The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[Philipp]

BUFFALO:
*Now it gets really neat! The regulatory system can rearrange things to allow variable offspring. Micro evolution (adaptability) is built right in. What does this mean? The things that control this have to be in place before micro-evolution can take place. Bye Bye Darwin! The top evo guys get this but still have not come to terms with it. They cannot explain saltations away and now know the first cells were complex. The typical evo defender on CAF doesn’t even know this exists. Why - 'because of what their boilogy classes taught them. You know the one’s I am talking about - the one’s that every time you question the modern synthesis they reply - take a university biology course. *

PHILIPP:
So what you are saying is that within each “kind” mentioned in Genesis there is a built-in adapatability system that allows for what some folks might call speciation but what is really variability within kind. Have I got it? If this be so then speciation is nothing more than changes within kind but NO changes from one species into another like whatever preceded the great apes which then changing into hominids and hominids into homo sapiens followed by a infusion of a soul into the final higher product.

I can live with the semantics along as I don’t have to believe my ancestors lost a tail when a few or many simultaneously perhaps fell out of a tree and started walking upright.

Then if the long ages of millions and billions of years don’t exist then the crude statement mentioned below could be even more valid. Would you like to try your hand at editing it as is or perhaps expanding on it? I tend to agree with another post that indicates that it is not fully understandable.

**Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have obviously been created AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator by variation in the DNA structure of each life form. [Simul in Latin meaning “at once” in English, from Lateran IV, AD 1215]

**-------------------------------
ADMIN NOTE: split from original thread, which is located here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=428851

 

[Philipp]

Itinerant claims that I have resorted to unreliable sources. But my sources are the Church Fathers themselves, not modernist interpretations. It is St. Gregory of Nyssa who calls his brother St. Basil’s commentary on Genesis “divinely inspired” and writes “In the beginning, we see, it was not an ear rising from a grain but a grain coming from an ear, and after that, the ear grows round the grain.”* And no one doubts that St. Basil taught that Genesis 1 was to be understood to teach that God spoke all of the different kinds of creatures into existence in six days. Here is a more complete quotation from St. Gregory of Nyssa, as quoted by Cardinal Ruffini:

Before commencing, I wish to testify that I am certain I do not contradict anything that has been written by St. Basil concerning the creation of the world…. Let, therefore, his writings be confirmed, and let them hold a place of honor, and let them not yield to other documents but those of the Testament, written under the dictation of the Divine Spirit (emphasis added) (Preface to Hexaemeron, as quoted by Ruffini, The Theory of Evolution Judged by Reason and Faith, p. 201.)

ItI
Itinerant insists that the origin of living things is a question for natural science. But all of the Fathers without exception made a distinction between the period of creation when God spoke into existence all of the original kinds of creatures, and the period of providence which began after the creation period was finished. Thus, they all held that the creative acts of God during the creation period are not matters for scientific investigation by natural scientists–any more than the water-made-wine at Cana would be a suitable subject for natural scientists to investigate.

I can only pity and pray for those who put more trust in the wild speculations of fallible human science about origins than in the Word of God as believed and proclaimed by all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. For those who would like to drink deeply from the pure teaching of the Fathers and Doctors on creation, please visit the website for Fr. Victor Warkulwiz’s masterpiece The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11 at genesis1-11.org/ God bless you all!

---

• Oden, Thomas C., general ed., Louth, Andrew W., ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Old Testament, Vol. I, Genesis 1-11, p. 15.**

 

[itinerant1]

Unlike Pope Pius XII who spoke candidly and enthusiastically about Big Bang theory Pope Benedict speaks reservedly about evolution. He is right about a scientific view narrowing one’s view of life. That is, a strictly scientific view, while master of its own domain, deals only with things as quantifiable and their interactions.

Specialization in any field carries the danger of narrowing the human mind. I often would hear people talking about specialists as knowing more and more about less and less. There is some truth to that observation. Of course, we need specialists, but too often in modern times specialists specialize too early in their education, and never receive a general liberal education as was the education system of the early European universities.

In regard to evolution the Pope cannot speak as a scientist, though he is an extremely brilliant theologian. But he will not speak publicly in any detailed way about evolution because that is not his intent as the Vicar. So, I will speak for him. LOL

When we talk about the evidence for evolution theory I like to use a division used by Ernst Mayr who categorizes Darwin writings as showing five major theories of evolution.

1. The nonconstancy of species (the basic theory of evolution)
2. The descent of all organisms from ancestors (branching evolution)
3. The gradualness of evolution (no saltations, no discontinuities)
4. The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity)
5. Natural selection

(Mayr left out, and probably for obvious reasons, Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics, which Darwin resorted to many times.)

