Thank God for Evolution!

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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.

What about Isaiah 38:7-8?

This is the LORD’s sign to you that the LORD will do what he has promised:

I will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.

So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down.

Many interpret this to mean that time flowed backward.

If true, would this mean the universe merely appeared to exist up until the time during which God made time flow backward from?

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.

How about Hezekiah?

If true, would this mean the universe merely appeared to exist up until the time during which God made time flow backward from?

What I said here applies to history before mankind appeared with his non-material soul.

Again, how about Hezekiah?

If true, would this mean the universe merely appeared to exist up until the time during which God made time flow backward from?

Would this be considered a deception?

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.

How about Hezekiah?

Hezekiah did indeed appear to experience a portion of “time” in the universe which apparently brielfy ceased to exist to the point that God could “reboot” creation from a previous earlier time.

Assuming time flowed backwards (even if time only flowed backward for Hezekiah and Isaiah alone), were the events that Hezekiah experienced before time flowed backward real or imaginary to Hezekiah?

Were they merely observing a prophetic vision from God of what “could have happened” but never actually came to pass?

Perhaps they were taken along with God, a kind of “minor translation” through time-space as Enoch and Elijah might have been-- as God, from the vantage point of eternity, went back and forth through “human time” at an infinite pace, changing, guiding and directing every single action right down to the quantum level.

 

[drpmjhess]

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.

Yes, except that most cosmologists would argue 13.7 billion. Only a small point.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yes, except that most cosmologists would argue 13.7 billion. Only a small point.

PS., that depends on the Hubble constant if I recall correctly.

PS., What will happen when the Hubble constant reaches the speed of light on the outer edge of the universe?

 

[drpmjhess]

S., What will happen when the Hubble constant reaches the speed of light on the outer edge of the universe?

Good question, and I’ve no idea. For cosmology I depend on Joel Primack at UC Santa Cruz, and Bill Stoeger, S.J. of the Vatican observatory. I had dinner with Bill on Saturday, and he is still holding for 13.7 billion (he is a specialist in theoretical cosmology and background radiation). I think Bill would be bemused by the bulk of today’s discussion on this thread, as he understands cosmic history as being real, not as a mere fiction in the divine mind.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

In answer to **Orogeny’s **concern regarding heresy (the term preferred today is “error”); one can only be a heretic (i.e. in theological error) by deliberate resistance of God’s authority. The CCC defines heresy as:

**

…the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith,

**
This means that no individual can accuse another of being a heretic unles he is sure that other obdurately opposes the Church’s teaching. I am certain that anyone professing to be a Catholic would’nt deliberately refuse the Church’s authority. However if they learn that the position they are taking is opposed to Catholic teaching, and continue nonetheless to pursue it, they would be in error, but ony the person in question can know. This is why one Catholic cannot accuse another of being a heretic, i.e. those accepting Arianism and evolution no doubt at the time had no inention of questioning the authority of the Church, but with hind sight it is clear that they were. The same will apply to those supporting macro-evolution because it is opposed to the traditional teaching of the Fathers and the Magisterium (Lateran IV. Vatican I , Arcanum etc.)

Peter

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Good question, and I’ve no idea.

I’m guessing some kind of big crunch maybe. Or perhaps a “re-creation” of the universe itself, but what do I know?

Indeed, if space if time-space itself is fleeing from “the center” at 75 km/s/Mpc, then this seems to imply that the outer edges of the universe are either already expanding at a rate faster than light or maybe somewhere approaching it.

Apparently some are saying that this is not a violation of special relativity, because the rules of special relativity “apparently” only apply precisely within a small region (a special-relativistic description of two widely-separated galaxies would in general be incorrect according to some, something which I disagree with).

For cosmology I depend on Joel Primack at UC Santa Cruz, and Bill Stoeger, S.J. of the Vatican observatory. I had dinner with Bill on Saturday, and he is still holding for 13.7 billion (he is a specialist in theoretical cosmology and background radiation).

Interesting.

