Does common ancestry need evolution, or does evolution need common ancestry?

[Gxg (G²)]

It is not a matter of deciding which of the Church Fathers and Mothers were "right" or "wrong" nor of honouring some more than others. .

So true - and many thanks for noting. Although technically, it'd not be a matter of noting which ones were "right" or "wrong" when seeing what they tended to lean toward - as anyone aware of how the Orthodox Church (of which the Church Fathers were a part of ) see things when it comes to what they stated directly can see patterns toward the allegorical and not being 100% literal in all things. - more at Darwin, Evolution, Adam & Eve - Coptic Orthodox Divine Justice.

It is simply recognizing that there were varieties of interpretations of Genesis, including figurative interpretations, right from the beginning of Christian theology. It is not a new thing sprung from modern science as many creationists wrongly believe

Indeed - and this is something sadly misunderstood by many creationists taking the context of what the Fathers said OUT of its setting - and making an ignorant view as if all the Fathers were for the wildness that comes with YEC (which is really intellectually dishonest ). History is history....and it is 100% silliness to argue that YEC was what the majority of the early fathers were - just as it is inane for abyone to argue that recognizing allegory/figurative views with Genesis automatically equates to denying the Historicity of the Scriptures (a common accusation made against TE today without real basis in fact).

Something that always stands out to consider is remembering if the Sun, Moon, and stars were not created until the fourth creation day (as popularly understood by the church fathers), then what was the nature of the first three creation “days”? Logically, how could they be ordinary solar days if the Sun did not yet exist? It is this question that provoked more discussion and disagreement among the early church fathers than any other part of Genesis 1 - with it being the case that Philo, Origen, and Augustine saw this as clear proof that at least the first three days could not be ordinary days. For more, one can consider Philo, Allegorical Interpretations 1.2; Who Is the Heir of Divine Things 34.... Origen, Against Celsus 6. 60–61/ Against Celsus 6.50, 60; First Principles 4.1.16 Augustine, Literal Interpretation of Genesis 4.26.43, Clement of Alexandria Miscellaneous 6.16.

Origen actually wrote that the “world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that” (Against Celsus 1.19) - and Philo (a Jewish scholar) was distinct in rejecting attempts to date the origin of the world (Questions and Answers on Genesis 1.1) - which leaves open the possibility that he would be open to an old-earth.

Rodney Whitefield, “The Fourth ‘Day’ of Genesis" is something to consider when it comes to seeing how the belief that the Sun, Moon, and stars were created for the first time on creation day four is a common error due to a lack of understanding of the original Hebrew - which the early Church Fathers were NOT versed in. Also, one of the best reviews on the issue which covers in-detail what the Early Church Fathers said - from Augustine to Justin of Martyr and all the others (diverse as they were ) - can be seen in Coming to Grips with the Early Church By Dr. John Millam.

Outside of that, Ernest Lucas. "Interpreting Genesis in the 21st Century," Faraday Paper No 11: PDF is an excellent source of study - as his paper suggests that the early chapters of Genesis should be read as a theological text expressed in symbolic stories addressed to ancient Hebrews, and not as a scientific text - for when reading it in this way the narratives become highly relevant to us today. Moreover, an excellent resource dedicated to addressing the issue of how the Church Fathers saw issues can be seen in Andrew J. Brown, The Relevance of Augustine’s View of Creation Re-evaluated, PSCF 57 (June 2005): 134-145 and Davis Young’s 1988 article, “The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine’s View of Creation,” both of whic contributed to the debate over the interpretation of the days of creation in Genesis 1 by drawing on Augustine’s most significant work on this biblical text

​

 

[Calminian]

So true - and many thanks for noting.
Indeed - and this is something sadly misunderstood by many creationists taking the context of what the Fathers said OUT of its setting

The irony is thick because this is exactly what you've done. The fathers were young earthers who also believed that the literal days had future predictive messages in them. They not only believed that the earth was created in six days, but that the earth would last for 6000 years after creation, since each literal day also stood for a future period of 1000 years.

Some of the allegorical interpretations faded as generations went by, but this is miles from the TE nonsense you're attributing to them. They were nothing like you.

and making an ignorant view as if all the Fathers were for the wildness that comes with YEC (which is really intellectually dishonest ).

The only one displaying ignorance is you. You merely read up on some opinions and never actually researched what the fathers believed. I would suggest you do so, and then come back and offer an analysis.

Something that always stands out to consider is remembering if the Sun, Moon, and stars were not created until the fourth creation day (as popularly understood by the church fathers), then what was the nature of the first three creation “days”? Logically, how could they be ordinary solar days if the Sun did not yet exist?

Where do YEC's say they were "solar days." You just made that up, just as you made up your views of the early father. All that is necessary in the initial creation is a morning and evening. No where does the text say the light source was solar.

It is this question that provoked more discussion and disagreement among the early church fathers than any other part of Genesis 1 -

You've demonstrated already you have no idea what the fathers believed. You made up a bunch of stores and now are trying to salvage a very pitiful effort to turn the into a TE like you. Sorry, but here that dog won't hunt.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The irony is thick because this is exactly what you've done. The fathers were young earthers who also believed that the literal days had future predictive messages in them. They not only believed that the earth was created in six days, but that the earth would last for 6000 years after creation, since each literal day also stood for a future period of 1000 years.

Amusing - but as said before, it's specious in claim and no more credible in assertion than one claiming the sky is green or that all in the Confederacy were benevolent toward slaves (as goes the nature of seeing what one wants to see) - as again, claiming is not the same as demonstrating by fact. Whenever one does an inaccurate presentation/false scenario, it can only go on so long as others hope others will not question it the more it's claimed - in the realm of proof by assertion and Three men make a tiger" ideology where something is accepted so long as others choose to repeat it enough to a lot of people - and if one does choose to spread misrepresentation, it's not as if it cannot be addressed when dealing with the facts.

In the context of the discussion you jetisioned yourself into by seeking people out who were not even speaking to you, unfortunately, you've already a tendency in being capable of merely assertion rather than dealing with what the Fathers did when it came to them NOT all believing in Literal Days/noting why - as well as noting directly the world was not made in 6 days. And as said before, it is reinvention trying to claim the Early Fathers were universally Young Earthers and against the facts -and if one wishes to do so with insubstantial claims that Patristics never supported, that is your choice....but it is against the Early Church and not something people are going to fall for.

