The 6000 Year Earth

[buffalo]

HI Buffalo,
my point is this, how can you not take this as a literal day as opposed to, let’s say, a thousand years?:
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Up until the PBC in 1909 yom was understood to mean a 24 hour day period. The PBC granted that there were various times it could be plural.

The lexicons understand it to be a day because of the usage in context as well as the way it is used in other places in the Bible. The experts who study this seem to agree it means a 24 hour day.

The other way the (progressive creationist view) I have seen this is that there were no days before day 4, that there were no 24 hour periods before the sun was created.

Bottom line - the constant belief and teaching of the Church has been 24 hour days until recently to conform with scientific belief.

So the question remains - did the Church get it wrong for so long? Where was the Holy Spirit? Sleeping? Or - they really are 24 hour periods.

My post of agreement with oregeny was that Catholics do not read the Bible literally but in context of the whole together with the understanding of what the Sacred author was trying to convey and supported by the Magisterium.

Genesis 1 may have been dictated by God directly to Adam and the perspective is God’s perspective. God looking upon His creation sees the timeline quite differently from man, like a rolled up measuring tape God sees the tape very compactly. Man has to walk the increments on the tape backward and in hampered by this. To man, looking back this way all the events (markers) must be traversed.

 

[buffalo]

How come the sun wasn’t created until the third day? How can there be an evening and a morning if there is no sun?Why do you assume they are dinosaurs?Find a scientific source. I will not argue with the type of site you used.

Peace

Tim

Your assumption is the only source of light is the sun. The electromagnetic spectrum was present before the sun was created.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Most likely a single-celled organism. I don’t know how or when, although it was probably at least 3 billion years ago.

Not a very good foundation to be so confident in your view of evolution when it is logically refuted:

There is, in fact, no evidence whatever for the common genetic descent of all plants and animals from a single primitive organism. Hence the greater number of botanists and zoologists regard a polygenetic (polyphyletic) evolution as much more acceptable than a monogenetic (monophyletic).

newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

Nope. the universal common descent referred to is for all life, not just humans.

No kidding. So everything according to you is related from the first unknown single-celled oraganism as you noted above. Being related in the genetic sense means it shares some genetic quality so some percentage of the new specie has some percentage of the previous be it mutated or transfered. This is what evolutionists are tracking like the human genome project, right?

Monkeys evolved along a different line than did humans and apes. Humans and apes have a more recent common ancestor than do humans and monkeys.

I’m familiar with the concept, but you say illogical and contradictory things with regard to it.

That part of you post makes no sense. We are 100% human, not 95% human and 5% anything else. Every creature is 100% what it is.

These are the evolutionary mental gymnastics that are most bizarre. As you describe it, once a evolutionary branch (say- monkeys) splits from the trunk of the evolutionary tree (single celled organism) it becomes 100% new organism with no shared traits from the previous, but evolution is the study of shared traits passed on from one to another specie since they originate from the same point. I know the theory does not suggest a monkey evolves from a single cell, but the evolutionary relationship exists. The tree of evolution stands on it’s head. From a single point at the base to a large canopy on top. A simple breeze topples the tree.

Proves? Nothing. It is an explanation for the evidence that is available.

Correct it proves nothing and is poor conjecture to boot.

Really?

Really. It says so explicitly.
"They arrive at a tree that shows the African populations branching off from **the others **about 100,000 years ago…Next the Melanesian stock split off from the European/Chinese lineage. Then the Europeans and Chinese split. Finally (in the other half of the tree) the two African stocks separated. "
They didn’t like the answer so they kept looking:
"Using some historical evidence the authors make the assumption that the European stock was an admixture of two other lineages. They then feed the numbers back into the computer and get the following tree. The first split is again the African/others bifurcation. Next the Chinese and the Melanesians split off. Then the European population is formed as a hybrid of the Chinese and as yet undifferentiated African stock. Finally the two African stocks diverge. The authors conclude this tree is more reasonable. "

What do you say they are defining? Did the Africans split from animals (the others)becoming the first humans 100,000 years ago and then split into different but fully human species/races at times later, or that Africans were already human before the split and the others are to remain undefined?

