Why do some catholics believe in evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rbarcia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, if we believe that God inspired scripture, God defined a day as the passing of an evening, and then a morning.

“And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day”.
I think that the issue…is somewhat muddied in some frameworks.

While the Bible contains the verbiage, the problem is that given the language that the first books were written in…ancient Hebrew, its quite possible that a concise translation is not possible into some languages… But here is a literal translation of Genesis from the Tanakh (Old Testament to us)… jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Genesis1.html

While God made all, to include night and day… we have virtually no idea how long each of those days were. And it would seem somewhat “presumptuous” for us to assume that we know precisely how many minutes or hours there were in the original days that God created… One must also consider that Genesis was “oral tradition” passed down through the ages until someone wrote it down. Ancient Hebrew was a language made up of “consonants” as we call them… tricky to interpret. Remember, there were no “eyewitnesses” to the Creation…except God Himself…
 
Yes. There is no doubt that occures. THere are too many gaps for me to be forced to accept that man came from monkies.
Why in the world do people still believe that evolution theory states that humans evolved from monkies?! Or apes for that matter. 🙂

People disagree with an evolutionary theory that doesn’t exist.

It’s like disagreeing with Catholicism because it teaches that we should worship Mary.

And in both cases, you can’t convince the dissenter that the theory or religion doens’t say what he thinks it does.

Why? Why? Why? 😉
 
“If the Lord can turn water to wine in an instance, why does he need to work in natural sense. Did the wedding feast wait for the fermentation process to complete?”

Do you interpret the entire Bible literally?

There is plenty of evidence of evolution and an “old Earth”. Do you believe, then, that God is playing tricks on us? That he made the Earth appear old to test us, maybe? That he put transitional fossils in the earth to fool us?

The Bible doesn’t mention oodles of animals. There’s no way that Noah could’ve fit every animal in the world on that boat, and of course, the animals that the writers had never heard of weren’t included in the list. Doesn’t this last fact strike you as telling?

If you believe in a literal translation of the entire Bible, and if you believe that everything has to come from the Bible only, that you can’t add anything to it, that it is where you get your scientific knowledge of the world from, how do you account for things like fossils, more species than listed in the Bible, an obviously old Earth, that Bonobos are closest living ape to us as shown through DNA, and that Neandertals are closer yet?

If God can make water from wine, and that is proof that God created each species independantly, in it’s present form, why isn’t a mouse as close to us as a Neandertal, or even a Bonobo? If God made everything in a poof-there-it-is, Chris Angel-like Vegas show, why is it that forms that we think are most like another are most like the other?

BTW, there isn’t, at this point, any evidence that Neandertals and humans mixed. They appear to be a different species, so much more like us than bonobos, and, as expected, that much more like us in DNA make-up. If God made each of them in a “poof”, why is the neanderthal more like us (in form and dna) than the less-similar bonobo?

You say that God could take water and make wine, and you say that that is proof that he made man as is.

Why, if God can make wine from water, couldn’t he have created man through evolution? Why have you decided that God is capable of this, but not that?
 
What is the difference between a religious truth and scientific truth.

Doesn’t truth mean true or not?

Yes, which is why a literal interpretation of the creation story is not true.

Isn’t truth it happened or it didn’t. How can I say that God made the world in 6 days with His spoken word as a religious truth, but not as a scientific fact.
You can’t.

The bible isn’t wrong, but your literal interpretation of creation as described in Genesis is.

You’re entitled to your view, though. So if believing in a literal 6-day, poof-like creation is psychologically comforting to you, and you’re not teaching science, or practicing it, I don’t see a problem with your holding that personal pov.

Trying to convince others that your pov as fact, though? Well, let’s just say that we disagree there. 🙂
 
Kalt,
I said monkies because I am too lazy to write out yet undiscovered hominoid derived from the same line as the rest of us, whose fossle records end in such a way as to allow for the evolution into homo sapian or other homo species that may have been the forrunner of man. Sorry.

To everyone,
We should not forget that scripture also tells us that God’s days are not our days. It is very clear that time does not mean the same thing to Him as it does to us.
 
I had a discussion with a friend of mine over this and he holds to a literal interpretation of Genesis. He pointed out the Hebrew word used for day means something like a literal 24 hour period. How do I respond to that when I am trying to show that story doesn’t need to be taken literally?
 
