After reading some things about evolution and the age of the earth, things that seem to make sense to me, my faith is now waning. For the record, I read some articles here on a site where a man claims to be a Christian but also believes in an old earth and in evolution.
letterstocreationists.wordpress.com
The man links to another website that seems to counter many arguments that people that believe in a young earth and in creationism might bring up.
talkorigins.org
Is there anyone that has done extensive research in these topics, or has found arguments that cannot be refuted, that continue to believe in the Bible? When I see just how depraved people can be, I think that a judgement at the end of everything makes sense. But what is the basis for such a judgement, and where is the hope, if the theory of evolution and an old earth make accurate predictions and are applied practically in efficiency, as is the case in petroleum companies for the science of geology based on the idea of an old earth?
Please help me restore my faith from evolution and the age of the earth
Other urls found in this thread:
creation.com
thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com
thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com
apologeticspress.org
youtube.com
edwardfeser.blogspot.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
Bumping for interest, since I too have wanted to believe in a young earth for a while now, and feel mostly agnostic to it.
Someone posted a video here once that explained common evolutionist points as proof of creationism and fully aligned with scripture. I don't have a link unfortunately. Just know the truth is out there if you search.
I think literal interpretations based on the scholastics need to be abandoned. They had a purpose, and it was to invent science in the collision between their theory of everything when it rammed into the wall of evidence to the contrary.
It's never been my belief in a world that is any way other than how science tells us it is; but rather that science doesn't give us a successful account of ourselves, and when it tries, like psychology does, despite some improvements to our understanding that it makes, it is totally descriptive, and imposes none of the necessary positive obligations.
Faith provides evidence for it's own account of things that is sufficiently convincing, so I accept its conclusions. God doesn't care if you can find a coal seam from your ass-crease, He wants you to find your neighbour and know yourself, and for that reason alone I am a Christian.
Look up the website 'answersingenesis' and look at Christian YouTube videos which try to present evidence of God's creation of the universe. Also watch vid related (cause it's funny).
literally who cares?
Atheists and Agnostics care.
Ya I guess they might see it as a way to justify disbelief, but that's not how faith works.
Once you acquire faith it supersedes everything else, so for me the age of the earth is just a question mark, maybe it's young, maybe it's old, I don't know or really care. An old earth won't contradict my faith anyway. It'll just be a curiosity of some sort. Plus I don't take Bible numerology on genealogies too seriously.
This video explains how Genesis aligns with scientific logic unlike other religions.
Any questions you have, you'll have an answer here, I guarantee it: creation.com
This is what pr*testantism does to people
...
Imagine this. You build a world in Minecraft. You see a tree in front of you that would normally take like 4 hours to grow that big, but the game has been only open for one second. This is possible, because the creator of the game doesn't have to follow the laws of it. When fedora scientists date things they just (((calibrate))) till they get the result they want and claim everything else was not done (((properly))). Even if they did get it right our creation story would suggest that the dates would be considerably older than the earth (the Minecraft thought). Besides that do you seriously believe that we evolved from rocks due to random processes?!
The purpose of Christianity is the spiritual healing of man and the restoration of man's relationship to God. The scriptures aren't some physics manual or a chemistry manual. You're looking for the wrong things in the wrong places.
thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com
thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com
Become Catholic. How *you* interpret the Bible means nothing.
That's epic, I had to rewind over the point where the logic is flipped on his plagiarism accusation.
...
apologeticspress.org
This site addresses many questions concerning the age of the earth and evidences that point to the true age of the earth being in accordance with the Biblical record.
Here’s some good, simple reasoning.
1. Genesis 1 uses the word ‘and’ (Hebrew = vav or waw) repeatedly to tie together its sentences. Such usage is characteristic of ancient Near Eastern historical literature.
Genesis 7–8 records no less than 12 chronological references concerning events that occurred during the flood of Noah’s day.
2. Historians generally view the presence of such references as evidence of real history, as opposed to myth or legend.
3. The authors of the rest of the Bible refer to the events of Genesis 1–11 as factual history. Luke even reports that the patriarchs from Adam to Abraham were Jesus’ real-life ancestors just like David and Solomon, drawing from Genesis 5 and 11.