That said, unless you actually have a real point, there's little reason continuing with the harping on as if anyone was seeking you out initially or concerned as if you needed to be heard.

Some of the allegorical interpretations faded as generations went by, but this is miles from the TE nonsense you're attributing to them. They were nothing like you.

Again, one is welcome to have any kind of sentiments they wish (regardless of how they may be slanted wrongly toward one way) - but none of what you noted was ever demonstrated in history (starting with Origen, as noted before when it came to his direct commetary to his grave as with several others). There was NEVER any point where allegorical interpretations fading in time just as there was never indication of the Early Church putting aside what the Fathers said when it comes to lifestyle/example (a basic understood in Orthodoxy) - and if the best one can do is claim "TE Nonsense", that's already problematic since that is again ad-hominem via emotional response - something that would behoove you to learn to get past in order to be taken seriously in debate rather than thinking it means something to say "That's just silly!!!" as if that proves something is off.

The only one displaying ignorance is you.

Again, if you want to do real dealing with facts, do so - but personal discussion on others isn't the same (And I'll say one time - if you continue giving personal commentary, it'll be reported as last time when you could not restrain yourself on the matter and addressed flatly when similar commentary came up in previous discussion from yourself due to having to resort to flamming in the event of disagreement ).

You merely read up on some opinions and never actually researched what the fathers believed. I would suggest you do so, and then come back and offer an analysis.

Pause...


For that is another logical fallacy, in light of previous posting habits:

They were much closer to me than you.

There's a lot of good information on the early fathers. Here's a few articles.

The Early Church on Creation

Creation Days According to the Church Fathers

Also a good article on Augustine.

Augustine on the Days of Creation

And another:

An Examination of Augustine’s Commentaries on Genesis One and Their Implications on a Modern Theological Controversy

As it is, IMHO, it is ironic (as well as equivocation ) claiming anyone merely read up on opinions when you already did the same thing you attempt to distance yourself from with referencing several articles (mainly from "Answers in Genesis" /claiming that as the sole authority in how they saw it/addressed the Fathers) - so the claim by yourself is a moot point.....lest one is able to admit they do the same as they claim others do and don't want to own up to that.

Moreover, you're already show lack of real awareness with the Church Fathers in their stances (As goes nearly anyone NOT a part of the Ancient Church and Orthodoxy ) and it's humorous even seeing claims on knowing what they talk about when it's more of the same empty arguments that generally come from Fundamentalist Creationist. People who are in the Orthodox Church STUDY the Fathers daily - not the same as referencing the same Creationist websites which have long been debunked.

Thus, as said before, it'd behoove you to seriously come back when you actually have something substantial to say rather than just talking/accusing anyone you disagree with and thinking no one sees the lack of addressing issues you've been consistent in - for it is wasting the time of others.

Where do YEC's say they were "solar days." You just made that up, just as you made up your views of the early father. All that is necessary in the initial creation is a morning and evening. No where does the text say the light source was solar.

More in the way of baseless commentary without dealing with what's said -and already addressed as with other things. It's a pity something so simple cannot be understood well by yourself...

Again, hopefully you can do better in the future since it has been a bad demonstration of dealing accurately with the Fathers on your part and it really doesn't reflect them well to continue without realizing it.

You've demonstrated already you have no idea what the fathers believed. You made up a bunch of stores and now are trying to salvage a very pitiful effort to turn the into a TE like you. Sorry, but here that dog won't hunt.

More of the same with being zealous - but lacking awareness of the facts fully (Proverbs 19:2, Proverbs 18:15, Proverbs 18:13, etc.) - but it's expected. It's the nature of red herring...

Sorry, I'm not biting

Ad-hominem via Stewart's fallacy will never work in real argumentation, nor do attempts at distractions when called tend to make good points in logical debate. For again, that's red herring

One doesn't have to turn the Fathers into anything other than what they were when simply studying them - their complete writings on various issues and the heart/intent they came from - and if/when they goes counter to the rhetoric you've been told or wish to adhere to, it is still the case that the Fathers will be who they are without your approval...just as it was for the Early Church. Until you actually demonstrate credible awareness of the Early Church/get the first basic down on what the Ancient Church was about, as said before, it's rather pointless trying to throw out accusations as if that is anywhere close to argumentation.

It's entertaining, at best (as with all accusations from fundamentalist creationists assuming anything disagreeing with their views MUST be TE - and that's logical fallacy in the same manner that someone disagreeing with how to go about treating cancer with another doctor is assumed by another overzealous medic that they MUST believe cancer doesn't exist). That's pointless and not worthy really following - seeing that Old Earth Creationism (what I support) is NOT the same as TE (even though they both believe outside of a YEC perspective and have commonality).

If you couldn't even get those basic facts right, it's another demonstration of false scenario being resorted to when one can't really focus on what was said in favor of saying what they want to hear. But that will never have true substance or be argument worth merit......and if you feel the need to want to be heard as the basis for trying to come after people who weren't even talking to you and trying to bring up arguments to be taken seriously that weren't serious enough in their foundation, you can do so. But again, it's inconsequential how you feel - or what you wish to rant on when others disagree with you.

Other creationists have done better - and either you can do the same, or just be ignored as with others who want to be heard but don't show they understand what they're saying/trying to address.

It is what it is -

 

[Gxg (G²)]

...there were varieties of interpretations of Genesis, including figurative interpretations, right from the beginning of Christian theology. .

Part of the battle for many is not understanding the mindset and context of how science was understood in their day and the reasons why they (being people who supported the concept of Divine Mystery and having a Mystical approach rather than rationalistic one that took everything literally or tried to explain everything as we do today) did not see issue with allegrorical and figurative interpretations of the text.

