P
puer.dei
Guest
I wish this could be pinned at the top of every creationist/evolution thread on this site. Past, present, and future.
- Status
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
Catholics are permitted to believe in Evolution so long as they uphold that a) the whole human race is descended from only two humans and b) that the human soul was created directly and immediately by God.
T
Techno2000
Guest
If it was true there would be millions of transitional fossils,but so far there are none, that’s why they have to come up with silly idea about punctuated equilibrium.
P
puer.dei
Guest
M
Metis1
Guest
The reality is that all fossils are “transitional fossils” if the organisms reproduced. Plus, as time has gone on, more and more gaps have been reduced in size because of new fossils being discovered.
T
TMC
Guest
I read it, thanks.
T
TMC
Guest
Absolutely untrue.
po18guy
Well-known member
I think there are very few American Catholics who have fallen for the erroneous, fundamentalist teaching of six 24 hour days of creation, per the Lord’s Rolex. My question is:which wrist does He wear the Rolex on? America suffers from being founded by non-Catholics. Thus it was fertile soil for error and a multiplicity of denominations (division) in the Body of Christ.
Seriously, this points to the misuse of the scriptures by divining knowledge via strict adherence to a particular scripture interpretation, or resort to a dictionary to define words which were inspired by God.
Example: days are defined as 1/365 +/- of the earth’s rotation around the sun. Fine. The sun was not created until the 4th “day.” Now, what?
Could it be that the ancient Hebrew word used for “day” also meant something like “period of time”?
Yes, it could.
Seriously, this points to the misuse of the scriptures by divining knowledge via strict adherence to a particular scripture interpretation, or resort to a dictionary to define words which were inspired by God.
Example: days are defined as 1/365 +/- of the earth’s rotation around the sun. Fine. The sun was not created until the 4th “day.” Now, what?
Could it be that the ancient Hebrew word used for “day” also meant something like “period of time”?
Yes, it could.
Last edited:
J
JGD
Guest
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think all the various evolution theories deal only with the evolution of our physical substance - our material body.
Now my thought is, the particular makeup and properties of human bodies have VERY LITTLE to do with what differentiates humans from animals. It’s the human soul that definitively separates us - makes us a totally new “species” from animals and plants. Regardless of exactly how the first human body got here, a human soul does not evolve!!! It is immediately CREATED by God for each human being when they are conceived in the womb. The physical sciences cannot conduct scientific experiments on the soul because it’s spiritual, not material. They can concoct all the theories they want about our bodies, but those theories mean nothing because they don’t take into account the human rational soul which is by far the greatest distinction between us and animals.
Even when it comes to our bodies, the fact that there are similar properties proves nothing. God could have used the same or similar DNA if He wanted to in making the various animate creatures. After all, He used the same basic physical “stuff”/elements to create everything - animate and inanimate.
Now my thought is, the particular makeup and properties of human bodies have VERY LITTLE to do with what differentiates humans from animals. It’s the human soul that definitively separates us - makes us a totally new “species” from animals and plants. Regardless of exactly how the first human body got here, a human soul does not evolve!!! It is immediately CREATED by God for each human being when they are conceived in the womb. The physical sciences cannot conduct scientific experiments on the soul because it’s spiritual, not material. They can concoct all the theories they want about our bodies, but those theories mean nothing because they don’t take into account the human rational soul which is by far the greatest distinction between us and animals.
Even when it comes to our bodies, the fact that there are similar properties proves nothing. God could have used the same or similar DNA if He wanted to in making the various animate creatures. After all, He used the same basic physical “stuff”/elements to create everything - animate and inanimate.
Last edited:
Tolkien1096,
Reading you posts I think of the words of Oliver Cromwell
Is it therefore infallibly agreeable to the Word of
God, all that you say? I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible
you may be mistaken.
I regret that your understanding is in error.
I find this discussions respectful and sincere, but it is against truth to claim the world is about 6000 yeas old.
I want to be courteous and nonjudgmental, but at the same time to be honest I have to disagree with you.
It is interesting to note that one of the most fundamental ideas in modern science was first discovered by a Belgian Catholic priest in the 19201, Fr Georges Lemaître who first suggested the big bang theory.
.
You seem to imply Einstein supported ‘creationism’. this is not so
The above is not correct.
I do not have time for a one to one debate with you, but thank you for the offer.
I have read down to post 29, and it seems only Tolkien supports creationism.
D
Duke12VonFalkenburg
Guest
You say these Saints condemned evolution?
“There are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body by means of the theory of evolution. According to the hypothesis mentioned it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have gradually been prepared in the form of antecedent living beings [i.e. living beings that existed prior to humanity].”
John Paul II, “[Humans are Spiritual and Corporeal Beings]
St. Augustine in the A.D. 300s wrote a commentary on Genesis and pointed out that the days do not need to be taken literally nor need the creation be a few thousand years ago. Indeed he suggested that God made the world with certain special potencies that would gradually unfold over time and develop. This interpretation came 1,500 years before Darwin! So, it is not a forced retreat in the face of modern science!
“There are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body by means of the theory of evolution. According to the hypothesis mentioned it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have gradually been prepared in the form of antecedent living beings [i.e. living beings that existed prior to humanity].”
John Paul II, “[Humans are Spiritual and Corporeal Beings]
St. Augustine in the A.D. 300s wrote a commentary on Genesis and pointed out that the days do not need to be taken literally nor need the creation be a few thousand years ago. Indeed he suggested that God made the world with certain special potencies that would gradually unfold over time and develop. This interpretation came 1,500 years before Darwin! So, it is not a forced retreat in the face of modern science!
T
TMC
Guest
Replying to the wrong guy. I know the Church accepts evolution.
Please give details, as I disagree.
Well said.
It has been noted that Georges Lemaitre (Big Bang) and Nicolaus Copernicus (heliocentric solar system) were Catholic priests, so was Gregor Mendel (Father of Genetics).
I think Techno2000, TMC and Prophet-of Doom are among the very few creationists contributing to this thread.
St John Henry Newman also is a saint who did not condemn evolution, as he wrote in 1868:
Pray convey my acknowledgement to the unknown author [ The Darwinian Theory of the Transmutation of Species examined by a Graduate of the University of Cambridge , London 1868]. It is a careful and severe examination of the theory of Darwin — and it shows, as is most certain he would be able to do, the various points which are to be made good before it can cohere. I do not fear the theory so much as he seems to do — and it seems to me that he is hard upon Darwin sometimes, which [sic] he might have interpreted him kindly.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Why don’t you address the point I made?
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
Has the Op been back to address any points asked?
T
TMC
Guest
Whoah!!! I am not a Creationist. How did you get that idea? I have said clearly that the Church accepts evolution.
M
Metis1
Guest
All material things appear to change over time, and genes and life forms are material things, therefore the ToE should be a logical consequence of this and stand to common sense.
Plus, in no way does the ToE go against Divine creation as it simply doesn’t address this matter one way or the other.
Plus, in no way does the ToE go against Divine creation as it simply doesn’t address this matter one way or the other.
- Status