In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

[oyaji]

You can start with the Ark.

What is un-scientific about the ark and the flood? The fathers and doctors of the Church believed the flood to be an historical event and also that Noah build an ark, just as scripture states. Has science proven these to be not true? Or just hard to believe?

And while you’re at it, you can make the case for Exodus with the pagans turning water into blood too.

What is un-scientific about the Exodus? The fathers and doctors of the Church believed the Exodus to be an historical event, just as scripture states. Has science proven this to be not true? Or just hard to believe?

Oh and I’ll need evidence of Behemoth from the Book of Job alongside Leviathan.

Do you need evidence of dead men rising from the dead, or is that little story a fairy tale too?

 

[grannymh]

You can start with the Ark.

Adam and Eve had a boat in the Garden of Eden?

Excuse me. I have read something wrong in your post. My apology.

The reality is that the real people Adam and Eve began life in a direct relationship with a real Creator God. Could it be that God as Creator is the problem?

Or is the pre-Original Sin existence which is the problem?

Perhaps, the limitations of being a creature is the problem. Obviously, looking at our current world history, there are people who want to be God so they can do whatever they wish.

Could it be that the consequences of Adam’s free choice is the problem? For most people unfamiliar with Catholic doctrine, the consequences of Original Sin are a huge, huge, huge problem. I remember one poster who considered all human beings sin machines or something equally non-flattering.

As I recall there was nothing about Adam’s actions in the poll.
links.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9471596&postcount=657

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9471657&postcount=658

gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

 

[St_Francis]

You said:

When the whole of my statement actually says:

I felt that import of the second part of yoir statement was addressed by my explanation that I think about God through a Catholic “lens.” The last part of your statement was simply a command for me to do your work for you–to read about this and that and “figure it out myself.”

Since I know what the Church teaches about sin, conseuqences, and superstition and that knowledge has not yet led me to reject the reality of the OT stories, which your yourself claim to have rejected on scientific grounds anyway, that part didn’t really make a lot of sense to me.

If you really want to discuss things with people, you should keep a civil tongue and not assume the other person is acting maliciously. Explaining your reasoning and just ranting and telling them to figure it out themselves is not helpful to your argument.

So long…

 

[yankeeredneck]

On the contrary. There are elements that look like they’ve been borrowed from Babylonian creation stories and the concept of man molded out of dirt and clay is a trope shared by several other ancient cultures.

Why does the Creation story had to be plagiarized? All men are descendents of the flood survivors, so naturally, a story such as this would be remembered and handed down in every society. In the same way, Evolutionists believe that creatures created similarly must be descended from a common ancestor. A pickup truck and a Pinto each have four wheels. Therefore, they are both descended from a skateboard.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I felt that import of the second part of yoir statement was addressed by my explanation that I think about God through a Catholic “lens.” The last part of your statement was simply a command for me to do your work for you–to read about this and that and “figure it out myself.”

No. It didn’t.

Since I know what the Church teaches about sin, conseuqences, and superstition and that knowledge has not yet led me to reject the reality of the OT stories, which your yourself claim to have rejected on scientific grounds anyway, that part didn’t really make a lot of sense to me.

Nothing have of what you said addressed my point. For instance, we all know that punishment for sin is not the result of any action on God’s part. Divine wrath is an attribute of pagan deities, not our God. Superstition leads to similar belief that we are merely mortals waiting to be punished and rewarded for deeds the gods found pleasing and displeasing respectively. Catholic theology teaches a different world.

If you really want to discuss things with people, you should keep a civil tongue and not assume the other person is acting maliciously. Explaining your reasoning and just ranting and telling them to figure it out themselves is not helpful to your argument.

There is nothing worth being civil for when I’ve seen tactics like yours a hundred times over. Fundamentalists have done it. Atheists have done it. Now you’re doing it.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Adam and Eve had a boat in the Garden of Eden?

Excuse me. I have read something wrong in your post. My apology.

Nope but literalists insist on mixing in a boat and ripoff of Babylonian myth. (As shown by those those two above. )

Why does the Creation story had to be plagiarized? All men are descendents of the flood survivors, so naturally, a story such as this would be remembered and handed down in every society.

