This is the question I have!

[Hans Blaster]

It seems you all are hung up on AiG, and I do understand that they are an evangelical ministry and I do not agree with everything they say, however some of what they provide is good, or beneficial to build a foundation of understanding in regards to Creationism. True Creationism is found in the Summa [which I consider to be one of the greatest works in history] and other likeminded works.

You seem to be confused. Perhaps that's why you thought AiG had "science". They do not. They are not a source that you should use if you are interested in true things.

 

[AveChristusRex]

You seem to be confused. Perhaps that's why you thought AiG had "science". They do not. They are not a source that you should use if you are interested in true things.

"For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little" (Isaiah 28:10). It is a slow process, but line by line we learn and grow. To be fair, do the laminated comic graphs used in 5th grade geology totally compatible with the fullness of the geological sciences? No, it is a beginning, and you grow from there. Those that consider AiG to be the 'be and and all' in regards to Geology are the ones who are truly confused.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Id also read a few chapters from this if you have the time: 'Galileo Was Wrong The Scientific, Scriptural, Ecclesiastical and Patristic Evidence for Geocentrism: Volume I, The Scientific Evidence' by Drs. Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D. and Robert J. Bennett, Ph.D.).

I've paged through the first two chapters and I haven't seen any "scientific evidence" yet. A lot of block quotes, complaints about science, philslopoly, etc.

 

[Shemjaza]

Some, but I consider their science to be applicable in some cases.

Having organisational policies in opposition of free scientific investigation and any history of scientific misrepresentation are, to me, demonstrate them as totally unreliable.

The Consensus of the Fathers (unanimem consensum Patrum) is an appeal to the early Fathers of the Church, which, if they all unanimously agreed on the topic, that topic became de fide ("the faith") and infallible. It is also called the Unanimous Consent of Theologians. If they all agreed, then their [because they were the representative of the whole people of God in their day] unanimous consensus could be taken as an unerring manifestation of the sensus fidelium (i.e., "the supernatural appreciation of faith on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.").

I will not confuse you with strange Latin phrases or overcomplex Church judiciary; However, the Catholic Church contends that those who do not follow its Ordinary Magisterium (aka, the doctrinal disputations of the Pontifical Office, i.e., the Papal Throne) and the Inordinary Magisterium (aka, the Consensus of the Fathers, de fide statements, etc.) are outside of the Church, with few exceptions. As such, in the Catholic mind, those who are outside of the Church cannot fully actualize their faith, and thus anything they contend or reject is considered spurious by the Church and those within it [generally].

The Consensus of the Fathers is the only interpretation that allows you to fully be in the Catholic Church

Then it seems you are mistaken to some degree about content or interpretation of the Consensus of the Fathers.

Multiple Popes have made comments in support of the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution:
Pope Francis: 'Evolution ... is not inconsistent with the notion of creation'

The Holy Spirit guides the teachings of the Church, and thus cannot error as God is perfect.

That's a claim with no justification for anyone who doesn't share your specific faith to accept.

That is not what has always been taught. From Science and Pseudoscience (From the London School of Economics and Political Science): The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has scientific, philosophical, and political implications, also noting "that creationism, [...] are pseudosciences." The minds of most in the scientific field have already been made up on the matter of creationism.

Geological, biological and astrological evidence has been consistently counter to a Young Earth interpretation of history for centuries.

What are some examples of this flaw?

The assumption of a series of conclusions without methods or mechanisms.

Not quite, Proverbs 25:2 says, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." God created the world with order and consistency, which allows us to explore and understand it.

With corrections and confirmations only accepted after it's checked against doctrine.

We have evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the Flood happened, through Geological surveys and studies.

You are mistaken.

A world wide flood is completely impossible within the physical constraints of the Earth.

Floods leave significant evidence that is well understood, with the additional issues of a flood of the depth to cover mountains has additional levels of devastation that would have left very different evidence to the geological structures we see today.

In addition biology makes a literal reading of the Flood narrative impossible with both genetic diversity and stable ecosystems impossible with the tiny number of animal survivors of the flood.

Constant and deceptive miraculous intervention are required to make the Flood possible.

This is a personal observation; therefore, I can't really speak about things that you have seen. I have never seen that in my time, however.

I don't like to make statements about valid Creationist arguments existing or not, just that I have not been presented with them.

But in my experience Creationism begins with an acceptance of specific theological interpretations of the Bible and reality. Missing is the reason to accept those truths in the first place.

