Testing Darwin's Teachers

[robins]

I accept everything in that document. Can you say the same?
This is from Orogeny comment to me.
In my mind that questions my Catholicness. There are other times that I have been questioned.

What kind of evolution are you speaking of? Because Darwin evolution is not an acceptable belief of Catholics. We did not evolve from another partical. Pope Benedict XVI even said that in his first conversation with the Catholics in St. Peters Square in April 05.

If you ever pray the rosary and meditate on the Annunciation to Mary, the Holy Sprit overshadowed Mary and then Mary conceived Jesus. I believe that Genesis is a typology of Mary conceiving Jesus. Everything else in the OT is typology of the NT. Catholics are literalist, yes. We also know that the Bible is without error and what it says in there is speaking to us from God.

If your evolution belief has to do with Adam and Eve were different then we are exactly now then I can see that to be acceptable.

Darwin evolution is being taught in schools. That is an unfounded/not proven theory. It is still a theory. Plus if you search you will find that 80% a Americans don’t believe we evolved from another matter. So your disagreement isn’t only with me.

The quote that I posted was from a report on Cardinal Schonbom NY times letter that he wrote. I should have put the address for you to find it. I will get it as soon as I can a post it here.

That is all for now I have to go watch for tornatos heading our way.
May God Bless You.

 

[Orogeny]

robins:

I accept everything in that document. Can you say the same?
This is from Orogeny comment to me.
In my mind that questions my Catholicness. There are other times that I have been questioned.

No, the question is do you accept the referenced document in it’s entirety. Your previous posts indicate you would disagree with at least part of it. And I notice you don’t answer the question here, but you do try to dodge it.

What kind of evolution are you speaking of? Because Darwin evolution is not an acceptable belief of Catholics. We did not evolve from another partical. Pope Benedict XVI even said that in his first conversation with the Catholics in St. Peters Square in April 05.

Descent with modification. I don’t understand your third sentance.

If you ever pray the rosary and meditate on the Annunciation to Mary, the Holy Sprit overshadowed Mary and then Mary conceived Jesus. I believe that Genesis is a typology of Mary conceiving Jesus. Everything else in the OT is typology of the NT. Catholics are literalist, yes. We also know that the Bible is without error and what it says in there is speaking to us from God.

Am I understanding you here to say that we, as Catholics, must take the entire Bible literally?

If your evolution belief has to do with Adam and Eve were different then we are exactly now then I can see that to be acceptable.

I don’t have a “belief” in evolution. Adam and Eve were fully human.

Darwin evolution is being taught in schools. That is an unfounded/not proven theory. It is still a theory. Plus if you search you will find that 80% a Americans don’t believe we evolved from another matter. So your disagreement isn’t only with me.

There is no such thing as a proven theory in science. Regardless what Americans think, evolution is a fact. The only question is how it occurs.

That is all for now I have to go watch for tornatos heading our way.
May God Bless You.

Be safe!

Peace

Tim

 

[rlg94086]

Rather than add to the tiresome evolution debate (IMHO…been there, done that, got the t-shirt), I would like to comment on the article

I think the teacher highlighted, Frisby, sounds like a great teacher, and I liked his use of props: tool belt, adding machine tape, etc. It’s great that he has the patience to deal with their questions - the good ones and the ridiculous.

I thought Leshner’s “we’re not going to roll over” comment was a little over-the-top. Intimidated by students maybe? I have no problem with creating a guidance manual to help teachers answer some of the questions. Teachers should be able to answer questions, shouldn’t they? Whatever it takes, they need to be prepared.

Some of the questions from the students sounded pretty good, and they should be answered on-the-spot, or kick off a discussion, or responded to later. I think it would be great to start out any of those actions with “that’s a great question…”

Other questions were disrespectful and have no room in the classroom - asking a teacher if he ever even read the bible, ridicule, etc. Teachers need to do whatever they are allowed to do in their state/county to maintain discipline.

Bottomline: What a great opportunity for teachers to engage in dialogue with their students! It’s a heck of a lot better than teaching to an apathetic group of kids who are checking the clock to see when the next break comes up. Hopefully, through discussion in the classsroom, some of those kids will get excited about God’s creation (whatever way He did it ) and decide to study Biology, as Frisby did (and my sophomore son who is planning to study Marine Biology in college).

