"Evolution is Just a Theory!" Um, no

[workinprogress]

Macroevolution is theory and can only be believed in with faith albeit a pointless faith.
Microevolution can be measured.

Unfortunately, the atheists seem to want to hold inquisitions whenever they are questioned about their religion called scientific materialism. They are probably bitter ex-Christians and Jews who are embarassed about where they come from despite the Catholic Church having made science, at least the good applications, via the Knowledge of the Holy Spirit. They think they should be embarassed about the Galileo thing. They have become arrogant without realizing that, despite their worship of mankind (maybe to rationalize away a guilty conscience from something they did or felt they did wrong or because of bitterness resulting from the sins of their parents, which would be more understandable) , we did not evolve by our own means and we still cannot stop tornadoes, tsunamis and death. They are so arrogant to blow off Einstein’s statement about the interconnectedness of religion and science. Come on, it’s Einstein! They wish they were that brilliant!
Instead, they are so intellectually blind, they don’t realize they are doing to faithful Christians what they believe the Church did to Galileo. They are doing to faithful Christians what they believe the Church did during the Spanish Inquisition. They are wrong about the Church on both counts so they add injustice upon their errors. They’re experimentation on embryos will bring about interested fascists like the liberal’s beloved Hitler (sarcastically speaking), who was really one after the Weinmar Republic’s own heart in his intolerance for those “not worthy of life”, but wanted the world all for himself and his favorite nation… We may be the Weinmar Republic before the last anti-christ.
That’s what the “enlightened, open-minded, progressive, separation of church and state” scientific community who attacked Kansas for deemphasizing the establishment of a religion in a public school system will bring us unwittingly, at least unwittingly done by those who will be the stooges that will pave the way for the next Mengeles if history repeats itself as scheduled.

 

[jeffreedy789]

that was entertaining to read. and i believe i agree with everything you wrote. wtg.

 

[clarkal]

‘evolution is just a theory!’ um, yes.

given the givens (that we’re talking about macro-evolution and not micro-… that we’re talking, in fact, about the THEORY of evolution and not the discernable evolution we see in animals and plants around us on a small scale), it is, and can only be, a theory. there is no way it can be a scientific fact, as it’s not demonstrable. it’s not repeatable.

it is, in fact, by definition, a theory.

pbs or not.

I encourage you to read the following links:

“Evidence isn’t limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.”

From: talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

clarkal

 

[PhilVaz]

You guys ignored my definitions from the dictionaries on what a “scientific theory” is, especially

“…one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions…”

“A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world…”

Micro and macroevolution qualifies. I can’t force you to study evolution, but if you are serious about learning more about it, you will get the books I mentioned earlier: The Age of the Earth by Dalrymple, What Evolution Is by Mayr, Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller, and Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk. All excellent books, Miller is Catholic and Falk is evangelical Methodist.

And last but not least, the dominant opinion of the scientific community (whether they be geologists, biologists, botanists, paleontologists, physicists, astronomers, etc)

“Evolution is the central unifying concept of natural history; it is the foundation of all of modern paleontology and biology…Biological evolution is not debated in the scientific community – organisms become new species through modification over time… ‘it simply has not been an issue for a century’ [citing Futuyma]…The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory…” (Evolution and the Fossil Record PDF, pages 1, 10, 13)

“…there has been a confusion, partly deliberate, of the fact that organisms have evolved with theories about the detailed mechanics of the process. The facts of evolution are clear and are not disputed by any serious scientific worker. The universe is over 11 billion years old, and the earth, in particular, is over 4 billion. That is a fact. Life on earth is at least 2.5 billion years old, and, as new evidence accumulates, the best estimate of the origin of life gets pushed further and further into the past. That too is a fact. It is also a fact that there were no mammals or birds 200 million years ago and no vertebrates 600 million years ago, while there are no dinosaurs now. Finally, it is a fact that under conditions that have existed on earth for the last billion years, at least, all living organisms arise from previously living organisms. So, the present complex living forms have evolved by an unbroken and continuous process from the simplest living forms of the pre-Cambrian era. To assert, on the contrary, that the earth and life on it are a paltry ten or hundred thousand years old and that the complex forms living today arose in an instant from unorganized matter is in contradiction not simply with the corpus of biological knowledge but with all scientific knowledge of the physical world. To deny evolution is to deny physics, chemistry, and astronomy, as well as biology.” (Richard Lewontin of Harvard, March 1982, Introduction to Scientists Confront Creationism [W.W. Norton, 1983] )

“Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, ‘evolution is just a theory,’ the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true… But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning.” (Statement on Evolution from the Botanical Society of America, 2003)

“Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity…The evidence for evolution is now quite overwhelming. It is presented in great detail by Futuyma (1983, 1998), Ridley (1996), and Strickberger (1996)…” (Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, page 12-13)

Case closed, as far as the scientific community is concerned. So maybe you can try to find out why.

