Young-Earth Creationism

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='22 October 2009 - 04:33 AM' timestamp='1256204006' post='1989590']
"Facts are empirical data, objective verifiable observations." "A scientific theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions." Evolution could thus be described as "fact" and "theory".

"[i]Creationism[/i]" and even "[i]Intelligent Design[/i]" are not science, and neither has any kind of empirical evidence to support its claims. Scientists, Courts, and even the Catholic Church keep affirming that it cannot be considered science in any degree.



"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the "Big Bang" and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life."

"The origin of the human species is in Africa* about 150,000 years ago" and that "Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species ([i]whether as individuals or in populations[/i]) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention."

*[i]South-Eastern Coast of Africa[/i]
[/quote]


Since you say facts are imperical data and imply creationist do NOT use empirical facts, kindly give us some examples. I have a feeling that the multitude of degreed creation scientists would scoff at such an outrageous allegation because THEY ARE CONSTANTLY INTERACTING WITH EMPIRICAL FACTS. You are therefore, a liar---there's no other way to say it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 02:27 PM' timestamp='1256232433' post='1989712']
Since you say facts are imperical data and imply creationist do NOT use empirical facts, kindly give us some examples. I have a feeling that the multitude of degreed creation scientists would scoff at such an outrageous allegation because THEY ARE CONSTANTLY INTERACTING WITH EMPIRICAL FACTS. You are therefore, a liar---there's no other way to say it.
[/quote]

We have no problem with a good conversation, but that was a personal attack. Either apologize or leave - your choice.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1256232433' post='1989712']
Since you say facts are imperical data and imply creationist do NOT use empirical facts, kindly give us some examples. I have a feeling that the multitude of degreed creation scientists would scoff at such an outrageous allegation because THEY ARE CONSTANTLY INTERACTING WITH EMPIRICAL FACTS. You are therefore, a liar---there's no other way to say it.
[/quote]
There are plenty of other ways to say it:

1. You obfuscate.
2. You slay the truth!
3. You fabricate!
4. You philander with the Whore of Untruth!
5. You are a politician!
And many more...

And let us not forget the irony of 95+ calling someone a liar when he has repeatedly puked up the most asinine of prevarications.

Everyone interacts with facts. That doesn't mean they understand them.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1256232433' post='1989712']
My time from first comment to completely losing it is decreasing. This is the evolution called the "Budge Effect".
[/quote]

lulz.

[Winchester]

And he still hasn't corrected his idiotic interpretation of extraordinary membership in the Church.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Winchester' date='22 October 2009 - 11:40 AM' timestamp='1256233230' post='1989722']
And he still hasn't corrected his idiotic interpretation
[/quote]

which one?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 October 2009 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1256233462' post='1989726']
which one?
[/quote]
ouch.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1256188533' post='1989492']
Apo...it is extremely difficult to respect the Catholic position when they basically say, "just accept whatever form of creation or evolution you desire with certain safeguards". No, God is not going to be sending anyone to hell because they held to a certain age of the earth.....BUT.....He expects you to examine the evidence found in His word---something you appear not too interested in doing based on your previous comment on another post that you follow the traditions of the east and follow this, that and the other thing. Those "things" should be secondary! I stated above a fact that should be an excellent starting point for anyone looking into this issue and everyone has ignored it, most likely because no one ever told you and it was a shock to the system. Namely the irrefutable truth that the Holy Spirit of God who inspired the Scriptures has utilized the word "DAY" to mean a 24 hour "SOLAR" (I stand corrected) DAY. And He does it no less than 350 times! Thus, the first item on the agenda to be rejected for me was the idea that the word "DAY" [i]could [/i] mean "long ages" of time. The Bible simply will not permit it, and therefore one must conclude the Lord would be quite angry with the Catholic Church's suggestion that we interpret that word to mean long ages simply to accomade the primarily atheistic theory of evolution (Why don't you rent, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" at your local video store). Let's face it, John the Baptist said God could of these very stones, make children of Abraham. But if He did, they would be MEN, whole and entire, not partially formed through a million year process. And as a matter of fact, He did just that---by breathing into life a whole army of men, using a bunch of dry bones, right before the eyes of Ezekial (37:1).
[/quote]
What's clear to me is that your god lives in a book and that apparently the only reason why "god" gave you a brain is to read a book about him. The world exists around us and is observable, within our reason.

