Changes

NateK, you wrote: "Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time." I realize that you said that you are not an expert, but one of the surest signs of someone erring due to pride is them bragging on how long and hard that they have been studying something. This coupled with you saying you are a proud Irish Catholic with a family line stretching back into Catholicism and family in high places in the Roman Catholic Church is a ripe recipe for error. I had a business owner boss who commented on someone bragging about how long they had been in our industry and how good they were. My boss said something to the effect of: "Has he been in the industry 20 years or one year 20 times?"  People have been known to repeat the same errors over and over.  

NateK, you wrote: "Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time." I realize that you said that you are not an expert, but one of the surest signs of someone erring due to pride is them bragging on how long and hard that they have been studying something. This coupled with you saying you are a proud Irish Catholic with a family line stretching back into Catholicism and family in high places in the Roman Catholic Church is a ripe recipe for error. I had a business owner boss who commented on someone bragging about how long they had been in our industry and how good they were. My boss said something to the effect of: "Has he been in the industry 20 years or one year 20 times?"  People have been known to repeat the same errors over and over.  

Second, we both know that you are violently shoehorning Darwinism into the biblical text and that you are supposedly "seeing" something that the early Church fathers and Jews for thousands of years "missed".  It is like your myriads of "missing links".  Nate, "It is important to note that no major Hebrew scholar says that Genesis is poetry. This is because Genesis has all the grammatical marks of being a historical narrative."[http://creation.com/genesis-poetry-father-hermeutics]  Your creation compromises are not at all compelling as can be seen [http://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thus-not-history HERE] and [http://creation.com/creation-compromises-questions-and-answers HERE]

Second, we both know that you are violently shoehorning Darwinism into the biblical text and that you are supposedly "seeing" something that the early Church fathers and Jews for thousands of years "missed".  It is like your myriads of "missing links" in the fossil record.  Nate, "It is important to note that no major Hebrew scholar says that Genesis is poetry. This is because Genesis has all the grammatical marks of being a historical narrative."[http://creation.com/genesis-poetry-father-hermeutics]  Your creation compromises are not at all compelling as can be seen [http://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thus-not-history HERE] and [http://creation.com/creation-compromises-questions-and-answers HERE]

So why are you and theistic evolutionists committing fundamental Bible exegesis errors. It is due to valuing scientific consensus in the secular world over the Biblical text. And the history of the scientific consensus argument when weighed against the accuracy and insight/foresight of the biblical text has a very checkered past. See: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientific-consensus-and-evolutionary.html Jesus vs. the scientific consensus].   

So why are you and theistic evolutionists committing fundamental Bible exegesis errors. It is due to valuing scientific consensus in the secular world over the Biblical text. And the history of the scientific consensus argument when weighed against the accuracy and insight/foresight of the biblical text has a very checkered past. See: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientific-consensus-and-evolutionary.html Jesus vs. the scientific consensus].   

::Conservative, I think we already made very clear that obsessively proposing to debate a creationist blogger is completely out-of-place in this discussion which is about the Catholic church's theological views over evolution, so that we may improve this article. We're not biologists, we would not be suitable foes for any kind of regular debate (that are made between experts, not amateurs). So please: enough.

::Conservative, I think we already made very clear that obsessively proposing to debate a creationist blogger is completely out-of-place in this discussion which is about the Catholic church's theological views over evolution, so that we may improve this article. We're not biologists, we would not be suitable foes for any kind of regular debate (that are made between experts, not amateurs). So please: enough.

::Catholics actually believe that an "Adam" somewhere, sometime existed; that he was the first "man"; that he was the first human to receive a soul by God and that he, and he alone, committed the Original Sin that spread to all mankind after him. This is what we (and I) believe. This is the nucleus of the Genesis, with everything around it being allegory and poetry - from the snake to the fig leaves. Circumstances are not defined by official dogma: we do not know where and when Adam lived, if he was really named "Adam", what the Original Sin was about, what happened next... but again, the question isn't biological or scientifical. It's spiritual. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 13:57, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

::Catholics actually believe that an "Adam" somewhere, sometime existed; that he was the first "man"; that he was the first human to receive a soul by God and that he, and he alone, committed the Original Sin that spread to all mankind after him. This is what we (and I) believe. This is the nucleus of the Genesis, with everything around it being allegory and poetry - from the snake to the fig leaves. Circumstances are not defined by official dogma: we do not know where and when Adam lived, if he was really named "Adam", what the Original Sin was about, what happened next... but again, the question isn't biological or scientifical. It's spiritual. --[[User:Swordsman|Swordsman]] 13:57, 16 June 2013 (EDT)