TAO (The Anonymous One; aka Turretinfan)
A plain reading of the Old Testament and the Gospels makes it clear that the world was created supernaturally by God in the space of a week, and more particularly, in six days each consisting of an evening and morning. This event took place less than 10,000 years ago, which we can calculate more or less accurately from geneologies provided, for example, in Genesis 5 and the gospels.
Frankly speaking, there is no reason for anyone who excludes outside information from the Bible to arrive at any other conclusion. The Bible, on its face, is clear. God created the world, he did so in six days, and rested on the seventh day. In celebration of this fact, we observe the week.
Nevertheless, from time to time, weak Christians are tempted to believe the testimony of scientists (and their acolytes) who claim that they have unshakable evidence (some may even claim "proof") that the earth is older than 10,000 years. These Christians, led astray by the lies, deceit, or simply errors of the "science crowd" believe the testimony of the crowd.
Some do so by disbelieving the testimony of Scripture outright: these are the so-called Theistic Evolutionists. They deny that God created man from the dust of the Earth and woman from the rib of man. Others, however, seek to harmonize the Bible somehow to the old earth claims of the science crowd. These are termed Old Earth Creationists. They create novel and sometimes bizarre interpretations of Scripture to try to justify a timeline that holds the universe to be tens of billions of years old, and biological life to be billions of years old. . . .
Today, the idea that man was created less than 10,000 years ago is out of vogue with the science crowd, . . . the science crowd will not agree that all of humanity descended from a single pair of human ancestors who lived less than 10,000 years ago. Instead, we see modified old earth creationists holding to ever more erratic views of the text of Scripture, as they attempt to remain popular with the scientific crowd. (7-3-07)
There is no need for further evidence for Young Earth Creationism (YEC), since Scripture speaks clearly via the Creation account (one week) and the Old Testament genealogies. (11-7-07)
Open Challenge on the topic of YEC.
Thesis: Resolved, that Scripture conveys that the Earth was created in week, less than 10,000 years ago.
UPDATE: I get to AFFIRM the resolution.
Anyone wish to deny the resolution? (11-8-07)
Steve Hays
I don’t link to an OEC like Hugh Ross because I don’t find much of either scientific value or exegetical value in his writings. . . .
The universe is between 6000-10,000 years old, give or take. . . . I agree, but with certain qualifications . . . (10-22-06)
YEC takes Scripture as its frame of reference . . . (3-9-09)
"Saint and Sinner"
Due to my philosophy of science, Instrumentalism, I allow Scripture to speak for itself, and so, I am a YEC. (3-11-07)
R. C. Sproul
I now hold to a literal six-day creation, . . . Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four–hour periods. According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1–2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.
(Truths We Confess: A Layman’s guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Volume I: The Triune God (Chapters 1–8 of the Confession) [Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2006, pp. 127–128, cited at a YEC website)
We have a problem not only with a six-day creation, but also with the age of the earth. Is the earth a few thousand years old or billions of years old (as scientists today insist)? . . . If we take the genealogies that go back to Adam, however, and if we make allowances for certain gaps in them (which could certainly be there), it remains a big stretch from 4004 BC to 4.6 billion years ago. (Ibid., pp. 121–122)
Bishop "Dr." James White
I haven't yet found any indisputable proof that White is a young earth creationist; however, in his tract, Evidence for Special Creation From Scientific Evidence, he cites at length a foreword written by Dr. Dean H. Kenyon, Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University, who is a well-known young earth creationist. The book that Dr. Kenyon endorsed (and by strong implication and logical deduction, that White also approves of), is The Mystery of Life’s Origin, written by Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen (Lewis and Stanley, 2nd edition, 1992).
Thaxton's book, The Soul of Science (Bible Science Association, 1994), co-written with Nancy R. Pearcey (a young-earther) and Marvin Olasky (yet another young-earther), is listed in YEC icon and central figure Henry Morris' lengthy Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography. Morris states: "The books listed in this bibliography represent works of authors advocating literal creationism, including the six-solar-day creation week and a worldwide cataclysmic flood." That pretty much proves that Thaxton is in the YEC camp.
Bradley and Olsen, however, are old-earthers. There is a chance White is the same, but in favorably citing YEC Kenyon's foreword to a book at least partially written by YEC Charles B. Thaxton, the likelihood is that White, too, is a young earth creationist, since those who deny the YEC position generally don't cite YEC's as reputable scientific authorities (I certainly would never do so).
John MacArthur
Phil Johnson (Pyromaniacs)
I know, of course, that old-earthers like to fudge on the questions of whether all creation (or Eden only) was a perfect paradise; whether the six days are a chronological account of creation or merely some kind of poetic framework; whether the flood was a global or regional deluge, and whatnot. But regardless of what hermeneutical machinations one imposes on the text, I can't see how any reasonable person—someone for whom words are in any sense truly meaningful—could think it possible to reconcile the first nine chapters of Genesis with the bald assertion that "the same processes we see shaping the earth today have been at work since God created the world." . . . every biblical creationist who rejects uniformitarianism strongly affirms divine providence. . . . Few old-earthers truly grasp how much their capitulation to evolutionary theory compromises when it comes to hamartiology, hermeneutics, biblical history, biblical anthropology, and the authority and reliability of the Scriptures. But it would be nice to see a conscientious effort from old-earthers to deal with Christian doctrine and the foundations of Christian faith seriously. (6-21-10)
Thaxton's book, The Soul of Science (Bible Science Association, 1994), co-written with Nancy R. Pearcey (a young-earther) and Marvin Olasky (yet another young-earther), is listed in YEC icon and central figure Henry Morris' lengthy Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography. Morris states: "The books listed in this bibliography represent works of authors advocating literal creationism, including the six-solar-day creation week and a worldwide cataclysmic flood." That pretty much proves that Thaxton is in the YEC camp.
Bradley and Olsen, however, are old-earthers. There is a chance White is the same, but in favorably citing YEC Kenyon's foreword to a book at least partially written by YEC Charles B. Thaxton, the likelihood is that White, too, is a young earth creationist, since those who deny the YEC position generally don't cite YEC's as reputable scientific authorities (I certainly would never do so).
John MacArthur
The hypothesis that the earth is billions of years old is rooted in the unbiblical premise that what is happening now is just what has always happened. This idea is known as uniformitarianism. It is the theory that natural and geological phenomena are for the most part the results of forces that have operated continuously, with uniformity, and without interruption, over billions and billions of years. (5-7-10)
According to Scripture, God created the universe over six days’ time and rested on the seventh day. . . . To reject a literal, six-day interpretation is to confound that memorial. Furthermore, it is a denial of the completeness of God’s creation. (6-20-10)
Uniformitarian geologists start with the assumption that the earth is millions and millions of years old. When they go to the evidence, they find what they’re looking for—old fossils, old rocks, and the marks of long ages of time. But what if you start with a different set of assumptions? What if you go to the evidence assuming the biblical record is true, namely, that the earth is relatively young and there was a cataclysmic event known as the Flood. (7-2-10)
According to Scripture, God created the universe over six days’ time and rested on the seventh day. . . . To reject a literal, six-day interpretation is to confound that memorial. Furthermore, it is a denial of the completeness of God’s creation. (6-20-10)
Uniformitarian geologists start with the assumption that the earth is millions and millions of years old. When they go to the evidence, they find what they’re looking for—old fossils, old rocks, and the marks of long ages of time. But what if you start with a different set of assumptions? What if you go to the evidence assuming the biblical record is true, namely, that the earth is relatively young and there was a cataclysmic event known as the Flood. (7-2-10)
Phil Johnson (Pyromaniacs)
I know, of course, that old-earthers like to fudge on the questions of whether all creation (or Eden only) was a perfect paradise; whether the six days are a chronological account of creation or merely some kind of poetic framework; whether the flood was a global or regional deluge, and whatnot. But regardless of what hermeneutical machinations one imposes on the text, I can't see how any reasonable person—someone for whom words are in any sense truly meaningful—could think it possible to reconcile the first nine chapters of Genesis with the bald assertion that "the same processes we see shaping the earth today have been at work since God created the world." . . . every biblical creationist who rejects uniformitarianism strongly affirms divine providence. . . . Few old-earthers truly grasp how much their capitulation to evolutionary theory compromises when it comes to hamartiology, hermeneutics, biblical history, biblical anthropology, and the authority and reliability of the Scriptures. But it would be nice to see a conscientious effort from old-earthers to deal with Christian doctrine and the foundations of Christian faith seriously. (6-21-10)
"Rhology"
It has to do w/ the age of the earth. As I'm sure you know, it is oft claimed that an old earth is the more "scientific" position, and that one would have to hold to a young earth position (say, less than 10,000 yrs old) solely on faith. What I've been discovering in my journeys of thought, debate, and polemics over the last 3-4 yrs, however, is that any opponent of my position who accuses me of blind faith has at least an equal investment of blind, unprovable faith in their own position, but they don't realise it (for the most part) or hide it (I suspect that is the case for at least a few). (2-19-07)
[Catholic Peter Sean Bradley] you seem to think that defending a literal six days of creation is completely different.
Since Scr[ipture] teaches the 6 days of creation and doesn't teach geocentrism, I don't see any reason to make an apology on that. (11-9-07: on the notorious know-nothing Boors All blog)
The Bible doesn't really support an old earth . . . (5-2-08)
. . . Young Earth Creationism, especially the kind that I generally argue, where my answer to why geological structures appear to be really old is b/c God created them, like Adam, with a certain appearance of age to the natural eye. (9-25-09)
So, is [Alvin] Plantiga a heretic spreading false teachings? Does Plantiga have an inconsistent worldview?
I don't know much about his doctrine, but yes, if he believes in an old earth, then he has an inconsistent worldview.
I'm fully expecting you to throw one of the smartest Christian philosophers alive under the bus
Yes, b/c inconsistently following Jesus is all according to how smart one is. Or not. (9-25-09)
Peter Pike
On the other hand, I have serious doubts about the validity of much of the science that goes into the dating of the age of the Earth. I think the evidence for the age of the Earth is vastly overstated and requires one to presuppose too many “facts” before beginning the scientific process. In other words, when it comes to dating the age of the Earth most of the science is simply assuming that certain processes would take a specific amount of time to accomplish, finding those processes, and then declaring that it took a specific amount of time to accomplish those processes (a viciously circular argument). . . .
But even though the article references geological time, they still defend it. (Obviously, for how would it be good “science” if they questioned scientific orthodoxy?) . . . So here we have the comparison to the Grand Canyon, along with the assurance that the reason the Canyon Lake Gorge came so quickly is because it was on a fault line and water was cutting for millions of years already. But the only reason that we make that assumption is because we first assume that the Grand Canyon did take 6 million years to get to 6,000 feet deep. . . . Now, I for one do not need Flood Geology (as in Noah’s Flood) for my worldview, but seriously if a three-day flood can carve an 80 foot deep channel, why couldn’t a flood that lasted over a year and covered the entire Earth be unable to carve the Grand Canyon?
(BTW: in the interest of full disclosure, I don’t believe in a world-wide Noah’s Flood; I think the context of the passage is localized. So this actually wouldn’t be the cause of the Grand Canyon in my book. And this is why I still maintain an ignorant and apathetic view toward the age of the Earth. Still, this is something that scientists ought to be able to counter as there are probably many people who read my blog who are YEC and who do believe in a world-wide flood.)
Anyway, I might have more to say on this later. As I’m studying Darwinism, I’m seeing more and more just how time-bound Darwinists are. That is, if they do not have enough time for evolution to occur then the theory is falsified no matter what other evidence they have. However, my own position doesn’t care about how old the Earth is; to me it’s completely irrelevant and thus it could be 10 minutes old with all our memories of the past manufactured, or it could be 10 trillion years old–neither would change my argument, nor the horrendous grammatical structure of this sentence. So I find it kinda funny how important the age of the Earth is for YEC and Darwinists alike. (10-7-07)
Again, my own position is one of ignorance and apathy about the age of the Earth (I don't know and I don't care). The result is that I've been both YEC and OEC throughout my life and hold no real strong aligience [sic] to either.
That said, my own examination of the evidence of the age of the Earth leads me to believe the YEC position is far more credible than most secularists think. And that's because I can see ways in which the "evolutionary sequence of events" fit even within the YEC framework, let alone the OEC framework, without holding to evolutionary processes. . . .
The difference between the evolutionist's concept of the sequence and the creationist's concept of the sequence is that the evolutionist is required to have huge periods of time in those events, whereas the creationist doesn't require that. God could plant trillions of bacteria on Earth and have them instantly do their job of creating the environment needed for him to then introduce the next level of life needed to keep the planet functioning. All that could take place instantly, yet it would look like an "evolutionary sequence." Again, the "lie" would not be on God's part, but rather on man's faulty assumptions here. God is not misleading anyone about the nature of the fossil record, for He gave us His Bible so we'd know He created the universe; it is man who makes assumptions about what the fossil record must mean through time that creates the lie. (3-7-09)
Pike wrote a decent treatment of Genesis: "Literal Days..." (11-1-06), where he argued that the text doesn't necessarily have to be interpreted as six literal days of creation (even citing some Church fathers who agree along those lines). See also a similar piece: "An Interesting Idea on Genesis" (9-5-06). But he appears to have been moving away from firm old-earth creationism to an "agnostic" position on the age of the earth that is increasingly inclined to accept or at least seriously consider crucial elements of young earth creationism, as we see in his progression of statements:
9-5-06: "Contrary to the popular idea that every creationist is a young earther (YEC), there are many old-earth creationists around. [Hugh] Ross is one of them (as, for that matter, am I)."
