O
Orogeny
Guest
Are you suggesting that the Pope is involved with some old pagan religion? Or is he just ignorant?
Peace
Tim
- Status
Peace
Tim
C
cassini
Guest
You see Sparrows how it works. Try to defend tradition today and you are pitted against popes. The answer to your loaded question Orogeny has to be both, but not intentionally, only by ignorant association.
Oh, by the way, In 1981 Cardinal Ratzinger was not a pope.
O
Orogeny
Guest
You made an assertion that the paper I referred you to contains falsehoods (actually, you suggest that it does not contain truth). Why not just defend what you wrote rather than cry to Sparrows that you are being persecuted?
It must be incredible to know the faith better than a man like Benedict XVI.
Really? I didn’t know that.
Oh, by the way, that publication was in 2004, hence the title.
Peace
Tim
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
You will find many answers here at the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. As others have said here (very well, I may add), the theory of evolution is neither fact nor truth, and its not even true science classically defined. In the end it requires faith, not evidence, and you will do well to continue to place all your faith in the Son of God who preaches and teaches that “not one jot or tittle of the Law (which includes Genesis) shall fail til all is fulfilled” and that “the scripture cannot be broken.”
There is not one Roman Catholic Magisterial teaching document, Papal encyclical, approved Catechism, Doctor of the Church or Patristic Father that compels a Christian to accept these ‘scientific’ theories. Teach your children that Almighty God created all that is out of nothing by His Holy Word in six days - and they will inherit salvation. Anything that contradicts Genesis is based on theories, models, and unscientific cosmogonies (theories about existence and origins) that is binding on the conscience of not a single Christian person.
There are no archeological evidences for any civilization older than the Mesopotamian civilization described in Genesis. Gibberish about bronze age artifacts and carbon dating are beholden to unproven/unprovable theories and not hard science.
Finally, grab a pot of coffee or a bottle of wine and read the splendid Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII - maybe the most important Papal Encyclical of the 20th century. The Holy Spirit will meet you there and bless you immeasurably.
Shalom in Christ,
CJ
There is not one Roman Catholic Magisterial teaching document, Papal encyclical, approved Catechism, Doctor of the Church or Patristic Father that compels a Christian to accept these ‘scientific’ theories. Teach your children that Almighty God created all that is out of nothing by His Holy Word in six days - and they will inherit salvation. Anything that contradicts Genesis is based on theories, models, and unscientific cosmogonies (theories about existence and origins) that is binding on the conscience of not a single Christian person.
There are no archeological evidences for any civilization older than the Mesopotamian civilization described in Genesis. Gibberish about bronze age artifacts and carbon dating are beholden to unproven/unprovable theories and not hard science.
Finally, grab a pot of coffee or a bottle of wine and read the splendid Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII - maybe the most important Papal Encyclical of the 20th century. The Holy Spirit will meet you there and bless you immeasurably.
Shalom in Christ,
CJ
C
cassini
Guest
Sorry Orogeny, I thought we were refering to IN THE BEGINNING (1981). Anyway I took a peek at what you put up written in 2004 and just as an example took this out:
- According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago.
O
Orogeny
Guest
No problem.
Ah, a science denier! Does our Church require us to ignore science?
Correct. You are allowed to deny science as much as you want. The Church does not require you to accept any science.
And you need to read that paragraph again. When the term “consensus” is used, it is “little consensus” about the origins of life, not a general consensus about anything.
So, now that we all know that those of us (and I am very happy to be included with the last two Popes here) who accept science are pagans, should I reject all the evidence I have seen for an old earth? Does my eternal soul depend on it?
Peace
Tim
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
Go ahead Tim, you will be judged on siding with profane “evidence” against the Word of the Living God.
Jesus believed in Genesis and all the scriptural accounts as both history and revelation. If you truly believe the Holy Spirit is leading you to go against the Scriptures, the Magisterium, the Papal Encyclicals, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, enter at your own risk.
