Catholic but confuse

[nick908]

I am Roman Catholic and have been ever seen i was baptized as a baby. I’m having doubts though, against my will. I learned about evolution in biology class and am wondering how they have scientific evidence that disproves the bible? They actually have fossils, and carbon dating. Carbon dating does not lie. I am currently taking AP Chemistry and have learned about nuclear chemistry in holy carbon dating works. So my question is, if the whole earth was made in 7th days, evolution is false thing is true, how is science so strongly dispproving? I want to believe so badly, but im having doubts… HELP!!!

 

[m4dc4p]

Don’t jump to the conclusion that science disproves the Bible. There are a ton of articles at www.catholic.com in the Library section that can help strengthen your faith. There is even one titled “Adam, Eve and Evolution.” I hope it helps:

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Start with that and read some others - you’ll see that it’s possible to believe in evolution and God. Just remember - science cannot disprove your faith!

 

[Salmon]

nick908:

I am Roman Catholic and have been ever seen i was baptized as a baby. I’m having doubts though, against my will. I learned about evolution in biology class and am wondering how they have scientific evidence that disproves the bible? They actually have fossils, and carbon dating. Carbon dating does not lie. I am currently taking AP Chemistry and have learned about nuclear chemistry in holy carbon dating works. So my question is, if the whole earth was made in 7th days, evolution is false thing is true, how is science so strongly dispproving? I want to believe so badly, but im having doubts… HELP!!!

Nick,
You need to ask yourself some questions regarding those scientifc issues.

Has the rate of Carbon decay always been constant? Under what conditions might the rate differ?

What factors may have influenced the ratios of C12, C13, and C14 in the world?

Has the output of the sun been constant since it formed?

As for evolutionary THEORY (keep in mind why theories are called theories), has science EVER shown that one species has evolved into another species? The answer is a resounding, “NO”.

Also, recognize that most of the world’s greatest scientific minds have embraced their faith in God just as strongly. Don’t let anyone put your faith in opposition to the scientific world. The Creator stands apart from His creation, but called it “Good”.

Albert Einstein was Jewish and was considered a pretty good scientist by some people. Have you already surpassed him in your understanding of science as a limitation to faith?

Peace in Christ…Salmon

 

[Sir_William]

From the CCC:

God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.”

Why put science and faith in opposition? Did someone tell you dogmatically that creation was a literal 6 days series of events? They probably weren’t Catholic.

 

[nick908]

Sir_William:

From the CCC:

God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.”

Why put science and faith in opposition? Did someone tell you dogmatically that creation was a literal 6 days series of events? They probably weren’t Catholic.

Indead they did, thank you so much guys for the speedy responses, you have no idea how much you just helped me sir_william.

 

[Lost_Found]

A friend of mine is an instrumentation technologist at a nuclear power plant. He says that any measuring instrument is only trusted as accurate within a certain range. In that range it must be proofed against a known source. You aren’t allowed to extrapolate or use the instrument outside that range or whamo things can get dangerous.
I wonder how much we can trust their dating instruments at the 65 million year range?
You can be sure there are a lot of people out there who only get the job promotion if their results match the repository of results.

 

[challenger]

Dr. Wile’s Biology text also has a section on Evolution, but instead of supporting it, the section does a fine job of showing all the holes in the macroevolutionary theory. In short, there is not a shred of tangible evidence for it.

No, they don’t have fossils. Yes, carbon dating can lie.

 

[MariaG]

The point for a Catholic Christian is this:

It does not matter if the earth is billions of years old or only a few thousand. As long as we do not deny God’s divine hand in the creation of it.

I have looked at the issue both ways. I have come to the conclusion that I don’t really care. God created it. I believe it. The rest are details that don’t really matter.

If they matter to you, rest easy and explore to your heads content. like I said before, as long as you do not deny God’s divine hand it you can believe the earth is billions of billions of years old. The Bible does say that God is as old as the stars. That would only make sense if it were billions of years in my opinion.

You can be a literalist without taking the Bible literally. That is you can recognize that some stories in the Bible are just that, stories that were written for spiritual truth and not neccessarily factual scientific truth.

The person who probably told you must believe the earth is young because the bible says so probably does not believe that Christ is really present in the Eucharist or that Jesus may have told the apostles go and forgive, but He really meant go and* teach* forgiveness (in other words there is no such thing as the Sacrament of Reconcilliation). They only believe the Bible literally when they choose to.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[antiaphrodite]

i think the problem is that 1) so many people make the THEORY of evolution into something more that it is, and 2) they think that darwinian theory is the only evolution theory.

 

[Lorarose]

I’ve taken the science classes, and I’ve read about this issue quite a bit.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the genesis account does not have to be understood as 7 LITERAL days.
I’ve come to understand that the theory of evolution - if true- does not disprove God’s existence.
In fact - the more we learn about the big bang - the more we see God’s handiwork…right?

