The earth is only 6000 years old.

[StAnastasia]

By the way, this does not mean that there was only one female alive at the time, nor do scientists claim such (they claim that there were likely to have been something like 10,000 humans at the time, if memory serves me right)

3,000-10,000 breeding pairs.

 

[larkin31]

No, I would not still be here. If one of my ancestors (e.g., my father or grandfather) had died before reproducing, I would not be here.

“direct ancestors”

 

[StAnastasia]

“direct ancestors”

“An ancestor is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an ancestor (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, and so forth).”

 

[StAnastasia]

“direct ancestors”

An uncle is not an ancestor, although he is a relative. Therefore, I reiterate, that if any of my ancestors had died without reproducing, I would not have been born. One of my four great-grandfathers was nearly on board the Lusitania, but canceled passage at the last moment. That was one of my genealogical close calls, among many others.

 

[larkin31]

An uncle is not an ancestor, although he is a relative. Therefore, I reiterate, that if any of my ancestors had died without reproducing, I would not have been born. One of my four great-grandfathers was nearly on board the Lusitania, but canceled passage at the last moment. That was one of my genealogical close calls, among many others.

I was agreeing with you, and trying to clear up what appears to be confusion between the general term “ancestors” (any relative in the past) and our “direct ancestors,” which you have been discussing.

right?

 

[itinerant1]

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!

It is true that the idea of the “seminal principle” is a principle of stability and not of transformism. In Augustine’s view, everything was created at once, but the problem this presents is that we see new beings continually appearing. Augustine attempts to account for the appearance of new beings by means of seminal principles, rationes seminales, or rationes causales.

Certain beings were created in finished form (angels, the human soul, the elements, etc). Preformed at the time of creation were the primordial seeds of all living things to come, plants and animals, and Adam’s body. We see from this that Augustine was not a “creationist” in the modern sense of the term, which refers to those who wrongly claim a special creation of each new species or biological system.

The kind of existence those creatures have which were only preformed at the moment of creation is “invisibly, potentially, causally, as future things which have not been made.”

These hidden seeds contain everything future ages are to see unfold. The world is pregnant with causes of beings still to come.

In one sense the world was created complete, since everything was included in the creative act; but in another sense the universe was only created in an unfinished state since everything was to appear over time that was created in their seminal reasons.

The rationes seminales are composed of the elements, especially water (according to ancient cosmology), but they also contain a principle of activity and development.

They are not a cause of change, as in the modern sense of evolution, which is transformism (“transformism” is what Darwin rightly called his theory; “evolution” was what Herbert Spencer taught, yet Darwin was later credited for “evolution theory”). They are evolutionary according to the etymology of the word “evolution”, e volvere, to unfold.

Transformism and the rationes seminales are not irreconcilable principles. Horses breed horses, and that is stability; but horses may change over long periods of time, and that is transformism.

 

[StAnastasia]

I was agreeing with you, and trying to clear up what appears to be confusion between the general term “ancestors” (any relative in the past) and our “direct ancestors,” which you have been discussing. right?

Oh, I see – right! As a genealogist myself, I.m not generally used to thinking of the term “ancestor” – especially in a discussion about grandparents – as anything else than a direct antecedent. But I grant you that it can have a derivative meaning of "those who have gone before us.’

 

[itinerant1]

No, I would not still be here. If one of my ancestors (e.g., my father or grandfather) had died before reproducing, I would not be here.

It’s a trick question, sort of. The situation does not involve your father or grandfather, but an ancestor who died as a young lad. By the fact of his early demise, he would not actually be your ancestor. You might say he was a relative in some sense, but not an ancestor, which is a person from whom one is descended; forebear; progenitor.

 

[larkin31]

Oh, I see – right! As a genealogist myself, I.m not generally used to thinking of the term “ancestor” – especially in a discussion about grandparents – as anything else than a direct antecedent. But I grant you that it can have a derivative meaning of "those who have gone before us.’

how did you figure out all that stuff about your ancestors?

