Adam, Eve, and Us
#31
(07-03-2018, 02:54 PM)ServusDei Wrote: I wouldn't compare Jesus to Adam.

Well for a "theologist" like yourself I would think that you'd at least know typology 101.

1 Corinthians 15
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Look into this, it's everywhere in the Bible and the liturgy. Much of its quite beautiful.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dominicus's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#32
(07-03-2018, 06:57 PM)Dominicus Wrote: Well for a "theologist" like yourself I would think that you'd at least know typology 101.
:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#33
(07-03-2018, 04:06 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Thanks, MM!

Quote:I don't think Paul is saying that Paradise is an allegory, but rather that Genesis 1 admits of a broad interpretation as regards certain aspects.

I was referring to JPII's statement (which I can't find now) that the creation account is allegorical in nature but true nevertheless.

Genesis one is taken allegorically at least to some degree even by the Fathers, so John Paul II was (at least in that limited sense) saying nothing novel ... yes, it did happen from time to time.
Reply
#34
Dunno if anything I'm about to say has already been said, but to those defending theistic evolution:

Adam and Eve had to be created by fiat, because when Mary identified herself at Fatima, she called herself THE Immaculate Conception. Not "a" nor "the third" immaculate conception. Adam and Eve were not conceived in the womb of animal humanoids who were devoid of souls, if they were then they too were immaculately conceived and Eve also doesn't come from Adam. Also if one needs God to make the bogus theory of evolution work, why are we even entertaining it? A rock cannot turn to a single celled organism anymore than a tornado in a junk yard can build a car or a dryer fold a shirt. The universe was created by fiat in 6 days. Evolution is not a complicated idea nor is it a new one. If evolution was part of divine revelation it would not have been difficult for God to pass it along so that our churches could have been filled with stain glass of monkeys turning into man this whole time. It is antithetical to the Catholic faith and I'm pretty sure the Council of Trent declared those who uphold "scientific theories" that are contrary to the Catholic faith to be anathema.

Genesis is literal history.

Peace.
Ave Christus Rex!
Reply
#35
(07-03-2018, 10:59 PM)Some Guy Wrote: Adam and Eve had to be created by fiat, because when Mary identified herself at Fatima, she called herself THE Immaculate Conception. Not "a" nor "the third" immaculate conception.

Perhaps you're right. But one who denies that Fatima is true is not a heretic. We aren't bound by private revelation.
(07-03-2018, 10:59 PM)Some Guy Wrote: A rock cannot turn to a single celled organism anymore than a tornado in a junk yard can build a car or a dryer fold a shirt.

Which isn't the theory of evolution. Nice straw man, which only makes believers in evolution dismiss traditional Catholicism if we're arguing that's what evolution is.

That said, evolutionists have no idea how life began even if most of them won't admit it publicly. But if we're going to argue against evolution, 'rocks to a single celled organism' isn't it.

(07-03-2018, 10:59 PM)Some Guy Wrote: Evolution is not a complicated idea nor is it a new one. If evolution was part of divine revelation it would not have been difficult for God to pass it along so that our churches could have been filled with stain glass of monkeys turning into man this whole time.

 Of course He could. But the Church has never absolutely forbidden the study of it. A Catholic who believes in evolution is not, for that reason alone, a heretic. He could have built in guidance to the process, creating indirectly, just as He creates people now through biological processes.

(07-03-2018, 10:59 PM)Some Guy Wrote: It is antithetical to the Catholic faith and I'm pretty sure the Council of Trent declared those who uphold "scientific theories" that are contrary to the Catholic faith to be anathema.

Citation, please. Science and religion are not opposed to each other, despite centuries of Protestants and atheists trying to convince the world otherwise. We know what's been defined by the Church is true, but the creation of animals by evolution (or not) has never been defined. Kind of like Limbo.

(07-03-2018, 10:59 PM)Some Guy Wrote: Genesis is literal history.