That doesn’t prove that the idea of a big boat containing all the world’s animals is scientifically possible.

In the same way, Evolutionists believe that creatures created similarly must be descended from a common ancestor. A pickup truck and a Pinto each have four wheels. Therefore, they are both descended from a skateboard.

Most evolutionists, theist and atheist, would tell you that this is a strawman.

 

[Robertanthony]

But that’s the thing, you don’t know if God actually DID have something to say about Mosaic law being in error. Why else would you think the Bible specified Moses and not God? In fact, we Catholics all know that the Bible isn’t even the end-all for our theology because we know that there are things in it that aren’t mentioned very clearly.

Parts of the OT remain suspect of human error. It’s the divinely inspired Word of God but the writers weren’t necessarily divine.

The way you phrase it means Mosaic law was in error, which I don’t believe it was. Do you believe the account in Numbers where it says that God punished Moses for not speaking to the rock instead of striking it, or do you think Moses could have interpreted his inability to reach the promised land as being the direct result of God’s punishment for his ever so slight disobedience?Besides, Jesus never said that the provision for divorce in the Mosaic law was a mistake, he said that it was such because of the hardness of people’s hearts who lived in Moses’ days. Nowadays nobody would think God is okay with incest, but if Adam and Eve were indeed the only humans, how could their children have multiplied with other people beside themselves (brothers and sisters), God accepted it at that time because no other option existed. God’s nature doesn’t change, his ways of dealing with us do change.

The reality of God is not dependent on human affirmation or understanding.

The reality of who he is (his nature) or his existence? Could you expand a bit, I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re alluding to.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

What is un-scientific about the ark and the flood? The fathers and doctors of the Church believed the flood to be an historical event and also that Noah build an ark, just as scripture states. Has science proven these to be not true? Or just hard to believe?

What is un-scientific about the Exodus? The fathers and doctors of the Church believed the Exodus to be an historical event, just as scripture states. Has science proven this to be not true? Or just hard to believe?

The fathers and doctors believed in tarasques, satyrs, and unicorns too. That doesn’t mean such creatures were real. And considering the sheer number of all the world’s species, it’s highly doubtful that a wooden boat can accommodate them all.

Again, explain to me why we’re not currently being ruled by dark, Egyptian overlords because they can transmute the Earth’s water supply.

Do you need evidence of dead men rising from the dead, or is that little story a fairy tale too?

False comparison. God I hate it when literalists make these anti-theological dichotomies.

Can science physiologically support the Bombardier Beetle, which shoots hot, burning liquids out of its behind to discourage predators? How about the Venus Flytrap?

Right… you compare a giant sea serpent with the potential to be Godzilla’s next opponent to… an insect and a house plant.

Again, wake me up when you see one trashing the nearest seaport.

With God, all things are possible.

That doesn’t mean God does things in a certain way.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The way you phrase it means Mosaic law was in error, which I don’t believe it was.

If it was perfect as it was, then there wouldn’t have any need to ‘fulfill it’ as it were. Jesus would have then cowed when the Pharisees started beating Him over the head with legalistic nitpicking.

Do you believe the account in Numbers where it says that God punished Moses for not speaking to the rock instead of striking it, or do you think Moses could have interpreted his inability to reach the promised land as being the direct result of God’s punishment for his ever so slight disobedience?

The latter. More reasonable, obviously.

Besides, Jesus never said that the provision for divorce in the Mosaic law was a mistake, he said that it was such because of the hardness of people’s hearts who lived in Moses’ days.

The bolded portion DOES sound like Him saying it was a mistake.

Nowadays nobody would think God is okay with incest, but if Adam and Eve were indeed the only humans, how could their children have multiplied with other people beside themselves (brothers and sisters), God accepted it at that time because no other option existed. God’s nature doesn’t change, his ways of dealing with us do change.

You’ve clearly forgotten Church teaching on culpability. Sin is still a sin but the gravity still depends on the situation. Review it. Even Catholic teaching tells us we can’t live in a vacuum free of bad circumstances.

I repeat: Change in actions implies a changing deity. Saying God changes is a heresy.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The reality of God is not dependent on human affirmation or understanding.

The reality of who he is (his nature) or his existence? Could you expand a bit, I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re alluding to.

