Young Earth Creationists

  • Thread starter Thread starter MLowe75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh great, here we go… Please read this:
40.png
I'm not a catholic because? Non-Catholic Religions
Here is my second ever post on this forum: See also: And finally look at this:
Click to expand...
Spyridon said:
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.
Click to expand...
I find it quite interesting that you find it ‘logical’ to debate that the universe is 15 billion years old rather than 13.8 billion years old, even though there exists a whole 1.2 billion years between the two numbers, as if that’s a small difference…

I can understand how most scientists would be closed minded to the possibility of a Young Earth, since they do not build assumptions on religious texts, but for Catholics to reject even the possibility of a Young Earth, even though it’s in their scriptures, and accepted by the Church Fathers? It shows how far removed they have become.
 
Haven’t read other replies, but I would say yes.

I am Catholic and agree with the young earth idea. I find it has either equal or more evidence and ties quite nicely in with Catholic thought. My research into the holes of the evolution theory and evidence for a young earth along with he opinions of the Church Fathers led me to believe that the young earth idea is correct. Blessed Anne Emmerich’s Biblical Revelations were the tipping point, where she described a literal Adam and Eve.

Some Catholics can be a little hostile to those who have alternative theories which haven’t been widely accepted yet. But really it baffles me to think some Catholics would think God would give animals eternal souls (though they never outright admit that’s what they believe)…
 
Last edited:
That is not accurate:

The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”
  • Catholic Answers
 
That is not accurate:

Pope Benedict -

"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."
 
Young earth creationism is Pseudo-scientific nonsense at best.

We don’t invest BILLIONS in geology, archaeology, history and a dozen other disciplines, just because we have nothing to do and want to waste our lives. Sigh.

We know of human settlements that already reach back 10 thousand years or more. I’ve walked on one of them myself. To try and invoke the idea we basically popped into existence a mere flicker of time ago can’t be taken seriously at all.

It’s completely ignorant of science fact.
 
It’s not in the Scriptures, and it’s also not in all the Church Fathers. Learn the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Also learn the difference between individual Fathers’ opinions, and the consensus of the Fathers as disseminated by the Authentic Magisterium. Finally, learn the difference between opinions on scientific or worldly things, and essentials of faith and morals.

The fact you apparently don’t know the intricacies and nuances of any of these things, yet presume to speak from a position of learning and authority is breathtaking.

Besides, even if every single one of them believed in it, it wouldn’t matter. It’s not an issue of faith or morals - it’s an issue of science.

Most of them believed in humours too, but we don’t anymore.

Your posts reveal an incredible level of ignorance on this subject. You should probably cease from attempting to teach others and start learning yourself.
 
Last edited:
Cop-out, damage control and cognitive dissonance. You know, I’d have more respect if for once you just be honest and/or plead ignorance. For example, “I can’t provide an answer right now because such and such”. I’ve had my fair share of Catholics here either accuse me or accuse other Muslims of being permitted to lie for the sake of their religion. Now I’m starting to wonder if you guys are simply being dishonest for the sake of saving the face of the papacy.
 
Last edited:
That is not accurate.

Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633–13635.

But that is not the whole story:

"The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’

Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. ‘Genetic differences between humans and great apes.’ Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2–13."
 
SalamKhan said:
I can understand how most scientists would be closed minded to the possibility of a Young Earth, since they do not build assumptions on religious texts,
Click to expand...
I think you will find that Hindu, Buddhist and Jain scientists would have no problem with long ages in their religious texts. IIRC some Hindus claim that 13.5 billion years is far too short for the age of the universe, and it should be 500 billion years or more.

There are many different religious texts out there.

rossum
 
Animals have souls. It would be a heresy to say otherwise.

They have sensitive souls which also contain the nutritive principle.

Humans have sensitive souls which contain the nutritive principle, but also go a step further and are intelligent, meaning possessive of an intellect and will - the human soul is qualitatively different than animal souls. But to suggest a quantitative difference, as in animals have no soul and humans do, would be antithetical to authentic Catholic Magisterial doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Having a robust, correct, and orthodox understanding of Catholic doctrine and scientific knowledge is a cop out?

Interesting.

I would think rejecting scientific consensus and Church teaching in favor of anti-intellectual pseudo-science would be the cop out. Call me crazy, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
True. I agree that Neanderthals probably also descended from Adam and Eve - it just pushes Adam and Eve even further back to a time prior to the divergence of modern humans and Neanderthals. The evidence that they had spirituality and advanced culture would suggest that they did have eternal souls.
 
I was not saying animals don’t have souls. But to say that animal souls evolved into humans souls is close to heresy. Humans were made for eternal life. Animals were not.
 
I suppose repeating ‘Magisterium’ is considered ‘Having a robust, correct, and orthodox understanding of Catholic doctrine’. I mean, what the Magisterium taught in the past doesn’t matter, right? The Catholic Church can contradict itself and still remain the Catholic Church. But I suppose you will assert that the Magisterium never taught infallibly on this doctrine, but if that’s the case then the Magisterium never has taught ‘infallibly’ at all. Just tell me please, whether you reject the intellect or not, let me know whether or not you only let the ‘Magisterium’ do the thinking for you, I don’t need nor do I want to converse with an irrational person.
 
Last edited:
100% @ErraticFaith

Not only is it pseudo-science at best, it is detrimental to both sound doctrine regarding faith and morals (by fostering anti-Intellectual ignorance), additionally it is, quite frankly, vastly insulting not only to scientists but to science in general.

It’s a slap in the face to Catholic scientists when their co-religionists essentially accuse them of being in on a vast global conspiracy/deception.

Worst of all, these Catholic scientists are exactly the people we should be supporting the most to present to the world a unified front regarding the relations between faith and science. Instead, we have huge pockets of people insulting and contradicting their work, and thereby making the Church look like a haven of imbeciles, which for all intents and purposes makes the world think faith and science are inimical unto each other.
 
Last edited:
Neanderthals were fully human. That is a fact. The date interpretations are quite wrong. Look at the various existing skull shapes today: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Capoid, Congoid and Australoid.
 
Spyridon said:
in favor of anti-intellectual pseudo-science
Click to expand...
In case you haven’t noticed, I haven’t been discussing scientific evidence for and/or against evolution, nor do I care to. None of the evidence for the age of earth, the universe, the origin of humanity, etc. is empirical, at least not in itself, it’s all theoretical. I’m discussing Traditional Christian doctrine.
 
It WOULD be heresy to say animal souls evolved into human souls, definitely.

The soul was supernaturally and spontaneously created by God and given to men.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top