Young-Earth Creationism

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 08:26 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]
Creation "science" is not science, its religious belief looking for scientific validation to legitimize it. As such, it has no place in a classroom. I don't see evolution leading to an implication that God doesn't exist, to me it simply shows the marvelous, wonderous and fascinating path God chose to play in His universe. It strengthens my belief in the power of Almighty God.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='22 October 2009 - 01:23 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]


Fiddle dee dee

You are an atheist, so the first and only thing to be said for now is that you need to discover that your belief that every single plant, animal, bird, fruit tree and star-- simply popped into existance by chance, is inexcusably unreasonable. You can look at your kitchen table and know beyond doubt that someone made THAT, but you can't see the intelligent power beyond an incomprehisibly complex universe. You need to investigate further and find the Lord while there is still time, because death is not the end of the story, and it is what you believe here and now that will determine where you will spend eternity.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='22 October 2009 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1256250784' post='1989823']
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?
[/quote]


You are simply amazing C-mom. Like eveyone else, you will do everything you can to discredit the Bible, but do everything you can to be a spectator in the parade when the Pope comes to town!

Now I told you the truth. Why don't you go on-line and do some research on the word yom instead of asking me how many degrees I have!
Then when you find out you were wrong still yet another time, I know I won't be holding my breath for an apology.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1256255072' post='1989862']
You are simply amazing C-mom. Like eveyone else, you will do everything you can to discredit the Bible, but do everything you can to be a spectator in the parade when the Pope comes to town!

Now I told you the truth. Why don't you go on-line and do some research on the word yom instead of asking me how many degrees I have!
Then when you find out you were wrong still yet another time, I know I won't be holding my breath for an apology.
[/quote]
Stormstopper,

not a single one of us appreciates your ridiculous posturing. These personal attacks are immature and useless. Don't you dare bring up Jesus using 'strong language', because you are truly not even worthy to untie the thong on His sandals. Your arrogance is unjustifiable and filled with hate.

By the mercy of God,

Nihil Obstat

Edited October 22, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Winchester]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 06:29 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]
But remember, kids, when Christ says we must eat His Body and drink His Blood, repeats it three times and lets people leave because they can't accept it, He's being symbolic.

Of course, if one books uses terms a certain way, then all books must use the term that way. We shall throw knowledge of Hebrew literary forms out the window and pretend that the existence of dinosaurs and evolution has something to do with salvation (which, you will note, 95+ never explains).

The reason he doesn't respond, for those who haven't seen him from the beginning, is that I wouldn't play his proof-texting game with him and actually tried to get him to stay in one area and explain poor interpretations. The game of his type is to continually throw up quotes, hardly ever defend their interpretation and move on. It's a great tactic for the insecure.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='22 October 2009 - 06:37 PM' timestamp='1256254670' post='1989857']
Creation "science" is not science, its religious belief looking for scientific validation to legitimize it. As such, it has no place in a classroom. I don't see evolution leading to an implication that God doesn't exist, to me it simply shows the marvelous, wonderous and fascinating path God chose to play in His universe. It strengthens my belief in the power of Almighty God.
[/quote]


You just don't get it C-M. Every form of evolution theory (and there are oh so many with the whole bundle of them disagreeing with each other--so which one do YOU subscribe to?) demand some sort of glob in the distant past floating around in space and then exploding. But I wrote on this post that Hebrews 11:3 strictly forbids it, in that the things that were made were NOT made by things which do appear! It is understandable that with your ignorance of the Scriptures, Jesus would also say to you as He did to them, "You do greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God". Evolution does not in any way whatsoever show the "power" of God as you erroneously suggest. It is NOT based on empirical evidence, there is no proof of it in the fossil record, it contradicts the basic laws of science and is an insult to common sense. It is the epitomy of "SCIENCE, FALSEY SO-CALLED" per 1 Tim 6:20!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 08:44 PM' timestamp='1256255072' post='1989862']
You are simply amazing C-mom. Like eveyone else, you will do everything you can to discredit the Bible, but do everything you can to be a spectator in the parade when the Pope comes to town!

Now I told you the truth. Why don't you go on-line and do some research on the word yom instead of asking me how many degrees I have!
Then when you find out you were wrong still yet another time, I know I won't be holding my breath for an apology.
[/quote]

So in other words, you haven't any
I also have nothing to apologize for, I haven't been rude.

Do you really think reading some online stuff counts as actual scholarship?
You seem to forget the basic fact that Scripture is actually a library collected, collated, preserved and guaranteed by the Catholic Church, so why would I try to discredit it? I simply try to read it with an adult understanding of some of the theology, archeology, history, anthropology, genre, literary form and style of each individual book. I also keep in mind that private interpretation can and does lead to downright silliness by people who try to make it into a newspaper article or a science report or the script of a CNN show.

[Nihil Obstat]

Hebrews 11:3
"By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God: that from invisible things visible things might be made."

