Genesis v Evolution

[wildleafblower]

The gentleman in question is Peter Wilders. He, like the other contributors to the video, is a mainstay of the Catholic YEC movement, the Kolbe Center, whose core members also include Robert ‘Geocentrist’ Sungenis and Guy ‘I’ve revolutionised geology’ Berthault. Peter turned up on this board three months ago in order to puff Guy’s claims that he has, single-handedly, overturned the basis for geology and, with it, geological methods of dating events and fossils. Peter scuttled away after a few posts when he found that there were some people on the board who know considerably more geology than he does (including our very own professional geologist - Tim, take a bow) who pointed out very clearly the gaping flaws in his assertions.

Alec
drpmjhess;2843089:

Monti Claunch, thanks for the referral, but this video is complete rubbish. It was rubbish even when it was made, based on the paleonotolgoical knowledge of the 1970s. Scientific knowledge marches inexorably forward, and the clueless narrator (despite his lovely British accent!) has no idea what he is talking about when he says that there are no fossil sequences. We have rich arrays of fossil evidence for the evolution of horses, of whales from terrestrial carnivores (mesonychid - ambulocetus - rhodocetus - basilosaurus), to the evolution of human beings.

The appeal to dissenters no more damages evolutionary theory than the Flat Earth Society damages belief in the sphericity of the earth.

evolutionpages.com

Nearly everyone turned out for that match but our Tim stole the show ! Tim reminded me of a guy standing on a tree stump doing Kung Foo in slow motion as I was walking through the woods yesterday. Tim is the best of the best!

Here’s the battle of whits for a gentle reminder:
Topic : Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2627740#post2627740
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2627740#post2627740

 

[cyberjacques]

On December 25, 2005 BENEDICTUS PP. XVI stated, "Faith by its specific nature is an encounter with the living God—an encounter opening up new horizons extending beyond the sphere of reason. But it is also a purifying force for reason itself. From God’s standpoint, faith liberates reason from its blind spots and therefore helps it to be ever more fully itself. Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly. This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just.

I’m sorry, but did you even read this before presenting it as support for your argument? Because it’s not. I must admit, I am confused by your mixed position. You say you believe in evolution and you believe in God, which is all well and good, and yet you also say that science and God are incompatible. Either I missed something in your arguments, or you’ve gone round the bend, my dear. For the sake of informed dialogue, would you please be so kind as to clarify exactly what your position is regarding all this?

 

[wildleafblower]

cyberjacques,

You’re confusion is strictly your own fault not mine. Apparently your comprehension level in understanding semantics is minimal to say the least due to the fact that I clearly stated ‘based on the entirety of my statement’ in message 580. READ IT! FYI, I have no ‘need’ to argue with people, only present documented facts.

 

[cyberjacques]

cyberjacques,

You’re confusion is strictly your own fault not mine. Apparently your comprehension level in understanding semantics is minimal to say the least due to the fact that I clearly stated ‘based on the entirety of my statement’ in message 580. READ IT! FYI, I have no ‘need’ to argue with people, only present documented facts.

Hey, don’t get insulting, I’m trying to work with you here. I never said anything was your fault, I merely asked for clarification. Your statement, in its entirety, is pretty straightforward, leaving little room for semantics. If you meant to insert some with the quotes around the keywords, then I confess myself still confused. And the excerpt you posted seems to refute your statement, minus any semantics I may have missed. Thus my confusion.

I never said anything about fighting with you, I simply suggested that our informed dialog would be furthered by mutual clarity. If you took offense at my crack about going round the bend, perhaps I should have included a to clarify that I was trying to make a joke.

Instead of risking misunderstandings because of semantics, maybe you would be willing to just tell me what you think in plain terms. If not, then the least we can do is avoid the insults.

 

[nezmithb]

I’ll quote something for you guys debating over this subject that I had found online recently…

"First, Christians like to claim that the earth is 6000 years old. No, it ain’t. It’s one hell of a lot older than that. Millions of years, just as scientists are finding. Remember, I firmly believe science proves God, not invalidates Him.

