Any young earth creationists out there?

[Richca]

(continued from prior post in reply to Hugh_Farey)

Other simple examples of form and matter are a potter shaping clay into various shapes such as a plate, vase, cup, statue. Notice that we name the various objects by the form or shape they have, not the clay for these objects are not distinguished by the clay which they are all made out of but by the their forms. Again, these are examples of accidental forms of clay.

Or, a craftsman can make out of oak wood a bed, table, chair, desk, picture frame. These objects are distinguished not by the oak wood, the matter as it were, but by the various accidental forms or shapes of the oak wood.

The same idea applies to all things whether living or non-living. The substance of individual existing things such as individual horses, oak trees, the elements, are a composite of prime matter and substantial form, the foundational principles of material things, yet the act-of-being is the ultimate principle of a creature’s structure. But all substances (now I’m using substances as individual existing things such as an individual horse) also have accidents, some that are called proper and intrinsic to the nature of the thing and which naturally ‘flow’ from the substance, and some that are extrinsic and do not belong to the nature or species as such, such as color. If we lay out in the sun, our skin color may change, this is an accident. And different human beings have different skin colors but they are still essentially human beings.

The concepts of potency/act, form/matter, substantial form/prime matter, substance/accidents are also tied in, in one way or another I believe, to Aristotle’s solution to the problem of change that vexed the greek philosophers. On the one hand, the Eleatics represented by Parmenides and Zeno denied the reality of change and declared there is only being, – permanence or stability in things. On the other hand, Heraclitus denied the reality of being and permanence and declared that the only reality is becoming and change, all things are in a constant state of flux.

Aristotle steered a middle course. He accepted that reality reflects both being (stability) and change, being-in-act and being-in-potency; the substance of things reflects a being’s permanence and stability, the accidents reflect a being’s potentiality for change. The concepts of potency and act, matter and form related as potency to act, were also Aristotle’s solution to the problem of natural substantial change which also had not been satisfactorily resolved by the philosophers before him even from Plato whom Aristotle was a pupil too.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

To his credit and genius however, among the greek philosophers, Plato introduced the formal cause of things by his doctrine or theory of the forms or ideas. This doctrine also involves epistomology which was accepted by Aristotle, the early Church fathers and doctors, and the scholastic theologian doctors. The difference between Plato and Aristotle concerning the doctrine of the ideas or forms, is that Plato conceived of the ideas which are immaterial universals as having a separate existence of their own apart from the material things in this world such as individual horses, dogs, oak trees, etc. that participate in some manner in the ideas. The ideas are the species of things, universal concepts. Aristotle, however, placed Plato’s doctrine of ideas as substantial immaterial principles of things, i.e., the substantial forms (the formal cause) of the species of things united to prime matter.

Later, St Augustine ultimately placed Plato’s immaterial ideas or forms in the divine intellect as the exemplar forms of the various species of things God created. These ideas in the divine mind are conceived as eternal, universals, and unchanging as God himself. This theological tradition was incorporated into the theology of the scholastic theologians and called the divine ideas.

 

[Aloysium]

I

I get the impression you’re thinking something being transitional is somehow not a complete creature itself, which isn’t the case at all.

Your aging point is quite appropriate. At 5 years old you had a physical form that wasn’t you at 4, and wasn’t what you would be at 6, but a form that bridged the two. That said you were still you, you were still a complete creature in and of itself.

Likewise every single creature that has ever existed is both a complete creature unto itself, and a transition from what the genetic makeup of the species once was to what is will someday be.

The question that remains to be addressed is the nature of species. Beyond the classification we impose on creatures based on their morphology, there exists a reality, which I do not believe is congruent with our taxonomy. There is an existential reality to specific kinds of animals that reproduces itself in the creation of individual organisms. There is no transition from one true kind to another; they are different forms of being.

The belief that matter is the substance of things, their reality, makes it appear as if there are transitional creatures. It is an illusion. The reality of organisms lies in the form of their being, the matter being a constituent part of their totality as is their psychology and the spiritual relationship they have with what is other to their individual selves.

