• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Quantum Paradise

Junior Member
Jul 14, 2013
175
8
✟349.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Food for thought.

A matter of differentiating between the dependent and independent variables, which is which? I once came across a certain person online who essentially asked me, "How could you have common ancestry without evolution?", when in actuality...you can very well have common ancestry without evolution, but it cannot be vice versa.

Obviously, as genetic ancestry is the observed natural phenomenon, whereas evolution is the explanatory device. But how often do we take this for granted and equate the two, as if they are somehow inextricably linked? That simply because we observe certain ancestral traits, that means "evolution is true"?

My two cents
 

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Food for thought.

A matter of differentiating between the dependent and independent variables, which is which? I once came across a certain person online who essentially asked me, "How could you have common ancestry without evolution?", when in actuality...you can very well have common ancestry without evolution, but it cannot be vice versa.


Yes, common ancestry is inferred from the theory (and observation) of evolution. If you have evolution, you must have some degree of common ancestry.

That common ancestry includes all known living species is based on evidence.

Obviously, as genetic ancestry is the observed natural phenomenon, whereas evolution is the explanatory device. But how often do we take this for granted and equate the two, as if they are somehow inextricably linked? That simply because we observe certain ancestral traits, that means "evolution is true"?


It is evolution that predicts common ancestry. So common ancestry per se is not "evidence" for evolution. But having noted that with evolution, there must be common ancestry, scientists can then go on to make specific predictions about what must and must not be observed in nature as a consequence. For example, descendants cannot appear historically before their ancestors. Hence, there can be no rabbit fossils in Cambrian strata, since the earliest terrestrial vertebrates don't appear until the Devonian. One can make hundreds, even thousands, of predictions about the patterns that will appear in genomes, morphology, paleontology and other fields based on the inference of common ancestry.

It is the confirmation that these patterns exist and patterns that would contradict common ancestry do not exist that has led to common ancestry being called the great fact of evolution.


Here is a thought experiment for you.

Common ancestry predicts that a creature midway between a fish and an amphibian had to exist sometime in the Devonian; that prediction was confirmed by the discovery of the fossil Tiktaalik.

Common ancestry also predicts that a creature midway between a crocodile and a duck cannot exist. And to date, no crocoduck, either live or fossilized, has been found, nor is it expected that any will be found.

Why does common ancestry predict the first and forbid the second?



My two cents

Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Quantum Paradise

Junior Member
Jul 14, 2013
175
8
✟349.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Hi gluadys, thanks for taking the time.

Yes, common ancestry is inferred from the theory (and observation) of evolution. If you have evolution, you must have some degree of common ancestry.
The latter statement is a given, not sure about the former. If we observe a shared ERV within various primates, how is that inferring common ancestry from the ToE? Would we not infer common ancestry from what is observed at the genetic level? Meaning, the genetic evidence? Isn't genetics the greatest evidence demonstrating common ancestry?

That common ancestry includes all known living species is based on evidence.
Absolutely.

It is evolution that predicts common ancestry. So common ancestry per se is not "evidence" for evolution. But having noted that with evolution, there must be common ancestry, scientists can then go on to make specific predictions about what must and must not be observed in nature as a consequence. For example, descendants cannot appear historically before their ancestors. Hence, there can be no rabbit fossils in Cambrian strata, since the earliest terrestrial vertebrates don't appear until the Devonian. One can make hundreds, even thousands, of predictions about the patterns that will appear in genomes, morphology, paleontology and other fields based on the inference of common ancestry.

It is the confirmation that these patterns exist and patterns that would contradict common ancestry do not exist that has led to common ancestry being called the great fact of evolution.
Up until this point, I see plenty of facts supporting the reality of common ancestry, but not evolution. The big question is, should we be inferring common ancestry from evolution, or evolution from common ancestry? We seem to presuppose evolution quite often, but isn't it very inappropriate to "presuppose" common ancestry, when we know this to be a fact of life? I hope you can catch my angle. Why do we call it the great fact of evolution? Common ancestry is still common ancestry, even without evolution. Shouldn't we call it the great fact of life? Doesn't that fit better?

Here is a thought experiment for you.

Common ancestry predicts that a creature midway between a fish and an amphibian had to exist sometime in the Devonian; that prediction was confirmed by the discovery of the fossil Tiktaalik.

Common ancestry also predicts that a creature midway between a crocodile and a duck cannot exist. And to date, no crocoduck, either live or fossilized, has been found, nor is it expected that any will be found.

Why does common ancestry predict the first and forbid the second?

