Thank God for Evolution!

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex Nihilo, the Omphalist hypothesis – if its tenants are consistent – must argue that everything has the appearance of age, and nothing has real age older than 6,000 years. Bristlecone Pine trees in the White Mountains of Nevada only appear to be 8,000 years old; 2,000 of their rings are fake. Cretaceous fossils are fake, starlight from the Andromeda galaxy is fake, Greenland ice cores are fake, and Adam and Eve’s belly buttons are fake.

Ultimately there is nothing you can trust with certitude, because God might have created it with the appearance of age. And if nothing can be trusted, your epistemology collapses, and science collapses. The geology of the Sierra Nevada – which real geologists know to be three million years old – would be no more trustworthy than the “geology” of the “strata” of the fake Matterhorn in Disneyland!

This is exactly why I don’t consider “creation science” a real science and why I think this should not be taught in schools. Indeed, if all things mrely have the appearance of age, then it would be extremely difficult to discern that which is natural and that which is supernatural.

The problem with this is that we can’t say for sure that God did not work this way-- which is why the Catholic Church, as you know, has permitted people to believe this if they so choose.

Me personally, I don’t believe God created the entire universe with the appearance of age, even if it is possible that God miraculously did such as thing as he did with the water turning to wine, or miraculous healings, or the budding of Aaron’s rod for good examples.

However, if he did do this, this would not necessarilly correspond to a deception either-- something which I’ve been rather vocal about. Indeed, if creation with the appearance of age were considered deceptive, then the water turning to wine, or miraculous healings, or the budding of Aaron’s rod would likewise be considered deceptions too-- and, clearly, these are not deceptions in any sense of the word.

I think the “Trickster God” argument really does essentially undermine various fundamental aspects of our faith, which is why I’m trying to point people toward science instead of theology to prove the earth is older than 6,000 years and demonstrate that evolution occured as well.

 

[Orogeny]

It’s because the people on here who say they believe in evolution usually refuse to name a miracle they think was real.

Then you haven’t read many of the threads on this subject. I have said very consistently for the last 3 years or so that I absolutely believe in miracles. There is an arrogance among those who are literalists that absolutely deny that one can accept an old earth and evolution AND accept miracles. Jerry-jet is doing just that and he has done it on numerous threads.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

The evolutionist crowd only thinks that all the people that Peter Wilders is citing are deluded and that nothing in Genesis can be taken literally.

Come off your high horse, Jerry. That is a statement you can’t even begin to back up.

Is it reasonable to think that the Bible which in many cases can be proven to record actual historical literal events relates Nothing that actually historically happened in the Genesis account?

There isn’t a dispute about GENESIS, there is a dispute about the CREATION STORY. Don’t you understand that?

Does that sound reasonable? Does it sound Catholic?

Yes. No. Nor does it sound like the position that Catholic who accepts that the creation story is allegory.

Does an either/or mentality on evolution only sound reasonable?

No, and I think you should abandon that position immediately.

Peace

Tim

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It’s not sarcasm at all – educate yourself!. In 1857 Philip Gosse proposed a theory in Omphalos: an Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot: “when creation occurred, apparent records of events occurring that actually did not occur — [Gosse] called them “prochronic”, meaning “outside time” — must have been rife throughout the world. Was it not reasonable to argue that fossils and geologic strata and so on were merely prochronic artifacts of a non-existent time pre-dating the actual Creation? This idea became known as the Omphalos hypothesis.”

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Henry_Gosse

Yes, very familiar with that. And yet you can’t refute the position I made from science, or from theology. So you have to resort to sarcasm.

 

[buffalo]

Would that mean that the light from our sun as observed by people on a planet ten billion light years away would also be created as if it were already on its way?

Perhaps another dimension we do not know about is involved. Perhaps time is compressed. Perhaps the speed of light is different. Could be many things.

It is arrogant to assume so much given the fact we only know 3 dimensions, time and have 5 senses.