I don't recall anyone denying that God created the world.

1 Timothy 6:20
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called."

Now you're just lazy, getting Scripture to do the insulting for you. Two can play at that game, because Matthew pontificated so clearly in Mat 7:6 "Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you."

[Arpy]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 04:59 PM' timestamp='1256255949' post='1989872']
You just don't get it C-M. Every form of evolution theory (and there are oh so many with the whole bundle of them disagreeing with each other--so which one do YOU subscribe to?) demand some sort of glob in the distant past floating around in space and then exploding. But I wrote on this post that Hebrews 11:3 strictly forbids it, in that the things that were made were NOT made by things which do appear! It is understandable that with your ignorance of the Scriptures, Jesus would also say to you as He did to them, "You do greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God". Evolution does not in any way whatsoever show the "power" of God as you erroneously suggest. It is NOT based on empirical evidence, there is no proof of it in the fossil record, it contradicts the basic laws of science and is an insult to common sense. It is the epitomy of "SCIENCE, FALSEY SO-CALLED" per 1 Tim 6:20!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]
Actually, all versions of the Big Bang theory with which I am familiar necessitate some kind of uncaused cause that set everything off. I happen to believe that that was God. Even if there was a floating space glob from which the universe sprang, God created it ex nihilo.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1256255949' post='1989872']
You just don't get it C-M. Every form of evolution theory (and there are oh so many with the whole bundle of them disagreeing with each other--so which one do YOU subscribe to?) demand some sort of glob in the distant past floating around in space and then exploding. But I wrote on this post that Hebrews 11:3 strictly forbids it, in that the things that were made were NOT made by things which do appear! It is understandable that with your ignorance of the Scriptures, Jesus would also say to you as He did to them, "You do greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God". Evolution does not in any way whatsoever show the "power" of God as you erroneously suggest. It is NOT based on empirical evidence, there is no proof of it in the fossil record, it contradicts the basic laws of science and is an insult to common sense. It is the epitomy of "SCIENCE, FALSEY SO-CALLED" per 1 Tim 6:20!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 October 2009 - 07:20 PM' timestamp='1256257220' post='1989886']
Hebrews 11:3
"By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God: that from invisible things visible things might be made."

I don't recall anyone denying that God created the world.

1 Timothy 6:20
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called."

Now you're just lazy, getting Scripture to do the insulting for you. Two can play at that game, because Matthew pontificated so clearly in Mat 7:6 "Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you."
[/quote]


Nil.......your post is nonsensical. First of all the text reads He made the WORLDS, plural. Second, you didn't finish the verse which said these things were made by things which do not APPEAR (which eliminates the alleged glob in space that evolution demands!). And your quoting 1 Tim 6:20 was for what?
My KJV reads "SCIENCE FALSELY SO-CALLED" and it is perfectly legit for reasons I will not waste my finger power to explain since whatever I say, even if the Bible supports it, you will never believe.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Stormstopper

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1256261669' post='1989938']
My KJV reads "SCIENCE FALSELY SO-CALLED" and it is perfectly legit for reasons I will not waste my finger power to explain since whatever I say, even if the Bible supports it, you will never believe.
[/quote]
The Greek text has "gnosis," which simply means "knowledge." St. Paul was not talking about the modern scientific method.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 09:34 PM' timestamp='1256261669' post='1989938']
Nil.......your post is nonsensical. First of all the text reads He made the WORLDS, plural. Second, you didn't finish the verse which said these things were made by things which do not APPEAR (which eliminates the alleged glob in space that evolution demands!). And your quoting 1 Tim 6:20 was for what?
My KJV reads "SCIENCE FALSELY SO-CALLED" and it is perfectly legit for reasons I will not waste my finger power to explain since whatever I say, even if the Bible supports it, you will never believe.
[/quote]
Ah the deity of the protestant: KJV.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1256251806' post='1989834']C-CatEverything 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![/quote]As I mentioned before, “Intelligent Design” does not have any empirical evidence, which I would respectfully suggest that you investigate what “empirical evidence” means before suggesting you have it. Because the accusation that there are supposedly no transitional fossils is NOT “empirical evidence”, at best it is a glazing over the entire bulk of evidence that exists.

In modern evolutionary theory it is thought that all life-forms are in a transitory state. The idea that there is the need to find a “[i]missing link[/i]” was abandoned almost by the whole of the scientific community by about the 1850’s. However, since this time plenty of examples that fit the definition of transitional fossils have been discovered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

The absurd idea that “Intelligent Design” has any creditability is similar to the claims of “[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience"]pseudoscience[/url]”, such as the proposal of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism"]modern geocentrism[/url] by supposed “scientists”. It is apart of a growing subculture of pseudoscience, which pretends to be science and act like science, when in factuality presents little to no scientific evidence, and tends to merely act as a device to launch attacks at the “real” scientific community without subjecting itself to the actual scruples or methods intresnically involved in Science.

