Was the world created in 7 days?

[LJN21]

For anyone interested, check this out:

scripturecatholic.com/evolution.html.

I’ve often wonder what the purpose have having the earth around billions and billions years before man would have been. Specially if we believe the earth was made for man.

Now I’m not a scientist but I’ve often been interested by things like the “Young Earth Theory” and the “Canopy Theory.”

 

[Hellisreal]

Adam and Eve had to be real. And, they did not have bellybuttons, as some say.

 

[carol_marie]

For anyone interested, check this out:

scripturecatholic.com/evolution.html.

Excellent.

It seems that the Church fathers through the Pope in 1950 shared my belief that the Genesis account was LITERAL.

ha. So there.

1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching

 

[LJN21]

Humans can sin, chimpanzees can’t. The most comon ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was much more like a chimpanzee than a human, but probably less intelligent than either. It certainly couldn’t sin either. So it follows that there must have been a first sin, committed by a creature on the human line.

I’m sorry its far easier for me to believe that we were created as we are now than we evolved from monkeys.

There is absolutely no proof for Macro-evolution.

 

[carol_marie]

Humans can sin, chimpanzees can’t. The most comon ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was much more like a chimpanzee than a human, but probably less intelligent than either. It certainly couldn’t sin either. So it follows that there must have been a first sin, committed by a creature on the human line.

Interesting. By “human line” you mean a monkey/man who eventually sinned? Did this monkey/man have a wife? Did she cause him to sin? (or is that still the myth part?) I wonder what his monkey/man friends thought of that? Or were they more monkey than man so they didn’t care?

You are so right. That makes so much more sense than the first several chapters of Genesis.

 

[Hellisreal]

I dont want monkey relatives either Carol Marie. There are some foolers in the family though.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Interesting. By “human line” you mean a monkey/man who eventually sinned? Did this monkey/man have a wife? Did she cause him to sin? (or is that still the myth part?) I wonder what his monkey/man friends thought of that? Or were they more monkey than man so they didn’t care?

You are so right. That makes so much more sense than the first several chapters of Genesis.

If he sinned I think we can use the word “man”. However physically he might have looked more chimpanzee-like than human-like.

If the first sin was sexual in nature then it would make sense that it was committed by a couple. However that doesn’t follow from the premises. What is logically necessary is that if the ancestral chimpanzee-like creature couldn’t sin, whilst modern humans can, there must have been a first sin.

The problem for the standard view is that the first couple would not have been particularly distinguished. Their children would have intermated with other chimpanzee-like creatures.

 

[carol_marie]

You are right - this thread does make me angry. (but not at you of course - I’m sorry if I came off that way) I am angry because I think if we allow Satan to poke holes in part of the Bible (the first 11 chapters of Genesis) because it’s unscientific & hard to believe, it’s so easy to poke holes in the rest.

I am happy to know that according to that other link, the Church Fathers shared my view that it is literal. Happy & relieved actually.

As a convert from an Evangelical Chruch, I occasionally have these moments of “oh my gosh…what the heck am I doing HERE?” The Bible is so very near & dear to my heart - I hate it that it seems that so many Catholics explain it away & dismiss it entirely. “Myth” is a word that should never be used with regards to the Bible. I don’t care if “biblical scholars” mean something else - when it’s said that the Bible is “myth.” - that’s just wrong.

 

[carol_marie]

So the Gospels - not historically correct?

 

[Hellisreal]

The Gospels especially dont agree! How about the infancy narratives!

They do not agree at all. Carol Marie, you must have known that as an evangelical.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Evolution is a science largely affected by secularism. Most (not all) proponents of evolution want to wipe Christianity off the map. It is a theory that is far far from being proven. In fact scientifically there have been many studies that contradict any evolution has ever occured. The problem I have with evolution is that it contradicts the doctrine of original sin and goes against pretty much all of the early fathers and their interpretation of scripture. I know that Catholics don’t have to believe in evolution, but it is problematic that so many Catholics do, including some of the Magisterium. It leads to much confusion. Even Pope Benedict XVI has “taken a swipe at evolution and is distancing himself from the theory” : catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/pope-evo.htm - Check out some of the other apologetics about evolution on the site. Here is another good one: catholicintl.com/catholicissues/austraico.htm
I agree with everything else that the Catholic Church teaches but this could be the one thing that might keep me out. It probably won’t, because the Church doesn’t officially accept evolution and there are plenty of Catholics, Bishops, Cardinals, etc. against it who do interpret Genesis literally. But if the Church ever does completely accept evolution and regards the theory as necessary for all Catholics to believe, it looks like I might be finding another Church when that day comes, something that would be very hard for me to do as I want to make the Catholic Church a permanent move for me. I’d have a hard to accepting the “Church of tradition” after it gives in to a modernist interpretation of Genesis (and that is exactly what evolution is). If I remember right Pope Pius X warned about this. It would completely illegitimize all of the early Church fathers. Are we going to pick and choose which teachings of the early fathers we want to follow while completely disregarding the rest? So far God has never allowed the Church to error regarding faith, morals, and teaching, but if it ever regards evolution as fact, it will be doing just that. How can so many Catholics completely disregard the traditions of the Church, and then go tell protestants that tradition plus the Bible is the truth, not just Bible alone? The claims of infallibility when it comes to truth regarding the one, true, Church would be reduced to mud. I pray that this never happens.

 

[carol_marie]

The Gospels especially dont agree! How about the infancy narratives!

They do not agree at all. Carol Marie, you must have known that as an evangelical.

I’ve always been taught if there was a discrepecy, it was because the different writers saw things differenty. You and I may spend the day together and later, when we recount our day I will describe it differently than you.