God bless to both sides of the debate,

Robert

 

[robins]

Here you go:
www.catholic.net/rcc/periodicals/issues/darwin.html

and

www.catholic.net/us_catholic_news/template_article.phtml?article_id=3308&channel_id_1

and

www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/gjkeane/openques.html

and

www.ablertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=174

and there are many more. ok! hope they will work.
Thanks Be To God the tornato missed us!!!

 

[Orogeny]

robins:

Here you go:
www.catholic.net/rcc/periodicals/issues/darwin.html

Link doesn’t work.

and

www.catholic.net/us_catholic_news/template_article.phtml?article_id=3308&channel_id_1

Link doesn’t work.

and

www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/gjkeane/openques.html

Interesting that the author of the paper rejects scientific definitions of evolution for his own and then claims that it isn’t possible. Hmm. I wonder what kind of article I can get published on that site by making up my own target and knocking it down?

and

www.ablertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=174

and there are many more. ok! hope they will work.

Link doesn’t work.

Thanks Be To God the tornato missed us!!!

That is good news!

Peace

Tim

 

[R_McGeddon]

Della:

I say GOOD! They should have to defend evolution since it is nothing but a theory based on presumptions, not on real evidence.

Are you real? it is a scientific theory, that means that it has undergone strict methods of testing. A theory will stand until it can be dis-proved or proved further.

 

[robins]

R McGeddon your signature says it all:
believe nothing, question everything! Evolution included. Theories!
Orogeny I am sorry that the other links didn’t work, I will figure out a better way.
The link you question I have read his books, I took the link to say what the books say. I will read the link myself better.

 

[PhilVaz]

robin << The quote that I posted was from a report on Cardinal Schonbom NY times letter that he wrote. I should have put the address for you to find it. I will get it as soon as I can a post it here. >>

Cardinal Schonborn says:

(A) Darwin is the greatest scientist who ever lived
(B) His idea was the greatest idea that was ever conceived
(C) Evolution and Catholic doctrine are completely compatible
(D) “Creation science” arguments (such as Kolbe Center) are utterly stupid

I’m exaggerating, but we’ve been through Schonborn’s articles before, in the Apologetics forum. Sorry I miss all the evolution threads in the other forums.

Cardinal Schonborn on evolution and creation :

“I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained. In the citations given above (from Julian Huxley, Will Provine, Peter Atkins), it is unequivocally the case that such have been violated. When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith. But perhaps one finds it difficult to stay within one’s territory, for we are, after all, not simply scientists but also human beings, with feelings, who struggle with faith, human beings, who seek the meaning of life. And thus as natural scientists we are constantly and inevitably bringing in questions reflecting worldviews… I am thankful for the immense work of the natural sciences. Their furthering of our knowledge boggles the mind. They do not restrict faith in the creation; they strengthen me in my belief in the Creator and in how wisely and wonderfully He has made all things.” (Cardinal Schonborn, 2 October 2005, “Creation and Evolution: To the Debate As It Stands”)

Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI on same :

“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.” (Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58)

Schonborn on Charles Darwin and his idea:

“With this, his major work [The Origin of Species], Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history’s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the ‘evolution’ paradigm has become, so to speak, a ‘master key,’ extending itself within many fields of knowledge.” (Schonborn, 2 October 2005)

Also see A Critique of Schonborn by Alec MacAndrew

Phil P

 

[robins]

Well now that Phil has come to the rescue we are finished. Huh!
Well I don’t believe in evolution. I could careless what scientist say. As a Catholic it is not required. As is always the response to anyone that disagrees with evolution they are utterly stupid.
I don’t care if you wish to believe we evolved from apes, pigs, ooze, or grass = I have higher value of people and I am unwilling to believe in something that lessens the value of people. I equal my opinion with Pope Benedict "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. St. Peters Square April 2005.

 

[Thekla]

robins:

Well now that Phil has come to the rescue we are finished. Huh!
Well I don’t believe in evolution. I could careless what scientist say. As a Catholic it is not required. As is always the response to anyone that disagrees with evolution they are utterly stupid.
I don’t care if you wish to believe we evolved from apes, pigs, ooze, or grass = I have higher value of people and I am unwilling to believe in something that lessens the value of people. I equal my opinion with Pope Benedict "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. St. Peters Square April 2005.

How would an acceptance of the Theory of Evolution lessen the value of people? We are the superior species when compared to apes, pigs, and ooze; no one is saying that we are not. We shouldn’t feel threatened by science and we shouldn’t encourage ignorance.