The evidence for each of the five theories has varied since Darwin’s time. And not all five theories were originally accepted by biologist. Soon after the publication of the Origin most biologists accepted common descent but rejected natural selection. That situation has changed dramatically.

My point here is that when one is talking about evidence for evolution, there is need to clarify whether one is talking about common descent, gradualness, the mechanism of natural selection, and so on. As I stated previously, I think speciation itself has been solidly proven.

 

[grannymh]

Explain what you mean by the “regulatory system”. What is that, exactly? By what specific mechanism does the “regulatory system” allow ‘changes’? And, what’s the difference between ‘changed’ and ‘evolved’ - specifically?

So say the Muslims and the Mormons, too. Get in line and take a number.

Catholics already have number one.

 

[itinerant1]

So say the Muslims and the Mormons, too. Get in line and take a number.

Muslims and Mormons are new kids on the block who try to compete with the real thing: Roman Catholicism, which has been here for over 2,000 years, and which grew up out of centuries of Judaism.

We know the real thing from the counterfeits.

 

[itinerant1]

Catholics already have number one.

We have Number 1 and there are no more numbers.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth are genetically related,

I’m glad you acknowledge that!

All life on earth is genetically related to some degree. But, whenever someone points out that we’re closely related to chimps, genetically, oh boy! Some people get pissed at the thought. How about you? Are you okay with the fact that we’re over 97% genetically related to chimps, or, does that idea upset you? Be honest.

it is virtually certain that all living organisms have obviously been created AT ONCE

(emphasis mine)

That’s just incredulity on your part.

 

[rossum]

A single complex cell. Each cell contains the full instruction set. More does not necessarily mean more complex.

In this case it does. As we live our lives our immune systems become more complex as they encounter new pathogens and gain the ability to recognise them when encountered a second time. That recognition develops after conception and is stored in new cellular DNA.

Our DNA can ‘learn’ from its environment so it can deal with the common pathogens it encounters. The locals do not get “Montezuma’s Revenge” but the tourists do, because the locals have developed the right DNA in their immune systems to deal with those local pathogens.

Complexity is increased for every new pathogen our immune system recognises.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Catholics already have number one.

The Hindus invented zero so they should have number 0 which puts them before number one. And weren’t the Jews there before any of the Christians?

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

I can only pity and pray for those who put more trust in the wild speculations of fallible human science

Don’t forget to also pity and pray for Pope Pius XII who promoted Big Bang theory.

 

[itinerant1]

The Hindus invented zero so they should have number 0 which puts them before number one. And weren’t the Jews there before any of the Christians?

rossum

Hindus can be zeroes if they so choose. Nothing was before something, I guess.

Jews were first. Christ was a Jew. Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism. It is a Number “1” with a long history. Christ is the God of the Jews. He said to them, before Abraham was I was. I tell you I Am He. Of course, the Jews then tried to kill him for claiming to be God who had taken human form without losing His divinity. So, yes, they rejected their Messiah, so that moves us into first place. Score!

 

[grannymh]

Explain what you mean by the “regulatory system”. What is that, exactly? By what specific mechanism does the “regulatory system” allow ‘changes’? And, what’s the difference between ‘changed’ and ‘evolved’ - specifically?

When I think of a regulatory system, I think of human heredity. How is it that a cousin of mine has red hair but none of the ancestors of his immediate family do? What suppressed the red hair gene for generations? Or what turned on a rare immunity to the disease of TB, yet left scar tissue indicating TB had been present which happened to me . I probably am wrong, but to me, a regulatory system is like an operating system that exists from the beginning. I wouldn’t equate on and off necessarily with changes. Changes or evolving would come from mutations. A regulrtory system could explain different rates for mutations but would not necessarily explain the changes themselves.

How far off am I?

Blessing,
granny

Human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

Catholics already have number one.

I understand.

Thing is, I don’t share that view. Yours, and the thousands of other superstitious belief systems, are on the same par with Santa Claus as far as I’m concerned. Sorry to be so blunt, but that’s the way I feel about it. I’m being honest, not disrespectful.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

Muslims and Mormons are new kids on the block who try to compete with the real thing: Roman Catholicism, which has been here for over 2,000 years, and which grew up out of centuries of Judaism.

We know the real thing from the counterfeits.

If longevity makes the case, then Astrology wins, hands down!

 

[itinerant1]

If longevity makes the case, then Astrology wins, hands down!

Truth wins out and Catholicism whoops astrology in every match. I can whoop your Santa Claus theory too, but let’s stick to the topic of the thread and thrash “creationism” and the 6, 000 year old earth superstition.

 

[DorianGregorian]

Well, what if God created the earth in an advanced state? That is, he created the Earth as though it had existed physically for a long time.

Some Lutheran Churches (LCMS & WELS) have official statements of creationism, but it’s not an impediment to simply be a member.

