Vatican blasts Creationism as "useless"

[JFox1]

If all animals were created together and most became extinct over several thousand years (or even hundreds of millions of years in old-earth creationism), why don't all animals show up together at the earliest geological level, with the number of species decreasing as time goes on? If creationism were true, this is what we would expect. But instead, the nature of the fossil record supports evolution. Simpler organisms are found at lower levels and more complex ones at higher levels, and different species of animals appear at different times. Furthermore, the total number of species living at any particular time varies. There are numerous peaks and crashes, corresponding to numerous extinction events, both minor and major. After each mass extinction, many new species begin to appear. But if these subsequent animals were specially created at the beginning of earth's history along with all other species, where is the record of their prior existence? It seems that creationists have more serious gaps in their fossil record than evolutionists allegedly do in theirs. - Joyce Arthur, Extinction and the Geological Record.

 

[webdog]

Not true. When my husband gets home from work everyday, you'd swear he'd been formed from dirt! :laugh:

...and when I come home from the Cleveland Rib Cook-off, you would think I was formed from ribs!

 

[Pastor Larry]

If all animals were created together and most became extinct over several thousand years (or even hundreds of millions of years in old-earth creationism), why don't all animals show up together at the earliest geological level, with the number of species decreasing as time goes on? If creationism were true, this is what we would expect.

You forget about the flood. Lots of water washing around mixes things up and buries them at different layers, which is what we see, and what we would expect if creationism were true. The fact remains that if creationism were true, then everything we see is exactly what we would expect to see.

 

[Revmitchell]

If all animals were created together and most became extinct over several thousand years (or even hundreds of millions of years in old-earth creationism), why don't all animals show up together at the earliest geological level, with the number of species decreasing as time goes on? If creationism were true, this is what we would expect. But instead, the nature of the fossil record supports evolution. Simpler organisms are found at lower levels and more complex ones at higher levels, and different species of animals appear at different times. Furthermore, the total number of species living at any particular time varies. There are numerous peaks and crashes, corresponding to numerous extinction events, both minor and major. After each mass extinction, many new species begin to appear. But if these subsequent animals were specially created at the beginning of earth's history along with all other species, where is the record of their prior existence? It seems that creationists have more serious gaps in their fossil record than evolutionists allegedly do in theirs. - Joyce Arthur, Extinction and the Geological Record.

Your mistake is accepting as fact the so called "Geological Levels".

 

[Reformer]

If all animals were created together and most became extinct over several thousand years (or even hundreds of millions of years in old-earth creationism), why don't all animals show up together at the earliest geological level, with the number of species decreasing as time goes on? If creationism were true, this is what we would expect..

And if Evolution were true the missing link wouldn't be missing.:laugh:

 

[webdog]

And if Evolution were true the missing link wouldn't be missing.:laugh:

Exactly. If species' changed over millions of years there would at least be ONE intermediate species fossil somewhere! Even Darwin admitted he thought one would be found, and if one wasn't, his theory holds no water.

 

[Matt Black]

I challenge this assertion. Please provide evidence that what you claim is true and that you are not bearing false witness against historic and contemporary Christians.

The text of creation in Genesis is clearly written as a historical narrative.

More substantively:

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 81:

For as Adam was told that in the [d]ay [h]e ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject

Irenaeus, Adv. Haer.,5:23

And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin

Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, 6:16

That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: "This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth." For the expression "when they were created" intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression "in the day that God made," that is, in and by which God made "all things," and "without which not even one thing was made," points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says, "This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in it; " that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us celebrate the divine festival; for the Word that throws light on things hidden, and by whom each created thing came into life and being, is called day.

Origen, Contra Celsus, 6:60

We answered to the best of our ability this objection to God's "commanding this first, second, and third thing to be created," when we quoted the words, "He said, and it was done; He commanded, and all things stood fast;" remarking that the immediate Creator, and, as it were, very Maker of the world was the Word, the Son of God; while the Father of the Word, by commanding His own Son--the Word--to create the world, is primarily Creator. And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone, and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

Cyprian of Carthage, Treatises, 11:11

As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years, as the seven spirits and seven angels which stand and go in and out before the face of God, and the seven-branched lamp in the tabernacle of witness, and the seven golden candlesticks in the Apocalypse, and the seven columns in Solomon upon which Wisdom built her house l so here also the number seven of the brethren, embracing, in the quantity of their number, the seven churches, as likewise in the first book of Kings we read that the barren hath borne seven

Augustine of Hippo, City of God, 11:6

But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say

 

[Marcia]

The verse, " a day of the Lord is as a thousand years" does not apply because this verse in context is not saying that all days or any day mentioned in the bible can be a 1,000 years. That would make every "day" in the Bible meaningless. I get tired of it when people try to use this verse to support the days in Gen. as being 1,000 years or more. It's illogical and silly.