Yes, because it is sequential. We can liken it to any chemical process, you don't magically obtain finished materials straight from the raw / unrefined counterparts, there is a sequence to the whole thing.
Up until this point, I view common ancestry as the fact of nature, and as the powerful predictive tool. Where does evolution fit in? Can it fit in? Does it always fit in? Do we simply assume it to fit in?
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,825
7,845
65
Massachusetts
✟392,220.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure exactly what's being asked here. 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.

What I don't understand is how there could be common ancestry without some kind of evolution, by which I mean some kind of change to species. If two species share a common ancestor but have different characteristics, then at least one of them has changed. Does the change have to have been the result of random mutation and natural selection? No, we can't show that. In fact, 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.

We usually have too little information about evolutionary change to say with certainty what processes were involved, but the processes we know about seem adequate to explain the history of life, and other processes aren't known to exist. So we have processes that we know occur, that we can watch causing evolutionary change in real time, and that seem adequate to the job, with no competing alternatives. What exactly is the question, then?
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Food for thought.

A matter of differentiating between the dependent and independent variables, which is which? I once came across a certain person online who essentially asked me, "How could you have common ancestry without evolution?", when in actuality...you can very well have common ancestry without evolution, but it cannot be vice versa.

Obviously, as genetic ancestry is the observed natural phenomenon, whereas evolution is the explanatory device. But how often do we take this for granted and equate the two, as if they are somehow inextricably linked? That simply because we observe certain ancestral traits, that means "evolution is true"?

My two cents

There is no real question of common ancestry. The only real question is if the evidence warrants the supposition that every living thing traces it's lineage back to single cell organisms in the primordial seas. All evolution really needs to be true is a change in the alleles (traits), especially when they are adaptive traits improving fitness. The only question for me are there limits and what are the means.

What your calling evolution is the a priori assumption of universal common descent. That's not evolution, that's a naturalistic assumption that God had nothing to do with it.

And that's my two cents worth,

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Quantum Paradise

Junior Member
Jul 14, 2013
175
8
✟349.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
I'm not sure exactly what's being asked here. 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.

What I don't understand is how there could be common ancestry without some kind of evolution, by which I mean some kind of change to species. If two species share a common ancestor but have different characteristics, then at least one of them has changed. Does the change have to have been the result of random mutation and natural selection? No, we can't show that. In fact, 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.

We usually have too little information about evolutionary change to say with certainty what processes were involved, but the processes we know about seem adequate to explain the history of life, and other processes aren't known to exist. So we have processes that we know occur, that we can watch causing evolutionary change in real time, and that seem adequate to the job, with no competing alternatives. What exactly is the question, then?

I understand that common ancestry means species change over time, that is a given. The question I'm raising is does that change have to be "evolution", or can it be like you said, a type of evolution or something different entirely. 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.

You do bring a practical perspective as well, I'm just way too used to discussing these topics with the evo fundies who treat evolution like a gospel truth they chant as they crusade against the religious, as opposed to treating it like a living, breathing science and progressing it for the sake of science. Too much time on youtube :doh:

In any case, thanks for the input. Helped me broaden my horizon a bit.
 
Upvote 0

Quantum Paradise

Junior Member
Jul 14, 2013
175
8
✟349.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
There is no real question of common ancestry. The only real question is if the evidence warrants the supposition that every living thing traces it's lineage back to single cell organisms in the primordial seas. All evolution really needs to be true is a change in the alleles (traits), especially when they are adaptive traits improving fitness. The only question for me are there limits and what are the means.

What your calling evolution is the a priori assumption of universal common descent. That's not evolution, that's a naturalistic assumption that God had nothing to do with it.

And that's my two cents worth,

Grace and peace,
Mark

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the interesting post, I'll make it a point to take this to the bank.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Up until this point, I see plenty of facts supporting the reality of common ancestry, but not evolution. The big question is, should we be inferring common ancestry from evolution, or evolution from common ancestry? We seem to presuppose evolution quite often, but isn't it very inappropriate to "presuppose" common ancestry, when we know this to be a fact of life? I hope you can catch my angle. Why do we call it the great fact of evolution? Common ancestry is still common ancestry, even without evolution.
In regards to your question, part of me was reminded of amazing creatures such as Pangolins, also known as “scaly anteaters,” due to the scales they posses (and being the only real mammals with scales). With the Pangolin, I had seen such creatures before in books - but never looked much into it after that. Studying them more in action, I was like "God is amazing in how much he can create :)." When you look at them, they look like they're in chainmail worn by knights. Mini-soldiers ready for battle. .....











