Thank God for Evolution!

[drpmjhess]

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

I did ask a question: were Adam and Eve’s belly button fake or real? That is, had they been formed as actual ports for their umbilical cords, or were they merely God’s cosmetic implants into fully formed adults that had never served the real purpose for which they were (intelligently) designed?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I did ask a question: were Adam and Eve’s belly button fake or real? That is, had they been formed as actual ports for their umbilical cords, or were they merely God’s cosmetic implants into fully formed adults that had never served the real purpose for which they were (intelligently) designed?

Dear Dr. Peter M. J. Hess,

I didn’t realize that was a serious question. It seemed more like a sarcastic comment directed to your friend SpiritMeadow.

You’ll need to define your terms. What is considered real to a religious person may not be considered real to someone who bases all of his knowledge on science. What exactly do you mean by real and fake?

While waiting for your answer, I’ll make an assumtion that by ‘real’ you mean that Adam’s navel appeared to have been the location where an umbilical cord was attached to him when he was born. I don’t take the creation account in Genesis literally, but I’ll presume that Adam in the story refers to the first human being. In that case, yes the first human’s navel was real.

Sincerely,
Neil

 

[Peter_Wilders]

B]To Neil_Anthony and other thread participants

**The distinction between miracles and creation should be noted.

Miracles depend upon God putting aside second causes or natural laws. Nothing entirely new is produced, i.e. prototypes already exist. They take place during the period of Providence (after the hexameron).The wine at Cana was a well-known beverage.

Creation is from nothing “'ex nihilo”. It produces something entirely new. The thing created is the prototype. Eve from Adam’s side, for instance, was the first of womankind.

(Incidentally, the production of the first woman inevitably precludes evolution). **

Peter

 

[wildleafblower]

Science acknowledges only evidence and logic. As it should be.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Yes! Alec what you have stated is the truth! Unfortunately, some people think *come se niente fosse *, let’s take science and turn it into theology and yelp “Sprezzatura!” The deed is deadly when such a person effortlessly announces to educated people on the Internet that ‘consciousness’ infiltrates the universe from the beginning of time.

 

[Orogeny]

B]To Neil_Anthony and other thread participants

The distinction between miracles and creation should be noted.

Miracles depend upon God putting aside second causes or natural laws. Nothing entirely new is produced, i.e. prototypes already exist. They take place during the period of Providence (after the hexameron).The wine at Cana was a well-known beverage.

Creation is from nothing “'ex nihilo”. It produces something entirely new. The thing created is the prototype. Eve from Adam’s side, for instance, was the first of womankind.

**(Incidentally, the production of the first woman inevitably precludes evolution). **

PeterAny chance you will reply to my questions, Peter?

Peace

Tim

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thanks Peter for the clarification.
I’ve run out of new ideas to debate about with you. I think I understand where you’re coming from and so at least I can understand what I’m disagreeing with now.
I think most of what the Fathers said about creation is still valid from a theological viewpoint.
Neil

B]To Neil_Anthony and other thread participants

**The distinction between miracles and creation should be noted.

Miracles depend upon God putting aside second causes or natural laws. Nothing entirely new is produced, i.e. prototypes already exist. They take place during the period of Providence (after the hexameron).The wine at Cana was a well-known beverage.

Creation is from nothing “'ex nihilo”. It produces something entirely new. The thing created is the prototype. Eve from Adam’s side, for instance, was the first of womankind.

(Incidentally, the production of the first woman inevitably precludes evolution). **

Peter

 

[wildleafblower]

Peter Wilders, I wish to only mention about Miracles and will stick to my last message as well. As far as miracles:

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE PLENARY SESSION
OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE CAUSES OF SAINTS

*The second theme that your Plenary Assembly is treating is “the miracle in the Causes of Saints”. It is well-known that since ancient times, the process for arriving at canonization passes through the proof of virtues and miracles, attributed to the intercession of the candidate to the honours of the altar.

