I may be missunderstanding your point, please forgive me if I'm missrepresenting your intention. But I think what you are saying is if God did something that appeared to have occured without God that would be a lie. If God did this it would then violate His holyness.

I think I can follow the argument but it seems to me to be contradicted by this: "Prov 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter."

Also Jesus's first miracle was to convert water into wine. If he did this would there not be evidence of fermented grape juice in the wine. Would this not also make Him a liar (by your reasoning)?. If there was no evidence of fermented grapes would it still be wine and if it's not wine wouldn't that miracle be a lie?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just wanting to explore your reasoning.

> I may be missunderstanding your point, please forgive me if I'm missrepresenting your intention. But I think what you are saying is if God did something that appeared to have occured without God that would be a lie.

No. That's not what I am stating at all.

Dinosaur bones are in the ground. Modern science has discovered Uranium-dating (allowing us to date the stars themselves!), Carbon Dating (which is only accurate for a few tens of thousands of years, but is sufficient for us to figure out most of Human history), as well as other forms of dating.

Based on the evidence we have gathered from God's Earth, Dinosaurs used to roam the Earth roughly 300 million years ago.

Based on the evidence we have gathered: the Uranium in the ground and the theoretical distribution of Uranium, the Sun itself was formed roughly 4-billion years ago.

Both of these give reason to believe that the solar system is roughly, 4 billion years old. And the earth itself is older than 300-million years (the rough age of the dinosaur bones we have discovered).

And based on the Carbon-14 we find in various artifacts around the world, we know that Humans are at least 10,000 years old, older than the age that Young Earth Creationists think we are (7000 years old... with Eden happening somewhere around year 5000 BC).

A Young Earth Creationist believes that God planted those Dinosaur bones, planted the Uranium, and planted the Carbon14 in the ground to trick archeologists, paleontologists, geologists, and physicists.

While my opinion, is that the all-loving God would rather have us humans discover science without mucking us up.

Surely God, at very least, would want us to trust that His creation is at least somewhat consistent?

Thanks for your response.

Just to clarify on this point >A Young Earth Creationist believes that God planted those Dinosaur bones, planted the Uranium, and planted the Carbon14 in the ground to trick archeologists, paleontologists, geologists, and physicists.

That was not my understanding, I thought the argument was that God created an old universe. Just as He created Adam an adult male and as he turned water into an aged wine. Is that not a possibility without any requirement for deception?

I don't see the lack of consistency in that reasoning?

> God created an old universe

That's not an issue at all. "Old Earth Creationism" seems compatible with mainstream science. I don't have much issue with Old Earth Creationists.

"Young Earth Creationism", which a number of people believe in, suggests that God Created the Earth in roughly 4000BC to 6000BC, in exactly 7 days.

I am very sorry, you talk like a sensible person. But the more you explain it the less respect I have for religion.

American Pentecostalism sounds like a very stupid tribal superstition to me.

I come from an European and Catholic background. Catholicism and the Protestant mainstream that adopted most of their Theology (e.g.: Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism) do have a deep respect for science. They learned that lesson painfully, after what they did to Copernicus and Galileo.

Pentecostals are headed to serious mistakes if they think anti-reason can take them anywhere.

Well, there are plenty of cults. So the concept of "religion being used for evil" shouldn't be alien to anybody. I think it is fair to say that some religious ideas are harmful (ie: getting together to drink cyanide, aka the Jim Jones cult / Peoples Temple)

And even for the Biblical literalists: they only have to look into the Bible to see the many examples of Pagan religions, from the Golden Calf, to Pharaoh / Exodus, and more, to understand that false gods exist. So surely, they should understand the importance of "getting religion correct".

So I think it is fair to call out certain religious doctrines to be "unhelpful", or even "evil", depending on the case. But I wouldn't generalize much further than that.

You might be surprised by the official catholic position on evolution. There take on evolution for instance is:

> Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

That isn't evolution via natural selection, that's evolution via gods hex editor altering the genome, they explicitly reject natural evolution:

> While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

They also believe in a literal Adam and Eve:

> The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents"

Catholics are creationists, just not of they young earth variety.