FYI, "soft" dinosaur tissue obviously couldn't exist for millions of years, but it also couldn't last for thousands of years either. Do you ever heard of biology?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 10:18 AM' timestamp='1256228316' post='1989649']
Apo....I'll say it again because things need to be repeated to push people to check things out. THE FORMATION OF EVE out of Adam's side is simply impossible to reconcile with "theistic evolution". He put Adam to sleep and a short time later, THERE SHE WAS! Kindly stop to consider that in a battle, one does not survive long by professing neutrality and trying to straddle the boundary, unarmed and confused between two opposing lines of fire. The Lord would say to you, get a grip Apo, [i]"How long halt ye between two opinions?" [/i](1 Kings 18:21). You only have two choices....either we evolved or we were created. The idea to combine the two and say God USED evolution to make everything is absurd and out of His character---and as the title to a book I have reads, : "Evolution: The Fossils say, NO!"
[/quote]
You are fast and loose with your scriptural references: In an earlier post you used a citation from St. Paul to confirm that Eve was made from a bone from Adam's side, and yet St. Paul never mentions a bone in your referenced verse, but merely says that Eve was made from Adam. Scripture, from my perspective, asserts that God is the creator of the cosmic order, but I do not believe that one is required to accept the Genesis narrative in the fundamentalistic way that you read it, and I am not saying anything new in this regard, because St. Augustine said the same type of thing more than one thousand years before the Protestant Reformation.

Finally, you assume many things about my position, and read things into my posts that are not there, because in none of my recent posts have I indicated what my position on evolution is, but you have simply assumed that you know what I think on the issue, and have done so without any basis in reality.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='22 October 2009 - 07:23 PM' timestamp='1256235780' post='1989747']
What's clear to me is that your god lives in a book and that apparently the only reason why "god" gave you a brain is to read a book about him. The world exists around us and is observable, within our reason.

FYI, "soft" dinosaur tissue obviously couldn't exist for millions of years, but it also couldn't last for thousands of years either. Do you ever heard of biology?
[/quote]
Well, a couple thousand years might be possible, if the dino were in a bog or something, like [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tollund_Man"]Tollund Man[/url]. The [url="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html"]only reference[/url] I've heard of soft tissue on a dino being found was that there was still some softer tissue inside a thigh bone of a T-Rex. However, there is [url="http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2933635420080730"]dispute[/url]about whether it's actually soft tissue or bacterial.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' date='22 October 2009 - 01:47 PM' timestamp='1256237237' post='1989759']
Well, a couple thousand years might be possible, if the dino were in a bog or something, like [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tollund_Man"]Tollund Man[/url]. The [url="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html"]only reference[/url] I've heard of soft tissue on a dino being found was that there was still some softer tissue inside a thigh bone of a T-Rex. However, there is [url="http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2933635420080730"]dispute[/url]about whether it's actually soft tissue or bacterial.
[/quote]
Ststpr cited that... the link he posted was sketchy. Mostly didn't support his conclusions.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1256229862' post='1989658']Dear C-Cat,


Explosions produce DISORDER! And when Humpty Dumpty fell over the ledge, no amount of evolution was going to put him back together again. That a BIG BANG created the ORDER we see all around us is the height of insanity. Theistic evolutionists[size="2"][font="Arial"] simply refuse to allow God the glory to suddenly and spectacularly create, as in "Let there be light" (Gen 1:3) and "He spake and it was [i]done."[/i] (Ps 33:9). No slow or sporadic arrival of light, man or animal is ever alluded to, but rather He would laugh at such slowpoke notions! Moreover, as you may know, ALL theories of evo require that there was some sort of glob of material somewhere out there, and later on it exploded. However, the Lord specifically states that He did not NEED any material substance to begin with, but that the breath of His mouth was enough. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that the things which are seen, were NOT MADE of things which do appear." (Heb 11:3). Again, the Lord tells us that the things which we now see were [i]not[/i] made out of any pre-existing materials whatsoever! Why don't you just BELIEVE Him?????
[/font][/size]
The greatest scientist in the universe, the VERY one who created all things, "sits in the heavens and LAUGHS" (Ps 2:4) at statements such as yours ("intelligent design is not science") that rob Him of His glory. He "intelligently designed" every single thing and no puny opinion of man will ever change that, including yours.[/quote]The Bible is chiefly and firstly a religious text, and while it does contain different literary styles and discuss different topics, clearly it was intended to be received in a religious context. It was not intended to be received as a history book, a science book, or even a catechism; even though it does contain some elements of these. The Bible itself in 2 Peter 3:16 EVEN suggests that the Bible is not easily understood.