Mammal versions of Rollie Pollie bugs/pillbugs/cellarbugs (with those bugs being what my cousins and I used to play with for hours rolling them ) - and it's a trip that a mammal can have the same features as bugs ..or really crustaceans (as creatures such as pillbugs are terrestial crustaceans and are more closely related to lobsters, shrimp and crayfish ). Of course, for me, it's also amazing to see some of the aspects from Theistic Evolution that come into view when seeing convergent evolution and how certain species - differing as they are - will still share similar traits even in completely differing environments.....evolutionary convergence being the observation that some unrelated groups of animals or plants have, though natural selection, converged on similar “designs” when they find themselves in similar environments. The classic examples are the placental and marsupial mammals (both, for example, have evolved mole-like forms), the vertebrate and cephalopod eyes, the fusiform shape of dolphins, fish, and ichthyosaurs. And to see similarities in species like Pillbugs and Pangolins is no different than seeing how some animals do things others only expect with others - like how in some ways, monotremes are very primitive for mammals because, like reptiles and birds, they lay eggs rather than having live birth....the only examples being the duck-billed platypus and four species of echidna (also known as spiny anteaters) - with it being the case that pangolins are related to the echidna :) ^_^:​










Even in knowing what an actual enchinda was, it is amazing when seeing the differences between them and pangolins - and yet the pangolin in its design is a parallel image of itself.​


With Convergent Evolution, although Charles Darwin famously concluded On the Origin of Species with a vision of "endless forms most beautiful" continually evolving, more than 150 years later many evolutionary biologists see not endless forms but the same, or very similar, forms evolving repeatedly in many independent species lineages. For example, a porpoise's fishlike fins are not inherited from fish ancestors but are independently derived convergent traits. ...and the same applies for the Pangolin.​


To be clear, I am not one who is 100% for anything and everything done in the name of Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary theory - as my views have tended to go toward Progressive Creationism (from the larger system of Old Earth Creationism) - and 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 or Progressive Creation: An Overview - Evidence for God from Science
That said, there are still aspects within Theistic Evolution that I can see having a lot of merit - and so long as Intelligent Design is present, there are many other things I don't have a problem with ultimately. For myself, seeing Pangolins is just a testament to the fact that either evolutionary theory is true ...with it being GOD who's behind spontaneous developments that seem "random" to us when they're in fact planned...or it's the case that God sometimes does things for the sake of humor and to throw us off so we'd not think categories could fully capture his genius. Like some animals he made were done specifically because he said " I think I'll take pillbug and mix it with mammal - just because I can!!" ^_^








 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
There is no real question of common ancestry. The only real question is if the evidence warrants the supposition that every living thing traces it's lineage back to single cell organisms in the primordial seas. All evolution really needs to be true is a change in the alleles (traits), especially when they are adaptive traits improving fitness. The only question for me are there limits and what are the means.
Very true
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Gxg (G²);63609850 said:
Mammal versions of Rollie Pollie bugs/pillbugs/cellarbugs (with those bugs being what my cousins and I used to play with for hours rolling them ) - and it's a trip that a mammal can have the same features as bugs ..​


If you believe they were designed by a common designer, it's not really that much of a trip. It's what you would expect to see.

Gxg (G²);63609850 said:
Of course, for me, it's also amazing to see some of the aspects from Theistic Evolution that come into view when seeing convergent evolution and how certain species - differing as they are - will still share similar traits even in completely differing environments.....evolutionary convergence being the observation that some unrelated groups of animals or plants have, though natural selection, converged on similar “designs” when they find themselves in similar environments.

Or you could just come to your senses, and reject naturalism and accept special creation.

Gxg (G²);63609850 said:
The classic examples are the placental and marsupial mammals (both, for example, have evolved mole-like forms), the vertebrate and cephalopod eyes, the fusiform shape of dolphins, fish, and ichthyosaurs. And to see similarities in species like Pillbugs and Pangolins is no different than seeing how some animals do things others only expect with others - like how in some ways, monotremes are very primitive for mammals because, like reptiles and birds, they lay eggs rather than having live birth....the only examples being the duck-billed platypus and four species of echidna (also known as spiny anteaters) - with echidnas being related to Pangolins :) ^_^ .

Yet another great reason to reject evolution.