But I do agree with you about Phil coming to the rescue and demolishing arguments.

 

[Orogeny]

robins:

Well now that Phil has come to the rescue we are finished. Huh!
Well I don’t believe in evolution. I could careless what scientist say.

That is amazing! Those weren’t scientists that Phil quoted. That was the cardinal you choose to believe and the POPE!

Peace

Tim

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

robins:

Well now that Phil has come to the rescue we are finished. Huh!
Well I don’t believe in evolution. I could careless what scientist say. As a Catholic it is not required.

No, acceptance of evolution is not required. But if you’re going to post on these boards about that subject, expect that a mis-informed opinion will be corrected. No-one here has said that God doesn’t exist, or that He is not the creator of all life. Evolution from the accepted Catholic position ALWAYS includes God in the process (Beginning, middle, or end). Evolution, even from the science perspective (Though not always the scientists perspective) is all about the mechanics of life…the secrets God allows us to see. Granted - some scientists are athiests - that does not mean science is. Some Christians are Pentecostal…that does not label all Christians as Pentecostal - does it?

robins:

As is always the response to anyone that disagrees with evolution they are utterly stupid.

Some individuals, unfortunately, are less evolved. Charity is a hard fought battle with all of us, show love to those who persecute you - God loves a lover.

robins:

I don’t care if you wish to believe we evolved from apes, pigs, ooze, or grass = I have higher value of people and I am unwilling to believe in something that lessens the value of people.

Evolution says nothing about the God given Gift of a soul - nor can it. Our souls didn’t evolve…only the physical body did, maybe to a point. God did the rest, in any event.

robins:

I equal my opinion with Pope Benedict "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. St. Peters Square April 2005.

Right - we are not the total sum of evolution - God gave us a soul, and a purpose, and Christ died for us…rabbits, moles, apes, pigs, and grass are on their own…along with the ooze

Peace

John

 

[PhilVaz]

Now I’ll support this from Schonborn:

(D) “Creation science” arguments (such as Kolbe Center) are utterly stupid

"Now there is another misunderstanding that is constantly found in the ongoing discussion, and I have to deal with it right here at the beginning. I refer to what is called ‘creationism.’ Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with ‘creationism.’ But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements – I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it – is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way. It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools…

“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of ‘creationism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.” (Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Catechetical Lecture for 11/13/2005)

Down the tubes go AnswersInGenesis, ICR, Kolbe Center, and Dr. Dino.

Phil P

 

[jdnation]

The Cathecism of the Catholic Church clearly states that Adam and Eve are our biological parents and all human beings are descended from them. And also states that death is a result of sin and the Fall. Which is a real event.

The Bible gives us a choronology from Adam and Eve to Jesus Christ. You remember Him? The Son of God who came down to Earth to die from us to save us from sin and death? The same Christ who said that in the beginning God made Man and Woman and upheld the authority of Scripture? That includes the Book of Genesis, which language scholars uphold as being written as real historical literature along with Exodus?

To accept evolution is to accept millions of years of death and sufferring before Adam and Eve.

So is God the inventor of death? Was all this part of creation that is very “good?” So God sent His son to die for something He Himself instituted? What a joke…

Cardinal Schönborn conveniently forgets to tackle these issues. Evolution is a pot-holed theory, and based on a purely philosophical premise. The world we observe is perfectly compatible with the account of Genesis. But wait… I forgot… if the world begins to doubt evolution, then many might convert to Christianity… so the consus of evolutionary scientists, a majority of whom are atheists tell us, and to teach it’s flaws or to teach alternatives will be promoting religion, and since we are a secular humanist society we cannot do that… but they’ll tolerate (and quietly chuckle at) you if you want to believe in God and mateialist based ideas about Origins.

Point being, sure you can believe in some vague notion of God and macro-evolution, but to believe in the God of Christianity with it’s inerrant Scriptures and Church teachings along with the Materialist philosophy known as macro-evolution is a blatant contradiction.

“One should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.” - St. Thomas

 

[jdnation]

Research the debate for yourselves:

Biblical Creationism:
answersingenesis.org
icr.org

Macro-Evolution:
talkorigins.org

---

Answers in Genesis, a Protestant Organization, is in the process of putting up a good section of videos for free, that any layperson will find interesting. You can view the first five videos streaming in a Flash over here:
answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

These are released every Tuesday I believe… it will help you educate yourselves about what the Creationist argument is all about…

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

jdnation:

The Cathecism of the Catholic Church clearly states that Adam and Eve are our biological parents and all human beings are descended from them. And also states that death is a result of sin and the Fall. Which is a real event.