There is nothing transitional that happened between the first one cell creature and the first person. The appearance of continuity is something we impose on what are disconnected kinds of being. There is no disconnect between the person as one cell and that now elderly infirm person on his death bed. Between the first ape-like creature and the first man, however, while there are an anatomic and physiological similarities, there is an existential chasm; they represent very, very different types of being, the latter, eternal in nature. The growth in complexity of the psychosomatic reality that we observe in the fossil record reflects a step-wise creation of new forms of beings.

The potential for diversity is an inherent part of any kind of organism. Microevolution may be seen as including transitional organisms - the transitions appearing very quickly. Macroevolution is an assumption that is poorly, not at all in my opinion, validated by science.

 

[Dan123]

The potential for diversity is an inherent part of any kind of organism. Microevolution may be seen as including transitional organisms - the transitions appearing very quickly. Macroevolution is an assumption that is poorly, not at all in my opinion, validated by science.

And I challenge you to explain or even just describe the mechanisms that prevent lots of small changes of adding up to large changes over time. This goes against every conceivable observation of the way reality works.

The nature of species does not need to be addressed, it’s well addressed and it’s limitations are fully acknowledged. We label things a new species when they appear different enough to us to warrant a new label. That is why horses and donkeys can mate, but we consider them different animals.

Investigate observed speciation events.

 

[Aloysium]

I believe it is up to you to prove that a lot of small changes occur in such a way as to lead to the greater complexity that is demonstrated when we compare a bacterium to ourselves. Included would be an explanation as to the cause of such changes.

Sorry, but the randomness of physical interactions does not cut it. It is merely the way in which people close their minds, abandoning the quest for the truth. To say evolutionary change occurred through acts of God, is closer to that truth in that He is the Source of all being and the ultimate Mover in all relationships among things. However, it fails to explain the creative aspect of the coming into existence of all individual whole beings, whether they are atoms or persons. Our intellect understands that what we see around us and in the fossil record points to the existence of a “soul” which is what an organism is in itself.

The variations in the morphology observed when we examine and compare the remains of creatures long-gone and the genome of different life forms is organized in terms of reproduction and we get the basis of evolutionary theory. Again, this capacity is observed among members of the same species, which are not the same as what I understand to be kinds of plants and animals. So while we would all be in agreement that microevolution takes place, which the evidence supports, it fails to validate the concept of macroevolution. The assumption is justified by the belief that the basic substance of things boils down to the physical laws of nature.

What those laws demonstrate when we apply them to living organisms are tightly organized and, I would qualify as, infinitely complex systems which can glitch and be affected by external physical influences. The point has been made many times over that random change is destructive in nature. Not so much in the universe of Marvel comic books, but most definitely in reality. What the evidence suggests is that each individual thing began with the creation of a first kind of being, which proliferated and whose material components became damaged in time.

Investigate observed speciation events.

I’m not sure what you mean; could you expand on this.

 

[Dan123]

There are actually observed speciation events, that term should be enough to more info.

There are likewise things I think you should explain if you want to deny common ancestry, endogenous retroviruses I think are a good example. ERVs are viruses that can insert themselves into the DNA of a creature, with varying effects or no effect at all, depending on where the insertion occurs, which is quite random.

So imagine for example taking a really long book, the entire unabridged Encyclopedia, and flipping to a random page and inserting the text of the first Hunger games at that random location.

Now consider there are such viruses shared between humans and other apes. Easily explained by the initial infection occurring before the divergence of the species but if not we should consider the relative unlikeliness of such an occurrence happening twice.

 

[Richca]

Aloysium:

The potential for diversity is an inherent part of any kind of organism. Microevolution may be seen as including transitional organisms - the transitions appearing very quickly. Macroevolution is an assumption that is poorly, not at all in my opinion, validated by science.

And I challenge you to explain or even just describe the mechanisms that prevent lots of small changes of adding up to large changes over time. This goes against every conceivable observation of the way reality works.

A couple of points here especially concerning observation of processes of nature here on earth that appear to contradict what you state that ‘this goes against every conceivable observation of the way reality works.’

Firstly, what we actually observe in the present world is that every species of plant and animal generates its own kind, lions come from lions, humans from humans, ants from ants, oak trees from oak trees. So, to say that every conceivable observation of reality somehow works differently than what we actually observe is simply not true.

