Cathodox Creationists?

I used to be more or less a "Theistic Evolution" person, but now I'm considering creationism, and even Young Earth Creationism. I know these stance are more common amongst Protestants, but are there any Catholics or Orthodox who subscribe to either of these? Are there any good resources regarding this?

Thanks!

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/yiKGZYOI0q0
amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501
discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane
thefreedictionary.com/Scientific theory of evolution
wordnik.com/words/species
newadvent.org/cathen/07310a.htm
answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/millions-of-years/
drbonnette.com/articles/9/evolution-micro-macro-articles-home-darwin-prove-genesis-fairy-tale/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Why would the arguments differ at all from the Evangelical presentation?

I am a catholic.
I can believe in Old Earh Creationism, since a day for God may not be the same for us, but evolution is absurd.
God created everything.

Seraphim Rose has a whole tome on YEC

Creationism is nonsense. You can disagree on evolution, but creationism is just anti-science meme speculation.
Heck, most YECs are just rich, old, American men who want to do tax evasion.

Attached: wine.jpg (600x413, 52.2K)

I don't really care a lot about this matter, I don't think scientific theories should influence our religious view because theories are everchanging. In a few years we may have a radically different theory of evolution completely different from Darwinism. Building theology on science is building a house on sand.
For this same reason I'm not hostile to creationism, in my personal view I assume the claims of the Bible are true about the moral and spiritual truth the teach. So man was created by God, it was unfallen and without sin, etc…
However I don't believe in the usual young Earth creationist timelines. We have human settlements in Jericho 7000+ years old and places like Gobekli Tepe as old as 11000 years. Earth can be 20000, 60000 or 3 billions year old but not 6000 or 7500.

That volume has good highlights about the theological implication of darwinist evolution (violence and death existed prior to the fall).
However the Young Earth part I find unbelievable.

Pretty much what I think too

t. Orthodox

The issue around YEC to me is not the days of creation, but rather the generations from Adam to Christ.


Well, as the video I liked talks about (I know it's long, I was listening to it while doing some other work) says that the widespread proliferation and total acceptance of the theory of evolution has caused many people to question the Bible and lose faith. To me it's similar as well to the widespread acceptance of LGBT nonsense. So I think even out of charity for the rest of the world, it's important for us to know what is likely the truth and teach that.


That's a good point too about violence and death existing pre-fall. How do you get around the age from Adam to Christ though?

Another evolution thread. Great. Where did the contamination thread go?

For humans no, for animals yes and this isnt a bloody issue, they were never made for immortality, they dont have immortal soul and no, your mister snuggles wont have an afterlife. Problem here is you people discussing humans and animals together, which is simply retarded. You people want to sound "oh I am so pious", while you place humans and animals in the same category. Piss off, I am sick of this discussion still being an issue, while there are thousand times more important things to discuss.

…why of course

Catholic.
I do not believe in Evolution anymore. I think I have read enough about genetics to judge that such a coincidence would be absurd but I have not really went into depth of creationist theories so far. I do believe there was the fall.

In the Ancient Days humanity was lived longer.
This is another belief that I have, with is opposed to the modern evolution view of the world: mankind becomes lesser with each passing generation, not greater.

*humanity lived longer
fixed

I don't really know, it's possible the numbers correspond to certain words and thus have a symbolical meaning no one rember anymore.
It's also possible the text is missing a few generations or the numbers we have are incomplete, the Masoretic, Samaritan and Septuagint all have different numbers. Possibly the correct version is neither of these.
If the flood happened at the end of the ice age it means Noah lived around 11000/10000 BC

I'm familiar with the theory of symbolic ages, but we have a genealogy from Adam to Christ. Are we to think that they skipped generations? You know, I was thinking whether humans lived for a total of 7000 or 700,000 years makes no difference to God, since he is eternal. Any finite number is literally nothing to infinite. So if we're, according to the Bible at around 6000 years, wouldn't it make perfect sense to have 1000 more years? 7000 years, 7 days of creation, "A day for God is like a thousand years for man", 4000 pre Christ, 3000 post Christ? Everything seems so beautiful that way.

I'm not sure what to make about pre Human hominids though. I'm favoring more and more of a literal view of scripture. This doesn't deny symbolic interpretations too, but neither does it for literal.

One thing which made me think was St. Francis who wanted to take "sell all your possessions and follow me" literally. Because why not? Not that there aren't other spiritual dimensions to it too. But if you follow it literally, what is wrong?

Macroevolution is actual speculation
Creationism is biblical hermeneutics

Care to explain your view?

2000 years of the church disagree with you. Literally EVERY teacher and cleric held this view, until a hundred years ago.

