Any young earth creationists out there?

[Glark]

Perhaps you mean John XXIII. I read that in his last days he also began to worry about what he had unleashed with Vatican II.

 

[Glark]

They died. What did you think happened to them?

Thanks, but I’d managed to figure that much out all by myself.

So a race of intelligent but souless humans, that had survived for millions of years, suddenly died out. They would have been by far the most intelligent beings on the planet, yet they all became extinct. Not even one remained. Doesn’t that strike you as even a little curious?

 

[Glark]

All reputable scientists are satisfied that the evidence is overwhelming. Recent Popes likewise…

… and scientists and recent Popes are of course infallible when it comes to science and about what happened on earth billions of years ago. Sounds like Catho-Scientism to me.

 

[Glark]

A human with soul mating with a human without a soul would constitute bestiality. God would not allow such a thing.

Besides that, what would be the outcome of such a union? A human with half a soul?

Theistic evolution is bizarre and creepy.

 

[Glark]

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator” (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4).

What “knowledge” have we gained from the “scientific studies … of … the development of life forms and the appearance of man”?

 

[Glark]

Our genetic degeneration is reflected in the marked decline in human life-spans. Adam and Noah, for example, lived for over 900 years.

 

[Glark]

God ensouled an entire population at once?

Ensoulment may have been contagious. It could have been spread quickly by fleas or mosquitos or droplets or germs in the water.

 

[Dan123]

So a race of intelligent but souless humans, that had survived for millions of years, suddenly died out. They would have been by far the most intelligent beings on the planet, yet they all became extinct. Not even one remained. Doesn’t that strike you as even a little curious?

It’s curious how you came to that misunderstanding of how this stuff works. If you want to refute evolution I’d hope you’d try to step up your understanding of it. The “race” that died off hadn’t been around for millions of years, they like every single generation are a point on a line. They were different than the humans who came before them and the ones who came after, though discernible changes generally only occur in large steps. So they descended from those that existed before them, at least the ones that survived to reproduce.

 

[twf]

As per his earlier reply to me, he’s guided by the Holy Spirit in his crusade against modern science.

Welcome to the Fundamentalist Protestant Answers forum.
Certainly how most of these evolution threads feel.

 

[Gorgias]

God ensouled an entire population at once?

No. As it is today, so was it in the past: as a person is conceived, he receives a soul created immediately by God.

I’m not claiming that every hominin alive at the time of Adam and Eve received souls. Keeping with Catholic teaching, I hold that we have only two first true human parents. Every descendant of theirs, likewise, was ensouled. In that way, naturally, the entire human race was born – each child of each descendant of our first human parents is a ‘true human’ – that is, ensouled.

Not Biblical and inconsistent with Church teaching.

Please identify what’s inconsistent. You’ll find, once you grasp the argument being made, that it’s constructed in such a way as to be fully consistent with, and faithful to, the teachings of the Church.

Where are you getting the idea that brother-sister marriages are contrary to God’s natural moral law?

From the teaching of the Church, and the discipline of canon law. Brother-sister marriages may not be dispensed (as opposed, for example, to first cousin marriages). The latter are a merely ecclesiastical impediment, and thus, may be dispensed. Those that are unable be dispensed are so because it’s not merely an ecclesiastical impediment, but rather, are a divine law impediment. QED.

Obviously, it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever for something to be against the natural law which was required by human nature for the propagation of the human race in the beginning according to God’s plan and command.

Obviously. Therefore, the error must be in the premises – namely, that incest was necessary for the propagation of the human race.

I am arguing that brother-sister marriages are not against the natural moral law in which case the problem in question doesn’t apply.

So then, you’re arguing that the Church has the ability to dispense with the impediment against brother-sister marriage? Please provide supporting proof.

It was not forbidden in the Old Law God gave to Moses for the Israelites but neither did God command it.

You yourself have cited the quotation that disproves this claim, and Jesus Himself cites it: “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh.”

Jesus Himself teaches that polygamy has been against God’s will since the beginning. For someone who wants to take the Creation epic literalistically, it’s odd that you don’t want to take Jesus’ words literally…

 

[Gorgias]

With all the above in mind than, Aquinas proceeds to explain [that]… God could or may just simply permit or allow a dispensation in the Old Law and natural law pertaining to the conclusions or secondary principles without violating the first principles of the natural law which are immutable.

He does? Because I find this in ST Supp.65.1: “It is therefore evident from what has been said that plurality of wives is in a way against the law of nature, and in a way not against it.”

So… no. I’m not seeing what you’re selling here.

I can’t say outright that either what Sarah requested of Abraham or Abraham going into Hagar was sinful.

Then you haven’t read the first chapters of Genesis as closely as you may have thought…

The supplement to the Summa is the work of Aquinas compiled word for word from his commentary on the sentences of Peter Lombard.

