I
IWantGod
Guest
Like i said…talking snake
- Status
G
Glark
Guest
What do you mean by “Catholicism”?
Cardinal George Pell, for example, doesn’t accept that Adam and Eve were real, historical people. For starters, this means the genealogies in Genesis 5 and Luke 3 are not merely incorrect and mthyical - they are FABRICATED LIES.
The NT writers referrred to Adam and Eve as real people - according to folks like Cardinal Pell, these ignorant “inspired” fools didn’t know the difference between myth and fact. Even Jesus thought Adam was a real person! Why listen to any of these fairy-tale merchants?
I’m no expert, but something tells me that “science” that makes a mockery of Holy Scripture is definitely not compatible with Catholicism. Truth cannot contradict truth.
Cardinal George Pell, for example, doesn’t accept that Adam and Eve were real, historical people. For starters, this means the genealogies in Genesis 5 and Luke 3 are not merely incorrect and mthyical - they are FABRICATED LIES.
The NT writers referrred to Adam and Eve as real people - according to folks like Cardinal Pell, these ignorant “inspired” fools didn’t know the difference between myth and fact. Even Jesus thought Adam was a real person! Why listen to any of these fairy-tale merchants?
I’m no expert, but something tells me that “science” that makes a mockery of Holy Scripture is definitely not compatible with Catholicism. Truth cannot contradict truth.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
In Genesis 1, each of the six days of creation are demarcated by “there was an evening and there was morning”. Why would the Lord insert these words if he didn’t want the reader to think that the Scriptures are OBVIOUSLY referring to a normal day of 24 hours?
In Exodus 20, Yahweh commands that his people work six days and then rest on the Sabbath. He then DIRECTLY COMPARES these six (normal) days of work to the six days of creation (“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” - v. 11). Why on earth would he do that if he didn’t want us to believe that the six days of creation are six normal days of 24 durarion?
Furthermore, if billions of years of evolution is the truth, why did Yahweh GO OUT OF HIS WAY to make readers of his Scriptures believe something utterly different - ie, creation over a few days? And it was six “days”, not six years or six moons - in ancient times, a “day” was the smallest known measurement of time.
Allegory? What nonsense.
In Exodus 20, Yahweh commands that his people work six days and then rest on the Sabbath. He then DIRECTLY COMPARES these six (normal) days of work to the six days of creation (“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” - v. 11). Why on earth would he do that if he didn’t want us to believe that the six days of creation are six normal days of 24 durarion?
Furthermore, if billions of years of evolution is the truth, why did Yahweh GO OUT OF HIS WAY to make readers of his Scriptures believe something utterly different - ie, creation over a few days? And it was six “days”, not six years or six moons - in ancient times, a “day” was the smallest known measurement of time.
Allegory? What nonsense.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Do you think creation of life over two thousand years (Genesis says living creatures were created over two “days”) will satisfy those who accept billions of years of evolution as fact? Hardly.
Call me a stupid fundamentalist fanatic, but I prefer to believe the Scriptures than the opinions of fallible men. Be aware that origins science is dominated by atheists who have an agenda. Trust their “evidence of the world” at your peril.
And be aware that papal infallibility doesn’t extend to matters of science (that fact is painfully obvious).
The theory of evolution is a product of the athesim that emerged from the so-called Enlightenment; it’s a creation story for the godless (and euphemistically called “science”). These charlatans don’t fool me.
Call me a stupid fundamentalist fanatic, but I prefer to believe the Scriptures than the opinions of fallible men. Be aware that origins science is dominated by atheists who have an agenda. Trust their “evidence of the world” at your peril.
And be aware that papal infallibility doesn’t extend to matters of science (that fact is painfully obvious).
The theory of evolution is a product of the athesim that emerged from the so-called Enlightenment; it’s a creation story for the godless (and euphemistically called “science”). These charlatans don’t fool me.
Last edited:
S
setarcos
Guest
Current scientific consensus is that birds are not only closely related to dinosaurs but technically are dinosaurs from a phylogenetic perspective. My sources for this are the Berkeley university, the natural history musium, the Journal nature, Arizona state U school of life, and Journal Nature communications to name a few. The view is that modern birds are theropod dinosaurs evolved during the Mesozoic era.