Please go back and read the sources I gave you again. You are the only person I know of that has reached that conclusion from those articles.

Human history is full of examples of one people dehumanizing another using such arguments. World-wide slave trade from past to present, Hitlers extermination of people with deformaties, and even America’s illigitimate abortion law all are/were predicated on geneitic inferiority or incomplete or not fully human beings that can and sometimes should be killed at will- depending on the politics. You are not the only person I know who disregards it because of theology, not the science you cite that proves otherwise.

Just to be as clear as possible, every single human being on this planet is 100% human and NO ONE is less human than anyone else. That is not what evolution says.

The origin of life and evolution as you propose does say that. What makes a human being fully human and no longer an animal- a mutated or evolved gene? If the modern whale w/o legs is a 100% new specie but related to the million year old whale w/legs due to evolution, why isn’t the European a 100% new but related specie from the African?

I take back what I wrote above. Don’t go back and read the sources I gave you. You don’t understand what is in those sources and you are drawing some very strange and disturbing conclusions from them.

How is it I lack comprehension reading your source when you can’t articulate a reasoned resonse to support them? I observe the actions of peoples conclusions, not making the conclusion myself.

No such thing. That is your conclusion, not one of science nor found in the links I gave you.

Peace

Tim

It is a reasonable conclusion you refuse to acknowlege based upon the evidence both in evolution theory and the links you cited. I don’t believe it which is exactly why I reject evolution/origin of life like you say is true fact. You should seperate the concepts of the origin of life from that of evlution because they are not related and once you do that much of your argument becomes unsound.

 

[buffalo]

“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.”

I wonder what sort of lighting system God used to distinguish day from night for the three days before the sun and moon were created.

Perhaps God Himself radiates light.

 

[Bradleyc]

Hi Rossum,

It is far from sure, since we have no contemporary pictures of Jesus and no accurate contemporary pictures of cave men (Cro-Magnons). It is likely that there were no visible differences, given that both Cro-Magnons and Jesus were members of the species Homo sapiens.

ouch… that is rough… or maybe he was an ape?? (please forgive me Lord)

. See Matthew 15:24 “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”. Do you take that part of the Bible literally?
Text without context is pretext… you do notice that he did help her.

As buffalo said, you have to bear in mind what was probably in the mind of the writers. IIRC the Hebrew word for “tail” can also be translated “penis”. Do not rely too much on a translation, which cannot always give the full meaning of the original text. Knowing that the translation of “red herring” is “pink fish” does not help you get at the real meaning of what the author intended. You are reliant on the translator’s knowledge of contemporary idioms, which might not be perfect.

I hate to say this, and please forgive me if this offends… but a penis the size of a cedar tree is one big appendage. Also, if you continue to read the description and the point the author was making, this was one huge and potentially ferocious animal.
Text without context is pretext…

I do not think that there is a way to post images directly here, just post a link to the image:
[noparse]Ovis aries

[/noparse]
which will come out looking like: Ovis aries.
Thanks Rossum, I am new to this, I appreciate your help.

You should also correct your terms. Have a look at the picture you linked to, observe that the first animal in the picture does not have a tail. Monkeys have tails, apes do not. Your picture shows Ape

to Man, not Monkey to Man. Man evolved from apes; scientists can get very picky about such details.
I do apologize, I was using generalizations, I will be more mindful next time.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Bradleyc]

Perhaps God Himself radiates light.

Amen, he sure does! (Moses wanted to look at him but God would not allow it)

 

[Orogeny]

Your assumption is the only source of light is the sun. The electromagnetic spectrum was present before the sun was created.

Your assertion that the electromagnetic spectrum was present before the sun was created is non-biblical.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Your assertion that the electromagnetic spectrum was persent before the sun was created is non-biblical.