Phil P

 

[jdnation]

Again on the 6 days thing. I’d still insist that the author did mean them as literal days. This is further reinforced in Exodus when the Lord commanded the Israelites to observe the Sabbath in Exodus 20:11 “In six days I, the Lord, made the earth, the sky, the sea, and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested. That is why I, the Lord, blessed the Sabbath and made it holy.” This is God establishing the 7 day week, this would make no sense any other way. It is further reinforced again in 31:12 onward, so serious was it that anyone disobeying it would be put to death.

" And the LORD said to Moses, 13 “Say to the people of Israel, ‘You shall keep my sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you. 14 You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; every one who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death. 16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.’” 18 And he gave to Moses, when he had made an end of speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, the two tables of the testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God."

So unless you can explain why God would need to lie (since that is impossible let’s say, speak mythically about what He did if you prefer thoguh then again that’s still the same) in some way, the ancient Israelites understood it as nothing but 6 literal days, and Genesis as history. Lest we not forget it was Moses himself who gave us the first five books of the Bible. Genesis as well records teh genealogies and family trees of Adam and all the way onward. Not for no reason, but careful study will show that these genealogies showing the descendents will trace back down much later to a person we’ll come to know as Jesus Christ.

 

[jdnation]

Let’s get something else straight, the consensus of scientists, I’ll let Mr. Crichton illustrate it:

" I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

 

[jdnation]

(contd.)

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therap6y…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. "

You can read his full essay here which is quite enlightening about the terrible state of science today. This isn’t something only confined to origins debates either.

To find out more about dating of the earth, the arguments over a young and old universe, the cons against evolution, you can visit these sites:
www.answersingenesis.org and www.icr.org They’re Christian but leave matters of Catholicism and Protestantism out.

As well I’d encourage you to also visit www.talkorigins.org and any of the links PhilVaz is giving you. Go back and forth you’ll find rebuttals and rebuttals, you can write in letters and get a reply fairly quickly (at least in AiG). Both evolution and creationism are philosophically founded theories. Since we’ve at least managed to clear up the theory definition in science, it is still of course just a theory and remakrs about “one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions" and"A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world…” are easily challenged. There are all sorts of theories. For evolution has two, the gradualist theory and the theory of punctuated equilibria put by Stephen Jay Gould, there is also one of extraterrestrial origin and then transported to our earthly planet by comets or meteors or even aliens! There are New Age theories of evolution, as the Gaia theory, another one that involves the waves of water in the ocean etc. etc. so don’t let anyone fool you that evolution is some solved problem where the argument is beyond doubt. The battle against evolutionists as well as within their own ranks on who’s method is best (particularly between the gradulist and punctuationist schools) has been growing for some time…

---

Following the announcement late last year of the discovery of the ‘earliest fossil fish’ in Cambrian strata, scientists in China have attacked the Darwinian theory of evolution.

They argue that neo-Darwinism cannot explain the sudden appearance of all the major animal groups in the fossil record—the so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’.

Incredibly, some Chinese officials contend that the theory of evolution is so politically charged in the West that researchers are reluctant to admit shortcomings for fear of giving support to those who believe the biblical account of creation.

Pointing out that ‘Evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge,’ the Communist Party’s Guang Ming Daily mocked Darwinian orthodoxy by declaring that ‘In the beginning, Darwinian evolution was a scientific theory … . In fact, evolution eventually changed into a religion.’

The Chinese researchers say that the evidence supports a post-Cambrian history of life that runs opposite to standard evolutionary tree diagrams, and suggest that biologists need to come up with entirely new mechanisms to explain the ‘Cambrian explosion’ enigma.

The Boston Globe, May 30, 2000, p. E1.

 

[Evan]

A very intresting discussion on the problems of evolution and paleogeology can be found in the first half of the book Evolution, Creationism, and other modern myths. I just read it and it does a nice job of showing many of the scientific biases, the concensus problems, and circular reasoning used by evolution and paleogeology.

