You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
jcm2017
Guest
Theology is not a natural science like biology and is not journalistic history. It doesn’t pretend to explain the “how” of our origins. Genesis was never intended to be science. The (Catholic) Church has never taken it that way.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
Genesis was absolutely written as a historical document and the Catholic Church has always taken it that way.Genesis was never intended to be science. The (Catholic) Church has never taken it that way.
Y
youngsterat16
Guest
I’ve thought about this myself. I do think it is possible that humanity descended from Adam and Eve, just difficult to wrap my head around.
On the other hand though, Genesis shouldn’t be interpreted as complete facts. The creation of the world in seven days is unlikely, and is more of an image of how God set life in motion. Also showing symbolism such as resting on Sunday and honoring God’s day. The flood and Noah’s Ark probably wouldn’t have had two of every animal in existence at the time, nor does a forty day timeline quite make sense if taken literally.
So that may be one reason to think that Adam and Eve is also more symbolic than factual. Not saying they never did exist, but we really have no clue.
On the other hand though, Genesis shouldn’t be interpreted as complete facts. The creation of the world in seven days is unlikely, and is more of an image of how God set life in motion. Also showing symbolism such as resting on Sunday and honoring God’s day. The flood and Noah’s Ark probably wouldn’t have had two of every animal in existence at the time, nor does a forty day timeline quite make sense if taken literally.
So that may be one reason to think that Adam and Eve is also more symbolic than factual. Not saying they never did exist, but we really have no clue.
B
buffalo
Guest
The biology inferences made that Adam and Eve did not exist are based on big assumptions.
First, science said they were separated by a long time span, then they were contemporaries. Next, they will say they lived in the same village at the same time.
[
Dr Dennis Bonnette on Adam and Eve (IDvolution.org: Dr Dennis Bonnette on Adam and Eve)
First, science said they were separated by a long time span, then they were contemporaries. Next, they will say they lived in the same village at the same time.
[
Dr Dennis Bonnette on Adam and Eve (IDvolution.org: Dr Dennis Bonnette on Adam and Eve)
B
buffalo
Guest
Genesis laid out the existence of a literal Adam and Eve. Science is confirming it. We are devolving not evolving. Working back, there was an original pair with pristine genetics.
Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome” IDvolution.org: Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"
Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome” IDvolution.org: Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
A question can be asked - Why did the Supreme Creator need such a long time for His designs to manifest themselves.
A possible answer is that since God is outside of time He can look at His creation as a rolled up measuring tape of seven layers. We live on the timeline and have to look back at all the graduations. Genesis 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective.
A possible answer is that since God is outside of time He can look at His creation as a rolled up measuring tape of seven layers. We live on the timeline and have to look back at all the graduations. Genesis 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective.
S
Spyridon
Guest
That’s exactly what Dr. Gerald Schroeder writes.
He’s an MIT Professor and physicist as well as an Orthodox Jew.
He writes:
Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 15 billion years of history. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What’s exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the “view of time” from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons and neutrons (their nucleosynthesis), relative to the “view of time” today. It’s not science fiction any longer.
A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same number. The general relationship between nucleosynthesis, that time near the beginning at the threshold energy of protons and neutrons when matter formed, and time today is a million million. That’s a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says “I’m sending you a pulse every second,” would we see a pulse every second? No. We’d see it every million million seconds. Because that’s the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.
The Talmud tells us that the soul of Adam was created at five and a half days after the beginning of the six days. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. . How would we see those days stretched by a million million? Five and a half days times a million million, gives us five and a half million million days. Dividing that by 365 days in a year, that comes out to be 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of about 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is extraordinary. The universe is billons of years old from one perspective and a mere six days old from another. And both are correct!
I STRONGLY suggest anyone working on a synthesis of Genesis with modern science read his works.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx
He’s an MIT Professor and physicist as well as an Orthodox Jew.
He writes:
Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 15 billion years of history. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What’s exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the “view of time” from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons and neutrons (their nucleosynthesis), relative to the “view of time” today. It’s not science fiction any longer.
A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same number. The general relationship between nucleosynthesis, that time near the beginning at the threshold energy of protons and neutrons when matter formed, and time today is a million million. That’s a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says “I’m sending you a pulse every second,” would we see a pulse every second? No. We’d see it every million million seconds. Because that’s the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.
