Comments by an Atheist. Please help on how to respond.

[helpmeout1]

Hi got into this argument and would like to know how to answer it. Please help if you could.

It started with the athesit’s comment: “Science vs Religion -can we have both? We have fact & we have fiction. If you want religion, you have to accept the fact that Genesis is basically a fictional tale. Adam & Eve were not real people. Homo Sapiens did not come from them. Serpents cannot talk. People can’t live for hundreds of years.
If you want science, you don’t have to ‘honour’ anything. Just look at the facts, & either accept them or not. The universe is billions of years old, homo sapiens have evolved. Fact vs fiction.”

Then I responded: “Just had to correct you. Homo sapiens evolving is not a fact, it is a theory that is lacking proof. and certain parts of the bible (such as Adam and Eve) are told in a story format and should not be taken literally, while other parts of the bible(such as the new testament) are suppose to be taken literally. The trouble is that certain denominations claim that everything should be taken literally.” ( I should have said evolution in not a fact instead of only homo sapiens.)

Then the athesist responded : "No, the real trouble is that historical Christianity has ALWAYS accepted a literal interpretation of Genesis, & that is the reason why some denominations still do. All anyone has to do is read some old sermons from the 17th or 18th century to see exactly how ignorant preachers were back of the real world.
The goal posts have been widened by Christians so as to spin-doctor scriptures to fit in today.
Luke 3:38 gives the geneology of Jesus back to Adam. If Adam is not real, then how could Jesus be real?
Only since it has been proven without doubt the age of the earth & how life has evolved. Before this happened, EVERYBODY in christianity accepted the literal Adam & Eve.
Study the geneology of Jesus Christ then ask yourself how Adam & Eve can only a ‘story’ if the bible traces Jesus’ ancestory back to them!
Homo sapiens evolving is not a fact,
According to who? Eric Hovind? lmao…there’s not one science disclipline on the planet that accepsts your statement. Please explain then Neandethal Man, Homo Erectus?

My path to atheism came from bilbe study, church history etc. Long journey. But Genesis cannot explain Neanderthal Man. Has no history for him. He’s different than us. Was he not made in the image of God? – & why did god make him? Homo Erectus? Defininetly human, but not sapien-god created?"

Please feel free to only answer certain questions/comments. I thank anyone who helps ahead of time. I would like to understand better and learn more so that I can defend the faith better, I look forward to learning plenty on this website. Thank you all.

 

[dmar198]

When it comes to Adam and Eve, Catholics can believe in evolution as an explanation for how the material part of man was formed. There is nothing in the doctrine of Adam and Eve as the first two real humans which contradicts the modern theory of our origin. Here are a few ways we can know this:

1. Catholics only need to maintain a few principles about Adam and Eve that are drawn from Genesis 1-2 and there is room for these few points to be surrounded by much that is symbolic. The things we need to maintain mostly concern the historical actions of the first man and woman, and thus they cannot be disproved by a scientific understanding of what humanity was generally capable of at the time.
2. We need to believe that there was a first man, and that at the beginning of his existence he was endowed with a special human soul. It is possible that mankind emerged from a primitive pre-human species. But one of them must have been the first actual man. That was Adam. His biological make-up may have been identical to his peers, or nearly-so; in fact you might not be able to tell him apart physically from other proto-humans if you set them side-by-side. But his soul was different and was special. He was endowed for a time with special holiness, an understanding of justice and a relationship with God, and he was immortal. Science cannot disprove that these qualities were in him, especially if the hand of God was involved. In fact Adam soon lost this special status, so even if science could tell us about the very person of Adam, it probably couldn’t discover his special qualities.
3. We need to believe that the first human woman was formed from the first human man. That is a claim about the historical facts and it is not incompatible with science. Science obviously knows that women do not ordinarily develop out of men, so this must have been something like a miracle.
4. We need to believe that Adam and Eve lived very special lives for a time. This does not mean they were not primitive in various ways. But they were protected from death and sickness and were naturally inclined toward goodness. They had a relationship with God and a marital relationship with each other, even if their understanding of marriage was simple. A divine command was laid upon them to prove their obedience to God, and Satan influenced them to sin. It may have been a simple matter or it may have involved some special observance – the tree and the fruit may be symbolic, but there was something they were not supposed to do, and they did it. The state of holiness, justice, and immortality was then lost. This is all Catholic dogma, and it is not incompatible with science because it mostly concerns a temporary historical situation regarding the first man and woman which scientific theories do not propose any obstacle to. Science can show in a general way what the state of the early primitive humans would have been like; but that does not disprove that certain ones among them were granted special status for a temporary period, and we do not need to deny that in many ways they were still primitive and returned to their primitive neighbors. Our species has developed considerably since their time, but they had something special for a period, though they lost it. For all these reasons, there can be no objection to these dogmas on scientific grounds.
5. We need to believe that every real human is a descendant of Adam and Eve. This does not mean that there were no others who were biologically identical to them, or as identical as different members of a species can be. They may have been identical to their peers as far as biology goes, but their souls were different. When members of primitive humanity mated, only those born of Adam and Eve and their descendants were the true humans as far as the soul is concerned. Science is aware that primitive species intermated with closely-related species. The fact that Adam and Eve and their descendants were just as primitive as their neighbors makes this a pretty common-sense reality. However that may be, all modern humans derive our DNA from the original Adam and Eve. If there were anything in this that scientists could disprove, it would be here: but science shows us that we do all share a common ancestor, in the sense that one person’s genes have made it into all our bodies. Thus it is not impossible for the two original ensouled humans and their descendants to have gradually dispersed their genes throughout early proto-humanity so that not very much time passed before all the members of their species owed their existence to Adam and Eve.