11-1-06: "I do not hold to a literal six day creation. . . . I am agnostic and apathetic toward the age of the Earth . . ."
6-3-07 ("YEC & Flood Geology"): "As I've stated elsewhere, I am 'agnostic and apathetic' when it comes to the age of the Earth, holding the six-day creation account to be typological/allegorical. This doesn't mean I rule out a literal six-day timeframe, as it is definitely possible it was a literal six day period (as we currently understand the term 'day') as the foundation of the typology; but it could just as easily have been longer or shorter on my view. I must add, of course, that modern radiometric dating is so full of errors and endless question begging as to make it scientifically impossible to verify the age of the Earth. Thus, although I do not believe the text of Scripture requires us to interpret it as a literal six-day period, science does not require me to view it as anything but a literal six-day period either. . . . there are far fewer (and less talented) YEC scientists then there are secular scientists. . . . This is no reason to think they are wrong, of course. In fact, it's striking how well YECs do despite the tilted, biased playing field. . . . there are various ways of accounting for the real or apparent discontinuities. And flood geology may be one such way."
10-7-07: "I’ve mentioned before that I am not a YEC (Young Earth Creationist). My official stance is that I am ignorant and apathetic as to the age of the Earth. I don’t know how old it is, and I don’t think it matters. . . . On the other hand, I have serious doubts about the validity of much of the science that goes into the dating of the age of the Earth. I think the evidence for the age of the Earth is vastly overstated . . . I still maintain an ignorant and apathetic view toward the age of the Earth."
3-7-09: "Again, my own position is one of ignorance and apathy about the age of the Earth (I don't know and I don't care). The result is that I've been both YEC and OEC throughout my life and hold no real strong aligience [sic] to either. That said, my own examination of the evidence of the age of the Earth leads me to believe the YEC position is far more credible than most secularists think."
* * * * *
Any further relevant info. on any of the above persons or other prominent anti-Catholics (esp. James "Doe" Swan, Eric Svendsen, and David T. King) would be much appreciated.
What benighted crackpots these Protestant Fundamentalists are, sealed up in their own tiny, little worlds of fanaticism, bereft of windows that look out on reality. They actually boast of their ignorance and obscurantism, behavior that disgusts (or amuses) people with common sense.
ReplyDeleteFanatics always think they're morally superior, while in fact they are among the worst of men. Jesus Christ never knew them.
By the way, Jason Engwer may well believe in YEC. However, it seems to me that he is not professing his own belief in this excerpt so much as claiming that Catholics and Orthodox are obliged to believe in a recent creation, because, according to him, the Fathers did.
Dave, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with this post. You're upset that anti-Catholic Protestant Fundamentalist believe in YECism? That they believe in a literal six days and nights creation week? So did the Church Fathers, with God resting on the seventh day from all his works! The Kolbe Center has an online article by Gerald Keane that shows nearly all of the early Church Fathers believed that the heavens and the earth were created in a six day period. www.kolbcenter.org/image/stories/Keane_days_of creaion_96.pdf I hope sincerely that you're not trying to set up scenario that brands anyone who believes in the traditional Catholic teaching as a 'fundamentalist'. I happen to be an orthodox Catholic, and I believe in YECism simply because our scriptures, our fathers, and oral tradition has always taught it. To believe otherwise would mean to deny the true literal meaning of Genesis 1-11. And Dave, any group of people that have denied the veracity of Genesis 1-11 always ended up denying the rest of the scriptures. So I hope you're not going to tell us that the earth isn't old or that the world wasn't created in six literal days and nights. I'd hate to think you're slipping into unbelief and infidelity.
ReplyDelete1
ReplyDeleteWhat I was actually going to say was that it is amazing that many of these people think that it an absolutely killer argument against Catholicism is the treatment of Galileo by the Catholic Church. Rhology is also YEC and saw nothing inconsistent in his being YEC and his attacking the Catholic Church for its treatment of Galileo. Because, you see, only a moron would believe that the Bible teaches that the Sun revolves around the Earth, whereas YEC is incontestibly "biblical."
ReplyDeleteJuscot, part of the ancient Catholic tradition is that should our knowledge of the world contradict our understanding of the Bible, then we should concede that our understanding of the Bible was in error, lest we make the faith laughable. See Aquinas and Augustine, Saints and Doctors of the Church.
Peter, the the Church has always taught the Bible is true. If God says he created the world in six days and nights, it is true. If the geneologies given in Genesis indicate an earth that is about 6000 to 10000 years old, then I have to except this instead of believing in the millions-billions of years old idea. As for the idea that we must consider changing our understanding of the Bible because it would contradict worldly science, I suggest that you read Romans 1:18-32. These folks thought that their 'science' was greater than God's revelation, that it was in 'error'. Though 'wise', they ended p as fools. You can go there, I won't.
ReplyDeleteAs for myself, I do not have a serious problem with either YEC or the view that the universe is 13B years old. (I personally tend toward an young earth view) Unless the measurement of time can be proven to be constant from the moment of creation, it is possible for both views to be correct. And the way that the speed that galaxies are moving away from each other is not constant, there is no reason to believe that temporal effects are constant either.
ReplyDeleteAlot of this stuff is anthormorphizing God as if He could be affected by time anyway. All eternity is a never ending present for Him.
God bless!
juscot,
ReplyDeleteSo God created the earth and separated night from day before He created the sun? How could you tell it was day if there was no sun? And where was the light coming from? And how could there be grass and trees before there was a sun? Didn't they use photosynthesis back then? I don't really want to know your answers. Consider my questions rhetorical. These are questions that arise if you take Genesis 1 literally.
Clearly, the authors of Genesis thought of "day" as something that could exist without "sun." Do you?
And, no, I don't think you're more pious or more faithful than other Catholics because you interpret the Bible so literally and regard science with such contempt. ("I'd hate to think you were slipping into unbelief and infidelity" -- two words for the same thing.)
Do you think a Catholic who interprets the first chapter of Genesis as something other than literal is unfaithful? Do you think the Pope agrees with you?
Dave may provide a selection of quotes from the Fathers to show that many, or most, of them did not interpret Genesis literally. However, it makes no difference if some of them did. They were limited by the scientific knowledge of their time, and we are under no obligation to subscribe to their pre-scientific opinions about the nature of the material world.
Genesis 1 has many valuable lessons, but they're not about "science."
Paul Hoffer: Unless the measurement of time can be proven to be constant from the moment of creation, it is possible for both views to be correct.
ReplyDeleteAdomnan: Measurement of time is something we humans do. Well, I suppose other living things measure time, too, like birds when they sing.
At any rate, it would make no sense for us to measure time with a unit of measurement that was not constant. That wouldn't be a measurement at all.
It would be like saying that people back in 100 A.D. averaged "three feet tall," but one of their feet was two of ours, and so they were really about as tall as we are. I don't see the point.
I suppose what you mean is that time itself could speed up or slow down. However, it wouldn't matter if that happened, because we wouldn't notice it and it would have no effect on our measurements.
If the time it took for everything that occurs doubled every second, we wouldn't notice any difference in the passage of time. And we wouldn't change our measurement of it either.
I'm not sure what the purpose of this post is other than ad hominem.
ReplyDeleteJuscot, there is much more to Genesis than the "true literal" reading. Indeed, many would deny that the literal reading as conceived by modern readers is the intended meaning, and it is the intended meaning that ought to matter. Ancient ideas about the literal meaning don't line up neatly at all with modern ideas either, not even close.
ReplyDeleteThe Fathers also believed in spontaneous generation and other sorts of "scientific" beliefs that were prevalent in their time that we reject today. Some were very accomplished in the science of their day, though we cannot agree today with all their scientific ideas. Also, they had an extra 1500 years or so for the age of the earth I think due to the use of the Septuagint. 1500 out of 5500-7000 is a massive discrepancy, 27% or 21%. If the young earth interpretation is correct, an examination of scientific evidence should be able to very easily point to the accuracy of one manuscript family over another.
The real point at issue with the Fathers is not their exact interpretations, but their method of evaluating evidence. Going that route requires serious intellectual inquiry, as opposed to easy acquisition of cheap talking points to parrot. I cannot imagine the Fathers seeing the latter behavior with anything but disdain.
The reason why their method is important is because the textual and physical evidence we have is different than what they had, and not always better for us, I hasten to add. If we just accept their conclusions, we pretend that we have the same evidence to work with, which is self-deception and lies.
Are the Fundamentalists really that significant of an issue any more? I see more argumentation from the atheists.
ReplyDeleteTo a person like myself who has been studying evolutionary biology for several years this website is very strange.
ReplyDeleteHere's some scientific facts. It's fair to call the people who deny these facts "uneducated morons".
1. People evolved from ancient apes and we are still apes. Humans are one of the modern ape species.
2. One of the greatest accomplishments ever made by the human ape species was determining the age of the earth. It's about 4.6 Billion years old.
3. All life on earth shares an ancestor who lived almost four billion years ago.
4. The magical creation myth of Genesis is completely wrong.
To a person like myself who has been studying evolutionary biology for several years this website is very strange.
ReplyDeleteUhhh...you do realize that the purpose of this thread was to be obliquely critical of YEC'ers right?
Adomnan, your reply to me reeks of skepticism toward the word of God. I believe that God created the world in a six days and night period simply because hundreds of years of tradition make it quite plain that Genesis is to be taken literally. What you believe is the modernist garbage that has come to dominate nearly all of secular science, nearly all of the Protestant churches, and sadly the minds of too many Catholics who have brought into the heresy of modernism. Pius IX warned us in his Syllabus of Errors that some would say "5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore sbject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding to the advance of hman reason. 6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but even hurtful to the perfection of man 7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fictions of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ himself is a myth. So Dave, Pete, Ado, and IR I'd be very careful about going any futher down the path your on now, less you end up fullfilling section I. 7 of Pio Nono's Syllabus of Errors.
ReplyDeleteEngwer's actually not a YEC. You'd think he was based on the fact that Triablogue does make YEC arguments at times, but turns out he's not.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure I heard White say something to the effect that he was a YEC. As I recall it was rather muted. Kind of off the cuff. But I don't have the source.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteThe line of argumentation is not "safe" so to speak, since many Catholics - particularly orthodox apologists - believe in YEC (and some OEC). So it's unfair to imply this means anti-intellectual or even "anti-Catholic".
There is even details in 'traditional' Catholic documents/Encyclicals that state evolution is merely a theory that can be explored only by well educated Catholics who won't fall prey to any errors that secular evolutionists push for. This is hardly the Church's stamp of approval for evolution - quite the contrary. And this certainly isn't any grounds to suggest mainstream Catholics should accept evolution either.
The problem today is that real, unbiased science doesn't exist - and yet everyone thinks it does. The truth is, everything is agenda driven. This is why if any Scientist or professor even question evolution, their job is on the line. This is why they can't stop experimenting on human embryos or define when life really begins. The examples can be multiplied. So where is the intellectual freedom? Where is the true science?
Another fact is that Evolution is a sort of dogmatic litmus test - and Catholics not wanting (or fearing) to sound "dumb" before the "experts" readily bow down and accept evolution as if it were Gospel truth. (it's quite amazing to see how borderline dogmatic the issue is pressed with Catholics who accept evolution). The charge happens all the time, one is stamped with the title "stupid" if they don't accept evolution - but what ever happened to true free thinking, where someone holds a more or less agnostic view unless and until they see compelling evidence to accept something? The overwhelming majority of "believers" in evolution are simply accepting on blind faith what the "experts" in the textbook say, without stopping to think. These are the same folks who have faith that either the Republicans or the Democrats will "fix America" when the Senators routinely vote on bills they haven't even read and don't really understand.
juscot,
ReplyDeleteThe "path" I'm on now entails a serious examination of the evidence both of scripture and of the material universe. I'm uncertain as to how that is problematic. The Fathers by and large seriously engaged the science of their day , though I obviously cannot support their Ptolemaic cosmology, belief in spontaneous generation, and acceptance of classical elements. This type of engagement, however, is not something that I see in most young earth proponents. There is far more nuance and wisdom in the Fathers than I see in the works of the young-earth fundamentalists.
Consider the words of Basil:
"Such is the road and the course which Scripture follows to lead us to the idea of the Only begotten. And certainly, God’s immaterial nature had no need of the material language of voice, since His very thoughts could be transmitted to His fellow-worker. What need then of speech, for those Who by thought alone could communicate their counsels to each other? Voice was made for hearing, and hearing for voice. Where there is neither air, nor tongue, nor ear, nor that winding canal which carries sounds to the seat of sensation in the head, there is no need for words: thoughts of the soul are sufficient to transmit the will. As I said then, this language is only a wise and ingenious contrivance to set our minds seeking the Person to whom the words are addressed." -- Hexameron, Homily III.
juscot: Adomnan, your reply to me reeks of skepticism toward the word of God.