I had a discussion with a friend of mine over this and he holds to a literal interpretation of Genesis. He pointed out the Hebrew word used for day means something like a literal 24 hour period. How do I respond to that when I am trying to show that story doesn’t need to be taken literally?
2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 both say that a thousand years to God is like a day. This shows that what HE sees as a day may be a huge amount of time. No one other than God witnessed the creation. God told the story. If he took millions of years, what is that to God? Could the ancients have understood that?

Also, look at the verses as to when day and night were created, as well as the sun and moon.
 
“If the Lord can turn water to wine in an instance, why does he need to work in natural sense. Did the wedding feast wait for the fermentation process to complete?”

Do you interpret the entire Bible literally?
Yes
There is plenty of evidence of evolution and an “old Earth”. Do you believe, then, that God is playing tricks on us? That he made the Earth appear old to test us, maybe? That he put transitional fossils in the earth to fool us?
When he made Adam, he made him as an adult. Maybe he appeared to be a 30 year old man. Yet, on day 7, hew was only 1 day. Just like God made wine instantly in the wedding feast of Canaan, and it did not age.
The Bible doesn’t mention oodles of animals. There’s no way that Noah could’ve fit every animal in the world on that boat, and of course, the animals that the writers had never heard of weren’t included in the list. Doesn’t this last fact strike you as telling?
If you look at the dimensions of the boat, I do not find that so difficult to believe. 2 of each kind (only 2 dogs, not 2 of each type of dog).
If you believe in a literal translation of the entire Bible, and if you believe that everything has to come from the Bible only, that you can’t add anything to it, that it is where you get your scientific knowledge of the world from, how do you account for things like fossils, more species than listed in the Bible, an obviously old Earth, that Bonobos are closest living ape to us as shown through DNA, and that Neandertals are closer yet?
The fact that complex DNA looks similar shows special creation more than anything. I am an engineer at IBM. We design many things. Things like the chips inside a Playstation 3 and a PC are very similar. The engine of a car looks similar to the engine of cars 20 years ago. Did a car give birth to another. It is the silliest thing I hae ever heard, that similarities in DNA proves relation, when in every other aspect of engineering, similarity proves common design, since computers, cars, building, etc… do not happen by accident. DNA is much more complex. It shows we used a common design. So if Adam descendant from someone how did sin and death enter the world through him if things die.
If God can make water from wine, and that is proof that God created each species independantly, in it’s present form, why isn’t a mouse as close to us as a Neandertal, or even a Bonobo? If God made everything in a poof-there-it-is, Chris Angel-like Vegas show, why is it that forms that we think are most like another are most like the other?
Don’t understand this question. But I have shown that siilarities in DNA and build up only prove special design like it does in the engineering field (cars similar design to trucks, buildings have common architecture, etc…)
BTW, there isn’t, at this point, any evidence that Neandertals and humans mixed. They appear to be a different species, so much more like us than bonobos, and, as expected, that much more like us in DNA make-up. If God made each of them in a “poof”, why is the neanderthal more like us (in form and dna) than the less-similar bonobo?
Again, similar DNA does not prove one gives birth to another, only an intelligent designer using common DNA structure. Neandertals IU believe was exposed as a hoax. Most of these supposed ancestors have turned out to be something else, or they just found a piece of a bone + artist redemption, or just a hoax. Nonetheless, how does similar DNA prove evolution when in engineering it proves common design to have things of similar makeup.
You say that God could take water and make wine, and you say that that is proof that he made man as is.
I just say the Bible, shows in the New Testament an instance of where God made something that takes age to happen in an instance. Plus this is a special verse to catholics, who use it in other arguments about Mary, so you cannot deny it as allegory.
Why, if God can make wine from water, couldn’t he have created man through evolution? Why have you decided that God is capable of this, but not that?
Because His word says otherwise. He could do anything, but His inspired word recorded that His spoken words did it.

**

Psalm 8

3 When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
**

God spoke the world into existence through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ who manifested miracles to show Him as our Creator. And you deny Christ’s work of creation. That is written plain and simply in His Word.

**

John 1.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

**

And to say God used evolution is a joke.

Romans 1

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.** 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.**

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
 
2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 both say that a thousand years to God is like a day. This shows that what HE sees as a day may be a huge amount of time. No one other than God witnessed the creation. God told the story. If he took millions of years, what is that to God? Could the ancients have understood that?