 

[itinerant1]

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>>>>>

If St. Augustine lived in the present he would not have espoused that particular interpretation since it contradicts good science, which has dated the Earth to be billions of years old, and it lacks the subsequently developed background information to Genesis that allows us in the present to correctly identify the genus litterarium of various texts in Genesis. Accordingly, Genesis 1 is a metaphor or parable about the Sabbath, and it is not a natural history of the cosmos.

Creationists cite early church concordist interpretations of Genesis as favorable to their position, but that kind of interpretation is no longer reasonable or tenable in the light of advanced Biblical studies and modern science. Hence, Cardinal Schonborn says "The ‘creationist’ position is based on an understanding of the Bible that the Catholic Church does not share. The first page of the Bible is not a cosmological treatise about the development of the world in six solar days. The Bible does not teach us “how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven”.

The creationist ideology is what drives their so-called science. It is an ideologically driven venture, so much so that it is tantamount to junk science. Flood geology is junk science, or rather, it is not science at all.

 

[Philipp]

It is true that the idea of the “seminal principle” is a principle of stability and not of transformism. In Augustine’s view, everything was created at once, but the problem this presents is that we see new beings continually appearing. Augustine attempts to account for the appearance of new beings by means of seminal principles, rationes seminales, or rationes causales.

Certain beings were created in finished form (angels, the human soul, the elements, etc). Preformed at the time of creation were the primordial seeds of all living things to come, plants and animals, and Adam’s body. We see from this that Augustine was not a “creationist” in the modern sense of the term, which refers to those who wrongly claim a special creation of each new species or biological system.

The kind of existence those creatures have which were only preformed at the moment of creation is “invisibly, potentially, causally, as future things which have not been made.”

These hidden seeds contain everything future ages are to see unfold. The world is pregnant with causes of beings still to come.

In one sense the world was created complete, since everything was included in the creative act; but in another sense the universe was only created in an unfinished state since everything was to appear over time that was created in their seminal reasons.

The rationes seminales are composed of the elements, especially water (according to ancient cosmology), but they also contain a principle of activity and development.

They are not a cause of change, as in the modern sense of evolution, which is transformism (“transformism” is what Darwin rightly called his theory; “evolution” was what Herbert Spencer taught, yet Darwin was later credited for “evolution theory”). They are evolutionary according to the etymology of the word “evolution”, e volvere, to unfold.

Transformism and the rationes seminales are not irreconcilable principles. Horses breed horses, and that is stability; but horses may change over long periods of time, and that is transformism.

Of course you can believe that your ancestors and that of horses may have transformed from something less advanced over eons of time to you and the horse that you may ride. But somehow I think something is wrong, maybe even evil, when that is taught as a “fact” to gullible children and young adults.

 

[itinerant1]

Of course you can believe that your ancestors and that of horses may have transformed from something less advanced over eons of time to you and the horse that you may ride. But somehow I think something is wrong, maybe even evil, when that is taught as a “fact” to gullible children and young adults.

Well, many things taught in the name of evolution are not fact, but the idea that species are instrumental in the production of new species is fact. We incontrovertible and undeniable proof for speciation. One example, involves “ring species” and the herring gull.

 

[Philipp]

If St. Augustine lived in the present he would not have espoused that particular interpretation since it contradicts good science, which has dated the Earth to be billions of years old, and it lacks the subsequently developed background information to Genesis that allows us in the present to correctly identify the genus litterarium of various texts in Genesis. Accordingly, Genesis 1 is a metaphor or parable about the Sabbath, and it is not a natural history of the cosmos.

Creationists cite early church concordist interpretations of Genesis as favorable to their position, but that kind of interpretation is no longer reasonable or tenable in the light of advanced Biblical studies and modern science. Hence, Cardinal Schonborn says "The ‘creationist’ position is based on an understanding of the Bible that the Catholic Church does not share. The first page of the Bible is not a cosmological treatise about the development of the world in six solar days. The Bible does not teach us “how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven”.

