This is the question I have!

[Aaron112]

Yes times infinity infinity infinity !!!

That Jesus is King of kings?

Luke 19:38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

 

[Astrid]

Last Thursdayism (which I had to look up) seems to be a mocking of the Omphalos hypothesis, which I previously stated that I agreed with in theory, and am leaning towards; Regardless, it is not a new theory. First, 55 years before Henry Gosse's book, François-René de Chateaubriand's Génie du christianisme (The Genius of Christianity, 1802) in defense of the Catholic faith, wrote: "God could have, and undoubtedly did, create the world with all the signs of its antiquity and perfection that it now displays." Second, in the Talmud, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania states that the world was created in Nisan, during spring, citing the verse "trees yielding fruit," indicating that trees were created in their fruit-bearing state. The Talmud elaborates: "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the acts of creation were created in their full stature, with full understanding, and with their full beauty. As it says: "And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their hosts" – do not read "hosts" but "beauty"" (תלמוד בבלי, מסכת ראש השנה, דף י"א, עמוד א'). Thirdly, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson wrote in response to a question about fossils: "Even if the time given by the Torah for the age of the world seems too short for fossilization processes (though I see no way to prove this definitively), we can easily accept the possibility that God created fossils as they appear—bones or skeletons (for reasons known to Him)—just as He could create fully formed organisms, Adam in his entirety, and ready-made products like coal or diamonds, without any developmental process" (Tevet 5722, printed in "Faith and Science," p. 89).

Here are a few more examples:

• Regarding Genesis, St. Ephrem the Syrian described a world in which divine creation instantly produced fully grown organisms: "Although the grasses were only a moment old at their creation, they appeared as if they were months old. Likewise, the trees, although only a day old when they sprouted forth, were nevertheless like ... years old as they were fully grown and fruits were already budding on their branches."
• John D. Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research wrote in 1990 about the "appearance of age," saying that: "...what [God] created was functionally complete right from the start—able to fulfill the purpose for which it was created."
• Aristotle's concept of "Potentiality and Actuality" is the notion of a created world that appears to have undergone natural processes (actuality) despite being brought into existence fully formed (potentiality realized instantly by God).
• St. Augustine proposed that God created the world with "seeds" (rationes seminales) that would unfold over time, similar to Gosse (through the potential of embedding the appearance or potential of development within creation).

As Schneerson said, even if the fossilization processes proves the time for the age of the world seems too short, we can easily accept the possibility that God created fossils as they appear without any developmental process. I heavily lean on the Omphalos hypothesis, though the age of the earth that was made old is unknown, as the archeological studies are spurious. Still, the earth is 7,539 years old, give or take. The earth appears to have undergone natural processes (actuality) despite being brought into existence fully formed (potentiality realized instantly by God) during the six day period; however, the "old" that was made is unknown in how actually "old" the "old" is.

“ Last thursdayism” gives all respect that is due

 

[Astrid]

Whoever is wrong has lots of company ! (about 6 or 7 billion or so ? )

Roughly corresponding to the number of scientific illiterates.

 

[AaronClaricus]

Right, but in the same way Gosse used Aristotle's concept of "Potentiality and Actuality" in which notion of a created world that appears to have undergone natural processes (actuality) despite being brought into existence fully formed (potentiality realized instantly by God). Moreover, St. Augustine proposed that God created the world with "seeds" (rationes seminales) that would unfold over time, similar to Gosse (through the potential of embedding the appearance or potential of development within creation).

Gosse tends to make a lot of errors in his books. Such as stating coal could be made in a single century. There's more proven reserves of coal than there is tree biomass on earth. There's roughly 1000x the amount of oil in the ground as biomass on the earth.

Overall his book is just plain wrong. There's nothing to gain from it. It's more of an accelerated time hypothesis than embedded age in the opening chapters.

 

[AV1611VET]

“ Last thursdayism” gives all respect that is due

To Thor?