Then it goes on into a proposed theory of it’s own, but before that it is very good.

 

[Evan]

A very intresting discussion on the problems of evolution and paleogeology can be found in the first half of the book Evolution, Creationism, and other modern myths. I just read it and it does a nice job of showing many of the scientific biases, the concensus problems, and circular reasoning used by evolution and paleogeology.

Then it goes on into a proposed theory of it’s own, but before that it is very good.

 

[Apolonio]

Again on the 6 days thing. I’d still insist that the author did mean them as literal days.

Response:
You didn’t interact with my argument though. How can he mean it literally when there was no sun on the “first day”? The author of the first chapter of Genesis was trying to make it clear that God is the all powerful Creator of the universe. That is what the author is trying to do and he keeps on going back to that idea by showing how God created something different each day. To the Hebrew, he does not really present things in a chronological or even logical order, but having an idea in his mind and keeps on going over it again (J. Schildenberger). That would also explain why there are two creation accounts.

You said:

“So unless you can explain why God would need to lie (since that is impossible let’s say, speak mythically about what He did if you prefer thoguh then again that’s still the same) in some way, the ancient Israelites understood it as nothing but 6 literal days, and Genesis as history.”

Response:
First, saying it is a myth does not mean God lied. God can speak through the genre of myths if He wants. And since you like to talk about possibilities, I’m sure you don’t want to deny that God can speak through myths. I already defined what myth means so you’re not interacting with what I said. As far as Exodus is concerned, that’s written after the 7 days tradition is already kept. And I can also answer by saying that since we do not know what “day” meant in God’s eyes, we have to use our 24 hour day since that’s the only “day” we know.

So again, my argument is this…

1. A 24 hour day is based on the relationship between the sun and the earth (I don’t know if you’re a geocentrist).
2. Without the sun, there can be no 24 hour day.
3. There was no sun on the “first day” in Genesis.

Ergo…

You can fill it in.

 

[Exporter]

Euh, er, the 24 hour day is the invention of man.

“God always takes the simplest way.”

~ Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
German-Swiss-American mathematical physicist, famous for his theories of relativity.​

 

[JamesD]

clarkal:

Let’s clear this up right now with a few links from a PBS documentary web site and Berkeley:

"Evolving Ideas: Isn’t Evolution Just a Theory?

Hmm. Seems like it didn’t clear things up once and for all. I guess we will be seeing threads about this a couple more timew.

Anyone listen to Al Kresta yesterday? The portion about Galileo made me think about some of the science going on right now.
The church told Galileo that it was fine for him to study and believe Capernicus’s theory of Heliocentricity just don’t keep proclaiming that it is the absolute truth untill you have proof. (At the time the general consensus among the learned was that it was a crazy idea. Clearly the Sun revolved around the Earth).
Galileo was right about Capenicus’s theory (hypothosis), but when he came back with strong convincing evidence, that evidence was mostly untrue. Earth and planets travel in circular paths, the Earth revolving around the Sun explains the tides etc…It makes me think that there are quite a few Galileo’s today who turn theory into a virtual law.
The species may or may not have evolved from common ancestry and most evidence might point to common ancestry, but concensus of opinion does not a virtual law make.

 

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

Nobody seems to have posted this yet, so here goes . . .

For direction on these questions from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, take a look at this section of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical letter Humani Generis:

1. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

1. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

1. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

1. Truly, we are aware that the majority of Catholic doctors, the fruit of whose studies is being gathered in universities, in seminaries and in the colleges of religious, are far removed from those errors which today, whether through a desire for novelty or through a certain immoderate zeal for the apostolate, are being spread either openly or covertly. But we know also that such new opinions can entice the incautious; and therefore we prefer to withstand the very beginnings rather than to administer the medicine after the disease has grown inveterate.

1. For this reason, after mature reflexion and consideration before God, that We may not be wanting in Our sacred duty, We charge the Bishops and the Superiors General of Religious Orders, binding them most seriously in conscience, to take most diligent care that such opinions be not advanced in schools, in conferences or in writings of any kind, and that they be not taught in any manner whatsoever to the clergy or the faithful.

1. Let the teachers in ecclesiastical institutions be aware that they cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the office of teaching entrusted to them, unless in the instruction of their students they religiously accept and exactly observe the norms which We have ordained. That due reverend and submission which in their unceasing labor they must profess toward the Teaching Authority of the Church, let them instill also into the minds and hearts of their students.

