7th grade questions

[DesertAscetic]

Nope, we do know. They evolve because the vast majority of the evidence supports that conclusion. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?

Evolution shows me the “how,” but can you show me the “why”? You might not find the anthropic principle compelling, but I do. Evolution shows change over time and the natural mechanism by which this change over time occurs, but it does not explain why the natural mechanisms exist in the first place. Materialist scientists believe in the god Chaos, that randomness creates the natural mechanisms from nothing. Spiritual people believe that the God of Order created the natural mechanisms. Unless you can get down to the level of atoms and show how it’s purely random, which you couldn’t, for that is absurd, I don’t see how you have “proof” of the very mechanism that lies at the heart of the mechanisms that fuel evolution. (Note: if you think quantum mechanics proves randomness, I have many references for you. It is silent on the issue.) On this level, we are equal, because I can not show you the mind of God that produces the mechanisms either.

“Proof” must not be the be-all-end-all. We all live and navigate via reasoned intuition–by a rational recognition of pattern and implication…an “implication” that may not be able to be materialistically proven beyond doubt. The scientific method is not the only path to knowledge, as I’ve heard others point out to you before.

~Shaunna

 

[jmcrae]

No, you did not answer my objection regarding the QUANITITY of light. Is there another light source that is able to support a biosphere that is not the sun? BTW, where did the fuel for the fire come from??

There was light on the First Day. The plants were created on the Third Day, so yes, there was already light available for them.

We have no way of knowing what form the light took, at that time - perhaps it was the stuff out of which the stars were made on the Fourth Day. We are not told, but we do know that there was light before there were plants.

 

[ribozyme]

Well, I think the entire discussion regarding the existence of the sun and whether the biosphere can survive without the sun is pointless… Either you trust the vast majority of the scientific consensus or you choose to adhere to a literal, but counterintuitive interpretation of Genesis.

I’ll address some of the other claims in this thread when I do get the time.

 

[francisca]

Well, I think the entire discussion regarding the existence of the sun and whether the biosphere can survive without the sun is pointless… Either you trust the vast majority of the scientific consensus or you choose to adhere to a literal, but counterintuitive interpretation of Genesis.

I’ll address some of the other claims in this thread when I do get the time.

Genesis is not a science book. Genesis is theology.

You know that in science, you must check every facts. But, I don’t think you and I have enough facts to check Genesis. Neither all geologists and physicist and chemist and other field experts of science have enough facts to check Genesis.

Let’s say we were there when the world came to be for the first time. Assuming we were of the same condition as we are now, with all the brains we have and all the sanity and logic and intelligence, I still don’t think we can check such reality.

To assume that we can “empirically check the whole reality” is false. For we know FOR SURE that our senses and equipments and methodology are ALWAYS “with constraints”.

By the way, I think what Eileen wrote below is quite a good idea :
Eileen T:

I told my kids they were wiped out in the Flood because Noah wasn’t able to get them on the Ark.

Noah can’t get Dinosours into the Ark because they were too big ! Ribo, don’t you think dinos were too big for an ark? Just kidding… “Genesis is not science… Genesis is not science…” I am trying to memorize this fact over and over again.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The original intent was to both answer the questions asked, and stretch the 7th grade mind to realize only partial information is actually known. So the rotation of the earth has not always been 24hrs, light comes from various sources, evolution does not oppose creation, know one knows how dinosaurs were created or how they became extinct.

 

[Nullasalus]

Well, I think the entire discussion regarding the existence of the sun and whether the biosphere can survive without the sun is pointless… Either you trust the vast majority of the scientific consensus or you choose to adhere to a literal, but counterintuitive interpretation of Genesis.

I’ll address some of the other claims in this thread when I do get the time.

For my part, I’m not questioning whether the sun is a necessary prerequisite for any life whatsoever. But the example from the wiki is a theory which (apparently) talks about life beginning where there was no sunlight. I don’t know if life that far down into the earth would be possible, even without a sun. The science is beyond me, but the possibilities seem open-ended at least for some kinds of early life.

 

[ribozyme]

For my part, I’m not questioning whether the sun is a necessary prerequisite for any life whatsoever. But the example from the wiki is a theory which (apparently) talks about life beginning where there was no sunlight. I don’t know if life that far down into the earth would be possible, even without a sun. The science is beyond me, but the possibilities seem open-ended at least for some kinds of early life.

An ecosystem can be supported without solar energy, and indeed, there are forms of life that derived their energy from something else (such as reducing sulfur), but there has to be a source for energy as most of the processes of life are not thermodynamically favored. It does not have to come from the sun.

I used “biosphere” in my last post, not life itself. With my knowledge of ecology (mainly derived from a secondary school- college level biology textbook), I think that the biosphere cannot be supported without the sun (most organisms depend on it, although not all). Photosynthesis is not a prerequiste for life, but it seems that it is necessary to support a complex ecosystem.

Since the Bible states that photosynthetic organisms (e.g. complex plants such as that “yield seed according to their own kinds and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed,”) were created before the creation of the sun. As far as I am concerned, these plants cannot survive without a source of light. I don’t know much about the evolution of plants, but angiosperms (flowering plants which develope a fruit) have came into existence about 170 million years ago. And they are much more complex than the simplest photosynthetic organisms such a cyanobacteria.
Genesis:

11And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[d] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

Without the sun, the Earth would also freeze.

