Did people really live hundreds of years?

[Zipply]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck

.

Yes. 20 year odl ducks all sound the same.

At best it’s misleading. You don’t need to say someone lived to an age they didn’t just to make them sound holier. And the whole “it means they were righteous” theory doesn’t stand up to them saying that they begat their children at certain ridiculously large ages.

. The OT scriptures were converted from oral story-telling (of a very high order) to written text not before 1,000 BC. You are talking about stories that came down from before Abraham, before there was an ‘Israel’. These are ancient. Catholic theology of revelation is not a magic trick whereby nothing in the stories ever was changed through thousands of years of re-telling.

It takes a huge stretch to make the text mean that they wanted to make them sound holier by saying those ages. Also it makes Moses, bearer of the Commandments sound far less holy than those who lived to their 900s pre-Flood.

Except that Moses lived far closer in time to the actual writing down of the tales into scripture, get it? The fact that Moses is not credited with extreme old age (and in fact sort of dies unrequited) is strong evidence that his story is told literally, maybe fewer than 300 years between his death and the writing.

 

[buffalo]

Randomusername posted:

See above. Not dogma. Actually the Leo XIII reference is not from any teaching on scripture or science…it’s from his encyclical on marriage. Nice sleight of hand, eh?

Not dogma. You need to cite this, since this is the same Pope who allowed investigation into human evolution as not being contradictory to the faith.

If you see anyone disputing this, let me know.

No. That was your quote from the list posted by Buffalo which was written by a certain crackpot priest named Warkulwiz and published by a crackpot 6-day creationist group in California. An actual list of Dogmas concerning creation appears in Ott:

Dogmas and teachings on Creation and the Fall from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (TAN Books, 1974), pages 79-122 on “The Divine Act of Creation” and “The Divine Work of Creation” :

It is bad practice to criticize a priest here in the forums. (could get you suspended)

So, which one of those on the list are wrong? And cite your sources…

 

[buffalo]

.

Yes. 20 year odl ducks all sound the same.

. The OT scriptures were converted from oral story-telling (of a very high order) to written text not before 1,000 BC. You are talking about stories that came down from before Abraham, before there was an ‘Israel’. These are ancient. Catholic theology of revelation is not a magic trick whereby nothing in the stories ever was changed through thousands of years of re-telling.

Except that Moses lived far closer in time to the actual writing down of the tales into scripture, get it? The fact that Moses is not credited with extreme old age (and in fact sort of dies unrequited) is strong evidence that his story is told literally, maybe fewer than 300 years between his death and the writing.

Some scholars believe Moses had tablets in his possession and compiled the Pentateuch.

 

[buffalo]

Randomusername posted:

See above. Not dogma. Actually the Leo XIII reference is not from any teaching on scripture or science…it’s from his encyclical on marriage. Nice sleight of hand, eh?

The longheld teaching of the church is

I confess … that all men from Adam onward who have been born and have died up to the end of the world will then rise again and stand “before the judgment-seat of Christ,” together with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of the man (… )** Pope Pelagious Feb 3, 557** Ecumenical Council of Vienne in 1312 - [We confess] … that after [Jesus’] spirit was already rendered up, his side suffered perforation by a lance, so that through the ensuing flow of water and blood, the one and only, immaculate, virgin holy Mother Church, the Spouse of Christ, might be formed, just as from the side of the first man, cast into sleep, Eve was formed for him unto marriage. This happened so that the reality manifested in our last Adam, that is, Christ, might correspond to a certain prefiguring of that reality constituted by the first and ancient Adam, who, according to the Apostle, “is a type of the one who was to come” [cf. Rom. 5: 14]

What is the true origin of marriage? That, Venerable Brethren, is a matter of common knowledge. For although the revilers of the Christian faith shrink from acknowledging the Church’s permanent doctrine on this matter, and persist in their long-standing efforts to erase the history of all nations and all ages, they have nonetheless been unable to extinguish, or even to weaken, the strength and light of the truth. We call to mind facts well-known to all and doubtful to no-one: after He formed man from the slime of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and breathed into his face the breath of life, God willed to give him a female companion, whom He drew forth wondrously from the man’s side as he slept. In bringing this about, God, in his supreme Providence, willed that this spousal couple should be the natural origin of all men: in other words, that from this pair the human race should be propagated and preserved in every age by a succession of procreative acts which would never be interrupted. And so that this union of man and woman might correspond more aptly to the most wise counsels of God, it has manifested from that time onward, deeply impressed or engraved, as it were, within itself, two preeminent and most noble properties: unity and perpetuity. Pope Leo XIII

 

[buffalo]

Then we have - PBC 1909

Whether, in particular, the literal historical sense (sensus litteralis historicus) may be called in question (vocari in dubium possit), where it is a question of facts narrated in these chapters (ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis) which involve the foundations of the Christian religion (quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt), as are, among others, the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special [or, particular] creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man (formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine); the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity and immortality; the precept given by God to man in order to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine precept under the persuasion of the devil in the guise of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from the aforesaid primaeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Saviour?