Search for Kent Hovind on YT

Check out Seraphim Rose's "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man"

Attached: Screenshot_w4rty4.png (373x559, 537.54K)

btw I'm a protty, and I think this is a fine work.
There's not much difference among YEC's on this point.

Evolution is garbage

Sensus Fidelium YT chanel and Kolbe Centr for Creation. Also "The principle" movie when we are at it.

Mass extinction of animals have occurred multiple times. Animals that used to exist no longer do and entirely new species have emerged since then. It's pretty simple.


The vids on Sensus Fidelium about evolution are absolutely awful.
youtu.be/yiKGZYOI0q0
Here we see Fr. Chad Ripperger talking to the audience as if they are children.

You should read this: amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501

Ancient genealogies often listed only the more important people. They aren't exhaustive historical documents like modern tax records or medieval doom books.

These particular genealogies don't just give the ages the people lived, they also give the ages at which they gave birth to their children. There aren't really any holes you can fill with missing links.

Its unbearably easy to reconcile evolution (which has been shown to occur in several generations of fast-reproducing fish species) and Christianity.

God made the Universe and all its governing laws, and within 6 periods of time He had made Mankind via the flow of His Creation. The End.

Here's an article about that fish species study: discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane

Obviously do your own research, but I think it can be safely said that God set up everything to be overall self-sustaining. Humans are completely sentient though, and that throws a wrench into it. Thus, imperfect, sinful Man, for he is aware of his actions and their consequences as no other creature is.

Pardon my poor grammar, btw. No excuses for it.

No, that's not evolution, that's semantics. Given a sufficiently narrow definition of the word "species" you can define anything you like as evolution.

cont.
Ergo, to try to deduce the age of Earth or whatnot on such genealogies is absurd. We can trust the ones of Christ are true, but not that they are historically complete.


This is true, however the exact time between the completion of the Earth and Adam's creation are not listed. Also consider that the birth of Cain and Abel are not listed in Gen 5.


This. Fr. Ripperger is a good Thomist, but his contention with evolution is a moral one at its root and stems from a poor comprehension of this. The modern atheist-evolutionist says that all reality is fundamentally random, and that natural selection in creatures occurs without any ultimate goal. It is a cosmology of absurdity – this is the problem with evolution from a religious point of view, because the religious person knows that there is no chaos about the cosmos: everything happens with God's will. We can reconcile evolution with Christianity by simply asserting the truth that all that occurs in creation is according to the will of God, not randomness.

Also, we can deal with the issue of the higher preceding from the lower by remembering that although matter may come from that which pre-exists it, the human soul, from which we derive our highest faculties and which is the seat of selfhood, is spontaneously generated by God and does not evolve (nor is it created by the sexual process, contrary to St. Augustine's view).

Sixth day? Not sure what you mean here.
We know how old Adam was when Seth was born.

It comes back to the day issue. There's no reason to believe that "day" in the Seven Days is a literal Earth-rotating day.

I disagree. You'd need to be very creative with many of the stories of creation. God created Adam from dust and Eve from his rib. That doesn't sound like evolution to me.

Maybe. But would those days be of unequal length and still be all referred to by the uniform term of "day"? Because by the time Adam made it from day six to day seven he was only one day old. If each day was billions of years Adam would have been billions of years old when he gave birth to Seth. Could be that they are of unequal length, but 24 hours days sounds more likely to me. I'm open to other possibilities though.

Cells are dust. We are literally made out of carbon, which is in essence dust.

??? He took fish from one population and put them in a different environment, and observed their changes to adapt to that new environment over multiple generations. Thats what evolution is, the generations most fit reproduce and carry on their genes. "narrowing the definition of the word species" has nothing to do with it :/

As for Eve being made out of the rib, you got me there lol. Was Genesis written to be taken literally, or as an allegory?

Wasn't the original translation "six periods of time"?

That's natural selection and adaptation. That's not evolution. I know you evolutionists like to play word games, and use circular reasoning to justify your sophistry. I'm already anticipating a "lol evolution is just natural selection and adaptation".

Sorry not translation, the original written meaning before it was reinterpreted in a later translation

What is evolution then?

a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
thefreedictionary.com/Scientific theory of evolution

In the Masoretic it says "yom" which literally means day. The word "yom" is used in other contexts to mean other things, which is why the possibility of interpreting those periods as longer than 24 hours holds some water, but I don't buy it. 24 hour periods seems to be more reasonable in that text. I'm not sure what the Septuagint says.