Though I am curious which version of creation you adhere to, Genesis 1 or Genesis 2. Genesis 1 contains the story of creation that most of us would expect, a six day creation story with man and woman being created together last. In Genesis 2 man is first created, then the universe furnished around him, then woman is created from man; [i]also it seems this story accounts creation happening in one day, not six[/i]. While some claim these stories are easily reconciled, the fact remains that the Book of Genesis contains two seemingly different stories of creation. Thus with this in mind, either story of creation could possibly be called more appropriately, "[i]allegory[/i]" or "[i]myth[/i]". Perhaps similar to many other creation myths that exist from other religous texts or cultures.

It seems apparent to me personally, that you are convicted of your opinions and beliefs, also that you seem to cherish these beliefs in some kind of “[i]creationism[/i]” or “[i]intelligent design[/i]”. Though, this too, is merely your opinion and belief. Also it appears that this belief is not based in some kind of empirical facts or observation, rather it appears based in a fundamentalist approach to the Book of Genesis. If we follow traditional authorship theory and narrative, Moses who wrote these two stories of creation, while in exile in the desert, was writing about something that happened more than five to six thousand years ago ([i]from his perspective in a Bibical timeline[/i]). Perhaps it is more likely these two creation stories were given to give continuity to what Moses was writing, maybe to convey some kind of social/religious values, customs, and ideas.

Describing the big bang as “[i]explosion creating disorder[/i]” is at best [i]facetious[/i]; perhaps suggesting someone does not fully understand the origins of our universe under the "big bang" theory. Both evolution and the big bang are received in the scientific community with almost complete acceptance and practically universal consensus. To somehow skew this into the idea that scientists are not certain is ludicrous.

Even the Church Father and Doctor, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo"][b]Saint Agustin of Hippo[/b][/url] (354-430), apparently who wrote about the Book of Genesis had some rather "[i]curious[/i]" words that may be relevant to you:

[indent][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo"]Saint Agustin of Hippo[/url][/b] (354-430) | The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, [b]may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he (the non-Christian) should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are[/b]. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation"[/indent][quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1256232433' post='1989712']
Since you say facts are imperical data and imply creationist do NOT use empirical facts, kindly give us some examples. I have a feeling that the multitude of degreed creation scientists would scoff at such an outrageous allegation because THEY ARE CONSTANTLY INTERACTING WITH EMPIRICAL FACTS. You are therefore, a liar---there's no other way to say it.[/quote]"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science." - [b]Father George Coyne, Vatican's chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006[/b]

“Intelligent Design” starts with an assumption rather than observation, does not have any collaborating empirical evidence by any stretch of the imagination, is by definition religiously motivated rather than scientifically motivated, stands arbitrarily against the entire scientific community, ignores the whole bulk of work done on this subject already by prominent scientists both past and present, lacks proper scientific method, has no scientific support or precedence, and worse makes a faulty assumption based in taking something revered in “supernatural belief”, attempting to prove something “supernatural” in a field of study that is limited to the study of that which is “natural”.

Simply put it is not Science and it never will be Science, without totally changing what Science is... If “[i]Intelligent Design[/i]” proponents wish to be taken seriously, they either need to [b]not[/b] call it Science, or totally rethink their approach. On these grounds the courts in the United States, Scientists, and even the Catholic Church have very clearly dismissed “Intellgent Design” of having any creitablity, and more importnatly, being in any way "science".

Edited October 22, 2009 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Jesus_lol]

and you get my one plus point today.
terrific. i never actually knew how much the catholic church distanced itself from the crazy creationism stuff. interesting!

[JimR-OCDS]

So Eve was made from the rib of Adam and we all descended from those two.

But I have to wonder, why do men have nipples?

Jim

Edited October 22, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='22 October 2009 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1256244265' post='1989791']
So Eve was made from the rib of Adam and we all descended from those two.

But I have to wonder, why do men have nipples?

Jim
[/quote]
It's because God has a sense of humour.

"Ahahahaha, whatcha gonna do with these, boy?"

Honestly, I think that's more biology than evolution. Until males start producing testosterone in greater amounts, and females start producing more estrogen, their chests are identical. If I had to guess from a layman's perspective, I'd say it's just a delay of differentiation between genders, in a way. After all, men and women are nearly genetically identical.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Nihil Obstat