Here is an interesting bit for those who hold to "theistic evolution" and try to claim Catholicism at the same time.

What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?

    God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
      (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)

      Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])

      Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)

      Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)

      Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)

      The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).

      The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.

      Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).

      Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).

      After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).

    Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).

      The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).

    We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).

      All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)

      The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)

      St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)

      The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)

      Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
      (Pius XII, Humani Generis)

      Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

[1] In 1909, the PBC was an arm of the Magisterium and dissent from its decisions was tantamount to dissent from the teaching of the pope himself.

What Does Molecules-to-Man Evolutionism Teach about Origins?


      In the beginning there was neither heaven nor earth, just concentrated primeval matter.

      This matter expanded and exploded.

      The explosion produced gas, mainly helium and hydrogen, which expanded. Over billions of years, clumps of the gas contracted and formed stars. One of these stars was our sun.

      Part of the sun detached itself and became planet Earth.

      Radiometric dating strongly indicates that the earth is more than four billion years old.

      Given enough time, random interactions of matter will produce spontaneous increases in specific complexity in randomly-formed units of matter.

      When the planet cooled, chemicals reacted together to form amino acids.

      Primitive living cells resulted from combinations of the amino acids.

      A process of evolution led to the primitive cells developing into complex cells.

      Over millions of years the cells transformed into higher organisms.

      Gradually the organisms divided themselves into flora and fauna.

      All the known species of plants and trees evolved over immense periods of time, perhaps from some primitive form of algae.

      Similarly, man evolved from simple marine life, transformed over eons of time from some form of bacteria into all the aquatic, land and air species that have ever existed.

What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?


      Molecules-to-man evolutionary theory violates the second law of thermodynamics by positing spontaneous increases in order through random interactions of matter.

      Matter from explosions does not condense to form objects like galaxies.

      Chemicals do not react together randomly to form amino acids through natural processes.

      Amino acids do not randomly interact to form living cells through undirected natural processes.

      Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.

      The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings.

      All organisms are irreducibly complex. Therefore, in order for any kind of organism to exist, all of the essential parts of that organism must be fully functioning from the beginning of its existence.

      As now used by evolutionary scientists there is virtually no value in radio dating as an objective source of prehistoric chronology.

      Many worldwide natural processes indicate an age for the earth of 10,000 years or less. These include population kinetics, influx of radiocarbon into earth’s atmosphere, absence of meteorites from the geologic column, and decay of earth’s magnetic field.

      Sedimentological research has challenged the principles upon which the geological time scale is based.

      There is no gradualism in the fossil record, no intermediate types.

CONCLUSION: Natural science offers no evidence that would contradict the plain and obvious sense of Genesis 1-11, the consensus of the Fathers of the Church, or the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church on creation and the origins of man and the universe.
(10-30-2010, 09:34 AM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: What we see in this thread are examples of some people who's thinking must be kept so simplistic they cannot discern any position other than "evolutionist" (atheist) and "creationist" (theist).  Such childish thinking is antithetical for the deep respect for actual science (as well as simple facts) that the Catholic Church has always shown.

These people are unwilling to even discuss the matters at hand - the actual evidence and the teachings of the Church on these subjects (which are the opposite of what they're saying) - and so stoop to calling their opponents not Catholic and/or lacking in faith.  These are either honest ad hominem attacks designed to shift the focus from the actual matters under discussion or honest but misguided slanders, the owners of which simply cannot understand that "the Bible" doesn't simply say that the Earth is 6,000 years old and so conclude that anyone who accepts that must be lacking in faith!

Where it becomes more than a problem of understanding is the refusal to listen to the Church on the matter.  The Church has never made any ruling regarding the age of the universe and on the contrary has made many official and unofficial statements supporting both the general notion that specifics on the age of the universe are required for belief (see the Fourth Latern Council's declarations on creation) and that the findings of modern science that the universe likely began in a single creation event that can be traced backwards through time and which implies a long age to the universe are worthy of respect.

The general mindset that (natural) science is opposed to God - which is exactly what some in this thread are proposing, implicitly or explicitly - is irrational and has never been supported any any Father, saint, or Doctor of the Church.

I would urge casual readers of the thread to do their own research and not be influenced by the posters who confuse true Catholicism with a middle-ages level of knowledge about nature.  