I have also put a big “DON’T KNOW AND DON’T CARE” sign on this for me personally.
Why?
Because there is no possible way I am ever going to know FOR SURE exactly what methods God used to create the universe.
If I am never going to know for sure - why have anxiety over it?
God could have used any method He wished.
If He chose to use evolution - who am I to argue with that?
I’ve chosen to trust Him on this one.

Don’t let this distress you - the Church does not tell us we have to understand Genesis in a literal manner.

 

[antiaphrodite]

Lorarose:

I’ve taken the science classes, and I’ve read about this issue quite a bit.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the genesis account does not have to be understood as 7 LITERAL days.
I’ve come to understand that the theory of evolution - if true- does not disprove God’s existence.
In fact - the more we learn about the big bang - the more we see God’s handiwork…right?

I have also put a big “DON’T KNOW AND DON’T CARE” sign on this for me personally.
Why?
Because there is no possible way I am ever going to know FOR SURE exactly what methods God used to create the universe.
If I am never going to know for sure - why have anxiety over it?
God could have used any method He wished.
If He chose to use evolution - who am I to argue with that?
I’ve chosen to trust Him on this one.

Don’t let this distress you - the Church does not tell us we have to understand Genesis in a literal manner.

:clapping: well said!



if the darwin-worshippers would just leave off their grovelling and behave objectively like they claim to be, i think science would improve a great deal…

 

[challenger]

“…the Church does not tell us we have to understand Genesis in a literal manner.”

Lateran VI says “…who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.”

Vatican I: “If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, or, shall have said that God created not by a volition free of all necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves Himself, or, shall have denied that the world was created to the glory of God: let him be anathema.”

Cologne: “Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that…those who…assert…man…emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith”

Leo XIII (from Providentissimus Deus): "“The commentator…must carefully observe the rule…not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires, a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.”

1994 Catholic Catechism (paragraph 116): "“The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and… ‘all other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.’”

 

[Lorarose]

“…the Church does not tell us we have to understand Genesis in a literal manner.”

Lateran VI says “…who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.”

Vatican I: “If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, or, shall have said that God created not by a volition free of all necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves Himself, or, shall have denied that the world was created to the glory of God: let him be anathema.”

Cologne: “Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that…those who…assert…man…emer ged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith”

Leo XIII (from Providentissimus Deus): "“The commentator…must carefully observe the rule…not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires, a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.”

1994 Catholic Catechism (paragraph 116): "“The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and… ‘all other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.’”

While the Church supports the words of scripture - neither the Church nor the scripture SPELL OUT for us exactly what methods God used in creating the world.
The catechism does not teach us that ALL of scripture is to be understood in the literal sense.
And there are different degrees to this issue.
For example…some christian evolutionists believe God may have used the process of evolution for creatures, but then directly created man “from nothing”
I’ve seen others argue that some of these pre-human fossils may have been humanlike creatures in appearance, but lacked a human soul in the image of God.
These folks argue that at some point God brought about modern humans and breathed His divine spirit into them (giving them souls - apart from other creatures)

And of course…catholics are free to believe in the literal sense of Genesis if they wish–despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary.

 

[WhatIf]

There is a lot of symbolism in Genesis. Don’t read it as a history book or a science book.

You may want to take a look at Scott Hahn’s salvation history website at www.salvationhistory.com

He explains the significance of the 7 days as it related to a covenant.

Get educated, but don’t let science shake your faith. They are not in conflict and if you ever think they are, then you know that you don’t know the CAtholic faith well enough. Sometimes, fellow Catholics aren’t much help either. Start researching the topic and you will find that no scientific theory or fact is really in conflict with the Catholic faith. If you find one, let us know.

Just don’t fall into the Protestant view of taking everything so literal that is in the Bible without considering the true intention of the book. Research the Catholic teaching on the book.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Nick98,

Have you ever asked yourself were God existed before time began or where God will be after the end of time? Have you ever wondered how God knows what the future looks like? God is spiritual and exists outside of physical time. God is Omni-Present to the whole of physical time.

God’s focal point is the creation of a, free from the will of God, being who has the capability to love God. Adam is at the center of God’s focal point of creation and the earth, stars, matter, energy and empty space all come into existance around Adam. What we see as billions of years of past did not come into existance billions or trillions of years ago but thousands of years ago. Time has no power over our Omni-Powerful Omni-Present to all time spiritual God. Both infinite past and infinite future physical time flowed out into existance on the week Adam was made thousands or tens of thousands of years ago.

