Any young earth creationists out there?

[Glark]

Quite some time ago I put your attempts at humour down to a kind of deflection. As in ‘Look guys, this is all just so wierd. I mean, microbes and men and…oh, I don’t know. It’s all so…amusing’. Rather than exhibiting wit it serves to indicate a lack of it.

This is the ultimate insult - you have interpreted my deep thoughts and insights as “attempts at humour”!!

 

[Glark]

Right… 'cause a literal talking snake, and a literal boat to hold multiple pairs of every living animal on earth are so much more reasonable than a “figurative interpretation”

Right … so these two (2) items are enough to change the interpretation of eleven (11) chapters?

What is the “figurative” interpretation of Noah’s Ark?

What is the “figurative” meaning of the very precise chronological details described in Genesis 7,8? For example:

“In the SIX HUNDREDTH YEAR of Noah’s life, on the SEVENTEENTH DAY of the SECOND MONTH - on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth FORTY DAYS AND FORTY NIGHTS” …

“At the end of the HUNDRED AND FIFTY DAYS the water had gone down, and on the SEVENTEENTH DAY of the SEVENTH MONTH the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The waters continued to recede until the TENTH MONTH, and on the FIRST DAY of the TENTH MONTH the tops of the mountains became visible” …

“By the FIRST DAY of the FIRST MONTH of Noah’s SIX HUNDRED AND FIRST YEAR, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. By the TWENTY-SEVENTH DAY of the SECOND MONTH the earth was completely dry.”

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

In my universe, all these are as immutable as we are in being what all parts of this “living” universe are in themselves.

We can be physically altered, a part lopped off here and there, psychologically, losing our memories or capacities to direct our attention and hold a thought. We can die, the essence of our being no longer holding our physical form.

In “your universe”, immutable means something different than its normative definition, then. “Immutable” means unchanging.

So… if not “immutable”, what would you think a better word might be?

Let’s see if I can communicate this better.

There exists a structure to the universe that includes events stretching from its beginning to its end. We have a an interest in discerning the underlying structure to the appearance of things, and have established a series of physical laws to define its workings. They are immutable.

As part of the physical structure of the cosmos, we have invented the concept of atoms. An atom in itself, the properties, such as its mass, do not fluctuate. Atoms are immutable in this sense, as are their combinations - pure water is water to the last molecule. It can take the form of a gas, liquid or solid, the basic component remains the same molecule, exhibiting the qualities that it does under the conditions that constitute its environment. Chemistry can be understood as defining the realm of interactions which atoms inhabit. An atom of oxygen does not change as it combines with two of hydrogen to produce water.

I don’t think the professor would take as an explanation that the atoms mutated, when the lab results do not conform to the expected theoretical result.

Their immutability is in what they are. Clearly, it does not mean that atoms cannot react to influence that disrupt that which makes them what they are. Atoms are currently understood as being composed of events that are smaller and more specific; they include quarks, also electrons, muons, tau particles and their neutrino counterparts, gauge and other bosons, including the famous Higgs boson, photons, and gluons. These subcomponents exist in themselves, albeit very briefly for the most part, and come together in various combinations to constitute a larger whole system which is a particular atom. There are different kinds of atoms as there are different kinds of people. And, just as we can be broken apart, so can they.

Atoms, as complex as they are as a type of being defined by their interactions, pale in comparison to the system of being that is the person. I didn’t think I was saying anything that complicated. I guess its the way I phrased it. Maybe I should have included a statement to the effect that an atom cannot be transformed into a bacterium, which is a new, more complex, and essentially different form of being. Or maybe you disagree.

 

[bobperk]

@glark @buffalo @aloysium @edwest211 if you have not seen these yet, I think you’d like them:

and the search page: https://www.youtube.com/user/onearmsteve4192/search?query=evolution

 

[Aloysium]

I think you’d like them

Very powerful. Seeing that the first clip is about 58 minutes long, I was going to take a cursory approach, sampling a bit here and there, but I couldn’t tear myself away. The speaker is Fr. Shannon Collins, who has a Youtube channel, with only five subscribers. I thought it a very good analysis of the subject matter and its real-life moral consequences. Only up to the 38th minute at this point, I’ll leave it for later when I have more time. Thank you so much.

 

[PickyPicky]

Certainly a better bet than in the other World Cup!

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Glad I could help.

Fail. Augustine’s interpretstion has nothing to do with Genesis 1:14-18.

Au contraire – it’s precisely what you asked me to demonstrate! To wit:

Gorgias:

lots of folks argue that the ‘days’ are figurative

In that case, you won’t have any trouble citing a theologian who does. Thanks.