Peace

Tim

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.
6 And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.​

So if there was light on the first day it was not part of the electromagnetic spectrum? What do we call this radiation and was it restricted in spectral lengths in some way?

 

[Orogeny]

Not a very good foundation to be so confident in your view of evolution when it is logically refuted:

Really? How about a scientific source to back you up? But hey, if you want to use non-scientific sources, then I will go with this: “Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” **Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, **The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm
Take a look at the bottom of that document to see who is responsible for it.

No kidding.

Yeah, no kidding. Go back and read your post that I was responding to. You wrote that common descent “could well describe the half man/half monkey animal when viewed at the evolutionary point in the geologic timescale of evolutionary development"s we share common genetics.”. You conflated the two concepts.

These are the evolutionary mental gymnastics that are most bizarre. As you describe it, once a evolutionary branch (say- monkeys) splits from the trunk of the evolutionary tree (single celled organism) it becomes 100% new organism with no shared traits from the previous,

Excuse me but that is absolutely not what I said. It is 100% new organism but I never said that there were no shared traits.

I know the theory does not suggest a monkey evolves from a single cell, but the evolutionary relationship exists.

Do you also know that the theory does not suggest that humans evolved from monkeys?

Correct it proves nothing and is poor conjecture to boot.

Do you know why it proves nothing?

Really. It says so explicitly.

Perhaps you are predisposed to think so, but you are the first that has made that leap.

What do you say they are defining? Did the Africans split from animals (the others)becoming the first humans 100,000 years ago and then split into different but fully human species/races at times later, or that Africans were already human before the split and the others are to remain undefined?

Other races. Does that make them less human? Maybe closer to your monkey/man that you seem to be looking for?

The origin of life and evolution as you propose does say that.

I have not proposed an origin of life. As far as the evolution goes, you found something that others haven’t. Is that because everyone else is stupid or is it because it fits what you want to see?

What makes a human being fully human and no longer an animal- a mutated or evolved gene?

From a scientific standpoint, the human genome.

If the modern whale w/o legs is a 100% new specie but related to the million year old whale w/legs due to evolution, why isn’t the European a 100% new but related specie from the African?

Because europeans and africans have the same genome. Does that bother you?

How is it I lack comprehension reading your source when you can’t articulate a reasoned resonse to support them? I observe the actions of peoples conclusions, not making the conclusion myself.

Hmm. I gave you links to some very well written material and you found a racial component that no one else sees. And the problem is that I didn’t give you a reasoned response. Ok.

It is a reasonable conclusion you refuse to acknowlege based upon the evidence both in evolution theory and the links you cited. I don’t believe it which is exactly why I reject evolution/origin of life like you say is true fact.

Sure it is.

You should seperate the concepts of the origin of life from that of evlution because they are not related and once you do that much of your argument becomes unsound.

That has always been my position. Please show me where I ever connected the origin of life and evolution. You may find my positions unsound, but you will not find where I said that the origin of life and evolution are linked.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

So if there was light on the first day it was not part of the electromagnetic spectrum? What do we call this radiation and was it restricted in spectral lengths in some way?

Maybe it was a different kind of light. You really don’t know and therefore, it is non-biblical. But, as you know, I don’t take the story literally, so I am not opposed to reading the story that way. But if you insist that it is literal, then your interpretation is a no-no.

Peace

Tim

 

[juliamajor]

But at what point in the evolutionary process did God give us the soul?

