G
Glark
Guest
Theistic evolutionists twist an distort Scripture to their liking, so it should come as no surprise that they twist and distort what the Church says as well.
- Status
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
No, I just thought I’d start with Genesis, and then move on. Carmel said she could distinguish between a fact and a parable, but discussing that would cover too wide a field, so I thought I’d ask if there was any bit of Genesis that wasn’t literally true.
G
Glark
Guest
Nonsense; it clearly includes evolution. Pull your head out of the sand and read it again.
The following sentence from #283 obviously refers to the scientific study of Darwinian evolution:
“The question about the origins … of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of … the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.”
Notice the use of the words “increased our knowledge” - in other words, the CCC considers the hypothesis of Darwinian evolution to be knowledge. But knowledge is by defintion, something factual, and an hypothesis is not a fact. Therefore the CCC is in error, imo.
Then in the very next sentence we read, "These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator … ". Here the CCC claims the hypothesis Darwinian evolution is one of many scientific “discoveries”. But an hypothesis is not a discovery, since a discovery is by definition, a fact. Therefore the CCC is in error, imo.
Paragraph 284 continues in the same vein:
“… It is not only a question of knowing when and how … man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin …”.
Here the CCC assumes we KNOW “when and how … man appeared”. Again, the hypothesis of Darwinian evolution is claimed as knowledge, ie a fact. Therefore the CCC is in error, imo.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
The proper Evolutionary response to this, following the guidelines so clearly established by the Creationist modus argumenti on this site, is:
“So you completely ignore the entire teaching of the Catholic Church from start to finish! How can you possibly argue anything is Catholic if you have absolutely no respect for anything the Catholic Church teaches!”
But luckily we Evolutionary Catholics don’t use that sort of argument.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Although I find it hard to believe that you don’t have access to it (after all, the Catechism can be found on line at the Vatican website as well as at the USCCB web site), nevertheless, here’s the sentence you’ve been attempting to describe:Gorgias:
What does it say?
CCC 390:
See? It says neither of the things you said it asserts:
So, what is it that uses ‘figurative language’, according to the Catechism? “The account of the fall in Genesis 3.” Not all of Genesis. Not the creation account.
Hope this helps.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Look… I get it! You desperately want it to say that. The plain truth is that it doesn’t.
No… it talks about scientific studies. ‘Darwinism’ (for whatever definition you give that term – since there are many out there!) is not a scientific study. It’s a scientist’s theory that he builds as a result of data that he has at hand! Scientific studies are precisely (and merely!) that: rigorous studies conducted using empirical data. What people do with them after that data is collected is their own business. (Adherents of evolution use the data to buttress their claims of evolution; YEC’s use them to prove their theories of a young earth).
The Church isn’t discussing theories, as you claim – rather, she’s discussing the scientific studies which do, in fact, “increase our knowledge”!
I’m sorry, @Glark, but you’re reading that into the text. Your claim just doesn’t hold up when we look at the text itself.
Wait – a sentence that discusses the “Creator” is really talking about Darwinian evolution?!? Seriously?!?
No… in CCC #284, no answers are provided – instead, only questions are asked! There’s no claim of “knowledge” or of any particular scientific theory being claimed as fact! The CCC doesn’t claim ‘answers’ here, but only asks the questions. And, in doing so, it affirms that the answers aren’t found in science, but in God!
With all due respect, @Glark, it’s your interpretation of the CCC that’s in error.
Last edited:
Half man-half ape “people” didn’t exist.
G
Gorgias
Guest
You’re probably be really happy, then, that you won’t be around in a few millennia, so that you won’t hear how future humans describe us…Hugh_Farey:
Half man-half ape “people” didn’t exist.
Funny.You’re probably be really happy, then, that you won’t be around in a few millennia, so that you won’t hear how future humans describe us…
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
How unkind. Neanderthals were people. Just because they had Creationist views doesn’t make them half-ape.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
As Glark considers the CCC a tissue of nonsense from end to end, I can’t understand why he quotes it so often in support of his views.With all due respect, @Glark, it’s your interpretation of the CCC that’s in error.
(Oops, sorry, that’s my Creationist education coming out again.)
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
What colour skin does “man like us” have?
It isn’t about skin colour but about not being ape-like creatures.
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
That’s a silly question. Of course he was white. You can see the picture in the Sistine Chapel.
The more interesting question is how he ended up with a bellybutton.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
It most certainly is about skin colour. It is also about hair length. Your prejudice against Neanderthals is unChristian.
T
twf
Guest
I’m assuming you also think dinosaurs didn’t exist? If you dismiss the existence of our close cousins, Neanderthals, with whom we co-existed for tens of thousands of years, I assume you dismiss the entire fossil record. We have countless skeletons and remains and even DNA for Neanderthals…
Interestingly, there is strong evidence that Neanderthals had spirituality and buried the dead. They also had larger brains than we do on average. Many modern Europeans have some Neanderthal DNA, so there was some intermingling before they went extinct.
Interestingly, there is strong evidence that Neanderthals had spirituality and buried the dead. They also had larger brains than we do on average. Many modern Europeans have some Neanderthal DNA, so there was some intermingling before they went extinct.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
All the ones who were buried with flowers around them.
T
twf
Guest
That’s a simplistic representation of a very complex reality. We don’t know at what point God intervened and bestowed an immortal soul upon our first parents. The Church hasn’t and probably never will define this.
I suspect it was prior to the divergence of Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals, as the latter clearly had spirituality.
Take it up with the Popes. Modern popes going back to Pius XII have not seen an issue here. Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict, referred to the common descent of all living things as “virtually certain”.
I suspect it was prior to the divergence of Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals, as the latter clearly had spirituality.
Take it up with the Popes. Modern popes going back to Pius XII have not seen an issue here. Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict, referred to the common descent of all living things as “virtually certain”.
- Status