Ok

Good, now define species.

n. Biology A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See Table at taxonomy.
n. Biology An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.
n. Logic A class of individuals or objects grouped by virtue of their common attributes and assigned a common name; a division subordinate to a genus.
wordnik.com/words/species

None of those definitions give the limits of what a species is in evolutionary theory. What bearing do any of those have on this discussion?

Oh, excuse me.
That's it. That's what I was looking for. There you have it. That's precisely the narrow definition I had in mind.

Basically this.
Daily reminder that the theory of the big bang made atheists angry as winnie the pooh.

Young earth creation is dogma in catholicism

What? Lmao lad. Where did you get that from?

Why can't God be the agent that put the function of evolution into motion?

Because the Bible affirms that God did not bring death into the world. God created a deathless world, and evolution thrives on death.

I think only humans had no death
The rest of the animals died because they have no souls. Death isn't even a punishment for them. Its the natural cycle.

The Church fathers are unanimous in interpreteting the scripture literally where there is a young earth created by God in 7 days.

Council of Trent says when the church fathers are unanimous it is dogma. Hence it is dogma.

Lol Augustine and others belong to the simultaneous creation party.

newadvent.org/cathen/07310a.htm

One thing more user. When Laîmatre first proposed the big bang Pius XII believed it was the proof Catholicism was correct about the creation of the world. Again this proves that the six days creation is open to debate and its not dogmatic in any way.

Augustine is the only Church father that said that creation may have been instantaneous, that is, less than a day. Not more than a day. Therefore the church fathers are unanimous that it was not longer than a day. Augustine's theory makes for an even younger earth and universe lol

Lamaitre and Pius xii are not church fathers and were wrong because they disagreed with all the church fathers. They were infected with modernism as is catholic encyclopedia. Don't forget Pius xii was the one who inflicted bugnini on the mass to start his reign of terror.

Then Augustine isnt a church father and is a modernist?
OK kid. Your opinion isn't infallible.

Btw I'd like source on your statement that when the church fathers are unanimous something is a dogma.

...

I explicitly said augustine was a church father. Why do you bear false witness against me.

Augustine says creation could have been instantaneous, hence shorter than 7 days not longer. Thus all the church fathers are unanimous that creation was in 7 days or less and not greater. Anyone who contradicts the unanimous agreement of the church fathers is a heretic as the council of Trent defined.

And again we get to the same point.
The 6 day creation isnt a dogma if differente father have different interpretations of it they don't even agree on the duration of the day's or how could days exist before the Sun as Augustine says.
Now a real example of unanimous testemony of the Fathers is for example the Divinity of Christ or the Real Presence in the Eucharisty.
The genesis debate is a thing that goes to the beggining of Christianity itself, with people arguing each other about it.
Even Augustine himself changed his opinion several times and wrote several papers on it. It just shows it isn't a clearly defined doctrine, nor in his time neither in ours.
And no one is arguing that. With that I agree.

Ps: if now I argued that God made the world in 10 days (no matter how we define the duration of those days) I would be an heretic and a retard because besides the bible saying it was 7 days, no father has said it was longer than 7 days.

Apart from St. Augustine, do all Church Fathers believe in a literal 6 earth day creation? If so, I'd probably believe in that too.

Not all, but it seems the majority of them did.

Answers in Genesis is a very good source that you should look up.
answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/millions-of-years/

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-12-02 at 2.45.34 am.png (970x790, 277.6K)

When did death and sin enter into the world? Before Adam and Eve? Was there even an Adam and Eve? Should we trust the book of Genesis at all? Why did God declare that his creation was 'good' if evolution and natural selection meant that animals were dying and killing each other before we got to humanity?

Attached: Genesis.png (872x558, 114.41K)

Evolution has always been false garbage and the first step to destroy the credibility of the Bible.

If the beginning of the Bible is merely allegory and story, then fools will reason that all of the Bible is no different from Santa Claus.

Why do "theistic evolutionists" not understand this basic concept? Why do they shill for a hypothesis that cannot and never will be tested for, has no evidence of, and is shilled relentlessly by fedoras, kikes, Satanists, and all other manner of anti-Christian fools?

People here ignore it because it's Protestant.

...

...