This verse is especially inapplicable when God details each day with "it was evening and it was morning" in several verses. He did this for a reason, I think partly to set it apart from the use of "day" in other places, such as day of the Lord.

And I'm going to take God's word over the church fathers or anyone else. They were fallible.

 

[YOUTUBECANBESAVED]

Number one Creationist on Youtube is touched in the head

More substantively:

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 81:



Irenaeus, Adv. Haer.,5:23

Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, 6:16

Origen, Contra Celsus, 6:60

Cyprian of Carthage, Treatises, 11:11

Augustine of Hippo, City of God, 11:6

Thanks Matt on some perspective and actual work, people need some humiity and remember that no one verse is there private interpretation but instead you have this postering as if they know or have the inside scoop on God. Well only the Holy Spirit knows the inner workings and mystery of God but people need to be that annoying apologist and pick that bible up to bash you over the head with it. Problem today, too many apologists making bucks off of self-righteousness and not enough charity workers that really reveal Gods Love.

here is some more wacked out creationist drivel from the number one creationist on YouTube he even brags he is number one on his site and video, he is sold on it to the point he does not take admonishment but censors all those who disagree with him. PEOPLE IT IS AN EMBARASSMENT TO JESUS CHRIST THAT YOU MAKE THIS INTO DOGMA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

http://www.youtube.com/user/venomfangx?ob=4 (this guy is a piece of work, still lives at home with mommy and daddy)

theres a part II for later, if this thread goes any further

guess what it is perfectly okay for people to interpret 1 day as eons , you may be wrong but it might mean humility , it is not like I am going to lose my salvation or personel relationship with Jesus Christ. Again this creation nonsense that is being perpetrated by idiots just because they hate Darwin is wacked. All you need is Jesus but I guess that is too simple.

yeah Adam and Eve with Vicilaraptor , I am sure they invited him over for dinner:BangHead:

 

[Matt Black]

And I'm going to take God's word over the church fathers or anyone else.

God's word as interpreted by who, exactly?

They were fallible.

As are you and your interpretation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Again this creation nonsense that is being perpetrated by idiots just because they hate Darwin is wacked. All you need is Jesus but I guess that is too simple.

yeah Adam and Eve with Vicilaraptor , I am sure they invited him over for dinner

Aren't you the one who said people needed some humility?

 

[Zenas]

Matt has denounced taking a literalist view of the Bible and lots of people here have denounced Matt for what he has said. I think Matt is actually distinguishing the taking of a literal view from the taking of a literalist view. The literal view would be the message the author intended to convey by his words. The literalist view would be the message conveyed if read without regard to context, allegory, metaphor and similar literary devices. For example, if I wrote that it is raining cats and dogs everyone on this board would understand that it's raining really hard where I am. However, if this writing were discovered by someone five thousand years from now, and could be translated, the reader would believe there were animals falling from the sky. That is the difference between literal and literalist. I believe the Bible is literally true but, unlike fundamentalists, I don't take a literalistic approach to its meaning.

 

[Revmitchell]

Matt has denounced taking a literalist view of the Bible and lots of people here have denounced Matt for doing so. I think Matt is actually distinguishing the taking of a literal view from the taking of a literalist view. The literal view would be the message the author intended to convey by his words. The literalist view would be the message conveyed if read without regard to context, allegory, metaphor and similar literary devices. For example, if I wrote that it is raining cats and dogs everyone on this board would understand that it's raining really hard where I am. However, if this writing were discovered by someone five thousand years from now, and could be translated, the reader would believe there were animals falling from the sky. That is the difference between literal and literalist. I believe the Bible is literally true but, unlike fundamentalists, I don't take a literalistic approach to its meaning.