Just know that other Catholic Christians offer you sincere and loving admonition: the spirit of evolutionism and the Spirit of Christ do not agree.
Jesus believed in Genesis and all the scriptural accounts as both history and revelation. If you truly believe the Holy Spirit is leading you to go against the Scriptures, the Magisterium, the Papal Encyclicals, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, enter at your own risk.
Just know that other Catholic Christians offer you sincere and loving admonition: the spirit of evolutionism and the Spirit of Christ do not agree.
O
Orogeny
Guest
OK. Can you show me where the Church prohibits me accepting science? Just out of curiosity, do you also believe, as Cassini does, that the Pope is ignorant of Church teaching and is, in fact, advocating paganism? Wouldn’t that be a heresy? Is the Pope a heretic?
I will.
According to you. Luckily I have a Church that allows me to accept science.
Peace
Tim
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
LOL! Nice work, Cassini!
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
Accept anything you like. You have no authority to teach it as Catholic doctrine. Zero. None.
The spurrious references to JP II are his personal opinions, not Papal teaching (and even as such are deeply wounding to the Church) and are framed as questions rather than assertions. In no way do they rise to the level of Catholic doctrine.
The Church has already spoken authoritatively in Providentissimus Deus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Humani Generis, and Lamentabilli Sane, but let’s pretend those Papal Encyclicals don’t exist and pull one unfortunate conjectural comment of JP II out of context and base our eternal salvation that, OK?
Yes, paganism. Pius XII called evolution “monism and pantheism” (Humani Generis).
O
Orogeny
Guest
Then I guess you and I are in the same boat.
Was JPII a heretic?
Was JPII a heretic? How about Benedict XVI? Or do you, along with Cassini, understand Church teaching better than those two men?
OK, so I guess you do consider the last two popes heretics. That begs the question, if the Pope is a heretic, is he a valid pope?
Peace
Tim
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
Tim, You act as if the last 2 Popes support evolution. Have you read Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s In the Beginning? Hardly an endorsement of darwin. Have you read his Christianity, Islam, Relativism and the West? Does either Pope have the authority to repudiate Providentissimus Deus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Humani Generis, or Lamentabilli Sane?
What do you hear Christ Jesus saying that supports your assertion that evolution is compatible with the Divine Proclamation of the Holy Mother Catholic Church? Does the Spirit of Christ give you permission to do violence to the scripture that He says “cannot be broken”? Jesus tells us that not one jot or tittle of the Law (Old Testament to include Genesis) can fail til all be fulfilled.
Please, just admit it: you believe in evolution. It is not science. No final evidence exists for it, and much secular, profane evidence stands in opposition to it.
Evolution is required by the consensus of today’s (mostly atheistic) scientific community as a dogma of faith and dissenting opinions are not tolerated (SEE: Ben Stein’s documentary, No Intelligence Allowed).
What do you hear Christ Jesus saying that supports your assertion that evolution is compatible with the Divine Proclamation of the Holy Mother Catholic Church? Does the Spirit of Christ give you permission to do violence to the scripture that He says “cannot be broken”? Jesus tells us that not one jot or tittle of the Law (Old Testament to include Genesis) can fail til all be fulfilled.
Please, just admit it: you believe in evolution. It is not science. No final evidence exists for it, and much secular, profane evidence stands in opposition to it.
Evolution is required by the consensus of today’s (mostly atheistic) scientific community as a dogma of faith and dissenting opinions are not tolerated (SEE: Ben Stein’s documentary, No Intelligence Allowed).
B
buffalo
Guest
I do not see any positive declarations from any Pope that says evolution is the way. I do not expect it in the future either.
O
Orogeny
Guest
I have read “In the Beginning”, but I have not read the other book. The Pope supports evolution. He just does not accept a theory that excludes God as the cause.