ReplyDeleteAdomnan: And your remarks reek of Protestant Fundamentalism and obscurantist biblical literalism. They don't seem Catholic at all.
The Catholic faith is about the truth, not about self-deception and ignorance.
And the "word of God" is Jesus Christ, first and foremost. Genesis is the written word of God, but it imparts theological and spiritual truths, not information that can only be gleaned from scientific research.
If I am "skeptical" about the word of God, so is the Pope and every Catholic bishop in the world, none of whom interprets Genesis literally.
juscot: I believe that God created the world in a six days and night period simply because hundreds of years of tradition make it quite plain that Genesis is to be taken literally.
Adomnan: That's not correct, as Irritatio Perpetuum -- by the way, it should be "Irritatio Perpetua" (sorry!) -- has pointed out. The Fathers weren't as simple-minded as you suppose.
Besides, I'm not under any obligation to subscribe to their ancient scientific opinions, whatever they might have been. Science is a matter of empirical experiment, not faith and dogma.
Of course, scientific discoveries will never shake the foundations of faith. How could they? They only concern what the material and psychic worlds, the worlds beneath man or at man's natural level, are like. Science can never peer into what is above man's material and (lower) psychic nature. That is a matter of revelation from above. Note the distinctions that New Testament writers make concerning the body (soma), the flesh (sarx), the soul (psyche), and the spirit (pneuma, nous). Don't mix up everything together chaotically.
juscot: What you believe is the modernist garbage that has come to dominate nearly all of secular science, nearly all of the Protestant churches, and sadly the minds of too many Catholics who have brought into the heresy of modernism.
ReplyDeleteAdomnan: Scientific findings or theories are not matters of belief. Belief or faith in a religious context refers only to what God has revealed. He has revealed some (higher) psychic truth and many spiritual truths. There is no point in God revealing material or lower psychic truths, since we can discover these for ourselves -- they are beneath the human level of being and so accessible to our research and exploration. They do not have to be revealed from above, and so they aren't -- ever.
It is only what we cannot know scientifically -- and these are the really important things -- that we have to look to God to reveal to us.
Again, God reveals what is above our ordinary human knowledge, not what is subject to our way of knowing through the senses and reason. THE LATTER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE REVEALED BY GOD -- AND SO IT ISN'T.He has given us the means to know these things naturally.
juscot: "5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore sbject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding to the advance of hman reason."
Adomnan: I heartily concur with this statement from the Syllabus of Errors. But the objects of divine revelation, as I explained above, are precisely those things that we cannot know through the senses or through reason. Only the latter kinds of knowledge -- knowledge of the natural sciences -- is "imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress." Divine revelation is not, although there is a progress in understanding the contents of revelation, which is Newman's and St. Vincent's (of Lerins) "doctrinal development."
juscot: "6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but even hurtful to the perfection of man."
ReplyDeleteAdomnan: Evidently I agree with this. Divine revelation, as I said, is a wholly differenct sphere from "human reason." Through the latter we humans can know being that is below us or at our level. We can only know what is above us, the supernatural, from divine revelation. Matters like the age of the earth are things that are below the human level of being, concerning as they do the natural, material world, and so do not require divine revelation to be known. They are discovered through natural science, which is hased on the cooperation of sensory perception and reason, forms of knowledge naturally accessible to man.
juscot: "7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fictions of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ himself is a myth."
Adomnan: Pius IX is here taking up the trope, if you will, of the opposition between pagan mythology and Christian revelation that was a commonplace in the Fathers. It was usual for even many educated pagans to say that mythology was, to some extent, fabricated by "poets." The Pope is merely repeating this idea, saying that "prophecies and miracles" in Holy Scripture are not comparable to "poetic" mythological fictions. It's interesting that the Pope limits his remarks largely to "prophecies and miracles," perhaps because he realizes that "fiction" can be a vehicle of the truth (unless one thinks that Shakespeare's plays and Jane Austen's novels, say, which are fiction, are ipso facto all "lies").
juscot: So Dave, Pete, Ado, and IR I'd be very careful about going any futher down the path your on now, less you end up fullfilling section I. 7 of Pio Nono's Syllabus of Errors.
Adomnan: No, juscot, it is you who should be careful -- although I fear it may be too late -- lest you abandon the reason God gave you and embrace nonsense that murders the intellect, which would be very great sin indeed.
You see, you're not the only one who can question the "path" people are on.
juscot: "6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but even hurtful to the perfection of man."
ReplyDeleteAdomnan: Evidently I agree with this. Divine revelation, as I said, is a wholly differenct sphere from "human reason." Through the latter we humans can know being that is below us or at our level. We can only know what is above us, the supernatural, from divine revelation. Matters like the age of the earth are things that are below the human level of being, concerning as they do the natural, material world, and so do not require divine revelation to be known. They are discovered through natural science, which is hased on the cooperation of sensory perception and reason, forms of knowledge naturally accessible to man.
juscot: "7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fictions of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ himself is a myth."
Adomnan: Pius IX is here taking up the trope, if you will, of the opposition between pagan mythology and Christian revelation that was a commonplace in the Fathers. It was usual for even many educated pagans to say that mythology was, to some extent, fabricated by "poets." The Pope is merely repeating this idea, saying that "prophecies and miracles" in Holy Scripture are not comparable to "poetic" mythological fictions. It's interesting that the Pope limits his remarks largely to "prophecies and miracles," perhaps because he realizes that "fiction" can be a vehicle of the truth (unless one thinks that Shakespeare's plays and Jane Austen's novels, say, which are fiction, are ipso facto all "lies").
ReplyDeletejuscot: So Dave, Pete, Ado, and IR I'd be very careful about going any futher down the path your on now, less you end up fullfilling section I. 7 of Pio Nono's Syllabus of Errors.
Adomnan: No, juscot, it is you who should be careful -- although I fear it may be too late -- lest you abandon the reason God gave you and embrace nonsense that murders the intellect, which would be very great sin indeed.
You see, you're not the only one who can question the "path" people are on.
Nick: The line of argumentation is not "safe" so to speak, since many Catholics - particularly orthodox apologists - believe in YEC (and some OEC). So it's unfair to imply this means anti-intellectual or even "anti-Catholic".
ReplyDeleteAdomnan: Sorry, Nick. I'm not going there. The Catholic faith doesn't need weird science to support it. Believers in YEC are kooks. They are, in fact, anti-intellectual obscurantists and should be taken to task for that, if they insist on inflicting their irrational views on others.
The fact that so many anti-Catholic "Reformed" are believers in YEC is a very strong reason not to take them seriously, which I don't.
Nick: There is even details in 'traditional' Catholic documents/Encyclicals that state evolution is merely a theory that can be explored only by well educated Catholics who won't fall prey to any errors that secular evolutionists push for.
Adomnan: Fine, but don't confuse opposition to some purely materialistic theories or evolution or even to Darwin's basic theory -- that species evolve solely through accidental mutation and natural selection of the "fittest" results of those accidents -- with belief that the earth is 10,000 years old or less. Ever see the Grand Canyon? Why would the geological record present overwhelming evidence of hundreds of millions of years of gradual change? Is God trying to fool us by making His creation appear to be old when it isn't?
At any rate, I'm not sure that I want to comment any more on this issue. It's beneath my intellectual level. Maybe I'll just let the kids play and stay out of it.
Adomnan: Just to be clear, when I wrote that "I heartily concur with this statement from the Syllabus of Errors," I meant that I concurred with Pope Pius IX that the statement in question was in fact an error. I don't concur with the statement itself. Same goes for the other "errors" on the Syllabus.
ReplyDeleteHi Jon,
ReplyDeleteEngwer's actually not a YEC. You'd think he was based on the fact that Triablogue does make YEC arguments at times, but turns out he's not.
Okay, thanks. I knew there was a chance he might be, because of the sort of argument he was making, but my best guess was that he was YEC. But if you have heard otherwise, I'll go by that knowledge and remove his section.
I'm sure I heard White say something to the effect that he was a YEC. As I recall it was rather muted. Kind of off the cuff. But I don't have the source.
Okay. His book about creationism is selling for $00.01. I'll probably pick that up, out of curiosity. It's the only one of his that I have bought. The price is right.
Juscot,
ReplyDeleteAugustine did not accept a literal 6 day period of creation. Augustine believed that all of creation occurred at once and that the "days of creation" were logical divisions rather than calendar divisions. See Summa Theologica, Prima pars, Q. 74:
"On this question Augustine differs from other expositors. His opinion is that all the days that are called seven, are one day represented in a sevenfold aspect (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22; De Civ. Dei xi, 9; Ad Orosium xxvi); while others consider there were seven distinct days, not one only."
When necessary, Aquinas could sound like a modern day historical-critical scholar. See this explanation on one problem pertaining to the account of the second day of creation.
"The text of Genesis, considered superficially, might lead to the adoption of a theory similar to that held by certain philosophers of antiquity, who taught that water was a body infinite in dimension, and the primary element of all bodies. Thus in the words, "Darkness was upon the face of the deep," the word "deep" might be taken to mean the infinite mass of water, understood as the principle of all other bodies. These philosophers also taught that not all corporeal things are confined beneath the heaven perceived by our senses, but that a body of water, infinite in extent, exists above that heaven. On this view the firmament of heaven might be said to divide the waters without from those within--that is to say, from all bodies under the heaven, since they took water to be the principle of them all.
As, however, this theory can be shown to be false by solid reasons, it cannot be held to be the sense of Holy Scripture. It should rather be considered that Moses was speaking to ignorant people, and that out of condescension to their weakness he put before them only such things as are apparent to sense. Now even the most uneducated can perceive by their senses that earth and water are corporeal, whereas it is not evident to all that air also is corporeal, for there have even been philosophers who said that air is nothing, and called a space filled with air a vacuum."
I repeat my point that there has been a consistent tradition within the Church of teaching that faith and reason cannot conflict and that if empirical evidence conflicts with an interpretation of Scripture, then we have to go back and review our interpretation so that we do not hold the faith in contempt before the world.
The Bible says that the woman in Song of Songs says that "I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys."
ReplyDeleteSo, are we supposed to take "I have leaves, a stem, roots, petals, and a stamen" as the literal meaning, because the Bible would never say anything that isn't true? Or is the Bible saying something true, with a literal meaning, that doesn't involve the woman being some kind of talking plant humanoid?
Honest to goodness, it's like nobody ever reads poetry anymore.
Adomnan, I believe in the scientific method, but it has it's limits. It depends on observation by honest minds to work. If a scientist has a bias in favor of evolution, then all of his finding will be slanted toward that bias. If his bias is based on something that is false, then how good are his findings going to be? I don't even have to answer that question!
ReplyDeleteBut, if we base our search for creation on what God has told us and we put or faith in what he has told us, we will discover what God has told us already is true by our own research. But faith must come first, (Heb11:3) for only "by faith can we understand the worlds were framed by the word of God". That means excepting Genesis as literal history with six literal days and nights of creation by faith.
juscot: But faith must come first, (Heb11:3) for only "by faith can we understand the worlds were framed by the word of God".
ReplyDeleteAdomnan: You don't understand what the supernatural virtue of faith is, because you don't understand what the proper object of faith is.
The object of faith is what is revealed by God. If there are things we can know or discover, because of our place on the scale of being, then God does not have to reveal them. If He does not have to reveal them, then He won't reveal them. He reveals things that can only be known because they are reveealed; i.e., supernatural, not natural, truths.
Once again -- and I need to hammer this home because you don't seem to be getting it -- there is no reason for God to reveal what we can know using our senses and our reason, and this includes all the truths of science, which are human discoveries by definition.
That is why the Bible is not a scientific textbook. It reveals spiritual, supernatural truths, not the truths of the natural sciences.
In Genesis 1, look for the spiritual meaning, not any "scientific" meaning. At most, yours would be what St. Paul would call a "fleshly" interpretation of Genesis.
juscot: That means excepting Genesis as literal history with six literal days and nights of creation by faith.
Adomnan: Faith isn't concerned with the "literal history" of cosmogony. That is something we human beings can research with our natural, God-given powers, as shown by the rapid advances modern science has made in shedding light on these matters (which, of course, still require further exploration). No revelation is needed: and consequently no revelation occurs, because God doesn't do what is not needed.
That's why God may reveal to me the meaning of life, but He will never reveal to me the structure of some molecule.
Dave, the way you posted this article shows extreme prejudice and bias. First of all, there's the picture of Alley Oop. By itself, it wouldn't mean anything, but then there is that title: "Young Earth Creationism Among Leading Online Anti-Catholic Protestant Fundamentalists". There was no need to add "anti-Catholic" to the title of your post nor was there any reason to post the Oop cartoon. The only reason I can see for doing so is to ridicule anyone, not just your "anti-Catholic Protestant Fundamentalists, for believing in YEW. The "Fundamentalists" IMHO are a convenient straw man and whipping boy for you to attack the idea of YEW. Yeah, show these poor beknighted Catholics that only ignorant, obscurant, "fundamntalists" believe this foolishness. This approach will work with those who are ignorant of church history, or who have turned away from God (Rom1:18-32) but those of us who believe what the scriptures say about creation will turn away from "Catholic" commentators who deny the truth God gave us. To me, a "Catholic" blogger who denies the history recorded in Genesis is a bigger anti-Catholic than those "Protestant Fundamentalists".
