Are Catholics creationists?

[StAnastasia]

It appears you worship the mind of man, not truth. Church teaching can be overturned by the mind of man according to you.Peace,Ed

No – I worship God alone. I also believe I have an obligation to use my God-given brains.

 

[StAnastasia]

Hello, geologists are now coming to terms with catastrophism. So should you.

Glib but empty words. Which geologists are these? What catastrophism?

 

[grannymh]

Actually, the evidence you have unwittingly cited militates against your view. Still, if you think you have genetic proof of a single human ancestral pair, why not present it to the Genetics Society of America? I’m sure they would want to hear about it. Here’s the 2010 conference URL:
mohb.org/2010/

Perhaps you misread post 56.

I certainly invite you to ask your biology professor friends to check out the definition of the human bottleneck theory and do let me know how they describe it. Actual usage in a peer reviewed published paper would be better yet.

In fact, there are lots of people interested in science who post here. I certainly welcome (name removed by moderator)ut/discussion on the definition of the human bottleneck theory in post 56.

Blessings,
granny

The universe and all humanity are a joy to behold.

 

[buffalo]

Glib but empty words. Which geologists are these? What catastrophism?

Where do you want to start?

You make the call? Millions of years or a few days?

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

 

[Monica4316]

I’m a creationist…

I think the Church allows both creationism or theistic evolution, we just have to believe God made the world and that Adam and Eve were real people. (that’s doctrine)

 

[buffalo]

I’m a creationist…

I think the Church allows both creationism or theistic evolution, we just have to believe God made the world and that Adam and Eve were real people. (that’s doctrine)

Perhaps you would like to share some evidence that the Church allows theistic evolution.

 

[MLMartin97]

Perhaps you would like to share some evidence that the Church allows theistic evolution.

“The doctrine of evolution based on the theistic conception of the world, which traces matter and life to God’s causality and assumes that organic being, developed from originally created seed-powers (St. Augustine) or from stem-forms (doctrine of descent), according to God’s plan, is compatible with the doctrine of Revelation. However, as regards MAN, a special creation by God is demanded, which must extend at least to the spiritual soul (creatio hominis peculiaris D 2123). Individual Fathers, especially St. Augustine, accepted a certain development of living creatures.”–Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 93-94

 

[Darryl1958]

I’m a creationist…

I think the Church allows both creationism or theistic evolution, we just have to believe God made the world and that Adam and Eve were real people. (that’s doctrine)

Theistic evolutions are creationists too

 

[buffalo]

“The doctrine of evolution based on the theistic conception of the world, which traces matter and life to God’s causality and assumes that organic being, developed from originally created seed-powers (St. Augustine) or from stem-forms (doctrine of descent), according to God’s plan, is compatible with the doctrine of Revelation. However, as regards MAN, a special creation by God is demanded, which must extend at least to the spiritual soul (creatio hominis peculiaris D 2123). Individual Fathers, especially St. Augustine, accepted a certain development of living creatures.”–Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 93-94

And this would be micro-evolution (aka adaptation) and not unguided. No one disagrees with adaptation.

 

[edwest2]

Theistic evolutions are creationists too

Incorrect. Genesis records days - “The morning and the evening” purposely appears. Eve was formed by God from Adam’s side. There was a Noah. Jesus Christ refers to him. Look up the Hebrew Calendar. It starts one year before the creation of the world.

You will discover that here, such ideas must be shouted down. They must be replaced by man-made ideas that eventually lead away from Church teaching. Science, which cannot study God or the supernatural, appears here all the time in the guise of spokesmen for the mind of man. There are some here who do not study what the Church teaches about mankind. Some accept the words of men over what the Church teaches.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Darryl1958]

Incorrect. Genesis records days - “The morning and the evening” purposely appears. Eve was formed by God from Adam’s side. There was a Noah. Jesus Christ refers to him. Look up the Hebrew Calendar. It starts one year before the creation of the world.

You will discover that here, such ideas must be shouted down. They must be replaced by man-made ideas that eventually lead away from Church teaching. Science, which cannot study God or the supernatural, appears here all the time in the guise of spokesmen for the mind of man. There are some here who do not study what the Church teaches about mankind. Some accept the words of men over what the Church teaches.

Peace,
Ed

That is fine.
It in no way makes my statement incorrect that **theistic **evolutionists are creationists.
If someone believes in God as Creator, then he is a creationist.