Yes, it is, but it's always been permitted for the six days to not be six literal days. God also gave us the use of reason, and there's evidence that the universe is much older than 6000 years. True, those who push such views often have an atheistic agenda, and maybe they're wrong. But since the Church has never taught authoritatively on that one, we can examine all the evidence and come to our own conclusions.
Reply
#36
(07-03-2018, 10:59 PM)Some Guy Wrote: Dunno if anything I'm about to say has already been said, but to those defending theistic evolution:

Adam and Eve had to be created by fiat, because when Mary identified herself at Fatima, she called herself THE Immaculate Conception. Not "a" nor "the third" immaculate conception. Adam and Eve were not conceived in the womb of animal humanoids who were devoid of souls, if they were then they too were immaculately conceived and Eve also doesn't come from Adam. Also if one needs God to make the bogus theory of evolution work, why are we even entertaining it? A rock cannot turn to a single celled organism anymore than a tornado in a junk yard can build a car or a dryer fold a shirt. The universe was created by fiat in 6 days. Evolution is not a complicated idea nor is it a new one. If evolution was part of divine revelation it would not have been difficult for God to pass it along so that our churches could have been filled with stain glass of monkeys turning into man this whole time. It is antithetical to the Catholic faith and I'm pretty sure the Council of Trent declared those who uphold "scientific theories" that are contrary to the Catholic faith to be anathema.

Genesis is literal history.

Peace.

Nobody here has yet said that Adam and Eve were formed through evolution. 

Its my opinion that God created the world over a certain length of time which is figuratively described as 6 days. During this time it is possible though not neccessarily certain that animals evolved. Afterwards he specially formed Adam from the earth and Eve from his side.

Its my understanding that even some of the early church fathers held similar positions though they obviously didn't have the same concept of evolution.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
Reply
#37
(07-04-2018, 12:52 AM)Dominicus Wrote: Its my opinion that God created the world over a certain length of time which is figuratively described as 6 days. During this time it is possible though not neccessarily certain that animals evolved. Afterwards he specially formed Adam from the earth and Eve from his side.

That's a permissible opinion, although I'd disagree that animals evolved. The evidence for macroevolution is weak at best. There's been no mechanism discovered for it. Beneficial mutation is so improbable, even with billions of years, that if it were anything else it would be deemed impossible, but since the alternative is creation, well, it must have been that. And, given the amount of fossils we have now, the argument of all the transitional forms being lost due to gaps doesn't hold up.

I'm less convinced by the arguments against carbon dating and such, but they do exist. But an old universe isn't a problem for the faith, unlike the evolution of man would.
Reply
#38
(07-04-2018, 01:13 AM)Paul Wrote:
(07-04-2018, 12:52 AM)Dominicus Wrote: Its my opinion that God created the world over a certain length of time which is figuratively described as 6 days. During this time it is possible though not neccessarily certain that animals evolved. Afterwards he specially formed Adam from the earth and Eve from his side.

That's a permissible opinion, although I'd disagree that animals evolved. The evidence for macroevolution is weak at best. There's been no mechanism discovered for it. Beneficial mutation is so improbable, even with billions of years, that if it were anything else it would be deemed impossible, but since the alternative is creation, well, it must have been that. And, given the amount of fossils we have now, the argument of all the transitional forms being lost due to gaps doesn't hold up.

I'm less convinced by the arguments against carbon dating and such, but they do exist. But an old universe isn't a problem for the faith, unlike the evolution of man would.

I'm not sure we want pit "evolution" against "creation". That's a common Fundy Prot tactic, but really does a disservice to the whole subject by creating straw men.

Creation is simply the idea that at the beginning of time God produced from no previously existing subject all matter and all forms (i.e. everything). Some would hold that God produced everything as we see it today in a single instant, others that over some time God took this matter and arranged it (either 6 days or some other indefinite period).

Evolution (in the strict sense) is the notion that different biological species descend from a common biological ancestor.

These operate in two different fields. Biology is in no way competent to analyze or judge something which is related either to Theology or Cosmology (depending on how you study the universe). Cosmology and Theology (as superior sciences) provide principles for Biology, but will never contradict Biology when it is true.

The evidence for evolution is somewhat independent of the proposal of a method. Most today propose a Darwinian system where common biological features are explained by common descent and variety is explained by time plus random mutation plus natural selection. Other "theological evolutionists" reject a Darwinian system and assert common descent and variety by a deliberately guided system of mutation plus (perhaps) natural selection.