Secondly, the simple elements found here on earth, those on the periodic table, are extremely stable substances. They do not evolve into unrecognizable elements. So, again here, we have an observation of reality in which at least some things are not evolving by incremental steps or changes into something else. Though we find in compound substances or mixtures that the simple elements are combined in various determinable ways, they virtually retain their make-up or remain what they are.

Thirdly, compounds of the elements such as rocks and their various kinds, minerals, soil, and water are also very stable substances. Rocks, soil, and water have been on the earth for billions of years ever since God created the earth. Rocks themselves do not increase in complexity. They break down by natural processes of nature such as weathering and erosion from water. They break down into simpler compounds of the elements such as soil and sand or various minerals. This is what we observe yet you say that every conceivable observation of reality or nature appears to increase in complexity as it were. Again, this is not true.

Fourthly, we observe that when living things die, their bodies whether plant or animal decomposes into simpler compounds of the elements or minerals or simply soil. This is similar in a way to rocks breaking down.

Fifthly, the processes of inanimate nature that we observe on earth such as the decomposition of rocks into soil and sand by weathering and erosion caused by water appear to go for the most part if not always from greater complexity to less complexity. This is what I believe the second law of thermodynamics or entropy is essentially about.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

Sixth, the fossil record itself is marked by two consistent observations throughout, namely, (1) the abrupt appearance of fully formed species of animals or plants, and (2) stasis of species with some variation within species.

Seventh, the fifth point can be stated or is sort of similar to some philosophical axioms based on observation and reason, namely, that no effect is greater than its cause and what is in potentiality cannot raise,move, or alter itself to act. For example, water can be potentially hot but it only becomes hot by some external cause such as the heat from fire or the sun’s rays. Bread can be potentially living human flesh and when it is eaten bread is transformed substantially into living human flesh by that which already has life and ultimately by the soul which I believe is the substantial form and the principle of life in living things.

Accordingly, for that which is non-living to raise itself to life involves, in my opinion, an effect that is greater than its cause; the greater coming from the lesser, the more complex from the less complex. Are not living things a higher grade of being or existence than non-living things? I believe that they are. Secondly, for the non-living to raise itself to life also involves I believe a potentiality raising itself to act similar to water causing itself to be hot. From observation, we find only that which already has life can transform inanimate substances into their own living being such as humans transforming bread into their own bodily substance such as human flesh or plants or trees transforming the minerals in soil into their own living bodily substance. Consequently, I believe that the only efficient cause of the life principle found in living things called the soul when they were first created is God himself who is Life itself and the author of life. And this is what Genesis 1 says that God himself created all the plant, tree, and animals species according to their various kinds.

 

[Techno2000]

(continued)

Sixthly, the fifth point can be stated or is sort of similar to some philosophical axioms based on observation and reason, namely, that no effect is greater than its cause and what is in potentiality cannot raise,move, or alter itself to act. For example, water can be potentially hot but it only becomes hot by some external cause such as the heat from fire or the sun’s rays. Bread can be potentially living human flesh and when it is eaten bread is transformed substantially into living human flesh by that which already has life and ultimately by the soul which I believe is the substantial form and the principle of life in living things.

Accordingly, for that which is non-living to raise itself to life involves, in my opinion, an effect that is greater than its cause. Are not living things a higher grade of being or existence than non-living things? I believe that they are. Secondly, for the non-living to raise itself to life also involves a potentiality raising itself to act similar to water causing itself to be hot. From observation, we find only that which already has life can transform inanimate substances into their own living being such as humans transforming bread into their own bodily substance such as human flesh or plants or trees transforming the minerals in soil into their own living bodily substance. Consequently, I believe that the only efficient cause of the life principle found in living things called the soul when they were first created is God himself who is Life itself and the author of life. And this is what Genesis 1 says that God himself created all the plant, tree, and animals species according to their various kinds.

