[_ Old Earth _] Does Christianity defy evolution?

[RND]

If one says that God created life by natural means, it means that it wasn't created from nothing, but was produced from pre-existing created matter. As God puts it, life was brought forth by the earth and waters.

Who created the "pre-existing created matter"?

 

[lordkalvan]

If one says that God created life by natural means, it means that it wasn't created from nothing, but was produced from pre-existing created matter. As God puts it, life was brought forth by the earth and waters.

Who created the "pre-existing created matter"?

Hypothetically, if God invoked the Big Bang, then all else flowed naturalistically from this single creative impulse; in other words the instant of creation was caused by a supernatural intervention, but the subsequent development of the Universe followed processes that can be explained naturalistically.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian observes that Scripture says God created living things by naturalistic means from pre-existing created matter)

Who created the "pre-existing created matter"?

Go back and read it again. God created all things. The only problem seems to be that you don't like the way He did it. If nature is His creation, then He must be continually involved with the tiniest aspect of every part of nature.

So even if He does it naturalistically, He still does it.

 

[RND]

(Barbarian observes that Scripture says God created living things by naturalistic means from pre-existing created matter)

Who created the "pre-existing created matter"?

Go back and read it again. God created all things. The only problem seems to be that you don't like the way He did it. If nature is His creation, then He must be continually involved with the tiniest aspect of every part of nature.

So even if He does it naturalistically, He still does it.

How can a supernatural being like the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob create naturally? You seem to be more of a deist than anything else.

In other words, since according to you God did not create things "out of nothing" (atural means, it means that it wasn't created from nothing) where did the "pre-existing matter" come from? OK, you say God made it, great. So how could it be "pre-existing" if God made it? For once God made something it wasn't "pre-extisting" anymore. Maybe He spoke it into existence, que no?

What existed prior to the creation of the "pre-existing matter"?

 

[RND]

If one says that God created life by natural means, it means that it wasn't created from nothing, but was produced from pre-existing created matter. As God puts it, life was brought forth by the earth and waters.

Who created the "pre-existing created matter"?

Hypothetically, if God invoked the Big Bang, then all else flowed naturalistically from this single creative impulse; in other words the instant of creation was caused by a supernatural intervention, but the subsequent development of the Universe followed processes that can be explained naturalistically.

Where did the matter necessary for the "big bang" come from then? Did something come out of nothing?

 

[lordkalvan]

Where did the matter necessary for the "big bang" come from then? Did something come out of nothing?

As the argument is that the Universe developed naturalistically following the hypothetically supernatural origin of the Big Bang, the question of how the Big Bang occurred in the first place seems moot. As I understand it, the origin of matter as we understand it is a consequence of the physics of the early Universe following the inflationary period.

 

[RND]

As the argument is that the Universe developed naturalistically following the hypothetically supernatural origin of the Big Bang, the question of how the Big Bang occurred in the first place seems moot.

Why is that? Is asking how the universe formed bringing up a moot point?

As I understand it, the origin of matter as we understand it is a consequence of the physics of the early Universe following the inflationary period.

That doesn't answer the question of where matter may have come from - it sounds good, but it is no answer to the question. "Something from nothing."

 

[coelacanth]

Food for thought at least (but lengthy)

Lawrence Krauss: A universe from nothing:

[youtube:g1xu2lym]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube:g1xu2lym]

 

[Barbarian]

How can a supernatural being like the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob create naturally?

Omnipotence will do that for you, I hear. I figure He did it the right way, and don't worry about it.

You seem to be more of a deist than anything else.

A lot of people confuse Christianity with deism. The difference is, our Creator remains intimately involved with every aspect of His creation. For example, your body was formed by natural laws, but God says that he made you in the womb. You're just not comfortable with the way He did it.

In other words, since according to you God did not create things "out of nothing"

I said He didn't create living things out of nothing. He says so, too. You should believe Him. Some other things were created out of nothing. You need to keep the difference in mind.

What existed prior to the creation of the "pre-existing matter"?

Many things, some of which were created from nothing. Remember, the universe was created ex nihilo, life was not. Keep that in mind, and you'll never confuse Christianity with deism.

 

[RND]

How can a supernatural being like the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob create naturally?