The Church doesn't HAVE to make an "official" ruling on the age of the earth and the universe.  Scripture already makes the OFFICIAL declaration, thus the body of the Church has no need to restate what INERRANT Holy Scripture already states quite clearly.  I have noticed that many Catholics cannot fully grasp that Scripture is inerrant.  I have noticed this when speaking about women veiling in Church.  They say, "well, the Church says this and this.."  Well, Holy Scripture CANNOT be refuted, it is complete TRUTH.  What the Church has declared is that one cannot depart from the consensus of the Church Fathers, and that the literal sense of Scripture must be maintained unless reason dictates otherwise.  Genesis was ALWAYS read literally - on the other hand, we have the last book of the Bible, the Apocalypse of St. John, showing that the literal sense cannot be maintained and thus is allegorical and symbolic in nature.

Anyway, through your odd reasoning, you rip the other two legs of the "tripod of the Church" away from the Magesterium, that being Scripture and Tradition.  This only leads to disastaer, as you have inerrant Scripture and Tradition lying upon the ground.  Perhaps you need more study in those two fields before you "advance" any further in the sciences.
Nic Wrote:In 1909, the PBC was an arm of the Magisterium and dissent from its decisions was tantamount to dissent from the teaching of the pope himself.

In which case we are obliged to accept this:

VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?

Answer: In the negative.

and this:

VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?

Answer: In the affirmative.

Nic Wrote:All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)

If the Church Fathers held to the 24-hour interpretation by unanimous consent does that mean we're left with a rather nasty doctrinal contradiction with the PBC??
(10-30-2010, 04:48 PM)Cambrensis Wrote: The evolutionist is the smart fellow

Pushing evolution?  From a "Catholic"?  Nice!  You sit there in your jester suit - or more likely some slutty cutoff jean shorts as I imagine you changing into after work - and spout this crap in this forum?  The stuff you posted out of the Church is pointless: it's from the 20th century which is past the point where Modernism was invented (and patented).

What else are you in to?  Here's some advice: properly piss off and stay the hell away from our kids.

P.S. I salute Gilgamesh for using his real photo as well (as you).  Perhaps his refusal to bow to modern conventions on facial hair is the reason he's been bagging the hotties by the boatload.
(10-30-2010, 04:48 PM)Cambrensis Wrote: It's perhaps worth pointing out that natural selection, as described by the evolutionists, is "random" only in the sense that it is blind -- there is no direction towards a particular goal.  If one accepts that evolution has occurred, it would appear that the process has (broadly speaking) involved a development from the simple to the complex -- in the case of humanity, increasingly large brains which eventually reached a point where they somehow gave rise to language, art, ethics etc. But because evolution only occurs in response to environmental pressures, this increasing complexity is solely because environmental pressures have so far favoured increasing complexity -- there's no teleological 'ascent' or 'progress' going on here. Ergo, there is no reason why -- should environmental pressures demand it -- evolution might not go into reverse, so to speak, as simpler, stupider life-forms find themselves flourishing in the new conditions. In theory, some of us could be destined to devolve into shambling hominids chipping flints!

The theistic evolutionist basically has to admit there's nothing *overtly* teleological.  However, one can certainly still insist (and not without good reason) the process *was* teleological even if it doesn't appear so: God knows all and moved nature to produce the creatures she has.  In fact, that is what probably most theistic evolutionists believe.  Some, who are confused, such as that biologist who wrote Finding Darwin's God claim that there was no teleology, and God basically had no way of knowing what would happen.  That that is clearly not compatible with not only Christianity but the simple classical requirement of God as omniscient doesn't seem to have occurred to this chap (whose name I forget).

Quote:However, a theistic evolutionist needn't suppose that God was obliged to intervene periodically to "nudge" evolution down the desired path, as the proponents of ID apparently believe. Such supernatural interventions would be quite unnecessary since the Almighty could have set up these physical processes to follow their predetermined course, with their end in view from the very beginning.  In other words, they only appear blind from our worm's-eye view.  To borrow the analogy from  Asimov's short story "Darwinian Pool Room":  How would someone with no knowledge of snooker explain how all these brightly coloured balls came to be in the pockets of the snooker table? The creationist is the man who naively assumes someone placed all the snooker balls individually in their pockets. The evolutionist is the smart fellow who subjects the balls to minute forensic analysis, scrutinizes the layout of the table and correctly deduces that they ended up in the pockets after an elaborate sequence of ricochets. The appearance of deliberate "placing" after the close of the game is just that -- an appearance.  The theistic evolutionist accepts the sequence of ricochets. He just believes it was initiated by someone wielding a snooker cue.