Gxg (G²);63609850 said:
For myself, seeing Pangolins is just a testament to the fact that either evolutionary theory is true ...with it being GOD who's behind spontaneous developments that seem "random" to us when they're in fact planned...or it's the case that God sometimes does things for the sake of humor and to throw us off so we'd not think categories could fully capture his genius. Like some animals he made were done specifically because he said " I think I'll take pillbug and mix it with mammal - just because I can!!" ^_^

How about dolphins, sharks and ichthyosaurs? Some advice to consider: look at the world through Genesis glasses, rather than looking at Genesis through naturalistic glasses. It's a wonderful freeing experience.

Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
If you believe they were designed by a common designer, it's not really that much of a trip. It's what you would expect to see.
:doh:Seeing where species are designed by a common designer isn't the same as noting where species can have interconnection of traits others feel are unique to the species - the point that was raised to begin with.
Or you could just come to your senses, and reject naturalism and accept special creation.
Doesn't take naturalism to note connection in species/development- nor is special creation counter to naturalism when it comes to seeing God's hand in guiding the whole of creation - both by the way He designed it and the way He (as noted in Psalm 104) renews the face of the Earth.....and none of it being by chance. As said best elsewhere by one believer:


One can be a faithful, committed Christian and believe that evolution is very likely scientifically true. You can be a Christian and believe that God perhaps intentionally set the path of life on its evolutionary path, that He intentionally drew human beings out of the line, breathed His Spirit into us and made us in His Image. Some people call this “theistic evolution” – as opposed to “naturalistic evolution,” which I described in the previous paragraph. It’s not about a huge cosmic accident, but rather, about God doing exactly what He wanted how He wanted to do it. Believing this does not necessarily need to conflict with a belief in God, Jesus or even in the Truth of the Bible as God’s Word.

Any type of naturalism that leaves out the Lord being in control is within the realm of what's Unbiblical (more by Tim Keller in Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople - BioLogos as well as here and here) and this was well understood by the early church, as they were more sensible than a lot of the new innovations coming out from much of the YEC movement today - and it's something which has already been noted here when it comes to remembering that the universe and all life in it originated in its present form by unconditional fiat or divine decree. Thus, to even attempt to throw out the accusation as if others didn't believe in special creation is a matter of choosing to not be reasonable by trying to accuse others on it outside of context - but truthfully, there's nothing sensible about all in the Body supporting special creation in the sense of forgetting the nature of terms to begin with when assuming anything with the term "evolution" in it must be off...and it's not something worth losing sleep over...

Moreover, as said before when similar commentary came up in previous discussion, it's one thing focusing on an individual/asserting - and another issue altogether addressing a point logically/factually. Not really concerned with having more of the same that already occurred in previous discussion when divorcing what's seen in creation from science and assuming others support something when they didn't.

Yet another great reason to reject evolution.
Not really - seeing that there already enough reasons creationists (of the Young Earth kind) tend to ignore the actual facts of what evolution was about to begin with - and it's nothing new at all.
How about dolphins, sharks and ichthyosaurs? Some advice to consider: look at the world through Genesis glasses, rather than looking at Genesis through naturalistic glasses. It's a wonderful freeing experience.

Just a thought.
Thought was already examined by the early church - and debunked for what it was when it came to avoiding scripture to fit into categories scripture never demanded - and it's wonderful enough avoiding that:cool: For Genesis as it was understood by the Early Church/previous eras never was seen through glasses of YEC as if those glasses were clear enough to see in ( as already discussed before in#69 - and #2#17 #68 #88 #89 #101 )....and the Lord letting things develop as he desired was not a matter of "naturalism" but of Design. It's always wise to have terms accuratet before speaking on them

Moving on...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
I understand that common ancestry means species change over time, that is a given.

No, actually common ancestry does not mean species change over time. Evolution means species change over time. Common ancestry means two or more species evolved in different directions from a common ancestor.

Theoretically, you can have a species change its characteristics over time, but always stay a single species. But when you have populations splitting into separate groups with each group evolving henceforth apart from the other groups you get a historic pattern of change that has the appearance of a tree, with all branches coming from the same root. That is what common ancestry is about.




The question I'm raising is does that change have to be "evolution", or can it be like you said, a type of evolution or something different entirely. 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.



I think what we have is some confusion about how logic works in science, about what are the premises and what are the conclusions.

Evolution raises two sorts of issues:
1. what is the mechanism by which characteristics of a species change? That is the stuff of mutations, natural selection, and a whole host of other mechanisms.
2. what is the historic pattern of evolutionary change? Are there many different independent lineages (as there are many independent trees in an orchard) or are there historic connections among different types of species (like branches on a single tree)?

It was pretty clear to Darwin, as it is to you, that the pattern we observe is the second. Common ancestry is a fact of life.

Now, here is where the logic comes in.
Can we derive common ancestry from the logic of how species change?