4. The first 11 chapters of Genesis employ the same style of writing as the other parts of the Old Testament commonly accepted as real history, including Genesis 12–50.
Got what you need, fam.
Well evolution of humans is likely heresy since there must be an Adam and Eve which evolution makes it kinda impossible and therefore denies a Catholic dogma so evolution can't be totally right.
As for the old earth or the big bang theory it's basically scientific creationism that almost fits the account of the creation of the world and that triggered lots of atheist scientists because they saw it as creationism being true, and they were right.
when I say creationism I speak of the Catholic philosophy of creationism, aka God made everything, not the American one that says humans lived among dinossaurs.
I usually fail to see how Christians struggle with this so much, to me evolution and life on earth is just another evidence about blessed we are, in a empty, void and barren universe, how come earth is the cradle for so much life.
You realize that saying something evolved from something else doesn't make them equals, distant relatives perhaps, but not the same.
Evolution theory describes humans being a small new race a long time ago when there were other humanoid races, such as the neanderthals.
To me, the tale of Adam and Eve describes perfectly the first native humans and how they ate from the tree of knowledge.
I was born of my parents, yet I am not my parents. I share a common ancestor with my cousins, yet I am not my cousins. Fun how that works, yeah?
There are some very interesting theories on Young Earth actually. The only problem I have is so many Creationists base their conclusions off of the Masoretic texts (which gives the 6000 year timeline), but the Masoretic is has some problems. Jews altered some ages to screw up Christian theology (especially Shem's age and the lifespans noted in Genesis 11). The Church never used this 6000 year idea for centuries. They estimated from the Septuagint that the age of the world would put us in the year 7527. To this day, for example, in the Russian church, it's the year 7527 (but the Jewish year is 5779).
And in addition to that, that estimation is from taking every number and calculating literally. While the Earth may still be young, there could be some symbolic numbers making the Earth older than even the Orthodox notion above.
If you want some examples of how the Masoretic differs from the Septuagint, start here (it's a whole series, but this is the first vid):
youtube.com
The Creationist documentary is off to the side.
The problem is that it’s a literal inversion of every step and every detail of the Biblical account.
I don't understand how those two things are related to each other. You can believe in creationism and yet believe the Universe and this Earth are billions of years old. They're mutually exclusive subjects.
Ultimately, it really doesn't matter. What matters is that you truly believe in Jesus Christ with everything you've got. Jesus once said that science and the Bible offer two different ways of looking at the same thing.
Oh, give it a winniethepooh rest
IT'S NOT THE DEBIL TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION
Plenty of people do it. All the cool kids.
No, srsly, there are innumerable ways to reconcile evolution and God's word. Those who insist that even the slightest compromise on a single word of what is essentially a poetic description of the creation – not a single human being was there to see it happen, so how else can God describe it? – are fundamentalists who strain gnats.
If you believe it, by all means, go with God. I don't want to dissuade people from this. BUT can we PLEASE stop this "you're not a Christian if you belieb in evolutions" meme?
You just more than likely need a more "creative" view of the universe and creation to reconcile them, that's true. Otherwise, just sigh, roll your eyes, say "that's nice" and happily go on living with the dichotomy like the rest of us do.
For a people who have no trouble believing in a God of complete mystery to human understanding, we seem to expend a curious amount of time trying to define His creation with precise scientific exactitude. Not knowing exactly how it all happened is fine. It doesn't change one iota of what God asks us to do or be.
< dichotomy /dʌɪˈkɒtəmi,dɪˈkɒtəmi/
< noun: dichotomy; plural noun: dichotomies
< 1. a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.
This interests me, too.
I agree with that only insomuch as Genesis. And Genesis only because God was the only witness (angels perhaps aside for some of it) and He was explaining complicated things we don't even yet understand to a very simple people.
The idea the LXX is superior to the Masoretic text is about the only decent thing all the histrionic anti-Jewish shrieking by Zig Forums has achieved for me. This much I find myself believing.
