The earth is only 6000 years old.

[Philipp]

So, no one gets a name or a published article or paper or book other than this anonymous web page?

Something is not right here.

And then you ask for money?

I went to the contact page and there are instructions on how funds can be donated. You will have to wrilte them to make the arrangements if interested. No one is going to make any contribution without making sure how the funds will be used, what foundations are involved if they want to make their contributions tax deductable and what scientists and museums will be involved. Here is the contact information–sounds ok to me:

*If you have information that might be of use to us for our website, we may be contacted email us

Performing Radio carbon dating by AMS method costs almost $600 a trial. Travel to obtain carbonacious material for testing can be expensive. If you would like to help in this effort by sending monetary contributions, write to:

Paleo Group
Box 2613
Columbus OH 43216

To donate a tax deductable contribution please contact us first

If you have ideas for research or carbon containing materials that should be analyzed, please contact one of our field directors by email.

If you would like to have someone come and speak to your school, civic, or church group, please contact one of our field directors by email.

 

[Philipp]

Phillip,

Did you make up the foregoing statement? The statement’s English is bad, and its science and theology are questionable.

**“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] **

Apparently the conference language must not be very good either as I only added a sort of caveat.

However I explained in a post after yours above that in my humble opinion my compromise version is far superior to the quote used by the “Saint.” I just don’t believe in fairy tales and so I have proposed an hypothesis of origins that satisfies me. But if you wish to make it more readible without changing the intent and the mechanism I would welcome some editing. Of course the intent of Lateran IV can not compromised. So be my guest.. Have fun, must hit the sack.

 

[itinerant1]

Very good question. It is a revision of the Saint A.'s quote from a Rome conference to wit:

**“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 (2002) **

It was an attempt on my part to promote a compromise. (1) The first portion was from the above quote. (2) I added the second portion which I think is in full agreement with the church fathers but bringing in a bit of science from todays genetics on the mechansim the Creator used. I think it make a good explanation on how we got here without belittling “The Faith of our Fathers.” to wit is the revised version:

**“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] **

I think both speak to how we on this thread have been interpreting what science is now telling us. I think the latter statement which agrees with the “Faith of our Fathers” makes much more sense as it it provides a mechanism which the one from the Communion and Stewardship simply does not.

What say ye?

I recognized the statement as borrowing an idea from C&S, but it would be more appropriate if you had attached your name to the statement as the source. What I would question in the statement is the phrase “created at once”. The phrase is ambiguous in that it can mean God created all life forms, actually, at once, as in a direct creation of every “kind”. That proposition is far from being “certain” or “obvious” Accordingly, I must disagree with your statement.

Here is one reason why: St. Augustine, who held that everything was created at once, never meant that all life forms were created “in actuality” at one time, but there was at least a “potential” creation of various forms of organisms, which were created in their “rationes seminales”. Hence, we would see the appearance or arrival of new organisms over time as the physical conditions of the Earth permitted. This idea is a sort of theological version of life evolving or unfolding over expanses of time from the rationes seminales originally created in matter.

St. Gregory of Nyssa and his school taught a similar doctrine.

 

[buffalo]

I recognized the statement as borrowing an idea from C&S, but it would be more appropriate if you had attached your name to the statement as the source. What I would question in the statement is the phrase “created at once”. The phrase is ambiguous in that it can mean God created all life forms, actually, at once, as in a direct creation of every “kind”. That proposition is far from being “certain” or “obvious” Accordingly, I must disagree with your statement.

Here is one reason why: St. Augustine, who held that everything was created at once, never meant that all life forms were created “in actuality” at one time, but there was at least a “potential” creation of various forms of organisms, which were created in their “rationes seminales”. Hence, we would see the appearance or arrival of new organisms over time as the physical conditions of the Earth permitted. This idea is a sort of theological version of life evolving or unfolding over expanses of time from the rationes seminales originally created in matter.

St. Gregory of Nyssa and his school taught a similar doctrine.

Perhaps St Augie was right - the language of DNA is the potentiality.

 

[itinerant1]

Perhaps St Augie was right - the language of DNA is the potentiality.

St. Augie?

Well, I think Augie was on the right track.

