FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Big Bang, Creation & Dinosaurs
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Like most on this forum, I've been bombarded my whole life that evolution is an irrefutable truth.  Then I hear this:

http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/200804...zzles.html

In my engineering classes, professors would say, "when your done solving the problem, stand back and give it the sanity check.  Is the answer sane?"  After listening to the aforementioned sermon, I stood back for the first time and gave the big bang theory a sanity check for the first time and I realized it doesn't check out.  There are bigger leaps of faith by the big bang scientists than by believing in Creation (aside from the fact that it is Scripture).

I am looking seriously at Creation again, but there is this dinosaur issue, and the age of the planet, among other things.  Does anybody have a good recommendation for reading/getting smart on all this?  Or even a website?



(01-01-2012, 10:59 PM)onosurf Wrote: [ -> ]I am looking seriously at Creation again, but there is this dinosaur issue, and the age of the planet, among other things.  Does anybody have a good recommendation for reading/getting smart on all this?  Or even a website?

My take is that the world is basically in rubble. Like a fallen building, it is impossible to reconstruct the past without knowing the general form it was already in.

There are two events which complicate reconstructions of the past: the Fall. Pre-Fall (and therefore, the first moments of time) were in a state which is nearly impossible to understand. Did entropy exist? How did the biological functions exist? Was it much more spiritual? And the like. Secondly, the Deluge. What was earth like before the Deluge? Scripture gives hints that oceans did not exist and that the atmosphere was very different (no rainbows, possibly no rain, no need to eat animals, etc).

So, given this, and the fact that "time" is relative, I do not think we need to look for a precise reconstruction of the past. The earth isn't old or young. It is the age which it is and I do not think it makes much sense to give a set number of "years" to its age.

Thirdly, dinosaurs exist today. Bigger animals exist today. Animals which exist today have been found in their exact forms preserved in those eras. It is not a mystery. I know in the public imagination, the largest extinct animals are envisioned, but in reality, bigger animals exist today.

The Big Bang Theory doesn't necessarily clash with Creation. In fact, it was a Catholic priest named Monseigneur Georges Lemaître that came up with the theory.
Quote:Scripture gives hints that oceans did not exist and that the atmosphere was very different (no rainbows, possibly no rain, no need to eat animals, etc).

The first six lines of the Bible would seem to disagree with you.

Quote:[1] In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. [3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [4] And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. [5] And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

[6] And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. [9] God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. [10] And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.


On to Chapter 7 in Genesis
Quote:[1] And the Lord said to him: Go in thou and all thy house into the ark: for thee I have seen just before me in this generation. [2] Of all clean beasts take seven and seven, the male and the female. [3] But of the beasts that are unclean two and two, the male and the female

How could their be a distinction between clean and unclean animals if they were not eating the clean ones? Makes no sense.

But, being the brilliant Thomist that you are, and that you think dinosaurs still exist, pehaps you will have an answer. Can't wait to be enlightened.

(01-02-2012, 12:22 AM)Adam Wayne Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Scripture gives hints that oceans did not exist and that the atmosphere was very different (no rainbows, possibly no rain, no need to eat animals, etc).

The first six lines of the Bible would seem to disagree with you.

Quote:[1] In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. [3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [4] And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. [5] And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

[6] And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. [9] God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. [10] And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Read St. Augustine's commentary on this and consider that traditionally, this is understood as describing the atmosphere which is completely aligned with what I wrote earlier about the state of the earth being very different before the Flood.

(01-02-2012, 12:22 AM)Adam Wayne Wrote: [ -> ]How could their be a distinction between clean and unclean animals if they were not eating the clean ones? Makes no sense.
Because the definition of clean and unclean did not depend on consumption. That is a silly thing to state.

Go to chapter 9 and see where God gives permission to eat animals.

Genesis 9:1-3 Wrote:And God blessed Noe and his sons. And he said to them: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth.  And let the fear and dread of you be upon all the beasts of the earth, and upon all the fowls of the air, and all that move upon the earth: all the fishes of the sea are delivered into your hand. And every thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you:

And then what to eat and what not to eat is defined.

