantaneous, and therefore no problem for light to come from any galaxy within a blink of an eye. Before the Fall, there also were no suffering and no death. So obviously after the Fall some physical laws must have changed, because after the Fall the possibility of death was introduces to this world. As well, so the speed of light has changed. Why is it for Christian so hard to believe that before the Fall the speed of light was unlimited??? Because someone who does not need a God says that there never was a Fall, and some of you believe them?
If you anyhow, accept billions of years, then you have got a lot of troubles of what was before the Fall, what God has thought with His words “very good”. In a “billions of years” scenario “Very good” then also includes suffering, pain and death (violent ones also). There are just too many Theological, Scientific and Logical arguments in favour for young earth, that I am always disappointed when I see Christians still arguing in favour for billions of years.
My personal opinion is that God intentionally has created the world so that the “billons of years” theory has its points. That way He left the people full freedom in choosing their believe system, as well as He gives them full freedom in every other aspect.
The Catholic official standpoint of not being specific about this topic is of course in full harmony with the fact that the Catholic Holy Church has survived 2000 years of existence with a high degree of consistency. Try to imagine what kind of persecution would follow in our today’s world against that Churhc if they would boldly reject the “evidence” (as they should
)- Status