Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Latest Kolbe Center re Fr. Robinson's The Realist Guide to Religion and Science  (Read 3598 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Nor is young earth vs. old earth relevant to the deluge, since that happened after the creation period.

I'm not sure what part of when I said that I don't buy their dating and explanations escaped you, as the point wast that even modern secular scientists believe there was a worldwide (vs. local) flood event, with the 3rd explanation involving a sudden and dramatic flooding event, which Fr. Robinson declared impossible.
You've said a lot of things.

Like a Gish Gallop.


Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
i see that you did not respond to ANY of the point that were made in the post.

*The CHURCH allows for both interpretations.  "Yom" as long period of time.  "Yom" as 24 hour period.

*ST. MAXIMILLIAN KOLBE himself believed in an old earth.

*NOT ALL THE FATHERS believed in a literal 24 hour period.

*NO ONE disagrees with Vatican I here.

*EVEN IF God created the world in 6 24-hour literal days (and He may well have), CATHOLICS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BELIEVE THIS ON PAIN OF THEIR SALVATION.  It is - as of yet - not dogma.

THAT is the point.
But you’re also not allowed to believe that a “day” is 10,000 years or even a million.  St Augustine has already declared this heretical.  A day may be a month(s), but not much longer. 

But you’re also not allowed to believe that a “day” is 10,000 years or even a million.  St Augustine has already declared this heretical.  A day may be a month(s), but not much longer.
St. Augustine -- while a saint and doctor of the Church -- is not all of the Church Fathers in unanimity, which is what is required for something to be considered actually heretical. 

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
I’d also like to point out another (in a long list) of modern-man’s false dichotomies.  The debate of young earth vs old earth is not what most people think it is.  

Young earth means that creation itself is roughly 6,000 years old.  That’s supported by scripture, saints and many mystics.  It’s pretty darn near dogma.  

But then people hear of “old earth” and think that it means the opposite of the above (ie having to do with the years of creation, that the world is millions of years old).  That’s wrong.  

The “old earth” theory means that God created the earth, the solar system and Adam/Eve in a mature state.  When God created all the plants in Eden, they weren’t in seed form which then had to grow.  He created all things as “adult”, mature and perfected.  Just like Adam/Eve.  Tradition tells us that Adam was created as a mature man, of the age of 33. 

Modern science assumes everything started from scratch, from seed form, from the beginning.  So when they study the sun, as an example, they’ll say — the increased solar flares are a sign of an aging sun.  (Which is true).  So the sun must be X billion years old if it’s already dying.  Of course, this all assumes that the sun was created with some type of long term life cycle.  Whereas God knows how long the earth will live and He created things for that time period and no longer. 

So it all comes down to bad terminology.  “Young earth” is correct because the world and creation is only 6,000ish years old.  The term “old earth” should be changed to “mature earth” because it’s not the opposite of “young earth” at all.  A “mature earth” is also true (which is why St Kolbe) agreed with it (and why the Church Fathers taught) — that the earth was created in a mature state, with growth not needed, because God chose to create everything perfectly, which means no growth, no development, no improvement — perfect from day 1.  Which is why Adam/Eve were created as adults. 

Both terms are correct.  It’s not either/or, the false dichotomy trap of modern man’s faulty mind.