Does he believe that the early “primordial” universe went through an inflationary period during the early stages of its formation?

At the end of the Planck time, the universe is thought to have been incredibly hot, at 1032 K, tiny in size – about 10[sup]–20[/sup] times smaller than an atomic nucleus, but expanding. No particles of matter are believed to have existed, only energy.

As the Universe expanded, its temperature dropped, so that after 10[sup]-35[/sup] second, it had cooled to about 1028 K. At this point, it is believed that the strong nuclear force began to separate off from the unified electromagnetic and weak forces (together called the electro weak force), and this triggered a period in which there was a sudden massive increase in the rate of expansion of the Universe.

Current thinking is that this period of inflation was the result of a “false vacuum” created by the super cooling of the early Universe. In a false vacuum, the energy density of a system stays constant, even though it is expanding. In such conditions, an immense force of repulsion occurs, and this would have been enough to overcome the force of gravity that had recently come into existence.

Between 10[sup]-35[/sup] and 10[sup]-32[/sup] second, the size of the Universe doubled every 10[sup]-35[/sup] second so that it grew to at least 1050 times its former volume. At the same time its temperature dropped to 1023 K.

It is suggested that inflation stopped when the strong and electro weak forces had separated. A vast burst of energy was released at this point, reheating the universe to the temperature it had been when the inflation began.

I ask because, if the Hubble constant is correct, it seems to me that some parts of the universe are still ungoing some kind of “infationary period” even as we speak, even if they’ve already happened billions of years ago.

I also think that, just as the early universe gained an “extra boost” of energy when the ‘early’ inflationary period stopped, I also think the universe will get another “extra boost” of energy when the current Hubble inflationary constant stops at the speed of light, assuming the speed of light to be relative.

In other words, if it is suggested that inflation stopped when the strong and electro weak forces had separated during the early “inflationary period”, then perhaps the Hubble constant will likewise stop when the speed of light is exceeding, therefore releasing “a lot more energy” too.

I think Bill would be bemused by the bulk of today’s discussion on this thread, as he understands cosmic history as being real, not as a mere fiction in the divine mind.

I’m guessing that Bill would be amused too.

I’m also guessing that Bill wouldn’t be able to use science to definitively proove this concept wrong either if indeed God did create with the appearance of age-- which is a simply disturbing thought for many scientifically minded people.

Please be sure to remind Bill that one of the people who’s pointing this out to others actually does believe the universe has been around for a long time too.

 

[The_Barbarian]

This is why one Catholic cannot accuse another of being a heretic, i.e. those accepting Arianism and evolution no doubt at the time had no inention of questioning the authority of the Church, but with hind sight it is clear that they were. The same will apply to those supporting macro-evolution because it is opposed to the traditional teaching of the Fathers and the Magisterium (Lateran IV. Vatican I , Arcanum etc.)

The authority of the Church teaches that it does not oppose macroevolution, which is consistent with the Magisterium.

Q.E.D.

 

[Orogeny]

Thank you for replying, Peter.

This means that no individual can accuse another of being a heretic unles he is sure that other obdurately opposes the Church’s teaching.** I am certain that anyone professing to be a Catholic would’nt deliberately refuse the Church’s authority**.

So there isn’t such at thing as a heretic anymore?

However if they learn that the position they are taking is opposed to Catholic teaching, and continue nonetheless to pursue it, they would be in error, but ony the person in question can know.

OK, just so that you and I are on the same page, if one holds or teaches a position that is opposed to Catholic teaching but don’t realize this error, they not be a heretic. However, if they do know that their postion is opposed to Catholic teaching and they refuse to change, they would be a heretic, correct?

This is why one Catholic cannot accuse another of being a heretic, i.e. those accepting Arianism and evolution no doubt at the time had no inention of questioning the authority of the Church, but with hind sight it is clear that they were.

Yet, we now consider those who held to Arianism to be heretics, or at least the Church does.

The same will apply to those supporting macro-evolution because it is opposed to the traditional teaching of the Fathers and the Magisterium (Lateran IV. Vatican I , Arcanum etc.)

