E
edwest211
Guest
Makes perfect sense.
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.
E
edwest211
Guest
I’m waiting to find out what the “theistic” part is in evolution.
E
edwest211
Guest
Evolution is the ultimate storytelling device. Any new interpretation can be concocted instantly.
R
Richca
Guest
(continued from previous post)
We have mentioned before how Genesis 1 has a certain structure to it, for example, day 4 corresponds to day 1, day 5 to day 2, and day 6 to day 3. Traditionally, among the Church’s doctors and theologians, days 1-3 are called God’s work of distinction, light from darkness, waters from waters, dry land from seas; St Thomas Aquinas includes here with the work of distinction the ‘clothing’ of the earth with its vegetation which completes the ‘formlessness’ of the earth (“the earth was without form and void”(v.2). Days 4-6 are called the work of adornment, a further beautifying of creation, by creating creatures to inhabit or fill the heavens, the seas, and the earth.
Unlike days 1, 2, 4, 5 wherein we find a single ‘And God said,…’ from which follows God’s creative work, we notice that day 3 has two ‘And God said…’, two creative activities or works of God; the division of the waters (seas) from the dry land and the production of vegetation. As we just mentioned above that day 6 corresponds to day 3, so it also keeps the structure of two works or creative activities of God as in day 3. In day 6, we have ‘And God said,…’ from which follows the creation of the animals from out of the earth. Next, on the same day, we find "Then [And] God said, ‘Let us make man…’. We also find another ‘And God said…’ in day 6 in verse 29 but that doesn’t involve a creative work. Actually, we have another ‘and God said’ in verse 28 as well. I just thought I would point out this interesting feature of Genesis 1.
I will continue with some various interpretations from the Fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church. I have to get going pretty soon so I may have to continue with this later.
Again, Happy Easter to all!!
We have mentioned before how Genesis 1 has a certain structure to it, for example, day 4 corresponds to day 1, day 5 to day 2, and day 6 to day 3. Traditionally, among the Church’s doctors and theologians, days 1-3 are called God’s work of distinction, light from darkness, waters from waters, dry land from seas; St Thomas Aquinas includes here with the work of distinction the ‘clothing’ of the earth with its vegetation which completes the ‘formlessness’ of the earth (“the earth was without form and void”(v.2). Days 4-6 are called the work of adornment, a further beautifying of creation, by creating creatures to inhabit or fill the heavens, the seas, and the earth.
Unlike days 1, 2, 4, 5 wherein we find a single ‘And God said,…’ from which follows God’s creative work, we notice that day 3 has two ‘And God said…’, two creative activities or works of God; the division of the waters (seas) from the dry land and the production of vegetation. As we just mentioned above that day 6 corresponds to day 3, so it also keeps the structure of two works or creative activities of God as in day 3. In day 6, we have ‘And God said,…’ from which follows the creation of the animals from out of the earth. Next, on the same day, we find "Then [And] God said, ‘Let us make man…’. We also find another ‘And God said…’ in day 6 in verse 29 but that doesn’t involve a creative work. Actually, we have another ‘and God said’ in verse 28 as well. I just thought I would point out this interesting feature of Genesis 1.
God had already created light in verse 3 and seperated the light from the darkness and the light He called Day and the darkness He called Night, so we don’t really have a problem with the creation of the fruit trees and vegetation on day 3 before God made the ‘lights’ on day 4. Now, the creation of light from which followed the ‘one day’ of verse 5 (note that the inspired scripture reads not ‘first day’ but ‘one day’. The significance and various interpretations of this I hope to get to later), appears to be out of place from the creation of the sun and other lights on day 4, according to what we might call a ‘surface’ or ‘natural’ reading of the narrative. Obviously, the inspired sacred writer or rather Moses had either a theological reason for this chronological sequence or this is the actual chronological or historical order of God’s work of creation. We may be dealing with a deep mystery here in verses 3-5 and in which we can only humble ourselves before God’s word and call on the Holy Spirit, the principle author of Holy Scripture, for enlightenment. Also, since Holy Scripture can have multiple meanings, than its very possible or probable that this somewhat ‘mysterious text’ has multiple meanings.From Hugh_Farey: Now what do they believe about fruit-trees? Genesis clearly says that the earth was thick with them before the sun was created.
I will continue with some various interpretations from the Fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church. I have to get going pretty soon so I may have to continue with this later.
Again, Happy Easter to all!!