ReplyDeleteAdomnan,
ReplyDeleteSo God created the earth and separated night from day before He created the sun?
Yes. He created light first, which (in the abstract) He used to separate day and night, as the Scriptures say. Thereafter He created the sun to be the governing body of the light He had previously created. This is the way I have always understood this text; it causes me no difficulty.
I found some indirect evidence (added near the end of the post) that James White is probably a YEC, but no definitive proof as of yet.
ReplyDeleteHaving light but no sun as of yet would perhaps explain night and day in terms of light and darkness, in some conceivable sense, but it can't explain having a 24-hour "day" when the sun is required as a referent point for the year which is then divided into equal days.
ReplyDeleteIf someone is a geocentrist, the sun would be all the more required for the definition of a day as we know it, it seems to me . . .
Well, now we have the question, what does God mean by the term day, and has it come to mean something different to us from our perspective?
ReplyDeletePerhaps, as the Scriptures say, day is light in God's vocabulary, and night is dark, literally speaking, again in His vocabulary. The sun, moon and stars, along with the earth's rotation and revolution then become the new referents for mankind's specific vocabulary as it relates to his limited, mortal experience.
Pilgrimsarbour: This is the way I have always understood this text; it causes me no difficulty.
ReplyDeleteAdomnan: Nothing would cause you difficulty then.
By the way, do you believe in relativity, subatomic particles, quantum mechanics and so on, or are these other lies the scientists are telling us? I mean, if they can make up a whopper like the earth being 4.567 billion years old, they can lie about anything, can't they?
Too bad science is of the devil. You and juscot really have me worried. I think I should burn all my physics, chemistry and astronomy books and see what the Bible has to say about subatomic particles, the law of gravity and the periodic table, if they even exist.
Pius IX warned us in his Syllabus of Errors that some would say "5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore sbject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding to the advance of hman reason.
ReplyDeleteI would say that Divine revelation is perfect and that our perception of it is imperfect.
Adomnan,
ReplyDeleteIt's not that science is of the devil, it's that science is being dogmatized in areas where it's speculation (at most). To claim the earth is X billion years old is a leap of faith more than anything; there's no way to verify it in any fair and safe manner. But where the real problem comes in is when folks take that X-billion-years-stick and use it to beat people over the head as "stupid" for not accepting.
The root of the problem is that Modernism has dogmatized science and "experts", and not just that but highly biased ones, such that to question them is akin to a Catholic questioning the Magisterium.
Evolution rose to it's dogmatic prominence as a way to beat Christians down and mock tenets of the faith. A panel of these scientists would laugh an evolution believing Catholic out of the room for holding monogenism out as a viable option since evolution doesn't point in that direction - but at that point the Catholic is trapped, since he's already bowed to their original demands.
When it comes to creation, man is God's highest by far, and the Incarnation reflects this as well. It seems incongruent to me that God would take billions of years for man to come on the scene, and then take only a few years for man to Fall, be Rescued, and then Armageddon. If you do the math, Adam came around at most 10,000 years ago, and it's not a stretch to say the world wont last 10,000 more years, so 20,000 years out of 4 billion years means less than 1% of created history was of any real significance. The rest of that "dead space" (99.999% of Created History) was spent in an endless series of evolutions and extinctions. When someone takes on that view, as dogma, it's no wonder they don't believe in God or any significance in man, since the record would show man is extremely 'new' to a situation that's been independent of man for virtually all it's existence.
To say the earth is 4.54 * 10^9 years ± 1% old is not a leap of faith, and in fact there are multiple measurements that can be used for verification, including measurements of the sun.
ReplyDeleteI happen to be reading a selection of writings from the Middle Ages ("Medieval Latin") and came across this excerpt -- quite a coincidence actually -- from the Cosmographia, written by Bernardus Silvestris in the 12th century:
ReplyDelete"Tanta igitur naturarum multitudine, labore Physis plurimo speciem deprehendit humanam, sublustrem, tenuem, et paginae terminantis extremam."
My translation: "From such a multitude of natures, then, the physical world (Physis) discovered, with a great deal of effort, the human species (or form), gleaming, subtle and found at the very end of the last page (of the book of nature). "
This is just about the most accurate description of the evolution of the human body that could have been made in the 12th cnetury, and it was in fact made. Bernardus calls mankind, or the human form, "gleaming and subtle" (sublustrem, tenuem) because of its participation in spirit.
In a commentary on the Cosmography it is pointed out that a similar idea of what the commentator calls the "evolution of life" is found in the 9th century Irish philosopher John Scotus Eriugena (among others), who interpreted Genesis in an allegorical way as a description of an evolution process rooted in divine archetypes in his "De divisione naturae." I have Eriugena's book, and his interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, which draws on Maximus the Confessor and other Fathers, is captivating -- but too long to report here.
I just want to point out that plenty of ancient and medieval Catholic authors have not understood Genesis literally, but have read it in a way that is consistent with theistic evolution over long periods of time. That is why the Catholic Church had little real difficulty in accommodating some forms of evolution when they became more widespread scientific theories in the 19th century. The Church had only to consult her own intellectual tradition to discover similar views.
The discussions of Bernardus, Eriugena and others were speculative, but of a amazing spiritual depth and exegetical acumen. Now it turns out that their Spirit-anointed speculations are borne out by the discoveries of modern science. Ah, what insight are available to those who experience what St. Paul calls "the renewal of the mind" through Jesus Christ! Laudetur Dominus.
But you're still just extrapolating on evidence. The only way to verify how long this or that half-life is is to do so in real time.
ReplyDeleteWhat's being done is that the experiment is saying a change of X occurred over 1 day, and a change of Y occurred over 2 days, and from that a trend line is created extending back to infinity, and when a specimen is found and placed on that "graph," the astronomical numbers appear because "that's what the math says".
Science has to be done within reference points, and once you leave those points it becomes speculation. Saying this or that has a halflife in the millions is unverifiable and ultimately an assumption and akin to a Protestant starting off with the assumption Sola Scriptura is true and then proceeds to live life based on Sola Scriptura.
What's just as bad is that nobody here has or is able to do such science experiments, so their ultimately just regurgitating "data" and "facts" they were told (often in order to "pass the class").
Adomnan,
ReplyDeleteBy the way, do you believe in relativity, subatomic particles, quantum mechanics and so on...
Of course. But I don't think I have to agree with every conclusion drawn from these facts to acknowledge the existence of these things.
...or are these other lies the scientists are telling us?
Oh, I don't know. Have you stopped beating your wife?
As it is, I do think science, as it is practised today, has been horribly compromised by political/financial agendas (see the global warming hoax). I don't think scientists are, by nature, any more liars than the rest of mankind, but they are subject to various pressures from within and without just like the rest of us. Failure to recognise this is ultimately to our own peril.
Too bad science is of the devil.
I never said any such thing, don't believe that, and have no idea from where you got that idea. I am merely asking questions. You are under no obligation to answer them. I am not a fundamentalist, though I find your continuing inability to make theological distinctions among Protestant believers to be, frankly speaking, stunning.
I am not settled on the age of the earth. I am only concerned that God as creator of all things be not removed from the equation. The mechanism of the whole thing is interesting scientifically, but it is of little consequence to me regarding faith, except in the matter of God's sovereign control of His universe.
You and juscot really have me worried.
Now who's the liar? In all my dealings with you I have never known you to give a flying flip about anything I ever said or believed--nor anyone else for that matter. If you weren't so snarky all the time I might enjoy talking to you. And maybe I'd be willing to learn something from you. As it is, when I'm done interacting with you, I feel I need to take a shower.
But hey, good luck with that whole "love thy neighbour" thing ya got goin' there.
Sincerely your BFF,
PA
Look at what one of the leading "experts" in science recently said:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-yx5WN4efo
And these folks hold the minds of millions in their grip.
All of these comments give evidence that "theologians - professional and otherwise" should avoid discussions about science. You may be sincere in your faith, but nearly every comment above this one has only a "fundamentalist" understanding of the discipline and its scope. Consider: (a) From God's perspective there is no time (it's called eternity) so discussions about time from God's perspective are laughable. (b) Evidence of "a" can be found in quantum mechanics, where extra dimensions are required to fit "observations" made. (c) QM is a very real science but it has no reference point to allow Newtonian observations or measurements, of which all of you are discussing. (d) You don't have to live a million years to measure how far light travels in a million years. (e) The writer of Genesis is on the surface of the planet/void, not out in space looking down; the perspective of the observations made (or poetically hypothesized) says a lot; and is a normal beginning for scientific inquiry; when you avoid defining such your conclusions are AWOL (awash without logic).(f) The Bible is true, about faith and morals -- it is not a comprehensive or exhaustive compendium of all knowledge about things physical; that's why there's a God. "O man, where were you when I created...." (g) What the Early Church fathers believed or wrote, but about which the Church does not speak doctrinally, should have no weight in any discussion about truth, except for fun and speculation. (h) The Church does NOT teach YEC, so to dogmatically embrace YEC is to reject Church teaching; don't equate your interpretation of the Bible with God's knowledge about what the words in it mean; he knows this stuff, we generally don't. (i) The Bible/theology and nature/science both make mention of (or give evidence for) extra dimensions of space and time beyond the 3 physical and 0 time dimension that we live in. Adding one dimension of space allow all the apparent "contradictions" above to instantly become paradoxes with easy to understand explanations.
ReplyDeleteNick: It seems incongruent to me that God would take billions of years for man to come on the scene, and then take only a few years for man to Fall, be Rescued, and then Armageddon. If you do the math, Adam came around at most 10,000 years ago, and it's not a stretch to say the world wont last 10,000 more years, so 20,000 years out of 4 billion years means less than 1% of created history was of any real significance. The rest of that "dead space" (99.999% of Created History) was spent in an endless series of evolutions and extinctions.
ReplyDeleteAdomnan: Nick, it seems to me that your analysis of the implication of long passages of time in the history of the earth is a philosophical misunderstanding.
Objective time, like the time used to measure the age of the earth or the "year" it takes for the earth to go around the sun, should not be confused with subjective time; that is, our human sense of time's passage. We know what a minute or an hour or a year or a decade means in terms of our experience, because we perceive, if you will, those durations subjectively. However, before there was human consciousness, there was obviously no "duration," as we understand it, as a psychological experience. In the first billion years of earth's existence, there was no life on the planet, and so no time passed in any way that we would perceive as the passage of time (because we weren't there). Similarly, until about 650 million B.C., there were only unicellular plants and animals, for a long time these were only "bacteria" with no cell nuclei. Evidently, these microbes didn't experience any passage of time either. So, again, there was no "duration;" time didn't "pass" as it does for us. In fact, it was probably only in the relatively recent past that animals came to experience the passage of time subjectively at all, and none of them did so in the way that human beings do.
Thus, as I look at, from the point of view of an experience of duration, which is the only sense of the actual passage of time that is meaningful to us, virtually no time "passed" at all. Yes, a lot of "objective time" elapsed, but relatively little "subjective time," the only sort of time that we perceive.
It's almost as if you imagine humans being present for that 4.567 billion years, in which case that would have been a huge amount of "wasted" time. But they weren't, and so it wasn't.
The truth of the matter is that the soul is not in time. Time is in the soul.
Stan Williams: You may be sincere in your faith, but nearly every comment above this one has only a "fundamental" understanding of the discipline and its scope.
ReplyDeleteAdomnan: Stan, I agree with almost everything that you've written. (I'd have to reserve judgment on your assertion that the Bible gives evience for higher space dimensions, but it's possible; e.g., Christ's glorified body entering closed rooms; the Ascension.)
However, I don't understand why you wrote that almost every comment made has been from a "fundamentalist" understanding. Neither my comments nor Irritatio Perpetua's nor suburbanbanshee's nor Dave's comments can be construed as "fundamentalist" in any sense.
Adomnan: You and juscot really have me worried.
ReplyDeletePilgrimsarbour: Now who's the liar?
Adomnan: Well, I was trying to be sarcastic, which isn't the same as lying. But it is true that what you and juscot said didn't really worry me.
Biblical figures were sometimes sarcastic, as when Paul wrote that he wished the circumcizers would slip and cut themselves. Obvioisly, he didn't really want them to hurt themselves. Even so, no one would say that he was lying.
But I do apologize to you, because it was juscot who suggested I was on the wrong path (and so should, evidently, be worried) . You, on the other hand, did not suggest any such thing or assume a stance of moral superiority.
Pilgrimsarbour: In all my dealings with you I have never known you to give a flying flip about anything I ever said or believed--nor anyone else for that matter.
Adomnan: Is this what you really mean to say? After all, in our exchanges, I cited what you wrote and responded to that. I wouldn't have done that if I didn't care about what you said or believed. At least that's my recollection. It is my modus operandi to respond directly to what others write. I may be snarky at times, but I do dialogue, sometimes ad infinitum if it's about one of my preferred topics.
I may not respond to every point you make. Sometimes I pick out what I find most striking or characteristic of your stance. But you do that, too. Just about everybody does.
Pilgrimsarbour: As it is, when I'm done interacting with you, I feel I need to take a shower.
