Any young earth creationists out there?

[Gorgias]

Would you mind explaining it again, please? Your interrpetation must have got lost in the ether and thus never reached me. Thanks.

No problem.

First, from your citation of ScriptureCatholic.com:

St. Augustine introduced an alternative theory which proposed that God may have created the entire world in an instant

And then, when you disputed that Augustine wrote what I asserted he wrote, I provided this in post 2586:

how can Scripture say, “For you have the power when you will,” if God needs a length of time in order to complete something?

God, who has the power when he wills, makes without a length of time

But in this book the account of the things that God made is broken down most conveniently as if in periods of time so that the very arrangement which weaker souls could not look upon with a firm gaze could be discerned as if by these eyes

In other words, Augustine is saying that Genesis describes creation as if it were a six-day creation, for the sake of “weaker souls” who wouldn’t be able to handle a description that didn’t appear to be literal and historical.

And so, yet again, I’m demonstrating to you that Augustine is treating the whole of the creation story, which, of course, includes vv14-18.

But, I think I recognize the difficulty that you’re struggling with: since vv14-18 talk about the sun and the moon and the stars – and these are actual, real, physical objects – then you’re concluding that the account of their creation must likewise be real and literal and historical.

You see the error in that assertion – don’t you? Don’t you???

One who believes that the creation account uses figurative language is not making the assertion that the things being discussed in the narrative aren’t real things – rather, the assertion is that the account of their creation is figurative, but points to theological realities behind the fact of their creation.

 

[buffalo]

when a Creationist would push an Evolutionist under a truck.

Survival of the fittest, eh? LOL

 

[buffalo]

God, who created the heavens and the earth, ex nihilo, is somehow limited in being able to specially create Adam and Eve.

 

[Bradskii]

God, who created the heavens and the earth, ex nihilo, is somehow limited in being able to specially create Adam and Eve.

Even as an atheist I know that is a moronic argument. The fact that He could have is not refuted in any way by the evidence He has provided.

 

[buffalo]

Even as an atheist I know that is a moronic argument. The fact that He could have is not refuted in any way by the evidence He has provided.

Yeah, but a whole bunch of theistic evo’s don’t. I am glad we agree on somethings though.

 

[anon10271182]

I think noted Evangelical philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig would agree.

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe you could point one out.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Can a faithful Catholic, who accepts the prevailing theories of evolution and neo-Darwinism, still muster enough faith to at least consider that the first man and woman were formed directly by God?
Science (and obviously human experience going back centuries) tells us that babies are not born of virgins and that dead people do not rise in glorified bodies. Yet these teaching are required to be held by the faithful. Cannot an evolution-believing, knowledgeable Catholic, (@Hugh_Farey) consider that God, who made man in His own image, may have chosen to create man directly? Again, the description of Adam’s creation, and his role as “first man” is not told in Genesis only, but throughout various passages in Scripture, believed by many saints, and taught for the majority of Church history.

The tone of this comment precludes sensible correspondence. Can a Catholic do this? Cannot a scientist do that? Yes, of course they can. You seem to be suggesting that I am unable to grasp the possibility of direct divine intervention. You clearly haven’t read enough of my comments to realise the incorrectness of that view,

Essentially, I suppose my question addresses the thought that Catholics may hold to a direct creation of Adam, or they may hold to a view that man evolved biologically, but his soul was a direct intervention by God, not his body. In this realm, I do put my faith over reason and hold that man and woman were directly created.

Splendid. good for you.

So, @Hugh_Farey , I take it your belief comes from the allowance allowed by Humani Generis, and remarks (not teachings) held by successive Popes that man may have evolved biologically from lower primates.

What an extraordinary thing to say. My belief does not come in any way from some kind of magisterial allowance. It comes from my education, training, practice and studies as a scientist.

And in your course of study of evolution, and considering what permissible views a Catholic may hold, you do indeed believe man evolved from lower life. I am presuming here based on your posts. Have you always held this view?

You are correct that I believe man evolved from earlier forms of life. I cannot remember a time when I have not held that view, I imagine it formed during my education, all of which was entirely in strict Roman Catholic schools.

 

[Gorgias]

Bradskii:

Buffalo:

God, who created the heavens and the earth, ex nihilo, is somehow limited in being able to specially create Adam and Eve.

Even as an atheist I know that is a moronic argument. The fact that He could have is not refuted in any way by the evidence He has provided.

Yeah, but a whole bunch of theistic evo’s don’t.

I don’t know a single person who believes in God who says “God couldn’t do six day creation.” Now, “God didn’t do six day creation” is a whole 'nother thing.

 

[Bradskii]

I don’t know a single person who DOESN’T believe in god that would say (on the assumption that He exists) that He couldn’t do it.

Either Buffalo knows some people who are idiots or he just made that up.

Actually I think both options are viable. He doesn’t strike me as someone who hangs around with a lot of smart people. And he does make stuff up.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t know a single person who DOESN’T believe in god that would say (on the assumption that He exists) that He couldn’t do it.

Either Buffalo knows some people who are idiots or he just made that up.

…or it’s part of a group-think that believes it’s true.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

I don’t know a single person who DOESN’T believe in god that would say (on the assumption that He exists) that He couldn’t do it.

Either Buffalo knows some people who are idiots or he just made that up.

…or it’s part of a group-think that believes it’s true.

Don’t get me started…

 

[buffalo]

It comes from my education, training, practice and studies as a scientist.

and it shows through with your scientism bias. Science rules Revelation.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t know a single person who believes in God who says “God couldn’t do six day creation.” Now, “God didn’t do six day creation” is a whole 'nother thing.

How about inserting Adam and Eve (fully developed) into the timeline wherever He wished?

 

[buffalo]

Either Buffalo knows some people who are idiots or he just made that up.

Actually I think both options are viable. He doesn’t strike me as someone who hangs around with a lot of smart people. And he does make stuff up.

Awww - rule #1 again I see.

 

[edwest211]

No, He created them directly and gave them preternatural gifts. Trying to shoehorn another view into Catholic theology cannot work.

 

[Gorgias]

How about inserting Adam and Eve (fully developed) into the timeline wherever He wished?

God could’ve done that, too.

Theistic evolutionists simply assert that He didn’t.

 

[edwest211]

Science is certainly trying to change Revelation in some cases.

 

[Gorgias]

Science is certainly trying to change Revelation in some cases.

No… science is changing one particular possible interpretation of Revelation. Huge difference.

 

[buffalo]

Theistic evolutionists simply assert that He didn’t .

Right on! and just why is that? Scientism…