Z
Zaccheus
Guest
How can you know anything about their religious rites, including whether or not they had any, two million years ago?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
“Error has no rights” people say. But people who hold erroneous beliefs do have rights. I would discuss young earth with a believer in hopes to persuade them to change their belief.Not the people - the ridiculous position which they use to drive souls away from Christianity.
We’re way past the time of debating over this.
We shouldnt debate a young earth anymore than a flat earth. It’s an illogical ridiculous position which deserves to be mocked.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
This is what paleoarchaeology is all about. There are clues left with their remains.
There is strong evidence that our close cousins the Neanderthals, who coexisted with us for tens of thousands of years, had some sort of spirituality. They even buried the dead.
There is strong evidence that our close cousins the Neanderthals, who coexisted with us for tens of thousands of years, had some sort of spirituality. They even buried the dead.
Last edited:
S
Spyridon
Guest
Would you spend more than a couple minutes debating someone who claims nuclear weapons don’t really exist?
How about debating someone who believes airplanes are actually sky demons and not machines being flown by humans?
Some things do not deserve the dignity of dialogue. Young Earth Creation is one of those things - it is a shameful and embarrassing position only held by those who are truly ignorant, have malicious ulterior/monetary motives, are mentally unstable or some combination of these three things.
There really are mentally unstable people out there who believe aircraft are sky demons - flat earthers and young earth creationists ought to be grouped together with them, and they deserve to be ostracized, not taken seriously.
How about debating someone who believes airplanes are actually sky demons and not machines being flown by humans?
Some things do not deserve the dignity of dialogue. Young Earth Creation is one of those things - it is a shameful and embarrassing position only held by those who are truly ignorant, have malicious ulterior/monetary motives, are mentally unstable or some combination of these three things.
There really are mentally unstable people out there who believe aircraft are sky demons - flat earthers and young earth creationists ought to be grouped together with them, and they deserve to be ostracized, not taken seriously.
Last edited:
S
Spyridon
Guest
@twf precisely.
St. Augustine had some pretty strong choice words which are 100% applicable to modern Young Earth Creationists:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]"
St. Augustine had some pretty strong choice words which are 100% applicable to modern Young Earth Creationists:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]"
S
Spyridon
Guest
And finally - Old Earth Creation is an acceptable position to take in light of modern science.
Naturalistic Darwinian evolution can be refuted, disputed, and debated - the mechanisms of evolution, how evolution began, etc. are all questions still being debated in scientific circles to this day.
That’s not the issue at hand…
The issue is the PROVEN scientific FACTS that the Universe is about 13.8 billion years old and the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old.
If someone wants to debate and say the Universe is actually 15 billion and Earth 5 billion, or the Universe is only 10 billion and Earth is only 3.5 billion - these would be relatively logical positions and could be respectfully debated.
But debating that the Earth is older than 10,000 years and the Universe older than 20,000 years are NOT open for debate. These numbers have not been open for legitimate debate for over a CENTURY.
Likewise, debating that the Sun is at the center of our solar system and not the earth is not a legitimate question for debate - that issue has been settled since the 1800s. If the year was 1717 instead of 2017, we could respectfully debate that issue. But not anymore - it’s scientifically settled. Either accept the fact the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, or wallow in your ignorance as an object of derision.
Debating the earth is round and not flat is no longer a legitimate debate. It hasn’t been since the 15th century. If the year was still 1417 and not 2017, we could sit here and talk about whether the earth is flat or round. But not anymore - one either accepts the world is not flat, or one chooses, willfully, to be an ignoramus.
Naturalistic Darwinian evolution can be refuted, disputed, and debated - the mechanisms of evolution, how evolution began, etc. are all questions still being debated in scientific circles to this day.
That’s not the issue at hand…
The issue is the PROVEN scientific FACTS that the Universe is about 13.8 billion years old and the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old.
If someone wants to debate and say the Universe is actually 15 billion and Earth 5 billion, or the Universe is only 10 billion and Earth is only 3.5 billion - these would be relatively logical positions and could be respectfully debated.
But debating that the Earth is older than 10,000 years and the Universe older than 20,000 years are NOT open for debate. These numbers have not been open for legitimate debate for over a CENTURY.
Likewise, debating that the Sun is at the center of our solar system and not the earth is not a legitimate question for debate - that issue has been settled since the 1800s. If the year was 1717 instead of 2017, we could respectfully debate that issue. But not anymore - it’s scientifically settled. Either accept the fact the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, or wallow in your ignorance as an object of derision.
Debating the earth is round and not flat is no longer a legitimate debate. It hasn’t been since the 15th century. If the year was still 1417 and not 2017, we could sit here and talk about whether the earth is flat or round. But not anymore - one either accepts the world is not flat, or one chooses, willfully, to be an ignoramus.
Last edited:
S
SalamKhan
Guest
Young Earth Creationism originated in Ancient Christian Tradition, not Protestantism. In fact, theistic evolution and progressive creation should be false according to Catholic dogma:
http://catholicorigins.com
The way I see it, the reason why Catholic apologists today look down on Young Earth Creationism, is because most Catholics today are so willing to compromise their religion for the sake of conformity with the post Modern world, and I don’t just mean the laity either.
http://catholicorigins.com
The way I see it, the reason why Catholic apologists today look down on Young Earth Creationism, is because most Catholics today are so willing to compromise their religion for the sake of conformity with the post Modern world, and I don’t just mean the laity either.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
I have personally met and dealt with intelligent, educated people of good intent who were convinced that Young Earth Creationism was the truth. Usually because they were convinced that Old Earth creationism contradicted Scripture.