Adomnan: Oh, come on. It's not that bad, is it? I mean, you frequent the Beggars All website, don't you? (Not that that's bad. You're one of the best posters there.) There's as much mud wrestling going on over there as you can find in my "worst" posts.
In any event, you are a very decent and considerate gentleman, despite your understandable irritation with me, and I'm truly sorry I upset you.
Nick, a consideration just occurred to me that might help me communicate better the implications of my distinction between subjective and objective time.
ReplyDeleteThere are approximately 6.87 billion human beings on the earth now. That means that each year, 6.87 billion years of experienced duration (subjective time) occur -- okay, about a third less when you subtract the hours of sleep; but you get my drift -- and so as much or more subjective time passes in one or two years as the objective time that has elapsed since the earth formed.
Viewed in this light, those enormous aeons of elapsed objective time don't seem quite so daunting or significant, do they?
Dave, on a related note, do you recall way back when Sungenis' geocentrism first emerged that a Catholic e-poligist refuted him with various images of satellite orbits and how these are obviously best explained under the presumption that the earth does spin. Not just geosynchronous satellites, but all the others as well. It was really a well done piece of work. I'd love to find those old posts.
ReplyDeleteHi Jon,
ReplyDeleteI looked up what I think are those, or closely related, recently:
Exchanges With Robert Sungenis on Geocentrism and Perceived Personal Attacks [me]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/01/reply-to-robert-sungenis-letter.html
Scientific Disproof of Geocentrism (Ken Cole, with four replies by Sungenis and four counter-replies from Cole)
http://web.archive.org/web/20050828145515/catholicoutlook.com/cole.php
As the Universe Turns: Is it physically possible for the whole universe to orbit the earth? (Gary Hoge)
http://web.archive.org/web/20050925205057/catholicoutlook.com/centerofmass.php
Why the earth can't be the center of mass of the universe (+ Part II) (Gary Hoge vs. Robert Sungenis
http://web.archive.org/web/20050908155409/catholicoutlook.com/centerofmass2.php
http://web.archive.org/web/20050903110439/catholicoutlook.com/centerofmass3.php
It was Gary Hoge. Thanks Dave. Here's the page I was thinking of.
ReplyDeletehttp://web.archive.org/web/20050308145727/catholicoutlook.com/dance1.php
Really well done by Gary. I was actually plugged in to the RC/Protestant debates as a Protestant just as Sungenis' geocentrism emerged. It was quite fascinating.
Gary's a friend and we have met in person. But he has completely disappeared from the Internet. I don't know why. He's never told me. It's a shame, as I thought he did excellent work as an apologist. These exchanges are prime examples.
ReplyDeleteI suspect Tim Enloe's acting like a rude, pompous ass towards him after a long series of fairly cordial "dialogues" may have had something to do with his disenchantment with the Internet.
We apologists often have to suffer fools, and if we're not temperamentally inclined to endure that sort of inane folly, then we ought to pursue something else.
I posted the following play on words at Steve Hays' Triablogue site. I wanted to document it, lest he decides to delete it, as he has routinely done with many of my comments in recent months:
ReplyDeleteTruth Unites... and Divides
"Catholic Fundamentalist Geocentrist kooks because they are such literalists in their hermeneutic.
"No wonder some people don't want to become Christians. They think becoming Christians means that they'll have to check their brains at the door and become Fundy-Literalists like these Geocentrist Catholics."
(9-21-10)
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/09/faithful-few.html#3234536875720874928
ME
Anti-Catholic Fundamentalist YEC kooks because they are such literalists in their hermeneutic.
No wonder some people don't want to become Christians. They think becoming Christians means that they'll have to check their brains at the door and become Fundy-Literalists like these YEC Anti-Catholics: like Hays and Turretinfan and Sproul and (probably) White.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/09/young-earth-creationism-among-leading.html
(9-21-10)
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/09/faithful-few.html#2986354837720771668
Dave,
ReplyDeleteIf you are "collecting paper" on who is a "Young Earth Creationist," add Rhology from Beggars All to the list. Here is my post from 2007, linking to the comment thread discussion where Rhology argues (a) the Catholic Church should never have thought that the Bible taught heliocentrism and (b) the Bible clearly teaches Young Earth Creationism.
The cognitive dissonance can give you whiplash.
Thanks much! I'll do that.
ReplyDeleteI've added documentation of the YEC views of not only Rhology but also John MacArthur and Phil Johnson, as of 8 PM EST Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteHey, proof Catholics can't go five minutes without a Crusade.
ReplyDeleteI'm highly anticipating the next pointless list Dave puts me on. I'm marveling at how pathetic it is that Dave has to put *my* name on his list (although I'm honored to be listed right between Sproul and White). The thought of cashing in on that even crossed my mind!
Me: Hey, you should publish my book. Dave Armstrong put me on a list between Sproul and White!
Publisher: Dave who?
Peter Pike: Hey, proof Catholics can't go five minutes without a Crusade.
ReplyDeleteAdomnan: It's been over eight hundred years since the last crusade, Pete. But that's okay. I wouldn't expect knowledge of history from a YEC kook.
And remind me who White and Sproul are. Oh, wait, don't bother. I remember now: The first one is a prolific charlatan who pretends to know Greek (and Hebrew?) and the second, I think, is a shallow, opinionated radio preacher who thinks he's a ronowned theologian. Some deluded people even believe Mr. White has a "doctorate," I've heard. Mr. Pike is probably one of those.
If you can believe the earth is 10,000 years old or less, then I suppose you can believe White is a "Dr." You can believe anything.
I'll post my comments here as well:
ReplyDeleteHi Dave Armstrong,
I kid you not, I had no idea when I wrote my comment about "Catholic Fundamentalist Geocentrist kooks" that you had wrote your post several days prior.
I know you think that YEC's are nutjobs. I get that. (BTW, aren't there some Catholic YEC's?) But don't you think that Catholic GeoCentrists are a WORSE nutjob than YEC's? (BTW, I don't know of any Protestant GeoCentrists).
Steve Hays: "How can you say that, TUAD, when they have the Consensus Patrum on their side? :-)"
ReplyDelete"Consensus Patrum"... is that like the consensus of the Early Church Fathers? Is Consensus Patrum more or less synonymous with Consensus Fidelium?
If so, then with the Early Church Fathers, didn't they believe in Geocentrism and a literal 6-day creation and a young earth?
And doesn't the Catholic Church like to pride itself as being continuous in maintaining the traditional views of the Early Church Fathers?
In which case, shouldn't Dave Armstrong be supportive of the Early Church Fathers and Consensus Fidelium? In which case, Dave Armstrong would be supportive of Geocentrism AND Young Earth Creationism!
And if he isn't, then he opposes the Early Church Fathers.
Hi Dave Armstrong,
ReplyDeleteI kid you not, I had no idea when I wrote my comment about "Catholic Fundamentalist Geocentrist kooks" that you had wrote your post several days prior.
I know you think that YEC's are nutjobs. I get that. (BTW, aren't there some Catholic YEC's?) But don't you think that Catholic GeoCentrists are a WORSE nutjob than YEC's? (BTW, I don't know of any Protestant GeoCentrists).
Adomnan said:
ReplyDelete---
I wouldn't expect knowledge of history from a YEC kook.
---
I never claimed to be YEC, but your ad hominem is noted. It's almost touching to see you're as incapable of reading as Dave is.
Peter Pike: I never claimed to be YEC,
ReplyDeleteAdomnan: So you're not?
Peter Pike: but your ad hominem is noted.
Adomnan: Where? Right next to your jab at Dave?
Peter Pike: It's almost touching to see you're as incapable of reading as Dave is.
Adomnan: I've never read your stuff, and so I don't know if I'm capable of reading it or not. Probably not.
Why do you find reading difficulties "touching?" They inspire tender emotions in you? That's odd.
TUAD: I know you think that YEC's are nutjobs. I get that. (BTW, aren't there some Catholic YEC's?) But don't you think that Catholic GeoCentrists are a WORSE nutjob than YEC's? (BTW, I don't know of any Protestant GeoCentrists).
ReplyDeleteAdomnan: It's really tough to rank nutjobs.
I know you think that YEC's are nutjobs. I get that.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe I ever said that. I'm pretty sure I didn't. I've said hardly anything at all that I can remember. I've been called by anti-Catholics all kinds of things, 100 times worse than anything I have ever said about YECs, believe me. I would describe the YEC position more along the lines of (to put it diplomatically) being "scientifically challenged."
(BTW, aren't there some Catholic YEC's?)
Yes.
But don't you think that Catholic GeoCentrists are a WORSE nutjob than YEC's?
Not "nutjobs" because I don't think that about Protestant YECs, but more scientifically challenged, as a matter of degree, since it is an even more extreme position.
PSB said:
ReplyDeleteRhology argues (a) the Catholic Church should never have thought that the Bible taught heliocentrism and (b) the Bible clearly teaches Young Earth Creationism.
The cognitive dissonance can give you whiplash.
Would someone mind explaining how this is inconsistent? I'm not sure I'm following the thought here. Thanks!
Adomnan said of me:
ReplyDelete---
I wouldn't expect knowledge of history from a YEC kook.
---
Yet Adomnan now says:
---
I've never read your stuff, and so I don't know if I'm capable of reading it or not.
---
Thanks, Mini-Dave.
(I went through the thread this time.)
ReplyDeleteStan Williams: "The Church does NOT teach YEC, so to dogmatically embrace YEC is to reject Church teaching"
Stan,
Can you show me official, formal Church teaching that any Catholic embracing YEC is rejecting Church teaching?
If not, then please shut your pie hole immediately.
Thank you.
The Church never teaches that the earth is a certain age; therefore, to embrace it "dogmatically", as Stan said, is a rejection of Church authority.
ReplyDeleteBy the same token, a Catholic is free to believe it, since it isn't dogma. But he can't say that the Church teaches YEC as a matter of dogma, because that is simply untrue. There is no such dogma.
You can consult a list of infallible dogmas:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080618064450/http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm
If you look under "God the Creator" you'll find plenty about creation but nothing specifically about the age of the earth.
The Church takes no dogmatic stand yay or nay on evolution, either. It requires every Catholic to believe in a primal pair of human beings (Adam and Eve) and original sin; also in the supernatural creation of every human soul (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950):
http://academic.regis.edu/mghedott/humanigeneris.htm
That is consistent with either a creationist or theistic evolutionary view.
So it's not a dogmatic issue, but YEC is a scientific issue, and can be rejected on that basis. From the perspective of science, I say it is pure bunk and refuted many times over in many ways, by the usual means of scientific, empirical observation.
Haha, that's very interesting.
ReplyDeleteHow precisely would you observe empirically that the Earth is old?
Yeah it is, ain't it? Perhaps one day you will grasp it. Hope springs eternal. But if you can't even figure out that Catholicism is Christian, it may be a while yet, since there are profoundly illogical processes taking place in your brain. If you can't properly understand history and theology, I don't foresee that you will grasp modern science and scientific method any time soon.
ReplyDeletePlease briefly enlighten us all how the scientific method can observe empirically how long ago the Earth came to be. What repeatable experiments do you propose? What observations will confirm the hypothesis?
ReplyDeleteOr will it be just a repetition of what I see from atheists on my blog all the time - based wholly on assumptions?
Thanks!
I have neither the time nor desire nor patience to go through Science 0101 with you, especially given the sorts of silly things you have written on the topic. But others here may be willing to do so.
ReplyDeleteDave Armstrong: "By the same token, a Catholic is free to believe it, since it isn't dogma. But he can't say that the Church teaches YEC as a matter of dogma, because that is simply untrue. There is no such dogma."
ReplyDeleteI don't think the Catholic YEC's who have commented on this thread have ever said that the Church teaches YEC as a matter of dogma. That's a strawman.
"The Church never teaches that the earth is a certain age; therefore, to embrace it "dogmatically", as Stan said, is a rejection of Church authority."
If that's your line of argument, then by the same token:
"The Church never teaches that the earth is a certain age; therefore, for an Old Earth Catholic to embrace it "dogmatically", as Stan said, is a rejection of Church authority.
Dave, are you dogmatic in your embrace that the Earth is far older than what YEC's believe? If you, in fact, are dogmatic in this belief, then it is YOU who is rejecting Church authority.
"The Church never teaches that the earth is a certain age; therefore, for an Old Earth Catholic to embrace it "dogmatically", as Stan said, is a rejection of Church authority."
ReplyDeleteCorrection. Should read: "The Church never teaches that the earth is a certain age; therefore, for an Old Earth Catholic to embrace OEC "dogmatically" is a rejection of Church authority.
Dave, as a fellow Catholic, it embarasses me to say this, but Rhology and Saint and Sinner have a better grasp on science than you do. What Rhology says about empirical observation is true. When God created the heavens and the earth, the Holy Trinity was the only intelligent being(s) around until day six. So no sort of scientific observation was possible. God himself had to tell Adam how old the earth was. And we can make a fairly accurate guess by studying the geneologies in Genesis and by comparing given dates in Biblical sources with secular and profane sources. So unless we have a way of going back in time, all methods of 'testing' the age of the earth (including radio-carbon dating) are based on the assumptions of the scientist(s) doing the testing. If the scientist believes in Old Earth, his tests will 'prove' Old Earth. Dave, you really need to bone up on the strenghts and limitations of the scientific method, because your remarks show you don't understand it. Also, quite using ad hominum attacks on your critics. It only adds credence to the belief that you are running on prejudice and bigotry in yor criticism of YEC.