And the fact is that we can. When we go over what produces species changes, we see the role that environmental conditions play. Or simply the role that geographical separation plays. We can see that brown bears adapting to Arctic life develop white fur, while those that remained further south retained brown fur. We see a group of lizards transferred to a different island developing a different digestive system to deal with different food, while their siblings back home don't. We can even start colonies of fruit flies whose founders are all hatched from the same batch of eggs from the same mother and by raising them under different conditions produce populations that are genetically and morphologically diverse and who will not or cannot mate with members of other colonies derived from the same ancestor.

So we get the basic combination of concepts 1 & 2 above. Put the mechanisms of 1 to work but divide your species into two or more different groups or gene pools, and over time, not only will you see species changing their characters (evolution), you will see the different groups diverging into separate species (common descent). Repeat the same process and evolutionary change under these circumstances MUST give you common ancestry.

One of your questions seems to be whether some other process of change could also produce common ancestry. And the answer, so far as I am aware, is "no". Another process might give a superficial appearance of common ancestry, but this appearance would not really come about through actual inherited relationships. It would be an artifice manufactured to look like common ancestry.

And because it is an artifice, common ancestry cannot be logically derived from the process itself. A designer might choose to work a common theme through several designs, but it is always optional. There can always be unique designs with no connection to others.

Evolutionary change always requires descent, actual inherited relationships. Since no other process does, evolutionary change is the most obvious choice as the mechanism which produces common ancestry.


Now this is one kind of logic. I began with an given fact (common ancestry) and asked if evolution could be an explanation for it. Similarly Darwin began with what was known of the classification of plants and animals and deduced that descent with modification explained taxonomy.


A different sort of logic is this. Start with your hypothesis and ask "What are the necessary consequences if this hypothesis is true?" One place Darwin did this was in regard to the geographical distribution of species. What can we expect if species are created in situ as opposed to being modified descendants of earlier ancestors?

Darwin noted that species on islands always resemble those on a nearby mainland. The finches of Galapagos did not resemble European finches, but South American finches. This makes sense if they evolved from a common ancestor, but not if they were separately created or intelligently designed. No designer must make finches on any island only like those of a nearby mainland. A designer could make finches on the Galapagos like those in China instead of like those in Ecuador.

We can take many examples like this in many different fields and ask of various proposals, what would you expect in this situation given the mechanism you propose?

Time and again, we find that what we would logically expect from an evolutionary process of descent from common ancestors agrees with what we actually observe.

I have never seen proponents of other mechanisms even try to test their hypotheses in this way.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Gxg (G²);63610428 said:
:doh:Seeing where species are designed by a common designer isn't the same as noting where species can have interconnection of traits others feel are unique to the species - the point that was raised to begin with. Doesn't take naturalism to note connection in species/development- nor is special creation the solution since the early church never advocated it when it came to seeing nature...and they were more sensible than a lot of the new innovations coming out from YEC today.

Actually the early church was almost exclusively special creationists and young earthers. Even Augustine believed in an instantaneous creation and a young earth (less that 10,000 years old).

The early church would not have recognized the TE movement today. They certainly believed in allegory, but never in place of Genesis as a historical narrative. Most of them believe in literal days which also had futuristic allegorical meanings. But they were nowhere near the stuff you believe.

Gxg (G²);63610428 said:
and it's not something worth losing sleep over...

I sleep like a baby, just don't want the church to miss the blessing of trusting scripture.

Gxg (G²);63610428 said:
Not really - seeing that there already enough reasons creationists (of the Young Earth kind) tend to ignore the actual facts of what evolution was about to begin with - and it's nothing new at all.

What Biblical creationists are doing is looking at evidence through Biblical glasses. When you do that it's amazing how things work out so perfectly. Suddenly the Flood legends found all over the world make sense, as to other legends, dragons, etc. Belief in naturalistic theories takes a different kind of glasses, and a different set of presuppositions. It's strange though you're using the early church to justify this. 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
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Actually the early church was almost exclusively special creationists and young earthers. Even Augustine believed in an instantaneous creation and a young earth (less that 10,000 years old).
Not according to the early church fathers - as they already noted man being created in a special act by the Lord but never took that stance of all things in nature not being able to naturally develop in whatever they wanted.

It's revisionist history claiming the early church fathers were young earthers since they spoke explicitly against it - including Augustine who did not accept a literal 6 day creation account and noted that no one has to either. But as said before, this has already been addressed - and there's no need rehasing the issue if it cannot be handled accurately.