I hope this explanation helps show that the Catholic doctrine of Adam and Eve can be maintained within the framework of evolution. The primary doctrines concerning them are simply not incompatible with modern scientific discoveries: namely, the special creation of Adam’s soul, his immortality and original innocence, the creation of woman from man, the transgression of a divine command, the fall from grace, and the fact that, after Adam and Eve, there existed no real human (with the human soul) who was not a descendant of them.

 

[dmar198]

Regarding creation and evolution, Genesis 1 is not incompatible with modern scientific discoveries about the formation of the world and the evolution of species. Here are a few of the ways we can know this:

1. Genesis 1:24 - “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds.” This text allows room for a process of development in the creation of animals. It also shows us that animal development started with the material elements of the ground and proceeded by natural reproduction “according to their kinds.” Under this interpretation it is possible to accommodate the gradual advancements proposed by evolution within the formation of every beast by God.
2. “Let there be light.” According to Genesis this is how God started creating the things of this world. This is absolutely compatible with the image of a Big Bang. Dinesh D’Souza comments on this in his book, “What’s So Great About Christianity,” (pages 116, 118; quoting Steven Weinberg, “The First Three Minutes,” pages 6, 30):In a stunning confirmation of the Book of Genesis, modern scientists have discovered that the universe was created in a primordial explosion of energy and light. …*n a single cosmic explosion–the Big Bang–the universe we now inhabit came into existence. “The universe was filled with light,” Steven Weinberg writes. In fact, “it was light that then formed the dominant constituent of the universe.” The temperature was about a hundred trillion degrees Centigrade. Then, in a process vividly described by Weinberg in The First Three Minutes, the first protons and neutrons began to form into atoms. Once matter was formed, gravitational forces began to draw it into galaxies and then into stars. Eventually heavier elements like oxygen and iron were formed and, over billions of years, gave birth to our solar system and our planet. Crazy though it may seem, our terrestrial existence, indeed the very matter of which we are made, owes itself to a “creation event” that occurred around fifteen billion years ago.3) “The framework interpretation.” It is perfectly fine to interpret the six days of creation as a symbolic way of expressing the doctrine that God created all things and gave them order and beauty. Under this interpretation, the author of Genesis used the first three days to show that God created three “domains” and the fourth, fifth, and sixth days to show that God created inhabitants for each of these domains.

[table=“head”]First Triad| | |Second Triad
Day 1|Day and night (1:3-5).|Sun for the day, moon and stars for the night (1:14).|Day 4
Day 2|The sky and the sea (1:7-8).|Birds for the sky and fish for the sea (1:20).|Day 5
Day 3|Dry land (1:9) and vegetation (1:11)|Beasts and men to walk on the land (1:25-26) and eat the vegetation (1:29-30)|Day 6
[/table]

From this perspective, the “days” aren’t the focus but the arrangement of the domains to their inhabitants, and the days only serve as an image to help us see order in this. It’s not the daily sequence that we should focus on so much as the part of creation spoken of under each day, so that we see that they are made to complement and complete each other. If the author intended the days and the sequence to be symbolic, to serve the purpose of pointing to the orderliness in each thing being created for its respective domain, then there is nothing in this text that is incompatible with modern cosmology or the theory of evolution.