…

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Ah, Richca, where you explain Aristotelian/Thomist philosophy, I very much enjoy learning about the difference between matter and form, and the subtleties of how even accidents can have substance of their own. I am not well versed in A-T philosophy. However I am well versed in science, and cannot accept any of your six points. Although it is true that baby lions come from adult lions, each one is, in tiny but significant ways, different from its parents. Such are the similarities between lions and tigers that they can interbreed, and many Creationists believe that they derived from a single ‘kind’. Thus both lions and tigers, many Creationists agree, are ‘varieties’ of some original cat form. Following this logic it cannot be true that lions have only ever descended from lions and tigers from tigers. They both descended from some primal ‘cat’ kind. But then, something similar occurred to dogs. Although they are all different, they all appear to have descended from some primal ‘dog’ kind. If we take ourselves back to the time when carnivorous mammals consisted only of the primal cat and dog kinds, we note, from their fossils, how similar they were. They appear to have descended from some even more primal ‘carnivore’ kind. And so on. There is no point at which it appears that any living species could not have descended from a common ancestor.

All fossils are fossils of fully formed species of animals or plants. Evolutionists do not believe in partly-formed species any more than you do. Sure, fossils of particular types can all be laid out in in pattern resembling a bush rather than a single line, and for any particular organism it may be that all the fossils appear to be of distinct species. However, their similarity over time does not suggest that they did not have a common ancestor, quite the reverse.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Your ideas about the potentiality of water are scientifically unsound. In Physics, water does not have the potential to become hot. In Physics, potentiality is an inherent quality of something which is actualised by some kind of trigger. Water has the gravitational potential to fall if a tap is opened. The energy required to turn the tap is much less than the energy released by the water. Water can only become hot if energy is imposed upon it from somewhere else. Bread does not have the potential to become flesh. Bread does have potentiality, but it is almost entirely the energy produced by converting it to glucose and reacting it with oxygen.

Your opinion that the origination of the first self-replicating molecule is an effect greater than its cause is not justified in terms of the second law of thermodynamics. Huge amounts of energy have to be poured in by the sun to maintain the basis of the trophic levels that sustain the complexity of life, most of which is wasted. This is entirely in keeping with the second law.

 

[Richca]

It appears you are not distinguishing between the substance and appearances or accidents of the bread and wine so that no change actually occurs in the nature or substance of the bread and wine at all at their consecration.

From Aloysium: We can say that in this case and generally, what does not change is the fact that something exists. The other aspect of anything that exists is that it is brought into existence and known by God. These would be the foundational realities of creation. The ultimate Ground is God who brings all that is into existence through an eternal act of Divine will.

There is certainly a change that occurs in the reality, nature, or essence which is the same thing as the substance of the bread and wine. This is what the Church teaches, namely, that the whole substance of the bread changes into the substance of the body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine changes into the substance of the blood of Christ with the species of the bread and wine remaining. The word
‘species’ is a latin word used in the Church’s official terminology concerning transubstantiation and the substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood under the ‘species’ of bread and wine. It is generally translated ‘appearances.’

Among the scholastic theologians and utilizing the Aristotlelian distinction between substance/accident, the species or appearances of the bread and wine are nothing other than the accidents of bread and wine which remain without a subject or substance to inhere in. The Catechism of the Council of Trent explains what transubstantiation means very well or read St Thomas Aquinas’ treatise on the Eucharist in his Summa Theologica which is essentially what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says. An excellent book on this subject spanning the whole history of the Church and the Church’s faith in the Real Presence of Jesus in the eucharist is titled ‘The Hidden Manna - A Theology of the Eucharist’ by Rev. James T. O’Connor (1988, new edition 2005).

 

[Richca]

The Eucharist is different in that every part has become the body and blood of Christ. This is what it is and can be understood only through faith…These can be understood as being accidents, a reality which can be discerned, but is merely the appearance of what is in its totality. The reality of the host which goes beyond the physical and psychological (what it may symbolize), is its spiritual existence - its beingness as the body of Jesus.

The “substance”, the reality of a thing is what God says it is and would include the being of its components which I see as being one within it, the physical structure that allows for it’s being perceived, ingested and digested. The reality is that of the Eucharist.

