Thank God for Evolution!

[SpiritMeadow]

Well thats just what I’m asking… how would you tell if a universe was created by God to ‘appear old’ or to actually be old. I propose that there is no difference between the two, since God can create time.

I think that the fallacy of your argument is that yes God could create all things instantaneously,BUT they would spread over the required time line. They might be 1/10 of a second old, but the entire timeline would be 13 billion years and thus things that appear old are old by the timeline.

Thats why I said I loved your imagery. It gives almost a mobius quality to the scenario and is quite lovely. I assume you thought my compliment was some form of sarcasm and it was indeed high praise. No matter.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

They weren’t smart enough. They just weren’t smart enough. That’s all it is - they just wren’t smart enough. Baloney.

Jesus turns the water into wine. Jesus gives sight to the blind. Jesus multiplies the loaves and fishes. Jesus rises from the dead.

Hope. They were smart enough.

Ed

Ed. take it easy…Go have a beer and calm down.

 

[edwest2]

Nice dodge, but no prize.

The unfounded myth that people “back then” weren’t smart enough is just that, a myth. They had astronomy, Plato, Aristotle… There was much discussion about the age of the earth.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Ed. take it easy…Go have a beer and calm down.

A couple of conumdrums about the “instantaneous creation with a semblace of age” hypothesis:

(1) Some animals must have been created with excrement already in their bowels, from meals never actually eaten (we have fossil digestion)

(2) From fossil evidence, some creatures must have been created in flagrante delictu, and in the process of giving birth.

And a conundrum about what Young Earthers do with insects: dung beetles must feed off dung every day. In the Garden of Eden, there would not have been sufficient dung to support the beetle population until the second day. But would God even have allowed dung in the Garden of Eden? How would it have been Paradise with all that dung lying around for Eve and Adam to step in?

 

[edwest2]

Fossils can be formed rather rapidly. The dung beetle was created by God to serve a necessary function. The water Jesus turned to wine skipped the grape juice and fermentation phase altogether.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I think that the fallacy of your argument is that yes God could create all things instantaneously,BUT they would spread over the required time line. They might be 1/10 of a second old, but the entire timeline would be 13 billion years and thus things that appear old are old by the timeline.

Thats why I said I loved your imagery. It gives almost a mobius quality to the scenario and is quite lovely. I assume you thought my compliment was some form of sarcasm and it was indeed high praise. No matter.

Thank you.

Yes I agree things really would be old in that scenario. I was just hoping that the literal-Genesis people would read that and realize “hey, it doesn’t really matter if the earth is old, God still made it all in an instant…” but… alas, no

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Thank you.

Yes I agree things really would be old in that scenario. I was just hoping that the literal-Genesis people would read that and realize “hey, it doesn’t really matter if the earth is old, God still made it all in an instant…” but… alas, no

I thought your point was a good point Neil, even it others did not accept it or understand it.

Perhaps we’re all to busy either psychoanalyzing nature or doing a post-mortem on God’s creative actions to actually hear the good news in the dicussion.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Sorry, buffalo, but when someone posts that God made the universe with the appearance of age, that is an argument FOR God the Trickster.

No, it’s not. I think it is, however, a faulty understanding of God’s creative act however.

First of all, when God allowed Moses’ staff to grow rapidly into serpent from a dead wooden staff (and later turn back again), this was not deceptive because the serpent had the “appearance of age”. It was a miracle because it had the “appearance of age”.

Second of all, when God allowed Aarons’ rod to blossum and grow rapidly into flowering buds from a dead wooden staff, this was not deceptive because it had the “appearance of age”. It was a miracle because it had the “appearance of age”.

Third of all, when God allowed Miriam’s skin to rapidly turn leprous like snow and then be rapidly healed back to normal again, this was not deceptive because it had the “appearance of age”. It was a miracle because it had the “appearance of age”.

Fourth of all, when Jesus sped up the process of fermentation to turn water into wine during his first “public miracle”, this was not deceptive because it had the “appearance of age”. It was a miracle because it had the “appearance of age”.

Fifth of all, when Jesus rapidly multipied the fish and the loaves to feed the 5,000, this was not deceptive because it had the “appearance of age”. It was a miracle because it had the “appearance of age”.

Sixth of all, when Jesus rubbed clay and spittle into the eyes of the blind-man so that the aging process actually be reversed to restore the man’s sight to it’s former vigor, this was not deceptive because it had the “appearance of age”. It was a miracle because it had the “appearance of age”.

Seventh of all, when Jesus’ body in the grave actually resisted the flow of time and did not see decay prior to his resurrection when time flowed backward, this too was not deceptive because it had the “appearance of age”. It was a miracle because it had the “appearance of age”.