 

[wildleafblower]

[snip]

Ultimately there is nothing you Mr. Ex Nihilo] can trust with certitude, because God might have created it with the appearance of age. And if nothing can be trusted, your epistemology collapses, and science collapses. Ultimately there is nothing you can trust with certitude, because God might have created it with the appearance of age. And if nothing can be trusted, your epistemology collapses, and science collapses. The geology of the Sierra Nevada – which real geologists know to be three million years old – would be no more trustworthy than the “geology” of the “strata” of the fake Matterhorn in Disneyland!

The National Park Service (Science and Nature Department) of the U.S. Department of the Interior states:
*“The story of Yosemite began about **500 million years ago **when the Sierra Nevada region lay beneath an ancient sea. Thick layers of sediment lay on the sea bed, which eventually was folded and twisted and thrust above sea level. Simultaneously molten rock welled up from deep within the earth and cooled slowly beneath the layers of sediment to form granite. Erosion gradually wore away almost all the overlying rock and exposed the granite. And even as uplifts continued to form the Sierra, water and then glaciers went to work to carve the face of Yosemite. Weathering and erosion continue to shape it today.” *www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/yose/index.cfm
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/yose/index.cfm

(hey ya Tim. I see ya below. Did I bet you to the punch? )

 

[Orogeny]

The value of the writings of the Fathers and Writers is that they demonstrate what the Church believes and provide a witness to the content of Tradition, that Tradition which is itself a vehicle of revelation (cf. William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers Liturgical Press, 1970). Confirmation of this witness by the Church Fathers is contained in the Church’s teaching Magisterium. Some examples are:

The central theme of the Fathers’ teaching is that in the beginning the proto-types of « all things », each one separately, were created from nothing. Involving instantaneous production of first things, it obviates ancestors, thus leaving no place for evolutionary hypotheses.

The standard argument by Catholics believing in evolution is that as the majority of the clergy accept it, one can ignore the Church Fathers and the Magisterium (although they don’t put it as bluntly as that, it’s what is implied). As already mentioned this situation is paralleled by Airianism which spanned the 4th to the 6th centuries. Although it denied the divinity of Christ it swept through the Church up to the highest echelons.

Evolution challenges original sin and all its ancillary doctrines including Baptism and Redemption. The clergy continually say science and theology should no be mixed. Yet their theologians, with little scientific training, have opted for evolution and sacrificed theology.

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences with such people as Stephen Hawkins as members have done a remarkable job.

St. Athanasius where are you?

Peter

Let’s take a minute and discuss this charge you are making, Peter. Those theologians with little scientific knowledge but a firm grasp on theology (I assume you would agree to that, maybe not) and Church teaching are willing to give up that teaching because of something they don’t understand. Your claim is that ther are like the Arians, correct. What is the term for those that follow arianism, Peter? Since I doubt that you will actually answer this question, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, they are called heretics.

Now, back to those theologians who have given up the teachings of the Church based on something they have no real concept of. In your opinion, should they be purged from the Church? If you don’t want to give your opinion on that, how about a more generic question. Should heretics be allowed to remain in the Church leadership? After all, the punishment for heresy is excommunication.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Thanks to threads here and elsewhere, I have fewer, not more, reasons to believe in some form of evolution. The evolution presented in biology textbooks is highly speculative and assumes a great deal.

The argument here is to exalt science and not scripture. Science can only determine so much. As Catholics, we need to see what God contributed and everything points to His being intimately involved.

I see no reason not to believe that God created the earth ready to live on, and literally stretched out the heavens, placing objects billions of light years away, at that distance immediately. But I suppose, a universal belief in that scenario would bring these sorts of debates to an end.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Thanks to threads here and elsewhere, I have fewer, not more, reasons to believe in some form of evolution. The evolution presented in biology textbooks is highly speculative and assumes a great deal.

A couple of points. 1) You were never open to accepting the science to begin with.
2) Speaking for myself, I don’t care if you accept evolution. I do have a problem with you trying to mislead other Catholics with your rhetoric.

The argument here is to exalt science and not scripture.

Only in your mind, Ed.

Science can only determine so much. As Catholics, we need to see what God contributed and everything points to His being intimately involved.