If one believes that existence cam about purely throug random, purposeless, mindless chance, then one is not a creationist.

If one calls himself a theistic evolutionist, then one is a creationist.

 

[StAnastasia]

In fact, there are lots of people interested in science who post here. I certainly welcome (name removed by moderator)ut/discussion on the definition of the human bottleneck theory in post 56.Blessings,granny.

You said “At one point, the numbers of modern humans living in the world may have dwindled to as few as 10,000 people.” This is probably accurate. 10,000 is not a literal Adam and Eve.

 

[StAnastasia]

That is fine.It in no way makes my statement incorrect that **theistic **evolutionists are creationists. If someone believes in God as Creator, then he is a creationist.

Absolutely correct. I am a creationist, in that I believe and place my trust in God as creator of the universe. I also accept the scientific evidence leading cosmologists to affirm a 13.7 billion year old universe, and leading biologists to affirm a 3.5 billion year of life on earth.

 

[StAnastasia]

Where do you want to start? You make the call? Millions of years or a few days?

The Grand Canyon was carved in millions of years, not in days.

 

[buffalo]

The Grand Canyon was carved in millions of years, not in days.

The picture is not the Grand Canyon. It is the scablands. Formed in a few days.

Would you like me to point out a feature in the Niagara River formed in a few hours?

 

[StAnastasia]

The picture is not the Grand Canyon. It is the scablands. Formed in a few days. Would you like me to point out a feature in the Niagara River formed in a few hours?

Sure – I love Niagara Falls. Neither it nor the Scablands are an indication that we should read the story of Noah’s flood literally,

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

You said “At one point, the numbers of modern humans living in the world may have dwindled to as few as 10,000 people.” This is probably accurate. 10,000 is not a literal Adam and Eve.

Actually, the number of 10,000 people was in an article about Professor David Goldstein, a molecular biologist. What I actually posted (#56) was “Therefore, the human bottleneck theory is non-informative about the point of origin of the human species.”

What exactly does “At one point, the numbers of modern humans living in the world may have dwindled to as few as 10,000 people” say about the point of origin of the human species? Perhaps someone in biology can answer this question?
Perhaps an historian can explain the difference between points in a time line?

Of course 10,000 people are not two people. 10,000 is an event in the course of ancestral history of humans. This event says absolutely nothing about the point of origin of the human species.

Therefore, the possibility of two sole parents of the human species does exist.

Blessings,
granny

Human life was created by God.

 

[Darryl1958]

Absolutely correct. I am a creationist, in that I believe and place my trust in God as creator of the universe. I also accept the scientific evidence leading cosmologists to affirm a 13.7 billion year old universe, and leading biologists to affirm a 3.5 billion year of life on earth.

It is a small point, but it directly answers the OP question. All Catholics must be creationists. That is non-debateable.

As to evolution, that is a question of how the material world was created, and not who did (or did not) create it. As such, it is not a theological debate, but a scientific one.

The theological battle of primary importance is against those who erroneously believe that questions pertaining to the spiritual dimensions are answerable through empirical science. Because science by definition can not ask why or to what ends, it is an error to assume that anything outside of the realm of scientific enquiry does not exist.

 

[buffalo]

Sure – I love Niagara Falls. Neither it nor the Scablands are an indication that we should read the story of Noah’s flood literally,

StAnastasia

I said that geologists are getting used to the idea of catastrophism and so should you. You can now see why.

 

[edwest2]

It is a small point, but it directly answers the OP question. All Catholics must be creationists. That is non-debateable.

As to evolution, that is a question of how the material world was created, and not who did (or did not) create it. As such, it is not a theological debate, but a scientific one.

The theological battle of primary importance is against those who erroneously believe that questions pertaining to the spiritual dimensions are answerable through empirical science. Because science by definition can not ask why or to what ends, it is an error to assume that anything outside of the realm of scientific enquiry does not exist.

That is 100% wrong. Science Which Cannot Study God or The Supernatural, Is Brought here All The Time to say, without any scientific authority whatsoever, that ‘your Bible is wrong, here, here and here.’ The people who post this have zero science to back up their claims. There are no peer reviewed, scientific papers analyzing Genesis or any other parts of the Bible.

And let’s get this straight, God is not just about spiritual dimensions. Jesus raised the dead, gave sight to the blind and rose from the dead, in fact.

Peace,
Ed