I’m sorry, but if what you’re saying is true, that God would be deceiving us if anything had the appearance of age, then this does fundamentally undermine anything considered ‘miraculous’ by virtue of it’s age (or lack thereof) as being potentially a deception on God’s part.

This is where the mystery of God’s creation slices along the razor’s edge. The ultimate answer at this time is that we simply do not know exactly how it all works, but that our lack of knowledge should not prevent us from exploring this idea further.

Of course, if someone is going to claim that they believe the entire universe had the appearance of age, they can choose to (and are permitted within Catholicism to…) believe this if they so choose. If they do this, however, they must understand that they will not be able to adequatetly present credible arguments against what science actually claims and they really are removing themselves from all forms of dialogue within the scientific community-- which is what theistic evolutionists are gravely concerned about (and righly so). In short, they have no right to use “creation science” to debate scientists, because they do not know how science works and use faulty “scientific” arguments when doing so.

On the other hand, if someone is going to claim that they believe the entire universe really is as old as it appears, they can choose to (and are permitted within Catholicism to…) believe this if they so choose as well. If they do this, however, they must understand that they are potentially allowing science to trump over divine revelation so some degree and they really are removing themselves from most if not all forms of dialogue within the faith community which do rightly perceive the chance that God may have actually created all or most things miraculously-- which is what most forms of creationists are gravely concerned about (and, for all we know, perhaps righly so). In other words, God may have acted in this way for all we know.

In my opinion, there must be some satisfactory middle ground between these views, some neutral island where the two views can meet and rationally voice their concerns, allowing each side to believe what they will, and yet learning from each other as we engaged our spiritual journey toward the Truth concerning the creation/evolution debate-- whatever that may be as God himself eventually reveals.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I reject that completely. If God created the universe with an apparent age that is different than the actual age, He is deceiving us.

And if that is the case, then you are proclaiming your own view over that of the pope’s and blocking “one side” of what the Catholic Church has fairly “permitted” people to believe – because the Church in her wisdom has “permitted” people to believe either view as their conscience dictates – and you are simply not at all interested in finding any middle ground for this.

I’m sorry, but if what you say is true, then all the miracles I listed above with the “appearance of age” in one form or another really are nothing more than deceptions on God’s part by virtue of the definition of your own words.

And you are undermining other people’s faith when you do this, whether you realize this or not.

From here on I will simply pray for you, with my prayer being that God will soften your hardened heart to his divine creative action without losing your desire for authentic scientific truths.

 

[Ahimsa]

What’s wrong with a God who is willing to play Tricks?

If the Serpent “tricked” Eve and Adam,

perhaps it takes another, more powerful Trick to undo the damage?

Felix the Cat’s got nuttin’ on Adonai.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

What’s wrong with a God who is willing to play Tricks?

If the Serpent “tricked” Eve and Adam,

perhaps it takes another, more powerful Trick to undo the damage?

Felix the Cat’s got nuttin’ on Adonai.

Me personally, I think when God “tricked” the devil into crucifying Christ, thus was the ultimate “trick”-- if one could call it that…
1 Corinthians 2:7-9:

No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

However, as it is written:

No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him—

I will simply note that whatever “deception” occured would have occured because people “deceived themselves” when they did not understand God’s message-- and not the other way around.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I think one interesting quesiton that has come up is how do we know something is real without invoking a capricious and deceptive God in the process.

One thing that I can say is that Jesus actually did speak out against when the apostle’s thought they were seeing a spirit or ghost for example…

Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd.

After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray.

When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them.

About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, because they all saw him and were terrified.

Immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”

Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down.

They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.

Here’s an example of where the apostles thought they were seeing merely some kind of apparition-- and Jesus corrected them by telling them he was real.

Another thing can be seen here too in Luke 24:39 after the resurrection…

Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.

Indeed, this appears to be a good case of Jesus giving a clear discernment to his apostles that he is real and not merely a phantom or apparition after his resurrection.

Likewise, since the Scriptures do give an account of God creating the heavens and the earth, and since the Scriptures give no clear warning against people thinking the creation itself is an illusion or apparition, I think it could be suggested, based on the Scriptures, that God would have actually spoken up and explained it was an illusion if in fact it were.

Consequently, an examination of the Scriptures shows mutltiple times where the Scriptures exhort people to examine God’s creation so that they might understand that God indeed made it to his glory.

Of course, based on “God’s reality” in heaven, perhaps we really are nothing more than a “transient fleeting vision” when compared to his divine eternal nature.

For example, we read Psalm 39:6…

Man is a mere phantom as he goes to and fro: He bustles about, but only in vain; he heaps up wealth, not knowing who will get it.

And Isaiah 29:4 too…

Brought low, you will speak from the ground; your speech will mumble out of the dust. Your voice will come ghostlike from the earth; out of the dust your speech will whisper.