So what is this 6000 years figure? It is our best estimate about the amount of time that has passed since Adam. It’s relatively close to being accurate.

But wasn’t Adam created when the world was created? Sort of, but not at the beginning. Let me explain using scripture.

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” Pretty straight forward. This verse establishes God as the CREATOR. He wasn’t some alien that sat back and watched the earth from from a ball of dust. The “big bang” was the Word of God speaking and forming the world. We all agree what this verse means.

Genesis 1:2 “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Now, our eyes all just glaze over here, but this is super important. In fact, it is one of the most important verses in Genesis, and God purposely inspired it to say something specific. Don’t just skim over this verse because you think it doesn’t mean much. God inspired this verse for a reason. Quick quiz you are guaranteed to fail: How much time passes between verse 1 and 2? Answer: none? Why, because of the “and” at the beginning of verse 2? BZZZT! Wrong!

“And” is often used to show a very separate topic/subject that is simply joined to the narrative. Let me illustrate in English with an analogy. Bill 1:1"In the beginning of our nation, 1776, we declared independence." Bill 1:2 “And George Bush was re-elected as the 43rd president of an independent nation.” Did they happen at the same time? Of course not. Let me continue with the Bible.

Verse 2 says the earth was without form, and void (empty). Note, the earth exists, already. “Without form” does not mean “clean slate” ready for God to start making stuff. The Hebrew word there is tohuw which means a number of things and is translated as follows: confusion, 3; empty place, 1; nothing, 1; nought, 2; vain, 4; vanity, 4; waste, 1; wilderness, 2; without form, 2; The aggregate meaning is one of chaos. Vain and vanity fit perfectly into a place that has failed as a functioning society, in the context of tohuw. Rather than “clean slate” as we tend to think this passage means, the earth was in chaos and empty. Yes, I have further proof of that particular flavor of translation. But let me continue a minute with verse 2.

“…And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Well, your eyes have glazed over again. Stop it and pay attention. Note that the earth cannot be a “clean slate” completely empty and ready for God to paint… there were waters there. But an even bigger question poses for those who can pay attention. This is only verse 2, and Chrisitans can’t seem to get this. The big question is: what was God doing “moving” on the face of the waters? Wrong answer: He was creating the earth. BZZZZT! Wrong! Wrong! And more wrong!

God already made the earth in verse 1. Verse 2 is a completely separate event that has nothing to do with creation. NOTHING. Except that it is a “pre-event” condition to the “creation” account that follows in verses 3 and on.

TEASER: Genesis 1:3 “And God said, Let there be light: And there was light.” Now we all know this means God made the sun, right? BZZZZZZT! WRONG AGAIN! You blew it! 3rd strike, you’re outta here! Go hit the showers, you’re being relieved from thinking. “But but but…” you sputter. Nah, too bad. You fell for the typical Christian Sunday Quick-Sermon about creation, and it is simply - quite simply - wrong."

 

[nezmithb]

-CONTINUED QUOTE-

"That was a teaser. We need to back up to verse 2, okay? Follow along and I’ll illustrate something that all Christians can see for themselves. Verse 2 is so vitally important, and God gave us a message in it unique to any other verse in the entire Bible, except one - and for a reason. Are you ready to listen to God? Forget about me - listen to God’s word. “And the earth was without form, and void;…” God inspired those exact words for a very specific reason. They are used only one other place in the bible, and God inspired that particular usage for a reason. God isn’t stupid, and neither do we need to be. If we have the Spirit of Christ, then we have the mind of Christ. Jesus is the Word. 1 Corinthians 2:16 - For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ. So, we don’t need to be stupid when it comes to God. Okay, here we go…

“The earth was without form and void…” Where else do we see that verse? Where else did God inspire those exact words to be written? In relation to a vision Jeremiah had. Let’s read it. Jeremiah 4:23-26 “I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.” Jeremiah saw the earth without form and void, just like Genesis 1:2. He also saw the heavens had no light, just as in the implications of Genesis 1:3. But he sees the earth as desolate, in chaos, quaking and trembling just as the Hebrew word tohuw of Genesis 1:2 can be translated. Jeremiah is seeing in a vision the actual events of Genesis 1:2. I dare you to tell me that God inspired these two verses with only this particular usage nowhere else in the bible because He was befuddled or something. GOD HAS A PURPOSE IN WHAT HE DOES.

