Evolution & Catholicism Are Incompatible

Far to the contrary that your "arguments from the previous round stand" I think even a casual observer would recognize that they lie in shambles. Were that true, they would still be in better condition than yours. I also found it interesting that you chose to question the source of the [Wikipedia] quote and NOT whether or not the quote was true. The quote is not true. Wikipedia even admits that the threshold for inclusion is "not truth."(1) However the vast majority of my references were from The Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism has no authority where it contradicts official Church teaching. It's like a Biblical commentary on the Bible. If the commentary contradicts the Bible, the commentary is wrong... not the Bible it's commentating on. And yet the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated clearly that the Catechism is the source of understanding of the truth concerning Church teachings. The United States Conference is subject to the greater authority of the Vatican 1 council. Where it contradicts Vatican 1, it is wrong. You also fail to understand that a scientific breakthrough or theory has nothing to do with Church DOGMA. Not necessarily true. If a scientific theory contradicts Church dogma (e.g. Any theory that posits that no man can rise from the dead after being in a tomb for 3 days, contradicting the dogma of Christ's resurrection) then it clearly has something to do with Church dogma. If you think none of Church dogma contradicts any scientific theory, you are either sorely misinformed on the vast number of scientific theories out there, or ont he dogma of the Church. Dogma are the fundamental truths of the Church and are encapsulated in the Nicene Creed: Not all dogmas are in the Nicene Creed. In as far as evolution, as I stated the Church has never taken a definitive position on it and has clearly left that up to the individual whether or not he/she chooses to acknowledge it. You can state that as much as you like, but that's the very point you're unable to prove. Still understand that not taking a position on scientific theory is in no way stating that the theory is wrong. As I stated, this point of view was the position taken by the first Pope to write an encyclical concerning science, Pope Pius XII in Humanai Generis in 1950 What point of view? What quote in Humanai Generis supports this supposed point of view? Finally my opponent diverges from the topic of the debate in attempting to change the topic from whether or not Evolution and the teaching of the Church is incompatible to one one the necessity of interpreting the Scripture literally. That is the topic, actually, since I said the Fathers unanimously considered Genesis creation as having taken place within 1 literal week. Are you Catholic btw? Catechism of the Catholic Church #337: Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work,” concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day.Please note the word "symbolically". The concept of a literal 6-day creation is a question of science. It is not a position of Church dogma.First, as I already explained, the Catechism is not an authority where it contradicts with the Church. Second, it is true that Genesis is symbolic. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT IT IS LITERAL. These are NOT mutually exclusive interpretations. For example, the day of God's rest on the 7th is symbolic of man's prescribed day of rest ont he 7th. Yet, God did indeed rest from creating the universe on the 7th day, literally. Summary: I provided direct quotes from Papal Encyclicals and from the Vatican 1 Council. My opponent only provided supporting quotes from the U.S.A. Catechism, an inferior source not even considered infallible by the Church. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...