Wasn't aware it might have had Orthbro roots. 'Kay then.
Well, I'm far from Zig Forums. kek. They'd call me a mongrel. But I'm glad we're on the same page as far as the LXX goes.
Not that I can't read anything else. I love many scriptures translations based off of the MT, but it needs to be double-checked.
Yes it's wise to put some effort in trying to reconcile them, since there's alot of evidence pointing in that direction… but original sin, adam in the image of god, eve created 2nd, garden of eden etc all heavily suggest the creation of humans, not evo.
Oh and evo isn't some complicated idea that even god himself can't simplify - e.g. and i took one of the beasts and breathed life into him….
It crosses from dichotomy to cognitive dissonance, (serving one master over the other) and a large reason for falling away from the faith.
The problem with old earth creationism (therefore assuming evolutionary processes for the development of life) is that then death (and sin) are inherent in the creation, not a deviation from the original intent. Meaning death can't really be called "wrong".
the same thing.
When did he ever say this?!
More like shitting on protestards for enforcing literal interpretation and focus on absolutely worthless stuff such as YEC (which is amerimuttistan phenomenon), while denying actually important parts that have decisive role in salvation such as Eucharist and Baptism.
Disingenuous, please see the rules.
Not so. Evolution undermines the very foundation of the faith.
Again with being disingenuous.
Funny how the Cathodox creation general just went “poof”.
...
If science is wrong about evolution, then I guess it's wrong about many other things. So tell me, is the earth at the center of the universe? Is gravity a myth or something?
Also why are protestants so retarded?
At the institution of the Eucharist Christ said "This is my body which is given for you". As He said this His body was present to the disciples, whole, and undamaged. The disciples would have understood Him to be speaking metaphorically. He also said "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Again, at that time Christ's blood was not yet shed. It is obvious He is speaking metaphorically.
This does not mean there is nothing taking place in the Lord's Table, only that the efficacy of it has nothing to do with the physical elements themselves.
Literalism of the entire bible has never been accepted traditionally.
Really makes ya think
When I first got into reading the bible, I was actually in a better place. The New Testament itself showed me how to read the scriptures as a whole: In a Christological sense. I also had a copy of the Apostolic fathers (letters of Ignatius and such), and they did the same thing.
Then somehow I ran into modern commentaries (even conservative ones.. but just literalist) and before long, my habits worsened. Reacquainting myself with Orthodoxy has reminded me where to get back to.
That's what happened to Augustine.
When he wasn't a Christina he read the OT and he said it was non sense because he said it read it literally.
Until St. Ambrose thought him to read it in the Catholic light.
The end result?
Just the greatest Doctor of Church and an excellent apologist against the pagans Donatists and the Manichaens.
I'm retarded don't mind me.
Both issues aren't fundamental issues of the faith. Whether the universe and earth are young or old, what should be the main point we take out of Genesis? God created it. There is purpose to it because God has decreed it.
As for evolution it's much the same. Did God create man and animals at a specific time, complete in their forms or did he institute a material system that would eventually bring them forth? If it's evolution its certainly not unguided. Does it matter? Man is created in God's image. Whether He created us instantaneously or over time is irrelevant. God says we're in His image. That is all that matters.
Dr. Gerald Schroeder gives a very interesting lecture regarding this. He's a Jew but does not believe in Christ, however, he gives an interesting interpretation of Genesis through the lens of relativity.
As for me, I personally believe the universe is quite old, and at some point, God instantaneously created man, woman and animals. Just my personal assessment of scripture and science. I can't make sense of the Cambrian explosion on the current Darwinian model. It makes sense to me that God made the universe and at a certain point specifically put us here.
The bottom line is this: Is Jesus God incarnate? Is He the Eternal Son of God? Did He die and rise on the third day? Yes. Yes and Yes. Then because of Him our sins our forgiven. Repent and believe on Jesus, Christbro.
Oh, very interesting. I never knew that. And don't worry about the typo!
