Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest211 said:
The constant, ongoing repetition here to ignore anything literal and call it symbolic is addressed in Part 23
Click to expand...
Again, I feel obligated to repeat: are you changing “literal sense of Scripture” to mean “literal” text? Cause… that’s not what the “literal sense of Scripture” means… 😉
 
buffalo said:
Today, many think that Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani generis did not definitively exclude theological polygenism.
Click to expand...
I guess I need to ask what you mean when you say “theological polygenism”.
What they fail to notice, though, is that the Holy Father clearly insists that Scripture and the Magisterium affirm that original sin “proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam [ab uno Adamo]” and that this sin is transmitted to all true human beings through generation (para. 37). This proves that denial of a literal Adam (and his spouse, Eve) as the sole first genuinely human parents of all true human beings is not theologically tenable.
Click to expand...
The notion that I hear – that meets all the conditions that the Church places – is that a ‘polygenism’ that precedes ensoulment is ok. After all, once the “literal Adam and his spouse Eve” arrive on the scene, and directly receive souls, they become “the sole first genuinely human parents of all true human beings”.

So… anything that happens before that point is fair game, according to Catholic doctrine. After that point, however, we agree that our first two truly human parents are in the “family tree” of all true (i.e., ‘ensouled’) humans. 👍
 
Not buying any attempt to shoehorn this into ‘the Church says it’s OK.’ Doesn’t work. Just doesn’t work. I suspect I’ll be writing the following a lot: “God did not drop souls into two random almost humans.” Why? Because everything taught shows Adam and Eve to be special creations, and not part of a long line of hominids, hominins and whatever else.
 
Gorgias said:
So… anything that happens before that point is fair game, according to Catholic doctrine. After that point, however, we agree that our first two truly human parents are in the “family tree” of all true (i.e., ‘ensouled’) humans.
Click to expand...
What happened to all the others? Are they walking among us?
 
Apparently not. Perhaps a great disappearance occurred and they were erased from reality?
 
ChunkMonk said:
Neanderthals are the false “true men” before Adam in whom belief is specifically forbidden.
Click to expand...
We have their bones…

Whether or not they had immortal souls is another question. But we know they existed.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Doesn’t work. Just doesn’t work. I suspect I’ll be writing the following a lot: “God did not drop souls into two random almost humans.”
Click to expand...
Absolutely… it “doesn’t work” when you deliberately mischaracterize it like that. 😉
buffalo said:
What happened to all the others? Are they walking among us?
Click to expand...
No – for this thesis to work, each “true human” must merely have Adam and/or Eve as an ancestor.

Is that any more difficult to believe than the alternative – that is, that Adam and Eve both participated in parent-child and/or uncle-niece / aunt-nephew incest in order to populate the world?
edwest211 said:
Apparently not. Perhaps a great disappearance occurred and they were erased from reality?
Click to expand...
Nope. That’s not necessary. All that’s necessary is that, for any of their offspring (or their children’s offspring, and so on, and so on, and so on), their children likewise were ensouled. Not too far-fetched, when you consider a Mendelian inheritance tree…
edwest211 said:
No, no. More like an episode from a TV show.
Click to expand...
buffalo said:
Beam em up, Scotty!
Click to expand...
What you can’t refute, you ridicule. Got it. :roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
mVitus said:
the Great Apostasy is an idea from Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.
Click to expand...
I know it’s expecting way too much for a theistic evolutionist to be familiar with Scripture, but the Great Apostasy is referred to in 2Thess 2.
As for your other question,I have never said a Catholic is prohibited from believing in Six Day Creation
Click to expand...
Huh? When did I say you dd?
And you have been given enough information in this thread and others to very well know that evolution is permitted. What you are doing, saying that it isn’t, is a lie.
Click to expand...
Huh? When did I say the Chruch doesn’t allow belief in evolution?
 
As for me, I choose to listen to the Holy Spirit, rather than deceived human beings and their doctrines inspired by demons.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Our discussions have not extended to the New Testament. Is there any sentence of Genesis that you do not think is literally true
Click to expand...
Oh, when you said “the bible is not literally true in every respect” (post 907), for some idiotic reason I thought you meant “the bible”. Silly me for not realising you were only referring to Genesis!
 
I very much doubt that Christian anti-evolutionism is a uniquely Protestant product. Anyhow, I don’t care where it came from - it is the work of the Holy Spirit and that’s all that matters.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Yawn … Keep up. It’s all detailed above.
Click to expand...
The Catechism says the Genesis creation account is written in figurative language, but where is the evidence that backs up your claim that “much” of the Bible is written figuratively?
 
twf said:
Europeans gradually evolved lighter skin as an adaptation to a colder, less sunny environment
Click to expand...
Yes, well of course it is - looking through the lens of evolution, EVERYTHING is an adaption.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top