1. Let them strive with every force and effort to further the progress of the sciences which they teach; but let them also be careful not to transgress the limits which We have established for the protection of the truth of Catholic faith and doctrine. With regard to new questions, which modern culture and progress have brought to the foreground, let them engage in most careful research, but with the necessary prudence and caution; finally, let them not think, indulging in a false “irenism,” that the dissident and the erring can happily be brought back to the bosom of the Church, if the whole truth found in the Church is not sincerely taught to all without corruption or diminution.

Feedback? Was anyone else here aware that a previous Pope had made such strong statements on this subject?

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[jdnation]

You didn’t interact with my argument though. How can he mean it literally when there was no sun on the “first day”? The author of the first chapter of Genesis was trying to make it clear that God is the all powerful Creator of the universe. That is what the author is trying to do and he keeps on going back to that idea by showing how God created something different each day. To the Hebrew, he does not really present things in a chronological or even logical order, but having an idea in his mind and keeps on going over it again (J. Schildenberger). That would also explain why there are two creation accounts.

Firstly to clear one thing up, looking at the way Genesis is written, it is clear each of the six days of creation appears with the Hebrew word ‘yom’ qualified by a number and the phrase ‘evening and morning’ The first three days are written the same as the next three, on ordinary reading all six days appear as ordinary days. Otherwise the Hebrew would’ve specified otherwise. Throughout the Bible the word is used in this way, why should Genesis be any different in this aspect?

Now getting down to this sun business… here are the first few lines from Genesis:

“1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”

So as you can clearly see, the sun IS NOT NEEDED for day and night! What is needed is light and a rotating earth. On the first day of creation, God made light, created a division between it and the darkness, and the ‘evening and morning’ transition implies a rotating earth. Light from one direction + spinning earth = day and night!

Where this light comes from we’re not told, but it was there to provide a day and night and then only later did God make the sun on day four. You’d guess that God did it this way simply as a kick in the pants to any evolutionary theories (ex. Big Bang) that speculate the sun came before the earth, as well to give it less importance because it was often a target for pagan worship. If you read Revelation 21:22, it interestingly tells us this:

“And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. 23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 By its light shall the nations walk; and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it, 25 and its gates shall never be shut by day–and there shall be no night there”

And lastly, the two creation accounts are actually in harmony. Genesis 1 was written from the perspective of God. Genesis 2 was written in more detail about the creation of man on the 6th day and then from man’s point of view observing the created things around him. What you are reading in Genesis 2 may seem contradictory to cronology to Genesis 1, but it really isn’t, read carefully… and see here:
tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html
answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp

• 3 cheers for Pope Pius XII !

 

[MaggieOH]

jdnation:

Again on the 6 days thing. I’d still insist that the author did mean them as literal days. This is further reinforced in Exodus when the Lord commanded the Israelites to observe the Sabbath in Exodus 20:11 “In six days I, the Lord, made the earth, the sky, the sea, and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested. That is why I, the Lord, blessed the Sabbath and made it holy.” This is God establishing the 7 day week, this would make no sense any other way. It is further reinforced again in 31:12 onward, so serious was it that anyone disobeying it would be put to death.

" And the LORD said to Moses, 13 “Say to the people of Israel, ‘You shall keep my sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you. 14 You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; every one who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death. 16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.’” 18 And he gave to Moses, when he had made an end of speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, the two tables of the testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God."

So unless you can explain why God would need to lie (since that is impossible let’s say, speak mythically about what He did if you prefer thoguh then again that’s still the same) in some way, the ancient Israelites understood it as nothing but 6 literal days, and Genesis as history. Lest we not forget it was Moses himself who gave us the first five books of the Bible. Genesis as well records teh genealogies and family trees of Adam and all the way onward. Not for no reason, but careful study will show that these genealogies showing the descendents will trace back down much later to a person we’ll come to know as Jesus Christ.

God did not lie. The problem is the literal interpretation of what is written overrides common sense when it comes to accepting that there is a middle ground.

The Bible thumping, KJV only, Creation-Science literalists are out of their depth when it comes to explaining some of the deeper mysteries of the earth, especially such things as how coal evolved from being trees into fossil fuel. That took thousands upon thousands of years to create.

The genealogies of Jesus Christ are not a lie, because they trace man’s awareness of himself. The descent from Abraham is really quite clear since Abraham is the father of all the nations.