So, there are two problems here:

• First, it wasn’t compiled by Aquinas, but by others.
• Second, a historical analysis of Aquinas’ work demonstrates a development in his thought and a later modification of some of his earlier assertions.

So, the best we can say is “he might have thought so earlier in his life, but the Summa doesn’t demonstrate that he continued to think so later in his life.”

So a race of intelligent but souless humans, that had survived for millions of years, suddenly died out.

No. I’m not claiming ‘extinction’. I’m claiming natural death. And their descendants, bearing children with the descendants of our first true human parents, themselves were ensouled.

A human with soul mating with a human without a soul would constitute bestiality. God would not allow such a thing.

That’s the problem with the argument: so-called ‘bestiality’ is inconceivable, but brother-sister incest? Oh, that’s merely “necessary for the propagation of humankind.”

Besides that, what would be the outcome of such a union? A human with half a soul?

Of course not. Your facetiousness betrays your unwillingness to part with preconceived notions.

Ensoulment may have been contagious. It could have been spread quickly by fleas or mosquitos or droplets or germs in the water.

Funny. Facetious, but funny.

 

[buffalo]

From the teaching of the Church, and the discipline of canon law. Brother-sister marriages may not be dispensed (as opposed, for example, to first cousin marriages). The latter are a merely ecclesiastical impediment, and thus, may be dispensed. Those that are unable be dispensed are so because it’s not merely an ecclesiastical impediment, but rather, are a divine law impediment. QED.

Yes, this is current teaching, It wasn’t at the time of Adam and Eve.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, this is current teaching, It wasn’t at the time of Adam and Eve.

I understand. I’ve previously pointed out that I’m not making the anachronistic argument that the canon law of the Catholic Church was in effect at the time of Adam and Eve.

Rather, I’m pointing out that Divine Law is immutable. If it exists now (and it does, as we can see from the teaching of the Church), that means it has always existed. And therefore, if brother-sister marriages today are invalid due to Divine law, they were likewise so at the beginning of time.

 

[buffalo]

Rather, I’m pointing out that Divine Law is immutable. If it exists now (and it does, as we can see from the teaching of the Church), that means it has always existed. And therefore, if brother-sister marriages today are invalid due to Divine law, they were likewise so at the beginning of time.

And that is the point. Brother sister marriages do not violate natural law, parent child does.

 

[Gorgias]

And that is the point. Brother sister marriages do not violate natural law, parent child does.

Hence my request to @Richca: if ya’ll are claiming that the prohibition against brother-sister marriage is merely an ecclesiastical impediment of law, then please demonstrate that this is the case. Otherwise, as we see in canon law, it is never able to be dispensed (and therefore, not merely an ecclesiastical impediment).

You can’t have it both ways: choose which one you wish to claim, and show proof.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The Book of Jubilees (Lesser Genesis)
And these four kinds He created on the sixth day. And there were altogether two and twenty kinds.
The Book of Jubilees
Jubilees 4

Fascinating. I was not familiar with the book of Jubilees. Can we take it that you think all the millions of different species of living things that have ever lived were produced by micro-evolution or natural adaptation from these twenty-two kinds?

 

[buffalo]

Fascinating. I was not familiar with the book of Jubilees. Can we take it that you think all the millions of different species of living things that have ever lived were produced by micro-evolution or natural adaptation from these twenty-two kinds?

Not sure of the exact number. But essentially yes,

God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

 

[buffalo]

Hence my request to @Richca: if ya’ll are claiming that the prohibition against brother-sister marriage is merely an ecclesiastical impediment of law, then please demonstrate that this is the case. Otherwise, as we see in canon law, it is never able to be dispensed (and therefore, not merely an ecclesiastical impediment).

You can’t have it both ways: choose which one you wish to claim, and show proof.

Why Incest in Genesis Was OK

Why Incest in Genesis Was OK | Catholic Answers Q&A

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Hence my request to @Richca: if ya’ll are claiming that the prohibition against brother-sister marriage is merely an ecclesiastical impediment of law, then please demonstrate that this is the case. Otherwise, as we see in canon law, it is never able to be dispensed (and therefore, not merely an ecclesiastical impediment).

You can’t have it both ways: choose which one you wish to claim, and show proof.

Why Incest in Genesis Was OK

Why Incest in Genesis Was OK | Catholic Answers

Sorry… let me be more precise: please provide magisterial teaching that incest between brothers and sisters was ever ok. Thanks!

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Not sure of the exact number. But essentially yes,

God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Well, I think I’m happy with that, as far as it goes. If you think that the diversity of life developed by micro-evolution and natural adaptation from a few dozen original kinds, then your definition of micro-evolution and adaptation coincides almost exactly with my definition of ‘evolution’, which is splendid.