Omnipotence will do that for you, I hear. I figure He did it the right way, and don't worry about it.

Wouldn't a supernatural being create things supernaturally?

[quote:2s24d3fj]You seem to be more of a deist than anything else.

A lot of people confuse Christianity with deism. The difference is, our Creator remains intimately involved with every aspect of His creation. For example, your body was formed by natural laws, but God says that he made you in the womb. You're just not comfortable with the way He did it.[/quote:2s24d3fj] Formed in the womb. How does this, being formed in the womb, equate to God making man out of primordial ooze? Where was the hand of God in that?

[quote:2s24d3fj]In other words, since according to you God did not create things "out of nothing"

I said He didn't create living things out of nothing. He says so, too. You should believe Him. Some other things were created out of nothing. You need to keep the difference in mind.[/quote:2s24d3fj] I think you've been fairly consistent in you argumentation that God didn't create "ex nihlo". Now you are suggesting He didn't create man "ex nihlo" but nothing else? If God could create matter out of nothing why didn't He with mankind or animal life?

[quote:2s24d3fj]What existed prior to the creation of the "pre-existing matter"?

Many things, some of which were created from nothing. [/quote:2s24d3fj] Such as? How about offering an example or two....if you can that is.

Remember, the universe was created ex nihilo, life was not.

Again, I ask, why the difference? Why was God able to create everything except life "out of nothing"?

Keep that in mind, and you'll never confuse Christianity with deism.

I think keeping the word of God near and dear to my heart will prevent that.

 

[Barbarian]

How can a supernatural being like the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob create naturally?

Barbarian oberves:
Omnipotence will do that for you, I hear. I figure He did it the right way, and don't worry about it.

Wouldn't a supernatural being create things supernaturally?

Not necessarily, if we can believe what God says in Genesis.

You seem to be more of a deist than anything else.

Barbarian oberves:
A lot of people confuse Christianity with deism. The difference is, our Creator remains intimately involved with every aspect of His creation. For example, your body was formed by natural laws, but God says that he made you in the womb. You're just not comfortable with the way He did it.

Formed in the womb. How does this, being formed in the womb, equate to God making man out of primordial ooze?

In both cases, He chose to do it naturally.

Where was the hand of God in that?

Nature is the way He does most things in this world. The gnostic idea of nature opposed to God is completely wrong.

In other words, since according to you God did not create things "out of nothing"

Barbarian oberves:
I said He didn't create living things out of nothing. He says so, too. You should believe Him. Some other things were created out of nothing. You need to keep the difference in mind.

I think you've been fairly consistent in you argumentation that God didn't create "ex nihlo".

I've been consistent in pointing out that He says He didn't create life ex nihilo. That doesn't mean He created nothing ex nihilo.

Now you are suggesting He didn't create man "ex nihlo" but nothing else?

No. For example, He created the Earth naturally, from the remnants of a supernova. The universe, and probably many other things, He created from nothing.

If God could create matter out of nothing why didn't He with mankind or animal life?

He says He didn't. I never thought to question His decision.

What existed prior to the creation of the "pre-existing matter"?

Barbarian observes:
Many things, some of which were created from nothing.

Such as?

The universe itself. Heaven. Angels.

How about offering an example or two....

Three that come to mind right off.

Barbarian reminds:
Remember, the universe was created ex nihilo, life was not.

Again, I ask, why the difference? Why was God able to create everything except life "out of nothing"?

He could have done pretty much anything. This is what He did. Accept it.

Barbarian (helpfully)
Keep that in mind, and you'll never confuse Christianity with deism.

I think keeping the word of God near and dear to my heart will prevent that.

Maybe you should start with Genesis. Wouldn't hurt.

 

[RND]

Not necessarily, if we can believe what God says in Genesis.

How would you know? And if God doesn't create supernaturally all the time does that mean He isn't fully God?

In both cases, He chose to do it naturally.

Was the first man formed naturally?

Nature is the way He does most things in this world. The gnostic idea of nature opposed to God is completely wrong.

The gnostics believed that Christ wasn't fully God and other errors. The gnostics are the one's that worked hard to minimize the glory of the Lord. Suggesting that evolution is a "natural" occurrence outside of any proof seems quite gnostic to me.

I've been consistent in pointing out that He says He didn't create life ex nihilo. That doesn't mean He created nothing ex nihilo.

