No more doubts.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

If any questions are raised, those same people begin to attack their questioners. They accuse them of being anti-science, irrational, willfully ignorant, believers of a myth, and then, the Holy Bble is attacked directly. A correlation is also made designed to shame people and to make them think that if they live in a community that does not believe in evolution, something bad will happen and they will become a laughingstock. I know of no evidence that even suggests moving from a small town to a large city will automatically raise your IQ, but the opposite is suggested all the time. Living in a small town = small minded. This is very sad.

Polystrate fossils of trees that pass through multiple layers of rock. Somehow, the coelacanth survived a past environment that was supposedly different than what we have now. Scientists have recently discovered bones indicating more modern dinosaurs coexisted with their ancestors. And an early creature that lived in trees that was supposedly man’s ancestor is now found living in the same time period of the more modern dinosaurs. This time compression suggests to me that the dating is way off.

Assuming anything, absolutely anything about Genesis must conform to the earth is billions of years old idea. Any other tought is ridiculed. Looking at genesis as history, God, being God, has the power to create a ready to use earth and a fully formed man instantly. Look at the miracles of Jesus Christ. He raised the dead instantly, restored sight instantly, changed water to wine instantly and calmed the wind with a word. I think God is not beyond creating a planet in a 24 hour day. And the interesting thing about making a comment like that, is the instant, knee jerk reaction of those opposed. “How dare you limit God like that?” Who’s limiting God? I’m looking at the power exhibited by Jesus Christ on earth.

Peace,
Ed

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

As for the FT discussion, I’ve been a reader/subscriber since 1995 and have followed the ID movement pretty closely. It has value, but as I mentioned, is flawed in important respects.

You keep saying that I am presenting mere “beliefs”, “leaps of faith”, as if this were a Bad Thing. Of course they are beliefs, and of course they require faith. Discussion about origins, from an empirical and scientific point of view, can only involve probabilities. I find it amazing that old earth promoters, who claim to have come to their conclusions strictly on the basis of empirical science, claim a certitude greater than those whose conclusions are drawn from both empirical science and the inerrant biblical record!

Their absolute certitude is a tremendous strike against them considering their unwillingness to consider the truth about nature. And what is the truth about nature?

First, the laws of nature are still little understood: even evolutionists in their more candid moments admit this much. And second, nature is itself a *created thing* and is not the highest law in the universe.

More than a little humility is in order: hence my very deliberate language of “maybe”, “perhaps”, “likely”, “probable”, and so forth.

A final point: many argue against nature having an appearance of age by saying that God does not deceive, He is not a trickster, etc. Of course I agree, but I would apply this first to revelation. Would God have made His Scriptures unintelligible by hiding billions of years between the lines?

Would He have tricked the Fathers and the Doctors and the Popes of the Catholic Church for 1900 years into believing and teaching something that is untrue?

I am not sure whether the age of the earth is something that can be considered “doctrine”, but insofar as it touches on Catholic doctrine (e.g., biblical inerrancy, original sin, polygenism) it is not unimportant. The reason that Christians have always believed in a young earth is because that is the clear implication of Holy Writ and the clear understanding of the Fathers.

When I was received into the Catholic Church, I made a profession of faith, before a priest in union with Rome, in which I vowed never to interpret the Sacred Scriptures “except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers”. That is a vow I intend to keep.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

And if you don’t keep up with the science, how do expect to challenge it?

Your final question I don’t understand. I can only say that in nature, things seem to acquire form over time (and then lose it) whether we’re talking about people or solar systems. That man came into being in a state of relative maturity compared to other things is, again, an article of faith that you and I share. I’m not going to convince others of this truth by denying the obvious. I don’t believe God put all this evidence before us in an attempt at trickery. As Einstein said, He is subtle but not malicious.

I can see that something in you is deeply wedded to your postion, and I will always value your “fundamentalism” over the atheist’s materialism, for your philosophy will not send people to concentration camps, abort them in the womb, clone their likenesses for research, or try to kill them when they’re old. But I’d also like you to see that such a marriage is not one necessary to defending the Faith’s doctrinal children. Let’s look for miracles where they are necessary or, as I said, they become less remarkable.

I also wrote something related to this from which, if you haven’t read it, you might get some enjoyment. You may find that you are able to go after the enemy on philosophical grounds rather than grounds purely scientific.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

With respect to point #2, it appears that we agree about the possibility of time being “nothing” on God’s watch. I suggest that time may also be insignifcant on man’s watch: that is, what looks to some of us like billions of years may have taken place in an instant.

With respect to point #3, you were right to challenge me as my wording was very careless. I have rewritten it with less presumption on my part.

Point #4: I don’t keep up with the science, but I’m always glad to learn that science is discovering what we already know from revelation.

Point #5: We are very far apart on this one. I don’t think anyone needs to know exactly when the laws of nature have been altered or suspended in history. We know that they did not exist at the Creation, and it is likely that they were somehow changed during the Flood. It is also probable that what we call “nature” was quite different before the Fall. The closer science gets to origins, the less it can rely upon the empirical observations of the last century. More later if time allows …

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)