As a Catholic, I do see what God contributed and I agree that He is intimately involved with His creation. Your problem is that you ignore the signs of His creation so that your literal reading of the creation story can continue.

I see no reason not to believe that God created the earth ready to live on, and literally stretched out the heavens, placing objects billions of light years away, at that distance immediately. But I suppose, a universal belief in that scenario would bring these sorts of debates to an end.

Yep, the old God the Deceiver argument. God made the universe with the appearance of age to test our acceptance of scriptures. Right.

Peace

Tim

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Me personally, if they were indeed miraculously created with the appearance of age, then it seems that, genetically speaking, they would have had belly buttons according to their perceived phenotype.

That’s just my opinion though.

The fascinating thing about this is that from the viewpoint of science, there is no difference between “appearance of age” and actual age. Also I would argue that from the viewpoint of God, there is no difference between appearance of age and actual age. The difference is entirely someting seen from the human perspective, and only from the perspective of those humans who live in the time period that is disputed to be “not real”.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow,did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? If so, were they fake or real?

I’d opt for the real looking belly button myself. They woulda looked weird without one. How else can you store your lint?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Thanks to threads here and elsewhere, I have fewer, not more, reasons to believe in some form of evolution. The evolution presented in biology textbooks is highly speculative and assumes a great deal.

**Here we go again. Let’s here it for retrogression. But a nice tact ed giving you license now to start a whole new thread and we can begin again. **

The argument here is to exalt science and not scripture. Science can only determine so much. As Catholics, we need to see what God contributed and everything points to His being intimately involved.

**Yep we’ve been through this over and over. We all agree that God was the ultimate and perfect creator Ed. Anything new? **

I see no reason not to believe that God created the earth ready to live on, and literally stretched out the heavens, placing objects billions of light years away, at that distance immediately. But I suppose, a universal belief in that scenario would bring these sorts of debates to an end.

**The beauty of it is Ed you are free to believe whatever pleases ya. As you now admit the Church allows even YOUR belief. **

Ed

Are we ready to begin again?

 

[edwest2]

I don’t believe in the confrontational approach.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

I don’t believe in the confrontational approach.

No, you believe in the obfuscation approach.

Peace

Tim

 

[TMC]

Spirit Meadow: What is the first miracle in the bible that cannot be explained by science that you believe actually and historically happened?

The reason I keep asking this question is to try to understand Why the people who believe in evolution only and claim to be Catholic are totally 100% convinced that God could in no way ever intervene in a way that science cannot explain yet still claim to be Catholic which entails God Intervening in historical actual events such as the resurrection of Jesus which cannot be scientifically explained?

Why do you Spirit Meadow think that God chose to Not Intervene along with evolution and then later on did choose to intervene through miracles?

If God is capable of acting in evolutrionary ways and miraculous ways why did He choose to only create in an evolutionary way?

That question gets to the heart of the matter.

…

Jerry-Jet, I am not sure why you have such fascination for the miraculous or why “miracles” must be seperated from the “evolution” or “science” or “nature”. I do not believe that miraculous, natural, evolutionary, and scientific can or should be seperated. How do you define miracle? If it means “requiring an act of the Deity”, everything is a miracle. If it means “cannot possibly be explained by an atheist without reference to God” then nothing is a miracle. Why is where the lines in between are drawn important? Is it necessary that the wonders presented in the Old Testament be “miracles”? Why? Is it necessary that Christ’s acts be miracles? Why?

For my part, I find most everything miraculous. Really I do. I understand that your definition of miracle may differ from mine, so I will say that I am certain that the resurrection is a miracle by most definitions of the term. I think the other miracles set forth in the Gospels are likely miracles, too. The OT miracles, I am not sure about them. But I don’t understand how any of these “miracles”, aside from the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, effect my Faith. What do they lead me to believe or to do that I would not otherwise believe or do?

Seperating the things in the Bible, or in life, in to miraculous and natural suggest a division between Creator and Creation that I don’t believe exists. It also suggests, to me, that the Creation is independant of the Creator such that the Creator is not fully in control of it. I dont’ think that is what you are trying to say, but I don’t really understand what your point is.