So, you ask for a theologian, and I cite a theologian, Doctor of the Church, and bishop. (You’re welcome. )

Right … so these two (2) items are enough to change the interpretation of eleven (11) chapters?

Of course not. The figurative elements in the ‘pre-history’ chapters of Genesis do that.

What is the “figurative” interpretation of Noah’s Ark?

Man is flawed; one cannot simply isolate “the bad people” such that only “the good people” remain. Each must decide to act morally on his own.

What is the “figurative” meaning of the very precise chronological details described in Genesis 7,8?

Those who study the use of numbers in the Old Testament ascribe a range of symbolic meanings to the numbers in Genesis 7 and 8 (as well as the lengths of time involved).

 

[Gorgias]

Their immutability is in what they are.

OK – so basically, what you’re saying is that the definitions don’t change. That’s fair enough. Yet, it doesn’t get us to the point you’re trying to reach, does it? Things change. They become other things. (No, not like atom → bacteria, but that’s a red herring; you’re comparing things on two different scales!)

Maybe I should have included a statement to the effect that an atom cannot be transformed into a bacterium, which is a new, more complex, and essentially different form of being.

Aah… but atoms can come together and form bacteria, or dirt, or people… no?

 

[Aloysium]

what you’re saying is that the definitions don’t change

No, since that wouldn’t be true; definitions do change.The essence of something does not change; it is what it is as long as it is. With transubstantiation, we do witness not so much a change as the ending of one thing, the bread, into something else, the body and blood of our Lord.

Yet, it doesn’t get us to the point you’re trying to reach, does it?

The point I am trying to reach is the communication of a system of ideas which clarify the nature of reality centred on Existence, which is Love, which is God. So, you are quite correct.

Things change. They become other things.

They do and they don’t depending on how we define a thing. Physical events happen, existing within a realm of structure and interactions that we can describe in terms of the laws of nature. While the laws that we discern may change, supplanted by others with greater explanatory value, the underlying reality does not. There exist immutable essences behind the world of appearances. And, those essences are brought into existence in their moment from eternity by God.

Atoms, and I am speaking about the reality to which our concept points, exist presumably as themselves, consisting of a number of properties that “define”, i.e. make them what they are, in time and space and account for their behaviour and interactions.

If we look at the world, especially that which includes our being, which we shouldn’t ignore since that is how we are able to understand, we see that there are structures and processes that go beyond those of simple matter They include replication, growth, movement, sight, sound, touch, fear, pleasure, pain, and thought itself. We note that in these cases, what is happening involves a more sophisticated relationship between a thing and its environment than we find in a simple atom, being itself and doing its thing.

but atoms can come together and form bacteria, or dirt, or people… no?

I don’t see atoms as “coming” together as much as they are “brought” together within an organizing priniciple that is the actual existence of bacteria and people, created by God. Matter is but one layer of the organization that constitutes a living being, the perceptual tip of the iceberg of the unity that is a life form. The molecules of which bacteria and we ourselves are made cannot by their inherent properties produce a living thing. Their enzymes for example, necessary to bring molecules together for vital cellular structures and processes have a history that goes back to an original cell. That cell possessed a “soul” that contained the matter which played out its codes resulting in growth, replication and everything required to make that possible.

Replaying human history to its beginnings, I see the creation of an original man, whose DNA was not given to him through the fertilization of an hominid egg by a hominid sperm, but rather God Himself - His and our father.

 

[Aloysium]

Never happened.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Glark]

Since you’re quoting a source that makes the case for a 6170-year-old universe, it’s wholly unsurprising that their spin on Humani generis is what it is

Silly me, I should have realised that EVERYTHING written by YECs is rubbish.

 

[Glark]

Nested hierarchies are evident within species (eg, all the different breeds of dogs that have descended from the wolf), but as for all life forming one big nested hierarchy, I think that’s more wishful thinking (ie, an atheist fantasy) than fact.

As for the fossil record, it’s my understanding that it reveals gigantic gaps in your nested hiearchy.

 

[Glark]

You are of the species Eukaryote, your cells are yeast-like, with a membrane, a nucleus and an endo-plasmatic reticulum

A man made some bricks and he found that they served his purpose so well that he made lots more bricks, just like the first. With these identical bricks the man then constructed lots of very different buildings. Many years later, an evolutionist came along, claiming to be wise, and, noticing that the bricks in all these different buildings were the same, concluded that the buildings share a common ancestor.

 

[Glark]

Excellent post. Sounds like someone just got shot down in flames.