The early church would not have recognized the TE movement today. They certainly believed in allegory, but never in place of Genesis as a historical narrative. Most of them believe in literal days which also had futuristic allegorical meanings. But they were nowhere near the stuff you believe.
Not according to the early church - and again, it is a revisionist attempt in history when it comes to the issue of the Early Church Fathers being ignored when they did not hold to a literal 6 day view - and there's no escaping that simple fact. Most people claiming otherwise tend to be within the Fundamentalist evangelical world which is already divorced from the Early Church/Church tradition as it is - and thus, it's no surprise when things get claimed on them which they never held to.

But as said before, the early church was never reflective of YEC and one has to strecth alot to try imagining such.

I sleep like a baby, just don't want the church to miss the blessing of trusting scripture.
Church already trusts in scripture - although what they never trusted in was a view of scripture divorced from context, science and the reality of understanding proper category.

What Biblical creationists are doing is looking at evidence through Biblical glasses. When you do that it's amazing how things work out so perfectly. Suddenly the Flood legends found all over the world make sense, as to other legends, dragons, etc. Belief in naturalistic theories takes a different kind of glasses, and a different set of presuppositions. It's strange though you're using the early church to justify this. They were much closer to me than you.
Cute - but as said before, none of that has anything to with the issues and is a matter of imagining what one believes to be Biblical because one must force scripture to fit into a set of terms/understanding in order to accept ideas which they already had to begin with - and that's avoiding the Word of God in the way the Word was understood originally.

It's not strange seeing you avoid the Early Church on that issue (and a bit humorous with the claims of them being closer to your views despite where those views were already divorced from the CHurch Fathers at multiple points) - as you have already done that before ...even though not all YEC do so thankfully - and as said previously, if you're going to do that, one can do so alone. For it's not a worthy investment of time, IMHO.

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 as said before, none of that deals at any point with the CHurch Fathers in what they actually stood for - and all of that was already addressed in previous discussion when it comes to the many ways YEC leave out context in trying to use the Ancient Church to fit into a Fundamentalist perspective. If one's going to try speaking on the early church, one can do better than "Answers in Genesis" (With Ken Ham) and others who were never with the Ancient Church - nor understanding of it with other things.

For other places to consider:

As said before (on resources):
Evolution is not our enemy. Science is not the enemy of Faith, except when science replaces Faith. Neither is Faith the enemy of Science, unless it abolishes science as useless. Either of these two scenarios is impermissable. We know that this world and all of its wisdom is passing away. But in the meanwhile, we must try to take care of our sick and suffering, using whatever knowledge can help us in this.
Gxg (G²);60253613 said:
To be clear, alot of what I'm saying is within the realm of truly seeking to find out if it'd be possible for one to appreciate Orthodox thought and the subejct of Theistic Evolution (or evolution in any way) at any time---or if one must always go with what much of Young Earth Creationism is about. Some things that my sister brought up I really had to wrestle with, especially as it concerns things to what degree Adam/Eve multiplied...and if evolution could have been present in the text without the authors feeling like they had to explain everything...and if the Fathers were here today, I do wonder if they'd have an issue with it--or how they'd go about explaining things...


I was able to find this much on the subject, from Kallistos Ware:

Of all the so called "developed countries" in the world today, the rejection of biological evolution in whole or in part is a phenomenon that is peculiar and unique to the US, and found primarily in evangelical-fundamentalist circles. As Abp. Puhalo mentions, the arguments against it simply aren't convincing in the least, and offer no evidence to the contrary.
Chapter 11 tells me that Adam and Eve were historical. Because it goes back as far as their immediate children and references Abel's death. And because it treats those two men, and that event, no differently than later personages and events which I'm sure we agree are historical.

Whatever the writer of Hebrews is doing in other chapters, in chapter 11 he's lumping men like Abel, Cain, and Enoch in with men like David, Samuel, and the prophets to display a showplace of faith in God. If the latter are historical, and the earlier are treated no differently, then so are the earlier.

That's enough for me: Abel and Cain were actual men, and Genesis 4 describes Abel's death. And if Abel in Genesis 4 is historical, I think it's just logical to conclude that his parents in the previous chapter are also historical.

Btw, I'm not going to conclude that the writer of Hebrews was so clueless of the OT that he confused allegory and history. Hebrews is scripture, after all. If we can't come to terms with it, isn't the lack of understanding ours?

