To Catholic Creationist
#51
(03-19-2020, 10:00 PM)Tolkien1096 Wrote: It might not be an issue for you, it is for the millions leaving the church. And at least one Pope has spoken in favor of evolution.

Another Pope spoke in favour of pagan idols in the Vatican and said atheists go to heaven. That's also not Church teaching.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • Tolkien1096
Reply
#52
(03-21-2020, 01:17 PM)Paul Wrote:
(03-19-2020, 10:00 PM)Tolkien1096 Wrote: It might not be an issue for you, it is for the millions leaving the church. And at least one Pope has spoken in favor of evolution.

Another Pope spoke in favour of pagan idols in the Vatican and said atheists go to heaven. That's also not Church teaching.

Except JPII didn't even claim that Darwinian theory was accurate. He said that it was "more than a hypothesis," which it definitionally is : a theory (even if very incomplete or even false) IS more than a hypothesis. That is highschool bio101 and has NOTHING to do with whether molecules-to-Man evolution actually happened.

BUT: We need to go one issue at a time here. Back to the CCC thing he keeps mentioning.

Tolkien obviously believes the CCC says somewhere in its pages that biological MACROEVOLUTION (resulting in speciation) explains the Earth's biodiversity. 

Where does the CCC say that? Give me the paragraph where it actually comes out and says that.
Reply
#53
(03-21-2020, 01:44 PM)19405 Wrote:
(03-21-2020, 01:17 PM)Paul Wrote:
(03-19-2020, 10:00 PM)Tolkien1096 Wrote: It might not be an issue for you, it is for the millions leaving the church. And at least one Pope has spoken in favor of evolution.

Another Pope spoke in favour of pagan idols in the Vatican and said atheists go to heaven. That's also not Church teaching.

Except JPII didn't even claim that Darwinian theory was accurate. He said that it was "more than a hypothesis," which it definitionally is : a theory (even if very incomplete or even false) IS more than a hypothesis. That is highschool bio101 and has NOTHING to do with whether molecules-to-Man evolution actually happened.

BUT: We need to go one issue at a time here. Back to the CCC thing he keeps mentioning.

Tolkien obviously believes the CCC says somewhere in its pages that biological MACROEVOLUTION (resulting in speciation) explains the Earth's biodiversity. 

Where does the CCC say that? Give me the paragraph where it actually comes out and says that.

283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.


Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36)
Reply
#54
(03-21-2020, 04:26 PM)Tolkien1096 Wrote: 283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.

The idea that studies (into the origin of the world) have produced more knowledge than we previously have had on a diverse range of subjects, is something that Answers-in-Genesis wouldn't deny. Don't be a parody of a creationist who thinks that the scientific endeavors of the last 100 years are all illegitimate and have revealed nothing about the ancient world. The difference is, "What do you do with the new data?"



Second, PiusXII NOT FORBIDDING research, is not the same as him agreeing with any given conclusion. Valuing the process of questioning is not the same as formally endorsing any given answer.
Reply
#55
https://answersingenesis.org/charles-dar...rspective/

Why is AiG evolutionist? AiG said that Darwin made many valid scientific observations and got some things right and raised some questions we struggle to answer.

Obviously, they are not evolutionist. They are just aware that the scientific enterprise has revealed things about the cosmos, about the origin of man, and about natural selection.
Reply
#56
(03-21-2020, 06:14 PM)19405 Wrote:
(03-21-2020, 04:26 PM)Tolkien1096 Wrote: 283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.

The idea that studies (into the origin of the world) have produced more knowledge than we previously have had on a diverse range of subjects, is something that Answers-in-Genesis wouldn't deny. Don't be a parody of a creationist who thinks that the scientific endeavors of the last 100 years are all illegitimate and have revealed nothing about the ancient world. The difference is, "What do you do with the new data?"



Second, PiusXII NOT FORBIDDING research, is not the same as him agreeing with any given conclusion. Valuing the process of questioning is not the same as formally endorsing any given answer.

could be. but it seems those studies by fallible men and not the bible or tradition is the decider. As if we did not know about how god created or this new information from secularist has shown us how life forms and the appearance of man developed. 


Lets hope so.
Reply
#57
(03-21-2020, 06:30 PM)19405 Wrote: https://answersingenesis.org/charles-dar...rspective/

Why is AiG evolutionist? AiG said that Darwin made many valid scientific observations and got some things right and raised some questions we struggle to answer.

Obviously, they are not evolutionist. They are just aware that the scientific enterprise has revealed things about the cosmos, about the origin of man, and about natural selection.

only if we assume natural selection is a process that can create and is how we got here. Besides you can find statements by AIG that stand on the authority of the bible on creation.
Reply
#58
(03-22-2020, 06:05 AM)Tolkien1096 Wrote:
(03-21-2020, 06:14 PM) Wrote:

"...As if we did not know... how [G]od created, or [as if] this new information from secularist[s] has shown us how life forms [develop; or as if this new info has revealed how] the appearance of man...[occurred]."
I am assuming the above is what you meant.


I think you are mistaken.  There are in fact things we did not understand about how life forms developed, which we have only learned recently.

Professional creation scientists agree with the basic tenets of evolutionary theory (genetic drift, gene flow, etc). That evolution happens (and that it is best defined as a statistical change in the frequency of an allele in a defined population over a given period of time) is not disputed by anyone, and it is not something that was well understood before the 20th century. Creation scientists understand the Hardy-Weinberg equation. We all know about Mendelian and non-Mendelian inheritance patterns.

The vast majority of creation scientists even grant that speciation can be a result of natural selection. As the CCC says, "studies..have...enriched our knowledge of...the development of life-forms." Doing realtime experiments on organisms with short lifespans and quick reproduction rates (such as fruitflies) cannot but  increase our knowledge of the development of life forms.

Those are all things we did not know previously.They are all things which professional creation scientists are aware of, and accept. You don't have to believe in molecules-to-Man evolution to know that.

As for the appearance of Man, we know a lot more about what early Man looked like and the environment into which he came than we previously did - and Ken Ham wouldn't tell you different.

I watched a livestream of a creationist preacher this morning with my father-in-law and even he was saying how scientific advances have lead to a greater plausibility to the fine-tuning argument, and how this has brought people to faith.

The point of all this is: Creation scientists agree that we know more about these things than we previously did.

PS Also, your implicit argument in all of this is that you think you detect a bias in the author that favors evolutionary theory. Catholics do not approach magisterial texts this way; Catholics approach magisterial texts with deference to the actual words. If the words leave us free to form an opinion on a controversy, we are free.
Reply
#59
"Besides you can find statements by AIG that stand on the authority of the bible on creation."

Yeah, exactly, you can grant that Darwin got a couple things right, and simultaneously maintain that he got some things wrong. There really isn't anyone in the world who doesn't do this.
Reply
#60
If you wanna find a Sunday Mass with a number of YEC people, find your nearest Latin Mass. A lot of them are gonna be YEC.
[-] The following 1 user Likes 19405's post:
  • Tolkien1096
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)