 

[Glark]

Au contraire – it’s precisely what you asked me to demonstrate

(Sigh) … Go back and read my post - I asked for a theological who intepretes the “day(s)” Genesis 1:14-18 figuratively - I repeat, Genesis 1:14-18. Do you understand what “Genesis 1:14-18” means?
I already know that there are theologians who interpret the “six days” of creation figuratively, but that’s a different issue.
My point is, the “day(s)” in Genesis 1:14-18 are very obviously literal days - no one - not even thevos - would be stupid enough to interpret them figuratively! But if any theologian has, please quote him.

Those who study the use of numbers in the Old Testament ascribe a range of symbolic meanings to the numbers in Genesis 7 and 8 (as well as the lengths of time involved).

A citation, please. I know certain numbers in the Bible carry special meaning, but I’ve never heard of any Judaeo-Christian numerology applied to the verses I described.

 

[Gorgias]

Silly me, I should have realised that EVERYTHING written by YECs is rubbish.

No… it’s just unsurprising that a site that advocates for a young earth would also interpret Pius in terms of opposition to evolution, rather than opposition to philosophical theories.

Excellent post. Sounds like someone just got shot down in flames.

If you don’t read the subsequent posts.

Are you serious? Go back and read my post - I asked for a theological who intepretes the “day(s)” Genesis 1:14-18 figuratively - I repeat, Genesis 1:14-18. Do you understand?

Totally serious. I cited your article which identified that Augustine proposed a theory of “instantaneous creation”. If it’s instantaneous, then it doesn’t take six days. If it doesn’t take six days, then the account in Genesis 1 is figurative, with respect to the ‘days’ of creation. Do you understand?

the “day(s)” in Genesis 1:14-18 are very obviously literal days - no one - not even thevos - would be stupid enough to interpret them figuratively! But if any theologian has, please quote him.

And I’ve just demonstrated that Augustine did precisely that.

A citation, please. I know certain numbers in the Bible carry special meaning, but I’ve never heard of any Judaeo-Christian numerology applied to the verses I described.

Here ya go…

 

[Glark]

Totally serious. I cited your article which identified that Augustine proposed a theory of “instantaneous creation”. If it’s instantaneous, then it doesn’t take six days. If it doesn’t take six days, then the account in Genesis 1 is figurative, with respect to the ‘days’ of creation. Do you understand

So if the “day(s)” in Genesis 1:14-18 are not literal, what does the passage mean?

And I’ve just demonstrated that Augustine did precisely that.

Please cite Augustine specifically stating that the “day(s)” in Genesis 1:14-18 are not literal. Please cite ANY theologian who specifically states that the “day(s)” in Genesis 1:14-18 are not literal. Please cite ANYONE AT ALL who thinks the “day(s)” in Genesis 1:14-18 are not literal. Perhaps not even YOU think the “day(s)” in Genesis 1:14-18 are literal!

Thanks for the link to Genesis numerology, but all I got was some not-very-convincing Evangelicals rabbitng on about just one verse. Where do I find some authentic Jewish or Catholic numerology on the verses i mentioned?

 

[bobperk]

Glad you found it interesting and helpful. I never caught that priest’s name before. I believe most of the priests on that channel are FSSP priests. I usually convert the videos into mp3 files so I can listen to them in the car, but the person who runs that channel puts a lot of good photos together so it is nice to actually watch them when possible.

 

[bobperk]

A couple days ago on Relevant Radio Fr. Spitzer was on, almost giddy with delight in claiming that Pope Pius XII “left the door open” to polygenism, stating that the Holy Father was purposefully “cagey” in his language so as to perhaps allow for the belief that Adam and Eve were actually representatives of thousands of pre-hominid ape people who were just the lucky recipients of the first souls. One can imagine how confused the listeners were. Then some wayward soul called in, delighted with the prospect that Chardin’s theories may perhaps be reconciled with the faith one day. The segment started off ok but then derailed into a complete catastrophe.

 

[Gorgias]

Please cite Augustine specifically stating that the “day(s)” in Genesis 1:14-18 are not literal.

No problem:

how can Scripture say, “For you have the power when you will,” if God needs a length of time in order to complete something? Or were all things completed for God as if in their art and idea, not in a length of time, but in the very power which stands unmoved while it makes those things which we see do not stand still, but pass away? … God, who has the power when he wills, makes without a length of time. … But in this book the account of the things that God made is broken down most conveniently as if in periods of time so that the very arrangement which weaker souls could not look upon with a firm gaze could be discerned as if by these eyes, when it is set forth through the order of such a discourse.

On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, chapter 7.

So, there you go: St Augustine, theologian, Doctor of the Church, bishop.