 

[wildleafblower]

I see no reason not to believe that God created the earth ready to live on, and literally stretched out the heavens, placing objects billions of light years away, at that distance immediately. But I suppose, a universal belief in that scenario would bring these sorts of debates to an end.

God bless,
Ed

Ed, There will never be a " universal belief" God created the earth ready to live on! I have no need to debate with you since I can provide scientific evidence supported by the following document::

THE AGE OF THE EARTH
United States Department of the Interior
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Branch of Isotope Geology Menlo Park, California

*The Earth is a constantly changing planet. Its crust is continually being created, modified, and destroyed. As a result, rocks that record its earliest history have not been found and probably no longer exist. Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence that the Earth and the other bodies of the Solar System are 4.5-4.6 billion years old, and that the Milky Way Galaxy and the Universe are older still. The principal evidence for the antiquity of Earth and
its cosmic surroundings is:

1. The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years. Rocks 3.4-3.6 billion years in age have been found in southern Africa, western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks but they originated as lava flows and sedimentary rocks. The debris from which the sedimentary rocks formed must have
   come from even older crustal rocks. The oldest dated minerals (4.0-4.2 billion years) are tiny zircon crystals found in sedimentary rocks in western Australia.
2. The oldest Moon rocks are from the lunar highlands and were formed when the early lunar crust was partially or entirely molten. These rocks, of which only a few were returned by the Apollo missions, have been dated by two methods at between 4.4-4.5 billion years in age.
3. The majority of the 70 well-dated meteorites have ages of 4.4-4.6 billion years. These meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids and represent some of the most primitive material in the solar system, have been dated by 5 independent radiometric dating methods.
4. The “best” age for the Earth is based on the time required for the lead isotopes in four very old lead ores (galena) to have evolved from the composition of lead at the time the Solar System formed, as recorded in the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. this
   “model lead age” is 4.54 billion years.
5. The evidence for the antiquity of the Earth and Solar System is consistent with evidence for an even greater age for the Universe and Milky Way Galaxy. A) The age of the Universe can be estimated from the velocity and distance of galaxies as the universe expands. The estimates range from 7 to 20 billion years, depending on whether the expansion is constant or is slowing due to gravitational attraction. B) The age of the Galaxy is estimated to be 14-18 billion years from the rate of evolution of stars in globular clusters, which are thought to be the oldest stars in the Galaxy. The age of the elements in the Galaxy, based on the production ratios of osmium isotopes in supernovae and the change in that ratio over time due to radioactive decay, is 8.6-15.7 billion years. Theoretical considerations indicate that the Galaxy formed within a billion years of the beginning of the Universe. C) Combining the data from A) and B), the "best, i.e., most consistent, age of the universe is estimated to be 14-17 billion years.*

wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/usgsnps/gtime/ageofearth.pdf
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/usgsnps/gtime/ageofearth.pdf

Ed you can continue reading the document which will hopefully give you an understanding about the importance of RADIOMETRIC DATING. FYI, I don’t see God making or creating the universe. But I do thank you for giving me the opportunity to do some research by which I can utilize this newly found pdf as an arguement against elsewhere Thank you. And I must thank the Holy Spirit for helping me locate this absolute Gold mine. YESseriee. I’m jumping up with joy!

 

[drpmjhess]

I think the “Trickster God” argument really does essentially undermine various fundamental aspects of our faith, which is why I’m trying to point people toward science instead of theology to prove the earth is older than 6,000 years and demonstrate that evolution occured as well.

Absolutely. There is a fundamental difference between events perceived through the eyes of faith as miracle, and a wholesale divine deception about the universe.

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

To quote you: “I don’t see God making or creating the universe.”

I do. The Bible is my reference.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Yes, very familiar with that. And yet you can’t refute the position I made from science, or from theology. So you have to resort to sarcasm.

It’s not sarcasm – it’s a serious question, which you have refused to answer, because you know you have no credible answer.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It’s not sarcasm – it’s a serious question, which you have refused to answer, because you know you have no credible answer.

You didn’t ask a question. Ask one and I’ll be glad to answer it.