I
itinerant1
Guest
When did He do this?
What were the initial kinds?
- Status
What were the initial kinds?
B
buffalo
Guest
I
itinerant1
Guest
Sounds like your hypothesis is more so based on what you don’t know. I’m must say, it just doesn’t do anything for me.
B
buffalo
Guest
Here is what we do know - God began His creation and the He ended it (rested).
We now know the language of DNA is complex and capable. We know that the first cells were complex.
Scripture tells us that God created the kinds (prototypes).
So the question is will the DNA code of cattle be differentiated from other kinds? I say yes and we will better identify the genetic coding that will strictly define the limits of the kinds. We know that the kinds are preserved and a cow does not become a cat or a horse, etc. We see marvelous adaptation and HGT that accounts for more diversity.
Common building blocks - yes
Common descent - debatable.
Oh and more storytelling going on - modular evolution. Other people have argued that a junkyard does not create a jet plane. Well guess what - modular evolution is now claiming that the engine evolved separately. The nose gear evolved separately. The wings developed separately, etc… Then remarkably one day they all jumped together and voila- a jet plane. And this is more credible than God creating? Geeshhhh.
I
itinerant1
Guest
You are reading something into Scripture that isn’t there. God did not create “kinds” as prototypes. This is creationist ideology being read into the text.
“Kinds” go extinct just as species do. New species and new kinds have emerged over time. T-Rex was not created in toto on a particular Day. Your argument fails.
Best evidence supports common descent. If you think you have a stronger scientific argument that disproves common descent, you can present it. Until then, I go with the best evidence to date. Truth be told, you prefer the weaker argument, and not on any solid scientific grounds, but strictly on the ideological grounds of creationism.
Sorry, I don’t relate to junkyard or technological analogies, whatever their merit.
B
buffalo
Guest
What do we call the first examples of an idea? - why prototypes of course. Adam is the prototypical man.
It will be very difficult to see what “kind” has gone extinct when we do not have an agreed upon definition. But if a polar bear where to go extinct, the remaining bear family continues on. They are still bears. Another way of stating this is - if an adapted variation does not succeed the main kind still succeeds. If the entire kind dies, the entire kind dies. If an adapted kind with a white coat for camouflage is the sole survivor then the successors will have white coats.
What is interesting is the HGT - say a snake with fur. What is it?
You can go right on believing what you want but stay close to this as more info is emerging each day in this post darwin era.
I thought the junkyard analogy was cool.
But that is exactly what is going on. The evolutionist story gets more implausible with each new explanation.
T
twinc
Guest
1.Cor.15 :39 states;- all flesh is not the same flesh : but one is the flesh of men,another of beasts,another of birds,another of fishes - clear enough to me and others - twinc
S
StAnastasia
Guest
It is scientific nonsense. No doubt there is a theological point, but scientifically your distinctions are illogical.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Buffalo, “kind” is a pseudo-scientific nonsense term invented by YECs desperate to ape scientific credibility. If you think otherwise, put your money where your words are, and submit a paper on “kinds” to the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, vertpaleo.org/publications/index.cfm. I’ll be interested to see how far you get.
StAnastasia
G
grannymh
Guest
Interesting citation. It actually refers to the Resurrection of Christ, the Resurrection of the Dead, the Manner of the Resurrection, and The Resurrection Event which are the section headings of 1 Corinthians 15.
G
grannymh
Guest
Interesting point about science. As for the theological point, 1 Corinthians 15: 39 actually refers to the Resurrection of Christ, the Resurrection of the Dead, the Manner of the Resurrection, and The Resurrection Event which are the section headings of
1 Corinthians 15.
B
buffalo
Guest
Do you deny that we will be better able to classify organisms through genetics?
T
twinc
Guest
illogical to science maybe but undeniable and irrefutable - self evident,so how about you if you have flesh like the rest of us welcome to the club and the family of mankind - twinc
P
PeterK
Guest
In your opinion, excluding and millions of years after what I guess we would call the first species, is the direct creation of only one species realistic or acceptable for consideration to you? I know it would not be for science. I’m referring to the human.