If he isn’t allowed to believe in science based on the encyclicals you listed, isn’t he teaching error when he allows for science? Isn’t that called heresy?
Jesus didn’t speak about open heart surgery, either. Is that anti-scriptural?
Do violence? No, so it’s a good thing that I am not doing any such thing.
That has nothing to do with science. Are we not allowed to accept science?
No, I believe in God. I accept the science because there is a massive amount of evidence to support it regardless of what you say.
No, evolution is not a faith, it is science. Ask Ben Stein why he specifically excluded Christian scientists who accept evolution from his film. That is pretty typical of propaganda pieces.
Peace
Tim
S
Sparrows
Guest
Dear friends,
We should not establish a dichotomy between religion and science as the atheists (eg, Richard Dawkins) are prone to do. Tim, you are right that the Church does not require us to be either young earthists or theistic evolutionists. For if the Church did require either one of these, my decision would be made and I would not currently be agnostic on the issue.
Now I attend a secular university in which many of my professors are materialist / atheists who openly mock the Catholic faith. What got me interested in this debate was my reading of a book called “The Third Chimpanzee” by Jared Diamond, in which he argues that humans are merely a third variation of the chimp species - along with common and pygmy chimps.
After reading this Darwinist tract, I fell into a bout of depression. I thought: why do humans continue to live if 1. the point of life is just to spread your genes, 2. the rule is survival of the fittest, and 3. chance is the only god?
So I attempted to meet the atheist / Darwinists halfway with the haphazard theory of theistic evolution. But I soon came to realize that this theory is at variance with Scripture and Tradition. It is, however, difficult for me to accept young earthism because I have accepted the notions of a Jurassic Period, a Stone Age, and a big bang billions of years ago (to name a few) since my early childhood in the 1990s.
I am beginning to realize, though, that it is better to stay firmly grounded in Scripture and Tradition than to take even one step towards the deep abyss of Darwinism in an attempt to find a compromise stance (ie, theistic evolutionism).
We should not establish a dichotomy between religion and science as the atheists (eg, Richard Dawkins) are prone to do. Tim, you are right that the Church does not require us to be either young earthists or theistic evolutionists. For if the Church did require either one of these, my decision would be made and I would not currently be agnostic on the issue.
I cannot accept this claim for the reason that Cassini provided: it would have been lawful for Cain to kill his non-human grandparents and other relatives. Also, I cannot understand how those in Adam’s non-human ancestral lines simply disappeared. No theistic evolutionist has ever provided me with a good explanation for these things.
Even worse: I was not raised in the Church but only baptized. And I have been educated by liberal / modernist Catholic schools that taught me virtually nothing about Scripture, Tradition, and morality. They did teach me about Darwin though.
Now I attend a secular university in which many of my professors are materialist / atheists who openly mock the Catholic faith. What got me interested in this debate was my reading of a book called “The Third Chimpanzee” by Jared Diamond, in which he argues that humans are merely a third variation of the chimp species - along with common and pygmy chimps.
After reading this Darwinist tract, I fell into a bout of depression. I thought: why do humans continue to live if 1. the point of life is just to spread your genes, 2. the rule is survival of the fittest, and 3. chance is the only god?
So I attempted to meet the atheist / Darwinists halfway with the haphazard theory of theistic evolution. But I soon came to realize that this theory is at variance with Scripture and Tradition. It is, however, difficult for me to accept young earthism because I have accepted the notions of a Jurassic Period, a Stone Age, and a big bang billions of years ago (to name a few) since my early childhood in the 1990s.
I am beginning to realize, though, that it is better to stay firmly grounded in Scripture and Tradition than to take even one step towards the deep abyss of Darwinism in an attempt to find a compromise stance (ie, theistic evolutionism).
Thank you, CJ. I visited this website before starting this thread.
As did his apostles Peter and Paul, who write about the Genesis accounts of the creation of Adam and Eve, and a universal deluge as if they are facts and not myths.