There's no logical way of escaping the fact that the allegorical interpreters (e. g., Origen and Augustine) did have specific scriptural reasons for rejecting a calendar-day view of Genesis 1...paticularly the fact that the creation days could not be solar days if the Sun was not created until the fourth day. ..and as the seventh creation day is not closed out by the “evening and morning” phrase, it is considered longer than a 24-hour day. And even the so-called “literalist” fathers often relied on nonliteral modes of interpretation in dealing with the Old Testament, such as typology and numerological association (more here, here, here ).

There were many Church Fathers who did not view the 6 days of Genesis as literal days. And since the early church was not unanimous in taking the days of Genesis as 24-hour days, there's no reason why the modern church should be. Giiven the fact that many in the early church viewed the days of Genesis to be something other than 24-hour days, I think the modern church is free to believe that as well. For if some Christians want to postulate that the days were something else (not an attempt at order, but instead, long ages of time), it's disingenious to act as if you can suddenly say they don’t believe the Bible. For those who believe that the Genesis days represent long ages believe the Bible as much as Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Augustine, Hilary of Poitiers, etc., etc.


As said before, three very influential church fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine) did not see the Genesis days as 24-hour days.

And they were not the only ones since there were many very influential people in the early church who did not believe that the Genesis days were 24-hour days. This was a view that has existed from the earliest writings of Christianity.

Origen is one of those who stands out (who, in the following excerpt, argues AGAINST a strictly literal interpretation of the Scriptures):

And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone), and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." (Contra Celsus, Book VI, Chapter 60; )

​

Outside of him, there are others to consider that say much on the issue. In example, when dealing with the scriptures, there are certain things which come to mind:

"You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Genesis 2:16-17)
​

Truthfully, how does one reconcile this with this passage later from Genesis?

Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty (930) years... (Genesis 5:5)
​

Logically, if the Lord meant "day" in the former passage as YEC define define "day"--i.e., 24 hours, sunset to sunset--then how did Adam live for 930 years? THis is where study of the Church Fathers is important - for in example, one can consider how St Justin Martyr sees this:

For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' (2 Peter 3:8 ) is connected with this subject. (Dialog with Trypho, Chapter 81; )

​

The SAME theme of a day being as a thousand years to God comes up in the following:

St. Ireneaus of Lyons:
And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin. (Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 23; )
​

Additionally, one can see the same here as well:

St. Cyprian of Carthage:
As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years, as the seven spirits and seven angels which stand and go in and out before the face of God, and the seven-branched lamp in the tabernacle of witness, and the seven golden candlesticks in the Apocalypse, and the seven columns in Solomon upon which Wisdom built her house l so here also the number seven of the brethren, embracing, in the quantity of their number, the seven churches, as likewise in the first book of Kings we read that the barren has borne seven. (Treatises 11:11; )

​

To note, The Church actually owes the greater part of her ecclesiology (i.e., our understanding that there are no Sacramental Mysteries outside the Church) to Cyprian, and his teachings were ratified pretty much without reservation by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
We also have St.Augustine, (who deems it impossible to conceive what kind of days the six days of creation were):

But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say! (City of God, Book XI, Chapter 6; )

​

Clement of Alexandria is one of the most intriguing people to study on the issue - as this theologian did most of his work in the late 100s AD and the early 200s AD as well as being the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. According to Clement:

Wherefore those things were announced first, from which came those that were second, all things being originated together from one essence by one power. For the will of God was one, in one identity. And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist....That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: "This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth." For the expression "when they were created" intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression "in the day that God made," that is, in and by which God made "all things," and "without which not even one thing was made," points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says, "This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in it; " that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us celebrate the divine festival;

-Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book 6, Chapter 16, 205 AD

​

Clement of Alexandria echos the thought that we cannot know from the Scriptures exactly when or how long, in human reckoning, creation took place. On a side note, it should be remembered that Origen and Clement and the Alexandrian School as a whole were very allegorical in approach - with them never denying the Historicity of Jesus Christ and noting He was a real character/person. But their allegorical views went hand in hand with how Church Fathers thought in general.

It is a well known thought that for the Church Fathers many events do not have to flow in sequence or in step-by-step order - for they had a very strong concept of mysticism and the reality of contrast. For Clement, the Church Father advocated that things were not created in succession and were instead all created at once. Essentially, all things (the earth, stars, sun, moon, animals, even time itself) all leapt into being instantaneously and the “days” in Genesis are simply present so that the reader may know which creations were most important to the Lord. In his view, the larger the day, the more important to God the creation was.

This is the view known as “instantaneous creation” - a fairly popular view in the early church. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 293 -373 AD), Augustine (354-330), and Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300 – 368 AD) all believed in the concept as well - and the reasons why it was important/popular in the early Church were largely due to how a prominent Jewish theologian who was a contemporary of Christ believed it. Specifically, it was the case that Philo Judaeus (20 BC – 50 AD) said the following:

And he says that the world was made in six days, not because the Creator stood in need of a length of time (for it is natural that God should do everything at once, not merely by uttering a command, but by even thinking of it); but because the things created required arrangement; and number is akin to arrangement

-Philo Judaeus, The Creation of the World, III, 30 AD
​

There is clear similarity to Clement of Alexandria’s reasoning when studying Philo’s. For Philo said directly that the days in Genesis are not days...but instead merey a means of ordering/arranging the creation.

What many in YEC do not understand is that it was not simply a matter of all things being seen as they do today - for in many ways, the CHurch Fathers were opposite of Old Earth Creationists (what I lean toward often) because they believed in a younger earth, due to the fact that they believed that all creation happened instantaneously. It was not a matter of not believing that many things did not take substantial time - and that is why many in YEC tend to take a lot of things OUT of context when claiming that all things the Fathers believed had to deal with the creation days taking place in 24 hour days.

For according to the Church Fathers, there were no creation days. Rather, God said it and it happened all at once, immediately. ....and from there, the lineage from Adam began, with counting generations telling them that only a few thousand years had elapsed. Essentially, when things began, it was quick - but the time leading to the beginning of all things was substantial (as Old Earthers and others in TE hold to) _ and the point in noting that is that none of them thought the days in Genesis were strict, 24-hour days.For young-earth creationists to insist that the early church was virtually unanimous on this point is avoiding the facts as they happened.

