To those who believe in a literal 6 day creation

  • Thread starter Thread starter rwillenborg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twinc said:
so tell me[us]exactly what it is that being obvious and commonsense is refutable and meaningless - after all it is only some nonsense by God who presumably knows nothing about science and/or theology and biology in particular - twinc
Click to expand...
What’s you assertion again?
 
PeterK said:
In your opinion, excluding and millions of years after what I guess we would call the first species, is the direct creation of only one species realistic or acceptable for consideration to you? I know it would not be for science. I’m referring to the human.

PeterK
Click to expand...
I don’t categorize humans as completely within the animal kingdom. That is, man’s body has a prehistory in the natural processes of evolution, but the soul is created directly by God. Since the soul is spiritual, it cannot be a product of natural, physical processes, i.e. evolution. If it were up to me I would put man in his own kingdom.

Then I would draw up a list of qualifications for belonging to the Kingdom of Man. YECs would only be allowed in as soon as they started using reason, that which differentiates man from the anthropoid apes. 😛
 
itinerant1 said:
I don’t categorize humans as completely within the animal kingdom. That is, man’s body has a prehistory in the natural processes of evolution, but the soul is created directly by God. Since the soul is spiritual, it cannot be a product of natural, physical processes, i.e. evolution. If it were up to me I would put man in his own kingdom.
Click to expand...
Great news :D. Man IS in his own kingdom.

For verification please read
The official teaching regarding Adam and Eve found in
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421. One can also put Adam, etc. in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
 
itinerant1 said:
I don’t categorize humans as completely within the animal kingdom. That is, man’s body has a prehistory in the natural processes of evolution, but the soul is created directly by God. Since the soul is spiritual, it cannot be a product of natural, physical processes, i.e. evolution. If it were up to me I would put man in his own kingdom.

Then I would draw up a list of qualifications for belonging to the Kingdom of Man. YECs would only be allowed in as soon as they started using reason, that which differentiates man from the anthropoid apes. 😛
Click to expand...
Now wait just a minute - perhaps Catholic Creationists are the the special ones. After all the light of Christ illuminates us. 😃 😉
 
buffalo said:
Now wait just a minute - perhaps Catholic Creationists are the the special ones. After all the light of Christ illuminates us. 😃 😉
Click to expand...
I heard you guys try to block out some of those Illuminating rays, by wearing tin foil hats. 😃
 
itinerant1 said:
I heard you guys try to block out some of those Illuminating rays, by wearing tin foil hats. 😃
Click to expand...
Well…as long as they’re not aluminum foil hats! I think there may still be some concern on alzheimers and alumininininum!!! 😃
 
spn82756 said:
Well…as long as they’re not aluminum foil hats! I think there may still be some concern on alzheimers and alumininininum!!! 😃
Click to expand...
Creationists don’t accept scientific studies on the possible effects of alumininininum because the studies were not conducted using “Creation Science.”
 
itinerant1 said:
Creationists don’t accept scientific studies on the possible effects of alumininininum because the studies were not conducted using “Creation Science.”
Click to expand...
I was just trying to be silly. I’ve often been accused of being the class (office) clown. 🙂
 
itinerant1 said:
I don’t categorize humans as completely within the animal kingdom. That is, man’s body has a prehistory in the natural processes of evolution, but the soul is created directly by God. Since the soul is spiritual, it cannot be a product of natural, physical processes, i.e. evolution. If it were up to me I would put man in his own kingdom. Then I would draw up a list of qualifications for belonging to the Kingdom of Man. YECs would only be allowed in as soon as they started using reason, that which differentiates man from the anthropoid apes. 😛
Click to expand...
There’s no such scientific concept as a “kingdom of humans.” If such exists it is a theological idea, not a biological one.
 
StAnastasia said:
There’s no such scientific concept as a “kingdom of humans.” If such exists it is a theological idea, not a biological one.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is, whether or not Darwinists recognize it. Pre-Darwinian thought viewed man as a “rational animal”, and as such, there is no strict continuity between man and the anthropoid apes and higher animals in regard to “mind”. It was Darwin’s specific endeavor to change that classification by “attacking the citadel”, by which he meant the mind of man.

The purpose of the Descent of Man was to present arguments for the re-classification of man as no longer a “rational” animal but a “brute” animal. By this, Darwin clearly meant that the mind of man differs in “degree” only from the mind of anthropoid apes and higher animals. Darwin’s view is based strictly on a philosophical materialism applied to the interpretation of all of nature and the mind of man. (Confer Ever Since Darwin by S.J. Gould)

Hence, the real question is whether the current classification of man is more philosophical, i.e. based on a metaphysical materialism, than it is scientific and based on methodological naturalism. Undeniably, Darwin overstepped the boundaries of methodological naturalism, as do many of his very vocal successors.