Dr. Michael Behe in The Edge of Evolution (for the weakness of his other arguments and of the ID movements philosophical flaws in general) does do a good job of showing how even an unguided Darwinian evolutionary model statistically fails to produce enough variety to match what is observed even given the generally-accepted age of the universe. Thus even if the theory were correct, it could not explain more than perhaps the varieties within the family level of taxonomic classification. Some of his assumptions have been shown weak or false, but the argument still shows that there are sever difficulties to accepting that Darwinian processes explain the whole of life. Behe's conclusion is that there must be some directed evolution, and not random, which shows that the process acts for a known and purposeful end, suggesting an intelligent agent. Still, Behe remains an evolutionist, and he's certainly also a creationist, as well : He asserts God created everything, an old Earth, evolution to produce biological forms, and the special creation of man. That is an acceptable position for a Catholic.

Equally acceptable is the rejection of such things, acceptance of a 6-day creation account, universal flood, and slavishly literal reading of Genesis. However, the rejection of evolution and a non-144-hour period of creation cannot be made on theological grounds. The question of the age of the earth and biological relations of living things is not a theological question but one for Geology, Biology and the various natural sciences, guided by sound principles given Philosophy and Theology.

That's precisely the balance one sees enunciated by Pius XII and the Church : "Here's what Catholics must believe, but beyond this, experts may study these questions if they do not deny these de fide things."

In doing this the Church is helping to promote Science, because she knows that God is the author of supernatural and natural truth, so these cannot conflict. If Revelation says X, then it is pointless for science to see if X is really true or start searching among the category of non-X things, because the truth will not be found there. Modern atheistic scientists want the freedom to search the whole world for the set of lost keys, when the Church, because she knows where you last had them, can say, "don't worry about searching in the Mohave Desert, since you've never been there, and you last had them in your house in Miami". It is then the atheistic scientists who are doing bad science, by ignoring valuable evidence.

In this regard while unlikely, the evolution of man's body is a permissible opinion. His soul is unlike an animal soul, so it must have been specially created and infused no matter how his body first formed. In my book, it seems unfitting that God took a non-human born of some non-human and infused into this pre-man a human soul, making him the first Man. Is it possible, yes. Is it likely, no. But to assert that while one would have serious issues to overcome, he would not be denying the Faith.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Florus
Reply
#39
Quote: Perhaps you're right. But one who denies that Fatima is true is not a heretic. We aren't bound by private revelation.

The most important Marian apparition involving the most spectacular miracle God has graced the modern Church with is pretty important. If someone is ignorant of Fatima, that's one thing, but to deny it... Well I would be seriously suspect of that person's faith.

Quote: Which isn't the theory of evolution. Nice straw man, which only makes believers in evolution dismiss traditional Catholicism if we're arguing that's what evolution is.

That said, evolutionists have no idea how life began even if most of them won't admit it publicly. But if we're going to argue against evolution, 'rocks to a single celled organism' isn't it.

Umm... yes actually. Macro evolutionary scientists do not believe life was immediately in existence at the moment of their "big bang." So space explosion turns into space dust turns into stars and rocks that orbit them and some atoms on said rocks turn into the first single celled organism which turns into something else blah blah blah. I am not misrepresenting it. I was literally taught this garbage my whole life.

But if you want me to focus specifically on macro-evolution, there's literally zero evidence for it. We have had ongoing lab testing on fruit flies and other fast producing organisms for decades now. There are been zero beneficial mutations and absolutely nothing showing the transition into something other than a fly. And fossil records don't prove anything either. There is not a single animal that's been mapped out in its different macro evolutionary stages using fossils (or anything else) because it doesn't exist. Species have latent DNA that can serve a purpose when activated by their surroundings, but that is micro-evolution. Macro is total bunk.

Quote: Of course He could. But the Church has never absolutely forbidden the study of it. A Catholic who believes in evolution is not, for that reason alone, a heretic. He could have built in guidance to the process, creating indirectly, just as He creates people now through biological processes.