Excuse me I misspoke, I meant to quote Hubble's Observational Approach to Cosmology, which says the following quote. The citation is 'The Observational Approach to Cosmology, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1937, pp. 50, 51, 58.'

The full quotes are here:

On Page 50, Hubble says: "The energy-corrections, it will be recalled, are the total effects of red-shifts on apparent luminosities, provided red-shifts are not velocity-shifts. The latter interpretation seems to follow directly from the preliminary assumption of uniformity. The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance."

On Page 51 [directly after the previous quote], Hubble says: "A thinning out would be readily explained in either of two ways. The first is space absorption. If the nebulae were seen through a tenuous haze, they would fade away faster than could be accounted for by distance and red-shifts alone, and the distribution, even if it were uniform, would appear to thin out. The second explanation is a super-system of nebulae, isolated in a larger world, with our own nebula somewhere near the centre. In this case the real distribution would thin out after all the proper corrections had been applied.Both explanations seem plausible, but neither is permitted by the observations. The apparent departures from uniformity in the World Picture are fully compensated by the minimum possible corrections for redshifts on any interpretation. No margin is left for a thinning out. The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position [meaning we are not random, but we are the center of the universe]. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, we accept the uniform distribution, and assume that space is sensibly transparent. Then the data from the surveys are simply and fully accounted for by the energy corrections alone - without the additional postulate of an expanding universe."

On Page 25, Hubble says: "The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position [meaning we are not random, but we are the center of the universe]. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature."

In these three quotes, Hubble shows that he cannot disprove Geocentrism, but chooses not to believe in it as it is a "horror" and an "unwelcome supposition." He thus takes the theory that opposes the idea that we are special and unique on the universe [and, by proxy, that God made us the center of creation because we are the most important thing to him], regardless of if the postulation that he considered to be "creationistic" was more correct than his secular postulation. Such is the issue with modern science, summarized in three pages.

Do you not think that, with these quotes in mind, that any view that may show our importance [aka Geocentrism, making us the center of God's creation and thus central to the universe’s design; or Young Earth, that God did not lie to us in His scripture] would be accepted? I have shown to you that the delegation of "pseudoscience" is a philosophical one, and that evidence pointing to our celestial importance is avoided because of it being an evidence that we are central to the universe’s design. The reason they betray their own method on this matter is because if our importance is codified, then how can secularists explain that we are just "worthless organisms on an unimportant planet"? They say this because the prince of this world wants people to believe that they are "worthless organisms on an unimportant planet," as it contradicts the idea of God's infinite love and care.

If evidence were to confirm that we are central to the universe’s design [which we know we are], it would undermine secular science's claim of randomness and insignificance. People would naturally begin to ask: "If we are important in the universe, then this can’t be an accident. Someone must have intentionally placed us here." Then, the snowball tumbles.

I think you are misunderstanding what the evidence indicates.

The consistency of the universe is on a significantly larger scale than that of the Earth... it's about the movement and relationship between the distant Galaxies. The Earth is still clearly orbiting the Sun and the Sun is orbiting the Galactic core of the Milky Way.

The activity and expansion of the outer known Universe is, to me, a further reason to doubt any Young Earth time line. The scale of the universe mean that many visible remnants of events see in the cosmos are simply false images of events and objects that never existed.

As I previously stated, here are some books, written by individuals with scientific doctorates:

• 'I Have Spoken to You from Heaven: A Catholic Defense of Creation in Six Days' by Hugh Owen & Bp. Korir of Eldoret, Kenya
• 'The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11' by Rev. Fr. Dr. Victor Warkulwiz, M.S.S.
• 'A Catholic Assessment of Evolution Theory' by John M. Wynne
• 'International Catholic Symposium on Creation' by the 2002 Symposium held in Rome (including Bp. Andreas Laun, Fr. Victor Warkulwiz, Fr. Brian Harrison, Fr. Johannes Grun, Dr. Josef Seifert, Dr. Dominique Tassot, Guy Berthault, Dr. Robert Gentry, Dr. Robert Sungenis, Dr. Robert Bennett, Dr. Maciej Giertych, Dr. Robin Bernhoft, Dr. Christian Bizouard, and Dr. Arthur Gohin)

God bless.

I have never doubted that there are people with scientific qualifications and experience that believe in Creationism.

What I have yet to see is any method of study of the Universe that didn't require the conviction of the truth of Creationism before any evidence was even examined.

 

[AV1611VET]

Constant and deceptive miraculous intervention are required to make the Flood possible.