It is curious that people take the arguments and ideology of “[i]creationism[/i]” and change it’s name to “[i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design#Origins_of_the_term"]intellgent design[/url][/i]”, somehow think that this sudden surname change makes it a science. By curious, I think I mean [b]disturbing[/b], that in the twenty first century that such an obvious trojan horse with the aims of intentionally underminding the scientific method would be tollerated. Then again it is twenty first century...

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1256251806' post='1989834']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]The Catholic Church is a religious institution concerning itself with “faith”, not scientific fact or with knowledge, though it has been a strong advocate of the sciences and arts from time immemorial. Concerning Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), it is curious to note that Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) was the first known astronomer to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology. Which, Nicolaus Copernicus was a Catholic ([i]perhaps a Priest[/i]) and when this was proposed the Catholic Church embraced it warmly and actively encouraged it's research.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof." Which even a sizable amount of Catholics, Bishops, and Cardinals defend Galileo even though there was lacking of support from the scientific community to bolster his position.

By the early 1700’s the ban on Galileo’s works were dropped and by the 1730’s his body moved, from the novices' chapel at the end of a corridor at the Basilica of Santa Croce, to a marble mausoleum in the main body of the Basilica. By the mid 1700's formal orders from the Popes to publish his works can be found. Any traces of any formal opposition to Galileo could not be found formally within the Church by the early 1800’s, and even Pope Pius XII described Galileo as being among the "most audacious heroes of research ... not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks on the way, nor fearful of the funereal monuments".

So no, [b]it was NOT five hundred years later[/b], but the prayer for forgiveness was a welcomed gesture from Pope John Paul II. But not just the Catholics oppose “[i]Intelligent Design[/i]”, the WHOLE of the scientific community and western legal systems throughout the world does. On the grounds it is NOT science. Only by a [b]ridiculous[/b] stretch of the imagination can I see any possible connection between Galileo and Intelligent Design. By [b]no[/b] strech of the imagination do I see " Intelligent Design" related to Catholic faith in transubstantiation.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Mr.CatholicCat

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='23 October 2009 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1256267417' post='1990049']
As I mentioned before, “Intelligent Design” does not have any empirical evidence, which I would respectfully suggest that you investigate what “empirical evidence” means before suggesting you have it. Because the accusation that there are supposedly no transitional fossils is NOT “empirical evidence”, at best it is a glazing over the entire bulk of evidence that exists.

In modern evolutionary theory it is thought that all life-forms are in a transitory state. The idea that there is the need to find a “[i]missing link[/i]” was abandoned almost by the whole of the scientific community by about the 1850’s. However, since this time plenty of examples that fit the definition of transitional fossils have been discovered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

The absurd idea that “Intelligent Design” has any creditability is similar to the claims of “[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience"]pseudoscience[/url]”, such as the proposal of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism"]modern geocentrism[/url] by supposed “scientists”. It is apart of a growing subculture of pseudoscience, which pretends to be science and act like science, when in factuality presents little to no scientific evidence, and tends to merely act as a device to launch attacks at the “real” scientific community without subjecting itself to the actual scruples or methods intresnically involved in Science.

It is curious that people take the arguments and ideology “[i]creationism[/i]” and change it’s name to “[i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design#Origins_of_the_term"]intellgent design[/url][/i]”, somehow think that this sudden surname change makes it a science. By curious, I think I mean [b]disturbing[/b], that in the twenty first century that such an obvious trojan horse with the aims of intentionally underminding the scientific method would be tollerated. Then again it is twenty first century...

The Catholic Church is a religious institution concerning itself with “faith”, not scientific fact or with knowledge. Concerning Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), it is curious to note that Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) was the first known astronomer to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology. Which, Nicolaus Copernicus was a Catholic (perhaps a Priest) and when this was proposed the Catholic Church embraced it warmly and actively encouraged it.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof." Which even a sizable amount of Catholics, Bishops, and Cardinals defend Galileo even though there was lacking of support from the scientific community to bolster his position.

By the early 1700’s the ban on Galileo’s works were dropped and by the 1730’s his body moved, from the novices' chapel at the end of a corridor at the Basilica of Santa Croce, to a marble mausoleum in the main body of the Basilica. By the mid 1700's formal orders from the Popes to publish his works. Any traces of any formal opposition to Galileo could not be found formally within the Church by the early 1800’s, and even Pope Pius XII described Galileo as being among the "most audacious heroes of research ... not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks on the way, nor fearful of the funereal monuments".

So no, [b]it was NOT five hundred years later[/b], but the prayer for forgiveness was a welcomed gesture from Pope John Paul II. But not just the Catholics oppose “[i]Intelligent Design[/i]”, the WHOLE of the scientific community and western legal systems throughout the world does. On the grounds it is NOT science. Only by a [b]ridiculous[/b] stretch of the imagination can I see any possible contention between Galileo and Intelligent Design.
[/quote]