 

[trth_skr]

…

1. Where do the dinasours fit into the creation scheme? (remember these are 7th graders!)

…

God created dinasours, just like every other creature. For sure, dinasours were destroyed in the flood.

There are fossil records of dinasours.

Modern science believes the dinasours existed millions of years ago. The Church does not necasarily hold this view.

See this, this, and this (not for the 7th graders necassarily, but for you).

Mark Wyatt
www.veritasc-catholic.blogspot.com
JMJ+

 

[trth_skr]

…Since the Bible states that photosynthetic organisms (e.g. complex plants such as that “yield seed according to their own kinds and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed,”) were created before the creation of the sun. As far as I am concerned, these plants cannot survive without a source of light. …Without the sun, the Earth would also freeze.

Didn’t God create “light” the first day?

This light may have been present for the plants on the third to be replaced by the sun on the fourth. This is discussed in various places in Robert Sungenis’ and Robert Bennet’s new book Galileo Was Wrong.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Nullasalus]

An ecosystem can be supported without solar energy, and indeed, there are forms of life that derived their energy from something else (such as reducing sulfur), but there has to be a source for energy as most of the processes of life are not thermodynamically favored. It does not have to come from the sun.

I used “biosphere” in my last post, not life itself. With my knowledge of ecology (mainly derived from a secondary school- college level biology textbook), I think that the biosphere cannot be supported without the sun (most organisms depend on it, although not all). Photosynthesis is not a prerequiste for life, but it seems that it is necessary to support a complex ecosystem.

Since the Bible states that photosynthetic organisms (e.g. complex plants such as that “yield seed according to their own kinds and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed,”) were created before the creation of the sun. As far as I am concerned, these plants cannot survive without a source of light.

Oh, I don’t have a strong theory about this either way. I have no doubt that trees and grass and the like can’t survive without the sun (or at least some source of light, and I don’t know of a good one back then other than the sun). My only thought was that life may have originated without contact with the sun, and said life may have become plant life while underground. This is entirely out of my league though - I don’t know at what point bacteria crosses the line to… something else. (Plant, fungus, creature)

It’s honestly something I hadn’t thought about until this thread - for me, Genesis isn’t supposed to be a how-to telling of the universe’s origin. Rather it’s to identify the source (God) and the primacy of man. But what it does get on-the-mark is interesting to discuss. It’s not perfect at first glance, but it’s not striking out either.

 

[ribozyme]

Didn’t God create “light” the first day?

This light may have been present for the plants on the third to be replaced by the sun on the fourth. This is discussed in various places in Robert Sungenis’ and Robert Bennet’s new book Galileo Was Wrong.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Oh well, I am not reading any of Sungensis’ work regarding geocentrism and other stuff unless he publishes his ideas about it in Nature, Science, PNAS, or any respected astronomy peer-reviewed journal. Until then, I reserve my right to laugh at their unorthodox views.

 

[Vidi_Aquam]

All:

I have begun teaching Religous Ed to 7th graders. I need to say a quick thank you to many of you who provided some good advice before I started and thanks to all for helping me prepare for this for the last two years.

I didn’t know I was preparing to be a Catechist, but in looking back it’s clear the Holy Spirit has been leading me here all along and this forum was an important part of my education.

I am enjoying it more than I could have hoped.

I received two questions that I wanted to check with you all on. I believe I know the answers for both but want to be 100% certain.

1. Where do the dinasours fit into the creation scheme? (remember these are 7th graders!)
2. How could Jesus have no descendants?

Thanks in advance for your help

I’m sure I’ll be posting many more of these questions in the future.

1. The dinosaurs coexisted with man. Unfortunatly they couldnt fit on the ark…so bye bye dinosaurs. However the concept of the dinosaur was carried by noah’s descendants as the great ‘leviathan’. Maybe Noah and his descendents believed dinosaurs were still alive but just underwater after the flood (there are references to sea monsters in the bible)
2. Jesus didnt have descendents because he didnt want his children to be deified or perhaps for it to turn into a dynasty of ‘god-kings’.

 

[ribozyme]

1. The dinosaurs coexisted with man. Unfortunatly they couldnt fit on the ark…so bye bye dinosaurs. However the concept of the dinosaur was carried by noah’s descendants as the great ‘leviathan’. Maybe Noah and his descendents believed dinosaurs were still alive but just underwater after the flood (there are references to sea monsters in the bible)
2. Jesus didnt have descendents because he didnt want his children to be deified or perhaps for it to turn into a dynasty of ‘god-kings’.

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

Regarding the question: " I don’t know at what point bacteria crosses the line to… something else. (Plant, fungus, creature)"

I would say the development of eukaryotic characterists: eukaryotic chromosomes, organelles, nucleus, etc.

 

[Nullasalus]

I would say the development of eukaryotic characterists: eukaryotic chromosomes, organelles, nucleus, etc.

I won’t lie - I don’t know what eukaryotic even means. But sure, why not. I’ll assume such things can’t flourish in a light-lacking environ, as far as we know.

I will say it’s (potentially) an error to look at what we know exists nowadays (or thousands of years ago) and wonder if it could survive in the conditions outlined in Genesis. I do know that in the map of all life that has existed on this planet, there’s a very large part marked ‘Here there be dragons’. Not that dragons existed, but you know what I mean. We just discovered a new mammal for the first time in awhile recently, in fact. Some adorable mouse.