Also, look at the verses as to when day and night were created, as well as the sun and moon.
This verse is in context of the Lord keeping His promises. This verse does not say anything about the creation process. Peter believed in a literal flood.

1 Peter 3

19through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
 
This verse is in context of the Lord keeping His promises. This verse does not say anything about the creation process. Peter believed in a literal flood.

1 Peter 3

19through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
I never denied the flood. All I am saying is that when there are no humans around, why would God keep the clock he made for us?

Yes, the word “yom” is used, and everywhere else in the Bible that means a 24 hour period. However, God is not held by our time. The Creator is not ruled by the laws of Creation. Can you say, with 100% certanty, that the days are 24 hour periods? When in creation did He create time? Or is time eternal, too?
 
So, you believe that God had to literally rest?
No, He did not have to literally rest. But the fact that he didn’t need to doesn’t prove that he didn’t because he wanted to.
Yes, I believe they did; hence the Jewish observance of the sabbath.
They observe it because they followed the pattern God set forth.
I have no idea what you are talking about.:hypno:
But, the Magesterium is what guides us in our faith, not science. Should we be like protestants and interpret scripture the way we like? How can there be any truth when ten people read the same passage and arrive at ten different interpretations?
THis should only happen in areas of prophecy and parables, but not other areas of the Bible where history is recorded.
 
I had a discussion with a friend of mine over this and he holds to a literal interpretation of Genesis. He pointed out the Hebrew word used for day means something like a literal 24 hour period. How do I respond to that when I am trying to show that story doesn’t need to be taken literally?
Whenever the Hebrew word for day is qualified with a number, it always means a literal day. This is how the Jews understand it.

And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Your friend is right.
 
I never denied the flood. All I am saying is that when there are no humans around, why would God keep the clock he made for us?

Yes, the word “yom” is used, and everywhere else in the Bible that means a 24 hour period. However, God is not held by our time. The Creator is not ruled by the laws of Creation. Can you say, with 100% certanty, that the days are 24 hour periods? When in creation did He create time? Or is time eternal, too?
I can say with confidence because Gen 1 says evening, and then morning.
 
Yes. There is no doubt that occures. THere are too many gaps for me to be forced to accept that man came from monkies.
Humans didn’t come from monkeys. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. The world’s paleontological museums are crammed with transitional fossils supporting evolution. That’s why 100,000 biologists accept the 3.5 billion year evolutionary explanation for species diversity, rather than following the 3,000 year-old pre-scientific account of one of the nomadic groups wandering in the Middle Eastern desert. But, of course, even if that nomadic group’s “science” is out of date, the story of their growing relationship with God is of unparalleled theological beauty!

StAnastasia
 
Where in Genesis did God create time?
A well-known scientist, a very decorated scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. In his scientific career he had become noted for one great discovery, it was a categorical contribution that he made. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories…time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories…time, force, action, space and matter. Nothing exists outside of those categories. That was a very astute discovery and didn’t come until the nineteenth century.

Now think about that. Spencer even listed them in that order…time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning,” that’s time…“God,” that’s force, “created,” that’s action, “the heavens,” that’s space, “and the earth,” that’s matter. In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn’t catalog until the nineteenth century. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.
 
Humans didn’t come from monkeys. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. The world’s paleontological museums are crammed with transitional fossils supporting evolution. That’s why 100,000 biologists accept the 3.5 billion year evolutionary explanation for species diversity, rather than following the 3,000 year-old pre-scientific account of one of the nomadic groups wandering in the Middle Eastern desert. But, of course, even if that nomadic group’s “science” is out of date, the story of their growing relationship with God is of unparalleled theological beauty!

StAnastasia
crammed with transitional forms? This is a lie. They don’t even have one conclusive transitional form.
 
When did he create time?
That is exactly the point. God didn’t invent time. Time is an invention of man to keep things ordered. To my knowledge, we didn’t receive instruction from God stating that a day is a 24-hour period. God can do anything He wants. It’s entirely possible that one day (day and evening one time) latest a thousand of our years. The bible is not meant to answer questions of science as many have stated. However, the bible doesn’t contradict science either.

Holding a literal view of the bible is going to lead to some disappointments when science disproves things. How can you allow a stretch for “two of every animal”, but not on the length of days? God is entirely outside of time. He’s not limited to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top