There's no logical way to escape the fact that what the Fathers believed in with regards to the Bible where Genesis [and the 4th Commandment] was concerned was “instantaneous creation.” - supposing that because God could do anything [He can] and can make whatever He wills occur in a moment [He's not bound by time] that He would never take 6 days to create everything. And this occurred because, in their worldview, they seemed to feel that it impugned on God’s omnipotence for Creation to take an entire week. ..for why should God speak, they reasoned, when He can accomplish His will with a thought instead.

For more, one may wish to consider John Tobin - who did an excellen job compiling list of references, his arguments being that the Early Church Fathers didn't believe Young-Earth Creationism as is expressed today - and that their version of what a Young Earth model was like differed VASTLY from how many in Evangelical culture see it today.

 

[frogman2x]

The irony is thick because this is exactly what you've done. The fathers were young earthers who also believed that the literal days had future predictive messages in them. They not only believed that the earth was created in six days, but that the earth would last for 6000 years after creation, since each literal day also stood for a future period of 1000 years.

Some of the allegorical interpretations faded as generations went by, but this is miles from the TE nonsense you're attributing to them. They were nothing like you. <<

I am glad they were nothing like me. Although I was wrong to attribute the change to the church fathers(which is a mis-statement. There are no church fathers except God), those men invented some theology that is not reinforeced from the Bible(the immuclate conception for example). The change was made by Thomas Chalmers, early in the 19th century and is known as the "Gap Theory." It was suppose to acomodate the greatg ages demanded by evolutionary geologists.


>>The only one displaying ignorance is you. You merely read up on some opinions and never actually researched what the fathers believed. I would suggest you do so, and then come back and offer an analysis. <<

No need. If theose early theologians accepted a literal 6 day creation, I agree with them.


>>Where do YEC's say they were "solar days." You just made that up, just as you made up your views of the early father. All that is necessary in the initial creation is a morning and evening. No where does the text say the light source was solar. <<

I agree, it was not solar. In fact teh universe has never been in complete darkness. God is Light and in Him theree is no darkness at all and His shekinah glory has been from eternity.

>>You've demonstrated already you have no idea what the fathers believed. You made up a bunch of stores and now are trying to salvage a very pitiful effort to turn the into a TE like you. Sorry, but here that dog won't hunt.

I know a lot of what those early theologians belived and some of it is not Bibliclal. If you want to put your faith in them, be my guest. Because unless their doctrines are reinforced from Scripture, their dog is dead.

kermit

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Any time "day" is used in the Bible with a number, it always means a 24 hour day as we know it.

Why should these men be honored more thaqn other men?
t

Technically, the scriptures already note that day was not always used in a 24 hour sense. For both the Bible and modern science say that God must be eternal and operate in at least two dimensions of time - and the Bible clearly states that with God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day (Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8).

"And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future." (Daniel 8:26) - something that took 3000+ years

And the scripture saying "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)" - which took 900+ years

Moreover, I'm reminded of how scripture says "And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. (Genesis 2:2)"

In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest, which continues to this day.

For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)
​

By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long.

For more, one can go here (As it concerns Old Earth Creationism) and here to day-age interpretation « The GeoChristian

• What is a day? « The GeoChristian
  
• J.P. Moreland's advice to young-Earth creationists « The GeoChristian

I've been a big fan of the view that John Sailhamer wrote in Genesis Unbound or in his other books, which says that all of creation happened in verses 1 and 2. It may be as old as 4 trillion years, as far as he is concerned, and what was happening in Genesis 1 each day was not the bringing into being of the earth and its various forms, but rather the ordering, managing and structuring of things. And this allows for 24 hour days but also allows for an old earth. Theologian/Pastor John Piper did an EXCELLENT review on the work from Sailhamer on his ministry site - as Dr. John Sailhamer's 1996 book, Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account (Multnomah) is 250 pages of worthwhile reading. For Sailhamer suggests that the word "beginning" in Genesis 1:1 holds within itself the key to a correct reading of the text...as in his view, the word can be understood to refer to the boundless (or not) ages before God "prepared" the Earth for human habitation (as described in Genesis 1:2-2:4) - meaning that the dinosaurs, ice ages, and geological strata can be traced to this "beginning" while the presence of humankind on the earth takes place only after this extended period of "beginning". ....leading to the view that science can rightly deal with this "beginning" period without fearing that faith will be contradicted because it is only with the creation of man and God's preparation of the earth for human habitation that concerns the author of Genesis 1:2-2:4 (taken by Sailhamer to be Moses).

 

[Calminian]

Amusing - but as said before, it's specious in claim and no more credible in assertion than one claiming the sky is green or that all in the Confederacy were benevolent toward slaves (as goes the nature of seeing what one wants to see) - as again, claiming is not the same as demonstrating by fact. Whenever one does an inaccurate presentation/false scenario, it can only go on so long as others hope others will not question it the more it's claimed - in the realm of proof by assertion and Three men make a tiger" ideology where something is accepted so long as others choose to repeat it enough to a lot of people - and if one does choose to spread misrepresentation, it's not as if it cannot be addressed when dealing with the facts.

In the context of the discussion you jetisioned yourself into by seeking people out who were not even speaking to you, unfortunately, you've already a tendency in being capable of merely assertion rather than dealing with what the Fathers did when it came to them NOT all believing in Literal Days/noting why - as well as noting directly the world was not made in 6 days. And as said before, it is reinvention trying to claim the Early Fathers were universally Young Earthers and against the facts -and if one wishes to do so with insubstantial claims that Patristics never supported, that is your choice....but it is against the Early Church and not something people are going to fall for.

Looking at the comments above, I'm just glad your true colors are coming out. When confronted with facts you resort to ad hominems. Proof positive you have nothing to back up your claims about the early fathers.

That said, unless you actually have a real point......

You mean like this one? To quote me:

Again, the part that TE's are missing is the allegory the early fathers believed in. They believed that the days of Genesis were literal morning evening days, and that they also had allegorical information about the future. For instance,

The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: &#8220;And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it.&#8221; Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, &#8220;He finished in six days.&#8221; This implies that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifies, saying, &#8220;Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years&#8221; (Psa. 90:4; 2Pe. 3:8). Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. &#8220;And He rested on the seventh day.&#8221; This means: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day. (Epistle of Barnabas, II.15)​

Notice how Irenaeus puts it.