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Your whole post is genuinely a pleasure to read, and expounds some of the theology of Genesis very well. But the answer to my question is “I don’t know”. Is that correct?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Really? Why didn’t you say so before? As a matter of fact, it has been best articulated here by Aloysium.I’m waiting to find out what the “theistic” part is in evolution.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Did you notice my question to you, or were you too busy concocting snappy one-liners. What, I asked was your view on the chronology of fruit-trees and marine life? Do you believe the trees preceded the marine life, or not, or don’t you know? Strange that you can spend your time waiting for answers to questions you haven’t asked, but are so reluctant to answer questions that somebody else has asked.Evolution is the ultimate storytelling device. Any new interpretation can be concocted instantly.
T
Techno2000
Guest
God himself would be the first light that they needed to survive with from the start,because all life comes from God.Literal six-day people need have no worries about sun-less fruit trees.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Thank-you. I followed your science as far as “moving to the next level”. I don’t know what you mean by “forward-moving perturbations”. They sound a little like gravity-waves. If so, then no, they certainly don’t gain magnitude. Is this science or an optimistic aspiration? And I don’t know what you mean by “the space-time continuum in which they are moving”. There is only one space-time continuum. And I don’t know what you mean by “saturation magnitude”. And I don’t know why you think such a wave should be square, or why it should ‘ride on the threads of events’. I’m sorry, but as it stands, your explanation is, quite literally, scientifically meaningless. You’ll have to clarify it, I’m afraid.
T
Techno2000
Guest
IOk, briefly, as posters here know the space time continuum fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time. Large objects, i. e. Dinosaurs, warp the fabric of of space-time. The warp creates the effect of gravity, redirecting the path of the objects that travel into it. Of course, the strength of gravity depends on the size of the space-time warp. So, moving to the next level, changes can be considered small when observed near their time of occurrence. Forward moving perturbations continue to gain magnitude until they saturate within the space-time continuum in which they are moving. The saturation magnitude is again based on certain properties of the space-time continuum that hosts the wave. This square wave of change moves through the space-time continuum riding on the threads of events (the 6 day Genesis model for instance). Changes or ripples that are initiated with an existing thread are recorded (remembered) along the thread until the thread ends. This can lead to some potentially break through science in how we view evolution v. creationism. For instance, seeing a Jurassic-era Apatosaurus rubbing elbows with late-Cretaceous Parasaurolophus. It’s really amazing how this could shape our debate moving forward.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I think I’d be happier with the original papers, thanks. Can you reference one? Waves I get. “Rings of time”? No.Sorry about that. I pulled most of my explanation directly from working scientific documents so that the language would not be confusing. What is being proposed here is that there are several waves traveling through rings of time with varying degrees of gravity and strength.
I
Ioana
Guest
Ok if this were a GCSE Biology question I would answer something like
- The fragrance attracts bees
- mutation reproduction adaptation lalala
E
edwest211
Guest
The first light was God but that is often ignored.
E
edwest211
Guest
Bees don’t seem to mind.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Just another smokescreen for atheists to hang their hat on.Interesting parallel anaylis, but there now seems to be a scientific body of evidence moving in that direction. Strange how real science can sometimes mirror science fiction and fantasy!
E
edwest211
Guest
Having studied this sort of thing, it just doesn’t work. The science behind it is shaky at best. The space-time continuum just is. This reminds me, a little, about discussions about 12 dimensional mathematics and related theories.
E
edwest211
Guest
As someone who writes science fiction and fantasy, and understands psychological warfare, a ‘disorientation campaign’ is currently going on.
T
Techno2000
Guest
How would plant DNA mutations know how to create something to attract a creature from the Animal Kingdom?The fragrance attracts bees
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Then God didn’t make the first light, but only the second light in Genesis 1:3 "And God said, “Let there be the second light,” and there was the second light.The first light was God but that is often ignored.
Very careless of the copyists to leave out those words.
Does this mean that you do not consider the current version of the Bible to be reliable?
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
The mutations (plural) didn’t know. Some mutations attracted bees, some mutations repelled bees and other mutations had no effect on bees at all. There was a pool of random mutations in the flower population.How would plant DNA mutations know how to create something to attract a creature from the Animal Kingdom?
The mutations that attracted more bees spread their pollen more effectively and prospered. The mutations that repelled bees died out because their pollen was not spread so effectively.
That is natural selection.
This has been explained to you before, by myself and others.
rossum
- Status
- Not open for further replies.