Ah, the Beautiful Machine: Nature simply pre-programmed, front-loaded as it were, to produce the Eye of God (us, mainly).  The Beautiful Machine is indeed beautiful: God has designed it so that it works *naturally*; it requires no (messy) intervention.  This is Fr. Stanley Jaki's Machine.

It's nice on paper, and it is what I believed for probably a decade or more.  The problem is that it doesn't fit the evidence as I described earlier.

Quote:What information does the Book of Genesis convey if read as poetic shorthand? That God brought the universe into being out of nothing. That He brought plants, animals and then man into being out of the raw stuff of matter. That He imparted an immortal spirit and rational intellect to the first man, who then fell from spiritual grace under the prompting of an evil spirit. None of of that seems to contradict the various theories of evolution from Darwin's day to our own.  The Bible doesn't specify whether God created man by an immediate act or through a gradual unfolding of physical processes. To reconcile the biblical account of man's formation from "the slime of the earth" with evolutionary theory, one merely presumes that the human form was not created immediately and directly from the earth.

I haven't posted these typical and basic reasonings of the theistic evolutionist here because I'd assumed the Creationists are familiar with them.  But it's good to have it here.  Thanks, and well-put.


P.S. You're a good writer.
P.P.S. What Nic is posting about the Fathers and 24-hour days is flat-out false.  Along with his conclusions in general.
The Catholic Thinker Wrote:P.S. I salute Gilgamesh for using his real photo as well (as you).  Perhaps his refusal to bow to modern conventions on facial hair is the reason he's been bagging the hotties by the boatload.

One is sorely tempted to succumb to invidia ...

[Image: verlaine.jpg]

The Catholic Thinker Wrote:Ah, the Beautiful Machine: Nature simply pre-programmed, front-loaded as it were, to produce the Eye of God (us, mainly).  The Beautiful Machine is indeed beautiful: God has designed it so that it works *naturally*; it requires no (messy) intervention.  This is Fr. Stanley Jaki's Machine.

It's nice on paper, and it is what I believed for probably a decade or more.  The problem is that it doesn't fit the evidence as I described earlier.

I share your belief that macroevolution is nonsense, but I think if it were proved beyond all doubt to be true -- even on a strict Darwinian model -- then Fr Jaki's Machine would provide an elegant answer to claims that it necessarily pushes God out of the picture.

Quote:What Nic is posting about the Fathers and 24-hour days is flat-out false.

This is a very important question.  It would be helpful is someone could post relevant patristic quotations.
(10-30-2010, 07:33 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: P.P.S. What Nic is posting about the Fathers and 24-hour days is flat-out false.  Along with his conclusions in general.

You sound a bit threatened while offering really no evidence to support your claims - or lack thereof.  What's the matter Catholic Thinker, have you finally encountered a young earth creationist that you cannot bully with your grand intellectualism?  Each person on this thread who has commented against your ideals you have either called an outright moron (like my friend Vetus Ordo), a clown, or in my case, you keep insisting that I have no idea what I am talking about to try and discredit what I am saying, yet you offer little to no true rebuttal.  You seem to be a very conflicted person - trying to hide behind the shield of perceived intellect.  Actually, you appear to be very wishy-washy in your statements - with one post declaring that you are not a proponent of macro evolution and in the next post you seem to promote hominid evolution.  Well, again I will counter what you have seemed to state - the whole hominid evolution standpoint that, at times, you seem to propose.

For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced UNRELIABLE conclusions about man's so-called "origins."  Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to many other interpretations.  Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent (besides the point that a basic rule of evolutionism is that the "lesser" organism that has evolved into the "greater" organism is no more - so why are there so many apes around???)

Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated.

- It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown "man" was a hoax, yet Piltdown "man" was in textbooks for over 40 years.

- Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments.  We know now that these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey and others into a form resembling part of a human jaw.  Ramapithecus was just an ape, yet some textbooks still claim that Ramapithecus is man's ancestor.

- The only remains of Nebraska "man" turned out to be a pig's tooth.

-  Forty years after the discovery of Java "man," Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man at all, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape).  In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thigh bones of apes found in the same area.

-  Many experts consider the skull of Peking "man" to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man.  Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.

-  The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis were discovered in 1986.  They showed that this animal clearly had apelike proportions and should never have been classified as manlike.

-  The australopithecines, made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans.  Several detailed computer studies of australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were NOT intermediate between those of man and living apes.  Another study, which examined their inner ear bones, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity to those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but GREAT differences from those of humans.  Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans.  Claims were made - based on one australopithecine fossil (a 3.5 foot tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy) - that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner.  However, study of Lucy's entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely.  She likely swung from the trees and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees.  Therefore, the australopithecines are probably extinct apes.