As a matter of Science, I believe in evolution. As a matter of Faith, I believe in creationism.

 

[itinerant1]

Well, what if God created the earth in an advanced state? That is, he created the Earth as though it had existed physically for a long time.

Why would God do that? There is no need for that hypothesis.

Besides, it makes God out to be trickster who fools countless scientists into thinking the world has been around for billions of years.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

Truth wins out and Catholicism whoops astrology in every match.

You’re shifting. I’ll get to the whole “truth” thing later. For now, I just wanted to point out that you appealed to age, as if to say that since Christianity is 2,000 years old, then it must be legit and “the one”. You need to remove that argument from your repertoire.

I can whoop your Santa Claus theory too,

Do you know what’s really sad? Poor toddler Jesus never grew up with Christmas every year. Don’t that just make you cry?

but let’s stick to the topic of the thread and thrash “creationism” and the 6, 000 year old earth superstition.

Roger that!

 

[itinerant1]

You’re shifting. I’ll get to the whole “truth” thing later. For now, I just wanted to point out that you appealed to age, as if to say that since Christianity is 2,000 years old, then it must be legit and “the one”. You need to remove that argument from your repertoire.

The argument lies in the nature of that long history. One must be deep in history to appreciate it.

Do you know what’s really sad? Poor toddler Jesus never grew up with Christmas every year. Don’t that just make you cry?

Many people never grow spiritually at all, year after year, even though they are on borrowed time. That is something worth crying about.

 

[itinerant1]

from The Christian Philosophy of St. Augustine by Etienne Gilson

Chapter II: Matter and Forms

Now, we know that God produced and formed everything simultaneously, but we see that the new beings continually appear. How are we to resolve this apparent contradiction? To get out of the difficulty, St. Augustine distinguishes two types of creatures, namely those fixed in their form in the work of the six days, and those which were created only in germ, so to speak and had to develop. The following which were in finished form from the moment of creation: the angels, who were the work of the first day, day itself, the firmament, earth, sea, air and fire, i.e. the four elements, stars, and finally man’s soul, which was created, as we see, before it was placed in the body. Only preformed at the time of creation were the primordial seeds of all living things to come, whether animal or vegetable, including Adam’s body which, through its union with a soul already in finished form, was to constitute the first man.

When Augustine speaks of the kind of existence those creatures have which were only preformed at the time of creation, he says that they were made “invisibly, potentially, causally, as future things which have not been made are made” (invisibiliter, potentialiter, causaliter, quomodo fiunt future non facta). The technical phrases he uses to designate this kind of existence are rationes causales or rationes seminales, which are usually translated “seminal reasons.” Because of these hidden seeds which contain everything future ages are to see unfolded, the world created by God may be said to be pregnant with causes of beings still to come. In one sense, then, the world was created complete and perfect, since none of the things seen in it escaped the creative act; but in another sense the universe was only created in an unfinished state, because everything that was to appear in it later was created only in germ or seminal reason. How may we describe these seminal reasons.

As to their nature, the seeds or seminal reasons are essentially humid, i.e. they belong to the element, water, one of the four created by God at the beginning. But in addition to this nature, seminal reasons possess a principle of activity and development that is the cause of their fruitfulness. In keeping with his Platonic metaphysics, which Scripture confirms, Augustine looks upon them as numbers which bring with them for development in time the efficacious forces contained in the works God finished before He rested on the seventh day. From this point of view, creation was complete from the beginning in this production of things “wherein all things were made together” (ubi facta sunt omnia simul), because all the forces which were to show their effects later were already contained in the elements, and the numbers, which are the vehicles of these primitive forces in time, add nothing to the sum-total of being produced by creation. It is true to say, then, as Scripture states, that God rested on the seventh day (Gen. 2, 2) because by then everything had been produced in germ, in moist seeds endowed with efficacious numbers; but it is equally true to say that God is constantly at work (John 5, 17), for even though He creates no longer, He keeps all things in being by His power, rules them by His wisdom and causes the seeds He created to reach the full development He prescribed for them.

When the Augustinian doctrine of seminal reasons is looked at from this point of view, it plays a role quite different from that sometimes assigned to it. Far from being called upon to explain the appearance of something new, as would be the case with creative evolution, they serve to prove that whatever appears to be new is really not so, and that in spite of appearances, it is still true to say that God “created all things simultaneously” (creavit omnia simul). That is the reason why seminal reasons, instead of leading to a transformist hypothesis, are constantly called upon by Augustine to account for the stability of species. The elements from which the seminal reasons are made to have their own nature and efficacy, and this is the reason why a grain of wheat produces wheat rather than beans, or a man begets a man and not an animal of another species. The seminal reasons are principles of stability rather than of change.