Theories by their nature are subject to revision and theories on the origines of life are more subject to revision than most simply because these theories are incapable of being proved through repeatable experiment. They are dependent on the occumulation of a catalog of relatable data which is incomplete and constantly being added to. It was thought at one time that Achaeopterx was the earliest link between birds and dinosaurs then the discvery of Aurornis xui in china usurped its position. Then came the discovery of Achaeornithura meemannae which pushed the origins of modern birds back another several millions of years. We all know that the consensus of opinion has been proven wrong before with paradigm shifts. That birds predated land dwelling creatures in some form as far as I know would not be beyond the realm of possibility and possibilities are what we are discussing with regards genesis. If it can be proven that birds cannot have been created before these other creatures then the issue would be settled. It hasn’t yet. The data aquired so far has shown otherwise but as I have stated theories on origins are extremely susseptable to revision. The fossil record is full of anomylous discoveries. Is it possible that a bird like creatures fossilized remains will eventually be found that predates the first land dwelling creatures? I think its possible. Would the structure of these early birds and environment these first birds lived in have something to do with the rarity of them leaving fossils to find? I think this is possible too. Is it possible that Moses’s intention in using the term “birds” was to indicate flying creatures of some kind such as the Teradactyl and not like what we would term modern birdlike creatures? Perhaps these so called birds dominating the skies died out and left no fosslized eveidence ending their evolutionary lineage and then modern bird like creatures reevolved from dinosaurs later on. This I think is possible too. I am merely dealing with the possibilities the timeline given in genesis presents and while the current data doesn’t seem to back up these possibilities neither has it proven them impossible and until such time they are open to discussion and argument. It seems to me that, comparable to other mythologies on origins, genesis is quite scientific in its presentation. One can find the science, even in the mythology.
Theories by their nature are subject to revision and theories on the origines of life are more subject to revision than most simply because these theories are incapable of being proved through repeatable experiment. They are dependent on the occumulation of a catalog of relatable data which is incomplete and constantly being added to. It was thought at one time that Achaeopterx was the earliest link between birds and dinosaurs then the discvery of Aurornis xui in china usurped its position. Then came the discovery of Achaeornithura meemannae which pushed the origins of modern birds back another several millions of years. We all know that the consensus of opinion has been proven wrong before with paradigm shifts. That birds predated land dwelling creatures in some form as far as I know would not be beyond the realm of possibility and possibilities are what we are discussing with regards genesis. If it can be proven that birds cannot have been created before these other creatures then the issue would be settled. It hasn’t yet. The data aquired so far has shown otherwise but as I have stated theories on origins are extremely susseptable to revision. The fossil record is full of anomylous discoveries. Is it possible that a bird like creatures fossilized remains will eventually be found that predates the first land dwelling creatures? I think its possible. Would the structure of these early birds and environment these first birds lived in have something to do with the rarity of them leaving fossils to find? I think this is possible too. Is it possible that Moses’s intention in using the term “birds” was to indicate flying creatures of some kind such as the Teradactyl and not like what we would term modern birdlike creatures? Perhaps these so called birds dominating the skies died out and left no fosslized eveidence ending their evolutionary lineage and then modern bird like creatures reevolved from dinosaurs later on. This I think is possible too. I am merely dealing with the possibilities the timeline given in genesis presents and while the current data doesn’t seem to back up these possibilities neither has it proven them impossible and until such time they are open to discussion and argument. It seems to me that, comparable to other mythologies on origins, genesis is quite scientific in its presentation. One can find the science, even in the mythology.
S
setarcos
Guest
That depends on how we define evil? Is evil an entity in itself or an action that has been defined?
What do you mean by created evil? Are you refering to the allowance of its possible actualization?
It seems to me if God makes use of evil even if only after its creation by another then God has still caused evil to exist where it once did not.
S
setarcos
Guest
I’m sorry, I need clarification on what in my post you think this is a reply to? Are you agreeing that given the possibilities of the other so called miracles the possibility of a talking snake is no stretch?
G
Glark
Guest
You are assuming Eve heard an audible voice. Demons don’t need to speak in an audible voice to influence human beings.
S
setarcos
Guest
This is an uncomfortable fact but never the less it is there in scripture. I would have liked this post but as I said, it makes me uncomfortable and I dont like it.