-  For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike.  This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets.  Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today.  Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human.  Artists' drawings of "ape-men," especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are NOT supported by the evidence.

Also, bones of modern-looking humans have been found very deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed LONG before man began to evolve.  Examples include the Calaveras skull, the Castenedolo skeletons, Reck's skeleton, and others.  Remains such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszollos fossil present similar problems.  Evolutionists most always ignore these remains.

Now, in my opinion, before the Great Flood there were many other types of apes upon the earth (as well as other animals).  Many were destroyed during the flood, for the Ark only carried each pair of animal according to its kind, but many upon the Ark survived the Flood only to be loosed in a new world in which it was much harder for them to survive, leading to their extinction some time after the Deluge (which is what happened to the dinosaurs).  Entering into the realm of cryptozoology, there have been many reports of creatures such as "bigfoot" and "yeti" that have been explained by very reputable sources.  This creatures could very well exist today, remnants of what could have been relatives or even the same creature as Gigantopithecus.  Upon the island of Sumatra, a creature known as "Orang pendek" has been said to exist by many people, from locals to esteemed scientists who have reportedly seen this creature, which appears as a very small, bipedal primate. 

Holy Scripture shows quite clearly that man lived extremely long life-ages before the Deluge, reaching ages over 900 years.  After the Flood, one can see a very systematic drop in the life-ages of mankind.  This is undoubtedly due to the drastic changing of man's environment.  After the Flood, the world was in a brief "Ice Age."  Mankind in the northern parts of the globe were forced into caves for warmth.  The bones of "Neanderthals" were those of men directly after the Flood - those men who were still living long life-ages (around 300 years), but were seeing a rapid, systematic drop in their lifespans due to the new world in which they lived.  The lifespan of man leveled off to our current state about 750-800 years after the Deluge.  Read Scripture, even Abraham lived to be 175 years old, and he died about 500 years after the Flood.
(10-30-2010, 08:12 PM)Cambrensis Wrote: This is a very important question.  It would be helpful is someone could post relevant patristic quotations.

Irenaeus, (140-202): "For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded... in six days created things were completed..” (Against Heresies 5, 28, 3).

Clement of Alexandria (150-216): "From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days" (ANF, Vol. 2, p. 332).

Clement of Alexandria (150-216): "...but the earth is from the waters: and before the whole six days' formation of the things that were made, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water. The water was the beginning of the world..." (Catechetical Lectures, 3, 5).

Hippolytus (160-235): "But it was right to speak not of the ‘first day,' but of ‘one day,' in order that by saying ‘one,' he might show that it returns on its orbit, and, while it remains one, makes up the week...On the first day God made what He made out of nothing." (Genesis 1:5, 1:6; ANF, vol. 5, p. 163).

Hippolytus (160-235): "When, therefore, Moses has spoken of ‘the six days in which God made heaven and earth'...Simon, in a manner already specified, giving these and other passages of Scripture a different application from the one intended by the holy writers, defies himself.” Refutation of All Heresies, Book VI, Ch IX).

Theophilus (c. 185): "Of this six days' work no man can give a worthy explanation and description of all its parts...on account of the exceeding greatness and riches of the wisdom of God which there is in the six days' work above narrated" (Autolycus 2,12).

Theophilus (c. 185):  “God...made the existent out of the non-existent.” (Autolycus 2,4).

Theophilus (c. 185):  “On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence.  Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside.  In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars.  For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.”  Theophilus, 2.15.

Theophilus (c. 185):  “...the world is created and is providentially governed by the God who made everything.  And the whole period of time and the years can be demonstrated to those who wish to learn the truth...The total number of years from the creation of the world is 5,695.”  Theophilus, 3.25, 28.

Theophilus (c. 185):  “If some period has escaped our notice, says 50 and 100 or even 200 years, at any rate it is not myriads, or thousands or years as it was for Plato...and the rest of those who wrote falsehoods.  It may be that we do not know the exact total of all the years simply because the additional months and days are not recorded in the sacred books.” Theophilus, 3.29.

Origen (c. 200):  “the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that.” Origen, Against Celsus, 1.19.

Lactantius (250-317): "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...For there are seven days, by the revolutions of which in order the circles of years are made up...Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years...For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In Thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day." ..And as God labored during those six days in creating such great works, so His religion and truth must labor during these six thousand years... (Institutes 7,14).