Heh, we've now traveled a looooooooooong way from the OP. But that's how these threads can sometimes turn.
Gxg (G²);62382948 said:
Concerning what I've seen in patristic studies, St. Augustine thought that others were to not take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history...and as one believing in science, he remarked that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up. Later on, Galileo followed the same train of thought as Augustine when it came to his used defense of heliocentrism, and claiming it was not contrary to those Scripture.

The church at large felt that the Psalms always be taken literally----hermenutics makes a difference. People often said "take the word of God as it is" when it came to saying that only GEOCENTRISM was the valid view...and when Galieo came along later with support for heliocentrism/viewing scripture as did Augustine in that not all passages in were to be taken literally if it were a book of poetry or songs---especially the ones such as Psalm 93:1 and I Chronicles 16:30 on the Earth not moving. Galileo continued to press his case...and consequently, the church called him a "heretic" /put him on house arrest for ages. It wasn't until much later that the church recognized Galileo's claims had merit---and that perhaps their views of the scripture needed to be adjusted.


As it concerns the BIBLICAL account, IMHO, there's no real reason to assume that it's an EITHER-Or scenario where it must be either literal or figurative....and moreover, its not as if what's in scripture does not go alongside what's discussed in the world of science. For I think its sad to see how many in Christian camps have done damage when it comes to working with atheists in the world of science.....and avoiding evidence in anthropology that may go counter to what one interpretation of the scriptures say. However, its even sadder to witness how many Atheists assume that all Christians throughout history have been the same as those Christians doing damage....for that's not historically accurate. I'm again reminded of one of the greatest examples of religion driving science/not being its enemy - for St.Augustine of Hippo. St. Augustine (354-430) was the most influential theologian of the Middle Ages, gave thought for others to base their research on when it came to Christianity/science.


In his view of Genesis, he believed that God created all things simultaneously....where some things were made in fully developed form as we see them today, and other things were made in a potential form, so that in time they might become the way we see them now. He was also explicit that God did not create the world over the course of six temporal days. ..for as he mentioned in his book "The Literal Meaning of Genesis"/St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis: Books 7-12 , "The sacred writer was able to separate in the time of his narrative what God did not separate in time in His creative act" (p. 36).

Augustine's thoughts caused him to take Creation Account as both allegorical and literal...for an allegorical interpretation does not necessarily preclude a literal interpretation, as interpreters such as Origen of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo maintained that the Bible is true on multiple levels at the same time.

Essentially, when God made certain creations, it could also mean that some creations were instantaneous/fully developed while others were created instantly..though in the form of baseline material/"potential" growing with time. For example, the Word makes clear that all creatures were formed out of the dust of the Earth in Genesis 2:7/..Genesis 1:24-26. Yet only man was made with God's SPIRIT inside of Him and in His Image. When God formed man, I think it's reasonable to say that "formed" implies a process, and we need not see God forming man as one would quickly put together a gingerbread man...no more than it was the case when the Word says "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field.

For more information, one can consider going online and looking up an article under the name of "Augustine on Scripture and Natural Science" ( )

One can also go online to "Google Books" and read a signficant chunk of what Augustine said on the issue in p.g 42 of "The Literal Meaning of Geneis"...as there Augustine noted that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, with him remarking that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up...concerning the realm of science. As said in his words:



CHAPTER 19
On interpreting the mind of the sacred writer. Christians should not talk nonsense to unbelievers.

38. Let us suppose that in explaining the words, “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and light was made,” one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of “spiritual light”65 in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until un-erring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion pro-posed by man in his ignorance.
GGG
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Gxg (G²);63611988 said:
....It's revisionist history claiming the early church fathers were young earthers...

The only revisionist here is you! You're promoting the fairytale that Augustine supported your distorted view of Genesis. Nothing could be further from the truth. Augustine would have laughed (or perhaps cried) at the hubris. Most of the early fathers believed in a literal six days for creation. And they just about all took Genesis to be historical narrative and believed in a global flood (Augustine included).

The truth is, they were young earthers. I know that hurts, and is contrary to the stuff you've been buying into, but it's true. You can get mad and throw insults, and just do a little research. Instead of demonizing the articles I linked, try reading them.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The only revisionist here is you! You're promoting the fairytale that Augustine supported your distorted view of Genesis. Nothing could be further from the truth. Augustine would have laughed (or perhaps cried) at the hubris. Most of the early fathers believed in a literal six days for creation. And they just about all took Genesis to be historical narrative and believed in a global flood (Augustine included). .
And as said before, the sentiments are passionate (as well as argument via emotional appeal/ad hominem )- but they have zero basis in patristics as they were and nothing to do with what the early Church Fathers said on the matter when it came to the fact that there were many debates about creation - and many not having a literalist view on the matter. Augustine was already noted on what he said in the context he spoke in - so it's really inconsequential whether or not others feel it's "hubris" when people point out where he doesn't fit the narrative they attempted to set up. As it is, for anyone who isn't part of the Apostolic Church and trying to use them outside of their context, it will always be a matter of abusing who they were.