Matter is very specific, as one can see from a table of elements in any chemistry text, and it contains everything needed to fulfill God’s purpose. DNA is the physical-chemical stuff of life, but we have to take the issue one step deeper than DNA in regard to causality to provide anything like a complete explanation. Rationes seminales involves more than just a physical explanation such as DNA.

Scientific explanations, which are limited to the phenomenal aspects of things and their interactions, cannot provide a comprehensive explanation. Consider that science has never seen “life” under a microscope.

Science deals with material and efficient causes and thus provides an explanation only within a specific domain. Philosophical considerations of the formal and final causes in nature rounds off the explanations and puts DNA in context.

And of all nature and its activities, there is the exemplary cause in the mind of God, Who originated this “Intelligent Project.”

 

[StAnastasia]

Which of those sixteen are your ancestors?

All sixteen are my ancestors.

 

[itinerant1]

All sixteen are my ancestors.

If one of your ancestors died in his preteens years, what would that make him?

 

[gentle_atheist]

If one of your ancestors died in his preteens years, what would that make him?

Precocious.

 

[itinerant1]

Precocious.

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious!
If you say it loud enough, you’ll always sound precocious,

 

[larkin31]

So, no one gets a name or a published article or paper or book other than this anonymous web page?

Something is not right here.

The first part is the important one.

 

[buffalo]

All sixteen are my ancestors.

There is only one line. What line did your great grandmother say you were from?

 

[Philipp]

I recognized the statement as borrowing an idea from C&S, but it would be more appropriate if you had attached your name to the statement as the source. What I would question in the statement is the phrase “created at once”. The phrase is ambiguous in that it can mean God created all life forms, actually, at once, as in a direct creation of every “kind”. That proposition is far from being “certain” or “obvious” Accordingly, I must disagree with your statement.

Here is one reason why: St. Augustine, who held that everything was created at once, never meant that all life forms were created “in actuality” at one time, but there was at least a “potential” creation of various forms of organisms, which were created in their “rationes seminales”. Hence, we would see the appearance or arrival of new organisms over time as the physical conditions of the Earth permitted. This idea is a sort of theological version of life evolving or unfolding over expanses of time from the rationes seminales originally created in matter.

St. Gregory of Nyssa and his school taught a similar doctrine.

Many folks who promote “descent from a common ancestor” have tried to press St. Augustine into service for theistic evolution, but their efforts always collide with what he actually wrote. For example, in the following passage from City of God, it is clear that St. Augustine understands a “seminal principle” to be the principle of growth inherent to a particular organism. As such, it is the opposite of an evolutionary principle; it is a principle of stablity. Thus, while St. Augustine did envision that some seeds, for example, came to fruition after the creation period, there was no evolution involved. This is abundantly clear in the following passage where he writes that the seminal principle of a human being develops into–a human being!

What, then, are we to say of infants, if not that they will not rise in that diminutive body in which they died, but shall receive by the marvelous and rapid operation of God that body which time by a slower process would have given them? For in the Lord’s words, where He says, “Not a hair of your head shall perish,” it is asserted that nothing which was possessed shall be wanting; but it is not said that nothing which was not possessed shall be given. To the dead infant there was wanting the perfect stature of its body; for even the perfect infant lacks the perfection of bodily size, being capable of further growth. This perfect stature is, in a sense, so possessed by all that they are conceived and born with it, that is, they have it potentially, though not yet in actual bulk; just as all the members of the body are potentially in the seed, though, even after the child is born, some of them, the teeth for example, may be wanting.

In this seminal principle “rationis seminalis”] of every substance, there seems to be, as it were, the beginning of everything which does not yet exist, or rather does not appear, but which in process of time will come into being, or rather into sight. In this, therefore, the child who is to be tall or short is already tall or short. And in the resurrection of the body, we need, for the same reason, fear no bodily loss; for though all should be of equal size, and reach gigantic proportions, lest the men who were largest here should lose anything of their bulk and it should perish, in contradiction to the words of Christ, who said that not a hair of their head should perish, yet why should there lack the means by which that wonderful Worker should make such additions, seeing that He is the Creator, who Himself created all things out of nothing? (City of God, Book 22, Chapter 14).