First, there is no either God’s nature or His existence because God is Pure Spirit. It is we humans who have difficulty with the concept of both - and. So we are constantly looking at concepts as “either-or” also known as the mutually exclusive or.

Actually, I could say that I am alluding to the concept of objective existence which is another problem for today’s thinkers.

When I say that the reality of God is not dependent on human affirmation, I am implying that neither theists with their belief system nor non-theists with their non-belief system have power over God. An atheist can be very confident that God does not exist. Does that confidence make God disappear?

Somehow, people think that research papers can declare the non-existence of Adam and Eve. So the creationists, who make up the 46%, jump in with their beliefs about the reality of Adam and Eve. What I am pointing out, is that Adam and Eve’s existence does not depend on the winner of the evolution verses creation battle. Adam and Eve’s existence depends on God. Thus, the question becomes – Do people believe that God has the capability to create?

To expand on Adam and Eve’s existence, one can look to the Catholic Church for verification of the reality. From what I am seeing, Catholicism may be standing alone when it comes to the full knowledge of human origins.

Please continue to ask questions…

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Precisely.

Oh but no, the literalists here don’t want to accept anything that smells like a scientific view. They want real monsters. They want real ice mixed with fire in the form of burning hail. They want to stick to the medieval peasant way of thinking (and do so proudly).

They want a world that they can brag about to their equally delusional pagan counterparts who spend too much time playing Age of Mythology.

First you don’t believe in creationism (understandable for some people), but now you don’t believe in the ten plagues? Do you think Moses was just waving his hands, and Pharaoh was just an idiot?

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Yep, so why do literalists insist on the monsters being real? Why do they insist on the unimportant details? The answer: They’re just sad. Sad that the world found in their little storybook bibles is but a fairy tale.

Why are you so sure they are not real?

 

[Not_Sure_1]

You can start with the Ark.

And while you’re at it, you can make the case for Exodus with the pagans turning water into blood too.

Oh and I’ll need evidence of Behemoth from the Book of Job alongside Leviathan.

I’ve been looking for more fairy tales to deconstruct.

Job Chapter 40:25 - 41:26

Yeah. Sure. Find me a monster like that.

(Preferably when it’s trashing a city or wasting a couple of battleships. )

Oh great! now we are a bunch of Pagans making up fairy tales! Do you not believe that we hold the true faith, and have always held the true faith.

“If you believed in Moses, you would believe in me”

 

[Not_Sure_1]

No. It didn’t.

Nothing have of what you said addressed my point. For instance, we all know that punishment for sin is not the result of any action on God’s part. Divine wrath is an attribute of pagan deities, not our God. Superstition leads to similar belief that we are merely mortals waiting to be punished and rewarded for deeds the gods found pleasing and displeasing respectively. Catholic theology teaches a different world.

There is nothing worth being civil for when I’ve seen tactics like yours a hundred times over. Fundamentalists have done it. Atheists have done it. Now you’re doing it.

God practices divine wrath. It is righteous anger, and was displayed in the Old Testament.
Jesus even used righteous anger, when he pulled down the money changers.

Also, the Lord’s judgement and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

 

[Robertanthony]

Did Moses really part the Red Sea or did the Israelites become excellent swimmers with unbelievable cardios in matters of minutes?

 

[vz71]

Job Chapter 40:25 - 41:26

Yeah. Sure. Find me a monster like that.

Is it your contention that such a creature has never existed?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Grannymh,

You got me on that one… I thought I was doing good to keep two ‘balls in the air’ (Thesitic vs Atheistic accounts)… but, at the expense of accuracy. Yes, polygenism is out there and it is a real threat to Catholic teaching.

God bless

It is important to recognize Catholicism’s second position on evolution which is currently held by the Catholic Church. This position addresses the point at which the evolution model intersects with the Catholic doctrine of monogenism. Simply put, the Catholic Church holds that Adam and Eve are the true, sole, human founders of humankind. The evolution position of polgenism, which is not acceptable, is that humanity evolved from groups of breeding subhumans over time.