The problem that is being created in this discussion is the creation of a false dichotomy i.e. you are saying that Creation must be explain by the means of Evolution, or through a literal interpretation of Genesis. What I am saying is that one can use Science to accept that the world evolved over time, in 6 periods, rather than literal days, because Genesis describes the passing of time, rather than the actual time taken, whilst at the same time accepting the Genesis account of Creation as God’s Truth that has been set forth in a simple way to reinforce the 7 days of the week.

MaggieOH

 

[TNT]

Apolonio:

Again on the 6 days thing. I’d still insist that the author did mean them as literal days.

Response:
So again, my argument is this…

1. A 24 hour day is based on the relationship between the sun and the earth (I don’t know if you’re a geocentrist).

2) Without the sun, there can be no 24 hour day.

1. There was no sun on the “first day” in Genesis.

Ergo…

You can fill it in.

WOW, And I thought that a 24 Hr day was based on ONE rotation of the earth. What happens near the North Pole in the winter? 4 hour days?

 

[Apolonio]

Firstly to clear one thing up, looking at the way Genesis is written, it is clear each of the six days of creation appears with the Hebrew word ‘yom’ qualified by a number and the phrase ‘evening and morning’ The first three days are written the same as the next three, on ordinary reading all six days appear as ordinary days. Otherwise the Hebrew would’ve specified otherwise. Throughout the Bible the word is used in this way, why should Genesis be any different in this aspect?

Response:
Again, I already explained that. “Evening came, morning followed” is an expression which gave the writer an opportunity to get back to the idea that God is the all powerful Creator of the universe.

So as you can clearly see, the sun IS NOT NEEDED for day and night! What is needed is light and a rotating earth. On the first day of creation, God made light, created a division between it and the darkness, and the ‘evening and morning’ transition implies a rotating earth. Light from one direction + spinning earth = day and night!

Response:
EXACTLY my point. The sun is not needed for “day and night”. But a 24 hour day is based on the relationship between the sun and the earth. And no, I disagree that “evening and morning” transition implies a rotating earth. You’re already assuming that it’s literal. And what exactly is this “light” you’re talking about anyway? Some Fathers, like St. Basil, speaks of it as an “immaterial light” which is fine. But how does the earth rotate something around an immaterial light?

“Where this light comes from we’re not told, but it was there to provide a day and night and then only later did God make the sun on day four. You’d guess that God did it this way simply as a kick in the pants to any evolutionary theories (ex. Big Bang) that speculate the sun came before the earth, as well to give it less importance because it was often a target for pagan worship. If you read Revelation 21:22, it interestingly tells us this:”

Response:
Right. You’re not told where the light comes from, but you’re assuming that the earth rotates on it. You don’t know where this light comes from and the sun wasn’t made yet. So it cannot be speaking of a 24 hour day. Again, see my Aristotelian logic.

Also, I never said that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory. I am an agnostic as far as whether Genesis 1 was written afterwards or not. Finally, if what I said above is right (about how the Hebrew writer does not speak in logical or chronological order, etc) that makes sense for two creation accounts.

You still have to respond to how “day” could be speaking literal day (24 hour day) if there was no sun and you have no idea what the light is or where it came from.

 

[Apolonio]

By the way, I agree with Pius XII’s quote. I do believe that the first 11 chapters of Genesis is historical, but not literal. One can speak about history through myths. When Pius XII speaks about myths, he is speaking about those who believe that Genesis 1 is mere fiction.

He says:

“This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however *must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), *in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people.”

Notice how history can be presented in “simple and metaphorical language.” It does not have to be literal. A “myth” does not have to mean fiction.

I also have to note (again) that the Holy Father is with me on this one.

 

[Brad]

Apolonio:

By the way, I agree with Pius XII’s quote. I do believe that the first 11 chapters of Genesis is historical, but not literal. One can speak about history through myths. When Pius XII speaks about myths, he is speaking about those who believe that Genesis 1 is mere fiction.

He says:

“This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however *must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), *in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people.”

Notice how history can be presented in “simple and metaphorical language.” It does not have to be literal. A “myth” does not have to mean fiction.

I also have to note (again) that the Holy Father is with me on this one.

Where did he use the word “myth”? I think many use this word to cover-up disbelief because they can claim afterwards that a myth doesn’t mean fiction. When the word myth is used to schoolchildren and most adults, they assume fiction.