Yes, he does, if fact he walked the earth for over 20 years.Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.

but a Parable is just that, a parable…When God said he created something in ONE day, I believe it… now, how can I misinterpret that when he says a day is: “And the evening and the morning were the second day.” in Genesis? How can a 1000 years be the evening and the morning? How is it possible to not take that literal?

please look up these scriptures, what would he be describing, if not a dinosaur?
Behemoth in Job 40:15-24
Leviathan in Job: 41, Psalm 104:25,26, Isaiah 27:1

goldendome.org/EvolutionOfMan/
They start with a monkey and the through several changes the being will eventually turninto a man, in between the monkey and what we call a man are several forms of half monkey/half man. (call it what you will) where are those species today?
Regarding the Literal translation of Genesis
I don’t know how you cannot take it literal, it specifically say that each day is morning and night;
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night.** And the evening and the morning were the first day. **
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the expanse, Heavens. **And the evening and the morning were the second day. **
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land, Earth. And He called the gathering together of the waters, Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 ** And the evening and the morning were the third day. **
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night. And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth. And it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night, and the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 and to rule over the day and over the night; and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 **And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. **
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarmers having a living soul; and let birds fly over the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.
Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with
which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas and let the fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 **And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. **
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
Gen 1:27 And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it. And have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heavens, and all animals that move upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold! I have given you every herb seeding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree seeding seed; to you it shall be for food.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to every creeper on the earth which has in it a living soul every green plant is for food; and it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Leviathan is a whale
Behemoth a hippopotamus.
this is well known and not speculation

 

[buffalo]

Maybe it was a different kind of light. You really don’t know and therefore, it is non-biblical. But, as you know, I don’t take the story literally, so I am not opposed to reading the story that way. But if you insist that it is literal, then your interpretation is a no-no.

Peace

Tim

Sure if could have been UV light or maybe infrared. The point is the Bible says it was light. What is your non-literal interpretation of the first use of the word light? What is your Catholic citation as to its meaning?

 

[Bradleyc]

Perhaps God Himself radiates light.

Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they might shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

the Earth was still rotating, but maybe it wasn’t the sun shining the light is one theory.

 

[Orogeny]

Sure if could have been UV light or maybe infrared.

Uh, that would still be electromagnetic radiation.

The point is the Bible says it was light. What is your non-literal interpretation of the first use of the word light? What is your Catholic citation as to its meaning?

I don’t have one. I think the story says that God created everything. I don’t have a specific interpretation of that passage because I don’t believe it to be literal history.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

the Earth was still rotating, but maybe it wasn’t the sun shining the light is one theory.

You know, scriptures say that the earth is not rotating but that the sun, moon and stars are orbiting the earth which is the very center of the universe. Fascinating, isn’t it!

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Uh, that would still be electromagnetic radiation.I don’t have one. I think the story says that God created everything. I don’t have a specific interpretation of that passage because I don’t believe it to be literal history.

Peace

Tim

Arrrgghhhhh! I see the problem - didn’t proofread, sorry.

The post should have read - So if there was light on the first day how do we know it was not part of the electromagnetic spectrum? What do we call this radiation and was it restricted in spectral lengths in some way?

 

[Bradleyc]

Leviathan is a whale
Behemoth a hippopotamus.
this is well known and not speculation

a Hippo does not have a tail the size of a cedar.

Leviathan
Job 41:12 I will not keep silent concerning his limbs, or his mighty strength, or the grace of his frame.
Job 41:13 Who can take off the surface of his skin; who can come to him with his double bridle?
Job 41:14 Who can open the doors to his face? Terror is round about his teeth.
Job 41:15 **The rows of shields are his pride, shut up with a close seal;
Job 41:16 one is so near to another that no air can come between them;
Job 41:17 they are joined one to another, they clasp each other so that they can not be separated. Job 41:18 His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the dawn.
Job 41:19 Out of his mouth go burning torches, sparks of fire leap out.
Job 41:20 Out of his nostrils goes smoke, as out of a boiling pot fired by reeds.
Job 41:21 His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.
Job 41:22 ** In his neck remains strength, and terror dances before him.
Job 41:23 The folds of his flesh are joined together, cast firm on him; he cannot be moved.
Job 41:24 His heart is cast hard as a stone, even cast hard as a piece of a riding millstone.
Job 41:25 The mighty are afraid from his rising; they are beside themselves from the crashing.
Job 41:26 The sword overtakes him, but will not hold firm. The spear, the dart, and the javelin also.
Job 41:27 He counts iron as straw, bronze as rotten wood.
Job 41:28 An arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones are turned by him into stubble.
Job 41:29 Darts are counted as straw; he laughs at the shaking of a javelin.
Job 41:30 Points of potsherds are under him; he spreads sharp pointed marks on the mire.
Job 41:31 He makes the deep boil like a pot; he makes the sea like a pot of ointment.
Job 41:32 He makes a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be gray-headed.
Job 41:33 On earth there is nothing like him, one made without fear.
Job 41:34 He beholds all high things; he is a king over all the sons of pride.