Response: In the negative (Negative).

The fact that this has been the constant teaching of the church cannot be denied.

Produce the magisterial document that overturned this.

 

[buffalo]

Then Pope Benedict XVI takes a shot at evo.

** Pope Benedict’s Easter Homily - Creative Reason **

“The creation account tells us, then,that the world is a product of creative Reason.” - perhaps the pope would like IDvolution. Pope Benedict: Easter brings us to the side of reason, freedom and love “It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.”

 

[buffalo]

---

A powerful must see video:

---

**The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism **

The Similarity Between Science and Magic

1. Science as religion
2. Science as credulity
3. Science as power

Evolution is an alternative religion

 

[CalCatholic]

The Church has been down a similar path before.

At one time people claimed that the sun must revolve around the earth because man is at the center of creation; any scientific evidence that the earth revolves around the sun must necessarily be untrue because such a thing would contradict the theological understanding that the Son assumed human nature.

Once it became absolutely indisputable that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun, and that there is no point in trying to claim otherwise, the Church accepted the findings of science. Too late. It is apparent that some have yet not learned that hard lesson.

Now, several centuries later, we have the same faulty logic being applied: evolution (meaning, “scientific discoveries about evolution”) cannot be true because if evolution is true, then the dogma of Original Sin falls apart. I would like to write “needless to say, this type of reasoning is fallacious” but alas, I cannot write that because there is indeed a need to say it (posts on this and similar threads illustrate that need). The fact that it needs to be said is most unfortunate.

The point is that we cannot argue for-or-against theories of evolution based on theological truths, no matter how important/essential those truths might be. Evolution (in the broadest sense of the word) is a fact. It can no more be disputed than the fact that the earth goes 'round the sun can be disputed. It remains for scientists to discover how evolution happens (and has happened). Evolution is not a theological discipline.

No matter what science might discover (or hypothesize) about the origins of man, nothing will change the fact that we are born with Original Sin and we need the redemptive acts of Christ for our salvation. For that reason, we need not fear the findings of science. No scientific discovery will, nor can, change the truths of the Christian faith. Some people have yet to learn that; and as a result they try to dispute the findings of science with theological arguments. Some people just refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past.

This!

 

[grannymh]

For the benefit of people who have not kept up with science.

One of the current models for human origin merited this proclamation in 1950.
“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.”
Humani Generis, Pius XII, sections 35, 36, 37.

Referring to subsequent popes –
We need to be a tad careful about implying that recent popes could teach evolution (as they did) without running afoul of Church teaching. Depending on the reader’s science knowledge, that general assumption could possibly be taken as an attack on the integrity of the Catholic Church, especially its Popes.

Those who have not kept up with science need to be aware of 21 century science which continues the direct theoretical opposition to Catholic doctrines on human origin, human nature, and Original Sin which, as we know, leads to the undermining of the mystery of Christ.

Thus, those who do refer to the teachings of recent Popes, need to absolutely identify the proper evolution model with a precise citation.

The Catholic Church opposes the current updated evolution model of human origin (species originate in populations).

 

[grannymh]

The Church has been down a similar path before.

At one time people claimed that the sun must revolve around the earth because man is at the center of creation; any scientific evidence that the earth revolves around the sun must necessarily be untrue because such a thing would contradict the theological understanding that the Son assumed human nature.

Once it became absolutely indisputable that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun, and that there is no point in trying to claim otherwise, the Church accepted the findings of science. Too late. It is apparent that some have yet not learned that hard lesson.

Now, several centuries later, we have the same faulty logic being applied: evolution (meaning, “scientific discoveries about evolution”) cannot be true because if evolution is true, then the dogma of Original Sin falls apart. I would like to write “needless to say, this type of reasoning is fallacious” but alas, I cannot write that because there is indeed a need to say it (posts on this and similar threads illustrate that need). The fact that it needs to be said is most unfortunate.

The point is that we cannot argue for-or-against theories of evolution based on theological truths, no matter how important/essential those truths might be. Evolution (in the broadest sense of the word) is a fact. It can no more be disputed than the fact that the earth goes 'round the sun can be disputed. It remains for scientists to discover how evolution happens (and has happened). Evolution is not a theological discipline.

No matter what science might discover (or hypothesize) about the origins of man, nothing will change the fact that we are born with Original Sin and we need the redemptive acts of Christ for our salvation. For that reason, we need not fear the findings of science. No scientific discovery will, nor can, change the truths of the Christian faith. Some people have yet to learn that; and as a result they try to dispute the findings of science with theological arguments. Some people just refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past.