The nautre of distortion/false scenario...and it's no different than what happened in the beginning of the Protestant camp when it came to revisioning history - and frankly, no different than when you chose to specifically come after me in your first post (from #10 ) to take issue even though I was not talking to you - and you did not represent properly what others held to by claiming others supported naturalism. And it's not worth much debate when it cannot be squarred with directly.

The truth is, they were young earthers.

I know that hurts, and is contrary to the stuff you've been buying into, but it's true. You can get mad and throw insults, and just do a little research. Instead of demonizing the articles I linked, try reading them
Incorrect - and the truth of the matter is that it is not accurate claiming such (nor really handling the facts properly) to claim such - but that's no different than saying the Church Fathers would've supported Evangelical/Fundamentalist culture in their views of all scripture being literal when they already spoke against it.

Whether or not you can square with that simple reality is inconsequential to the facts - regardless of how much that may bother you in handling it - for you've already divorced yourself from the Church Fathers (and the Early Churh in general) with the commentary, but that is standard for anyone who doesn't understand the Early Church. Arguing via assertion does nothing to prove anything concerning the case you chose to bring up when coming after others you've disagreed with - despite the fact that they weren't talking to you and have already asked you before to cease talking to them if you cannot even do what's basic with representing their views properly.

But if you are going to try doing more of the same, one can at least deal accurately with information rather than quote-mining - or referencing from one source predominately (i.e. "Answers in Genesis") as if it was the sole authority even though it has been debunked by many over the years for making spurious claims - for people already did research, addressed the articles and found them severely wanting in real credibility.....so it's false scenario claiming they were "demonized" when the bottom line reality is that they were never accurate to begin with.

From Justin Martyr to Clement of Alexandria, Origen and many others - the bottom line is that many of the early church fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a figurative sense, and subscribed to the notion that that the "days" referred to in Genesis 1 were probably not literal 24 hour days - with there being room for differing interpretations. And one cannot honor who they were if/when avoiding what they said directly.

Again, for places to consider...

It is already understood that what has been said goes counter to the frame of thought you've chosen - from the people you've chosen to put a source of influence above what was said in the Early Church - but it is what it is. Ultimately, anyone can throw a fit when others disagree - or choose to get into the realm of ad-hominems/red herrings when it comes to automatically equating any disagreement as an "insult" - but that deals little with the context of what the Fathers have said and is distraction to the issues. If one wishes to do any of those things, as said before, it's not worth investing time into debating - and if you cannot get past that, you're simply on ignore as you have been most of the time.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
From Justin Martyr to Clement of Alexandria, Origen and many others - the bottom line is that many of the early church fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a figurative sense, and subscribed to the notion that that the "days" referred to in Genesis 1 were probably not literal 24 hour days - with there being room for differing interpretations. And one cannot honor who they were if/when avoiding what they said directly.
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
From Justin Martyr to Clement of Alexandria, Origen and many others - the bottom line is that many of the early church fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a figurative sense, and subscribed to the notion that that the "days" referred to in Genesis 1 were probably not literal 24 hour days - with there being room for differing interpretations. And one cannot honor who they were if/when avoiding what they said directly.

The fact that they did interpret it figuratively does not mean they were right. Many good theologians interpret it literally and thee is no reason not to. 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?

kermit
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
From Justin Martyr to Clement of Alexandria, Origen and many others - the bottom line is that many of the early church fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a figurative sense, and subscribed to the notion that that the "days" referred to in Genesis 1 were probably not literal 24 hour days - with there being room for differing interpretations. And one cannot honor who they were if/when avoiding what they said directly.

Kermit: The fact that they did interpret it figuratively does not mean they were right. Many good theologians interpret it literally and thee is no reason not to. 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?

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.

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.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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]: “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.” Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, “He finished in six days.” 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, “Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years” (Psa. 90:4; 2Pe. 3:8). Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. “And He rested on the seventh day.” 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: “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” (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 “on which God rested from all His works.” For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they “shall reign with Christ,” when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years” (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: “five are fallen; one is,” that is, the sixth; “the other is not yet come” (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) – 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: “In Thine eyes, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day” (Psa. 90:4). Therefore in the eyes of the Lord each thousand of years is ordained, for I find that the Lord’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: “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.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.