Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is the correct answer. Miracles never happen. Man is just a more evolved ape, since we supposedly have a common ancestor. A designed mammal has arms and hands, and it only takes just a relatively small amount of code adjustment to make the arms longer or smaller and so on. Materialism has infected science.
 
I’m in the company of popes. Take it up with them.

A new human is conceived through natural biological processes, taking DNA and organic matter from two parents. Yet mysteriously, God intervened and ensouls that new creation. I imagine something very similar happened with Adam and Eve.
I’m glad to hear people take things on authority, although in this case it sounds a bit like “Gott ist mit uns.” There’s most definitely a trend today that believes in subjective “truth”, which is very different from adherence to one’s conscience and being able to reason because the latter involves a pursuit of the truth with fear and trembling. I do trust the Church and also science, but only so far, since that is what I have done for many decades and know how it works as a social institution.

The way I would describe it is that God not so much intervenes, as He creates a new person, a unique and individual expression of humanity, utilizing the cellular material of the sperm and the egg as its material substance. Obviously, embryonic development is quite complex and things go wrong at least 50% of the time. Pretty much all of that is caused by the random physical factors that evolution claims to be the source of the diversity of life. And, the fact that those 50% of conceptions end in spontaneous abortions is natural selection, another name for death, hardly that which would account for the wonders of nature.

Here’s an interesting quote from another thread:
Richca said:
Is a builder required to build a house? Suppose a builder gathers all the materials to build a house on a plot of land and then sits and waits to see if these materials will somehow gather themselves together into the form and shape of a house with all the materials in the right place and order. Perhaps you may think, given enough time, perhaps billions of years, the materials will eventually gather and form themselves into the house with everything in proper order by natural processes of nature. I personally don’t see this happening nor has a house ever been found on the face of the earth or in the universe not built by human beings. And if we haven’t found or observed a house not built by human beings in the billions of years presumed age of the earth or universe, then we may well wonder and reasonably conclude that, indeed, a house requires a human builder. Now, you may think that the proposition ‘a house requires a human builder’ is a very simplistic shortsighted view of the natural processes of nature. However, the evidence or facts say otherwise. By analogy, the whole universe is as an artifact of God made by his own hands.

Further, since there is no evidence that the blind and mindless forces and processes of nature can construct a house, one may well wonder how those same mindless forces and processes of nature can construct the extremely complex human body. How is it that according to the evolutionary view mindless and inanimate nature can construct and organize itself into the highly complex human body but not into a simple house or even an axe? Can you explain that?
 
Last edited:
Is a builder required to build a house? Suppose a builder gathers all the materials to build a house on a plot of land and then sits and waits to see if these materials will somehow gather themselves together into the form and shape of a house with all the materials in the right place and order. Perhaps you may think, given enough time, perhaps billions of years, the materials will eventually gather and form themselves into the house with everything in proper order by natural processes of nature. I personally don’t see this happening nor has a house ever been found on the face of the earth or in the universe not built by human beings.
That’s where God steps in and tweaks evolution in a appropriate manner. :roll_eyes:
 
We don’t know at what point God intervened and bestowed an immortal soul upon our first parents.
On the contrary, we know exactly at what point - it’s described in Genesis - God formed Adam out the dust of the ground and breathed into him life and a soul.
 
If you pan down further you will see this lovely creature is holding a bouquet of flowers and a card.
 
Personally believe in evolution, there’s too much science to ignore it. I also believe in the Big Bang, and that God created it.
 
Since the birth of the Church, I would image 99.99% of Catholics believed in a literal interpretation of the Genesis verse mentioned in #362 of the CCC: “then the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being being.” Yet #362 states this verse is written in “symbolic language”. Huh? What happened to the literal interpretation that existed almost unanimously for thousands of years? It seems to have disappeared! In which universe does “symbolic” also mean “literal”?

Consider this passage from the book of Revelation 13:1-4’
“And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?”

A theologian would correctly assert that this passage is written in symbolic language - meaning it is NOT to be interpreted literally. In other words, to say a Scripture is written in symbolic language, by defintion, PRECLUDES a literal interpretation.
So if the Catechism says the Genesis creation account is written in “symbolic language”, this, by definition, PRECLUDES a literal interpretation, which is PATENTLY FALSE, as it can be also be interpreted literally.

I have no choice to conclude that #362 is yet another error in the CCC (intentional, I suspect, in order to not just accommodate belief in evolution, but to exclude a literal interpretation of Genesis).
 
Show me in the Catechism where it was a Catholic may take a geocentric or flat earth view. Or is it just common knowledge that they can?
The CCC doesn’t discuss either of these matters. It does, however, devote considerable space to creation.
You agree the Church is not heretical. So look at Humani Generis and all the consensus of the bishops and recent popes that,on a matter of faith, evolution is not contrary to Christian faith.
The Catholic Church that I belong to says evolution is incompatible with Scripture - to wit: Adam was created from inanimate matter and “became a living being”. Note the significance of the words, “became a living being”, which would make no sense at all if Adam was the offspring of a creature that was already a living being.
 
I guess I’m insulting your intelligence, then, by pointing out that it doesn’t, in fact, speak to any conclusions or theories, but rather, merely of discoveries and knowledge gained from them.
So why are scientific studies into the hypothesis of Darwinian evolution even referred to, since it is not a scientific discovery and has provided no scientific knowledge?
You’re reading into the passage, friend, through a lens of your own predetermined conclusion
I had come to the predetermined conclusion that #283 was in error before I had even read it?
 
Each day in Genesis evening and morning day 1 or 2 or 3, etc. The Jews interpreted the day as starting with the evening and this was true at least until after the resurrection. The day starts with the darkness so your premise is incorrect.
How does “an evening” and “a morning” add up to one day? That sounds like only half a day to me. If the day begins with evening, the surely one day would consist of evening-morning-evening.

Regardless of what the Jews believe, Days 2-6 all begin with “And God said …”, so it makes sense that Day 1 also begins with “And God said …”. Therefore I contend Day 1 begins in v.3 with the first “And God said …”, which is followed by, “Let there be light”.

It’s my understanding that the Church also regards the evening as the beginning of the day - hence Catholics can attend “Sunday Mass” on Saturday evening.
 
Last edited:
I’m just reading your post here,
I just wanted to add that, when we accept that there are many ways in which different books/passages of the Bible are to be taken, we uncover a whole new world of meaning. We see things that we didn’t see before, and it all makes sense. It is so beautiful to see the symbolism and the different layers of meaning, and how it’s all connected. By taking the Bible in a strictly literal sense, we’d really be missing out on that whole world of meaning.
Just reading your post here, Brittany, you are one observant young lady. Up until my conversion, I accepted Creation timeline as literal - sola scriptura and all that. Now, I see how the Church supports the different layers of meaning, as you stated. It is beautiful to experience this new world of understanding.
 
Please demonstrate where I said this. I look forward to your reply.
I know my bludgeoning you with logic has befuddled you, but have you forgotten:
The following sentence from #283 obviously refers to the scientific study of Darwinian evolution […]
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 […]
Therefore the CCC is in error, imo.

Paragraph 284 continues in the same vein […]
Therefore the CCC is in error, imo.
I have no choice to conclude that #362 is yet another error in the CCC (intentional, I suspect, in order to not just accommodate belief in evolution, but to exclude a literal interpretation of Genesis).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top