Big Bang: Base of Evolution

[surgei]

I would be inclined to believe the ID/YECreationist if there was a theory that they could give that would be plausible and account for the travel of light from distant galixies. On the one hand you have God creating with age, making him a liar; or, the Big Bang works and we have to be formed by the Church and become humble.

 

[peary]

I would be inclined to believe the ID/YECreationist if there was a theory that they could give that would be plausible and account for the travel of light from distant galixies. On the one hand you have God creating with age, making him a liar; or, the Big Bang works and we have to be formed by the Church and become humble.

HUH???

 

[The_Barbarian]

As surgei says, I don’t see any way to reconcile what we see of starlight with a young universe, unless God is deceptive.

 

[edwest2]

Take a rubber band and stretch it out.

Here:

Isaiah 45:12 “I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[surgei]

Take a rubber band and stretch it out.

Here:

Isaiah 45:12 “I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.”

God bless,
Ed

So God is an illusionist?

 

[edwest2]

God literally, with His own hands, stretched out the universe. Being God, He can literally place the stars at any distance instantly. God is God. Please do not compare Him to a human being.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

God literally, with His own hands, stretched out the universe. Being God, He can literally place the stars at any distance instantly. God is God. Please do not compare Him to a human being.

I think you just did.

Alec

 

[edwest2]

I am not comparing God to a human illusionist, only relating what He actually did.

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

Take a rubber band and stretch it out.
Here:

Isaiah 45:12 “I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.”

God bless,
Ed

“**The complete Book of Isaiah is an anthology of poems **composed chiefly by the great prophet, but also by disciples, some of whom came many years after Isaiah. In 1-39 most of the oracles come from Isaiah and faithfully reflect the situation in eighth-century Judah. To disciples deeply influenced by the prophet belong sections such as the Apocalypse of Isaiah (Isa 24-27), the oracles against Babylon (Isa 13-14), and probably the poems of Isa 34-35.”
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PNJ.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PNJ.HTM

God literally, with His own hands, stretched out the universe. Being God, He can literally place the stars at any distance instantly. God is God. Please do not compare Him to a human being.

God bless,
Ed

Ed, the poetic language found in Isaiah 45:12 can’t be taken literally. Therefore, God **did not **‘literally stretched out the universe’ or ‘literally place the stars at any distance instantly’.

My Catholic belief is that God wills things to happen but doesn’t literally have need to create.

Pope Paul stated that science is truth. Here is the truth:

**Third Year WMAP data refines cosmology **
by Alec MacAndrew
evolutionpages.com/third_year_wmap.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/third_year_wmap.htm

**Lithium in stars supports standard Big Bang **
by Alec MacAndrew
evolutionpages.com/lithium_in_stars.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/lithium_in_stars.htm

The Big Bang is not a Myth
by Alec MacAndrew
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm

(The Lord’s prayer…thy will be done! The Niene Creed isn’t meant to be taken literally so I’ve been told.)

 

[edwest2]

Your Catholic belief is that God wills things to happen but doesn’t literally create?

Would you mind explaining that? How does God not create? Why do we refer to God during the mass as “creator of heaven and earth”?

God bless,
Ed

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Your Catholic belief is that God wills things to happen but doesn’t literally create?

Would you mind explaining that? How does God not create? Why do we refer to God during the mass as “creator of heaven and earth”?

God bless,
Ed

God is a pure spirit. As such he doesn’t have hand or legs to do such things. In Genesis we are told that God said “let there be…” but of course God doesn’t have mouth to speak and make noise. All of this is clearly a poetic language that must be underlined by the fact, that the ancient Jews did not have language to express something what we nowadays still can’t even imagine.

God created the universe, but we do not know how. With recent scientific findings, we can pretty much certainly say that God did not create earth in seven days. All we need to know is that God created the universe and everything in it. As for how and how long it took is not a matter of faith.

And it is indeed correct that young earth theory places a big question in front of us (besides the fact that it denies science). It basically asserts that God made earth appear older. Why would he do it? To confuse us?

 

[reggieM]

God is both inside and outside time and space. God created time and space.

Yes, God is certainly an “illusionist” if you want to say that.

God created the paradox for this very reason. He built mystery into life and the universe.

It’s simple enough to point out that none of us can understand the concept of infinity. We can’t experience it, we can’t measure it, we can’t describe it, we can’t analyze it …

At best, we can give some hints at what it could mean.

But it’s simply beyond human capacity to understand fully.

We cannot understand the ways of God. We can’t even understand his creation fully because no human being has the capability for that kind of scope of understanding.

We can’t even understand ourselves sufficiently. And unless there are some here who believe that they are morally perfect, we cannot even direct ourselves to good actions consistently without falling into moral errors.

For myself, I look at how the saints did it. They’re the ones who are “right” – in the things that God wants. We shouldn’t think that science alone will ever be able to explain the origin of the universe.