But I think that one would have to read this too literally to actually conclude that we are all merely illusions in the mind of God.

Since God is concerned for our well-being and willing to die in order to save us, I think that any argument to reduce our existence to being a mere illusion would leave us with the image of God lying in heaven on a divine psychiatrist’s couch and in need of some serious therapy.

I don’t picture God this way. Neither do the Scriptures nor Tradition picture him this way either.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It is much easier to reconcile evolution and parts of the Genesis creation account as being historicaly and literaly true if Adam and Eve are Miraculously crated by God and if Eve really is created from Adam–they are the two first Homo Sapiens and all of us do indeed descend from them and they are the sole parents of us all just as the Catholic Church teaches.

You can believe that and still believe in an old earth and in evolution.

What else could be reconciled?–well I don’t believe that Eden was created 6,000 years ago but the scriptures say that 1,000 years to us is like a day is to God–so what’s the big problem with Adam and Eve being the first Homo Sapiens?

Now some may say well why can’t we get to Eden today?

If Jesus can be substantially present in the eucharist despite us seeing the accidents of bread and wine–don’t tell me that Eden couldn’t be substantialy present in Iraq on a different dimension despite the accidents that we see with our eyes which are present day Iraq.

And the fact that there were some very large local if not global floods around the Black Sea in the last 70,000 years makes the story of Noah altogether believable.

And no folks I don’t think every animal in the world was in that ark but most of the animals of the area probably were.

The point I’m trying to make is that Genesis isn’t just made up stories! Even legends are some times based on actual facts–things that really did happen.

So if you’re asking me if Adam and Eve and Noah were all real people I’d have to say yes!

I believe in Genesis when you get to the time of Abraham the years mentioned do correspond to our current calendar.

What I’m saying to everyone may sound crazy–all I’m trying to say is this–Eden could really have existed on a different dimension that intersects current day Earth on another plane.

Such a thing would not be impossible for God.

And Adam and Eve being the first Homo Sapiens and the Earth being old and evolution other than present day man–well that makes alot of sense to me.

And I don’t know how much of the Genesis creation count is literally true–all I’m saying is that even if it is written symbolically–that doesn’t mean that some of it didn’t really happen!

And God can create only by evolution because He’s certainly smart enough to do that but He can also create miraculously.

Am I the only person here who believes in both evolution and that parts of the Genesis creation story actually happened?

I do believe in the fall of Adam and Eve and the start of original sin.

That actually happened. I don’t know how you can not believe that and claim to be Catholic.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Now some may say well why can’t we get to Eden today?

I think we are returning to Eden through the Eucharist
Proverbs 11:30:

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is wise.

Revelation 2:7:

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

I think Jesus is the Tree of Life which we participate in through the Eucharist.

Am I the only person here who believes in both evolution and that parts of the Genesis creation story actually happened?

No. I think many of us agree with you on many parts.

I do believe in the fall of Adam and Eve and the start of original sin.

Me too. Many of us believe this to be true too.

That actually happened. I don’t know how you can not believe that and claim to be Catholic.

Perhaps we should do as Romans 14:1 says and accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

 

[drpmjhess]

I do believe in the fall of Adam and Eve and the start of original sin. That actually happened. I don’t know how you can not believe that and claim to be Catholic.

Here goes the Religious Right again, claiming that some of us are not Catholic! And we thought Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were obnoxious…

 

[Orogeny]

No, it’s not. I think it is, however, a faulty understanding of God’s creative act however.

Show me some physical evidence of those miracles. I believe that they happened, but I do so simply from faith because there is no evidence indicating that they never happened. There is plenty of evidence the universe is old.

I’m sorry, but if what you’re saying is true, that God would be deceiving us if anything had the appearance of age, then this does fundamentally undermine anything considered ‘miraculous’ by virtue of it’s age (or lack thereof) as being potentially a deception on God’s part.

Not at all. Again, it is not the miracle that is deceiving, it is the evidence that contradicts the miracle that is deceiving.

Of course, if someone is going to claim that they believe the entire universe had the appearance of age, they can choose to (and are permitted within Catholicism to…) believe this if they so choose. If they do this, however, they must understand that they will not be able to adequatetly present credible arguments against what science actually claims and they really are removing themselves from all forms of dialogue within the scientific community-- which is what theistic evolutionists are gravely concerned about (and righly so). In short, they have no right to use “creation science” to debate scientists, because they do not know how science works and use faulty “scientific” arguments when doing so.

Agreed.