Victorinus (c. 280): "God produced the entire mass for the adornment of his majesty in six days. On the seventh day, he consecrated it with a blessing" (On the Creation of the World).

Ephrem the Syrian (306-373): "‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,' that is, the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth. So let no one think that there is anything allegorical in the works of the six days. No one can rightly say that the things that pertain to these days were symbolic." (Commentary on Genesis,1:1, FC 91:74)

Methodius (c. 311): “For you seem to me, O Theophila, to have discussed those words of the Scripture amply and clearly, and to have set them forth as they are without mistake. For it is a dangerous thing wholly to despise the literal meaning, as has been said, and especially of Genesis, where the unchangeable decrees of God for the constitution of the universe are set forth, in agreement with which, even until now, the world is perfectly ordered, most beautifully in accordance with a perfect rule, until the Lawgiver Himself having re-arranged it, wishing to order it anew, shall break up the first laws of nature by a fresh disposition. But, since it is not fitting to leave the demonstration of the argument unexamined – and, so to speak, half-lame – come let us, as it were completing our pair, bring forth the analogical sense, looking more deeply into the Scripture; for Paul is not to be despised when he passed over the literal meaning, and showed that the word extended to Christ and the Church.” (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse III, Ch 2).

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): "In six days God made the world...The sun, however resplendent with bright beams, yet was made to give light to man, yea, all living creatures were formed to serve us: herbs and trees were created for our enjoyment...The sun was formed by a mere command, but man by God's hands" (Catechetical Lectures 12, 5).

Epiphanius (315-403): "Adam, who was fashioned from the earth on the sixth day and received breath, became a living being (for he was not, as some suppose, begun on the fifth day, and completed on the sixth; those who say have the wrong idea), and was simple and innocent, without any other name." (Panarion 1:1, translated by Phillip R. Amidon).

Basil (329-379):  “’And there was evening and morning, one day.’ Why did he say ‘one’ and not ‘first?’  He said ‘one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night.., since the twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day.” (Hexameron 2, 8.

Basil (329-379): "Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a night...If it therefore says ‘one day,' it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fills up the space of one day – we mean of a day and of a night" (Hexameron 2, 8.  Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, called Basil’s interpretation of Genesis 1 an “overall great commentary (PG 18, 705-707).

Gregory of Nyssa (335-394): "Before I begin, let me testify that there is nothing contradictory in what the saintly Basil wrote about the creation of the world since no further explanation is needed. They should suffice and alone take second place to the divinely inspired Testament. Let anyone who hearkens to our attempts through a leisurely reading be not dismayed if they agree with our words. We do not propose a dogma which gives occasion for calumny; rather, we wish to express only our own insights so that what we offer does not detract from the following instruction. Thus let no one demand from me questions which seem to fall in line with common opinion, either from holy Scripture or explained by our teacher. My task is not to fathom those matters before us which appear contradictory; rather, permit me to employ my own resources to understand the text's objective. With God's help we can fathom what the text means which follows a certain defined order regarding creation. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' [Gen 1.1], and the rest which pertains to the cosmogenesis which the six days encompass." (Hexaemeron, PG 44:68-69).

Ambrose (340-397): "But Scripture established a law of twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent." (Hexameron 1:37, FC 42:42).

Ambrose (340-397): "In the beginning of time, therefore God created heaven and earth. Time proceeds from this world, not before the world. And the day is a division of time, not its beginning." (Hexameron 1:20, FC 42:19).

Ambrose (340-397): "But now we seem to have reached the end of our discourse, since the 6th day is completed and the sum total of the work has been concluded." (Hexameron 6:75, FC 42:282).

Chrysostom (344-407): "Acknowledging that God could have created the world ‘in a single day, nay in a single moment,' he chose ‘a sort of succession and established things by parts'...so that, accurately interpreted by that blessed prophet Moses, we do not fall in with those who are guided by human reasonings" (PG, Homily 3, col 35).

Victorinus (c. 355-361): "The Creation of the World: In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night, for this reason, doubtless, that day might bring over the night as an occasion of rest for men's labours; that, again, day might overcome, and thus that labour might be refreshed with this alternate change of rest, and that repose again might be tempered by the exercise of day. "On the fourth day He made two lights in the heaven, the greater and the lesser, that the one might rule over the day, the other over the night... (cf. (NPNF1, vol. 7, pp. 341-343)."

Augustine (354-430):  “Some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been...And when they are asked, how…the reply that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and...thus there was at intervals a new beginning made…But they say what they think, not what they know.  They are deceived…by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed.”  Augustine, The City of God, 12.10.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)