That's quite a statement.

 

[Shemjaza]

That's quite a statement.

I never claim that something would be out of the capability of an omnipotent God... but given how the evidence of the world can be observed it either represents the truth, or it was put there to be seen that way.

 

[Astrid]

I can't speak about the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation as this is the first I've heard of it. But the geology found in Answers in Genesis is at a kindergarten level, if that. It works great for those who don't know geology or are looking for religious verification of their beliefs. But beyond that, Answers in Genesis doesn't get into the meat of anything geology related. Their mode is to skim across a subject and make claims not backed up by any real geological investigation. But if a person's is at a kindergarten level in how geology science works, how are they going to know the difference? Which leads me to believe that a lot of people are being led astray by Answers in Genesis.

Lying to kindergarten kids Is disgusting an immoral

Lying to those of limited understanding from behind the cover
of authority- in this case pretending to talk both science and bible authority-
its absolutely atrocious behaviour.

And, frankly, those who support them, spread their lies are very little better.
To excuse, deny, rationalize as yecs choose to do with that
the gaping wound in their very being is simply this-

Theyve recklessly, totally irresponsibly failed at any trace
of due diligence.
It doesn’t take that much to know more than
to have to ask“ howcome trilobites at surface”
and think it’s some killer gotcha.

Anyone could get the idea in a minute.

How could anyone possibly not know??

Let alone take pride and fight any chance
of learning they aree ignorant and have been conned
by cynical low lifes.

 

[AV1611VET]

I never claim that something would be out of the capability of an omnipotent God... but given how the evidence of the world can be observed it either represents the truth, or it was put there to be seen that way.

And that doosey of a statement you made shows which side of the coin you're going with, doesn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

And, frankly, those who support them, spread their lies are very little better.
Excuse, deny, rationalize as yec s may choose to do
the gaping wound in their very being is simply this-

How many YECs, who have been "lied to" as you put it, are in Heaven now?

Think about it.

 

[BCP1928]

How many YECs, who have been "lied to" as you put it, are in Heaven now?

Think about it.

Getting to heaven has nothing to do with being a YEC or not. But how many people have been driven from their faith by YECs? We see YECs in thos forum trying to just that all the time.

 

[Shemjaza]

And that doosey of a statement you made shows which side of the coin you're going with, doesn't it?

I honestly don't mean disrespect.

I personally think geology represents the truth and not a chain of miracles... but with an assumption of God and recent world wide flood, then the other option is the conclusion.

 

[dlamberth]

How many YECs, who have been "lied to" as you put it, are in Heaven now?

Think about it.

I have no idea how "Answers in Genesis" has anything to do with anyone's place in Heaven.

 

[AV1611VET]

Getting to heaven has nothing to do with being a YEC or not.

Did I say it did?

But how many people have been driven from their faith by YECs?

I'm not sure what you're asking here?

Driven from YEC to what? atheism? skepticism? scientism?

We see YECs in thos forum trying to just that all the time.

Ya ... it's called "evangelism."

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no idea how "Answers in Genesis" has anything to do with anyone's place in Heaven.

Yet how many YECs die and go there?

 

[Aaron112]

If they have been 'driven' from their faith , it could be good for them, if their faith was in something instead of Jesus Himself.

But how many people have been driven from their faith by YECs?

 

[Aaron112]

Jesus says not to go by what the eyes can see, that the invisible is what is important.

The flesh, carnal, world, - the "seeable" of the physical world, is not to be trusted nor followed nor obeyed not should it ever take the place of trusting Jesus, no, not ever.

I never claim that something would be out of the capability of an omnipotent God... but given how the evidence of the world can be observed it either represents the truth, or it was put there to be seen that way.

 

[Aaron112]

comments in support of the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution:

This falls under evidence to be avoided as it is misleading, and leading to destruction.

 

[Aaron112]

Aer this a support for the devil's work, (the devil has always been a liar and the father of lies.)

Geological, biological and astrological evidence has been consistently counter to a Young Earth interpretation of history for centuries.

 

[Aaron112]

If someone sees an axe-head float, they do not have to (and won't ) know the method nor the mechanism of how it happeded.
No conclusions wanted nor needed.
Just be honest! We saw the axe-head float!

The assumption of a series of conclusions without methods or mechanisms.

 

[Aaron112]

Realize that checking something against something else that is often changed/changing/or in error or not, is not a great method, is it ?

With corrections and confirmations only accepted after it's checked against doctrine.