 

[itinerant1]

:coffeeread:
Big Bang cosmology is quite intriguing and remains a plausible account of the proximate cause of changes and processes in the cosmos. There are different versions or models of the Big Bang, some of which are unacceptable to the Catholic mind. For instance, the speculative version of Hawking and Sagan leaves no room for God. Their cosmology attempts to provide an ultimate account of the existence of the universe. However, ultimate explanations or causes remain outside the scope and province of the natural sciences. Because the natural sciences are incapable of giving an account of the ultimate origin of the universe, we may find Hawking’s speculation, in the last analysis, to be somewhat unintelligible.

Big Bang cosmology that remains within the scope and province of science has much to offer. In addition, it would be a mistake to think of Big Bang’s “initial singularity” (which implies a temporal beginning to the universe), to be the same as God’s creative act as recorded in Genesis 1.

As far as Christian fundamentalists’ attempts to prove a “young earth” go, I think their project is about as meaningful as trying to prove the earth is flat. The origin of the problem is that fundamentalists operates from an erroneous concept of Divine Revelation, an inadequate methodology for interpreting Scripture, and ignorance of various literary genres and how they work.

In regard to the creation account in Genesis 1, St. Thomas Aquinas said that a direct creation in six days is favored by a superficial reading of Sacred Scripture. It would be in agreement with St. Thomas’ observation to say that the Bible does not teach science, and that Genesis is not giving us a scientific account of creation. We should start a discussion on how to read Genesis 1.

A proper reading of Genesis 1 presents no problems with certain models of the Big Bang. I would like to recommend one of my favorite articles on the Big Bang by William E. Carroll: Aquinas and the Big Bang
catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0034.html

Blessings,
Intinerant1

 

[reggieM]

And it is indeed correct that young earth theory places a big question in front of us (besides the fact that it denies science). It basically asserts that God made earth appear older. Why would he do it? To confuse us?

We may be looking at the age of the earth and the universe in an entirely incorrect manner.

Was God trying to confuse us when he made the earth appear to be flat? No, it looked flat to people who only knew one way to measure and observe the earth.

 

[edwest2]

You are confused as to what Catholics can believe. We can believe the earth is old or made in six days.

The appearance of age is within God’s power. This is clear when Jesus turned the water to wine. There was no grapes + fermentation time involved - it had the appearance and we are told, taste of better wine.

It is not beyond God’s power to create a ready to live on planet in six days. Why anyone would think God could not do that is beyond me. And yes, it would appear old - finished. Not a collection of dust + the forces of gravity. It may be hard for some to take the Genesis account literally but the words “And the evening and the morning were the second day… etc.” do appear. So the confusion comes in only when Genesis is not interpreted literally.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

“The last proceeding of reason is to recognise that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it.”

– Blaise Pascal, Pensées

 

[edwest2]

And this means what? I’m talking about Catholic belief and divine revelation - the direct revelation of God to man.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

That quote from Pascal (I think you’re referring to that) means that the final conclusion that human reason can arrive at is that there is an infinity of things beyond human reason.

This supports the belief that we have in divine revelation – it’s something beyond human reason. There’s no way that human reason could arrive at the truths that God gave us through revelation. We needed something beyond reason to have a greater understanding of God’s work.

Even still with revelation we still only know a very small part of God’s ways. But we know enough for what is most necessary for us.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

You are confused as to what Catholics can believe. We can believe the earth is old or made in six days.

Yes

The appearance of age is within God’s power. This is clear when Jesus turned the water to wine. There was no grapes + fermentation time involved - it had the appearance and we are told, taste of better wine.

That’s a different matter. It doesn’t explain why would God created fossils that appear to be millions years old and why would he create stars which never actually existed though we see them. The last one is the most interesting.

Based on the speed of light we can approximate the age of starts. Some start were created before “young Earth” was created. If the young Earth theory is true then, logically, those stars cannot exist (they never existed) and he God only created an illusion. Why? He is not a lier, is he?

It is not beyond God’s power to create a ready to live on planet in six days.

Agree!

Why anyone would think God could not do that is beyond me.

I don’t know, but be careful. People here do not deny God’s abilities like you don’t deny that he could create the world in billions years. People here claim that this is contrary to the scientific evidence and even logic.

And yes, it would appear old - finished. Not a collection of dust + the forces of gravity.

But there are other things that are not a matter of being finished. If God is not bound by creation, why would he have to create a planet that appears to be old. Surely he is able to create a planet that is young and finished without appearing like something that it’s not (old). I don’t see why old and finished go hand to hand unless God is bound by time and laws he Himself created.

And then there are other problems such as the light coming from stars etc.

It may be hard for some to take the Genesis account literally but the words “And the evening and the morning were the second day… etc.” do appear.

Why would they be any more literal then the rest of the book? Why do you draw the line there? I think it’s quite clear that the numbers are not there to express literal fact but rather are symbols that helped us to know the truth. This includes the symbolism of numbers.

So the confusion comes in only when Genesis is not interpreted literally.

1. You are not interpreting it literally unless you agree that God spoke
2. I think you have to answer much more questions if you interpret it literally. You can start by explaining mine.

 

[edwest2]

Huh And this is relevant to this discussion how? I don’t think God just threw in some poetry to make parts of the Bible less boring. With HIS Word He acts and His Word does not return to Him void but accomplishes the thing He sent it out to do.

God Bless,
Ed