PeterK
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Of course not. Genetics is a great tool for the classification of organisms.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Of course it’s refutable. It’s meaningless, both scientifically and theologically.
P
PeterK
Guest
The Magisterium is OK with Old Earth
Here’s a synopsis of an article by Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin (linked below) which states the Magisterium finds no conflict between the Faith and the findings of mainstream modern science regarding earth’s old age and the existence of some form of biological evolution, and that one may follow the scientific evidence where it leads on these two specific points.
How long has the Magisterium held this position on age and evolution? Good question.
Certainly young earth views based on Biblical creation accounts such as Gen 1 were common for most of Christian history. However, some like Augustine urged care in assessing such accounts. Is Gen 1 a chronological account or a topical presentation? Mr. Akin makes a brief case for the latter to lead into the problem of interpretation as reflected on by documents of the Magisterium.
He starts with the papal encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (DAS) issued by Pius XII in 1943, which states many matters in Sacred Scripture are not fully explained by past commentators, especially historical accounts. That the understanding of Geneses is difficult and sometimes unintelligible is shown by the repeated efforts of the Fathers to provide an explanation.
DAS goes on stating that the literal sense is not always obvious and the interpreter must go back to those remote centuries with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, to accurately determine what modes of writing the authors of that ancient period used.
In 1950 the literary character of Genesis is further commented on by Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis (HG) which states the first eleven chapters of Genesis does not conform to known historical methods of past and present. It says these chapters do pertain to history in a true sense and must be further studied. HG goes on to say these chapters use simple and metaphorical language, adapted to the mentality of a simple people, which presents both principle truths fundamental for our salvation and a popular description of the human race. HG allows that the ancient writers may have borrowed from other popular narrations. However, if they did so it was with the help of divine inspiration rendering selecting and evaluation of those documents immune from any error.
These citations illustrate the Magisterium’s attitude toward the early chapters of Genesis.
Regarding the age of the earth, Pius XII made some comments in a speech he gave to the Pontifical Academy of Science in 1951. While not endorsing any specific date, he refers to the examination of spiral nebulae by Edwin Hubble which has led to a estimate of one to ten billion years of age for the beginning of the cosmic processes. Mr. Akin points out that this number is on the low end and that Pius XII is indicating magnitude. Pius XII further recognizes the methodology that places the age of the earth and solar system at five billion years old. The speech continues with an allusion to a parallel between the Big Bang and “Let there be light!” The Pope assents that these facts are not absolute proof of creation in time, but using a quote from scientist Sir Edmond Whittaker proposes they perhaps “point to the conclusion that there was a time, some or ten billion tears ago, prior to which the cosmos, if it existed, existed in a form totally different from anything we know, and this form constitutes the very last limits of science. We refer to it perhaps not improperly as creation.” The speech concludes affirming the aid of this research in the argument for the existence of God by confirming the contingency of the universe on a beginning point, a Creator.
The take away point for Jimmy Akin is the openness of the Magisterium to old earth ideas predate Vatican II, and were enthusiastically received by the same Pope who defined the Assumption of Mary.
Here’s the LINK
PeterK
Here’s a synopsis of an article by Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin (linked below) which states the Magisterium finds no conflict between the Faith and the findings of mainstream modern science regarding earth’s old age and the existence of some form of biological evolution, and that one may follow the scientific evidence where it leads on these two specific points.
How long has the Magisterium held this position on age and evolution? Good question.
Certainly young earth views based on Biblical creation accounts such as Gen 1 were common for most of Christian history. However, some like Augustine urged care in assessing such accounts. Is Gen 1 a chronological account or a topical presentation? Mr. Akin makes a brief case for the latter to lead into the problem of interpretation as reflected on by documents of the Magisterium.