Quote:But, being the brilliant Thomist that you are, and that you think dinosaurs still exist, pehaps you will have an answer. Can't wait to be enlightened.
There is definition of dinosaur which does not include animals which still live. That is, unless the definition has the separate requirement of being extinct.

I do not think it is wise to bring up other topics and personal interactions like that on completely unrelated threads. First of all, I usually do not remember such interactions like that very well, and secondly, it is not logical or useful.
Please do not try to continue previous discourses on random threads.

First, you'll have a hard time finding any topic on which I post which I did not think about what I wrote and actually have study behind it, and secondly, given the level of rebuttal you have shown so far, you are completely unprepared for such interaction. Your "gotcha" responses are show a complete lack of study or familiarity with traditional writings and commentaries on scripture and even scripture itself (citing Genesis 7 without reading Genesis 9).

I am happy to contribute information that I have, and I want to learn, but one more instance of you doing something like this and I am going to ignore it completely. If you want information, I'll be happy to provide that as best I can.



(01-02-2012, 12:34 AM)su Wrote: [ -> ]Please do not try to continue previous discourses on random threads.

First, you'll have a hard time finding any topic on which I post which I did not think about what I wrote and actually have study behind it, and secondly, given the level of rebuttal you have shown so far, you are completely unprepared for such interaction. Your "gotcha" responses are show a complete lack of study or familiarity with traditional writings and commentaries on scripture and even scripture itself (citing Genesis 7 without reading Genesis 9).

I am happy to contribute information that I have, and I want to learn, but one more instance of you doing something like this and I am going to ignore it completely. If you want information, I'll be happy to provide that as best I can.

I've seen many of your posts shot down in flames in the past, demonstrating your ignorance about topics. Particularly Japanese weapons (including the practical usages and design intentions of katana/tachi) and archery...

I have also caught you throwing frantic arguments gleaned from cursory Wikipedia searches in order to try and scrabble for ground when you have been shown up.

Out of interest, although slightly off-topic, what is your opinion of cesaropapism?
(01-02-2012, 12:38 AM)Sock Puppet Wrote: [ -> ]I've seen many of your posts shot down in flames in the past, demonstrating your ignorance about topics. Particularly Japanese weapons (including the practical usages and design intentions of katana/tachi) and archery...

I have also caught you throwing frantic arguments gleaned from cursory Wikipedia searches in order to try and scrabble for ground when you have been shown up.

Out of interest, although slightly off-topic, what is your opinion of cesaropapism?
For a person with 97 posts who joined May of 2011, you are very familiar with me, a minor discussion which has only been referenced by one person in any recent time (and who is now not posting on this forum) and the same accusations once made by another.

I am not familiar with the word "cesaropapism" although I think I recognise its etymology.

But I do not care about this. For you too, do not continue previous discources on random threads.

Stick to the topic.

The topic is "Big Bang, Creation, and Dinosaurs". I have written on that, someone commented on it, and I responded.

I will not post on this thread unless there is a real request for on topic input. I have written what I intended to write.
(01-02-2012, 01:12 AM)su Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2012, 12:38 AM)Sock Puppet Wrote: [ -> ]I've seen many of your posts shot down in flames in the past, demonstrating your ignorance about topics. Particularly Japanese weapons (including the practical usages and design intentions of katana/tachi) and archery...

I have also caught you throwing frantic arguments gleaned from cursory Wikipedia searches in order to try and scrabble for ground when you have been shown up.

Out of interest, although slightly off-topic, what is your opinion of cesaropapism?
For a person with 97 posts who joined May of 2011, you are very familiar with my last three account names, a minor discussion which has only been referenced by one person in any recent time (and who is now not posting on this forum) and the same accusations once made by another.

I am not familiar with the word "cesaropapism" although I think I recognise its etymology.

But I do not care about this. For you too, do not continue previous discources on random threads.

Stick to the topic.

The topic is "Big Bang, Creation, and Dinosaurs". I have written on that, someone commented on it, and I responded.

I will not post on this thread unless there is a real request for on topic input. I have written what I intended to write.

su likes men...
(01-02-2012, 01:16 AM)Sock Puppet Wrote: [ -> ]su likes men...

Are you quite finished with the gay jokes?
Pages: 1 2 3