Here is an interesting link on scientific polygenism…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9192971&postcount=175

 

[lynnvinc]

…But the comment that actually moved me to responding was this: " I’m afraid the creationists pretty much weaken my and others’ beliefs, so I just have to ignore them before they can do harm to my faith in God (and I think they do much much harm to others’ faith as well, not to mention draw them into sin). " May I suggest that if you believe that your Faith is weakened by the beliefs of others who believe in God - but think God took a different approach - you start praying and working on strengthing your faith. And, really, such a post as you have presented is hardly an example of ‘ignoring them’.

By developing a strong Faith - through the Grace of God - we can keep to our own view of which theory we think is right … and appreciate the efforts of others in their work to promote the work of God … based on the theory they think is right. The Catholic Church is big enough to embrace both views without diminishing the believes of either group. I think this is an excellent role model for us to follow.

God bless

I’m sorry if I seem uncharitable, but it is sometimes more unchariable to go along with untruths.

As for me, my faith is weakened by those who take God to be some David Copperfield with a magic finger – an anthropomorphic (finite) entity that has great powers. Actually I’m in India right now and they have a TV series Sivam (I guess about the god Siva, bec our TV doesn’t work). They represent him as a human – which is typical of most theistic and polytheistic religions (tho Christianity & even Hinduism has always gone beyond such a view). St. John of the Cross has told us (and I was raised to believe) that God is beyond our finite human comprehension. That’s how the creationists harm my beliefs by making God according to their views, rather than accepting God, and understanding through creation a little about God – tho we will only see clearly in Heaven. If God chose to create creation thru a big bang and evolution, that really is His business, not ours. Why should we be in disagreement with God about how He created things. That is disrespect. I choose to accept what the scientists are saying (indeed I teach evolution), with the understanding that science can only deal with the material world (not the spiritual), and it advances and changes with better evidence and theories – I accept what they say provisionally. But to reject what they have found (we could have only found out about evolution, not made it up or imagined it without evidence from God’s creation), it seems to me to be a sin.

But really the biggest heart-ache for me is that young people being taught a strict, literalist creationism may eventually come to learn about evolution and realize the scientists are correct (and not just a bunch of evil, despicable people), and at that point they may turn against religion thinking it based on falsehoods (and perhaps used for nefarious purposes, if they fall in with some militant atheists). I think rejecting scientific “truths” – limited and subject to change with better evidence/theories tho they be – does harm to religion. Souls could be lost.

I used to have a “live and let live” attitude of let people believe whatever they will, as long as they believe God created creation. Now I’m thinking this attack against science and scientist by creationists and climate change denialists (within the Church) may backfire once people come to the truth, and they may leave the Church and may lose their immortal souls, not to mention it is not good for the souls of those who insist on rejecting what scientists have discovered. JPII and BXVI have chosen the wise path of accepting evolution, so as not to cause scandal to the Church and push young people out.

It is not charity to go along with untruths that may harm people.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

First you don’t believe in creationism (understandable for some people), but now you don’t believe in the ten plagues? Do you think Moses was just waving his hands, and Pharaoh was just an idiot?

Uh. Yeah. Actually, I would say lot of the ancient people’s weren’t so bright in some regards. These are the same people who believed the earth was on the back of an elephant or a turtle after all.

Why are you so sure they are not real?

Cuz they’re not rampaging across the seas, eating ships, and turning coastal cities into their own personal nesting ground.

Oh great! now we are a bunch of Pagans making up fairy tales! Do you not believe that we hold the true faith, and have always held the true faith.

I do not believe the true faith depends so much on mythical fantasies of ancient desert people.

Is it your contention that such a creature has never existed?

Of course, otherwise we’d be extinct. A monster like that would’ve decimated much of the world’s ecosystems both on sea and on land. Firebreath? Impenetrable steel hide? No primitive culture would’ve stood a chance.

The same with Behemoth.

In fact, plenty of mythological beasts would have the capacity to wipe us all out (even with modern day weaponry) unless we had equally fantastical means of putting them down.

 

[yankeeredneck]

For all of you who believe that death existed before the Fall of Adam, recall Sunday’s first reading at Mass:
“God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living. For he fashioned all things that they might have being…(- Wisdom 1:13-14)
and:
It was the wicked who with hands and words invited death…” - Wisdom 1:16 (not part of the reading). Thus you have the Scriptural (and therefore Catholic) view on the origin of death.