Edit - Source: https://www.catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution

That is not the official catholic position. That is just a random webpage written by a self-proclaming catholic editor to promote their books. Do not try too hard to harvest for official catholic positions on matters that are not the core faith ones (and history of the Universe most certainly is not): there are more than a billion catholics around the world, coming from any social status and literary level. There cannot possibly be a position common to all of them on nearly anything, except maybe core faith matters.

That said, you are right in your conclusion, because it is true that (nearly all) catholics are "creationist", in that they believe that God created the universe and everything in there. But many of them also believe in evolution via natural selection, in the very same way you believe it and as shown by the proofs and scientific thinking that our society has accumulated. There is no hex editing by God: it is still true that evolution happens under the guidance of God, because it happens under the laws he created. But (actually, just because of that) without the need of touching anything. On the other hand, it is also true that he may do some hex editing if he wished to, but many catholics agree that there is no need to believe that this has actually happened.

You can use the Canonical Law Codex and papal bulls if you're so inclined to check the official statements of the Catholic Church. These are very interesting and nuanced positions on many weirdnesses accumulated over centuries.

> That isn't evolution via natural selection, that's evolution via gods hex editor altering the genome, they explicitly reject natural evolution:

I disagree with the interpretation of your source.

> Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.

A quote straight out of your source. Pretty clear that Natural Selection could be a mechanism designed by God.

----------

With regards to Adam and Eve, it doesn't seem like the Church literally believes that they perhaps existed. But the fall of man away from God is tied to our gain of knowledge (the core element of the story).

The important element of the creation story, the part that is Catholic Doctrine above all else, is the existence of Original Sin. The moment that the first Man and first Woman turned against God, due to gaining knowledge forbidden to animals. Original Sin is the doctrine that is most fundamental to the Catholic faith.

It helps to understand what is Catholic Doctrine, so you know what the author is trying to say in those parts.

--------

Note: Catholic Doctrine (from the Catechism, one of the most important books in the Catholic Faith) is:

> Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth

> I disagree with the interpretation of your source.

Not my fault the pope can't be more clear. It's ridiculous that their official beliefs are open for interpretation at all.

> A quote straight out of your source. Pretty clear that Natural Selection could be a mechanism designed by God.

A mechanism designed by god would still be intelligent design, as an all knowing god it was still done with the knowledge that humans would arise and he would give them a soul. And given other beliefs that have god interacting with the universe directly and recently why would such an elaborate process be needed for humans to arise? It's like they're using a very different definition of god than the usual one.

> Not my fault the pope can't be more clear. It's ridiculous that their official beliefs are open for interpretation at all.

If you want a more official source, then quote more official material.

You weren't quoting the pope, or really any pope, on the matter. You were quoting some random webpage. As I explained earlier: a more official source you could have quoted was the Catechism.

The Catechism was ordered by Pope John Paul II and made official by the congregation of Bishops and Cardinals. Its about as official as you can get. Its the thing you're supposed to quote when you're nitpicking at Catholic's faith.

> A mechanism designed by god would still be intelligent design, as an all knowing god it was still done with the knowledge that humans would arise and he would give them a soul.

But it wouldn't be incompatible with your belief in Evolution (I'm presuming??). So I'm not entirely sure why you'd be worried about this.

Do you have a reason why you find the answer to be insufficient? As I said earlier, different people believe in different ideas of what God is. That Catholics have a different interpretation compared to other denominations shouldn't be a surprise.

Look, Catholics have a compatible viewpoint on Evolution. They're more or less your allies with regards to Young Earth Creationism, reason, science, etc. etc.

pentecostals are the fastest christian denomination in the world and have been for some time. most people barely understand what science means much less weigh it against the core of their social identity.

Sorry, what is your point?

"Pentecostals are headed to serious mistakes if they think anti-reason can take them anywhere."

my point is they're doing pretty well despite you knowing better

By that metric, that overstates growth in 3rd world countries, fundamentalist Islam and ultra-orthodox Jews are doing even better.

When I use the word "mistake" I am not referring to number of dumb followers, is about intellectual relevance. It is pretty clear that, in developed countries, these obscurantist and fundamentalist creeds are loosing cultural hegemony (e.g.: same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, multiculturalism, abortion, etc).