For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: &#8220;Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works&#8221; (Gen. 2:2). This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years (2 Pe. 3:8); and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V.28.3)​

Notice he said these literal days also represented prophecies of 1000 years in the future. Each day represented a future 1000 years. Guess what? Irenaeus was a young earth 6 day creationist. Now he believed the literal days represented futures periods of 1 thousand years each. But the fact that he believed that after 6 thousand years the millennium would come shows how literally he took the Genesis days to be.

But that we may not leave our subject at this point undemonstrated, we are obliged to discuss the matter of the times, of which a man should not speak hastily, because they are a light to him. For as the times are noted from the foundation of the world, and reckoned from Adam, they set clearly before us the matter with which our inquiry deals. For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year. And 6,000 years must be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day &#8220;on which God rested from all His works.&#8221; For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they &#8220;shall reign with Christ,&#8221; when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for &#8220;a day with the Lord is as a thousand years&#8221; (Psa. 90:4). Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says: &#8220;five are fallen; one is,&#8221; that is, the sixth; &#8220;the other is not yet come&#8221; (Rev. 17:10). (Hippolytus, Exegetical Fragments on Daniel, II.4)​

Above, Hippolytus also makes the same point that there must be 6000 future years after creation before the time of rest, since creation itself took 6 literal days prior to God resting. A genuine YEC 6 literal day creationist.

Methodius makes the same point:

For since in six days God made the heaven and the earth, and finished the whole world, and rested on the seventh day from all His works which He had made, and blessed the seventh day and sanctified it (Gen. 2:1), so by a figure in the seventh month, when the fruits of the earth have been gathered in, we are commanded to keep the feast to the Lord, which signifies that, when this world shall be terminated at the seventh thousand years, when God shall have completed the world, He shall rejoice in us (Psa. 104:31). (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, IV.9)​

Again, 7000 years for 7 days. He believe in literal creation days, and that only 7000 years would span after creation.

Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six thousandth year is not yet completed, and that when this number is completed the consummation must take place, and the condition of human affairs be remodeled for the better, the proof of which must first be related, that the matter itself may be plain. God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in the space of six days, as is contained in the secrets of Holy Scripture, and consecrated the seventh day, on which He had rested from His works. But this is the Sabbath-day, which in the language of the Hebrews received its name from the number, whence the seventh is the legitimate and complete number. For there are seven days, by the revolutions of which in order the circles of years are made up; and there are seven stars which do not set, and seven luminaries which are called planets,whose differing and unequal movements are believed to cause the varieties of circumstances and times. (Lactantius, Divine Institutes, VII.14)​

Lactantius above says the same thing. Since God created everything in 6 days, there must be 6000 future years before God's rest comes. He explicitly says those years had not yet been fulfilled at the time of him writing this. Thus he was a YEC as the majority of the early fathers were.

To me, as I meditate and consider in my mind concerning the creation of this world in which we are kept enclosed, even such is the rapidity of that creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days; on the seventh to which He consecrated it . . . with a blessing. For this reason, therefore, because in the septenary number of days both heavenly and earthly things are ordered, in place of the beginning I will consider of this seventh day after the principle of all matters pertaining to the number of seven; and as far as I shall be able, I will endeavor to portray the day of the divine power to that consummation. . . . And in Matthew we read, that it is written Isaiah also and the rest of his colleagues broke the Sabbath (Mat. 12:5) &#8211; that that true and just Sabbath should be observed in the seventh millenary of years. Wherefore to those seven days the Lord attributed to each a thousand years; for thus went the warning: &#8220;In Thine eyes, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day&#8221; (Psa. 90:4). Therefore in the eyes of the Lord each thousand of years is ordained, for I find that the Lord&#8217;s eyes are seven (Zec. 4:10). Wherefore, as I have narrated, that true Sabbath will be in the seventh millenary of years, when Christ with His elect shall reign. Moreover, the seven heavens agree with those days; for thus we are warned: &#8220;By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the powers of them by the spirit of His mouth. (Victorinus, On the Creation of the World)​

Victorinus also agrees. Each of the days of creation stood for future years to come, precisely 7 thousand years, since there the creation consisted of 7 literal days.

Again, what TE's don't understand the theology the early fathers and the type of allegory they embraced. They weren't denying the historical narrative for the same of modern theories, in fact, they thought such methods were erroneous. Rather, they added allegorical predictions to the literal days. They were nowhere near the TE's of today and their erroneous methods of interpretation.

And who knows, maybe some of their future allegorical predictions will turn out to be true. The raptures may be right around the corner.​

Since you ran from this, I thought I'd quote it again. I know facts are a bit intimidating.

I really look forward to more verbose responses about how the fathers justify your TE interpretations (and of course all the usual ad hominems). The fathers were by no means inspired, and made errors just like everyone else. But they sure as heck didn't agree with you. And they were virtually all YECs (I know you love when I point that out.) and had not issues at all with a miraculous creation.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Looking at the comments above, I'm just glad your true colors are coming out. When confronted with facts you resort to ad hominems. Proof positive you have nothing to back up your claims about the early fathers. .

And as said before, accusation/argument via assertion is not the same as dealing with the facts credibly - and it does nothing harping or ranting without verification. Thus again, you are wasting people's time - and it's not that difficult to see why you're unable to do otherwise The games don't work, C....

Seriously, when you can do better than the baseless commentary that generally comes from people obsessed with Fundamentalist Creationism, then you can talk - but others have already addressed every point you raised and it's okay that others disagree with your own personal views. For no one was seeking you out, nor is it the case that you have to be heard - but if it makes you feel better for others to affirm your views, one can do that elsewhere. It's not something people universally care to deal with.

You mean like this one? To quote me:

___________________________(LONG Copy Paste/needless commentary)
​

Since you ran from this, I thought I'd quote it again. I know facts are a bit intimidating.

