Seven Day Creation Story

[GoingMyOwnWay]

I'm a little confused about the whole Creation story - Catholics believe that it didn't actually take seven days, that it really took billions of years. What do other Christians believe?

[Jonathan McLatchie]

I do not find Darwinian evolution at all convincing as a scientific thesis, but I have to confess that I am pretty frustrated these days with some of the bogus arguments tossed about by contemporary Christian ministries. I am even more frustrated with organisations such as the American Science Affiliation (allegedly a Christian ministry) who adopt a theistic Darwinistic approach (also asserting that life started naturally and that we live in a multiverse to get round fine-tuning). I've never understood the mentality of so-called "apologists" who attempt to prove supernaturalism by assuming naturalism - especially when the arguments advanced in favour of evolution are pretty dire to say the least. :-)

[Lucio Mascarenhas]

"Darwinian evolution" is from Satan. Oops, that is not correctly put. One must always be careful how one uses one's words. I put it better this way: Darwinism AND Evolutionism, are both from Satan.

If man has evolved from apes, then Christ is a fraud, and the claim of the Redemption is nonsense. As the Apostle St. Paul underlined, if we do not believe in the Redemption, then we are the most pathetic people on earth. If a Christian cannot confess that God made Adam & Eve and that all mankind today and that ever walked the earth are the biological descendants of Adam and Eve, then he confesses himself a non-Christian.

[Jonathan McLatchie]

My objections to Darwinism are primarily scientific as opposed to theological. I'm simply perplexed at the very notion of theistic evolution - an unnecessary solution to a non-existent problem.

Incidentally, has anybody here read Jerry Coyne's latest publication on "Why evolution is true"? Notice how skillfully he defends Darwinian evolution by re-arranging the fossil record; by misrepresenting the development of vertebrate embryos; by ignoring all evidence for the functionality of 'vestigial organs'; then propping up Darwinism with theological arguments, and exaggerating the evidence for selection and speciation to make it seem as though they could accomplish what Darwinism requires of them!

Reading works like his don't give me so many reasons for embracing his thesis.

[ENAMOURED]

Well that explains it, catholics are not Christian. In Genesis 1-2 it will explaine it not sure about the catholic bible. Here you go http://www.cathcommunity.org/ a catholic network for catholics.

[Jonathan McLatchie]

I would not be so quick to make generalised statements concerning who is "Christian" and who isn't. It is simply not true to state that there are no Catholic Christians. I do not regard Roman Catholicism as a Christian worldview, but nonetheless there are Catholics who are most assuredly born again. That being said, I do not believe that one can adopt such a position with logical consistency,

[timaeus]

Hi GMOW,
I take God's Word literally, unless here is a good reason not to.
That is why I believe that He created the earth and all inhabitants in 6 days, not seven. He rested on the seventh day, and not because He was tired.

Catholics believe very many things that are not in line with the Bible which makes me wonder if the RCC really represents true Christianity.
Please, Consider the following:
Catholics believe in Purgatory, which denies that Jesus' Blood is sufficient to save us from our sins.

Catholics have many sacraments that are not in the Bible, such as the sacrament of reconciliation which teaches that we must do penance under the orders of a priest to be forgiven of our mortal and venial sins. The Bible teaches that we must repent. (not penance) And, if we fail in one point of the law, we fail the whole law. Therefore we are all sinners saved by grace, Amen.

In Him, Tim

[MaryAnn]

As a former Roman Catholic, I am so thankful that God in His great mercy and grace revealed the truth to me. This happened six years ago, simply by my confessing 'The Sinner's Prayer'. I wanted to be sure I was going to heaven, because at that point in my life (58 years of age), I did not know for sure.

As a born-again Christian, if something different than what is in God's Word is being preached, I reject it. All things are to be tested. God's Word is the authority. When I said ‘yes’ to God He transferred me from the 'kingdom of darkness' into His wonderful 'Kingdom of Light'. I did not know at the time the fullness of this amazing gift. Yet, at that time, I was clothed in the Righteousness of Christ, and like the prodigal, my inheritance was re-instated. The Father adopted me. I am His daughter.

I believe that with new birth it is possible, not only possible, but required, that we grow in our faith, and become more and more like Jesus, who is our hope of glory. God will continue to teach and show us His ways, when we choose to say 'no' to sin and 'yes' to Him. He will guide our every step, because He is Faithful. He cannot be otherwise. He is on our side, and wants us to succeed even more than we want it.