Tim, it’s not a matter of accepting / rejecting mainstream scientific theories. It is a matter of challenging even widely accepted theories, especially if they cannot be harmonized with Scripture and Tradition.
Tim, Darwin’s evolutionary theory has an ideological basis. He was an agnostic whose aim was to “prove Genesis a fairy tale”. Similar aims have been taken up by nouveau atheists like Bill Maher, who openly scoff the Book of Genesis and make a mockery of God’s word.
This is a great point. I would have liked to see a more balanced approach.
Thank you all for the recommended readings. I will look for these books when I get a chance.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Who were the people that Cain feared would kill him after he was punished for killing Abel? Who did Cain marry? Who populated the city he founded in the land of Nod? If one requires a literal reading of Genesis, none of those people existed before Adam and Eve had children other than Cain and Abel. Where did they come from?
If that is beneficial for your faith, you should avoid science. There is nothing wrong with that from a faith standpoint.
Keep in mind that the problem with harmonizing science with Scripture/Tradition is a human problem. God did not create evidence to fool us. He gave us an intellect and expects us to use it.
No, Darwin didn’t go looking for evidence to prove Genesis was a fairy tale. But what you need to understand is that even if he did, the data that he collected is still valid and the theory of evolution is the best (only) scientific explanation for it. One can decide that science is athiestic (which it is not) and therefore all or some science is therefore a tool of the devil and should be shunned, but that doesn’t change the facts. The fact is is that the theory of evolution is strongly supported by the physical and biological sciences. There is no scientific evidence that contradicts the theory.
Peace
Tim
S
Sparrows
Guest
I would assume that he is referring to his other brothers and sisters, the only other humans in existence at the time. Your question is contradictory: how can you apply the words “who” and “people” to non-humans?
From what I’ve read from the young earthist side, Cain married his sister and they went to Nod. Since the gene pool was pristine at the time, there would have been no risk of producing malformed children. Mutations only occur in a population after there have been sufficient generations for copying errors to accumulate. The LORD only outlawed incest after it was no longer necessary and posed health risks due to the accumulation of genetic copying errors.
Cain and is sister / wife. If Cain had married a non-human then his children and their descendants would be semi-human (which is repugnant to reason). Furthermore, his non-human wife would differ fundamentally in behaviour from Cain. She would be irrational (since she lacks a spiritual soul) and not morally responsible for her actions. I cannot see how such a marriage would work.
Adam and Eve had other children, including Seth. Adam lived for around 900 years. I would assume that he had more than three children.
Once again, if Adam evolved from non-humans you cannot call his non-human ancestors and relatives “people”.
Science was not responsible for my despair - Darwinism / materialism / atheism was. Science is the study of God’s creation and brings me great joy. We should not equate science with Darwinism.
We are not fooled by evidence. Scientists misuse their God-given intellect when they operate from a materialistic / atheistic ideology and interpret the evidence in light of this bias. If a scientist assumes that there was not actually a universal deluge less than ten thousand years ago, of course s/he will misinterpret the evidence that such a catastrophe would leave behind.
Science is not a person and can neither be atheistic nor theistic. Young earthists argue that the current scientific establishment (the top mainstream scientists) are predominantly atheistic / materialistic / Darwinian, which influences their interpretation of the data.
First, the physical sciences:
- The uniformitarian (Charles Lyell’s) theory that strata represent millions of years each has been challenged by Guy Berthault. It has also been challenged by the eruption of Mount St. Helen, which created a relatively deep canyon in a matter of hours. Applying this evidence to the Grand Canyon, geologists have argued that this canyon may have been formed in a matter of months by a catastrophe larger than the St. Helen eruption (the flood?), and not in a matter of millions of years through a slow / gradual process.