St. Augustine also firmly defended the Biblical chronology of less than 6000 years from creation to the Incarnation, in spite of the derision that he and other Fathers received on that score from the pagan intellectuals of his day. For example, he wrote:

**They [pagans] are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents that profess to give the history of [man as] many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed (bold added).**Continued>>>>>

 

[Philipp]

CONTINUED:

You cite St. Gregory of Nyssa in your defense, but in the introduction to his Hexaemeron, St. Gregory writes:

We have access to that divinely inspired study by our father [Basil the Great] whose exposition everyone treasures as not being inferior to what Moses had taught. I am quite certain that these people are correct (Hexaemeron, M.61) (emphasis added) bhsu.edu/artssciences/asfaculty/dsalomon/nyssa/hex.html

But St. Basil the Great firmly upheld the literal interpretation of the six days of creation! For example, St. Basil had this to say on the instantaneous nature of God’s creation of creatures on the Third Day:

At this saying all the dense woods appeared; all the trees shot up…. Likewise, all the shrubs were immediately thick with leaf and bushy; and the so-called garland plants … all came into existence in a moment of time, although they were not previously upon the earth.[1]

The rest of St. Gregory’s commentary follows the same strictly literal interpretation of the days of Genesis. Moreover, in his work on the Resurrection, St. Gregory specifically upholds the chronological sequence of the six days of creation. He writes:

If, therefore, Scripture tells us that man was made last, after every animate thing, the lawgiver (Moses) is doing nothing else than declaring to us the doctrine of the soul, considering that what is perfect comes last, according to a certain necessary sequence in the order of things . . .[2]

In short, we do not find any statement in St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Hexaemeron that teaches the progressive creation of new things, much less through any kind of evolutionary process, but we do find abundant evidence that he upheld the literal interpretation of the days of Genesis.

The participants on this thread deserve to be disabused of the notion that any of the Fathers gave credence to evolutionary theories. They did not.

---

[1] Hexaemeron, Homily 5, Chapter 10, as quoted in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation and Early Man, p. 101.

[2] St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man 8, pp. 393-394, quoted in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, (St. Herman), p. 104.

 

[Philipp]

Perhaps St Augie was right - the language of DNA is the potentiality.

In due course God permits those who believe in His Word a little insight on how to express his creation to suit the times. I think that the passage below from Augustine expresses in that time period in which he lived what Buffalo suggested above. He even allows those who dislike His Word to make discoveries that supports them: What was the background beliefs of the scientist who discovered DNA? I think he was from South Africa wasn’t he? What a sense of humor doth our Creator have!

*In this seminal principle “rationis seminalis”] of every substance, there seems to be, as it were, the beginning of everything which does not yet exist, or rather does not appear, but which in process of time will come into being, or rather into sight. In this, therefore, the child who is to be tall or short is already tall or short. And in the resurrection of the body, we need, for the same reason, fear no bodily loss; for though all should be of equal size, and reach gigantic proportions, lest the men who were largest here should lose anything of their bulk and it should perish, in contradiction to the words of Christ, who said that not a hair of their head should perish, yet why should there lack the means by which that wonderful Worker should make such additions, seeing that He is the Creator, who Himself created all things out of nothing? (City of God, Book 22, Chapter 14). *

 

[larkin31]

The first part is the important one.

(1) WHO WE ARE [from the web site www.dinosaurc14ages.com]

We are a group of consultants in geology, paleontology, chemistry, engineering, and education who perform research on fossils. We are affiliated with no church or university. We are open to ideas concerning the past history of the earth especially anomalies of science. We do not receive any funding from any government foundation. Therefore we do not have to hold fast to certain ideas or paradigms for fear of losing our funding or our tenure. We are not all of any particular creed or denomination. We welcome scientific information that may not be published in respected journals due to its controversial nature. We participate in excavations, arrange for radiocarbon dating of fossil material at licensed laboratories, work with museums and prepare reports for publication world-wide. We have investigated fossil material from all over the world…