He starts with the papal encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (DAS) issued by Pius XII in 1943, which states many matters in Sacred Scripture are not fully explained by past commentators, especially historical accounts. That the understanding of Geneses is difficult and sometimes unintelligible is shown by the repeated efforts of the Fathers to provide an explanation.
DAS goes on stating that the literal sense is not always obvious and the interpreter must go back to those remote centuries with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, to accurately determine what modes of writing the authors of that ancient period used.
In 1950 the literary character of Genesis is further commented on by Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis (HG) which states the first eleven chapters of Genesis does not conform to known historical methods of past and present. It says these chapters do pertain to history in a true sense and must be further studied. HG goes on to say these chapters use simple and metaphorical language, adapted to the mentality of a simple people, which presents both principle truths fundamental for our salvation and a popular description of the human race. HG allows that the ancient writers may have borrowed from other popular narrations. However, if they did so it was with the help of divine inspiration rendering selecting and evaluation of those documents immune from any error.
These citations illustrate the Magisterium’s attitude toward the early chapters of Genesis.
Regarding the age of the earth, Pius XII made some comments in a speech he gave to the Pontifical Academy of Science in 1951. While not endorsing any specific date, he refers to the examination of spiral nebulae by Edwin Hubble which has led to a estimate of one to ten billion years of age for the beginning of the cosmic processes. Mr. Akin points out that this number is on the low end and that Pius XII is indicating magnitude. Pius XII further recognizes the methodology that places the age of the earth and solar system at five billion years old. The speech continues with an allusion to a parallel between the Big Bang and “Let there be light!” The Pope assents that these facts are not absolute proof of creation in time, but using a quote from scientist Sir Edmond Whittaker proposes they perhaps “point to the conclusion that there was a time, some or ten billion tears ago, prior to which the cosmos, if it existed, existed in a form totally different from anything we know, and this form constitutes the very last limits of science. We refer to it perhaps not improperly as creation.” The speech concludes affirming the aid of this research in the argument for the existence of God by confirming the contingency of the universe on a beginning point, a Creator.
The take away point for Jimmy Akin is the openness of the Magisterium to old earth ideas predate Vatican II, and were enthusiastically received by the same Pope who defined the Assumption of Mary.
Here’s the LINK
PeterK
T
twinc
Guest
so tell me[us]exactly what it is that being obvious and commonsense is refutable and meaningless - after all it is only some nonsense by God who presumably knows nothing about science and/or theology and biology in particular - twinc
A
aball1035
Guest
One thing we have to remember is that back in Noah’s day there were a lot less different “types” of animals. For example there are many different types of dogs today (dalmation, hound, boxer, pug) that all descended from one or only a few animals in Noah’s time. This isn’t evolution per se. There are black and white people, but we all descended from one man. Idk if this gets into the whole genetics or DNA discussion, but I thought i’d throw that out there.
P
PeterK
Guest
Genesis 1 is not chronological it is categorical.
Jimmy Akin compares the above idea against four popular ‘readings’, including our favorite ‘6 literal 24-hour days’ theory. The article is quick read that does not need a synopsis. However, here is a list from the article of the various theories that try to explain the 6-day event ranked by plausibility, most to least. This is all based on literary considerations and not “how does it jive with my science” considerations.
LINK
PeterK
Jimmy Akin compares the above idea against four popular ‘readings’, including our favorite ‘6 literal 24-hour days’ theory. The article is quick read that does not need a synopsis. However, here is a list from the article of the various theories that try to explain the 6-day event ranked by plausibility, most to least. This is all based on literary considerations and not “how does it jive with my science” considerations.
- The Framework Interpretation (most plausible from a careful reading of the text)
- The Ordinary Day Interpretation (most plausible from a casual reading of the text)
- The Gap Interpretation (almost completely without foundation)
- The Revelatory Day Interpretation (virtually demonstrably false)
- The Day-Age Interpretation (demonstrably false)
LINK
PeterK
- Status