This is well argued. Still, I will add an important point to this sentence.
From post 57
“The point is that we cannot argue for-or-against theories of evolution based on theological truths, no matter how important/essential those truths might be.”

The important observable point is that both Pope Pius XII and St. John Paul II have argued against the human, not ants and plants, evolution model, not from a theological position, but from its exact scientific position. Polygenism, an older description for the current “species originate as populations” scientific model is definitely opposed by Catholic doctrines. The scientific elimination of the spiritual principle is also opposed by Catholic doctrines. Why? Because on the science level, scientists cannot definitively and dogmatically proclaim their absolute truth in the natural world. Please recall that not every inch and every minute can be accounted for when going thousands of years backwards.

The current accepted theory of hominin subhumans gradually developing over many years is a scientific “principle” which cannot rule out the possibility of two sole human founders of humankind. Scientific theories cannot provide the hard data needed for every day everywhere on planet earth going thousands of years backward. It is time to face the facts about assumptions in research formulas.

 

[grannymh]

For the benefit of people who have not kept up with science.

Referring to Catholic popes –
We need to be a tad careful about implying that recent popes could teach evolution without running afoul of Church teaching. That general assumption could* possibly* be taken as an attack on the integrity of the Catholic Church, especially its Popes.

Those who have not kept up with science need to be aware of 21st century science which continues direct theoretical opposition to Catholic doctrines on human origin and human nature. Thus, those who do refer to the evolution teachings of recent Popes need to absolutely identify the proper evolution model, such as that for ants and plants, with a precise citation. Otherwise, there is possible slander.

 

[grannymh]

Regardless of thousands of quotes, there is not one complete context in which either St. John Paul II or Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, when he was actually the Pope, specifically and precisely, clearly taught that the main principle of the science of human evolution (human species origination as a large breeding hominin population on a cladistics diagram) agrees with Catholic doctrine.

 

[buffalo]

They absolutely show the constant teaching of the church. No squirming away from that. If the argument is that is no longer the teaching then show the magisterial document explaining how we got it wrong for so long. Was the holy Spirit sleeping?

 

[clem456]

Regardless of thousands of quotes, there is not one complete context in which either St. John Paul II or Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, when he was actually the Pope, specifically and precisely, clearly taught that the main principle of the science of human evolution (human species origination as a large breeding hominin population on a cladistics diagram) agrees with Catholic doctrine.

And what is your point? That JP2 is not a scientist? Point taken.

Is your point that he rejects a particular scientific theory?
Nope. He still isn’t a scientist.

Really, at some point can admit that you have an opinion about particular scientific theories, (as I do also), but you are attempting to make the Church endorse what you believe when it simply and clearly does not?

 

[clem456]

[/INDENT]The important observable point is that both Pope Pius XII and St. John Paul II have argued against the human, not ants and plants, evolution model, not from a theological position, but from its exact scientific position. Polygenism, an older description for the current “species originate as populations” scientific model is definitely opposed by Catholic doctrines.

This is not true as has been pointed out several times.

The scientific elimination of the spiritual principle is also opposed by Catholic doctrines.

This is true. When science makes incorrect assumptions about the existence of God and his absolute role in creation, both Popes have issued corrections, as they should.

Why? Because on the science level, scientists cannot definitively and dogmatically proclaim their absolute truth in the natural world. Please recall that not every inch and every minute can be accounted for when going thousands of years backwards

.
But you believe Popes can and do define scientific explanations for the natural world?
It’s as false to think one as it is the other.

 

[grannymh]

And what is your point? That JP2 is not a scientist? Point taken.

Is your point that he rejects a particular scientific theory?
Nope. He still isn’t a scientist.

Really, at some point can admit that you have an opinion about particular scientific theories, (as I do also), but you are attempting to make the Church endorse what you believe when it simply and clearly does not?

??

I am not a scientist. However, I can tell the difference between a breeding population of 10,000 and a population of two.

 

[grannymh]

.
But you believe Popes can and do define scientific explanations for the natural world?
It’s as false to think one as it is the other.

??

Little old me? You have me confused with my evil twin sister.

 

[grannymh]

And what is your point? That JP2 is not a scientist? Point taken.

Is your point that he rejects a particular scientific theory?
Nope. He still isn’t a scientist.

I am not a scientist; yet, I know the difference between the “scientific” breeding population of thousands and a “Catholic” population of two fully-complete human persons. Don’t tell anyone that
I bet that St. John Paul II also knows the difference between a breeding
population of thousands and a population of two fully-complete human persons.

 

[Zipply]

I am not a scientist; yet, I know the difference between the “scientific” breeding population of thousands and a “Catholic” population of two fully-complete human persons.

Yes, that’s what we’ve all been discussing. Where do you go? The problem with discussing things on the anonymous internet is you never know who or what you are talking to. Could be a genius who is just unable to express things on your level. Could be an escaped mental patient. Could be a snake handler. You never know.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Departed from topic an closed…