ReplyDelete"The Church never teaches that the earth is a certain age; therefore, for an Old Earth Catholic to embrace it "dogmatically", as Stan said, is a rejection of Church authority.
ReplyDeleteThat's correct. I already stated that it was not a matter of dogma.
Dave, are you dogmatic in your embrace that the Earth is far older than what YEC's believe? If you, in fact, are dogmatic in this belief, then it is YOU who is rejecting Church authority.
But I'm not. You don't read very well. I specifically stated that it was a scientific opinion, not a dogmatic one. It is exceedingly supported by scientific findings.
What is your scientific education, juscot? The last geocentrist Catholic who came in here, guns blazing, was a 10th-grade dropout. Can you at least do better than that?
ReplyDeleteI have made no ad hominem attacks. I haven't called anyone a nut or a wacko, etc. (I specifically rejected such categorization). Others in the thread have done that, but not I. The original intent of the post was simply to document.
Since then I have clarified some things, and noted what I think is some profound ignorance of scientific method and findings, but haven't attacked anyone's person.
Ignorance of so-and-so is a belief someone holds, not the person himself or herself.
Revised. "The Church never teaches that the earth is a certain age; therefore, for an Old Earth Catholic to embrace OEC "dogmatically" as a scientific opinion is a rejection of Church authority.
ReplyDeleteDave Armstrong,
You are dogmatic in your scientific opinion. So much so, that it is YOU who is rejecting Church authority.
Right. Whatever you say.
ReplyDeleteDave Armstrong,
ReplyDeleteIt's actually what you said. Your own words and reasoning convict you.
You are dogmatic in your scientific opinion that the earth is old.
"Dogmatic" has different meanings, of course: a common, everyday one and a technical theological one. The former may possibly be applied to my opinion here (though I would describe it as a "very firm opinion based on a variety of scientific evidences") but not the latter. And the latter is what I was specifically talking about, whereas you switched horses in mid-stream and moved from one definition to the other. Much ado about nothing.
ReplyDeleteWord games don't work with me. I see through 'em every time.
Dave Armstrong,
ReplyDeleteSo then you yourself were playing word games against Catholic YEC's when you wrote this in defense of Stan Williams absurd comment:
"The Church never teaches that the earth is a certain age; therefore, to embrace it "dogmatically", as Stan said, is a rejection of Church authority."
(Stan Williams wrote: "The Church does NOT teach YEC, so to dogmatically embrace YEC is to reject Church teaching").
Word games don't work with me. I see through 'em every time.
Stan used the word in the theological sense (dogmas of the Church). I did the same when commenting on his words.
ReplyDeleteNow you wish to pretend that I was not using the word in that sense and futilely try to trap me and make out that I somehow contradicted myself. You only make a fool of yourself in so doing. But if you wish to continue to do so, be my guest. It merely reinforces my overall point.
This is symptomatic of the fundamentalist mindset: an inability to understand definitions of words, multiple definitions, non-literal interpretation, idiom, context, cultural background of how words are used in the Bible, ancient Hebrew (biblical) thinking, and so forth. I see that as essentially the root of the whole error.
Thanks for a classic example of the mindset.
I suspect that 9 out of 10 people would understand what I meant and what Stan meant, but you didn't, so you see a supposed error on my part, to cover for your own difficulties of interpretation of English.
This is symptomatic of the fundamentalist mindset: an inability to understand definitions of the scientific method...
ReplyDeleteDave Armstrong and Stan Williams created a distorted strawman out of what Catholic YEC's have said, and then proceeded to burn the strawman arising from the figment of their imagination.
ReplyDeleteThis reveals the mindset of people who argue in bad faith.
Thanks for a classic example of this mindset.
Right; so now I am a liar. That seems to be what every disagreement with anti-Catholics come down to: we must be wicked liars who resist the truth and pearls of wisdom from your lips. You can't grasp what I wrote, so you have to go right to the personal attack and question my honesty and sincerity in what I wrote.
ReplyDeleteYou guys can keep playing games with words if you like. I gotta get back to real work.
ReplyDeleteWhere did I say that Dave Armstrong is a liar?
ReplyDeleteYou're the one playing word games.
Adomnan said...
ReplyDeleteIn any event, you are a very decent and considerate gentleman, despite your understandable irritation with me, and I'm truly sorry I upset you.
Those are very kind and gracious words. Thank you.
May God richly bless you in Christ,
Tim
Where did I say that Dave Armstrong is a liar?
ReplyDeleteYou can't possibly be this dense (but then again, with your poor grasp of the English language, you actually could . . .). You wrote:
"Dave Armstrong and Stan Williams created a distorted strawman out of what Catholic YEC's have said, . . . This reveals the mindset of people who argue in bad faith."
Dictionary.com: "Bad Faith"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bad+faith
"lack of honesty and trust:" (Random House Dictionary)
"intention to deceive; treachery or dishonesty (esp in the phrase in bad faith)" (Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition)
Your Dictionary.com
http://www.yourdictionary.com/bad-faith
"insincerity; dishonesty; duplicity"
(Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc.,)
Now I am giving you the choice I gave "Turretinfan" (TAO) a while back when he was posting relentlessly idiotic comments: either cease attacking the host of this blog (me) now, or I will delete any further of your comments in this thread. I have long had a post listed on the sideboard, explaining that I don't allow repeated attacks minus any substance.
The choice is yours. TAO chose to ignore my offer, and so his many comments in a prior thread were deleted. I'm gonna leave yours up to now because they are such an excellent demonstration of a certain mindset (and were roundly refuted). But no further, since you insist on making this about myself rather than the topic at hand.
Your blog Dave.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you keeping up my comments along with yours.
I think it's been instructive. And in my favor.
I think it's been instructive. And in my favor.
ReplyDeleteI see. So you have your own unique definition of "bad faith." Who cares about dictionaries? First, you didn't appear to know that "dogmatic" has more than one meaning (that is a more charitable interpretation than attributing to you intentional sophistry), and now you redefine "bad faith" to your own whim.
The only choices are that you didn't know the definitions (of either) or else you did indeed intend to call me a liar and are now backtracking from that, like the child who gets caught red-handed stealing a cookie.
Either way, it doesn't reflect well on you at all. And like they say, when your opponent on some issue is hanging himself, you stand back and let him do it.
"Either way, it doesn't reflect well on you at all. And like they say, when your opponent on some issue is hanging himself, you stand back and let him do it."
ReplyDeleteI agree. But as you probably already know, I think it's the other way around.
And you couldn't care less about the dictionary definition of bad faith?
ReplyDeleteNick,
ReplyDeleteYes, of course, see what happens when a scientist comments on something he is not an "expert" in. Likewise theologians who are not scientists.
And the problem you pose about verifying "this or that half-life" has serious difficulties, because the half-lives are along a whole range of orders of magnitude. Have you ever studied statistics? Also, are you aware of what accelerated rates of radiation can actually do? There's a certain level of feasibility that doesn't really exist for this type of proposal.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteI'm pleased to see you consider this a documentary page and not a means for ad hominem.
Here are some pleasant thoughts expressed by "Truth Unites" over at Boors All:
ReplyDelete"Must be a new kind of mutant zombie, we're dealing with here. Used to be, one well-placed head shot between the eyes was all that was needed.
"But now with these bellicose, flesh-eating, blood-drinking, Greco-Roman wrestling, highly jaded, hoofer, doozy of a blowhard maniac zombies coming after you with their relentless lurch, not even multiple head shots repeated again and again from multiple angles are enough to drop them. When these zombies are called to communion, just run away. Far away."
(9-16-10)
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/to-be-deep-in-history-excellent-article.html?showComment=1284674112089#c5061906603847129290
"When these flesh-eating, blood-drinking zombies are called to communion and you can't get away from their relentless lurch, just fuggedaboutit!
"Goodnight Gracie, you dead. Brain-dead just like them. We'll light Roman candles for you in memoriam."
(9-16-10)
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/to-be-deep-in-history-excellent-article.html?showComment=1284675228426#c4836141398730379600
And I'm the one supposedly engaging in ad hominem? Right . . .
But don't you think that Catholic GeoCentrists are a WORSE nutjob than YEC's? (BTW, I don't know of any Protestant GeoCentrists)
ReplyDeleteWell, no they aren't worse, because consistent young-earth believers know that not only does the Bible teach 6-day creation, it also teaches geocentrism. This ought to be obvious, even to those not familiar with ANE cosmology. Offhand I'd say there are more passages in scripture affirming a geocentric, stationary earth than not, unless we want to be anachronistic and arbitrary, which doesn't seem to be a problem for most young-earth exegetes.
And yes, there are protestant geocentrists: geocentricity.com, geocentricuniverse.com, fixedearth.com, jesus-is-lord.com, and reformation.org. (I do not claim my list is exhaustive.)
Dave, here's Engwer saying he rejects YEC.
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/hostile-corroboration-of-new-testament.html
Dave Armstrong,
ReplyDeleteThat was a good post that you linked to at Beggars All. Here's the meat of the post:
"Cardinal Newman recognized the obvious difference between the current Roman Church and the early church. He was too deep in history not to see it. He had to develop his famous idea of doctrinal development to explain it. He argued that all the later Roman doctrines and practices were “hidden” in the church from the beginning. They were made explicit over time under the guidance of the Spirit. But the problem that many Roman Catholics fail to see is that there is a difference between development and contradiction. It is one thing to use different language to teach something the church has always taught (e.g., the “Trinity”). It is another thing altogether to begin teaching something that the church always denied (e.g., papal supremacy or infallibility). Those doctrines in particular were built on multitudes of forgeries.
Cardinal Manning solved the problem by treating any appeal to history as treason. He called for blind faith in the papacy and magisterium. Such might have been possible had the fruits of the papacy over 1,500 years not consistently been the precise opposite of the fruit of the Spirit (Matt. 7:16).
Cardinal Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. The truth is that to be deep in real history, as opposed to Rome’s whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic."
Dave Armstrong,
ReplyDeleteTurretinFan builds upon the Beggars All post by writing the following:
"You can't really have innovation if you only hold things that were universally held by the ancients. Vincent's rule would rule out:
Papal Infallibility
Conciliar Infallibility
Purgatory
Indulgences
The Bodily Assumption of Mary
The Immaculate Conception of Mary
... and so forth.
Vincent's rule would stifle development (in the sense of Newman), because one must find a universal acceptance of the doctrine among the ancients in order to accept a doctrine."
If any of you clowns actually read St. Vincent you would already realize (as you seem not to) that he wrote the most explicit treatment of development of doctrine in all the Fathers. Obviously, he thought it was quite consistent with his Rule (as indeed it is), since it appeared in the very same work.
ReplyDeleteCardinal Newman uses his thought as a starting-point in his own analysis.
To expand upon the last comment, see my paper:
ReplyDeleteHistorical Development in the Understanding of Doctrinal Development of the Apostolic Deposit (Featuring Much Documentation From St. Thomas Aquinas; Also From St. Augustine, St. Vincent of Lerins, Vatican I [1870], Popes Pius IX, Pius X, Etc.)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/historical-development-in-understanding.html
I think Catholic Juscot has a better understanding of St. Vincent of Lerins than you do.
ReplyDeleteJuscot, Comment #2: "That they believe in a literal six days and nights creation week? So did the Church Fathers, with God resting on the seventh day from all his works! The Kolbe Center has an online article by Gerald Keane that shows nearly all of the early Church Fathers believed that the heavens and the earth were created in a six day period.
www.kolbcenter.org/image/stories/Keane_days_of creaion_96.pdf
I hope sincerely that you're not trying to set up scenario that brands anyone who believes in the traditional Catholic teaching as a 'fundamentalist'. I happen to be an orthodox Catholic, and I believe in YECism simply because our scriptures, our fathers, and oral tradition has always taught it."
Juscot, I think Dave Armstrong has indeed set up a scenario whereby any YEC (whether Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox) is a "Fundamentalist" for believing in YEC.
Dave Armstrong: "You can consult a list of infallible dogmas:
ReplyDeletehttp://web.archive.org/web/20080618064450/http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm"
Is that an infallible list?
Also, I notice this infallible dogma:
"The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration. (De fide.)"
There's talk about dropping this "infallible dogma" of Filioque which the Eastern Orthodox don't believe fits with St. Vincent of Lerins dictum.
Is the Filioque an example of Rome's doctrinal development that is contra St. Vincent of Lerins which the EO Church holds to?
I would laugh heartily if the RCC ever drops the Filioque. So much for the infallible Magisterium.
Dave:
ReplyDeleteI see you are continuing your policy of deleting comments you can't handle.
-TurretinFan
Such as this one:
ReplyDeleteOne side of Dave's mouth: "I have made no ad hominem attacks."