That was the negative statement of the issue. The positive statement is that man posseses an ability not possessed in any degree by other animals. This ability, power, or capacity is that of propositional speech. No other animal possesses propositional speech, which entails conceptual thinking. Animals communication is fully explainable in terms of perceptual thinking, and the invocation of conceptual, abstract thinking (universals) for animals remains unwarranted…

Hence, the mind of man is radically different in kind from the mind of other animals. So, the current classification of man is based on the dubious assumptions of philosophical naturalism and is not implied nor required by the scientific evidence.

In sum, it is my option that proposes to give “man” a truly scientific classification.
 
itinerant1 said:
Actually, there is, whether or not Darwinists recognize it. Pre-Darwinian thought viewed man as a “rational animal”, and as such, there is no strict continuity between man and the anthropoid apes and higher animals in regard to “mind”. It was Darwin’s specific endeavor to change that classification by “attacking the citadel”, by which he meant the mind of man.

The purpose of the Descent of Man was to present arguments for the re-classification of man as no longer a “rational” animal but a “brute” animal. By this, Darwin clearly meant that the mind of man differs in “degree” only from the mind of anthropoid apes and higher animals. Darwin’s view is based strictly on a philosophical materialism applied to the interpretation of all of nature and the mind of man. (Confer Ever Since Darwin by S.J. Gould)

Hence, the real question is whether the current classification of man is more philosophical, i.e. based on a metaphysical materialism, than it is scientific and based on methodological naturalism. Undeniably, Darwin overstepped the boundaries of methodological naturalism, as do many of his very vocal successors.

That was the negative statement of the issue. The positive statement is that man posseses an ability not possessed in any degree by other animals. This ability, power, or capacity is that of propositional speech. No other animal possesses propositional speech, which entails conceptual thinking. Animals communication is fully explainable in terms of perceptual thinking, and the invocation of conceptual, abstract thinking (universals) for animals remains unwarranted…

Hence, the mind of man is radically different in kind from the mind of other animals. So, the current classification of man is based on the dubious assumptions of philosophical naturalism and is not implied nor required by the scientific evidence.

In sum, it is my option that proposes to give “man” a truly scientific classification.
Click to expand...
Words and more words.

Why? Why? Why?

Is it so difficult for Catholics to say that man has an immaterial, immortal spiritual soul which totally separates him from any other classification?
What are Catholics afraid of?
Are Catholics ashamed of their faith because it is beyond popular science which by the way has so many holes in its assumptions it would make a very poor screen door?

My apology to the few Catholics with guts to use real Catholic teaching.
 
grannymh said:
Words and more words.

Why? Why? Why?

Is it so difficult for Catholics to say that man has an immaterial, immortal spiritual soul which totally separates him from any other classification?
What are Catholics afraid of?
Are Catholics ashamed of their faith because it is beyond popular science which by the way has so many holes in its assumptions it would make a very poor screen door?

My apology to the few Catholics with guts to use real Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
I think you have totally missed the gist of my post. The nature of the soul is the subject matter for philosophy and theology, and not the natural sciences. Darwin overstepped the proper limits of scientific enquiry by denying immaterial reality. However, I was remaining within the limits of methodological naturalism by discussing that unique factor of man’s difference that is open to scientific investigation, i.e. propositional speech.

Again, immaterial reality is outside the scope and province of the natural sciences.
 
Unfortunately, I have read one too many of these secular posts which pop up all over the place whenever creation (six days or six million years) is mentioned…:(:(😦

By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. But why should Catholics ignore the immaterial or spiritual realm as if it were non-existent? Bring Christ’s good news directly to the readers. Why is there some need to depend on philosophy or theology?

Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But why should that keep Catholics from mentioning the true distinguishing *_ _ _ _ * of the human species?

So what if the soul is beyond the sensory realm. Does that really mean that what enables humans to share in the life of God is comic book fluff? Human nature which is a unification of soul/body, spirit/matter rational/corporeal, should be included in posts about the human species regardless.

One more thing before I hide my head under a pillow. Regarding “The nature of the soul is the subject matter for philosophy and theology, and not the natural sciences.”
Is that a reference to Cartesian (extreme) dualism?

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top