As well as reassuring us that the Servant of God lives in Heaven in communion with God, miracles constitute the divine confirmation of the judgment expressed by the ecclesiastical authority on his/her virtuous life. I hope that the Plenary Meeting will be able to examine this subject in greater depth in the light of the Tradition of the Church, of present-day theology and of the most reliable scientific discoveries. It should not be forgotten that in the examination of events claimed to be miraculous the competence of scholars and theologians converges, although the last word is given to theology, the only discipline that can give a miracle an interpretation of faith.

This is why the process of Saints’ Causes moves from the scientific evaluation of the Medical Council or technical experts to a theological examination by the Consultors and later by the Cardinals and Bishops. Moreover, it should be clearly borne in mind that the uninterrupted practice of the Church establishes the need for a physical miracle, since a moral miracle does not suffice. *

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20060424_cause-santi_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...s/hf_ben-xvi_let_20060424_cause-santi_en.html

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Does anyone here think that the soul evolved?

 

[Ahimsa]

Does anyone here think that the soul evolved?

If by “soul”, you mean “mental capacities”, then yes.

If by “soul”, you mean the innermost essence of who we are, then no.

 

[Orogeny]

Does anyone here think that the soul evolved?

I do not. Do you?

Peace

Tim

 

[wildleafblower]

MY :twocents: worth. The soul is immortal God made it. And mine is special, very unique from everyone elses. It belongs to me though I share my soulful expressions with others.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

So even if you don’t believe that Adam and Eve were miraculously made and were not the product of evolution you will still have to believe that the granting of the soul by God to Adam and Eve was a miracle?

I have to ask real dumb questions here because people go into convulsions when the topic of miracles comes up and some people here don’t have the mental capacity to understand the difference between God acting in a way that obeys the laws of science and can be scientifically explained

and God working in a miraculous way that violates the laws of science.

Evidently those laws are woshiped so much that the thought of God Himself suspending them for any reason whatsoever is anathema to some people.

Let me ask another dumb question–any can comment on it that have the courage to do so:

How many times has God suspended the laws of science and intervened in a miraculous way in recorded history?

Some people don’t believe God has ever done that. Others believe that the resurrection of Jesus was miraculous. Others believe the miracles that Jesus did as recorded in the gospels. Others believe in the Old Testament miracles and still others believe in evolution and the miracles of the Old and New Testaments burt Not the miracle of Eve being created from Adam in the creation account in Genesis.

So there are many different views on whether and how many times God has acted to inrtervene by suspending the laws of science in a miraculous way

God gave me a brain. The evidence for evolurtion is not Proof but is
believable.

The witness of the Catholic Church to me is believable though it isn’t proof. I have faith that it is the truth.

Since I do Believe it to be true the possibility that God did miraculously create Eve from Adam is believable to me even if it can’t be proven and I can believe that way without throwing my brain away and the evidence that suggests that evolution might be true also.

Now it wouldn’t kill me if Eve wasn’t miraculously created from Adam because as a Catholic I am not required to believe in a literal interpretation only of Genesis.

Jesus rising from the dead? Yes I’m required to believe that or I don’t have the Catholic faith.

My prayer is that people who may have views on creation different than mine will at least have as much faith in whatever they’re supposed to believe in as God wills them to have!

I thank God for faith while I also thank God for evolution–I just believe that God did intervene mirculously more than some people here at this forum believe.

Is that OK?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Let me ask another dumb question–any can comment on it that have the courage to do so:

How many times has God suspended the laws of science and intervened in a miraculous way in recorded history?

Hi Jerry Jet,

I certainly don’t have any problem with you believing God suspends the laws of nature… I agree with you.

How many times… I have no idea… there are dozens just in the bible plus apparitions like fatima etc… who knows how many.

But there’s also a class of ‘miracle’ where the laws of nature aren’t suspended. Like when a remarkable co-incidence happens that seems like a miracle.

Or similarly, when Moses parted the Red Sea, the bible says that a wind came up and blew the waters apart… so God used nature for that miracle. It seems like God often prefers to work within the laws of nature.

