Any young earth creationists out there?

[buffalo]

Then you’ll have no difficulty in providing examples then, will you?

But you can’t, can you?

This forum is an open book. I won’t waste my time going back to satisfy you. You can. I will let others vouch for me.

 

[Dan123]

Except more complicated because I think it could be argued it’s impossible to tell what color your glasses are, and you are always wearing a pair. Meaning you can only ever view the world through your own life experiences, and it’s not possible to be consciously aware of all the ways those experiences ‘tint’ your view. Not disagreeing just considering it philosophically.

 

[Hope1960]

It’s not my fault if the Catechism contains errors in four paragraphs. After all, I didn’t write it - all I did was read it.

Is the Catechism infallible?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

This forum is an open book. I won’t waste my time going back to satisfy you. You can. I will let others vouch for me.

No one will vouch for you. No one can support you, because your idea is wholly lacking in evidence. Nobody on this thread or in this forum has posted anything to suggest that they thought Science was their ‘God’. It is a meaningless slogan, invented to misrepresent even Catholic Scientists as apostates, and to misrepresent all Scientists as atheists. How tawdry.

 

[twf]

It doesn’t matter. We are bound by it. St JPII declared it a “sure norm for the teaching of the faith”.

 

[Richca]

Well, obviously not. Both the evidence of fossil people and the behaviour of modern animals point to degrees of intelligence, self-awareness, language, personal responsibility, concern for the dead and so on. I think you confusing intelligence with soul, which is an exclusively human attribute.

No. The source of human intelligence is derived from a spiritual power of the human soul called the intellect or reason.

No. Varying degrees of intelligence are exhibited by non-human animals, so intelligence per se cannot be exclusively a characteristic of soul.

No. Animals do not have an intellect so the application of the word ‘intelligence’ to them is improperly applied and this only leads to confusion between the distinction between humans and animals as well as to the various levels and kinds of knowledge either humans or animals exhibit. The highest level of knowledge any brute animal can possess is sensory knowledge which humans also have in common with the animals. Indeed, it is from this sensory knowledge derived from the external senses and interior sense powers of the soul that the human intellect or reason gets its intellectual knowledge by a process of abstraction from the particular sense impressions or ‘phantasms’ as they are called in the Church’s philosophical tradition.

There are indeed differences between humans and animals, which you may certainly call the soul, but “simple observation of the world of animals” shows us there are aspects of behaviour, understanding and intelligence which are as much the provenance of ‘non-soul’ as they are of ‘soul’.

See above. As with your use of the word ‘intelligence’, the word ‘understanding’ is improperly applied here to animals. Understanding is only properly an act of an intellect in the Church’s perennial philosophical tradition. In this tradition also, humans are not the only living beings that have souls. A soul is a kind of substantial form which is the principle of life in those things that live or are animated. Thus, plants and animals also have souls but with varying powers. The souls of animals in addition to the vegetative powers that plant souls have, possess sensory powers. In addition to the vegetative and sensory powers that plant or animal souls have, the human soul possesses the spiritual powers of intellect and will from which flow the vegetative and sensory powers that animate the body according to their various operations or functions.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

No. The source of human intelligence is derived from a spiritual power of the human soul called the intellect or reason.

You write this in contradiction to my observation that “both the evidence of fossil people and the behaviour of modern animals point to degrees of intelligence, self-awareness, language, personal responsibility, concern for the dead and so on.” But does your assertion contradict any of it? You may state, without explanation, that human intelligence derives from the soul, and perhaps it may, but the traits of intelligence shown by other animals presumably don’t.

Hugh Farey: Varying degrees of intelligence are exhibited by non-human animals, so intelligence per se cannot be exclusively a characteristic of soul."

Richca: No. Animals do not have an intellect so the application of the word ‘intelligence’ to them is improperly applied and this only leads to confusion between the distinction between humans and animals as well as to the various levels and kinds of knowledge either humans or animals exhibit.

A rather arbitrary remark., if I may say so. You seem to be falling into the error here of defining “intellect” and “intelligence” as an exclusively human attribute. That being so, then of course only humans can have it, by definition, but there is nothing in such a definition to say how to distinguish human behaviour from the behaviour of, say, a gorilla.

The highest level of knowledge any brute animal can possess is sensory knowledge which humans also have in common with the animals.

How on earth do you know that? Mere anthropocentric arrogance? Have you evidence that shows that the faculty of intelligence is an exclusively human attribute, or is its truth dependent merely on the definition?

You go on and on making the same meaningless assertions. Non-human animals cannot be intelligent, cannot understand, cannot have intellect, cannot have will, etc. You do not attempt to answer the really interesting and important question: How do you know all this?