Jeremiah sees the earth of Genesis 1:2. What does he say? “I beheld, and, lo, there was no man…” You might say that of course there was no man because God hadn’t created man yet. Not so fast there, bucko. Jeremiah keeps talking and also says, “…and all the cities thereof were broken down…” Whoa! Hold on a minute! God inspires Genesis 1:2 to be written using a peculiar description, then inspires only one other usage of it where a prophet has a vision and there are “cities of men!?” Yep. Now it’s time to look at this all in context. Jeremiah is seeing an example of the Lord’s wrath. He doesn’t see Sodom and Gomorrah. He could easily have been given a vision of that. But no, it’s of a condition that only exists in Genesis 1:2. Jeremiah provides the answer to the burning question of Gen 1:2. What was God doing there? God was pissed! God was hovering over the face of the waters because He had just gotten done delivering His wrath!

What was He angry over? We aren’t told. But I can surmise that man had angered God in some way, and He came to end it.

Now wait just a minute! We’re only in verse 2 and God has destroyed man He hasn’t even made yet? BZZZT. Relax a minute. Just take a second to digest the implications of verse 2 and Jeremiah seeing it. Let me explain verse 3 in light of what was just revealed and then I’ll head on over to Adam. God was pissed and was just finished destroying everything when verse 2 is delivered. That is why he hovers over the face of the waters. His destruction caused mountains to tremble - volcanos? You can be sure that when God destroys something, it’s going to make a mess. Probably included a lot of atmospheric smoke and ash. Verse 3 has God saying “let there be light…” Atmospheric smoke and ash make for a very dark daytime. God could have simply spoke to clear some of the smoke away so that light was able to shine forth. Verse 3 does not say he made the sun. “Let there be…” is all one Hebrew word: hayah. Know what that word means in Hebrew? to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass or more specifically:

to come about, come to pass
to come into being, become
to arise, appear, come
to become
to become
to become like
to be instituted, be established
to be
to exist, be in existence
to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
to accompany, be with
Do you see anywhere in there a creation verb? No, you don’t, do you? The implication there is that the light already existed, and God is simply calling for its illumination to show. The entire “creation” account of Genesis 1 becomes a RE-CREATION. More on that in a minute."

 

[nezmithb]

-CONTINUED QUOTE-

"Okay, on to Adam. How can God destroy man in Genesis 1:2 when He hasn’t even made him yet? Because, silly, there was man before Adam. Jeremiah says so - under the direct inspiration of God. “No! Never! Adam was the first man!” Uh uh, wrong, sort of. When Christians say that Adam was the first man, they are only partly correct.

“Huh?”

We’ve already seen God getting finished destroying man before Adam in Jeremiah’s vision (“all the cities thereof were broken down…”) So then comes a recreation of the earth. God then makes man in His own image… The implication then, is that man before this verse 26 decision to create man was not in God’s image. But there’s more. Genesis 2:7 explains in detail: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul…” Breath in the Hebrew there is neshamah. It is used to mean the Spirit of God in other verses and the spirit of mankind. Note: it is consistently used in the translation of things of the spirit. Next is that God never really names Adam, and there’s a reason. However, God brings Adam all sorts of creatures for Adam to name but Adam already has a name?

No, he doesn’t. We might think of “Adam” as a name, but Adam is a label. The Hebrew word for Adam is 'adam, which means first man. But if there was man before Adam, then how can Adam be the first man? Easy answer here. Adam was the first spirit-man made in God’s image. All the scripture backs it up.