No real need tackling this since it didn't deal with anything other than making a quote - and avoiding background. That - and as said before, no one was talking to you initially nor concerned with what you thought since it is generally from "Answers in Genesis" (again, NOT a PRIMARY source of info on understanding Eastern Christology and Eastern Eschatology or Origins)- and that's already problematic. You already contradicted yourself in trying to quote much from the "Answers in Genesis" articles on the Church Fathers - starting with Irenenus since he already noted where days could also be in reference to thousands of years later on in the rest of his writings - specifically in Chapter 23 of "Against Heresies", which came before the Chapter 28 you attempted to take OUT of context from his total writings. He never at ANY point claimed that days refereed to 24-hour periods and it's misrepresentation to ignore that simple point when trying to convey him as being like all YEC today.

The same goes for the treatment of Hippolytus - seeing that writing about the significance of days for thousands of years in the FUTURE is not the same as showing that his view of days is literally 24hour Days (and this also goes for Methodius, Lactantius and Victorinus)- and to speak past that is begging the question, as your premise doesn't match or verify the conclusions and is assumed without knowing the intent and history of the language he used. Had you actually been involved in the Orthodox Church and understanding the mindset of Divine Mystery and how the Fathers often saw events OUT of order at time, you'd understand that.

That said, it's bad enough when one doesn't deal properly with the context of the Fathers - but to jump from there/claim in hasty generalization that they ALL were YEC (as is defined today) is a spurious argument. It is a matter of OVER-STATING your case in the hopes that no one would catch it - seeing that it wasn't even a MAJORITY of what the Church Fathers said on the issue.

Again, the Fathers NEVER held to the stance which YEC have today when seeing the world made in a literal 24-hour day mindset - even though they held to the concept of a Young Earth - and that is the nature of what others have already pointed out when it came to their views of INSTANTENOUS CREATION. As said before, anyone remotely aware of how the Orthodox Church (of which the Church Fathers were a part of ) see things when it comes to what they stated directly. - more at Darwin, Evolution, Adam & Eve - Coptic Orthodox Divine Justice.

This is also seen in Augustine, whose doctrine of creation was complex. For as said before, all matter, according to him, was created on the first day. Subsequently God created pregnant ideas that Augustine called rationes seminales, which were imbedded in creation. Some only came to fruition afterwards, even, it might be argued, after the Fall. For Augustine , he thought that God could even have catered for the eventuality of the Fall of man into sin and the subsequent curse.

Excerpt from Augustine's "On Genesis" Book II "Question of the phase in which the moon was made" 15, 30

"God, after all is the author and founder of things in their actual natures. Now whatever any single thing may in some way or other produce and unfold by its natural development through periods of time that are suited to it, it contained it beforehand as something hidden, if not in specific forms and bodily mass, at least by the force and reckoning of nature, unless of course a tree, void of fruit and stripped of its leaves throughout the winter, is then to be called imperfect, or unless again at its origins, when it had still not yet borne any fruit, its nature was also imperfect. It is not only about the tree, but about its seed also that this could not rightly be said; there everything that with the passage of time is somehow or other going to appear is already latent in invisible ways. Although, if God were to make anything imperfect, which he then would himself bring to perfection, what would be reprehensible about such an idea? But you would be quite within your rights to disapprove if what had been begun by him were said to be completed and perfected by another."
​

The philosophical underpinnings of evolution are present, with others long noting that it should be remembered that we are not talking about changes from one kind to another... but merely a perfection of an existing, undifferentiated type to a more differentiated one.

But you already avoided him as well as the majority of others.

Seeing that none of that was you said in any way dealing with the context or history of the Church Fathers since any person can quote wha they say without dealing with the mindsets they had (as it concerns a Mystical point of view as is standard within Orthodoxy) and it was already addressed earlier ( #14 #16 #21 #24/#26 )- seeing how much of what you said can be traced back to be directly from "Answers in Genesis" that was more of the same with bunk. There's no escaping that if we're to honestly deal with them and I'm glad others in the Orthodox Church - which is in direct contrast with the approach taking by many in Evangelical culture - do a really good job of covering the matter

As said before, one can do better if they're going to be expected to be taken seriously - and if you don't even suscribe to what the Early Body of Believers noted when it comes to Orthodox Christology, there's zero basis in even trying to speak since you have a theological system diametrically opposed to how the Church Fathers operated anyhow within the Body of CHrist. It's No different than someone from Jamaican culture speaking on Reggae and having someone from Britain trying to tell them what Reggae means when they don't use the same langauge or have the same understanding of what music symboliszes.

I really look forward to more verbose responses about how the fathers justify your TE interpretations (and of course all the usual ad hominems).

More of the same with the rants (and humorous since you've already been verbose - thus making another argument based in consistent inconsistency). It's already unfortunate enough when one shows zero awareness of TE and Old Earth Creationism by trying to assume anything for long-earth age equates to TE - no different than assuming that no Creationist can believe in evolution of any type, including mirco-evolution - despite what Progressive Creationists note when speaking against Secular Evolution while also noting the Lord is able to "renew the face of the Earth" per Psalm 104 and "jumpstart" the natural system in bringing about changes in species. And for the sake of the lurker reading on, one can get basic information on the issue if choosing to go to Old-Earth Creation - Progressive Creation & Evolutionary Creationism (Theistic Evolution ) - Similarities and Differences between Old-Earth Views and Progressive Creation: An Overview - Evidence for God from Science

The fathers were by no means inspired, and made errors just like everyone else.

Distraction - as that has no bearing on the issue of discussing which ways the Early Church Fathers tended to lean toward in views. As it is, if one believes they were by no means inspired, then one has no business bringing them up as if they are authorative since that'd be arguing with it known you don't really feel a camp is of the Lord fully - and yet still trying to selectively use that camp when it's convienient to portray them as being on your side so that they can bolster your case.

But they sure as heck didn't agree with you. And they were virtually all YECs (I know you love when I point that out.) and had not issues at all with a miraculous creation

As said before, it really is inconsequential as to how you feel or choose to react just as it matters little what folks thought in Galileo's day when claiming (from their limited perspective based in always seeing things literally) that the Earth did not rotate according to the Psalms. Avoidance of the issues do not equate to addressment of the issues - nor does reacting in emotional argumentation (i.e. assuming anything disagreeing with your view equates to a stance denying Miraculous Creation - as if the Intelligent Design of the Lord in Creation suddenly leaves when you disagree ) suffice for real tackling of the subject.