Well I'd love to know if evolution is so consistent with Catholicism and is taking us on the road to Truth then why didn't God raise saints in His Church to help us along with such an important revelation? Why is the almost unanimous history and tradition of the Church on the historicity of Genesis not interrupted by a man after God's own heart? Why is it godless atheists (Darwin, Sagan, etc) who are the ones giving us such important revelations about the natural world? Probably... because it's all false and was pushed for the purposes of destroying Christianity, pushing Communism, etc.

Quote: Citation, please.

I can't find it. I'm a chump. Sorry.

Quote: Yes, it is, but it's always been permitted for the six days to not be six literal days. God also gave us the use of reason, and there's evidence that the universe is much older than 6000 years. True, those who push such views often have an atheistic agenda, and maybe they're wrong. But since the Church has never taught authoritatively on that one, we can examine all the evidence and come to our own conclusions.


Time has a beginning and as end. Just cause the sun and moon weren't there in the very first seconds of creation doesn't mean time hadn't started. Again, if God wanted us to believe in 6 eras of creation and a 7th era of rest, why didn't he inspire those words? God creates through fiat. God's miracles were always through fiat. He didn't tell Moses to leave his staff in the sand for 5 years and eventually it would turn into a snake. But I guess he wanted to make an exception for Genesis. (Or maybe demonic influenced atheists are very purposefully and meticulously attacking Genesis. If Catholics can be convinced that "REAL" science rejects Genesis, then there will be no new Catholics. Which means there is no One True Church to destroy, because they all converted themselves to more worldly affairs.
Ave Christus Rex!
Reply
#40
(07-04-2018, 09:53 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I'm not sure we want pit "evolution" against "creation". That's a common Fundy Prot tactic, but really does a disservice to the whole subject by creating straw men.

Creation is simply the idea that at the beginning of time God produced from no previously existing subject all matter and all forms (i.e. everything). Some would hold that God produced everything as we see it today in a single instant, others that over some time God took this matter and arranged it (either 6 days or some other indefinite period).

And neither is acceptable to most scientists, since they only accept natural causes for everything. If anything points to any sort of possible supernatural involvement, it's dismissed, and the natural alternative is accepted, no matter how improbable or how poorly understood it is.

That's how we end up with theories like the multiverse and an endless cycling universe being deemed scientific, even though we have no way to ever prove or disprove it. Even if it's true that there an infinite number of universes, one with every possibility, you're limited to one of them. Yet this is scientific, when proposing that biology appears designed and might be guided by some sort of intelligence is derided with 'flying spaghetti monsters'.

Some evolution - what's usually called microevolution - has been seen to occur. Organisms change. New groups of them appear that no longer breed with other groups. But we don't see macroevolution, which involves new genetic information that wasn't there previously.

(07-04-2018, 09:53 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Dr. Michael Behe in The Edge of Evolution (for the weakness of his other arguments and of the ID movements philosophical flaws in general) does do a good job of showing how even an unguided Darwinian evolutionary model statistically fails to produce enough variety to match what is observed even given the generally-accepted age of the universe. Thus even if the theory were correct, it could not explain more than perhaps the varieties within the family level of taxonomic classification. Some of his assumptions have been shown weak or false, but the argument still shows that there are sever difficulties to accepting that Darwinian processes explain the whole of life. Behe's conclusion is that there must be some directed evolution, and not random, which shows that the process acts for a known and purposeful end, suggesting an intelligent agent. Still, Behe remains an evolutionist, and he's certainly also a creationist, as well : He asserts God created everything, an old Earth, evolution to produce biological forms, and the special creation of man. That is an acceptable position for a Catholic.

In this regard while unlikely, the evolution of man's body is a permissible opinion. His soul is unlike an animal soul, so it must have been specially created and infused no matter how his body first formed. In my book, it seems unfitting that God took a non-human born of some non-human and infused into this pre-man a human soul, making him the first Man. Is it possible, yes. Is it likely, no. But to assert that while one would have serious issues to overcome, he would not be denying the Faith.

I agree with you that evolution of man's body is not heretical, despite the problems of it seeming unfitting. But there's also the philosophical argument that the soul is form of the body - did Adam have a non-human soul that was replaced with a human one? Or was a human soul given him at his conception, which I suppose God could have done? Although that would make Our Lady an Immaculate Conception, not the Immaculation Conception. But then, Latin doesn't have articles, anyway.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)