The creation account is a recreation. God destroys whatever pissed Him off and scatters man. I do not believe all flesh was destroyed in Gensis 1:2. No scriptural proof of my gut instinct, but when Cain takes a wife, you have to wonder where she came from. My instinct tells me that Cain took a wife of the remnant that remained after god’s wrath, a non-spirit woman, but they produce Enoch, a spirit offspring. Something to back up that instinct: Look at Genesis 1:28: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth…” God tells Adam and Eve to REPLENISH the earth. You only replenish something that had something in it before. The Hebrew word male’ can be translated as fill, also, but seems to stick as “replenish” in certain types of passages.

What does this do to the traditional creation account? Well, the traditional creation account is a bunch of BS. It has NO scriptural foundation and smacks of primitive instruction to ignorant and primitive people. God is neither.

What does this do to the evolution theory? Evolution is still a theory, no matter what anti-religionistas tell you. It hasn’t been proven yet and not a single link has been discovered between species. Further, it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That Law is constantly denied application to life because the evolutionists claim that earth is not a closed system. That is technically true if you look at only the earth. We take energy from the sun. However, there is no size limit to a system, according to the Law. If the boundaries encompass all factors, ie; earth, sun, moons, planets, solar system, galaxy, etc, then the system can be considered closed and entropy must increase. That which is order must tend to disorder. Evolution bucks that Law.

HOWEVER, I would not discount evolution as a matter of faith. Why could not God use evolution to advance whatever life was here on earth before Adam? Was there some atheist hanging around God to say that God couldn’t wave His hand and provide the energy to negate the 2nd Law and evolve species? It is exactly that idea that sticks in my mind - that God used evolution to advance species until He came to ADAM, and then ADAM became the first spirit-man, formed directly by God.

Whether or not evolution happened before Adam really doesn’t matter to me, but it makes sense. If evolution is proven, some day, it won’t make God fall off His throne. Some energy source had to be there to negate the 2nd Law - to start the species-line where the links are missing. Could it be we’ll never find the links because God continually re-created the lines as time passed? Possible.

I will say this without any reservation: evolution without God is as much BS as God making the earth 6000 years ago."

 

[PhilVaz]

nez << What does this do to the evolution theory? Evolution is still a theory, no matter what anti-religionistas tell you. It hasn’t been proven yet and not a single link has been discovered between species. Further, it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. >>

You do not know what a scientific theory is. We’ve had this discussion in here before. A scientific theory is not a guess, not a conjecture, not a supposition, not a hypothesis. It is:

“…a model or framework for understanding…an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested.” (from various definitions found here)

And it is backed by overwhelming evidence. The same for the theory of gravity, atomic theory, electromagnetism, germ theory of disease, and Relativity.

Also a scientific theory is never "proved" since there is no "proof" in science, only in mathematics (or alcohol).

Some of the objections found in your long posts have been answered here, specifically the bogus ones about “no transitional species” and the Second Law of Thermo:

Index to Creationist Claims

And don’t forget Cardinal Schonborn’s new book, I thought I would tack on to this unending creation-evolution thread…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

BTW, as far as interpreting Genesis goes, I much prefer the present Pope, thank you:

In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall

And you can see he was sympathetic to “intelligent design” (lower case) back in 1986 (see near the end of the article), before there was an “Intelligent Design” (upper case) “movement” of the Discovery Institute variety.

I call Vatican I lower-case “intelligent design” too : “The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason….” (cf. Romans 1:19-20).

Vatican I Documents

Sorry to interrupt. Continue on this never-ending creation-evolution thread.

Phil P

 

[drpmjhess]

-CONTINUED QUOTE-
What does this do to the traditional creation account? Well, the traditional creation account is a bunch of BS. It has NO scriptural foundation and smacks of primitive instruction to ignorant and primitive people. God is neither.