The creationist ideology is what drives their so-called science. It is an ideologically driven venture, so much so that it is tantamount to junk science. Flood geology is junk science, or rather, it is not science at all.

If St. Augustine lived in the present he would not have espoused that particular interpretation since it contradicts good science, which has dated the Earth to be billions of years old, and it lacks the subsequently developed background information to Genesis that allows us in the present to correctly identify the genus litterarium of various texts in Genesis. Accordingly, Genesis 1 is a metaphor or parable about the Sabbath, and it is not a natural history of the cosmos.

Creationists cite early church concordist interpretations of Genesis as favorable to their position, but that kind of interpretation is no longer reasonable or tenable in the light of advanced Biblical studies and modern science. Hence, Cardinal Schonborn says "The ‘creationist’ position is based on an understanding of the Bible that the Catholic Church does not share. The first page of the Bible is not a cosmological treatise about the development of the world in six solar days. The Bible does not teach us “how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven”.

The creationist ideology is what drives their so-called science. It is an ideologically driven venture, so much so that it is tantamount to junk science. Flood geology is junk science, or rather, it is not science at all.

Here we go again - trying to twist Augustine into supporting the proven fallacies of our times. This is like telling God, Hey Guy this is how you did it. You don’t even ask questions; you take your New Age science on faith. There were peddlers of long age “junk science” in Augustine’s day also, as he so written.

The church has always shared Augustine’s agreement with Holy Scripture until the untested Darwinian/Lyellian geology came along and was taught as a fact so as to void Augustine et al.

Modern lab, flume and field studies including C-14 dating and the fallacies of old age radiometric dating have finally tested Lyell’s geologic assumptions and Darwin is falling off his pedestile.

 

[grannymh]

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

Let’s continue with that thought since I am not too sure I understand “potentiality” correctly.

Previous posting talked about language of DNA giving instructions which now seems obvious to me. Could the potentiality in the DNA at the very beginning of human life be such as to allow the human species to expand as needed to the point that there was a sufficient amount of people to insure continuation of the human species?
At that point, the kind of gene mutations we see today would be in place. Special circumstances would no longer be needed or useful.
For example, humans no longer need a tail for mobility.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth can use creative thinking.

 

[StAnastasia]

how did you figure out all that stuff about your ancestors?

As a child, I asked my parents who their parents were, and my grandparents had asked there parents, etc. So I know who all 32 of my great-great-great-grandparents were. I know fewer of the generations prior to that, because our knowledge of some lines disappears in the genealogical darkness (e.g., one ancestress was born in Chicago before 1870, and all records prior to the Chicago fire have perished). But I know about 700 of my ancestors, back to about fifteen or sixteen or more generations in some lines. Of course, if someone was lying about paternity, that’s a problem, and genetic testing hasn’t taken us that far yet…

<www.rootsweb.com> and gendex were a help; so is the World Genealogy Project.

StAnastasia

 

[Philipp]

Let’s continue with that thought since I am not too sure I understand “potentiality” correctly.

Previous posting talked about language of DNA giving instructions which now seems obvious to me. Could the potentiality in the DNA at the very beginning of human life be such as to allow the human species to expand as needed to the point that there was a sufficient amount of people to insure continuation of the human species?
At that point, the kind of gene mutations we see today would be in place. Special circumstances would no longer be needed or useful.
For example, humans no longer need a tail for mobility.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth can use creative thinking.

Dr. John Sanford, geneticist of Cornell UN. has shown that all mutations are either neutral or detrimental to humans. His book is entitled, Genetic Entropy. Perhaps that would make a good thread for the future. “The quest for truth can use creative thinking.” thank you Grannmyh.

The way things are going now life could have never gone from the simpler to the more complex. Rather life appears to be going from a higher degree of perfection to that of a lower degree with lots of bad things within our genetic makeup becoming more and more pronounced.