Please visit Creation and Jesus Loves God to see biblical instances of spritual existance interrelating with physical existance.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[BibleReader]

nick908:

I am Roman Catholic and have been ever seen i was baptized as a baby. I’m having doubts though, against my will. I learned about evolution in biology class and am wondering how they have scientific evidence that disproves the bible? They actually have fossils, and carbon dating. Carbon dating does not lie. I am currently taking AP Chemistry and have learned about nuclear chemistry in holy carbon dating works. So my question is, if the whole earth was made in 7th days, evolution is false thing is true, how is science so strongly dispproving? I want to believe so badly, but im having doubts… HELP!!!

Hi, nick. Good question.

The creation accounts in Genesis are not a history book or a science book. The lessons which the creation accounts teach are not really about creation. They are lessons about Mankind and the Salvation Process engineered by Christ.

There is a very simple, obvious way to prove this: There are really two creation accounts, (1) Genesis 1, in which Mankind is created LAST of all the creatures, and (2) Genesis 2-3, the Adam and Eve story, in which Mankind is created FIRST of all the creatures.

The individual who pulled these two contradictory stories into one book, referred to as the Final Redactor or “R Source,” and suspected by some of being Jeremiah’s scribe Baruch, was fully aware that he was cramming two contradictory creation accounts into one book. But he didn’t care BECAUSE THEY AREN’T REALLY TRYING TO TEACH US THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, BUT THEOLOGY.

There’s another proof: Hebrew puns. The first part of Adam and Eve are filled with Hebrew puns. For example, in Genesis 2:23, when God intoduces Eve to Adam after creating Eve, Adam says, “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.” What does that mean? Re-translating two parts back into Hebrew explains: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘ishsha,’ for out of ‘ishah’ this one has been taken.” It’s a pun! In effect Adam was making a joke! If we translate THE LOGIC OF THE JOKE into English, and NOT the words, we get, “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘a herman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.”! Adam called Eve a “herman”!

There are several of these in the text. In other words, the story teller was making no effort at all to be technically accurate. He was telling a Dr. Seuss-like entertaining story, which EVEN ANCIENT HEBREW CHILDREN knew was fiction, in order to teach larger theological truths.

Do you want to see one?

14 Then the LORD God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, you shall be banned from all the animals and from all the wild creatures; On your belly shall you crawl, and dirt shall you eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” Genesis 3:14-15.
The boldface words refer to the fact that Jesus’ cross would pierce the ground at SKULL Place – get it? “He will strike at YOUR HEAD”? – while Jesus would be nailed to the cross THROUGH HIS FEET – get it? “while you strike AT HIS HEEL”?

In other words, the crucifixion is foreshadowed.

 

[challenger]

Lorarose:

While the Church supports the words of scripture - neither the Church nor the scripture SPELL OUT for us exactly what methods God used in creating the world.
The catechism does not teach us that ALL of scripture is to be understood in the literal sense.
And there are different degrees to this issue.
For example…some christian evolutionists believe God may have used the process of evolution for creatures, but then directly created man “from nothing”
I’ve seen others argue that some of these pre-human fossils may have been humanlike creatures in appearance, but lacked a human soul in the image of God.
These folks argue that at some point God brought about modern humans and breathed His divine spirit into them (giving them souls - apart from other creatures)

And of course…catholics are free to believe in the literal sense of Genesis if they wish–despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary.

What exactly would this scientific evidence be? Should I note that for quite awhile scientific evidence “supported” the theory of spontaneous generation?

 

[Lorarose]

It has nothing to do with spontaneous regeneration.
The earth is much older than what new earth creationists insist on believing.
I am not your science teacher - there are plenty of books at your local Barnes & Noble.
Certainly …read both sides of the issue.
I personally believe the intelligent design folks are onto something - but the new earth crowd doesn’t like their take on the age of the earth or evolution.

I’ll say it again…there is no way I will ever know EXACTLY how God did it - exactly what methods He used.
I could fret over this - and form a strong opinion on this, and it won’t matter a lick because what’s done is done.

I’m going to trust God on this one.

 

[nicole_german]

Hi nick908

Your answer is here
harunyahya.com/c_miracles_quran.php

God bless you

 

[BibleReader]

Hi, Nick.

Don’t go for the Quran. The Quran lacks these symbols foreshadowing the New Testament salvation process called “types,” because it is uninspired by God.

The Bible, on the other hand, has an almost “magical” foreshadowing of Christ and His sacrifice, as well as the sacraments.

Here’s another example of a foreshadowing of Christ built into even the first chapters of Genesis: The Agony in the Garden: Christ’s suffering began in the Agony in the Garden. So, first we see Christ retreating to the Garden to escape God’s wrath…

When they heard the sound of the LORD God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of the day, the man and his wife hid themselves from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. Genesis 3:8.

…and then we see Christ “sweating blood” to earn the Eucharist…

By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat, Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken…Genesis 3:19.

The Quran just can’t do this. It’s not inspired.