Other side of Dave's mouth: "If any of you clowns actually read St. Vincent"
Truth, I'm against the use of the word "fundamentalist" in the religious sense unless it refers to the book "The Fundamentals" or the movement that developed out of the evangelical churches (mostly Baptist and Presbyterian) in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The word, as it is used now, is used to tar brush any political. religious, or social idea or movement that people consider backward, bigoted,or obscurant. Dave's and Adomnan's use of the word is a good example of this missuse. Muslim fundamentalist is one of the most gross missuse of the term today. It implies that only 'extremist' Muslims will carry out terrorist activities, when, in fact, all Muslims are called upon to wage war against the infidel. But the biggest missuse of fndamentalist is when it is used to describe (defame) anyone who holds to traditional religious beliefs. It doesn't matter wheather you are Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Orthodox Jew, or traditional Muslim, if you actally believe in your religion, if you believe in creation, instead of evolution, that sex belongs in marriage and sex outside of it should be prohibited and punished, you're a fundamentalist! Frankly Truth, I'm embarassed that Armstrong would stoop to this kind of demonization of creationists. I believe he's creeping toward liberalism, because in my experiance, only liberals ever talked this way about creationism, not believers in the biblical text.
ReplyDeleteHello Mr. Fan:
ReplyDeleteDefinition of clown:
1. A buffoon or jester who entertains by jokes, antics, and tricks in a circus, play, or other presentation.
2. One who jokes and plays tricks.
3. A coarse, rude, vulgar person; a boor.
4. A peasant; a rustic.
Which definition do you think that Dave meant?
Like your use of papist or romanist which could be construed as ad hominem, you claim you are being merely descriptive. Perhaps Dave was exercising the same exemption you demand we give you?
God bless!
Besides given your penchant for anonymity, how do we know that you actually aren't a Ringling Brothers clown in real life? :)
ReplyDeleteTAO's previous comments were deleted because he immediately revised the story of what happened the previous time on this blog (several months ago) when his comments were deleted.
ReplyDeleteHe was making idiotic comments over and over, robotically, saying the same thing again and again, as is his custom when he has no fresh argument: attacking me. He was warned that such trolling was not allowed on this blog.
I made him a deal: either shut up and cease and desist, in which case, I would allow his many previous comments to remain indefinitely, or if he kept posting in defiance of blog rules, I would delete everything.
He knew this, but decided to post several more times, so I deleted everything. It was his decision, and he made it.
With TUAD, he was sensible enough to comply and cease the personal attacks. So we see that his previous comments are still there for all to see. He's allowed to say dumb stuff, but he ceased the personal attacks and got back on some sort of topic (albeit not the topic of this thread).
Now in this thread, TAO came in and within two posts, was already lying about the previous incident and calling me a liar. Now he is lying again, saying I "can't handle" his inane, vapid nonsense.
Paul made such a great comeback, I'll leave up his latest two. But he won't be allowed to troll and post relentlessly stupid and intellectually bankrupt comments here, should he decide to take that path again.
This blog is not Boors All. We actually have intelligent, constructive conversations here, and have sense and wits enough to know that there are other species of Christians.
Ah, just so I'm clear, is this a ban?
ReplyDeletePaul, I think you're bright enough to see when "clown" is being used as an insult.
If you relentlessly post personal attacks your comments will be deleted.
ReplyDeleteYou (and anyone else) have perfect liberty to say stupid or clueless or untrue things if you like, but you are expected to stay on topic (YEC) and to cease from purely personal attacks. The actual rule on the sidebar is "three strikes and you're out."
You couldn't and wouldn't abide by the rules last time, even for the purpose of keeping dozens of your comments posted. I don't expect you to do it this time. But there is always a first time and hope springs eternal.
In any event, I don't engage in any actual ongoing debates with anti-Catholics, because it is a complete waste of time and I consider the position intellectual suicide. I tried my best to have a sensible debate three years ago on the definition of Christian (where the discussion must begin if there is to be any progress and forward movement at all), but no one on your side (including yourself) was willing to do so.
That's when I gave up. I think it was the single best decision I have ever made, with regard to time-management.
Bishop "Dr." White predicted that this would kill my blog. I was getting about 450 hits a day at the time. Now it is over 850 a day.
I had run across White's prediction of my blog's demise when going through his innumerable "anti" remarks the other night. This is great fun. Eric Svendsen also is on record saying that I had quit blogging entirely, at roughly the same time. Here's what Bishop White wrote:
ReplyDelete"Same fellow who then took an oath [I never took any "oath" or a "vow" except my marriage vows] to stop interacting with "anti-Catholics" (convenient use of terminology)---which had the not overly unexpected result of basically killing his blog, which then went into hibernation during Lent anyway."
(4-5-05)
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=333
How dare I take a break for Lent?! I've only done that once, as I recall (and it was great), whereas I see many bloggers doing so; some every year.
But in White's fertile mind, this was proof positive that my "attempts to respond were shrill and panic-filled (leading to his melt down . . . )".
LOL
The only "panic" between myself and White is his own abject fear of ever debating me in writing again (in any ongoing sense, where he actually gets to a second round and the counter-argument stage), after his abysmal, flee-for-the-hills-before-answering-the final-36-page installment performance in 1995.
Given that undeniable fact, he has to pretend that I am scared of him. It's the old projection trick.
The fact remains that White has twice bluntly refused to engage me in a live chat room discussion, even when I gave him large handicaps of time in both cases.
He thinks I am a blathering idiot who doesn't know the slightest thing about anything (as he has reiterated about 150 times), yet he has challenged me to one of his live oral debates three times. I made it clear from the beginning (1995) that I am opposed to such oral debates on principle, but that I was perfectly willing to debate in the written medium.
Why does someone challenge a person he thinks is a dumbbell, three times, to an oral debate? What does that say about White? That he deliberately chooses what he thinks are the worst examples of proponents of opposing views, rather than the best ones?
And why the extreme unwillingness to do a real written debate, given his willingness to do an oral debate? It's also obvious that White is a writer and author of many books. He does writing, too. But he knows, and everyone else knows, that I do very little public speaking (the main examples are 15 or so radio appearances). It's not my medium, by choice.
I've gone over this times without number, but it's good to lay the facts on the table every once in a while, for the sake of truth and accurate background information.
Also, there was one lone instance (in late 2000) where White was willing to engage me live. It was unplanned and spontaneous. It came about after my planned live chat with Tim Enloe in his chat room fizzled, after Tim threw in the towel and was unwilling to continue (having done so poorly).
ReplyDeleteOddly enough, that night White had "technical problems" and disappeared, just as things were getting very interesting.
YOU be the judge as to how well each party did. I had no notes at all, and was answering off-the-cuff, since it was unplanned:
"Live Chat" Dialogue on Patristic Consensus (Particularly, Mariology)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/live-chat-dialogue-on-patristic.html
Oh, I meant to mention, that White has never posted the transcript of this live debate on his blog, whereas I put the whole thing up soon after, and it has been online for now almost ten years.
ReplyDeleteAs a guy who thinks he slaughters all debate opponents, and taunts them when they don't make available debates where he thinks they got creamed, I think this is very fascinating.
He has acted in the same fashion regarding our initial written debate, which I have made available since 1997, with all his words posted, and my replies. He wants no part of that. He won't even link to it. Here it is:
Is Catholicism Christian?: My Debate With James White
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/is-catholicism-christian-my-debate-with.html
Why, if indeed he thinks he got the better of me?
I think I know why . . .
Dave,
ReplyDeleteJudging by the statistics you gave, maybe your blog did die, as per John 12:24.
What was the point of this post?
ReplyDeleteMy post? Nothing, really; just trying to be humorous.
ReplyDeleteI've learned a while ago that when threads go in the direction of nit-picking and irrelevant chatter, it's best to ignore them lest you get sucked into one big time-waster and source of aggravation. Of course, it's hard not to get sucked in when one's inbox won't stop alerting you to the constant stream of 'new replies' that don't seem to die off as they naturally should have done after 25 comments or so.
No, I meant Dave's post. I have some guesses, but I'd rather hear it from him. What's the point of "Young Earth Creationism Among Leading Online Anti-Catholic Protestant Fundamentalists"?
ReplyDeleteGood one, Nick. That must be the case: if the blog "died" per White and Svendsen, then it seems to have undergone quite a resurrection (having almost twice the amount of daily hits as when the predictions were made).
ReplyDeleteJimbo White has thought all along that all I am about is warring against anti-Catholics like himself. But that has never been my central purpose, by a long shot. This is seen in any perusal of the 2600 posts on my blog. I dealt with them for several years, off and on, and did my apologetic duty (trying to protect folks from the nonsense and falsehoods they put forth), but I always thought it was some of the most boring, unenjoyable aspects of being an apologist: a real drudgery.
When I had done more than my share, I simply stopped. Now I occasionally document anti-Catholic inanities, whoppers, and hypocrisies, as in recent posts, but I don't debate them, because true, constructive debate presupposes good will and a certain amount of knowledge on the part of both parties, and that is lacking on one side here.
I will soon have 23 completed books. Only one-half of one is devoted to anti-Catholicism. That's why ceasing debates with anti-Catholics had no effect whatever on my blog (unless it was the main reason why the daily visits have gone way up).
What was the point of this post?
If TAO means my initial post, it was simply to document the sociological association of YEC with active, zealous anti-Catholicism.
If YEC proponents are embarrassed by their own position and so have to come here and raise a huge ruckus at simple documentation; that's their problem, not mine.
If they wanna believe that human beings rode on the backs of dinosaurs, then they should be proud of it, not ashamed.
I offered no comments whatever in the original post. When it was stated by TUAD that he thought that I thought YECs were "nutjobs" I replied as follows:
ReplyDelete"I don't believe I ever said that. I'm pretty sure I didn't. I've said hardly anything at all that I can remember. I've been called by anti-Catholics all kinds of things, 100 times worse than anything I have ever said about YECs, believe me. I would describe the YEC position more along the lines of (to put it diplomatically) being 'scientifically challenged.'"
The common ground is lack of education. The YEC is uninformed about science (esp. geology) and the anti-Catholic is uninformed about historic theology (esp. ecclesiology).
So it stands to reason that a person given to lack of learning and understanding in one area will have that approach spill over into others. And that is indeed what we see.
Also, both views almost always stem from fundamentalism and all that that entails. I described the "mindset" of that as follows, in comments above:
"an inability to understand definitions of words, multiple definitions, non-literal interpretation, idiom, context, cultural background of how words are used in the Bible, ancient Hebrew (biblical) thinking, and so forth. I see that as essentially the root of the whole error."
With this sort of attitude, going into science, with all its complexities and nuances, one can see that there is little prospect of one with fundamentalist presuppositions arriving at scientific truths and the consensus of the scientific community on a thing like the age of the earth: because they bring an already profoundly mistaken view of biblical hermeneutics to the table, and they think one can only conclude from the Bible that the earth is 6000-10,000 years old (as Steve Hays holds).
But I haven't stated that YECs are "nuts." That sort of gracious terminology is reserved for me, in anti-Catholic descriptions, with James Swan calling me "psychotic" and Steve Hays calling me "schizophrenic" and "evil" and so forth, TAO calling me a liar, Svendsen saying I am a deliberate deceiver, White making out that I am an absolute idiot and ignoramus, etc.
I don't think any of that about YECs. I think they are simply guilty of dumb and hopelessly confused and mistaken conclusions about certain scientific matters (and also ecclesiological ones, in the case of the anti-Catholics).
"If TAO means my initial post, it was simply to document the sociological association of YEC with active, zealous anti-Catholicism."
ReplyDeleteUnderstood. Why?
Why does there have to be a further reason? In a sociological sense (and that was my major in college), it is its own justification. It's a piece of sociology, showing a close connection between two groups.
ReplyDeleteAbove I speculated as to why there is this association, but that is a different factor from simply documenting it.
It would be like showing that most of the most active anti-Catholic Protestants are Calvinists, as indeed they are. Then one could further speculate why that is (Calvin's own extreme anti-Catholicism, the WCF, the history of Puritanism, the sordid historical anti-Catholicism of England and early America, etc.).
ReplyDeleteThis is what sociology and history of ideas does: and I love both fields: especially the latter.
I'm not sure whether there has to be a why. You could just randomly make sociological observations. But I think it is a fair guess that there is a why ... there is a reason you chose to document this. Will you tell us your reason for documenting this?
ReplyDeleteDone did that.
ReplyDeleteYou can run through your mind all the nefarious, wicked reasons that you seem to think I do anything and everything I do. It always has to be a wrong motivation. It can't simply be what I report about my own opinion and action. That's not my problem, either. It's yours.
I have explained everything necessary to explain, in great detail.
If you're embarrassed by your own opinions and feel uncomfortable about my documenting public stuff, then renounce them. Again, your problem, not mine. I simply put them together in one place.
Logically, you should thank me for putting out so much YEC truth in one place, for all to be convinced (unopposed in the post itself): right from the horse's mouth!
ReplyDeleteIf you think YEC is true, then you would be glad to see it broadcast, just as you would be glad if I broadcast the gospel (as I often do on my site and in books).
So why all the fuss?
I'm sure it's not necessary to explain why you chose to document this. I was simply offering you an opportunity to explain.
ReplyDeleteYou're quite right that in the absence of some clear explanation from you, I'm likely to draw my own conclusions.