God’s Word tells us that we can bind the strongman and loose his hold on everything he has ever stolen from us. (health, wealth, peace, family, etc.) We can rebuke the words of the enemy, and loose the power and effects of every deception, devices and influence that he wants to bring against us. God has a plan and a destiny for each one of us, but so does Satan. We don't want to miss God’s destiny for us, because the rewards are eternal, and we will answer for the choices we make on earth…what we have done with the life (talents) He has given us. As we become aware of our destiny, the enemy, (father of lies), will roar louder to try and discourage and deceive us... (ie: did God really say???). Everything Satan whispers to us is deceptive, usually condemnation, accusations against self and others, discouragement etc. We want to listen to the Holy Spirit who cannot lie, and will not only tell us the truth, he will also make it possible for us to fulfill the destiny God has planned for us.

And yes, the bible says that God created the world in six 24-hour days, and rested on the 7th. The truth of Genesis will always be under attack, because if Satan can discredit the first Book of the Bible, he can discredit it entirely. These ‘unbiblical’ theories are out there to confuse our minds. Let’s choose to study and meditate on the truth, and the encouragement, comfort and strength that comes through the gentle Holy Spirit.

[timaeus]

Mary Ann,

Thank you and may you be richly blessed in your life of discipleship tp our Master Shepherd (o:

Your leter is worth printing and showing to my catholic family members

Blessings,
Tim

[Jonathan McLatchie]

I have been working progressively and systematically through Jerry Coyne’s recent book of late, namely “Why evolution is true”. I was reading it on the train today. I lost track of the number of blatant misrepresentations, overstatements and grossly misleading claims (as well as those which were simply false) that I encountered. Bear in mind that this is supposedly a leading expert in this field. Highly esteemed Darwinist Richard Dawkins endorses his work:

“I once wrote that anybody who didn't believe in evolution must be stupid, insane or ignorant, and I was then careful to add that ignorance is no crime. I should now update my statement: anybody who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid, insane, or hasn’t read Jerry Coyne.”

As a sceptic of Darwinism, I was curious as to which category I fell into. So I made a trip to the University bookshop and picked up a copy. Alas, I was to be disappointed. Having read Coyne’s work, I still do not find his work at all convincing. I guess I must be either stupid or insane. Completely ignoring the multitude of objections which have been raised against his position, he simply re-iterates what the Darwinistic argument has been recognised as being for decades. From someone of Coyne’s prominence, I would expect a little more rigorous interaction with the argumentation being offered by those who oppose his current position. That being said, the introduction gives him away somewhat – when he claims that evolution is not only supported by evidence, but it also happens to be true (his scientific professionalism and objectivity surely needs to be commended [cough cough]). He then proceeds to ridicule and mock those whom he would disagree with (the first sentence in his book is “This book should not be necessary,” immediately alienating his intended audience.

I’m not going to, in the short space herein, critique any large portion of the book (I’ll get round to doing so eventually). But take note of some of the Coyne’s errors. In his chapter on Fossils, Coyne makes the following claim:
“Around 600 million years ago, a whole gamut of relatively simple but multicelled organisms arise, including worms, jellyfish, and sponges. These groups diversify over the next several million years, with terrestrial plants and tetrapods (four-legged animals, the earliest of which were lobe-finned fish) appearing about 400 million years ago.”
In other words, Coyne’s account of evolutionary history jumps from 600 to 400 million years ago without mentioning the 540 million year-old Cambrian explosion. Now, you would think that the Cambrian explosion ought to receive at least a mention, right? Even a footnote perhaps (and preferably even a rebuttal or address). Coyne surely knows about it, doesn’t he? Coyne surely knows that it is a major argument which is launched against his common-ancestral paradigm, right? Certainly it’s not an issue to simply brush over, as Coyne clearly attempts to do.

Coyne goes on to discuss several ‘transitional’ forms. “One of our best examples of an evolutionary transition,” he writes, is the fossil record of whales, “since we have a chronologically ordered series of fossils, perhaps a lineage of ancestors and descendants, showing their movement from land to water.”

