Young-Earth Creationism

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 October 2009 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1256243353' post='1989785']
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!
[/quote]
Thank you. The Big Bang theory was first articulated by a catholic priest [ that really ought to make Stormy happy ]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='22 October 2009 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1256247875' post='1989809']
Thank you. The Big Bang theory was first articulated by a catholic priest [ that really ought to make Stormy happy ]
[/quote]
Gregory Mendelson was a Catholic monk too.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='22 October 2009 - 03:00 AM' timestamp='1256198417' post='1989578']
You are right Cmom, because the word "day" is polyvalent.
[/quote]


Apo, you really do like to insert comments to do anything you can to make God not mean what He says---anything to escape the obvious----anything to make matters more complicated----anything to demote the Bible as much as possible to make it as confusing to as many possible and I can only wonder what the Lord thinks of you.

THE FACT is that if the Hebrew word for day (YOM) is used, to be exact, 357 times [u]outside[/u] of Genesis 1 to signify a normal 24 hour day, then all logic dictates that we conclude it means a 24 hour period [u]inside[/u] Genesis 1. Rail against it all you want. You are boxing against the wind.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1256250548' post='1989820']
Apo, you really do like to insert comments to do anything you can to make God not mean what He says---anything to escape the obvious----anything to make matters more complicated----anything to demote the Bible as much as possible to make it as confusing to as many possible and I can only wonder what the Lord thinks of you.

THE FACT is that if the Hebrew word for day (YOM) is used, to be exact, 357 times [u]outside[/u] of Genesis 1 to signify a normal 24 hour day, then all logic dictates that we conclude it means a 24 hour period [u]inside[/u] Genesis 1. Rail against it all you want. You are boxing against the wind.
[/quote]
How many theology degrees do you have? Where did you do your undergraduate work or graduate work in theology? What is your masters degree in? What has qualified you to believe you are competent to decide what a word mean?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 04:29 PM' timestamp='1256250548' post='1989820']
Apo, you really do like to insert comments to do anything you can to make God not mean what He says---anything to escape the obvious----anything to make matters more complicated----anything to demote the Bible as much as possible to make it as confusing to as many possible and I can only wonder what the Lord thinks of you.[/quote]
I simply do not agree with your fundamentalist mindset. Alas, you continue to confuse your subjective interpretations of the text with the text itself.

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 04:29 PM' timestamp='1256250548' post='1989820']THHE FACT is that if the Hebrew word for day (YOM) is used, to be exact, 357 times [u]outside[/u] of Genesis 1 to signify a normal 24 hour day, then all logic dictates that we conclude it means a 24 hour period [u]inside[/u] Genesis 1. Rail against it all you want. You are boxing against the wind.
[/quote]
The number of times a word is used in a particular manner does not mean that that is the only way that the word in question can be used. Scriptural exegesis is not an arithmetical procedure.

It is a fact that the word for "day" in both the Hebrew text and the Greek Septuagint can simply mean a period of time more or less than 24 hours.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Apotheoun

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='22 October 2009 - 02:23 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]
+1 to the godless heathen.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='22 October 2009 - 03:11 PM' timestamp='1256242305' post='1989780']
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]"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".
[/quote]

C-Cat

Everything you have said is a bunch of baloney. There are no less than 20 CD's out now and hundreds of books by accredited scientists (and I have many of them) completely demolishing every single last word of your post as everything they investigate is based on EMPIRICAL evidence! Your post is so full of hot air, if you were a balloon, you'd pop. Just as one example which I gave 3 times so far and nobody deals with (about there being no transitional forms---only fully formed creatures in the fossil record)-- EXCUSE ME, my feline friend, but THAT is empirical evidence parading before your eyes....and is only the tip of the iceberg. But of course you simply can't stand it, it destroys your viewpoint and it (oh no!) makes God actually mean what He says---and of course you can't have that. Oh no, the only place where you want to believe God has spoken clearly and without ambiguity, is where He says, EAT MY FLESH, DRINK MY BLOOD. Oh yes, THAT we can believe! Even though there are no less than 100 reasons why it can be shown He was speaking figuratively, you don't want to hear it. The point is, to use that lame old tired accusation of creation scientists failing to immerse themselves in empirical evidence, is inexcusable, and needless to say, UNSCIENTIFIC! You obviously do not know WHAT you are talking about, nor have you even probably read one book or article relating to this issue. Shame on you!
Oh and thank you so much for the laugh that the CATHOLIC CHURCH of all places, that infamous institution full of so many "well-informed scientists", who condemned Galileo????? 500 years later, JPII had to apologize to the world for those scientifically inaccurate accusations---and uh, what makes the Catholic Church any more scientifically credible TODAY then they were THEN??????????????