Absolutely those were real events.
Spiritual death, yes. Physical immortality Adam and Eve never participated in - Remember when God threw them out of the Garden, it was to prevent them from eating of the tree of Life and so living forever. It stands to reason that if we - who are above the other earthly creatures, did not possess immortality - neither did the rest of creation.

jdnation:

The Bible gives us a choronology from Adam and Eve to Jesus Christ. You remember Him? The Son of God who came down to Earth to die from us to save us from sin and death? The same Christ who said that in the beginning God made Man and Woman and upheld the authority of Scripture? That includes the Book of Genesis, which language scholars uphold as being written as real historical literature along with Exodus?

Yes…and…?

jdnation:

To accept evolution is to accept millions of years of death and sufferring before Adam and Eve.

See my first response please - as well as:

CCC #159

159 Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

jdnation:

So is God the inventor of death? Was all this part of creation that is very “good?” So God sent His son to die for something He Himself instituted? What a joke…

Again…Spiritual death, not physical - do we not still die two thousand years later?

jdnation:

Cardinal Schönborn conveniently forgets to tackle these issues. Evolution is a pot-holed theory, and based on a purely philosophical premise. The world we observe is perfectly compatible with the account of Genesis. But wait… I forgot… if the world begins to doubt evolution, then many might convert to Christianity… so the consus of evolutionary scientists, a majority of whom are atheists tell us, and to teach it’s flaws or to teach alternatives will be promoting religion, and since we are a secular humanist society we cannot do that… but they’ll tolerate (and quietly chuckle at) you if you want to believe in God and mateialist based ideas about Origins.

I rather think the Cardinal believes in God.

jdnation:

Point being, sure you can believe in some vague notion of God and macro-evolution, but to believe in the God of Christianity with it’s inerrant Scriptures and Church teachings along with the Materialist philosophy known as macro-evolution is a blatant contradiction.

Please see the above reference to the Catechism.

“One should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.” - St. Thomas

Exactly

Peace

John

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

jdnation:

Research the debate for yourselves:

Biblical Creationism:
answersingenesis.org
icr.org

Macro-Evolution:
talkorigins.org

---

Answers in Genesis, a Protestant Organization, is in the process of putting up a good section of videos for free, that any layperson will find interesting. You can view the first five videos streaming in a Flash over here:
answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

These are released every Tuesday I believe… it will help you educate yourselves about what the Creationist argument is all about…

Been there, seen those, believed (accepted) at first - but then I got better educated about the issues and burned the T-shirt. The literalistic (NOT Literal) interpretation of Genesis has holes you can drive a semi through. I would ask you to just consider these ideas…

Plain Reading Of Genesis
Creation
If you have the time, and are inclined - this is really good concerning Genesis
Toledoths
By Robert Sungenis (Catholic)

Peace

John

 

[jdnation]

PraRFLEsEkHm:

Spiritual death, yes. Physical immortality Adam and Eve never participated in - Remember when God threw them out of the Garden, it was to prevent them from eating of the tree of Life and so living forever. It stands to reason that if we - who are above the other earthly creatures, did not possess immortality - neither did the rest of creation.

Again…Spiritual death, not physical - do we not still die two thousand years later?

‘Did the Tree of Life mentioned in the book of Genesis, have power to impart immortality to mortal man, as might be deduced from Genesis 3:22?’
answersingenesis.org/creation/v7/i4/treeoflife.asp

Going further, the point is of course that Adam and Eve are not immortal like God, and were being sustained in their life by God, most likely provided by God with the Tree of Life. But was there still killing and survival fo the fittest? Were there still diseases, cancers and other ills evident? Because that is what the fossil record shows. If that’s the case, how can it be paradise? In the end God is supposed to return the world to that state, where we can all eat from the tree of Life and the lamb will lie down with the Lion, not be eaten by it… so will there still be cancers, and sufferring etc. existing in animals even after the New World is created? This is very good? It’s preposterous. In the beginning Genesis states all living things were herbivorous, only after the Flood was the command finally given for man to eat meat. The shedding of blood was necessary for forgiving sins. Death is the penalty of sin. It cannot have existed before sin. That is not to say man was fully immortal like a god, his life depended upon the sustaining power of God, as would all of creation.