 

[Shemjaza]

I believe in the Consensus of the Fathers, whom among all contended to a Young Earth. I also base my interpretation of Young Earth on my study of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation and Answers in Genesis.

AiG and other professional Creationist organisations I have studied have policies against the use of the scientific method, and I have read dishonest misrepresentations of scientific studies.

I believe the Consensus of the Fathers is an appeal to the expertise of traditional leaders of your Church?

I am not a theologian, but the fact that the leadership of the Catholic Church (and other Christian branches) do not universally find their opinion convincing makes this suspect as a method of demonstrating even religious tenets let alone facts about the world.

Method? I will sent you some books, but I am unsure what you mean by "method."

• '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)
• And lots of things from this list from the Institute for Creation Research: The Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography

By method I mean exactly how you verify your interpretation is the correct one within your religion?

An appeal to traditional experts is certainly a method, but it simply allows your detractors to ask why their personal interpretation is correct.
https://www.icr.org/article/young-earth-creationist-bibliography/

They do not have the Consensus of the Fathers, nor any Father that I know of.

Interesting.

Many! Germ Theory of Disease, Ulcers and Bacteria, and especially Continental Drift, which was ridiculed as pseudoscience when Alfred Wegener proposed the theory in 1912, but was later validated in the 1960s, becoming the fundamental concept in geology, and making the act of rejecting it considered pseudoscientific.

These ideas were validated by scientific research.

Evidence in the real world with verifiable methodologies. It took the same geological studies of sedimentary layers and radiometric analysis of the growing oceanic igneous rocks to demonstrate the pattern of chenges that eventually led to the wide spread acceptance of Continental Drift.

Germ theory likewise had incredibly detailed scientific analysis that led to the evidence of how pathogens worked, then eventually researchers were even able to see them in microscopes.

The issues is that if they were considered psudoscience because they were weird ideas with no method of demonstration, the researchers found methods of demonstration.

Who's methodology is the correct methodology? Science is about questioning things, and using new methods to find new things; if a "flawed methodology" works to prove a point, is it pseudoscientific at that point?

Scientific methods work.

Creationist methodologies aren't flawed because they are new or different, they are flawed because they are not effective as a method of demonstrating facts.

Then why is it considered scientifically disfavorable?

Literally anything is possible to an Omnipotent God with mysterious motivations for actions... which means that literally any aspect of the physical world can be explained by these "mysterious ways" this means that any examination of reality is actually useless.

Yet, if Creationists use "beyond reasonable doubt," it is considered pseudoscientific, as it would be 'flawed methodology.' As I spoke on in a previous thread,

Beyond reasonable doubt is a description of a conclusion from evidence not an incantation that makes you right.

The reasoning behind accepting the conclusions of scientific research can be explained... I have never seen reason to accept Creationist conclusions in the same way.

Marcus Chown in New Scientist, October 22, 2005, said (The Observational Approach to Cosmology) that the apparent alignment of the Cosmic Microwave Background and our ecliptic (aka the precipice of being a 'special' planet or the center of everything in creation) could only be denied because it is 'unwelcome': "…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…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favored position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.”

The pattern of ellipses in your quote makes be very suspicious that this fragment has been dishonestly quote mined to misrepresent the author.

Do you have the original article, or simply a quote from a Creationist website?

In addition, have you ever looked up the conclusions and methods of the actual research on the topic, or only the casual discussion in a popsci entertainment magazine?

 

[Shemjaza]

Growing into adulthood isn't an instantaneous process either. Yet I think most on all sides believe Adam was created as a fully grown adult.

But did he have a scar from when he skinned his knee or false memories of being taught to talk by his mother?

The Earth and Space are full of evidence for specific events that never happened in a Young Earth context.

 

[AveChristusRex]

AiG and other professional Creationist organisations I have studied have policies against the use of the scientific method, and I have read dishonest misrepresentations of scientific studies.

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

I believe the Consensus of the Fathers is an appeal to the expertise of traditional leaders of your Church?

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."). ALL of the Fathers believed the world was created by God in six days, and thus is de fide.