The sterility of your argument may be stated like this:
Q. What is the difference between human behaviour and gorilla behaviour?
A. Human behaviour is only done by humans, and gorilla behaviour is only done by gorillas.

I’m not saying that the answer is easy. We cannot see into another human’s brain, let alone an elephant’s. What we have to do is to try to decide what behaviour might indicate various levels of intellectual achievement, and see if we observe it. Sadly, the higher the level of intellect, the less visible evidence there may be of it, so although we can see that an elephant recognises, and is upset by, the death of a child, we cannot know what other mental processes may be accompanying its mourning behaviour.

 

[Richca]

Not at all. I have criticised them for denying their own premises. The only justification for Creationism, in the absence of any evidence,

In my view, all the true science points to creationism but only indirectly of course as this is a matter of faith but it is not unreasonable. For example, the fossil record and the abrupt appearance and stasis of the various species of plants and animals including mankind which is a consistent observation of the entire fossil record; the incredibly high biological complexity of organisms and plants; zero empirical and direct observation of species transformism or macroevolution; direct observation of the stability of species propagation with limited variability aka as microevolution. All this is reasonable evidence in support of creationism faith. Faith because no human was around to observe the creation of the world and its formation not even Adam and Eve, and because God’s creative and supernatural activity cannot be scientifically or empirically tested. The rest of the so-called ‘science’ associated with macroevolution is pseudo-science or conjecture. Also, the nature of modern theoretical science is in a state of constant flux and change and so in many ways very unreliable. What might be thought to be known today, tomorrow may be overthrown.

is some form of literal interpretation of the Catholic Scriptures,

According to the teaching of the Church which Pope Pius XII also laid out in Humani Generis, the rules for the proper interpretation of Scripture exclude unempirical and unprovable hypotheses or theories of whatever kind in substitution for the literal and obvious sense of scripture unless reason or necessity such as what is self-evident or certain scientific facts forbid it. All is left to the judgement of the Church as the final authority. The Church’s whole Tradition is very helpful in interpreting scripture and of course all the various magisterial documents including ecumenical councils.

and the only reason for thinking that these Scriptures should be taken as credible is because they are one of the foundations of the Catholic Church.

Well yes. We believe the Holy Scriptures to be the word of God. God himself is the principle author of all of Scripture. Secondly, Jesus himself, the Word of God in human flesh referred to the Old Testament scriptures as the word of God in the gospels and so as followers of him, we believe and do the same.

 

[Richca]

From Hugh_Farey: As it happens, the Catholic Church, using the Scriptures in conjunction with other foundations, has decided that much of Genesis, at least, is figurative,

It has? Where does the Church teach this officially? If you are referring to the CCC, it has already been pointed out many times that the phrase ‘figurative language’ is used in reference to fall of Adam and Eve. And what exactly is meant by the phrase ‘figurative language’? Ironically, I think you are understanding it to ‘literally’ as it were. It obviously does not exclude literal historical facts from what the Church teaches drawn from the Genesis 3 narrative. Nor does it necessarily mean that the temptation and fall did not happen literally as written. There are figurative elements in this narrative such as the serpent which we know from later biblical references is the devil and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which obviously is symbolic of some meaning which the CCC gives. But, can we conclude that there was no serpent or snake which the devil talked through or no possibly fruit bearing tree scripture calls the tree of knowledge of good and evil that God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from? Not necessarily I don’t think, were we there? It’s not what the narrative literally says and we have no other revelation from God concerning the fall. All or most of the elements of the narrative of Genesis 3 are linked in one way or another to other biblical texts and truths of the faith.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Hmmm; perhaps I should have rephrased that.
Replace: “has decided that much of Genesis, at least, is figurative,”
with: “has decided that much of Genesis, at least, may be considered figurative,”

 

[edwest211]

That’s right. Why did Jesus become flesh?

 

[buffalo]

Figurative language refers to the color we use to amplify our writing. It takes an ordinary statement and dresses it up in an evocative frock. It gently alludes to something without directly stating it. Figurative language is a way to engage your readers, ushering them through your writing with a more creative tone. Examples of Figurative Language

 

[buffalo]

What Literature Tells Us about Evolution

Michael Ruse

Argues that the theory of evolution given by Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century has always functioned as much as a secular form of religion as anything purely scientific
Through the words of novelists and poets, Michael Ruse argues that Darwin took us from the secure world of Christian faith into a darker, less friendly world of chance and lack of meaning
An accessible and entertaining guide through a serious topic

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/darwinism-as-religion-9780190241025?cc=us&lang=en&

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[edwest211]

Thank you for the book recommendation. Social Darwinism has been discussed before. And a personal thought after reading some relatively recent history. Chaos is better for business than order. Order and cooperation lead to a form of social stability. There is no money in peace. The darker side in all of us sometimes leads to intentional and unintentional problems. However, those committed to chaos, revolution and social disorder are turning away from their neighbors for a variety of reasons. This is not a good thing.