The Talmud tells us that the soul of Adam was created at five and a half days after the beginning of the six days. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. . How would we see those days stretched by a million million? Five and a half days times a million million, gives us five and a half million million days. Dividing that by 365 days in a year, that comes out to be 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of about 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is extraordinary. The universe is billons of years old from one perspective and a mere six days old from another. And both are correct!
I STRONGLY suggest anyone working on a synthesis of Genesis with modern science read his works.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx
B
buffalo
Guest
St Augustine on Prime Matter https://idvolution.blogspot.com/search/label/prime matter
…Such prime matter, nevertheless, can exist only under some form. “We must not think of God as first creating matter,” the Saint admonishes, “and after an interval of time giving form to what He had created without form; but as creating it simultaneously with the world. As spoken words are produced by the speaker, not by giving form afterwards to a voice previously without form, but by uttering his voice fully formed, so we must understand that God did indeed create the world from unformed matter, yet concreated this matter simultaneously with the world. Still not uselessly do we tell, first that from which something is made, and afterwards what is made from it; because, though both can be made simultaneously, they can not be narrated simultaneously.”23 This we find again in the treatise we are especially discussing. “When we say matter and form, we understand both simultaneously, though we cannot pronounce them simultaneously. As in the brief space of speaking we pronounce one before the other, so in the longer time of narration we discuss one before the other. Still God created both simultaneously, while we in our speech take up first in time what is first in origin only.”24
Prime matter can be called not only what it actually was under some elementary form, but also what it was to become by future formation. This most important principle St. Augustine lays down in explaining against the Manicheans the text: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” He says: “Unformed matter is here called heaven and earth, not because it was this, but because it was able to become this; for heaven, it is written, was made afterwards. For if, considering a seed, we say that roots and wood and branches and fruit and leaves are there, not because they are there now, but because they are to be from it, in the same way it is said, ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth,’ as if he made the seed of heaven and earth, when the matter of heaven and earth was still confused. But, because heaven and earth were certainly to be from it, matter itself is already called heaven and earth. Our Lord Himself uses this manner of speech when He says: ‘I will not now call you servants, because the servant knows not what his master does. But I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard from the Father, I have made known to you.’25 Not that he had actually done so as yet, but because the manifestation was certainly to take place.”26
and…
27 In the beginning, therefore, God created prime matter with its potency positively determined to all things that were to be, so that these things may be said literally, not figuratively, to have been created simultaneously with it.
…Such prime matter, nevertheless, can exist only under some form. “We must not think of God as first creating matter,” the Saint admonishes, “and after an interval of time giving form to what He had created without form; but as creating it simultaneously with the world. As spoken words are produced by the speaker, not by giving form afterwards to a voice previously without form, but by uttering his voice fully formed, so we must understand that God did indeed create the world from unformed matter, yet concreated this matter simultaneously with the world. Still not uselessly do we tell, first that from which something is made, and afterwards what is made from it; because, though both can be made simultaneously, they can not be narrated simultaneously.”23 This we find again in the treatise we are especially discussing. “When we say matter and form, we understand both simultaneously, though we cannot pronounce them simultaneously. As in the brief space of speaking we pronounce one before the other, so in the longer time of narration we discuss one before the other. Still God created both simultaneously, while we in our speech take up first in time what is first in origin only.”24
Prime matter can be called not only what it actually was under some elementary form, but also what it was to become by future formation. This most important principle St. Augustine lays down in explaining against the Manicheans the text: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” He says: “Unformed matter is here called heaven and earth, not because it was this, but because it was able to become this; for heaven, it is written, was made afterwards. For if, considering a seed, we say that roots and wood and branches and fruit and leaves are there, not because they are there now, but because they are to be from it, in the same way it is said, ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth,’ as if he made the seed of heaven and earth, when the matter of heaven and earth was still confused. But, because heaven and earth were certainly to be from it, matter itself is already called heaven and earth. Our Lord Himself uses this manner of speech when He says: ‘I will not now call you servants, because the servant knows not what his master does. But I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard from the Father, I have made known to you.’25 Not that he had actually done so as yet, but because the manifestation was certainly to take place.”26
and…
27 In the beginning, therefore, God created prime matter with its potency positively determined to all things that were to be, so that these things may be said literally, not figuratively, to have been created simultaneously with it.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
I’ve often wondered at what Augustine could possibly have been thinking with this statement, because taken the way the evolutionists take it, we would have to reject every miracle in the Bible.