On the other hand, if someone is going to claim that they believe the entire universe really is as old as it appears, they can choose to (and are permitted within Catholicism to…) believe this if they so choose as well. If they do this, however, they must understand that they are potentially allowing science to trump over divine revelation so some degree and they really are removing themselves from most if not all forms of dialogue within the faith community which do rightly perceive the chance that God may have actually created all or most things miraculously-- which is what most forms of creationists are gravely concerned about (and, for all we know, perhaps righly so). In other words, God may have acted in this way for all we know.

I agree partially. I disagree that accepting the evidence that the universe is old is allowing science to trump divine revelation.

In my opinion, there must be some satisfactory middle ground between these views, some neutral island where the two views can meet and rationally voice their concerns, allowing each side to believe what they will, and yet learning from each other as we engaged our spiritual journey toward the Truth concerning the creation/evolution debate-- whatever that may be as God himself eventually reveals.

Well, I have a hard time imagining that a middle ground is needed when one side has evidence to support it’s position and the other has none.

I would suggest that science is the way that God is revealing the truth about how He created.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Fossils can be formed rather rapidly. The dung beetle was created by God to serve a necessary function. The water Jesus turned to wine skipped the grape juice and fermentation phase altogether.

Well, that paragraph includes three sentences that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. What are you trying to say, Ed?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

And if that is the case, then you are proclaiming your own view over that of the pope’s and blocking “one side” of what the Catholic Church has fairly “permitted” people to believe – because the Church in her wisdom has “permitted” people to believe either view as their conscience dictates – and you are simply not at all interested in finding any middle ground for this.

A couple of things here. I am not blocking anyone from believing in God the Deceiver. The Church has permitted both sides, as you have noted. Both can’t be right, can they? The Church permits it because She hasn’t ruled on it either way.

I’m sorry, but if what you say is true, then all the miracles I listed above with the “appearance of age” in one form or another really are nothing more than deceptions on God’s part by virtue of the definition of your own words.

No, that is not true. As I noted in the other post, it is not the appearance of age in a miracle that is deceiving, it is the evidence left behind that contradicts the miracle that is deceiving.

And you are undermining other people’s faith when you do this, whether you realize this or not.

How so? If I tell them that the earth orbits the sun, am I undermining the faith of those who hold that the earth is the center of the universe?

From here on I will simply pray for you, with my prayer being that God will soften your hardened heart to his divine creative action without losing your desire for authentic scientific truths.

Thank you for your prayers. I mean that sincerly. I never have a problem with people praying for me.

I don’t understand the rest of that paragraph, though. I do believe in His divine creative action.

Peace

Tim

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Show me some physical evidence of those miracles. I believe that they happened, but I do so simply from faith because there is no evidence indicating that they never happened. There is plenty of evidence the universe is old.

Right, and there is also plenty of evidence that God suspends the aging process in our modern day as well (cf., the incorruptable bodies of saints for example).

In other words, if a scientifically minded person were present back then to measure the “age of the wine” which Jesus miraculously made at the wedding feat of Cana, for example, then he would most likely conclude that the wine is older than it appears.

The first stage of fermentation process for red wines is 5-10 days. White wines sit for 10-15 days. After this time period passes, the second phase of fermentation begins. During the second phase of fermentation, the wine is siphoned into an airtight container with great care taken to not add anymore oxygen at this point.

And yet our Lord precisely controlled the circumstances in an “instant” to create the wine from water-- apparently adding all the necessary ingredients for the wine as well, causing wine to be made from water (instead of grape juice when joined by other ingredients resulting in a chemical reaction that produces wine), a process which normally is impossible using water alone (and takes at least 5 days for the first part of fermentation alone too).

Don’t you see what I’m getting at?

If God used a similar process to create the universe, it could potentially be no different than the miracle of Jesus turning water into wine-- including the “appearance of age”.

Not at all. Again, it is not the miracle that is deceiving, it is the evidence that contradicts the miracle that is deceiving.

So if a scientifically minded person were present at the wedding feat of Cana, would they be right in claiming that the evidence of the wine’s apparent age requiring an existence for at least a week contradicts the instant miracle?

Agreed.

It’s good to agree.

I agree partially. I disagree that accepting the evidence that the universe is old is allowing science to trump divine revelation.

So does science tell us something about God or not?

Many here seem to think no. I’ve disagreed with them many times and explained my position carefully on this matter.

What do you say?

Well, I have a hard time imagining that a middle ground is needed when one side has evidence to support it’s position and the other has none.

So if God actually created with the appaearnce of age, as he did with the wine at the wedding feast of Cana, what scientific evidence would we have to refute this?

I would suggest that science is the way that God is revealing the truth about how He created.

I agree-- even though others seem to disagree with me on this one.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

A couple of things here. I am not blocking anyone from believing in God the Deceiver.

You are blocking their beleif in God creating with the appearance of age when you say that God is deceiving people if he does this.