What does this do to the evolution theory? Evolution is still a theory, no matter what anti-religionistas tell you. It hasn’t been proven yet and not a single link has been discovered between species. Further, it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That Law is constantly denied application to life because the evolutionists claim that earth is not a closed system.

Nezmithb, yours is a curious post, rambling and largely incoherent. I wonder if you can clear up some points for us.

(1) You suggest, first, that the creation account has no scriptural foundation. Since it is part of Genesis, can you explain what you mean by this?

(2) You assert that “the traditional creation account is a bunch of BS.” What do you mean by that? Do you contend that all creation myths (Hebrew, African, Siberian, Hawaiian) are BS? How do you define “BS”?

(3) You state that “Evolution is still a theory” as if this some big revelation. Of course it is still a theory, just as gravity and plate tectonics and the atomic model of matter are theories. What do you expect?

(4) Enormous numbers of links between speices have been shown by paleontology, genetics, and allied sciences. What do you mean by this?

(5) In your own words – not those of Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research – how does evolution “violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?”

Thanks,
Petrus

 

[cyberjacques]

Wow, nesmithb, would you like some Gatorade and a towel after those mental gymnastics? I hope you didn’t pull anything!

 

[nezmithb]

I swear NONE of you can read, I QUOTED SOMETHING OFF A WEBSITE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD- Don’t ask me questions I was just placing in a piece of information which may or may not have affected your views, I didn’t write it!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…

Genesis 1:2 “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Now, our eyes all just glaze over here, but this is super important. In fact, it is one of the most important verses in Genesis, and God purposely inspired it to say something specific. Don’t just skim over this verse because you think it doesn’t mean much. God inspired this verse for a reason. Quick quiz you are guaranteed to fail: How much time passes between verse 1 and 2? Answer: none? Why, because of the “and” at the beginning of verse 2? BZZZT! Wrong!

“And” is often used to show a very separate topic/subject that is simply joined to the narrative. Let me illustrate in English with an analogy. Bill 1:1"In the beginning of our nation, 1776, we declared independence." Bill 1:2 “And George Bush was re-elected as the 43rd president of an independent nation.” Did they happen at the same time? Of course not. Let me continue with the Bible.

Verse 2 says the earth was without form, and void (empty). Note, the earth exists, already. “Without form” does not mean “clean slate” ready for God to start making stuff. The Hebrew word there is tohuw which means a number of things and is translated as follows: confusion, 3; empty place, 1; nothing, 1; nought, 2; vain, 4; vanity, 4; waste, 1; wilderness, 2; without form, 2; The aggregate meaning is one of chaos. Vain and vanity fit perfectly into a place that has failed as a functioning society, in the context of tohuw. Rather than “clean slate” as we tend to think this passage means, the earth was in chaos and empty. Yes, I have further proof of that particular flavor of translation. But let me continue a minute with verse 2.

“…And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Well, your eyes have glazed over again. Stop it and pay attention. Note that the earth cannot be a “clean slate” completely empty and ready for God to paint… there were waters there. But an even bigger question poses for those who can pay attention. This is only verse 2, and Chrisitans can’t seem to get this. The big question is: what was God doing “moving” on the face of the waters? Wrong answer: He was creating the earth. BZZZZT! Wrong! Wrong! And more wrong!

God already made the earth in verse 1. Verse 2 is a completely separate event that has nothing to do with creation. NOTHING. Except that it is a “pre-event” condition to the “creation” account that follows in verses 3 and on.

TEASER: Genesis 1:3 “And God said, Let there be light: And there was light.” Now we all know this means God made the sun, right? BZZZZZZT! WRONG AGAIN! You blew it! 3rd strike, you’re outta here! Go hit the showers, you’re being relieved from thinking. “But but but…” you sputter. Nah, too bad. You fell for the typical Christian Sunday Quick-Sermon about creation, and it is simply - quite simply - wrong."