I don't know if I should buy it. Radio dating is exact at least theoretically. I've never been in a laboratory and see how they check stuff out, but at least in theoretical physics the theory beind it is solid.
The only problem in this would be if our laboratorial methods are shit, and specially in carbon since everything in this gay planet is made of carbon so carbon 14 infiltrations are likely. Urarium 238 are much more precise because asteroids in the solar system are rarely contaminated so they contain the original information thus giving us a very accurate age of the Earth.
But honestly i don't know what methods they use so I'm not gonna say nothing about it.
But I really don't care. God made the Universe and created the first man Adam and Adam is historically the first human and everyone comes from him. This is as far as the Catholic dogma goes as far as I know. Did animals evolve? It's likely with current data, but did humans evolve from past lifeforms? I don't think so. There might have been hominids before, but they were animals likes gorillas.
And it kinda makes sense all animals share a reassemblence with us. We are the ones made in God's image, it's fair that other animals are similar to God's image. The higher mammals are close to us while the shitty animals have less stuff in common with us.

The facts do seem to suggest that creationism (meaning God's direct intervening) and evolution (meaning adaptation and intraspecies change) are both correct. Therefore, I see no reason for all the alarm.

I laughed. Do you also say global warming is a "fact"?

The question was posed to Catholics (among others) who believe in some theory of evolution. I do not wish to engage any other type of Christian because I don't believe they can discuss these topics with sufficient impartiality given their philosophical deficiencies. What I mean by this should become apparent by the passages I will now quote:


drbonnette.com/articles/9/evolution-micro-macro-articles-home-darwin-prove-genesis-fairy-tale/

Philosophically, there are only three natural species: the vegetative, the animal, and the human.

Attached: Bilitower.jpg (552x700, 114.01K)

...

Mainly because some prots (specially some Americans) flip out with this shit and don't even know the basics of the very thing they attack.

I’m a young earth creationist. For me it’s more of a matter of faith in the inerrancy of scripture, but there are people out there who can defend young earth creationism rationally. And I’m orthodox.

Its a great article tbh.

Your "basics" are not even considered basic by the majority. But that's beside the point. The point is that biogenesis/evolution is bunk. All of Creation is entropy since the Fall.

Evolution, as it is held by all adherents, supposes that organism became more advanced over time. No proof, no evidence, just pulled it out of their ass.

Really? So the Bible isn't sufficient? We need a godless materialist philosophy to describe the world our God created and told us about?

What? It's either creation or evolitionism. And if you believe evolitionims then your heretic for denying many clear scripture and braindead for thinking you're related to whales and tomatoes

...

I specifically said young earth creationism is dogma not 6 day creation. But I'm glad we can agree that all the fathers are unanimous that creation happened in 6 literal days or less and not greater, hence the earth being young is dogma.

Yes all of them professed a literal 6 day creation. Only Augustine argued the possibility of instantaneous creation but he did not understand Greek or Hebrew so was less learned on the subject than say Ephraim the Syrian a native Hebrew speaker who said it was certainly a literal 6 days

Have you guys heard or seen of Relic'd guitars? They are brand new guitars, but they look like this, and actually cost a lot more than a regular new guitar. Maybe God made the world like this.

Attached: FCZ534602-P.jpeg (1600x1600 244.99 KB, 1.85M)

This documentary is hilariously bad. The spooky music whenever they talk about Darwin, the clueless Atheist they interview, and literal historical footage from Nazi Germany.

...

If evolution don't real, how do you explain DNA and fossils?

Attached: axXaNv2tSPeEIwmC3Qfx_54a1a2dd_19_01bprimatephylogeny_l.jpg (1024x768 43.45 KB, 428.67K)

The creationist position is basically that animals adapt to their environments, but only within a certain range, ie speciation isn't real. They also believe that dinosaurs, dragons, etc lived with early humans 6000 years ago.

Sometimes, when I'm bored at work and need some entertainment, I listen to creationist sermons where the pastor tries to "refute" or "debunk" evolution. They are quite entertaining, though they all use the same arguments, which they get from a man named Brezinski I think. It's all nonsense.

...

I don't think that what I wrote is an argument. I am simply explaining the creationist position.

DNA is cellular instructions for building more cells. Please clarify what you’re actually asking. Are you talking about genetic similarity?
As for fossils, I don’t know why you think this is a problem for creationism.

I'd rather not believe in evolution but are we saying all human species descend from Noah (or Adam)? Have you seen pygmies? aboriginies etc

I'm actually wondering and will read the thread more carefully, but whats the consensus on evolution or creation among Christians? Or no consensus at all?

I'm believe in it, studied and it makes sense to me, but I've been with someone who didn't believe it at all, it quite right shocked me. I know what creationist think, but to me evolution doesn't disprove god at all, if anything, it proves how there is order from chaos.

The consensus amongst average Catholics (which are terrible people) is that evolution is okay. Amongst Trads I think they don't really vibe with evolution. The more I read up on it, I don't think I believe in evolution (I'm a Cat). Micro-evolution within species yeah, but not like a plant evolving into an animal and an animal evolving into a human.

meow