While this is interesting it is a new definition of understanding scripture literally. The literal interpretation never ignores literary devices. However, the liberal exegesis always places literary devices in the wrong places to fit their presuppositions. For example reducing Genesis 1-11 to an allegory. Clearly this is problematic and should be avoided.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I believe the Bible is literally true but, unlike fundamentalists, I don't take a literalistic approach to its meaning.

I don't know any fundamentalists who do this. I think "fundamentalist" becomes a cheap attack on people who others disagree with. I know of no fundamentalist who does not recognize the use of literary devices in literature. (I don't grant the name fundamentalist to everyone you would, to be sure). But the problem is this: There is not one iota of textual evidence that anything in Genesis 1 is figurative, symbolic, metaphor, allegory, or the like. That is an uneducated statement. Any view of Genesis 1 that uses figures of speech is one that is not textual. It comes from outside the text.

Exod 20:6 tells us that the days of Genesis 1 were not figurative, but literal. How much other data do we need?

 

[annsni]

Did you know that Jesus was really in the grave for 3,000 years? Or maybe it was 3 million. Hmmm - I don't know. I do think that the resurrection was not really a physical resurrection because, after all, we know that there were a lot of parables in the Gospels and so we can safely assume that the resurrection was a parable about our hearts being opened to the Word of God - whatever that might be in your life by your own interpretation...

 

[Matt Black]

Matt has denounced taking a literalist view of the Bible and lots of people here have denounced Matt for what he has said. I think Matt is actually distinguishing the taking of a literal view from the taking of a literalist view. The literal view would be the message the author intended to convey by his words. The literalist view would be the message conveyed if read without regard to context, allegory, metaphor and similar literary devices. For example, if I wrote that it is raining cats and dogs everyone on this board would understand that it's raining really hard where I am. However, if this writing were discovered by someone five thousand years from now, and could be translated, the reader would believe there were animals falling from the sky. That is the difference between literal and literalist. I believe the Bible is literally true but, unlike fundamentalists, I don't take a literalistic approach to its meaning.

Quite correct; thanks for expressing it better than I can:applause: The phrase I tend to have in mind, rather than 'raining cats and dogs' (although that's a good illustration as well) is 'the sun going down'. Now, modern science informs us that the sun doesn't actually 'go down'; it stays exactly where it is (well, not quite; it revolves around the centre of our galaxy very slowly but that's beside the point for our purposes), whereas it is in fact the earth that revolves. But I wouldn't dream of calling a person a liar or mistaken if they say "The sun's going down now", even though their statement is technically inaccurate. Similarly, the Genesis creation accounts are Truth and true; nevertheless they are not accurate if interpreted in a literalist way.

 

[annsni]

Quite correct; thanks for expressing it better than I can:applause: The phrase I tend to have in mind, rather than 'raining cats and dogs' (although that's a good illustration as well) is 'the sun going down'. Now, modern science informs us that the sun doesn't actually 'go down'; it stays exactly where it is (well, not quite; it revolves around the centre of our galaxy very slowly but that's beside the point for our purposes), whereas it is in fact the earth that revolves. But I wouldn't dream of calling a person a liar or mistaken if they say "The sun's going down now", even though their statement is technically inaccurate. Similarly, the Genesis creation accounts are Truth and true; nevertheless they are not accurate if interpreted in a literalist way.

Even scientists call it "sunrise" and "sunset". So saying "the sun is going down" is not incorrect. Bad analogy.

 

[Matt Black]

No, good analogy: 'sunrise' and 'sunset' are inaccurate terms, regardless of who uses them.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Similarly, the Genesis creation accounts are Truth and true; nevertheless they are not accurate if interpreted in a literalist way.

Similarly? What a huge leap here. You have not one iota of argument to prove similarity. You just assert it and hope no one notices. The fact is that these things are not similar. There is no reason to think that they are.

How come you won't address Exod 20:11? (I incorrectly gave the verse number earlier). That makes it clear that whatever shenanigans one might try to pull with Genesis 1, Exod 20 makes it clear what Genesis 1 was talking about. The truth is that we don't need Exod 20. If you know Hebrew, you know what the Hebrew means. If those uses of the word YOM as they appear there mean long periods of time, they are the only places in the whole Hebrew OT where the word is used that. That is significant and not without accident.

 

[Matt Black]

The Exodus reference is an anthropomorphic red herring. 'Nuff said.