1. “The Day-age hypothesis.” Under this interpretation, the “days” of Genesis 1 are meant to refer to “ages” of indefinite lengths, and they include each other with significant overlap. Its supporters note that Genesis 1:14-18 says that the stars, sun and moon were created on day four, “to separate the light from the darkness,” yet it was on day one that God “separated the light from the darkness” – Genesis 1:4-5. Thus the “day-ages” overlapped each other significantly, they say. If Genesis 1 allows for long ages of formation and overlap in the sequence of formation, then there is nothing in it that is incompatible with modern cosmology or the theory of evolution.
2. “Advanced-earth creationism.” Advanced-earth creationists see the creation of the world and interpret it literally, but say that it included a built-in degree of advancement, so that it appears to be older than it is. Geological strata, fossils of prehistoric animals, and starlight that is billions of years old all came as part of the package, they say, so that man could investigate the earth and make discoveries that would prove beneficial in the scientific age. Advanced-earth creationists note that the plants created in Gen. 1:11-12 were already advanced in form, with the seeds of the next generation already prepared for planting. The rest of the world, they say, was like that: it came with age built-in, and that is what science discovers in its experiments.

Although evolution is not incompatible with the Book of Genesis, it is not necessary for a Catholic to believe in evolution. A Catholic who is a young-earth creationist should be prepared to explain why he believes the scientific evidence has been misinterpreted by those who believe in billions of years, and thus he should have a finely-developed understanding of the issues. But for those who do not see the wisdom of challenging the scientists on the issues of cosmology and biology, it is perfectly fine to interpret Genesis 1 in a way that leaves room in the doctrine of creation for modern scientific discoveries.*

 

[RedFox0456]

It is simply false that the Church has always held a literal interpretation of Genesis. I believe St. Augustine said it was difficult to interpret, and had a couple theories about it - including a question regarding what the “days” really were. They might not have said the Earth was billions of years old, but they certainly did not all accept it as a literal account.

 

[Miriam1947]

The difficulty with the the evolution theory as taught is that it opines that we are descended from apes.

The so-called missing link. Well it will always be missing because evolution is within species, not of species crossing over from one to another.

So have we evolved? Yes, but not from another species but within our own species.

One of the greatest discoveries is of DNA. It is basically information and information is not random.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Just as our understanding of science develops over time, so does our understanding of Scripture. The Church has never taught, as doctrine (de Fide) that Genesis is a literal account.

Until fairly recently, many scientists (Christian scientists, anyway) also believed that Genesis was literal. Does that mean that they don’t really believe in evolution today?

 

[ccmnxc]

Disclaimer: I will be stating my personal beliefs a good bit. I believe them to be in line with Catholic teaching and with reason. You don’t have to accept my opinions, I’d just like to provide them.

Hi got into this argument and would like to know how to answer it. Please help if you could.

It started with the athesit’s comment: “Science vs Religion -can we have both? We have fact & we have fiction. If you want religion, you have to accept the fact that Genesis is basically a fictional tale. Adam & Eve were not real people. Homo Sapiens did not come from them. Serpents cannot talk. People can’t live for hundreds of years.
If you want science, you don’t have to ‘honour’ anything. Just look at the facts, & either accept them or not. The universe is billions of years old, homo sapiens have evolved. Fact vs fiction.”

This type of thinking is tragically, all too common, these day. Unfortunately, the thinking part of it is rather absent. When it comes to Genesis, I guess it depends on what brand of Christianity and Biblical interpretation you hold to. Many Catholic (myself included) believe Genesis to be more of a fable (there are many types of writings in the Bible). I believe Adam and Eve were real people, however. It is just that I don’t believe they were the first homo-sapiens (their children married other people, after all). As far as serpents not talking, while I’d like to point out again that I believe Genesis to be metaphorical, they already seem to be presuming that God doesn’t exist to make snakes talk (in some miracle or another). The same is to be said for the life-spans. As far as his comments on science, I have few quips.