In other words we and the rest of nature have been “devolving” not “evolving” from a common anscestor. Russian studies have reinforced his studies as has two other geneticists I have met including Dr. Maciej of Poland and another Ph. D. I just met a few weeks ago. I’ve seen power point peresentations by all three professional geneticists. So much for New Age Science.

But some of you guys can go on believing that your ancestors tail dropped off a few million years ago if you want. It don’t bother me. But please quit preaching such trash to our gullible grandchildren. Darwin is falling off his pedistile.

 

[larkin31]

…The way things are going now life could have never gone from the simpler to the more complex. Rather life appears to be going from a higher degree of perfection to that of a lower degree with lots of bad things within our genetic makeup becoming more and more pronounced…

A “higher degree of perfection” to “lower degree of perfection” is not scientific language. This is religious talk. Not to mention the “bad things” word choice.

Just which “higher degree of perfection” do you mean? Like when the plague wiped out a third of Europe? Or when European diseases wiped out 80-90% of the indigenous population of the Americas? That was some near-perfect lethality, that is for sure! Or the Spanish flu in 1918 that killed perhaps 100 million people world-wide? Or maybe you mean further back to the time of Jesus, when, I have read, perhaps only 50% of the children born in Palestine would actually live long enough to reproduce. Perfect!

Or maybe you mean the “near perfect” destruction of the Flood. Or the “near perfect” behavior at Gomorrah. Or, of course, those first two sons of Adam and Eve. They came out great!!!

 

[buffalo]

Let’s continue with that thought since I am not too sure I understand “potentiality” correctly.

Previous posting talked about language of DNA giving instructions which now seems obvious to me. Could the potentiality in the DNA at the very beginning of human life be such as to allow the human species to expand as needed to the point that there was a sufficient amount of people to insure continuation of the human species?
At that point, the kind of gene mutations we see today would be in place. Special circumstances would no longer be needed or useful.
For example, humans no longer need a tail for mobility.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth can use creative thinking.

All living organisms share the same “core” makeup. That is why the embryo’s have similar features. We all share the same core cell structure, function and body plan organization. This is all right there from the very beginning. This is the potentiality.

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.

The kicker is it fits so nicely with St Augustine’s idea of potentiality and the constant teaching and understanding of the Church.

The payoff is that it pays to stick with this thought - Divine Revelation Trumps! I have always maintained Divine Revelation must illuminate out reasoning.

Humans never needed a tail for mobility and now you can see why. We will be better able to define the “kinds”. This also puts the idea of devolution into play. That the corruption brought upon us by the fall corrupts the “pure potentiality” that existed in the beginning. We also see this preserved in the “kinds” we identify this way - a dog is a dog, a cat is a cat no matter there breeding or adaptations. Their core is conserved. The first humans had everything necessary to populate the earth as long as they followed God’s instruction of “do not murder”.

The gene mutations we see today were not there in the beginning. These came later.

And finally - God made all things good.

 

[grannymh]

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

I have saved answering post 911 because there is a mathematical way to answer it.
Being a Pooh bear with a very little brain, it will take me a bit to plot it out. If someone is quicker than I am, please go right ahead.

I have long thought that this 10,000 population of hominids, some people speak of, had to start somewhere. From which living organism? Was there more than one living organism at the foot of the tree of life?

Because of discoveries of Dr. Carl R. Woese, molecular biologists are talking about the tree of life in terms of being a bush. Plus some clades can have thousands of species. Think about genetics in numerical terms.

One certainly does not have to throw out the genetic science of multiple thousands of species just because of one species. Does that make sense? Why would one throw out DNA research, which is a marvelous gift given to today’s generations, just because of one species? Where is the reasoning for that?

The reality of the human species descending from two sole parents, Adam and Eve, can exist along with the reality of fruit flies and kittens.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is a message of hope sent by the Creator.

 

[grannymh]

I’m Sorry, I meant "A first formation of the earth, before the re-creation.

I understood what you meant. A similar thought has been roaming between my ears. But I am not sure how to express it or if it would be valid.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred because it is spirit/matter.