This interpretation of the phrase tohu wa bohu is straight out of the Scofield Bible as follows:​

Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition) Chapter 1

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

without form and void Jeremiah 4:23-27; Isaiah 24:1; 45:18 clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting imitations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels. bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/srn.cgi?book=ge&chapter=001

Scofield - or his source - was reading into the text what is not there

As a text, that verse uses the expression tohu wa bohu (“formless and empty”, or some similar rendering) because that is the sort of conception that was familiar at the time it was composed - the notion of a “fall of the angels” is much later, after the OT was written; so certainly long after Genesis 1 was composed.

We should read out of the text what’s in it - not read later ideas (valid for later periods as they may be) into it.

 

[PhilVaz]

nez << I QUOTED SOMETHING OFF A WEBSITE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD >>

For the love of Henry Morris and Duane Gish, if you’re gonna quote some thousands of words be prepared to defend them vigorously, especially on the creation-evolution issue.

Here’s another one hundred thousand words, and I’ll defend them too. :knight2:

Phil P

 

[cyberjacques]

Did nesmithb really get banned? I read his last few posts, and while misguided and somewhat disjointed, I’m not sure I spot anything banworthy. Well, I’ll pray for him anyway.

 

[wildleafblower]

SpiritMeadow, it’s a pity Wildleafblower was uninterested in or psychologically indisposed to exploring the implications of panentheism. She never answered my question, which was “where is your God?”

I’ve been reflecting on this the past couple of days, following my conversation with Fr. Dr. Michael Dodds, O.P. A straight-up 4-D Newtonian theist, it seems to me, has to imagine God being somehwere. But all suppositions of locality (God sitting in close-terrestrial space – say, near CNN’s communication satellite in geostationary orbit – or off to the right of Jupiter, or in the interstellar medium just beyond the heliopause, or between galaxies) are caricatures.

Such a theist could respond either (1) that God exists outside the universe entirely, and divine reality is the matrix within which the spatio-temporal phenomenon known as the Big Bang and its resulting universe arose, or (2) “Of course, God is not sitting “out there” somewhere – God is pure spirit, and God’s spirit permeates the universe.” Both (1) and (2) strike me as simply different ways of spelling “panentheism.” What do you (or others on this list) think?
Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

You are rude. You sure are pushing panetheism! Petrus don’t ever push me again! One thing is for sure, I’m totally against panetheism.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2861491#post2861491 (msg.143)
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2861491#post2861491

 

[drpmjhess]

You are rude. You sure are pushing panetheism! Petrus don’t ever push me again! One thing is for sure, I’m totally against panetheism.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2861491#post2861491 (msg.143)
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2861491#post2861491

Wildleafblower, I respectfully suggest that you check for a screw loose somewhere (do you need Phillips or standard? ). A pusher sells drugs or encyclopedias or bad stocks or illegal wars in Iraq. I have never “pushed” panentheism.

The only thing I have ever suggested is that thousands of my theologian colleagues (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Jewish) find panentheism to be a fruitful metaphysical framework within which to conceive theologically of the God-Creation relationship. Participate in the American Academy of Religion Conference some year (always the weekend before Thanksgiving) and you will see what I mean.

Prayerfully yours, Petrus

Petrus

 

[rskempf]

Greetings,

I believe pantheism is the belief that elements of nature are God. I would not recommend going down this path. The online Catholic dictionaries have a nice definition if you are interested.

Back to Genesis vs. Evolution: This topic has intrigued me for some time. I find so many are unable to bridge the gap to faith in God because of this single topic. Some of my christian friends are excited about a Darwin exhibition coming to a nearby museum this month. I know which side they are on.

Can anyone answer however, why it is that the fossil evidence does not support evolution when considering feathered creatures. My understanding is the evidence shows these types of life very suddenly appeared - in the fossil record.

Also, we have not been witness to any significant evolutionary steps among species in recorded history. How is it possible we, as very complex creatures, could have evolved from … chance.

Considering the miracles recorded in Scripture, even if one of these is true, they illustrate the awesome power of God. Logic holds that if this power exists, then creation theory is possible.