The truth is the first casualty in any war.

 

[buffalo]

FREE Copy of Return to Order Workbook
The book shows how we can return to those God-given institutions that naturally regulate society and put it back in balance. This presupposes a practice of virtue and a great love of God inside of an organic Christian society, where people tend towards what is spiritual and sublime. It is not enough to merely seek economic solutions to today’s problems. We must get to the core of the matter by satisfying the spiritual appetites that give meaning to life. The book has won eleven awards and has over 300,000 copies in circulation. Order it today: FREE!

Order Your Copy Of Return To Order Workbook - Return To Order

The book shows how we can return to those God-given institutions that naturally regulate society and put it back in balance.

www.returntoorder.org

 

[mVitus]

I don’t think so. All living humans would still trace their ancestry to Adam and Eve… but also to other ancestors.

I must’ve messed up my clarity since I’m pretty sure I meant what you just said in this post. Two symbols I’ll use: (t) = true human with body and soul, (h) = bodily human withoit true human soul

What I mean is that there is debate of if a lineage as follows is in accord with Faith.

John (t)
John’s mother Martha (h)
John’s father Frank (t)
Martha’s mother Charlize (h)
Martha’s father Hubert (h)
Frank’s mother Eve (t)
Frank’s father Adam (t)

 

[Gorgias]

It’s not my fault if the Catechism contains errors in four paragraphs. After all, I didn’t write it - all I did was read it.

Indeed. And, as it were, we’re left with two possibilities: the error in question is either in the assertions of the Catechism, or in your reading of the Catechism.

Which, I wonder, is the more reasonable conclusion…?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

You: Science is the new god. You have seen it here on this thread and in this forum often.
Me: You cannot give one single instance of this on this thread or in this forum, let alone “often”.
You: I have been posting much longer than you have. Since the beginning of these forums some 14 years ago. I have dealt with it all.
Me: Then you’ll have no difficulty in providing examples then, will you?
But you can’t, can you?
You: This forum is an open book. I won’t waste my time going back to satisfy you. You can. I will let others vouch for me.
Me: No one will vouch for you. No one can support you, because your idea is wholly lacking in evidence. Nobody on this thread or in this forum has posted anything to suggest that they thought Science was their ‘God’. It is a meaningless slogan, invented to misrepresent even Catholic Scientists as apostates, and to misrepresent all Scientists as atheists. How tawdry.
You: Michael Ruse’s Book.

which, as it happens, I disagree with.

Is that your response? Did it not occur to you, as you posted it, what readers of this correspondence would think? That such transparent misrepresentation not only demonstrates the hollowness of your claim in this respect, but continues to demonstrate the general dishonesty of the Creationist argument?

How often has this book been mentioned on this site before? Has Michael Ruse commented on this thread? Does his book actually support your sweeping generalisation? Never, never and no it doesn’t.

 

[Glark]

If Christians insisted on a geocentric flat earth as required by faith, we would be laughed off into oblivion

Science has been laughing at Catholicism for a very long time. According to science, miracles are impossible, as is life after death, so there was no Resurrection either; God doesn’t exist; prayer is infantile superstition; only an idiot would believe that the words of some fool priest changes bread and wine into the flesh and blood of a dead man in the sky; matter cannot be created from nothing, creatures don’t “poof” into existence, etc, etc.

Do you really think accepting evolution is going to stop people laughing at the Church and our Faith?

And so an insistence that evolution cannot be accepted by Christians drives people away because, for many people, contradicts logic. And that is a source for loss of faith, not evolution itself.

If rejection of evolution turns people away from faith, then their calling isn’t genuine, like the seed that fell on rocky ground. NOTHING can prevent the power of the Holy Spirit from reaching the mind and soul of someone whose name is written in the “Book of Life”, least of all something as puny as a conflict with some scientific theory.

Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; NEITHER SHALL ANYONE SNATCH THEM OUT OF MY HAND” - John 10:27-28.

So stop worrying.

 

[Glark]

The point at which we can say that people were sufficient well developed to envisage a sense of the almighty and responsibility for their misbehaviour might have occurred about a million years ago. If I needed to p(name removed by moderator)oint a date for “Adam and Eve”, it would be about then.

Your knowledge of the history of the world is very, very impressive. I would be interestted in your opinion on when the Minotaur may have evolved. Thank you.