G
Glark
Guest
I believe the thread is about theology and not about the science of evolution. If you want to discuss science, please find another thread.
G
Glark
Guest
Since evolution cannot be reconciled to the Scriptures, YES, YOU MUST REBUKE IT.
What are you afraid of? Do you have the spiritual fortitude to place the infalible Scriptures above the fallible “wisdom” of man"? God has placed before you a test - will you pass it?
Jesus said the Scriptures cannot be broken. Evolution says they can. The Lord wants to see which side you will choose.
What are you afraid of? Do you have the spiritual fortitude to place the infalible Scriptures above the fallible “wisdom” of man"? God has placed before you a test - will you pass it?
Jesus said the Scriptures cannot be broken. Evolution says they can. The Lord wants to see which side you will choose.
G
Glark
Guest
I believe the Scriptures teach that death entered creation as a result of Original Sin. Since there was no death before Adam and Eve, there could be no billions of years of evolution before Adam and Eve.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
The “evil” in this verse is not evil in the sense of sin; it refers to an unpleasant outcome. For example, the Ten Plagues visited on Egypt and the judgement of total destruction passed on Sodom and Gomarhea could be discribed as “evil” - but It doesn’t mean that God’s righteous judgement in theses cases was unjust or sinful. It simply means it is something very unpleasant that you don’t want in your life. There are many such uses of “evil” in this non-sinful sense in the Bible.ChunkMonk:
Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” (emphasis added)
If God created all things except Himself, and evil exists, then ipso facto God created evil.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
If God did not create evil, and evil exists, then there is some other creator at work somewhere. God is no longer the creator, but has been relegated to a creator, one of two or more different creators. I am not sure how that fits in with standard Catholic or Christian theology.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Evolution is consistent with the evidence of the world that God created. In effect you are saying that God’s word is not consistent with the world that God made. That makes God a deceiver along the lines of Loki/Trickster.
If God does not deceive, then the correct interpretation of God’s word is consistent with the correct interpretation of God’s world. ISTM that the Catholic Church is working towards that, and has been since Galileo if not before. Some Protestant groups did not learn the lesson of Galileo, and try to impose their particular interpretation of scripture on the world. That is a big mistake. In the end the evidence of the world always wins.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Your belief does not negate the evidence of billions of years of death. Have you any idea how many dead animals there are in rocks like the White Cliffs of Dover? Besides, Romans 5:12 says, “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” (emphasis added). Original sin did not have any effect on animals, just on men. Animals have always died; we have their fossilised bones and shells from well before the first men. Plants also died; every time a seed or nut is eaten a plant dies. Death existed before man.
rossum
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Well I choose the Lord and scripture. I hardly know a lot about evolution and it puzzles me how we came from monkeys. I wanted to see what facts this thread would produce in hopes of finding out how evolution is wrong or not. I am still unsure about evolution and it’s authenticity, seeing that there is a debate where one side says Catholicsm is compatible with evolution and the other side saying it isn’t.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Clearly this is not the place to look for such knowledge!
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
I learned my lesson 
G
Glark
Guest
Really? The Church’s infallibility extends to reconciling science with Scripture? Tell that to Galileo! Demonstrably, the Church is not infallible when it comes to wedding science to Scripture. This is because opinions on science are fallible and subject to change - as opposed to the Scriptures, which are infallible and not subject to change.
Speaking of which, the legacy of the Galileo fiasco still haunts the Church - the heirarcy is terrified of making the same mistake twice, which is why they persist in the nonsense that billions of years of evolution can be squeezed - kicking and screaming - in the Bible. They want to cover their bases, but they look theologically ridiculous in doing so. It’s embarrassing and farcical. Dawkins has noticed the theological absurdity of their positon and is rightly contemptuous of theist evolutionists.
Speaking of which, the legacy of the Galileo fiasco still haunts the Church - the heirarcy is terrified of making the same mistake twice, which is why they persist in the nonsense that billions of years of evolution can be squeezed - kicking and screaming - in the Bible. They want to cover their bases, but they look theologically ridiculous in doing so. It’s embarrassing and farcical. Dawkins has noticed the theological absurdity of their positon and is rightly contemptuous of theist evolutionists.
Last edited:
- Status