Facts are facts - and the bottom line is that it is myth/urban legend whenever anyone remotely tries (from a 20th century mindset) to try ascribing Evangelical views on the Church Fathers - and as amusing/entertaining as it is to try spinning that as if their views were not allegorical/supportative of such and often against a literal perspective, it'll always be within the realm of entertainment. Dodging that in favor of trying to focus on posters/personal discussion - already against the rules (and subject to reporting if unable to resist that) - will always be red herrings/ad-hominems even as others do ad-hominemns by merely trying to repeat to others they did ad-homimens when called on it.

It is what it is - and it'd be wise to get over it If you cannot resist responding with more of the same in regards to empty arguments for YEC universally, you can do so just as others - but it's not a surprise.

 

[Calminian]

And as said before, accusation/argument via assertion is not the same as dealing with the facts credibly - and it does nothing harping or ranting without verification. Thus again, you are wasting people's time - ....

I'm wasting your time? I've never seen anyone use so many words to say so little LOL. You spend 75% of your posts throwing around ad homs, and the rest making very poor (IMHO) argument.

Seriously, when you can do better than the baseless commentary that generally comes from people obsessed with Fundamentalist Creationism, then you can talk - but others have already addressed every point you raised and it's okay that others disagree with your own personal views. For no one was seeking you out, nor is it the case that you have to be heard - but if it makes you feel better for others to affirm your views, one can do that elsewhere. It's not something people universally care to deal with.

Case in point. The above is wasting time with ad homs. It's almost like you have a fear of dialogue when challenges your core beliefs.

As said before, one can do better if they're going to be expected to be taken seriously - and if you don't even suscribe to what the Early Body of Believers noted when it comes to Orthodox Christology, there's zero basis in even trying to speak since you have a theological system diametrically opposed to how the Church Fathers operated anyhow within the Body of CHrist.

More of the same with the rants ..as it's already unfortunate enough when one shows zero awareness of TE and Old Earth Creationism by trying to assume anything for long-earth age equates to TE - no different than assuming that no Creationist can believe in evolution of any type, including mirco-evolution - despite what Progressive Creationists note when speaking against Secular Evolution while also noting the Lord is able to "renew the face of the Earth" per Psalm 104 and "jumpstart" the natural system in bringing about changes in species. And for the sake of the lurker reading on, one can get basic information on the issue if choosing to go to Old-Earth Creation - Progressive Creation & Evolutionary Creationism (Theistic Evolution ) - Similarities and Differences between Old-Earth Views

Distraction - as that has no bearing on the issue of discussing which ways the Early Church Fathers tended to lean toward in views. As said before, it really is inconsequential as to how you feel or choose to react just as it matters little what folks thought in Galileo's day when claiming (from their limited perspective based in always seeing things literally) that the Earth did not rotate according to the Psalms. Avoidance of the issues do not equate to addressment of the issues - nor does reacting in emotional argumentation (i.e. assuming anything disagreeing with your view equates to a stance denying Miraculous Creation) suffice for real tackling of the subject.

Facts are facts - and the bottom line is that it is myth/urban legend whenever anyone remotely tries (from a 20th century mindset) to try ascribing Evangelical views on the Church Fathers - and as amusing/entertaining as it is to try spinning that as if their views were not allegorical/supportative of such and often against a literal perspective, it'll always be within the realm of entertainment. Dodging that in favor of trying to focus on posters/personal discussion - already against the rules (and subject to reporting if unable to resist that) - will always be red herrings/ad-hominems even as others do ad-hominemns by merely trying to repeat to others they did ad-homimens when called on it.

It is wha it is - and it'd be wise to get over it If you cannot resist responding with more of the same in regards to empty arguments for YEC universally, you can do so just as others - but it's not a surprise.

And more ad homs. But hey, if you want to waste your time being uptight, be my guest. It's just a shame the fathers aren't here to defend themselves.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm wasting your time? I've never seen anyone use so many words to say so little LOL. You spend 75% of your posts throwing around ad homs, and the rest making very poor (IMHO) argument. .

Again, amusing - but fultile if expecting to be taken seriously when you've already avoided serious addressment and spent way too many words (as well as using the words from "Answers in Genesis") to say very little in terms of historical merit.

Ad-hominems via appeal to ridicule (which can easily be resorted to when cornered) are not the same as logical addressment of facts - and as the facts have already been addressed, one can either choose wisdom/move on - or quit wasting people's time with the equivalent of "Yo Mama!!!" jokes as if that even qualifies for substantial discussion. As said before, if you want others to agree with you, there are plenty of people who will do so - but no one was seeking you or your views out here when you chose to come after people with more of the same with useless accusations simply because others disagree with you/a number of false scenarios you came into things with - and call you out when thinking it will not be challenged.

Case in point. The above is wasting time with ad homs. It's almost like you have a fear of dialogue when challenges your core beliefs.

More with the needless commentary and argument via emotional appeal (in the same way others give a false argument by misquoting what other say - and then, when others refuse to accept it since it's not their words, the person making the false argument tries to spin things to an emotional perspective like claiming "It's as if you want to avoid being honest with your views" - and that game does little when it comes to the facts, even though it works well in politics.

You already are doing the same thing you say no one else does - but as said before, others have already called it out/noted it and it'd behoove you to either square with it....or cease attemping to spin anything disagreeing with you as an avoidance of core beliefs when the bottom line is that you showed no understanding of what beliefs were properly to begin with. People are not going to respond to others thinking they're chasing giants when they're simply going after windmills/seeing them as being other than what they are
quote]

And more ad homs. But hey, if you want to waste your time being uptight, be my guest. It's just a shame the fathers aren't here to defend themselves

[/quote]Already noted where you were addressed - regardless of the lack in restraint with attempt at personal discussion the moment others disagree.

