Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dixieagle said:
40.png
Techno2000:
At what point in man’s evolution did God hold him responsible for his sins.
Click to expand...
That would be when - as the Sisters of St. Joseph taught - God breathed a soul into the creature known as Adam who then, with his wife Eve, chose to disobey.

But you knew that. 😉
Click to expand...
You mean when he breathed a soul into the offspring of two Neandertals…right ?
 
Gorgias said:
Actually, this analysis comes from Scripture scholars, not Darwinian scientists.
Click to expand...
Oh, let me guess … the “Scripture scholars” who claim Genesis 1 is a poem are also ‘scholars’ who also support evolution? Charlatans, in other words. I would wager that no theologian ever thought of Genesis 1 as a poem until the advent of Darwinism.
No – the “evening watch” is a measure of a period of time that is less than one day. Remember – your claim is that there weren’t measures of time less than the day’ in the OT. I’ve just shown your claim to be inaccurate.
Click to expand...
An “evening watch” was a standard unit of time used in the era of Moses? What nonsense. An “evening watch” was no doubt less time than a day, but that doesn’t mean it was used as a standard unit of time … anymore than the time it took to walk from Bethlehem to Jerusalem was used a standard unit of time. I can find “day … week … month … year” used as standard units of time in the Moses’s era, but not “evening watch” used as a standard unit of time.
 
Rau said:
Do you know how to recognise “diabolical disorientation”? [Hint: It involves Dogmas of the Faith].
Click to expand...
Please provide a citation in which Sister Lucy says the “diabolical disorientation” she referred to applies exclusively to Dogmas of the Faith.
 
Last edited:
It’s really just an easy way to organize biology. It shouldn’t be used as an excuse to ignore God.
 
Techno2000 said:
So all the Great scholars of the Catholic Church completely missed something so monumental as evolution ?
Click to expand...
Theories about life evolving from simple beginnings have been around for thousands of years - the Greeks proposed such things as far back at as 600 BC. But the God of the Bible, knowing that we are the result of billions of years of evolution, misled us all for at least six thousand of those years by coming up with a fairy tale about six days of creation and Adam and Eve. The good Lord even went so far as to fabricate genealogies in Genesis 5 and Luke 3 that go all the way back to “Adam”, whom we know now never existed. He inspired various humans to write this fairy tale down in the Old and New Testaments - which God assured us was “inerrant”.

You see, God wanted to kept the big truth a big secret until He inspired his messenger, Charles Darwin, to reveal it. But I wonder why the Lord revealed the awesome truth through an agnostic/atheist and not the Church? And I wonder why He wanted to keep it a secret in the first place?

Jesus, being Divine, must have known about the truth of evolution, but said nothing. On the contrary, He backed the fairy tale about “Adam”. God certainly works in mysterious ways!

Er, hang on - why should I put my trust in this God who misleads us and doesn’t tell the truth? And are any other parts of His “inerrant” Bible that are fairy tales as well?
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
the six days of creation pretty much follow the actual scientific chronology --light first, then seas, then separation of land from sea, then creatures, then man. Sounds pretty much like evolution, right?
Click to expand...
Plants growing before the Sun was created sounds like evolution?

Theophilus (early Church Father, c. 185): “On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.” Theophilus, 2.15.
 
Last edited:
I have notice that evolutionist like to throw around big words, but they can never give simple details.
 
Glark said:
he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth came from the stars,
Click to expand...
They say that now, that life on earth could have come from outer space .
 
When I said “it’s all literal” I meant my interpretation is all literal - as opposed to part-literal and part-allegorical.

As for the rest of your post, it’s off-topic. It’s about theology, not whether or not evolution is true or not.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
To do anything else would be to indulge in some kind of grand conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
This “some kind of grand conspiracy” has a name - the Great Apostasy; it’s a prophesy from 2Thess 2.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
Golly gosh… do ya think that means that God is telling us that the Bible is about salvation, not science?!? 🤔 😉
Click to expand...
This is a weak argument and one that theistic evolutionists always resort to in order to avoid the absurdity of reconciling their fairy tale with Scripture.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
What is surprising is that you think that (1) the Bible is a science book and (2) anyone reading the Bible would be expected to glean scientific knowledge from it.
Click to expand...
Why do you persist with this falsehood that I think the Bible is a science book? I’ve told you twice already that I don’t. Do you hate creationists that much that you must be dishonest towards them?
 
Last edited:
setarcos said:
Science is no more the all consuming evil that you make it out to be
Click to expand...
Really. Kindly point out the post in which I said science is an all consuming evil. This is the same dishonest rubbish I cop from atheists. (I wonder why I’m studying for a Physics degree if I hate science?)
 
Science can be used to study the supernatural? LOL!!!

Man arms himself with the god of science and the Lord laughs.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
I suspect we’re using “Genesis” as shorthand to mean “the first few chapters of Genesis”, right? After all, there is historical narrative in Genesis, and we’d want to hold to the stance that we read it as such. However, it’s just not the case that all of Genesis is historical narrative.
Click to expand...
All you have to do now is figure out where the myth ends the reality begins. What about the genealogy in Genesis 5? Historical fact or allegory?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top