 

[7777777Now]

Carol,

I wish you weren’t becoming so angry…we are all here to learn about our faith. Please don’t threaten to leave the Church because there are some Catholics that believe differently then you. If you do that you will just become more angry.

You are in a different moment in your journey. Pray for us.

God bless you!
James

 

[TylerAlex]

Excellent.

It seems that the Church fathers through the Pope in 1950 shared my belief that the Genesis account was LITERAL.

ha. So there.

1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching

I am Catholic and I take a literal interpretation of Scripture as it pertains to Genesis. Anything less IMHO, begins a process to reduce the authority and sovereignty of God.

Without the event of Original Sin- just like it is stated in the Bible, you then open the door to negate everything about God’s Word and the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[carol_marie]

. But if the Church ever does completely accept evolution and regards the theory as necessary for all Catholics to believe,** it looks like I might be finding another Church when that day comes,** something that would be very hard for me to do as I want to make the Catholic Church a permanent move for me. I’d have a hard to accepting the “Church of tradition” after it gives in to a modernist interpretation of Genesis (and that is exactly what evolution is). .

I’d be with you.

 

[carol_marie]

Carol,

I wish you weren’t becoming so angry…we are all here to learn about our faith. Please don’t threaten to leave the Church because there are some Catholics that believe differently then you. If you do that you will just become more angry.

You are in a different moment in your journey. Pray for us.

God bless you!
James

I was angry - but I drank a cup of tea, ate a cookie & now I’m over it. The whole - not Adam but a monkey who bacame Man thing is ridiculous & really yanks my chain.

I wouldn’t leave the Church because some Catholics mistakenly believe the Bible is a bunch of myths & the Creation account in Genesis isn’t true.

If the Church stated (not just some scholars - but the CHURCH) that the Genesis account was a myth and we were not to believe in a literal Adam & Eve, I would assume our Church had been hyjacked by a bunch of fools & I would leave.

 

[LJN21]

Evolution is a science largely affected by secularism. Most (not all) proponents of evolution want to wipe Christianity off the map. It is a theory that is far far from being proven. In fact scientifically there have been many studies that contradict any evolution has ever occured. The problem I have with evolution is that it contradicts the doctrine of original sin and goes against pretty much all of the early fathers and their interpretation of scripture. I know that Catholics don’t have to believe in evolution, but it is problematic that so many Catholics do, including some of the Magisterium. It leads to much confusion. Even Pope Benedict XVI has “taken a swipe at evolution and is distancing himself from the theory” : catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/pope-evo.htm - Check out some of the other apologetics about evolution on the site. Here is another good one: catholicintl.com/catholicissues/austraico.htm
I agree with everything else that the Catholic Church teaches but this could be the one thing that might keep me out. It probably won’t, because the Church doesn’t officially accept evolution and there are plenty of Catholics, Bishops, Cardinals, etc. against it who do interpret Genesis literally. But if the Church ever does completely accept evolution and regards the theory as necessary for all Catholics to believe, it looks like I might be finding another Church when that day comes, something that would be very hard for me to do as I want to make the Catholic Church a permanent move for me. I’d have a hard to accepting the “Church of tradition” after it gives in to a modernist interpretation of Genesis (and that is exactly what evolution is). If I remember right Pope Pius X warned about this. It would completely illegitimize all of the early Church fathers. Are we going to pick and choose which teachings of the early fathers we want to follow while completely disregarding the rest? So far God has never allowed the Church to error regarding faith, morals, and teaching, but if it ever regards evolution as fact, it will be doing just that. How can so many Catholics completely disregard the traditions of the Church, and then go tell protestants that tradition plus the Bible is the truth, not just Bible alone? The claims of infallibility when it comes to truth regarding the one, true, Church would be reduced to mud. I pray that this never happens.

Infalliblity only covers faith and morals so Science is excluded

 

[Hellisreal]

I’ve always been taught if there was a discrepecy, it was because the different writers saw things differenty. You and I may spend the day together and later, when we recount our day I will describe it differently than you.

Okay!

Thank you.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I am Catholic and I take a literal interpretation of Scripture as it pertains to Genesis. Anything less IMHO, begins a process to reduce the authority and sovereignty of God.

Without the event of Original Sin- just like it is stated in the Bible, you then open the door to negate everything about God’s Word and the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So true. The Church obviously in the past held to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Technically it still does as their is no ex cathedra statement that says evolution is true and we must believe it, or even should believe it. Knowhere in the CCC does it state we must accept evolution, as a matter of fact it doesn’t even say we should accept or even think about evolution. The CCC regards Adam and Eve as the only original set of first humans, and they are where original sin comes from. Obviously with evolution you can’t have original sin if they are monkeys, and the doctrine of original sin is a huge part of not only Catholicism but Christianity in general. This is a major “T” with a capitol “T” Tradition, one of the infallible kind - how can so many Catholics reject the Church teachings of the past, and then claim to be the true “Church of tradition”? It makes me want to check out the Orthodox Church.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Infalliblity only covers faith and morals so Science is excluded

Well how can you have faith in a Church that rejects it’s traditions and leads all of its followers into false teaching? Evolution will never be proved, it will always be only a theory. Why would the Church get behind a science that not only contradicts sacred scripture and previous teachings but is still ONLY A THEORY? IT IS NOT PROVEN. The teachings on original sin and a literal interpretation of Genesis are infallible teachings that supposedly cannot be reversed, but we shall see. So far this will not keep me out of the Catholic Church as I believe everything else she teaches, but if they change it, I’m gone.