And as said before, either you can address what was said earlier if wanting real dialouge - or quit wasting the time of others with back-and-forth commentary that is distraction to what the author of the OP talked about. The same goes for what the Church Fathers (a part of the Orthodox/Ancient Christian Faith which you're NOT a part of ) - as one without a proper understanding of Eastern CHristology/Eastern Christianity has no business trying to talk on them before others who are in that camp...and till you actually become a part of the Orthodox Church as the Fathers were, trying to quote "Answers in Genesis" isn't going to cut it.

It is what it is - and as said before, get over it. Moving on...

 

[Calminian]

Again, amusing - but fultile if expecting to be taken seriously when you've already avoided serious addressment and spent way too many words to say very little in terms of merit
As said before, if you want others to agree with you, there are plenty of people who will do so - but no one was seeking you or your views out here when you chose to come after people with more of the same with useless accusations simply because others disagree with you - and call you out when thinking it will not be challenged

Well keep in mind, when I respond, it's not merely a response to the poster. This is a public forum, and your posts are public. You need not flatter yourself thinking I'm paying special attention to you. I'm merely correcting your public errors, and enjoying myself just a tad as well. Please don'f feel the need to dialogue with me, though I have a feeling you're not going to be able to resist.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Well keep in mind, when I respond, it's not merely a response to the poster.

As said before, it is inconsequential - for no one cares to respond to others who cannot respond properly - nor is it wisdom when others have asked you not to contact/respond to them if unable to deal with what they say properly and begin in personal commentary (which was noted to the mods who have already stated plainly where such is not to occur).

This is a public forum, and your posts are public. You need not flatter yourself thinking I'm paying special attention to you. I'm merely correcting your public errors, and enjoying myself just a tad as well. Please don'f feel the need to dialogue with me, though I have a feeling you're not going to be able to resist.

As said before, it is inconsisent arguing one doesn't focus on others when they make it habit to address others - nor is it within the rules when others have already asked directly to cease contact if/when you're unable to avoid misrepresentation (As the mods note) - so if you want to be reported further, by all means let me know and it'll be handled as it was last time you tried the same against what CF noted to be approrpriate.

This already occurred before - and was addressed - as flamming is not the same as addressing posts/topics.

As it is, it is already ironic since you made several public errors even when not seeing them and only seeing others doing so - and that's not a surprise since all are at different levels. It's not that difficult to address point-for-point, as what matters are the facts (which, regardless of if enjoyment/pleasure is present or not, is the prominent issue as opposed to argument for its own sake - Proverbs 17:19 /Proverbs 18:1 /Proverbs 22:10 /Ecclesiastes 7:7-9) - and so long as error is promoted, it'll be addressed. It's just unfortunate when others cannot see that./

Prayerfullly, people can be gracious and move on - but as said before, it is doubtful you'll be unable to resist posting again with more of the same (and if/when doing so, it'll be reported further). As said before, it'd be wisdom to learn when to walk away rather than resorting to personal commentary.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Even if we don't have evolution, common ancestry still remains a fact of life, we just wouldn't have a materialistic explanation for biodiversity. This is what I mean by evolution being dependent on common ancestry, and not the other way around. I say this because I have noted many people who claim evolution is true on the basis of common ancestry being true. Though you are right, in that it really isn't so black and white, and that there are always multiple elements influencing this change over time.
.

Very true

 

[Calminian]

As said before, it is inconsequential - for no one cares to respond to others who cannot respond properly - nor is it wisdom when others have asked you not to contact/respond to them if unable to deal with what they say properly and begin in personal commentary (which was noted to the mods who have already stated plainly where such is not to occur).
As said before, it is inconsisent arguing one doesn't focus on others when they make it habit to address others - nor is it within the rules when others have already asked directly to cease contact if/when you're unable to avoid misrepresentation (As the mods note) - so if you want to be reported further, by all means let me know and it'll be handled as it was last time you tried the same against what CF noted to be approrpriate.

As it is, it is already ironic since you made several public errors even when not seeing them and only seeing others doing so - and that's not a surprise since all are at different levels. It's not that difficult to address point-for-point, as what matters is the facts - and so long as error is promoted, it'll be addressed. It's just unfortunate when others cannot see that.

Okay, fine, we'll start reporting each other again. LOL.

I do recall last time you tried this just about all your insulting posts got removed. I guess you didn't learn your lesson.

I will make a note to the mods as well, and reserved my right to respond to challenge any of your posts. Yes, this is well within the rules.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Okay, fine, we'll start reporting each other again. LOL.

I do recall last time you tried this just about all your insulting posts got removed. I guess you didn't learn your lesson.
.

Again, reported for more of the same

I will make a note to the mods as well, and reserved my right to respond to challenge any of your posts. Yes, this is well within the rules.

Inconsequential as it concerns personal discussion.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yes, evolution could happen without common ancestry -- changes within a bunch of created or manufactured (or spontaneously arising) species with no shared ancestry between them. Yes, that doesn't describe life on our planet, where common ancestry is abundantly supported by a wealth of data.

I agree - there are a myriad of ways things could go down

 

[Calminian]

Actually (as seen in #27 ), seeing that it was noted that off-topic commentary (which you were doing - and trying to do again, in addition to flamming) were the main issues and the responses thereof were done to address that (as was shared when I talked to the mods/got feedback), context was never on response to your comments being "insulting" - and that also goes for what the mods did to tackle that when it came to comments you made immediately afterward with more of the same (also taken off due to not adhering to the rules ). There's never a reason to resoirt to personal comments - be it in the initial engagement of a post or later - simply because others disagree...and that will always be an issue.

Inconsequential, as flamming is not the same as addressing posts/topics - and as said before, it'd be wisdom to learn when to walk away rather than resorting to personal commentary.

Okay, now this is really off-topic and filled with personal attacks. But I'm sure it will end up getting deleted, just like last time.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Okay, now this is really off-topic and filled with personal attacks. But I'm sure it will end up getting deleted, just like last time.

Again, Reported...as it dishonors the OP to continue further.

 

[Calminian]

Again, Reported...as it dishonors the OP to continue further.

LOL. Really? The only word I can think of to describe this is tattling.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

we know that several other processes have also been important, process that weren't really included in early evolutionary theorizing. For example, genetic drift and endosymbiosis have both contributed to evolution.

Genetic Drift has always been intriguingin studying when seeing the intracacies within it