What if a person knows what those teachings are but still hold that macroevolution is real? Are they in error (heretics)? What if that person was a pre-eminent theologian in a postion of very high teaching authority?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

What if a person knows what those teachings are but still hold that macroevolution is real? Are they in error (heretics)? What if that person was a pre-eminent theologian in a postion of very high teaching authority?

Peace

Tim

Only time will tell. I think this is a period of time in which discovery is not yet fully reasoned. We are going through that process. If and when the Church makes a declaration, only then would obstinate denial be heresy. Many of us could be in error right now .

 

[Orogeny]

Only time will tell. I think this is a period of time in which discovery is not yet fully reasoned. We are going through that process. If and when the Church makes a declaration, only then would obstinate denial be heresy. Many of us could be in error right now .

Well, according to Peter, the Church has done exactly that. Macroevolution is opposed to infallible Church teaching.

Peace

Tim

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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

I’d say that without souls, their parents existence or non-existence is completely irrelevant, even to them.

Not just irrelevant, but I can’t really understand what the difference is between them existing or not existing, if there were no witnesses to observe them.

 

[buffalo]

Well, according to Peter, the Church has done exactly that. Macroevolution is opposed to infallible Church teaching.

Peace

Tim

I think we need to separate evolution from the special creation of man.

No matter what science theorizes or proves about macro-evolution, the Church has constantly taught that Eve came from Adam, which rules out evolution in the case of Eve.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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.

Well, unfortunately to explain it requires anthromophizing God, and putting God into ‘time’ but creating our time … it doesn’t make much sense but maybe the best we can do?

Anyway, so let’s say one ‘day’ God decides to create the heavens and the earth and adam and eve. He creates them and their futures and their descendants futures right up to today and even further into the future. He does that, then realizes that to fit in with his grand scheme of natural laws, Adam and eve need a history. So then he creates a past for them, back to the dinosaurs and further back to the big bang. This past can be ‘real’ if you’re uncomfortable with it being just an ‘appearance of age’. It makes no difference whether it’s real or made up,…

So in that way evolution can be true and the genesis story can be true, and God isn’t a big liar, and everyone should be happy. Except not many people step back and view things from this perspective.

That’s kind of what I was saying too.

That’s great

 

[Peter_Wilders]

The Barbarian states:

The authority of the Church teaches that it does not oppose macroevolution, which is consistent with the Magisterium.

Statements by Church leaders regarding matters of science express the writers opinion. They do not form part of the Magisterium; they are not de fide

I can only refer you to the Lateran IV definition of Creation which precludes the type of evolution under discussion.

The doctrine, is de fide, and binding on all Catholics. It disallows evolutionary or ‘big bang’ hypotheses on the grounds that they postulate a natural process whereby members of each kind resulted from a slow transformation over a long period of time from a previously existing different kind. The unanimous voice of the Church Fathers, expressed in the Lateran doctrine, that all things were created in their total substance instantly from nothing within a few days at the beginning of time, states the contrary.

The Fathers of the Church, the early Christian Writers and their successors, were unanimous in interpreting the Genesis creation account to mean that during the period of creation the prototypes of all things living today were created directly and instantaneously from nothing. They were called into existence by God’s word. There was no passage of time. Adam, the first representative of mankind had no ancestors, nor did the first of all other living kinds created in their whole substance directly by God. Their descendants differed from them because they were procreated, not created. In all other respects each kind had the same immutable essence or nature of its ancestor.

“The earliest formation (of man) is called creation and not generation. For creation is the original formation at God’s hands, while generation is the succession from each other made necessary by the sentence of death imposed on us on account of the transgression” (St. John Damascene – On The Orthodox Faith 2:30, p. 43)

For confirmation of the other Church Fathers teaching on Creation see posts 406/7/8/10/11/12/14/17

As explained in a previous post 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 and forms part of the Church’s teaching Magisterium. As a parallel in the Arian heresy there were many Church leaders who declared their agreement with Arian teaching.