Do you believe or not?
Finally, have you ever heard of Pascal’s wager?

 

[wildleafblower]

Wildleafblower, I respectfully suggest that you check for a screw loose somewhere (do you need Phillips or standard? ). A pusher sells drugs or encyclopedias or bad stocks or illegal wars in Iraq. I have never “pushed” panentheism.

Prayerfully yours, Petrus

Petrus

Petrus, I’m very disappointed in you. I have never had a man speak to me in such an inconsiderate manner. You aren’t a gentleman. You are rude and lack charity. Don’t bother praying for me, pray for yourself . What makes it worse is that you have declared you are an educated Catholic Theologian. I hope you realize what a fool you look like to children and adults, especailly Catholic ones. Very, very sad.

Apparently the link I provided to another topic in my message 596 had quite a few messages deleted by the moderator. Thankfully grateful am I that my message to the moderator was validated. Thank you Catherine Grant. Petrus, you can’t escape the fact that you are pushing panetheism. Now you wish to excuse yourself from the fact by insulting me. Your ignorance relfects in your language and is far beyond the scope of acceptable dialogue. I never said you were a pusher! If your mind immediately goes towards drugs then I have to declare, “Please stay away me, children, and adults of good sense .” Anyone who reads your message 527 and my response to it (# 596) knows for a fact that I was using the verb push in the present tense pushing which means to* press, drive, or impel (someone) to action or completion of an action.* And in truth that Petrus is what you asked for and I delivered in my response to you, “One thing is for sure, I’m totally against panetheism.”

 

[zian]

Greetings,
I believe pantheism is the belief that elements of nature are God. I would not recommend going down this path. The online Catholic dictionaries have a nice definition if you are interested.

Pantheism and panentheism are not the same thing. See here, where we find

*Saying God is in heaven is a way of saying he isn’t stuck on Earth. A moment’s reflection tells us he’s not in space either. If he were, he would be confined, meaning he would be imperfect and therefore not truly God. The Creator of the universe, in his divine nature, can’t be a part of the universe he created.

At the same time, theologians say God is omnipresent–he’s everywhere. How, then, can we say he’s not part of the universe? If God is everywhere, it seems as if he must be in the universe too and therefore part of the universe.

Consider, though, what we said about God not being confined or limited to a specific place. By definition, to be everywhere at once means not being only at a particular place. God’s omnipresence doesn’t mean he’s spread over space the way peanut butter is spread over a slice of bread or water is spread throughout the volume of a swimming pool.

This is the mistake of the New Age movement, whether in the form of pantheism*, which says everything is God, or panentheism, which says God is in everything as sugar is in Kool-Aid.

God is everywhere, say theologians and philosophers, by his power, his essence, and his knowledge. By his infinite power he is everywhere because he gives existence to all things. He is everywhere by his essence because what God is (his essence) isn’t separable from what he can do (his power). God is everywhere by his knowledge because he knows all things at all times.

Another way of looking at God’s omnipresence is to think of creation as a divine play and God as the playwright. The writer of a play is, in a sense, on every page of what he writes. He creates the setting, the characters, and the events of his drama. Yet he’s outside the play itself. It’s equally true to say the play is inside of the author–in his mind, that is.

God is both outside the universe he created and sustains (this is his transcendence) and within it (this is his immanence) by his power, essence, and knowledge.

Also, we have not been witness to any significant evolutionary steps among species in recorded history. How is it possible we, as very complex creatures, could have evolved from … chance.

Mutations occur by chance. Evolution is said to occur by natural selection, among several mechanisms. Natural selection is the very opposite of chance. Also, see the Index to Creationist Claims that Phil linked in post #588.

Considering the miracles recorded in Scripture, even if one of these is true, they illustrate the awesome power of God.

Granted, that God’s power is awesome.

Finally, have you ever heard of Pascal’s wager?

Yes.

**Yoohoo!! I’m post #600.

Do I get a cookie or something …**