So I wonder, why did God make the laws of nature that work 99.9999% of the time, and do some miracles within them, appear within the laws of nature as a human being, but then break them once in a while. It’s very confusing to me. What do you think?

Neil

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I did ask a question: were Adam and Eve’s belly button fake or real? That is, had they been formed as actual ports for their umbilical cords, or were they merely God’s cosmetic implants into fully formed adults that had never served the real purpose for which they were (intelligently) designed?

They had been formed as actual ports for their umbilical cords.

 

[edwest2]

I suggest anyone confused about miracles pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The parting of the Red Sea was a miracle as was the pillars of fire. But, today, there is a 'Bible Explanation Industry" that attempts to confuse people.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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”.

That’s exactly right. Or, at least, it could be exactly right.

In other words, if God created something with the appearance of age, this doesn’t imply that we can’t actually learn from this appearance and likewise know what “would have” happened in “real time” if such an event actually did have the time to exist the way God may have “presented it”.

Within this vein, the geological record “could be” merely “tautological” by virtue of what God reveals through the “appearance of age”, something which, although it may not have actually happened, can still nonetheless teach us something about what “would have” happened.

In other words, even if it was only “ficitonal”, it’s still nonetheless “true”.

Interestingly, I do find it a rather curious phenomenon that many people believe that God did indeed use this very same kind of “mythologically true language” when allowing the Sacred Scriptures to recount the supposedly fictional story of Adam and Eve and their fall from grace-- and they don’t consider this deceptive at all.

However, if this same standard is applied to the physical creation itself via the scientific methodology – with it being suggested that God indeed used this very same kind of “mythologically true language” when allowing the geological record to recount the supposedly fictional story of life’s development on earth and struggle for survival – this seems to be firmly rejected because it treads too closely to our own “reality” and is believed to be highly deceptive.

Myself, I do accept that the universe has been around for a long time-- perhaps even longer than the 16 billion years that is commonly suggested. I see no solid reason why God would not have allowed this much time to really pass by either.

I’m only noting how many people on many different sides of the argument will use these various arguments, arguments which can easilly be reversed back on themselves without much difficulty when one looks carefully at what each side claims in defence of their own faith.

I’m noting this in an attempt to keep science and faith in their proper prespectives so that people look more carefully at the purely scientific reasons why either side believes what they believe without going in the directions of the “Trickster God”, “Appearance with Age”, or “The Great Experimenter”-- all various opinions which really do undermine people’s own arguments for their own faith whether they realize it or not.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That’s exactly right. Or, at least, it could be exactly right.

In other words, if God created something with the appearance of age, this doesn’t imply that we can’t actually learn from this appearance and likewise know what “would have” happened in “real time” if such an event actually did have the time to exist the way God may have “presented it”.

Within this vein, the geological record “could be” merely “tautological” by virtue of what God reveals through the “appearance of age”, something which, although it may not have actually happened, can still nonetheless teach us something about what “would have” happened.

In other words, even if it was only “ficitonal”, it’s still nonetheless “true”.

Interestingly, I do find it a rather curious phenomenon that many people believe that God did indeed use this very same kind of “mythologically true language” when allowing the Sacred Scriptures to recount the supposedly fictional story of Adam and Eve and their fall from grace-- and they don’t consider this deceptive at all.

I don’t think there’s anything at all deceptive about God creating a past as well as a present. A past is a past, there’s who is to say that it’s fictional? It’s the state of the universe at a previous time as determined by natural laws.

In this distant past, our hominid ancestors interacted with their environment much like we do, except they didn’t have souls. Their sensory organs sent signals to their brains which lit up with activity almost like ours do today. So why would you say it didn’t happen?

I wasn’t suggesting that there is no distant past, only that God creates the past like he creates the present and the future. He could even create it ‘logically-after’ the present or not create it at all. The past is not something he creates the present through, like a tool he uses to create, its something he creates in the same way as He creates the present. It’s just a matter of God running the math equations forwards or backwards to calculate what things looked like at each time. So it’s completely irrelevant to a discussion about whether God created us or not.