Then I responded: “Just had to correct you. Homo sapiens evolving is not a fact, it is a theory that is lacking proof. and certain parts of the bible (such as Adam and Eve) are told in a story format and should not be taken literally, while other parts of the bible(such as the new testament) are suppose to be taken literally. The trouble is that certain denominations claim that everything should be taken literally.” ( I should have said evolution in not a fact instead of only homo sapiens.)

Again, just my thoughts. You may have legitimate objections to evolution, but I see no problem with god using evolution as a mechanism for bringing about life.

Then the athesist responded : "No, the real trouble is that historical Christianity has ALWAYS accepted a literal interpretation of Genesis, & that is the reason why some denominations still do. All anyone has to do is read some old sermons from the 17th or 18th century to see exactly how ignorant preachers were back of the real world.
The goal posts have been widened by Christians so as to spin-doctor scriptures to fit in today.

As has already been stated, people as far back as Augustine thought of Genesis as non-literal. This was also the belief of Philo of Alexandria. To quote from Wikipedia: “Some Jews and Christians have long considered the creation account of Genesis as an allegory instead of as historical description, much earlier than the development of modern science. Two notable examples are Augustine of Hippo (4th century) who, on theological grounds, argued that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain account of Genesis would require;[3] and the 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time.[4]”
Source used for Augustine: “http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF9-07Ruest.pdf”

Furthermore, what does it matter if past people in the Church believed that Genesis was literal? For Catholics at least, it isn’t part of major doctrine one way or the other. So if people go with the science of the times, what is the problem. Would you opponent rather people NOT accept scientific evidence?

Luke 3:38 gives the geneology of Jesus back to Adam. If Adam is not real, then how could Jesus be real?
Only since it has been proven without doubt the age of the earth & how life has evolved. Before this happened, EVERYBODY in christianity accepted the literal Adam & Eve.
Study the geneology of Jesus Christ then ask yourself how Adam & Eve can only a ‘story’ if the bible traces Jesus’ ancestory back to them!

Once again, I think my last comment about changes with science still applies, but I will go further. Luke’s Gospel is concentrating on Gentiles as the audience. Luke wants to emphasize that Christ extends salvation to all people. When the genealogy goes back to Adam, it is symbolic of encompassing all of human-kind and showing how everybody can receive salvation instead of the select few (the Jews, for this particular audience).

Homo sapiens evolving is not a fact,
According to who? Eric Hovind? lmao…there’s not one science disclipline on the planet that accepsts your statement. Please explain then Neandethal Man, Homo Erectus?

Again, I believe in evolution, so I have no stake, here.

My path to atheism came from bilbe study, church history etc. Long journey. But Genesis cannot explain Neanderthal Man. Has no history for him. He’s different than us. Was he not made in the image of God? – & why did god make him? Homo Erectus? Defininetly human, but not sapien-god created?"

Being made in the image of God is not looking like Him (God is a spirit, so the entire notion is rather absurd). Rather we are imbued with characteristics like Him. This comes from a soul. If Neanderthal Man or Homo Erectus did not have a soul, we would not say they were made in the image of God.

Hope that helped.

 

[Steveabrous]

helpmeout1;10698632b:

Then the athesist responded : "No, the real trouble is that historical Christianity has ALWAYS accepted a literal interpretation of Genesis, & that is the reason why some denominations still do. *

.

Here are some exerpts from “The meaning of Genesis” a little known work but St. Augustine. He did not think it a literal interpretation. And basically said the interpretation is subject to scientific discovery (although I couldn’t find that part) this was written in the 4th century. Also you might remind your athiest friend the Augustine is no light weight, or that is just 1 mans opinion but doesn’t go for christians everywhere. He is a doctor of the church.

"o whether everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it
must be expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened. No Christian will dare say that the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense. For St. Paul
says: “Now all these things that happened to them were symbolic.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel(unbeliever) to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

 

[SuperLuigi]

Then the athesist responded : "No, the real trouble is that historical Christianity has ALWAYS accepted a literal interpretation of Genesis, & that is the reason why some denominations still do. All anyone has to do is read some old sermons from the 17th or 18th century to see exactly how ignorant preachers were back of the real world.
The goal posts have been widened by Christians so as to spin-doctor scriptures to fit in today.

But the Church has been widening the goal posts as more scientific truth is uncovered, from the “evolution” of life to the idea that Earth is not the center of the universe.

