Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you believe God created the universe then why deride creationists? Wouldn't that be deriding yourself?
I didn't realize that.Creationism is more than just a vague belief that God somehow did something sometime ago.
Hmmm. That's not what I've read.It's most commonly the belief that God poofed everything into existence 6000 years ago
The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss).
...
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.
Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence.
I do not believe man is related to archaea or cyanobacteria.that species were also poofed into existence (and, contrary to evolution, aren't related).
What about theistic evolution?Creationism stands distinct from evolution
I consider myself to be one such person.One can believe in scientific theories whilst still being a Christian.
The universe approaches the limit of infinite age.A of S, how old is the universe
The Earth is believed to be 4.6 billion years old but it is probably older than that.and the earth?
OK. So that could have been 900 trillion years ago for all you know."And god said 'let there be light.'" = poof
It's a fairly wide-spread phenomenon. I'm surprised you've never heard of it.I didn't realize that.
No. But then again, I'm not the one asserting that opinion.Hmmm. That's not what I've read.
Can you point me to the specific verse in the Bible where it says God "poofed everything into existence 6000 years ago?"
Then they are creationists in the vague sense that "God created something somehow some time ago", rather than the more common and specific meaning.So far as I'm aware, Catholics are the most numerous group of creationists.
And Catholics make no official claim about the age of the universe or the Earth.
Here is what the largest group of creationists actually believe.
Adam, Eve, and Evolution
Why not?I do not believe man is related to archaea or cyanobacteria.
What about it? Creationism, as I see it, is incompatible with evolution: the former asserts that the various species poofed into existence as is ~6000 years ago, while the latter asserts that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor that lived ~3.5 billion years ago.What about theistic evolution?
Indeed, though I've yet to see someone reject evolution who wasn't a) ignorant of the evidence through no fault of their own, b) intellectually incapable of grasping the theory, or c) a zealot who rejects the theory on religious grounds.And one can also believe in scientific theories whilst still rejecting evolution.
Why is that absurd?OK. So that could have been 900 trillion years ago for all you know.
The Big Bang says the same poof only happened 14 billion years ago or something absurd like that.
I didn't realize that
I consider myself to be one such person.
And one can also believe in scientific theories whilst still rejecting evolution.
I do not believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago and I do not believe in evolution. So what am I according to you?Then they are creationists in the vague sense that "God created something somehow some time ago", rather than the more common and specific meaning.
Because we are multicellular organisms.Why not?
I believe both of these views are naive and based upon less than zero evidence.What about it? Creationism, as I see it, is incompatible with evolution: the former asserts that the various species poofed into existence as is ~6000 years ago, while the latter asserts that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor that lived ~3.5 billion years ago.
Theistic evolutionists, then, are those who believe in the scientific theory of common descent, whilst still ascribing some 'divine creation' role, usually in that God created the universe (but species developed naturally).
I reject evolution on scientific grounds. There is nothing in the Bible that is opposed to evolution. Rather it is observational and physical evidence that contradict evolution.Indeed, though I've yet to see someone reject evolution who wasn't a) ignorant of the evidence through no fault of their own, b) intellectually incapable of grasping the theory, or c) a zealot who rejects the theory on religious grounds.
The universe approaches the limit of infinite age. Claiming that the universe is only 14 billion years old contradicts observational evidence.Why is that absurd?
Neither an evolutionist, nor a Creationist (or more specifically, a Young Earth Creationist). I have a feeling you're an Old Earth Creationist, though.I do not believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago and I do not believe in evolution. So what am I according to you?
That we are multicellular doesn't mean we're not related to cyanobacteria. Evolution is more than capable of generating multicellular species from monocellular ones.Because we are multicellular organisms.
Virtually every field of science has provided evidence for the theory of evolution. Why do you consider there to be "less than zero evidence" for evolution?I believe both of these views are naive and based upon less than zero evidence.
Such as?I reject evolution on scientific grounds. There is nothing in the Bible that is opposed to evolution. Rather it is observational and physical evidence which contradicts evolution.
That statement does not make sense, or rather, it's so vague as to be meaningless. As anything ages, its age tends towards infinity.The universe approaches the limit of infinite age.
Such as?Claiming that the universe is only 14 billion years old contradicts observational evidence.
I
Indeed, though I've yet to see someone reject evolution who wasn't a) ignorant of the evidence through no fault of their own, b) intellectually incapable of grasping the theory, or c) a zealot who rejects the theory on religious grounds.
Karl Popper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAll evidence (or rather lackthereof) that supports evolution is fake.
"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." -- Karl Popper, philosopher, 1976
Why do you feel the need to lie by falsely accusing people of bearing false witness when you have no evidence?You will never find a theocreologist of any stripe who has more than a vague, incomplete and distorted idea of about evolution of geology.
Deep ignorance perhaps reinforced with fabrications on theo creo websites is the only way to maintain the belief.
A couple of things that are kind of weird is that they are so shameless about pratlting nonsense. Why arent they embarrassed?
Why dont they ever worry about bearing false witness?
I've actually met people (online, at least) who fully accept the evidence and everything, but reject it on wholly religious grounds. Mind-boggling.You will never find a theocreologist of any stripe who has more than a vague, incomplete and distorted idea of about evolution of geology.
They're proud of their beliefs. You gotta admire them for their conviction, if nothing else.Deep ignorance perhaps reinforced with fabrications on theo creo websites is the only way to maintain the belief.
A couple of things that are kind of weird is that they are so shameless about pratlting nonsense. Why arent they embarrassed?
I don't think it's technically bearing false witness: they genuinely believe what they're saying is true.Why dont they ever worry about bearing false witness?
"...Evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water. When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'" -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 2006
Fossil octopuses in the Cretaceous represent a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum.
Therefore evolution is empirically falsified.
The universe approaches the limit of infinite age. Claiming that the universe is only 14 billion years old contradicts observational evidence.
Because the animals we see today are billions of years old and haven't evolved into any new animal. When I asked an evolutionist what animal archaea, cyanobacteria, echinoids, and the tuatara are evolving into they said they are evolving into themselves which made me laugh.Why do you consider there to be "less than zero evidence" for evolution?
"...Evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water. When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'" -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 2006Such as?
Not if it has a finite lifespan.That statement does not make sense, or rather, it's so vague as to be meaningless. As anything ages, its age tends towards infinity.
Such as stars which are assumed to be older than 14 billion years old.Such as?
Because the animals we see today are billions of years old and haven't evolved into any animal. When I asked an evolutionist what animals archaea, cyanobacteria, echinoids, and the tuatara are evolving into they said they are evolving into themselves which made me laugh.Why do you consider there to be "less than zero evidence" for evolution?
"...Evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water. When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'" -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 2006Such as?
Not if it has a finite lifespan.That statement does not make sense, or rather, it's so vague as to be meaningless. As anything ages, its age tends towards infinity.
Such as stars which are assumed to be older than 14 billion years old.Such as?
I don't think it's technically bearing false witness: they genuinely believe what they're saying is true.
Dawkins said "a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum". Do you claim the Cretaceous is not a geological stratum? Evolutionists are far more ignorant than I ever imagined. I can see conversing with you is utterly pointless.You notice how "Pre-Cambrian" and "Cretaceous" are at opposite ends of the time-line? Good. I'm glad we've cleared this confusion up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?