Yes…and…?

The book of Genesis is historical literature, not allegorical, and that includes the days of creation identified strongly and literal days. Christ upheld their authority and said that God made man and woman at the beginning of creation, Paul referred to Genesis during his ministry. Would you argue against what they believed in?

159 Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

I completely agree. Also take note : "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.

I rather think the Cardinal believes in God.

I don’t doubt he does, I didn’t mean to group him in with materialism, although he is trying to marry two opposing concepts together and harmonize them.

 

[jdnation]

Plain Reading Of Genesis

The ‘plain reading of Genesis’ site is laughable. So just because God said ‘do this’ does that make the creation sentient because it listens? So was the earth created by God or not? Did it exist alongside Him? Was it always there before God came along and told it do do something? This site is actually taking a hyperliteral view, something even the most supposed fundamentalists would shy away from! The point is God created, and that matter is not self-existent, or would you take the view that it created itself? The universe is designed by God, and pretty much every portion of it exists because of His Word! His Word is what did the creating! Not that there is some picture in my mind of God with a toolset putting everything in place and weeding the earth till the plants grew… everything begins at His command.

Interestingly enough, the only exception to the rule was when God created man, where He did not command the land to bring man forth but personally formed man from the dust and breathed life into his nostrils… This suggests that Adam was fully formed formed and upon completion only then was animated with life. Not living and forming as the end result of some evolutionary reproductive chain.

As for the kinds, I don’t think any argument has ever been put forth that claims that is what Scripture says, Genesis says God created each animal according to it’s kind and then told everything to be fruitful and multiply. The Bible does however suggest that these created animals were spontaneously created individually according to their own kind, not as some living cells that eventually divide and evolve and change and this happened all on one day. You might argue that it could have been the process and that this could be possible after creation, but it happened in a day, and the latter is unproven but the animals did diversify with a loss of or mixing of and not a gain in genetic information.

As for chance, of course that is what natural selection works on. The real issue is belief in chance that mathematically surpasses possibility, a far different case from the Israel’s use of the Urim and Thummim. You see such chances are of course miracles, and only with God is everything possible. Pure materialism is at a loss to explain these odds for evolutionary success. HOwever Theistic Evolutionists or Intelligent Design advocates can use God as the means for bringing this about as the only explanation. And that’s possible. However, according to revelation from God in Genesis, this is clearly not how He said He did it.

Creation

Right when it said “BUT THERE IS NO REPORTED TIME FRAME IN WHICH THE ACTION WAS COMPLETED!” This is completely false… what about all those places where it clearly states “there is evening and morning… the X day”? The separatedness of light would be necessary in order for there to be an evening and morning… for there to be day and night… and well the other events would need the previous ones to complete in order to work. In any case this link extends more on what the first said, and sounds a lot like what is commonly known as the ‘Gap Theory,’ the filling in of time between each of the individual days… so is this suggesting evenings and mornings took reaaaallly long while all this was happening? Genesis 2, which takes place on the 6th day begins saying “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.” and then reiterates in verse 4 “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” This was before the ‘plants of the field’ which are different from the other vegatation created on the third day. SO it clearly says that before the sixth day everything was done before the creation of animals and man. So even if God gave the creative commands and let the creation take shape at it’s own pace, it would have to have been completed before His creative commands on the sixth day.

Plus there is the statement given by God Himself to the Israelites… ‘In six days, the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is’ (Exodus 20:11). “That is, He was telling man that he must work six days and rest one day because God worked six days and rested one day. The context goes on to say that everything in heaven and earth and in the sea was made in six days. There could have been nothing left over that was not made during the six days.”

In any case, the Hebrew in Genesis is written as historical and doesn’t support anything other than literal days, it is very specific… you can find all this information and refutations of the gap theory from creationist sites as Answers in Genesis.

 

[jdnation]

If you have the time, and are inclined - this is really good concerning Genesis
Toledoths
By Robert Sungenis (Catholic)

Thanks for the article, I’ve aware of the refutations against the JEDP hypothesis and the generational ‘breaks.’ I will continue to read the entire article. However in the end, I want to restate that Adam is the ancestor of Jesus, the new Adam, and was created on day six when all the previous commands given by God to His creation on the previous 5 days were complete.