The atheist fails to see that the Bible was not meant to be a manual on how the universe was created or have all the secrets of the nature of the physical universe.

Luke 3:38 gives the geneology of Jesus back to Adam. If Adam is not real, then how could Jesus be real?

It’s called historical record. You may as well suggest that King Tut wasn’t real.

Only since it has been proven without doubt the age of the earth & how life has evolved.

:ehh:

“Doubt” is more of a religious word. The proper scientific term would be ERROR, and there is error in most every study.

Trust me, the age of the earth, the universe is anything BUT certain. We have an idea, but then again, they just found out the earth’s core was 1800 degrees hotter.

Before this happened, EVERYBODY in christianity accepted the literal Adam & Eve.
Study the geneology of Jesus Christ then ask yourself how Adam & Eve can only a ‘story’
if the bible traces Jesus’ ancestory back to them!

Everybody sure is a lot, but truthfully, it was the most obvious explanation available as modern science didn’t exist. People accepted it as the most plausible explanation.

But it was never the purpose of the Bible to be a science manual. That doesn’t mean the Bible is false, but the atheist needs to view it as a literary piece that often speaks in parables but does have very solid historical truths.

I would bet that as a scientist, I could find more errors in scientific journals and especially textbooks versus what he/she could find in the Bible.

In fact, anthropologists have used the Bible to find places that many experts thought didn’t exist.

According to who? Eric Hovind? lmao…there’s not one science disclipline on the planet that accepsts your statement. Please explain then Neandethal Man, Homo Erectus?

According to anyone credible in science who understands that science is about the process of elimination and testable, reproducible results.

Evolution cannot be proven because no experiment of a bacteria evolving into a human has been observed.

This is why evolution will remain a theory: the variable of time. Sometimes, people will cut corners by looking at things like insect wings, but in my view all that does is muddy the waters between adaptation and evolution.

Evolution is (to borrow a quote from Star Trek VI) “a theory that happens to fit the facts”. The lack of transitional fossils even with the recent discovery in Africa and the famous Lucy skeleton is pretty stark.

In reference to existing fossils, most of the digging is clearly done in geologically favourable regions. A lot of Asian anthropologists have a thing or two to say about that.

He/she just wants evolution to be true. I see this a lot with social activists or someone looking to justify something selfish.

My path to atheism came from bilbe study, church history etc. Long journey.

It doesn’t sound like it. A lot of people just reject God because it’s easy, and when you press them on it, they look left and right to try and find a victimhood status.

But Genesis cannot explain Neanderthal Man. Has no history for him. He’s different than us. Was he not made in the image of God? – & why did god make him? Homo Erectus? Defininetly human, but not sapien-god created?"

First of all, Homo erectus was NOT human. Human means Homo Sapien.

Genesis isn’t a taxonomy lesson.

Science can’t explain the Neanderthal or other higher primates either. They really can’t tell you how smart they are.

In fact, many of the animals that exist across the phylums are smarter than people realize, as are human children.

It’s a moot point anyways because the Catholic Church does not reject Evolution.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Hi got into this argument and would like to know how to answer it. Please help if you could.

It started with the athesit’s comment: “Science vs Religion -can we have both? We have fact & we have fiction. If you want religion, you have to accept the fact that Genesis is basically a fictional tale. Adam & Eve were not real people. Homo Sapiens did not come from them. Serpents cannot talk. People can’t live for hundreds of years.
If you want science, you don’t have to ‘honour’ anything. Just look at the facts, & either accept them or not. The universe is billions of years old, homo sapiens have evolved. Fact vs fiction.”

Monogenism (the reality of Adam and Eve as our first parents) is still a logically tenable position.

Then I responded: “Just had to correct you. Homo sapiens evolving is not a fact, it is a theory that is lacking proof. and certain parts of the bible (such as Adam and Eve) are told in a story format and should not be taken literally, while other parts of the bible(such as the new testament) are suppose to be taken literally. The trouble is that certain denominations claim that everything should be taken literally.” ( I should have said evolution in not a fact instead of only homo sapiens.)

Evolution, in one form or another, is pretty much scientific fact now. The word “theory” in the parlance of science does not mean the same thing as it does in common usage. Once something achieves the status of “theorem” in science, that means that it has a whole lot of statistical/empirical support.