These people were not stupid, were not mentally unbalanced, were not malicious nor stubborn. They were merely wrong.
Now I might have a very small chance of success in persuading such a person to change his belief by discussion. But I think my chance of persuading them by mockery or name-calling is much smaller, and it’s mean-spirited besides.
These people were not stupid, were not mentally unbalanced, were not malicious nor stubborn. They were merely wrong.
Now I might have a very small chance of success in persuading such a person to change his belief by discussion. But I think my chance of persuading them by mockery or name-calling is much smaller, and it’s mean-spirited besides.
T
twf
Guest
Catholics who profess to understand the faith better than the last several Popes…
S
Spyridon
Guest
Bob Sungenis is a relatively smart person who is also quite deluded.
Would you spend significant time or energy debating him that the earth revolves around the Sun?
Would you spend significant time or energy debating him that the earth revolves around the Sun?
S
SalamKhan
Guest
I’m not a Catholic, and this is one of the reasons why. Maybe you should see it as the last few popes somehow understanding the faith better than the vast majority of popes prior to them. After all, ‘indefectibility’ means that the Catholic Church is allowed to contradict itself and still remain the Catholic Church.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Does he claim I can’t be a Christian unless I agree with him about this?Bob Sungenis is a relatively smart person who is also quite deluded.
Would you spend significant time or energy debating him that the earth revolves around the Sun?
S
Spyridon
Guest
If an astrophysicist who is 100% certain the Universe is nearly 14 billion years old hears a Christian saying “you can’t be a Christian unless you believe God created the universe on September 2nd, 4004 B.C”, then how in the world is that man going to believe a Christian saying “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling death by death”.. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
I have little sympathy and little patience for people who not only drive souls away from Christ, but also make the Church look like some backwards institution which thrives on ignorance and superstition.
R
rossum
Guest
Unfortunately for you, the Catholic Church learned from its experience with Galileo and has, correctly, decided not to repeat that particular mistake. You on the other hand…Young Earth Creationism originated in Ancient Christian Tradition, not Protestantism. In fact, theistic evolution and progressive creation should be false according to Catholic dogma:
http://catholicorigins.com
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
rossum
S
Spyridon
Guest
He claims you’re a heretical Catholic if you don’t - but so what? David Icke claims you’re blind if you don’t believe Queen Elizabeth is a reptilian humanoid.
Not every wingnut and lunatic belief deserves a dignified, intelligent response.
Not every wingnut and lunatic belief deserves a dignified, intelligent response.
S
Spyridon
Guest
@rossum
Salam is not a Catholic, he is a Muslim. Just putting that out there to avoid confusion or conflation.
Salam is not a Catholic, he is a Muslim. Just putting that out there to avoid confusion or conflation.
S
Spyridon
Guest
Or instead you could see it as the Popes since the dawn of the 20th century have had access to scientific information which was NOT available to Popes in, say, the 18th century.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
Once again, I’m not a Catholic and this is one of the reasons why. Defined dogma, especially when it’s ex cathedra, is supposed to be absolutely incontrovertible. But thanks for letting me know that Papal Infallibility doesn’t actually mean anything…
“We firmly believe and simply confess [‘infallible’ language] that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature {1} . The Father is from none, the Son from the Father alone, and the holy Spirit from both equally, eternally without beginning or end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal; one principle of all things, creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal; who by his almighty power at the beginning of time created from nothing both spiritual and corporeal creatures, that is to say angelic and earthly, and then created human beings composed as it were of both spirit and body in common. The devil and other demons were created by God naturally good, but they became evil by their own doing. Man, however, sinned at the prompting of the devil.” -Lateran IV, 1215
“We firmly believe and simply confess [‘infallible’ language] that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature {1} . The Father is from none, the Son from the Father alone, and the holy Spirit from both equally, eternally without beginning or end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal; one principle of all things, creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal; who by his almighty power at the beginning of time created from nothing both spiritual and corporeal creatures, that is to say angelic and earthly, and then created human beings composed as it were of both spirit and body in common. The devil and other demons were created by God naturally good, but they became evil by their own doing. Man, however, sinned at the prompting of the devil.” -Lateran IV, 1215
S
SalamKhan
Guest
I’m sorry if I come across as rude, but how many more of you are going to reply without actually going to the link I posted?
S
Spyridon
Guest
I just went to it, and it’s utterly irrelevant.
A private website set up by some laymen is NOT officially Church teaching. It’s not even a legitimate teaching apostolate like Catholic Answers, and I doubt the person(s) who authored it are either legitimate theologians, nor scientists. They have absolutely no authority (or apparent expertise from what I can see) whatsoever to proclaim what the Church does or should teach.
Their opinions and their website are utterly inapposite. What the Church teaches in the Documents of Vatican II, in the Catechism, and in other current, legitimate modes of Apostolical Magisterial Authority are what matter for our current conversation. Not some amateur unauthoratative layman.
A private website set up by some laymen is NOT officially Church teaching. It’s not even a legitimate teaching apostolate like Catholic Answers, and I doubt the person(s) who authored it are either legitimate theologians, nor scientists. They have absolutely no authority (or apparent expertise from what I can see) whatsoever to proclaim what the Church does or should teach.
Their opinions and their website are utterly inapposite. What the Church teaches in the Documents of Vatican II, in the Catechism, and in other current, legitimate modes of Apostolical Magisterial Authority are what matter for our current conversation. Not some amateur unauthoratative layman.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.