Yeah let's read the avowed hylomorphist who thinks the body is the form of the soul tell us there were beings with human bodies but without human souls. Adam's sons bestialitied with apes and somehow had children with them, despite that it takes two humans to produce another human. He talks about the mystical "rational soul" as if it were just something arbitrarily imposed by God upon an already functioning, mechanical body that is somehow capable of being animate without a soul. His conception of the soul is a Cartesian one. He's just another modernist wrapping himself in trad clothing. Gotta bend over backwards to appease scientists and their baseless speculations and fantasies about the world. Wouldn't want to contradict their bullshit, they might call him a "creationist" or "fundamentalist" or some other mean word. But sure go on and believe a human and non-human could have children, and that this somehow isn't still polygenism.
"If Islam is wrong about the Koran being divinely inspired, then I guess it's wrong about many other things. So tell me, is there no god? Is morality a myth or something?"
Also why are you so retarded?
Science isn't wrong because science was never meant to be right.
Science are just models that explain physical phenomenon.
Just models nothing else.
The fags that try to say its reality or something are shit philosophers not scientists.
Under Darwinism there are no essences, there is no real distinction between "man" and "beast" but an unbroken continuum of change along which we are just one more point. Our ancestors were not human, our descendants will cease to be human. Even "human" is a nominal category. There is no teleology, only teleonomy. There is only a 'human' form because random change lead to it being better at surviving and reproducing. There is no purpose to man's carnal existence beyond that.
Darwinism is nominalism applied to biology. Like all nominalism it leads to nihilism, or some kind of quasi-gnosticism. Which is what most people accept today. Mind you we already know this is a lie, without the aid of the bible, or whatever. It's imagination that strips corporeal life of all the beauty and meaning we actually experience in it. This is why Darwinism causes most people distress, leads them to either reject it or become heathen degenerates or quasi-gnostic heretics. Only weird autists who think of the world like it's one big math problem go and invent woke forms of 'theistic evolution', that do nothing to restore the innate meaning and knowledge of ourselves and our bodies that we possess, but also isn't the version of evolution taught in schools, etc, which is rather the godless (neo-)Darwinian one. They will still call you a "creationist" and laugh at you.
Meanwhile, for people who don't think of the world as some big math problem, they are faced with the question "are you really saying I am descended from fish, and related to nematodes?" and are trying to grapple with the ontology it implies. The difference between abstract and detailed thinkers, I suppose. Well reality isn't made up of abstractions, but details, and abstractions are just simplifications of them. And common ancestry and biological nominalism can already be known to be false. It's only if you arbitrarily start with the abstract premises that they're true that you can conclude Darwinism is possible. You can start with any premises and derive any fanciful conclusion from them. But that isn't how truth works.
winnie the pooh this.
Very good post user.
Accepting neo Darwinism is an heresy and its in clear contradiction with the clear dogmas of the Catholic Church.
The Truth can't be against the truth.
As Aquinas says if there's something in the natural sciences that contradicts the sacred sciences such a thing is false and to be rejected.
Let us not forget that Darwin was very much influence by his times atheistic philosophy and by the death of his daughter, a fact that made him loose much of his faith in God.
But even Darwin would be considered soft by this modern radical darwinists.
I do not deny that animals could have evolved. As far as we know it's likely.
Now to claim humans did evolve as well is pure heresy. Firstly because a human cannot evolve gradually from what he isn't (a irrational animal can't give to broth a rational animal, they are in completely opposite sides) and secondly it's a dogma of the Church that Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever and that all mankind comes from them. Although many people who claim to be Catholic either ignore this or water down this dogma, it is still affirmed explicitly from the Humanis Genaris from Pius XII, the Vatican II documents and declarations by Popes.
They would say it's from a series of mutations. But they have yet to provide evidence of mutations leading to this much extra information (mutation is a downgrade and destruction of genetic information 99.9% of the time. So I guess they're hinging all of this on that .1 percent).
They just shout natural selection without proof that random mutations can produce a being like humans.
I remember that Darwin himself said that the human eye was so complex that natural selection couldn't explain it, so I heard.