Also there is no time, in our sense of the word time, that God created us. We were created from outside of time. Earlier and later are only relevant within time, but not to the creation of time. So 4000BC is as reasonable a time as any to label as God’s special time from where He started everything. He could have worked backwards from there to create the distant past, or he could have created 4000BC last after 2000AD and 4billionBC.

All I’m saying is that there is no difference between the appearance of age and real age. I’d be so bold as to say that even to God there is no difference. And if there is no difference, you can’t call appearance of age dishonest, unless you also call real age dishonest. If you say one is honest but the other isn’t, you have to prove that there is a difference.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

All I’m saying is that there is no difference between the appearance of age and real age. I’d be so bold as to say that even to God there is no difference. And if there is no difference, you can’t call appearance of age dishonest, unless you also call real age dishonest. If you say one is honest but the other isn’t, you have to prove that there is a difference.

One thing I should clarify… there is a difference between the universe existing and just appearing to have exited if there were witnesses to it. So if there were spiritual beings with souls observing or living in the world, there is a difference whether it existed or only appears to have existed. What I said here applies to history before mankind appeared with his non-material soul.

As for God, the distant past, real or imaginary, was imagined by God, much like the real world exists in God’s thoughts. Whether it’s real or imaginary is irrelevant if He did not share it with any spiritual creature.

 

[drpmjhess]

They had been formed as actual ports for their umbilical cords.

So Adam and Eve had a real gestational history, and real parents.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I don’t think there’s anything at all deceptive about God creating a past as well as a present.

Me neither. That’s my whole point. God creating with the appearance of age does not necessarilly indicate a deception on God’s part.

A past is a past, there’s who is to say that it’s fictional?

But I don’t think it is fictional. I stated that too.

I think the earth has really been around for about 4 billion years and I think the universe really has been around for about 16 billion years.

It’s the state of the universe at a previous time as determined by natural laws.

Yes.

In this distant past, our hominid ancestors interacted with their environment much like we do, except they didn’t have souls. Their sensory organs sent signals to their brains which lit up with activity almost like ours do today. So why would you say it didn’t happen?

I thought I made it clear that I think it’s highly probably that this did happen. I’m only saying that if God had created this, this would not be considered a deception. More specifically, if God created the universe with the “appearance of age” this would not necessarilly mean that God was deceiving people.

I wasn’t suggesting that there is no distant past, only that God creates the past like he creates the present and the future. He could even create it ‘logically-after’ the present or not create it at all. The past is not something he creates the present through, like a tool he uses to create, its something he creates in the same way as He creates the present.

I agree. Time and space are in themselves creations of God, something which we experience but which he can transcend if he so chooses.

It’s just a matter of God running the math equations forwards or backwards to calculate what things looked like at each time. So it’s completely irrelevant to a discussion about whether God created us or not.

???

Could you explain this further? You lost me on this one.

Also there is no time, in our sense of the word time, that God created us. We were created from outside of time. Earlier and later are only relevant within time, but not to the creation of time. So 4000BC is as reasonable a time as any to label as God’s special time from where He started everything. He could have worked backwards from there to create the distant past, or he could have created 4000BC last after 2000AD and 4billionBC.

I think that’s interesting that you’re suggesting that God can create both forward and backward in time because God transcends time. I’ve never actually thought about it that way before, but you’re right.

God could, from the vantage point of eternity, create everything at once, and then, going back and forth through “human time” at an infinite pace, change, guide and direct every single action right down to the quantum level.

Can our prayers change the past?

All I’m saying is that there is no difference between the appearance of age and real age. I’d be so bold as to say that even to God there is no difference. And if there is no difference, you can’t call appearance of age dishonest, unless you also call real age dishonest.

I agree.

If you say one is honest but the other isn’t, you have to prove that there is a difference.

That’s kind of what I was saying too.