Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Men” is short-hand for “human beings”. This terminology has been around for millennia.
 
There was never a terminology that conflated “dinosaur” with “serpent.”
 
Evolution is theology for atheists - atheology. But many Christians have seen fit to adopt it.
 
Believing in the literal “six days of creation” doesn’t necessarily mean one also believes in a young earth.
 
Last edited:
This Is like insisting that the Tooth Fairy’s dress is pink, not yellow.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Catholic magisterial documents plainly teach: Genesis uses figurative language and is not a scientific account
Click to expand...
This is at the very least, misleading; perhaps even incorrect. It is more correct to say that the Church teaches that the Genesis account of creation may be interpreted literally or figuratively. Therefore the faithful may well regard Genesis as real, literal history.
 
Last edited:
Genesis and the geneology in Luke 3 clearly state that Adam was created from inanimate matter and that his ancestor was God (ie, Adam’s ancestor was not a creature). How can these Scriptures be reconciled with evolution?

Futhermore, Mark 10:6 says Adam and Eve were present at “the beginning of creation”. Evolution says humans didn’t exist until billions of years after creation. Please explain.
 
Last edited:
Even highly intelligent scientists are capable of believing in complete nonsense and superstition. Therefore the wise man doesn’t believe in everything science claims.
 
Since when is a Catholic obliged to conform to the personal scientific beliefs of a Pope?
 
Hugh_Farey said:
I think this shows quite a deep misunderstanding of several aspects of Science. There is the usual Creationist reduction of its meaning to literally observable events, which would exclude all astronomy and most atomic theory from science as well as evolution
Click to expand...
Why are you stating something that you know is nonsense?
 
It seems to me that Genesis says Satan didn’t take the form of a snake, but rather a serpent with legs. Then God cursed the serpent and it lost its legs and became a snake.
 
Hope1960 said:
C
“catholic1seeks said:
IDK what a gibbon is, but assuming it’s some kind of animal, why cannot both these realities be true?

God created man
Man evolved from prior organisms
Click to expand...
From Hope: I honestly have no idea why there is any argument. The Church is clear that it’s okay for Catholics to believe that man has evolved. Proof has been given. Some posters are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The Church is also clear that its okay for catholics to believe that man didn’t evolve, that the first man Adam was created immediately by God both as to his spiritual soul and his body from inanimate matter as the scripture says:
“Then the Lord God formed man of dust [clay] from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Gen. 2: 7).

Obviously, the immediate creation of the first man and the evolution of man cannot simultaneously both be true.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
edwest211:
“According to” is not an endorsement by the Church. Science has something to say but it is not the whole, complete answer. That is what is missing.
Click to expand...
Devious misrepresentation. I didn’t highlight ‘according to’, I highlighted a section which was not predicated by it. As you know perfectly well. Why so dishonest?
Click to expand...
Well, the citation you quote does begin with ‘According to the widely accepted scientific account…’, so the whole citation #63 could be interpreted ‘according to the widely accepted scientific account,’ and this is what I think edwest was referring too. Did the authors of this document include some of their own commentary in citation #63? Possibly, and this seems to be Hugh_Farey’s point I think. Either way, I don’t want to argue over this point but move on.
Hugh_Farey:
This is the teaching of the Church: “physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.” I’m so glad you are in lock step with it.
Click to expand...
The document in question here COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP comes from the International Theological Commission which has no official magisterial authority so the documents produced by this commission are not official Church teaching nor do they bind the faithful or the universal Church in any way whatever.
 
Last edited:
Hi Richca,

Yes, I do know all that. My extract was, as you will have seen, a response to a quotebomb by Edwest, who was using the ITC document as if it was an authoritative statement, and as if it unequivocally supported Creationism. I was merely replying in kind. It has become embarrassingly clear that there is absolutely no Catholic Church teaching of any kind that demands a literal interpretation of Genesis, and that in pretending it does, the YECs are actually protesting against the authority of the Catholic Church. Protestants, in fact. Creationism is generally more a feature of the Protestant churches than Catholicism anyway.

I don’t mind; I can live with our separated brethren. But I return comment on this forum when they pretend that they have some kind of authority for their abuse of those of us who think God’s creative expression is better explained as Evolution.

Throughout this thread I have been trying to find out if Creationists understand any deeper meaning to Genesis than a simple attempt factually to record some events of pre-history. You will know that this has so far been utterly unsuccessful. Buffalo’s suggestion that trilobites were made extinct because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience is very unsatisfactory to my mind, but his is the only suggestion so far.

Semper Catholicus, who initiated this thread, asked “Does anyone want to discuss [Young Earth Creationism]? Does anyone have any questions about it? … Please give me your thoughts. I would like to get a discussion going.” Well, so would I. After all, Genesis was part of the Bible long before we knew anything about Evolution, so why do Creationists only see Genesis in anti-Evolutionary terms?
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Me non capisco. Which part says/implies all scientists are God-haters?
Click to expand...
You implied that all of my science professors were God-hating atheists, despite not having met any of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top