Didn’t he mock the Egyptian histories because they implied the world was over 20,000 uears old?
Didn’t he mock the Egyptian histories because they implied the world was over 20,000 uears old?
S
Spyridon
Guest
Augustine mocked them because he lived in the fourth century.
I find it incredible to suggest he would’ve mocked the idea had he been alive today with access to the information we have.
St. Augustine was a Doctor of the Church and a literal genius. To imply he would contradict every modern science if he lived today, to me, is wrong.
I find it incredible to suggest he would’ve mocked the idea had he been alive today with access to the information we have.
St. Augustine was a Doctor of the Church and a literal genius. To imply he would contradict every modern science if he lived today, to me, is wrong.
B
buffalo
Guest
We can now see properly reasoned science is confirming Scripture more and more.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
It is wrong to try to co-opt him in that way at all. I wouldn’t even try to claim what Augustine would believe had he lived today. It is impossible to say.St. Augustine was a Doctor of the Church and a literal genius. To imply he would contradict every modern science if he lived today, to me, is wrong.
I believe so, but I do think there is a dangerous tendency among Christians to try to come up with a “scientific” explanation to everything in the Bible. Taken to it’s logical conclusion, this will eventually include the miracles of Christ. So the devil attacks from two sides. One side he encourages to reject the Bible as “scientifically impossible” and the other side he encourages to quantify every miracle with a “likely” scientific explanation, thus rendering Christ nothing more than a clever trickster.We can now see properly reasoned science is confirming Scripture more and more.
B
buffalo
Guest
Haven’t been on the forum in a awhile. How can I tell who is replying to who?
S
Spyridon
Guest
The top right will have an arrow and the persons avatar showing who they reply to.
B
buffalo
Guest
In the areas where faith and reason intersect both must be true.
S
Spyridon
Guest
The Pope is not a young earth creationist.
As far as I know no cardinals are young earth creationists.
And I’d be VERY surprised to see any Bishop being a young earth creationist.
Can you show me one single Catholic Bishop anywhere in the world advocating for young earth creation?
I find it totally untenable that Augustine would be the one single Bishop out of some 5,000 Catholic Bishops on Earth to be a YEC.
As far as I know no cardinals are young earth creationists.
And I’d be VERY surprised to see any Bishop being a young earth creationist.
Can you show me one single Catholic Bishop anywhere in the world advocating for young earth creation?
I find it totally untenable that Augustine would be the one single Bishop out of some 5,000 Catholic Bishops on Earth to be a YEC.
Last edited:
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
If we took all the Popes and all the Cardinals and all the Bishops throughout history and asked them to vote on young-earth creationism or some other explanation… Which side do you think would win that vote?
But argumentum ad populum is a fallacy anyway, so it doesn’t really matter. The Truth is the truth regardless of who doubts it.
But argumentum ad populum is a fallacy anyway, so it doesn’t really matter. The Truth is the truth regardless of who doubts it.
There is no guarantee that Augustine would even be a bishop, if he lived today. This is pure speculation. He believed what he believed. Leave it at that.I find it totally untenable that Augustine would be the one single Bishop out of some 5,000 Catholic Bishops on Earth to be a YEC.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Old ages is of recent vintage. Uniformatarianism of the 1800’s gave it a big push.
Instead of dating fossils they date the rock layers they are found in.
When they cut open dino bones and did carbon dating on them they return dates around 28000 years ago.
Instead of dating fossils they date the rock layers they are found in.
When they cut open dino bones and did carbon dating on them they return dates around 28000 years ago.
S
Spyridon
Guest
I’ll ask you again.
Can you name one single Bishop out of the 5,000 Catholic Bishops on earth who advocates for young earth creation?
If you can’t, what do you think that tells you? That EVERY SINGLE Bishop is wrong about theology on this point? Or that YEC is wrong?
Can you name one single Bishop out of the 5,000 Catholic Bishops on earth who advocates for young earth creation?
If you can’t, what do you think that tells you? That EVERY SINGLE Bishop is wrong about theology on this point? Or that YEC is wrong?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.