Peter

 

[Orogeny]

I think we need to separate evolution from the special creation of man.

No matter what science theorizes or proves about macro-evolution, the Church has constantly taught that Eve came from Adam, which rules out evolution in the case of Eve.

Well, Peter would disagree with you.

Peace

Tim

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, unfortunately to explain it requires anthromophizing God, and putting God into ‘time’ but creating our time … it doesn’t make much sense but maybe the best we can do?

Anyway, so let’s say one ‘day’ God decides to create the heavens and the earth and adam and eve. He creates them and their futures and their descendants futures right up to today and even further into the future. He does that, then realizes that to fit in with his grand scheme of natural laws, Adam and eve need a history. So then he creates a past for them, back to the dinosaurs and further back to the big bang. This past can be ‘real’ if you’re uncomfortable with it being just an ‘appearance of age’. It makes no difference whether it’s real or made up,…

So in that way evolution can be true and the genesis story can be true, and God isn’t a big liar, and everyone should be happy. Except not many people step back and view things from this perspective.

Hmmm…that’s really interesting.

I’m going to think and reflect on that thought a bit more.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What about Isaiah 38:7-8?

Many interpret this to mean that time flowed backward.

If true, would this mean the universe merely appeared to exist up until the time during which God made time flow backward from?

How about Hezekiah?

If true, would this mean the universe merely appeared to exist up until the time during which God made time flow backward from?

Well, if this actually means that everyone really did go back in time… then I’d interpret it this way.

Everyone’s souls were travelling through time like normal. Then as they reached this one point in time, God took everyone’s souls and shifted them back in time by ‘ten steps’ and let them proceed forward again as they were. However, if thats how it happened, then no one would remember that anything unusual happened… unless our memories are partly contained within our souls.

I think the verses really just mean that God changed something in the cosmos so that there was some extra time that day. Like, God moved the sun to the ‘east’ so the people could have a longer day. Or did I misread something in that chapter?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, if this actually means that everyone really did go back in time… then I’d interpret it this way.

Everyone’s souls were travelling through time like normal. Then as they reached this one point in time, God took everyone’s souls and shifted them back in time by ‘ten steps’ and let them proceed forward again as they were. However, if thats how it happened, then no one would remember that anything unusual happened… unless our memories are partly contained within our souls.

So did it actually happen then or was it just a deja-vu kind of experience?

In other words, it seems more likely that what Hezekaih and Isaiah saw was more of a “vision” of what “would have” happened rather than a “real experience” of what “did” happen.

I think the verses really just mean that God changed something in the cosmos so that there was some extra time that day.

And that may be so.

Me personally, I really have no idea what actually happened that day. I just thought I would put this forward for further reflection.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Good question, and I’ve no idea. For cosmology I depend on Joel Primack at UC Santa Cruz, and Bill Stoeger, S.J. of the Vatican observatory. I had dinner with Bill on Saturday, and he is still holding for 13.7 billion (he is a specialist in theoretical cosmology and background radiation). I think Bill would be bemused by the bulk of today’s discussion on this thread, as he understands cosmic history as being real, not as a mere fiction in the divine mind.

Surely he realizes that this is philosophy or theology and doesn’t have any bearing on his scientific findings?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

I fail to see the need for you claim that we aren’t as smart as you are. Can you stop being nasty?

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

**I see no one here who doesn’t understand that. Perhaps you’r the one who is horribly confused. **

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

**No one has said that at all. No one has denied that God can do miracles. What laws do you feel others are worshipping? **

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

cut the ad hominem attacks

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

**Now there is no earthly way any human could answer that. It’s first of all subjective and second of all impossible to calculate. **

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.

**See? By your own admission such a tally would be impossible to do or agree on. **

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

**Probably so. I’d say that things I might consider a miracle you would yawn at. **

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

**Good for you. **

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

Also admirable

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.

**Good! It’s a way to a healthy mind. **

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 would join you in that. **

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?

I’m not sure what most people here believe. seems a pretty eclectic group sometimes.