And you're also right that you've given all the explanation that is necessary. You don't have to explain why you choose to document what you choose to document. It's your blog!
Peter Pike: "That said, my own examination of the evidence of the age of the Earth leads me to believe the YEC position is far more credible than most secularists think."
ReplyDeleteAdomnan: This is enough to put you in the "nutjob" category. Anyone who believes that YEC is "credible" is a kook.
There is no real distinction in terms of nuttiness between those who embrace YEC wholeheartedly and those who think it's credible but haven't committed themselves fully to this nonsense.
So, you're still a "YEC kook," as originally described.
Peter Pike: Thanks, Mini-Dave.
Adomnan: Now I'm the one who is honored.
I was simply offering you an opportunity to explain.
ReplyDeleteHow thoughtful of you. I know that you always have my best interests at heart; superb model of Christian charity that you always are.
. . . in the absence of some clear explanation from you . . .
ReplyDeleteNo, you have it exactly backwards. That should be:
". . . in light of my usual inability to understand or unwillingness to accept the clear explanation from you, I'm likely to draw my own inevitably cynical, uncharitable conclusions about your motivations . . ."
That doesn't seem very charitable on your part.
ReplyDeleteThat's right. I'm always wrong; I'm always the liar. I never tell the truth about you. You are a perfect saint.
ReplyDeleteAdomnan said:
ReplyDelete---
This is enough to put you in the "nutjob" category. Anyone who believes that YEC is "credible" is a kook.
---
Adomnan, have you ever heard of me before?
Nope.
But Dave thinks so highly of me that he's placed me "Among Leading Online Anti-Catholic Protestant Fundamentalists." I'm leading the pack here. Right up there with Sproul and White!
It must break Dave's heart to know I don't care about him at all, that I only came here because TUAD mentioned it and I only commented because I found it so hilarious he put *ME* in another one of his stupid lists.
I can't help that he's so incompetent that he forgot how I told him three years ago (back when he called me just a "Lesser-Known Anti-Catholic") that I wasn't YEC. Check it for yourself: http://calvindude.com/dude/2007/10/02/a-lesser-known-anti-catholic/
I said on October 2, 2007:
---
I really loved this, especially since I’m not even YEC (as if YEC has any bearing on Dave Armstrong’s misuse of Scripture).
---
And now all you can do, Adomnan, is twist a comment I wrote on Triablogue. You didn't read the whole thing, and there's a *REASON* Dave didn't post the whole thing (because he knows if he posts the whole thing everyone will realize he's conducting a shell game here).
Dave doesn't care about the truth, and it's obvious you don't either. You just have an agenda, and a need to twist everything into conformity with your false beliefs.
But who am I to lecture you? Oh yeah: I'm a leading online anti-Catholic.
And you still take anything Dave says seriously? Who's the kook now?
Truth hurts, don't it Dave?
ReplyDeleteNot when you follow it, Pikey.
ReplyDeleteBe sure to check out my new post about the one and only Peter Pike and his refusal to concede that I didn't delete one of his posts. In fact, I reproduced his entire hit-post that he put up at Cryablogue:
ReplyDelete"Yet More Proof That Dave Armstrong is Dishonest": Peter Pike's Big, Triumphant Announcement (and 852 is "far more than double" 899, too!)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/09/yet-more-proof-that-dave-armstrong-is.html
If you're prone to laughing fits, don't read this! LOL Pike's behavior is a classic for the ages and will go down in the annals of anti-Catholic folklore and legend.
I've added (as of 11:30 AM EST, 9-24-10) quite a bit more documentation of Pike's "agnostic" position on the age of the earth: with affinities towards a young earth and flood geology in some ways.
ReplyDeleteHis is certainly the most nuanced and thoughtful position of anyone documented in this post, but it is not lacking profound difficulties from the perspective of mainstream geology.
Dave: His is certainly the most nuanced and thoughtful position of anyone documented in this post, but it is not lacking profound difficulties from the perspective of mainstream geology.
ReplyDeleteAdomnan: Dave, you're too kind. Mr. Pike doesn't know if the earth is 10 minutes old or 10 trillion years old. And maybe Mr. Pike is the only thing that exists, and he's imagining the rest of us; or maybe our whole universe is just a bubble in a vast pot where some gargantuan alien is cooking a huge egg and the bubble is about to pop.
Or maybe, or maybe....
Mr. Pike's speculations don't reach the level of a 15-year-old having a bull session with his pals in his parents' basement. This is hardly a serious discussion of science.
And if Mr. Pike is "agnostic and apathetic" about the age of the earth, then why does he waste his and our time banging out his apathetic thoughts about it?
Dave, you're too kind.
ReplyDeleteWell, it was a relative statement (i.e., his views compared to the other YECs documented). He may be the "best of the worst" in this sort of "scientific" thinking, but that's not saying much, of course, just as saying that someone with the most nuanced position among flat-earthers or geocentrists ain't sayin' much at all, either. But within its own fringe realm, it has a measure of significance or note.
I've been informed that Blogger sometimes "eats" comments and because of that some comments don't appear.
ReplyDeleteHere's a comment that did not appear (for whatever reason) and it deserves to be on the thread. It's by Juscot and it was in response to my comment on 9/23 at 1:08 am EDT.
Juscot: "Truth, I'm against the use of the word "fundamentalist" in the religious sense unless it refers to the book "The Fundamentals" or the movement that developed out of the evangelical churches (mostly Baptist and Presbyterian) in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The word, as it is used now, is used to tar brush any political. religious, or social idea or movement that people consider backward, bigoted,or obscurant. Dave's and Adomnan's use of the word is a good example of this missuse. Muslim fundamentalist is one of the most gross missuse of the term today. It implies that only 'extremist' Muslims will carry out terrorist activities, when, in fact, all Muslims are called upon to wage war against the infidel. But the biggest missuse of fndamentalist is when it is used to describe (defame) anyone who holds to traditional religious beliefs. It doesn't matter wheather you are Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Orthodox Jew, or traditional Muslim, if you actally believe in your religion, if you believe in creation, instead of evolution, that sex belongs in marriage and sex outside of it should be prohibited and punished, you're a fundamentalist! Frankly Truth, I'm embarassed that Armstrong would stoop to this kind of demonization of creationists. I believe he's creeping toward liberalism, because in my experiance, only liberals ever talked this way about creationism, not believers in the biblical text."
(Let's hope that this comment appears and it's not a result of any intentional deletion.)
IMPORTANT NOTE: Dave and others should be aware that Blogger has enabled a new spam-blocker for COMMENTS.
ReplyDeleteThis is why so many comments lately have been "disappearing" - and the only way to get them to post is for the blog owner to go to "Settings" then "Comments" then "Spam" and manually post whatever comments were accidentally considered spam.
Thanks for the info. Nick. I'll go check it out.
ReplyDeleteAs of 5 PM EST Monday I have a new post up about the Blogger Spam function and automatic removal of suspected posts:
ReplyDeletehttp://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/09/bloggers-spam-function-deletes-some.html
I have re-added 12 posts that were in the Blogger spam folder today. Included in these were Pike's comment from this thread that he claimed I deleted (thus proving absolutely that I didn't delete it). It can be read at 9-23-10, 10:01 PM. This was his basis for concluding that there was "proof" that I was dishonest. He has egg all over his face now, which means he probably won't man up, repent, admit that he blew it, and retract. His choice . . .
Along with his restored comment, there are six others re-added to this combox as well, including two by "Truth Unites," two by "juscot," and one each from Peter Sean Bradley and Adomnan (the last two men are Catholics). Just do a search for the names and you'll see 'em.
I also have reconsidered the use of "fundamentalists" in the title and think it is overkill, and could be construed as prejudicial language. Therefore, I will remove it.
I agree (with juscot and TUAD) that "fundamentalist" has a widespread negative, pejorative usage today, and that it is overused and abused. I'm not part of that thinking, but I don't want to be inadvertently associated with it, either. The word is in no way necessary to the point of this post.
"Anti-Catholic" is another story. I have written several papers showing that it is massively used by scholars, including in the very same way that I use it.
(Posted originally on Peter Pike's post about Dave Armstrong)
ReplyDeleteDave Armstrong: "You did it yourself. You said I argued in bad faith; I called you on it, you asked where you said I was a liar, and I produced the dictionary definition, which you completely ignored."
I'm going to call you on something. From something you wrote.
You wrote elsewhere: "I don't define anti-Catholic as "bigot" (never have, and you should have known that long before now, since I have reiterated it times without number), but OTOH, when one looks at what anti-Catholics say about me (with Pike parroting the party line that I am mentally ill and narcissistic and an inveterate liar), it's sure understandable why one would conclude that many of them are indeed bigots against Catholics."
Dave Armstrong, now please pay attention.
I'm going to take your words and transpose them so that your accusation against me gets turned back upon you.
"I don't define "arguing in bad faith" as "lying", but OTOH, when one looks at Dave Armstrong's record, it's sure understandable why one would conclude that he does lie."
"I don't define "arguing in bad faith" as "lying", but OTOH, when one looks at Dave Armstrong's record, it's sure understandable why one would conclude that he does lie."
ReplyDeleteIt's irrelevant how you personally define a word. Words are not purely subjective entities. I showed you from several dictionaries what "bad faith" means, but you didn't care. Apparently, you didn't even know what the definition was. You just ignored that and blithely went on your way.
"Anti-Catholicism" has long been in usage in scholarly circles. It is true that often it is used as a pejorative, for an intolerant or bigoted person (know-nothings burning down Catholic Churches in the 1850s, etc.), but there is also a doctrinal definition of the word (as I have shown many times).
If anti-Catholics are (often) so dim-witted that they can't recognize that many words have more than one meaning, then again, that is their problem, not mine. I'm operating on the objective fact of a legitimate definition, that I utilize in my work. It didn't come from me.
As for my supposed "record" of lying, no one has ever shown that. I have refuted the lies attempted against me time and again, and now my critics have become laughingstocks and self-parodies, with their pathetic record of verbal diarrhea and droning charges of schizophrenia, narcissism, lying, deception, and so forth. Pike is the latest to make an absolute fool of himself.
People can say whatever they like,m but proving it is something else altogether.
That's why Pike's current charges were perfect as a test case, to expose the mentality. He claims I am a dishonest liar because he thinks I deleted his comment (which he regarded as "proof"). I have proven that I did not at all; that it was the Blogger spam function (something even you mentioned in a thread: and your own comment about it was removed (and now returned to the thread).
But he won't retract that. He's too proud. That would be the right thing to do, so he refuses to do it. Because I'm the wicked, despised "Romanist" and papist Dave Armstrong I can't possibly be right. No one can ever admit that! After all, the wrath of
Bishop White, D.T. King et al would come down on their heads, just as it did against Tim Enloe when he dared to disagree with them.
A person can be a clone and a sheep and choose to parrot nonsense from comrades, or they can think for themselves and not follow a pack of lies just because it is fashionable; they can judge a person based on facts and truths and reality, rather than propaganda and myths and party prejudices.
This is your own choice when it comes to me, and the stupid charges being flung about. You can believe them simply because they are out there (like Pike's ludicrous hogwash) or you can think for yourself and figure out if what I say about Blogger's spam function is true or not.
You can show some guts and integrity, like Pilgrimsarbour, or you can be a clone and a sheep.
I tried to post my last comment at Cryablogue, because TUAD posted his comment over there, too. It disappeared.
ReplyDeleteSo, as usual, two sides aren't being heard on the anti-Catholic sites, but the anti-Catholics have perfect freedom to come to my site, even if they do so for the express purpose of lying about me.
I may tire of the double standard eventually, but for now I am happy to let them make fools of themselves on my site, if they insist on doing so.
The rule is still in force, though, about "purely slanderous posts". Three straight ones with nothing but ad hominem insults is grounds for deletion.
ReplyDeletePeople are perfectly free to make dumb, stupid, clueless remarks, as long as they have any remote resemblance to an attempted rational "argument."
Sorry I couldn't be shorter-winded, but OECs are under attack.
ReplyDelete1. Genesis does not exclude the possibility that the universe was billions of years old when the OT geneology began. How long was a day when God created the universe? We know that our day is not exactly 24 hours which is why from time-to-time we have what are called leap-seconds (like leap-years but limited to a second or two at a time). We also know that major earthquakes have caused the Earth to spin slower and faster, just like a spinning ice-skater can slow down by holding out their arms and speed up by pulling their arms closer.
2. Evolution's limitations to in-species breeding such as with dogs is ignoring the fact that most breeds of dogs came from wolves, a different species. The theory of evolution does not say we come from monkeys! Never has, never will.
3. Just because someone doesn't understand the science of radioactive dating doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Because we don't understand the Trinity does it not exist either? Or the divinity AND humanity of Christ?
4. Dinosaurs aren't in the Bible doesn't mean that dinosaurs didn't exist. Elephants, giraffes, whales and, yes, "holy" mackerel ain't there either. Neither are retarded people. Or marijuana. Or corporate greed (greed is soooo OT though). Or computers. Not a single mention of the periodic table of the elements! Calcium? Cancer? Cars? Nope.
5. The beauty of science is it seeks to find answers to what we don't know. The beauty of the Bible is it provides a framework for the things we don't understand. Neither are replaceable.