Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Techno2000]

Glark:

It is God Hmself who suggests six literal days of creation - “Six days you shall labor and do all your work … For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” - Exodus 20:9-11

All this supports the Church’s longstanding teaching.

Let’s substitute and see if it makes sense?

14 Billion years you shall labor and do all your work… For in 14 billion years the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them…

Right , God is not a God of confusion… 6 days is 6 days.

 

[Techno2000]

Chris4:

Yet according to Christ himself, God has never rested from his work. (John 5:17)

Correct, He is now sustaining His creation.

Right, God sustains his creation, because he loves it.

 

[buffalo]

Outrage, Inc.: How the Liberal Mob Ruined Science, Journalism, and Hollywood Hardcover – June 19, 2018

Progressives love to attack conservatives as anti-science, wallowing in fake news, and culturally backwards. But who are the real denialists here?

There are three institutions in American life run by gatekeepers who have stopped letting in anyone who questions their liberal script: academia, journalism, and pop culture. They use their cult-like groupthink consensus as “proof” that science, reporting, and entertainment will always back up the Democrats. They give their most political members awards, and then say the awards make their liberal beliefs true. Worse, they are using that consensus to pull the country even further to the left, by bullying and silencing dissent from even those they’ve allowed in.

https://www.amazon.com/Outrage-Inc-Liberal-Journalism-Hollywood/dp/0062835521

 

[Bradskii]

Gorgias:

So, hold on: you’ve moved from “strictly literalistic” to “allegorical”?

I personally believe that a “day” in Genesis 1 is literally 24 hours, but I may be wrong.

I have no comment. I just wanted to re-post that.

 

[rossum]

Because the sun and moon (the great lights) were made to mark it for us .

Not at the beginning, they came after the beginning. This has been observed for a long time:

“What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky?”

– Origen, about 200 CE.

There have been different opinions on this since the early days of Christianity.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Not at the beginning, they came after the beginning. This has been observed for a long time:

Yes, they did. They were set in place later for man to use to mark time and seasons.

 

[edwest211]

That is accurate.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Here is the first clue to understanding this verse: The sea is mentioned, as well as the earth. But the sea is part of the earth, so why mention both? That seems to be a tautology that makes no sense. The answer lies in Genesis 1, where the earth’s atmosphere is called “heaven” (v.8), the dry land is called “earth” (v. 10) and the oceans are called “the seas” (v.10).

I’m afraid you haven’t cleared anything up at all. You interpret: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” to mean “In the beginning God took the planet earth which he had created before the beginning and divided it into the atmosphere and the land surface.” That doesn’t make sense, and is a peculiarly Glarkian interpretation of “in the beginning.”

The only place Genesis 1 says the planet earth was created is in v. 1 - before the first of the six days of creation.

Another somewhat unique Glarkian interpretation. There is nothing in Genesis 1 to suggest that the creation of “the heavens and the earth” occurred before Day 1, and such an interpretation is wholly foreign to any of the understandings of the Church Fathers, or even, I venture to suggest, the beliefs of buffalo, techno, edwest, or any other of your YEC allies on this forum. But perhaps they will speak for themselves?

 

[Aloysium]

How does the “standard theory” you just cited demonstrate a clash with Church doctrine?

I may have posted 5k times on the topic of evolution; perhaps half of those would express my view that it is bad science, some of those and the other half describe how evolution is in conflict with the church’s teachings. All of them would be attempts to demonstrate how a creationist understanding brings everything into perspective. If the reader is truly intereseted in what I think, they are all available for your consideration. This entire thread, running into hundreds of thousands of characters so far, addresses the issue.

 

[Aloysium]

Science deals in the physical, and theology in the spiritual. They meet in the human person, but that does not mean that either side gets to play in each other’s sandbox.

Please recall that we are a unity. Matter and spirit are one. There is a single sandbox - that of existence. Interestingly, I understand your position as setting these two in conflict with each other. But then I see physics and metaphysics as being different ways of conceptualizing what is existentially one reality.

Perhaps ordination is the more relevant example, then?

We cannot ordane a dog. A primate is a completely different kind of being than a person. Persons can be ordaned. There is a spiritual transformation where a priest is Christ at the alter when he consecrates the bread and wine. Only a human being can become Christ-like. The one true vine and the Way can be understood as humanity’s turning away from sin and proceeding to what is their true nature as willed by God. Being different kinds creatures than animals, behaving like them does not reduce us to their level but rather transforms us into demons. I’m trying in different ways to elaborate The point that the creation of mankind did not involve the transformation of another individual living being. It’s like changing you into me - not possible even though we are the same kind of creature, members of one body in Christ.

the ages as an indication that sin is affecting humanity.

Original sin has rendered us vulnerable to random mutations of the genome, among a multitude of ailments that now befall is. People are living longer currently as a result of improved public health measures, not because they are improving geneticslly. While the cell has the means by which it can fix broken DNA, that capacity is limited, as we see in cancers that develop in the individual. Sexual reproduction, as well as granting us a companion, provides us with another way to fix the problems that arise from random mutations. Having a pair of chromosomes mitigates the impact of disordered genes. All this will not save humanity from the inevitable outcome. Eugenics offers the hope of survival of a creature which would ultimately not be worth saving.

we were simply physical beings until God gave us souls

The soul is primary, expressing itself through a body participating within the physical universe. Let’s try to be clear. We are souls. It is not given to us. A body is given to us. The body of an animal expresses the nature of its soul. I don’t believe in body transfer.