Only the substances of the bread and wine have been converted into the substances of the body and blood of Christ. The accidents remaining of the bread and wine after the consecration are all the sensible realities of the bread and wine which remain without a subject or substance to inhere in, in which they normally do, by divine power, a miracle. The accidents of the bread and wine do have symbolic meaning in that they are signs of the substantial presence of Christ’s invisible body and blood under them. For a sacrament is a sign of an invisible reality. But, the accidents or appearances of the bread and wine are not themselves the body and blood of Christ, they are accidents of bread and wine. Christ’s body and blood does not look like bread and wine as neither do ours. Again, from what I understand you saying, namely, identifying the whole reality of the bread and wine, both substance and accidents, with the body and blood of Christ is a form of what is called impanation or possibly you might be thinking in terms of consubstantiation too. The Church does not believe or teach either of these but rather transubstantiation.

I know it can be difficult trying to grasp some understanding of transubstantiation utilizing Aristotlelian/Thomistic metaphysics and the substance/accident distinction. For one thing, this is so because we have become accustomed to think of reality in the terms of modern physics, chemistry, and the like. Transubstantiation cannot be explained by modern physics, chemistry, or any of the natural sciences (I’m not saying that these are not useful in our understanding of the world around us, obviously they are very useful and we have learned a great deal). We have to go beyond physics, the sensible, to metaphysics, the intelligible abstracting from the sensible. This is difficult for us because we are very immersed in the sensible and our knowledge begins in the senses. And our imagination can get in the way of understanding intelligible, non-sensible, concepts. If you would like to ask me any questions, I will answer them to the best of my ability.

 

[Glark]

The genealogy in Genesis 5 describes how Adam “begat” Seth when he was 130 years old. In turn, Seth “begat” Enosh when he was 105 years old. This method of recording generations is repeated all the way to Noah and his sons. I can’t see how any generations are omitted using such a method.
In Genesis 11, exactly the same method is used used to record the generations from Noah’s son, Shem to Abram (Abraham). The Gospel of Matthew then states that there were 3x14 generations from Abraham to Jesus.

So as far as I can ascertain, the genealogical information provided in Scripture rules out the theistic-evolutionist tale about Adam being created about 100,000 years ago. It is for this reason, I imagine, that certain Catholic, pro-evolution “theologians” make the bizarre claim that the first eleven chapters of Genesis were written in figurative language. But let’s face it - evolution and the Bible are incompatible.

 

[ASC]

But let’s face it - evolution and the Bible are incompatible

There is hard scientific evidence for evolution, you know. What point is there in denying that? Science deals with material things. It tells us about what we can see and touch. But the Bible tells us about the things we can’t see or feel. The Bible tells us about immaterial things. Instead of forcing the two into battle, why not accept that perhaps both are true? The Bible tells us the God created men in his image and loved them, but they disobeyed him, following instead the deceits of the devil. They were then cast out of their former state of grace (Eden). The Bible also tells us that God and God alone created the world. The audience of the Old Testament could not possibly have understood evolution. They did not even understand why it rains. Therefore, the Biblical author put forth a story, true, but not an exact narrative, so that his audience could understand. There is no reason why God should not have taken his time in bringing man to full existence and humanity.

 

[Richca]

The genealogy in Genesis 5 describes how Adam “begat” Seth when he was 130 years old. In turn, Seth “begat” Enosh when he was 105 years old. This method of recording generations is repeated all the way to Noah and his sons. I can’t see how any generations are omitted using such a method.
In Genesis 11, exactly the same method is used to record the generations from Noah’s son, Shem to Abram (Abraham). The Gospel of Matthew then states that there were 3x14 generations from Abraham to Jesus

…the genealogical information provided in Scripture rules out the theistic-evolutionist tale about Adam being created about 100,000 years ago…for this reason, I imagine, that certain Catholic, pro-evolution “theologians” make the bizarre claim that the first eleven chapters of Genesis were written in figurative language. But let’s face it - evolution and the Bible are incompatible

I don’t think I agree with you completely on this one Glark. It’s possible that the genealogies recorded in the scriptures from Adam to Noah may not have been intended by the inspired sacred writer as a strict historical record in all aspects such as not missing any generations. The genealogies are extremely interesting as well as all the ages recorded for they were not haphazardly put together but form various symbolic patterns that have some kind of meaning. There is definitely a theological purpose and meaning to the genealogies too (cf. the City of God by St Augustine). I’m not saying that the genealogies from Adam to Noah do not contain any historical history or that the various names mentioned, at least some of them, were not real historical people. I’m just saying that the sacred writer may not have intended to list an exact historical record of every generation from Adam to Noah which covers about 2000-3000 years or so I think