I am not a theologian, but the fact that the leadership of the Catholic Church (and other Christian branches) do not universally find their opinion convincing makes this suspect as a method of demonstrating even religious tenets let alone facts about the world.

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].

By method I mean exactly how you verify your interpretation is the correct one within your religion?

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

An appeal to traditional experts is certainly a method, but it simply allows your detractors to ask why their personal interpretation is correct.

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

The issues is that if they were considered psudoscience because they were weird ideas with no method of demonstration, the researchers found methods of demonstration.

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.

Creationist methodologies aren't flawed because they are new or different, they are flawed because they are not effective as a method of demonstrating facts.

What are some examples of this flaw?

Literally anything is possible to an Omnipotent God with mysterious motivations for actions... which means that literally any aspect of the physical world can be explained by these "mysterious ways" this means that any examination of reality is actually useless.

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.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a description of a conclusion from evidence not an incantation that makes you right.

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

The reasoning behind accepting the conclusions of scientific research can be explained... I have never seen reason to accept Creationist conclusions in the same way.

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.

The pattern of ellipses in your quote makes be very suspicious that this fragment has been dishonestly quote mined to misrepresent the author. Do you have the original article, or simply a quote from a Creationist website?

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.

In addition, have you ever looked up the conclusions and methods of the actual research on the topic, or only the casual discussion in a popsci entertainment magazine?

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.

 

[timothyu]

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

Did not Jesus say truth from the Father was all that mattered?

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

I think I see the problem here. AiG doesn't do science. They are not a scientific organization. AiG is an evangelical Christian ministry. There presentations on science are filled with false statements.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Did not Jesus say truth from the Father was all that mattered?

The truth is found in the Consensus of the Fathers as God's grace and Spirit reside in the Church. Remember, God breathed the words of his Scripture to the writers of the Old and New Testament. As such, what/who is to say that that stopped with them? It would proceed logically, then, that the Church could contain God-breathed words to his elect, words that are infallible as they are from God; aka, Papal Infallibility.

As for the Consensus of the Fathers, they knew the Apostles closer than any other group, and were the representatives of the Christian world at that time, therefore their universal understanding was most likely the God-given understanding.

 

[AveChristusRex]

I think I see the problem here. AiG doesn't do science. They are not a scientific organization. AiG is an evangelical Christian ministry. There presentations on science are filled with false statements.

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.

 

[timothyu]

God breathed the words of his Scripture to the writers of the Old and New Testament.

Yes agreed, and that was the good news of the Kingdom we have in Jesus' own words. God's Kingdom, not mans'.

 

[dlamberth]

I believe in the Consensus of the Fathers, whom among all contended to a Young Earth. I also base my interpretation of Young Earth on my study of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation and Answers in Genesis.

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.

 

[dlamberth]

Possibly, I'm not discounting their incredibility, but I am not a scientist, so I start with AiG and work up to the works of Dr. Sungenis et al. I merely focus on theology and Church Law.

In my brief De. Sungenis search, he doesn't look much better than AiG. He advocated things like geocentrism and wanted the church to go back to condemning Galileo.

 

[dlamberth]

Yes, and I am a Geocentrist myself, we are not scientifically wrong at all.

Seriously? Your the first for me.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Seriously? Your the first for me.

See my threads Catholicism: Is Geocentrism 'de fide' (an Obligatory Article of Faith)? Yes and No. & my commentary in Geocentric or Heliocentric (what shape is the earth) ? on the Fathers on Geocentrism, I also suggest resources such as the Kolbe Center. I also suggest looking over the proofs I spoke on in Geocentric or Heliocentric (what shape is the earth) ?, it gives the specifics on the Modified Tychonain Geo-Axial System (aka, Semi-Tychonian Geocentrism). 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.).

Also see Geocentric Early Church Father Quotes (Long Read) & Geocentric Bible Verses from the brother in Christ Jude1:3Contendforthefaith.

I am happy to answer any Geocentrist questions in a separate thread. God bless!

 

[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.