- Carbon-14 and radiometric dating methods are fallible. Molten rocks formed by a volcanic eruption in Hawaii two hundred years ago were subjected to radiometric dating, which concluded that the eruption occured hundreds of millions of years ago. This is because water (which these rocks were submerged in) affects the levels of radioactive chemicals that radiometric dating depends upon.
- Biologists have never observed a beneficial mutation, which would be necessary for macroevolution (the production of new species, rather than variations of a species) to actually have occured. Every mutation is either neutral or negative and the natural selection that drives mircoevolution (variations within one kind / species of animal) is a stabilizing rather than a generative force (refer to Dr. Maciej Giertych for more information).
- Scientists have never observed the generation of a new species. Rather, biological history is a history of extinction and accumulating genetic defects as genetic copying errors are made from generation to generation. This empirical observation accords with St. Paul’s statement in Romans that the world is subject to bondage and decay. How can we harmonize this with the Darwinist claim that the world is constantly improving through evolution?
Darwinists claim that the universe began as a chaos and has been gradually increasing in complexity and order since the big bang billions of years ago. How do we harmonize this with Genesis’ claim that creation was initially good and has been corrupted by original sin? The second law of thermodynamics also seems to agree with Genesis: this law states that entropy will increase in a system over time, not that a system will grow in complexity (it seems as if St. Paul knew this law).
S
Sparrows
Guest
Now here are some questions for the young earthist side:
How could dinosaurs and humans have coexisted?
Who or what are the creatures represented by the so-called hominid fossils?
Were the dinosaurs simply left off of Noah’s ark?
I have many more but let’s proceed slowly.
How could dinosaurs and humans have coexisted?
Who or what are the creatures represented by the so-called hominid fossils?
Were the dinosaurs simply left off of Noah’s ark?
I have many more but let’s proceed slowly.
O
Orogeny
Guest
According to Genesis, Adam and Eve didn’t have any other children until after the Cain/Abel affair. So, if we are reading Genesis literally, who were those other people? Where did they come from?
Well, they made that up because it isn’t in Genesis.
Mutations occur at every conception.
Not scriptural.
Perhaps they were ensouled after the fall.
After the Cain/Abel affair. See Genesis 4.
Humans are both body and soul. The bodies evolved. The soul was created.
So is evolution science?
That is the point.
Really? Help me out here. I am one of those who misinterpret the evidence. Being a geologist, I have a little bit of understanding of what I have looked at and what isn’t there. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Let me give you some advice. Don’t believe this garbage. You have been mislead.
Again, you have been decieved. You need to check this stuff out.
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Now you know better.
Evolution says nothing about barbarism. Adam’s soul was free of sin until he chose to disobey God. Souls don’t evolve, they are created.
Nope. Evolution is a biological process, not a physical process. You are talking about astrophysics. Also, don’t use the second lay of thermodynamics. VERY bad argument.
Peace
Tim
S
Sparrows
Guest
Tim, I’m merely parroting the ideas I have read on young earthist websites in order that someone more knowledgeable than I might offer criticisms. You have clearly done this and I thank you for the favour. Obviously, I cannot enlighten you because I am just a liberal arts major with very little background in science. Perhaps you still think I am an undercover Sungenis agent, which would explain the sarcasm.
If you are a geologist you are qualified to make this judgement. I have no way of verifying the young earthist claims that I posted, but I welcome someone with more knowledge than me to try to defend them (ie, the young earthist claims).
I’ll check out this link later on.
Thanks for your professional opinion. I’ll continue looking into these matters (especially, reading the papal encyclicals that Cassini and CJ recommended).
I welcome the young earthists to attempt to refute Tim’s claims. It may prove difficult if he is a geologist. By the way, I do not think that Tim has successfully answered my questions regarding the biological ancestors and relatives of Adam and their descendants. Also, I still don’t understand a marriage between Cain and a non-human. But Tim brought up an excellent point about Adam and Eve not having any children until after the Cain and Abel story.
Do Cassini, CJ, and other young earthists have any answers?
- Status