If it is admitted that God created our first parents, Adam and Eve, say 5000-10000 years earlier, then the genealogies could not be read as a strict generation by generation account of which the sacred writer may not have had knowledge of from his sources anyhow without divine revelation. An inexact historical genealogy such as leaving out generations does not necessitate evolution. I wouldn’t worry about that. What I believe is historical and intended by the sacred writer and God too, is tracing the human race back to Adam and Eve no matter how many precise generations that may have been. Probably also, the line from Seth to Noah, those who called upon God, is historical in some manner and theological or at least representative of the Godly people and the kingdom of God vs. the ungodly represented by Cain and the kingdom of Satan

The genealogies are part of God’s word and He is the principle author of the entire Bible so we ought to treat it as such and not take anything written down lightly or that the sacred writer had no reason for writing what he did. The genealogies of the early history of the human race recorded in the Bible is very fascinating one as one discovers among other things the various patterns of the ages listed which definitely have some symbolic meaning

 

[Aloysium]

Again, from what I understand you saying, namely, identifying the whole reality of the bread and wine, both substance and accidents, with the body and blood of Christ is a form of what is called impanation or possibly you might be thinking in terms of consubstantiation too. The Church does not believe or teach either of these but rather transubstantiation.

I’m not sure one can translate what I am saying into an A/T understanding. Thanks for trying. From my perspective at this time, it is a different way to formulate the reality of, in this case, the Eucharist.

The reality of what we are discussing includes such examples as that of a parishioner near my cottage, who partakes only of the wine because she has Celiac Disease. The reality of the Host includes its consisting of gluten molecules. You understand them to be accidents, and I too see them as secondary attributes to the truth of its being the body and blood of Christ. It’s reality before the mass was that of bread, which upon consecration is transformed into something else, in terms of what it is in itself. The components of what are totally different substances, are not the essence or reality of bread or the Host. They are also, more than just projections onto the reality of both, and necessary to their existence as something in time and space. As such they are subject to the processes that exist at that level of reality.

What one considers to be appearance depends on what is the ultimate reality of things.

A materialist would understand both the wafer of bread and the Eucharist as being the appearance that we give to molecules. They would be understood as merely mental phenomena, projections reflecting our use of that collection of matter.

I would say that the original bread exists as such in itself, and is transformed into something completely different when it is consecrated and becomes the Eucharist. The appearance is of molecules, which we can discern as we isolate them from the whole which would have previously existed before we break them down in performing a chemical analysis.

Thinking of everything as information, the primary fact would be existence outside of the Trinity. Materially speaking, we have a world of things coming to form larger, more complex things. As this happens, the more basic information would get subsumed into the larger whole. An electron or photon, individually existing as a particle, becomes a wave as it is one with others in a beam of radiation, with its own specific properties. The nature of the new whole, the information that it would be is greater than the sum of its constituent parts.

In terms of the Eucharist, it is what God says it is. What you would call accidents would be the information that Its reality contains. I’m not sure where else the accidents or appearance would exist, if not in reality. They are most definitely not consubstantiation nor impanation since the bread no longer exists in itself. The situation might be analogous to saying that a cadaver is coexistent with the person or that a human spirit inhabits a body, when spirit-body-mind are one unity, one whole.

 

[Aloysium]

Studies have demonstrated that introns will insert into the same loci. Certain sites are very more likely to accept ERV’s. Genotypes independently created but sharing a particular DNA structure, will have a similar propensity to exhibit introns at the same site. In other words, although such findings may be due to inheritance from a common ancestor, they are hardly evidence that it is the case here.

 

[Glark]

There is hard scientific evidence for evolution, you know.

Yeah, right … according to “scientists” who also claim life arose naturally from inanimate matter. I’d be a fool to trust such deluded, unscientific clowns to inform me about the history of life on earth.

 

[Glark]

I haven’t looked into it yet, but I bet the ancient Hebrews considered the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 to be literal. And I suspect the pre-Darwin Church did too - hence the period from Adam to Jesus stated in the Roman Martyrology, as well as the year of the Flood.