“The sequence begins,” Coyne writes, “with the recently discovered fossil of a close relative of whales, a raccoon-sized animal called Indohyus. Living 48 million years ago, Indohyus was… probably very close to what the whale ancestor looked like.” In the next paragraph, Coyne writes, “Indohyus was not the ancestor of whales, but was almost certainly its cousin. But if we go back 4 million more years, to 52 million years ago, we see what might well be that ancestor. It is a fossil skull from a wolf-sized creature called Pakicetus, which is bit more whalelike than Indohyus.”

On the page separating these two paragraphs is a figure captioned “Transitional forms in the evolution of modern whales,” which shows Indohyus as the first in the series and Pakicetus as the second.

But Pakicetus—as Coyne just told us—is 4 million years older than Indohyus. Woops. I guess to the Darwinian fundamentalist (as Coyne clearly is), this doesn’t matter. Pakicetus is more whalelike than Indohyus, so it must surely fall between Indohyus and modern whales, regardless of the fossil record.

Remarkably, Coyne subsequently goes on to perform the same trick with bird evolution. Archaeopteryx (the bird with feathered wings like a modern bird and teeth and a tail like a reptile) is dated at 145 million years. But what Coyne calls the ‘non-flying feathered dinosaur fossils’ – which should have come before Archaeopteryx – are tens of millions of years younger. Woops. Again, Coyne simply rearranges the fossil evidence where convenient.

I have to confess I was flabbergasted reading Coyne’s commentary on whale evolution. Coyne forgets something. No species in the series provided can possibly be the ancestor of any other because all of them possess characteristics they would first have to lose before evolving into a subsequent form. The correct scenario is each species branching off a single lineage. Woops.

Another area which causes me to pause before taking Coyne too seriously is his superficial treatment of history. His embryology chapter is fraught with errors in like manner, but consider the following claim: “When he wrote The Origin, Darwin considered embryology is strongest evidence for evolution.” This is correct. Indeed, Darwin writes in The Origin: “The embryos of the most distinct species belonging to the same class are closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely dissimilar,” a pattern that “reveals community of descent.” Indeed, Darwin thought that early embryos “show us, more or less completely, the condition of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state.” Darwin supports his contention by citing a passage by German embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer:

“The embryos of mammals, birds, lizards and snakes, and probably chelonia [turtles] are in their earliest states exceedingly like one another.... In my possession are two little embryos in spirit, whose names I have omitted to attach, and at present I am quite unable to say to what class they belong. They may be lizards or small birds, or very young mammals, so complete is the similarity in the mode of formation of the head and trunk in these animals.”

Coyne claims that this is something von Baer wrote to Darwin – but again, Coyne is dead wrong. The passage Darwin cited was from a work written in German by von Baer; Thomas Huxley translated it into English and published it – Darwin didn’t even realise that it was from von Baer – incorrectly attributing the passage to Louis Agassiz. ‘Woops.’

Among my favourite of Coyne’s claims, is the one relating to the human appendix in his chapter on vestigial organs. Coyne concedes that “[The appendix] may be of some small use. The appendix contains patches of tissue that may function as part of the immune system. It has also been suggested that it provides a refuge for useful gut bacteria. But these minor benefits are surely outweighed by the severe problems that come with the human appendix.” He goes on to argue that “the appendix is still vestigial, for it no longer performs the function for which it evolved.” Does anybody notice a disconnect at this point? First, Darwin’s argument rested on lack of function – not change of function. Second, if we are to redefine vestigial organs as Coyne suggests, it would make virtually every organ a vestigial one. The human arm – which supposedly evolved from the leg of a four-footed mammal – would also need to be vestigial. If the wings of flying birds were originally forelimbs of dinosaurs, then wings are vestigial organs. Thus, everything becomes vestigial, thus the argument becomes circular. Evolution’s true; therefore there are vestigial organs; we have vestigial organs; therefore evolution is true. One need not be an evolutionary biologist to spot the fallacy of Coyne’s reasoning here.

And I’ve already spent far longer on this post than originally intended. Has anyone else read this book? If so, what did folks make of it?

JM

[Ginnybee]

May I offer a reminder?



Mat 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,


Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

If a simple minded child receives such an honor from our Lord and Savior, what does that tell us? Believe as a child. If your mortal dad told you when you were 5 or 8yrs old that he built the empire state building in 3 days, in all seriousness (without a hint of sarcasm on his face or in his voice) would you have believed him?

[MaryAnn]

I like this!

[Ginnybee]

God Bless! :-D