Edited October 22, 2009 by Stormstopper

[cmotherofpirl]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090707203728.htm

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1256251806' post='1989834']
C-Cat

Everything you have said is a bunch of baloney. There are no less than 20 CD's out now and hundreds of books by accredited scientists (and I have many of them) completely demolishing every single last word of your post as everything they investigate is based on EMPIRICAL evidence! Your post is so full of hot air, if you were a balloon, you'd pop. Just as one example which I gave 3 times so far and nobody deals with (about there being no transitional forms---only fully formed creatures in the fossil record)-- EXCUSE ME, my feline friend, but THAT is empirical evidence parading before your eyes....and is only the tip of the iceberg. But of course you simply can't stand it, it destroys your viewpoint and it (oh no!) makes God actually mean what He says---and of course you can't have that. Oh no, the only place where you want to believe God has spoken clearly and without ambiguity, is where He says, EAT MY FLESH, DRINK MY BLOOD. Oh yes, THAT we can believe! Even though there are no less than 100 reasons why it can be shown He was speaking figuratively, you don't want to hear it. The point is, to use that lame old tired accusation of creation scientists failing to immerse themselves in empirical evidence, is inexcusable, and needless to say, UNSCIENTIFIC! You obviously do not know WHAT you are talking about, nor have you even probably read one book or article relating to this issue. Shame on you!
Oh and thank you so much for the laugh that the CATHOLIC CHURCH of all places, that infamous institution full of so many "well-informed scientists", who condemned Galileo????? 500 years later, JPII had to apologize to the world for those scientifically inaccurate accusations---and uh, what makes the Catholic Church any more scientifically credible TODAY then they were THEN??????????????
[/quote]
[img]http://www.coverups.com/photos-silly/guys-problem-1213984.jpg[/img]
[img]http://acjeffers.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/guy-yelling-on-phone2.jpg[/img]
[img]http://techadvntg.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/computer-yelling.jpg[/img]

[Resurrexi]

I really don't see anything wrong with other Christians thinking that the world was created in six twenty-four hour periods and that it is only about 6000 years old. If they want support that theory, it's fine by me as long as they aren't teaching classes on the natural sciences.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='22 October 2009 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1256252862' post='1989838']
I really don't see anything wrong with other Christians thinking that the world was created in six twenty-four hour periods and that it is only about 6000 years old. If they want support that theory, it's fine by me as long as they aren't teaching classes on the natural sciences.
[/quote]
Catholics are free to hold that God created the world in six days, or in an instant (as St. Augustine believed), or over aeons, because none of those viewpoints have been condemned, nor are they ever likely to be condemned.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='22 October 2009 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1256252862' post='1989838']
I really don't see anything wrong with other Christians thinking that the world was created in six twenty-four hour periods and that it is only about 6000 years old. If they want support that theory, it's fine by me as long as they aren't teaching classes on the natural sciences.
[/quote]
The problem is Rexi is that is the problem, they want to replace science with their version of religious dogma.

[Jesus_lol]

nice Nihil
[img]http://sharecare.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/anger1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.reallyfunnypictures.co.uk/coolpictures/pics/02.03.08/anger.jpg[/img]

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='22 October 2009 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1256253185' post='1989843']
The problem is Rexi is that is the problem, they want to replace science with their version of religious dogma.
[/quote]


[mod]personal attack- MIKolbe[/mod] you would know that all creation scientist are NOT in favor of the Bible or any "religious dogma" as you call it, to be taught in the classroom. Christian scientists are NOT in favor of the Bible being taught by secular humanists in the classroom! Therefore, just as being taught evolution leads one to a particular worldview by it's implications of there being no God, so too does creationism lead one to a particular worldview. All creation scientist are saying is to provide BOTH viewpoints---and no RELIGIOUS DOGMA ever be need mentioned.
Do you understand NOW???

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1256253966' post='1989851']
[mod]personal attack-MIKolbe[/mod] you would know that all creation scientist are NOT in favor of the Bible or any "religious dogma" as you call it, to be taught in the classroom. Christian scientists are NOT in favor of the Bible being taught by secular humanists in the classroom! Therefore, just as being taught evolution leads one to a particular worldview by it's implications of there being no God, so too does creationism lead one to a particular worldview. All creation scientist are saying is to provide BOTH viewpoints---and no RELIGIOUS DOGMA ever be need mentioned.
Do you understand NOW???
[/quote]
I DON'T THINK YOU'RE EMPHASIZING YOUR POSTS EFFECTIVELY ENOUGH!!!!!