---

**If the above listing of who they on their home page proves unsatisfactory then go to the contact page and join one of the recommended expeditions. There maybe you can ask around while using a shovel or contact the web master if you prefer to just conduct all your research on a computer. **

It isn’t a satisfactory answer in the world of published research, no. It reads like one person’s anonymous home page. This is highly unusual for what is being suggested from it: that the scientific world (thousands of persons, hundreds of institutions) is involved in a conspiracy of cover-up to deny an easily measurable (your web site gives no description of methods or process, so I will assume that it is easy work) younger earth by an order of magnitude younger in the thousands. Seems like they would think they could be rich and famous and the vanguard of a new revolution–Nobel winners, at least!!-- if they would just, well, print their names and publish their research and findings. Heck, just print it on paper and send it to some magazines!

So, I am extremely unsatisfied with this answer and very skeptical.

 

[buffalo]

CONTINUED:

You cite St. Gregory of Nyssa in your defense, but in the introduction to his Hexaemeron, St. Gregory writes:

We have access to that divinely inspired study by our father [Basil the Great] whose exposition everyone treasures as not being inferior to what Moses had taught. I am quite certain that these people are correct (Hexaemeron, M.61) (emphasis added) bhsu.edu/artssciences/asfaculty/dsalomon/nyssa/hex.html

But St. Basil the Great firmly upheld the literal interpretation of the six days of creation! For example, St. Basil had this to say on the instantaneous nature of God’s creation of creatures on the Third Day:

At this saying all the dense woods appeared; all the trees shot up…. Likewise, all the shrubs were immediately thick with leaf and bushy; and the so-called garland plants … all came into existence in a moment of time, although they were not previously upon the earth.[1]

The rest of St. Gregory’s commentary follows the same strictly literal interpretation of the days of Genesis. Moreover, in his work on the Resurrection, St. Gregory specifically upholds the chronological sequence of the six days of creation. He writes:

If, therefore, Scripture tells us that man was made last, after every animate thing, the lawgiver (Moses) is doing nothing else than declaring to us the doctrine of the soul, considering that what is perfect comes last, according to a certain necessary sequence in the order of things . . .[2]

In short, we do not find any statement in St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Hexaemeron that teaches the progressive creation of new things, much less through any kind of evolutionary process, but we do find abundant evidence that he upheld the literal interpretation of the days of Genesis.

The participants on this thread deserve to be disabused of the notion that any of the Fathers gave credence to evolutionary theories. They did not.

---

[1] Hexaemeron, Homily 5, Chapter 10, as quoted in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation and Early Man, p. 101.

[2] St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man 8, pp. 393-394, quoted in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, (St. Herman), p. 104.

And the fact that the core systems that all organisms share have been preserved since the beginning, supports his thinking. 500 or so genes have not changed at all in their key functional sequences in the entire history of life.

 

[StAnastasia]

What is the source of this statement?

Philip just made it up, by rewriting Communion and Stewardship, paragraph 63, part of which appears in my signature line.

 

[Caritasregat]

I’m failing to see why this thread is taking up so much momentum. Right now, all I can see are obscure references to Church Fathers and a dense list of scientific data which has nothing to do with the issue of faith.

 

[StAnastasia]

If one of your ancestors died in his preteens years, what would that make him?

If by “preteen years” you mean before she or he had reproduced, of course I wouldn’t be here. However, I know from the dates on my genealogy that all my ancestors had sex and reproduced while they were still alive.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

This seems to me to be somewhat fallacious: Supposing human lineage simply kept broadening as we traced it back through our ancestors; would there not have to be ten thousand times more people on earth some one hundred generations ago?

No, it’s not fallacious, but it does raise the interesting question of where the bulge is, or the maximal number of ancestors. In fact, I know that while I have 32 great-great-great-grandparents, I have only 62 instead of 64 great-great-great-great grandparents because cousins married, and I have 122 great-great-great-great-great grandparents because second cousins married.

If you understand genetics (which Grannymh seems not to), you will see why our choices are either (1) to throw out genetic science while insisting on a literal interpretation of “Adam and Eve,” or (2) to interpret “Adam and Eve” symbolically while retaining genetic science. Granny seems to want if both ways, and we can’t have it both ways.

StAnastasia