A Jewish Torah scholar wrote a commentary on Genesis in the 13th century wherein he proposed that all life descended from a common ancestor, including humans, and that Adam and Eve were selected from a pre-existent race and given intellectual souls, thus becoming the first “man and woman.”

This idea has been proposed by Popes in recent history.

Then the athesist responded : "No, the real trouble is that historical Christianity has ALWAYS accepted a literal interpretation of Genesis, & that is the reason why some denominations still do. All anyone has to do is read some old sermons from the 17th or 18th century to see exactly how ignorant preachers were back of the real world.
The goal posts have been widened by Christians so as to spin-doctor scriptures to fit in today.

Actually, the Catholic Church has NEVER accepted a literal interpretation of Genesis. You’ll notice your friend referenced sermons from the 17th and 18th centuries, after the rise of Protestantism and Fundamentalism, and I’m more than willing to bet that the sermons he’s referencing are from Protestant/Fundamentalist ministers. Please inform your friend that Christianity was around for about 16 centuries before the 17th century.

Show him some of these quotes from the early Church fathers:

“For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally.” - Origen, 225 A.D.

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.” - St. Augustine (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

“Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them” - St. Augustine (ibid., 4:27).

“[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar” - St. Augustine (ibid., 5:2).

Luke 3:38 gives the geneology of Jesus back to Adam. If Adam is not real, then how could Jesus be real?

Adam was real.

Only since it has been proven without doubt the age of the earth & how life has evolved. Before this happened, EVERYBODY in christianity accepted the literal Adam & Eve. Study the geneology of Jesus Christ then ask yourself how Adam & Eve can only a ‘story’ if the bible traces Jesus’ ancestory back to them!

Again, evolution does not disprove Adam and Eve: Did Darwin Prove Genesis a Fairy Tale?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Homo sapiens evolving is not a fact,
According to who? Eric Hovind? lmao…there’s not one science disclipline on the planet that accepsts your statement. Please explain then Neandethal Man, Homo Erectus?

My path to atheism came from bilbe study, church history etc. Long journey. But Genesis cannot explain Neanderthal Man. Has no history for him. He’s different than us. Was he not made in the image of God? – & why did god make him? Homo Erectus? Defininetly human, but not sapien-god created?"

Recommend these books to him: Genesis and the Big Bang and The Science of God.

Genesis does not explain Neanderthals because Genesis is not a science book, it is a book about mankind’s relationship with God. But those two books, written by a former MIT
physics professor (and also MIT alumni) who is also a Torah scholar will cover everything you’ve brought up here and more: the age of the universe, evolution, Neanderthals, the Big Bang and more. And it’s not Young Earth pseudo-science. All of his arguments are made using widely accepted scientific facts and theorems placed side by side with both the text of Genesis itself as well as ancient commentaries written about it.

To give you an example, I’ve saved the best for last. I want you to show this quote to your friend and ask him what it is:

At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed.

Chances are he’s going to say it’s the Big Bang theory. Then you can proudly tell him that it’s a commentary on Genesis written by a Jewish scholar in the 13th century. There is alot more to the Bible than meets the eye.

There’s a lot more I could say, but it’s getting late. If you would like more information and sources, feel free to shoot me a private message.

God bless.

 

[mab23]

Glancing at his response he is ignorant of Christianity and the bible even if he knows a couple verses of scripture.

I would ask him to prove his point that the bible was always little because even John Chrysostom an early church Father made this clear and infact If I remember correctly Augustine had a hard time until he read some of John Chyrsostom’s homilies on the old testament and trying to literally interpret books from a time period of different culture, and writing literary styles

this book does really help with talking about the Catholic Church and Science

shop.catholic.com/the-catholic-church-and-science-answering-the-questions-exposing-the-myths.html

http://shop.catholic.com/media/cata...d27136e95/c/a/catholic-church-and-science.jpg

 

[jbeck43]

Regarding creation and evolution, Genesis 1 is not incompatible with modern scientific discoveries about the formation of the world and the evolution of species. Here are a few of the ways we can know this:

1. Genesis 1:24 - “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds.” This text allows room for a process of development in the creation of animals. It also shows us that animal development started with the material elements of the ground and proceeded by natural reproduction “according to their kinds.” Under this interpretation it is possible to accommodate the gradual advancements proposed by evolution within the formation of every beast by God.
2. “Let there be light.” According to Genesis this is how God started creating the things of this world. This is absolutely compatible with the image of a Big Bang. Dinesh D’Souza comments on this in his book, “What’s So Great About Christianity,” (pages 116, 118; quoting Steven Weinberg, “The First Three Minutes,” pages 6, 30):In a stunning confirmation of the Book of Genesis, modern scientists have discovered that the universe was created in a primordial explosion of energy and light. …*n a single cosmic explosion–the Big Bang–the universe we now inhabit came into existence. “The universe was filled with light,” Steven Weinberg writes. In fact, “it was light that then formed the dominant constituent of the universe.” The temperature was about a hundred trillion degrees Centigrade. Then, in a process vividly described by Weinberg in The First Three Minutes, the first protons and neutrons began to form into atoms. Once matter was formed, gravitational forces began to draw it into galaxies and then into stars. Eventually heavier elements like oxygen and iron were formed and, over billions of years, gave birth to our solar system and our planet. Crazy though it may seem, our terrestrial existence, indeed the very matter of which we are made, owes itself to a “creation event” that occurred around fifteen billion years ago.3) “The framework interpretation.” It is perfectly fine to interpret the six days of creation as a symbolic way of expressing the doctrine that God created all things and gave them order and beauty. Under this interpretation, the author of Genesis used the first three days to show that God created three “domains” and the fourth, fifth, and sixth days to show that God created inhabitants for each of these domains.

[table=“head”]First Triad| | |Second Triad
Day 1|Day and night (1:3-5).|Sun for the day, moon and stars for the night (1:14).|Day 4
Day 2|The sky and the sea (1:7-8).|Birds for the sky and fish for the sea (1:20).|Day 5
Day 3|Dry land (1:9) and vegetation (1:11)|Beasts and men to walk on the land (1:25-26) and eat the vegetation (1:29-30)|Day 6
[/table]

From this perspective, the “days” aren’t the focus but the arrangement of the domains to their inhabitants, and the days only serve as an image to help us see order in this. It’s not the daily sequence that we should focus on so much as the part of creation spoken of under each day, so that we see that they are made to complement and complete each other. If the author intended the days and the sequence to be symbolic, to serve the purpose of pointing to the orderliness in each thing being created for its respective domain, then there is nothing in this text that is incompatible with modern cosmology or the theory of evolution.

1. “The Day-age hypothesis.” Under this interpretation, the “days” of Genesis 1 are meant to refer to “ages” of indefinite lengths, and they include each other with significant overlap. Its supporters note that Genesis 1:14-18 says that the stars, sun and moon were created on day four, “to separate the light from the darkness,” yet it was on day one that God “separated the light from the darkness” – Genesis 1:4-5. Thus the “day-ages” overlapped each other significantly, they say. If Genesis 1 allows for long ages of formation and overlap in the sequence of formation, then there is nothing in it that is incompatible with modern cosmology or the theory of evolution.
2. “Advanced-earth creationism.” Advanced-earth creationists see the creation of the world and interpret it literally, but say that it included a built-in degree of advancement, so that it appears to be older than it is. Geological strata, fossils of prehistoric animals, and starlight that is billions of years old all came as part of the package, they say, so that man could investigate the earth and make discoveries that would prove beneficial in the scientific age. Advanced-earth creationists note that the plants created in Gen. 1:11-12 were already advanced in form, with the seeds of the next generation already prepared for planting. The rest of the world, they say, was like that: it came with age built-in, and that is what science discovers in its experiments.

Although evolution is not incompatible with the Book of Genesis, it is not necessary for a Catholic to believe in evolution. A Catholic who is a young-earth creationist should be prepared to explain why he believes the scientific evidence has been misinterpreted by those who believe in billions of years, and thus he should have a finely-developed understanding of the issues. But for those who do not see the wisdom of challenging the scientists on the issues of cosmology and biology, it is perfectly fine to interpret Genesis 1 in a way that leaves room in the doctrine of creation for modern scientific discoveries.*

Just read over your wonderful posts and wanted to thank you for your fine, detailed answer. Excellent.

 

[jbeck43]

Dmar198, can you suggest any further reading on this subject? Thanks in advance.

 

[Michael_Francis]

*Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads
i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/threadclosed-1.png
*