 

[Orogeny]

Arrrgghhhhh! I see the problem - didn’t proofread, sorry.

That’s ok. I meant to put a winking smilie at the end but it seems like I didn’t proofread either!

The post should have read - So if there was light on the first day how do we know it was not part of the electromagnetic spectrum? What do we call this radiation and was it restricted in spectral lengths in some way?

I call it light and I agree that it would have been electromagnetic radiation. It all started at the “Big Bang”.

I say that based on my understanding of the science. If, however, you read Genesis literally, I don’t see how you can make any statement about the nature of the light because it isn’t in the story. Anything other than the written words is adding to the story an is non-biblical (not found in the bible).

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Uh, that would still be electromagnetic radiation.I don’t have one. I think the story says that God created everything. I don’t have a specific interpretation of that passage because I don’t believe it to be literal history.

Peace

Tim

I understand your position - the author would have been better off just saying - “God created everything”. These messy extra verses just get in the way.

So it took 31 verses to say something that could have just been one sentence. There seems to be an attempt to confuse. But then we have a problem - God doesn’t lie.

But then again when you read Genesis there are many things there that are indeed known to man, such as days, stars, sun, moon, vegetation, animals, birds, sea monsters, dry land, etc… I guess we shouldn’t take these literally in the way the author intended.

When you say you do not take these verses to be literal history your position is against the constant teaching and understanding of the Church. What makes you the authority? Do you not see the issue?

 

[juliamajor]

a Hippo does not have a tail the size of a cedar.

Leviathan
Job 41:12 I will not keep silent concerning his limbs, or his mighty strength, or the grace of his frame.
Job 41:13 Who can take off the surface of his skin; who can come to him with his double bridle?
Job 41:14 Who can open the doors to his face? Terror is round about his teeth.
Job 41:15 **The rows of shields are his pride, shut up with a close seal;
Job 41:16 one is so near to another that no air can come between them;
Job 41:17 they are joined one to another, they clasp each other so that they can not be separated. Job 41:18 His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the dawn.
Job 41:19 Out of his mouth go burning torches, sparks of fire leap out.
Job 41:20 Out of his nostrils goes smoke, as out of a boiling pot fired by reeds.
Job 41:21 His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.
Job 41:22 ** In his neck remains strength, and terror dances before him.
Job 41:23 The folds of his flesh are joined together, cast firm on him; he cannot be moved.
Job 41:24 His heart is cast hard as a stone, even cast hard as a piece of a riding millstone.
Job 41:25 The mighty are afraid from his rising; they are beside themselves from the crashing.
Job 41:26 The sword overtakes him, but will not hold firm. The spear, the dart, and the javelin also.
Job 41:27 He counts iron as straw, bronze as rotten wood.
Job 41:28 An arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones are turned by him into stubble.
Job 41:29 Darts are counted as straw; he laughs at the shaking of a javelin.
Job 41:30 Points of potsherds are under him; he spreads sharp pointed marks on the mire.
Job 41:31 He makes the deep boil like a pot; he makes the sea like a pot of ointment.
Job 41:32 He makes a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be gray-headed.
Job 41:33 On earth there is nothing like him, one made without fear.
Job 41:34 He beholds all high things; he is a king over all the sons of pride.

Another suggestion is alligator, water buffalo. the point is that is a mundane everyday animal -not a dinosaur long dead.