 

[Glark]

All we are is dust in the wind.

According to atheism, humans are just “lucky dust” … yet they insist life has meaning. That’s so funny!

 

[Glark]

It’s interesting that the vast majority of evolutionists are Left-wing (atheist web-sites are as “Loony Left” as they come). Evolutionist Catholics are the same and tend to be the liberal, progressive, cultural-Marxist types. Not a great sign, I’m afraid.

 

[Glark]

“What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky?” – Origen, about 200 CE

Origen had, and still has, plenty of Catholic critics. His allegorical method was criticised by St. Epiphanius, St. Methodius, St. Eustathius of Antioch, St. Alexander of Alexandria,

St. John of Damascus refers to some of his scriptural interpretations as “the ravings of Origen”.

On Origen and his penchant for allegorical interpretations, the Catholic Encyclopaedia says “it must be confessed that he allows too many cases in which the Scripture is not to be understood according to the letter”.

Origen must have missed those verses in Revelation 21,22 about God providing light without the sun and moon.

 

[bobperk]

Do you have any idea of the devastating effect your words have on my fragile, egg-shell mind?

Our skulls haven’t been egg-shell thin for tens of millions of years, they started thickening up because our monkey ancestors kept slipping on banana peels and falling out of trees until evolution took over and gave us properly thick skulls.

 

[edwest211]

Cultural Marxism is the current trend being pushed by the media. The public needs to be plainly told that the media, “the news,” is all about promoting Leftists ideas. And that does not include movies which sometimes do the same. Progressive is a word that is being used to promote bad things. Where is the “Progress” in promoting abortion or indoctrinating little kids to believe that certain sexual behaviors are normal? They’re kids. They do not have the mental or emotional ability to truly understand. Here, we’re being told this or that is true but if it were not for certain posters, some would not question it. Regarding this topic, we cannot afford to be spoon-fed and just let it all in without critical analysis.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

It’s interesting that the vast majority of evolutionists are Left-wing (atheist web-sites are as “Loony Left” as they come). Evolutionist Catholics are the same and tend to be the liberal, progressive, cultural-Marxist types. Not a great sign, I’m afraid.

Fascinating. Is there any evidence for your view? What about this one?

“It’s interesting that the vast majority of creationists are Right-wing (creationist web-sites are as “Rabid Right” as they come). Creationist Catholics are the same and tend to be the restrictive, reactionary, cultural-Fascist types. Not a great sign, I’m afraid.”

 

[Glark]

I’m afraid you haven’t cleared anything up at all. You interpret: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” to mean “In the beginning God took the planet earth which he had created before the beginning and divided it into the atmosphere and the land surface.”

How did you arrive at that curious conclusion?

In the beginning, God created the earth (v.1) It found itself lifeless, dark and covered in water (v.2). Then the “six days of creation” began (v.3), in which God made land appear out the waters and also created the earth’s atmosphere. After that God furnished creatures that inhabited air, sea and land.

If you don’t believe me, just read Genesis 1:

“6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which wereunder the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament HEAVEN. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 Then 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 And God called the dry land EARTH, and the gathering together of the waters He called SEAS.” (Emphasis mine)

The “HEAVEN … EARTH … SEAS” in this passage is what Exodus 20:11 is referring to, which is diiferent to “the heavens (universe) and the earth (planet)” in Genesis 1:1.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Then the “six days of creation” began

Perfectly sensible. But not, of course, the understanding of all the Church Fathers, or the tradition of the Church, or the Jews, or indeed, anybody at all except an obscure website called kjvbible, as far as I can discover.

By all means stick to your guns, but don’t pretend that you represent anything more than just one of many Creationist interpretations of the bible, mostly vaguely attempting to reconcile what is irreconcilable.

 

[Gorgias]

Evolutionist Catholics are the same and tend to be the liberal, progressive, cultural-Marxist types. Not a great sign, I’m afraid.

Pretty broad brush you’re painting with, there, eh?

 

[Aloysium]

one of many Creationist interpretations of the bible, mostly vaguely attempting to reconcile what is irreconcilable.

I would put it more in terms of trying to understand what is not understandable. Except through revelation of course. I have my own, as I believe we all do, interpretation of both Genesis and of current scientific descriptions of the beginnings of creation.

Something that came to mind during my reading of the last few posts, drew me back to Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he 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—the first day.

I will have to pursue what others come up with, but I wonder what it means that God “called” the “light” “day”. And then there’s the mixture, the going from light into darkness, to be resurrected into a new greater day.

To call something before a relativistic deconstruction of reality reduces everything back to a nihilistic vision of chaos, means that one has identified something as existing. God’s naming things therefore anticipates in time, His eventual creation of the person, a rational being capable of identifying the order He has created by His Word in the universe.

Thanks to all, this sounds an interesting line of thought to pursue.