I think you are vacillating here frankly.

[quote:3kzd4xg6]Now you are suggesting He didn't create man "ex nihlo" but nothing else?

No. For example, He created the Earth naturally, from the remnants of a supernova.[/quote:3kzd4xg6] Whom made the supernova? Where did that come from?

The universe, and probably many other things, He created from nothing.

Where do we find such a designation in scripture?

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

These verses seem to indicate the opposite of what you are suggesting.

He says He didn't. I never thought to question His decision.

The Bible clearly says man was created.

The universe itself. Heaven. Angels.

I'm wondering if you could be more specific. For example, the universe contains billions of galaxies. Are you suggesting the matter in the universe itself was created separately from other elements in the universe?

[quote:3kzd4xg6]How about offering an example or two....

Three that come to mind right off.[/quote:3kzd4xg6] Any others?

He could have done pretty much anything. This is what He did. Accept it.

I'll accept the Bible thanks.

Maybe you should start with Genesis. Wouldn't hurt.

I have read the book many times. Never felt compelled to twist the scripture to fit a non-theological view. That seems to be in keeping with general Catholicism.

 

[Barbarian]

(claim made that a supernatural God must create things supernaturally)

Barbarian observes:
Not necessarily, if we can believe what God says in Genesis.

How would you know?

He told us.

And if God doesn't create supernaturally all the time does that mean He isn't fully God?

I've been trying to explain to you that it doesn't.

Barbarian observes:
In both cases, He chose to do it naturally.

Was the first man formed naturally?

God used pre-existing things to make him, yes.

Barbarian observes:
Nature is the way He does most things in this world. The gnostic idea of nature opposed to God is completely wrong.

The gnostics believed that Christ wasn't fully God and other errors.

I don't think you've gone that far. But I wish you were more comfortable with the way He made things.

Suggesting that evolution is a "natural" occurrence outside of any proof seems quite gnostic to me.

But you also confused deism and Christianity, so that's not all that surprising.

I've been consistent in pointing out that He says He didn't create life ex nihilo. That doesn't mean He created nothing ex nihilo.

I think you are vacillating here frankly.

Don't see how. I reminded you that just because He made some things (you for example) by natural means, it doesn't mean He does it that way in every case.

Now you are suggesting He didn't create man "ex nihlo" but nothing else?

Barbarian chuckles:
No. For example, He created the Earth naturally, from the remnants of a supernova.

Where did that come from?

Collapsing gas clouds. Things created earlier by God.

Barbarian observes:
The universe, and probably many other things, He created from nothing.

Where do we find such a designation in scripture?

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Do you actually think this means that God has toenails?

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

I'm glad you accept that. I'd be even happier if you accepted the way He did it.

These verses seem to indicate the opposite of what you are suggesting.

Don't see how. It directly says that He made some things first.

Barbarian observes:
He says He didn't. I never thought to question His decision.

The Bible clearly says man was created.

We agree on that. What you don't accept is the way it was done.

Barbarian notes things made ex nihilo:
The universe itself. Heaven. Angels.

I'm wondering if you could be more specific.

You'd like names? Gabriel, Michael, ... I'm afraid I don't know many names.

For example, the universe contains billions of galaxies. Are you suggesting the matter in the universe itself was created separately from other elements in the universe?

I have no idea what you mean by that. I'm guessing you think matter is distinct from the universe, but I don't understand why.

How about offering an example or two....

Barbarian notes things made ex nihilo:
The universe itself. Heaven. Angels.

Three that come to mind right off.

Any others?

Each of us has a soul given immediately by God, and that would be created from nothing, I suppose.

Barbarian suggests:
He could have done pretty much anything. This is what He did. Accept it.

I'll accept the Bible thanks.

Except the parts that bother you, like the natural creation of life.

Maybe you should start with Genesis. Wouldn't hurt.

I have read the book many times. Never felt compelled to twist the scripture to fit a non-theological view.

Well, your idea of "life ex nihilo" requires a major twist to fit.

That seems to be in keeping with general Catholicism.

The Church doesn't have a stand on that; not a salvation issue, you know. So if you're a Catholic, you can even be a YE creationist.

 

[lordkalvan]

As the argument is that the Universe developed naturalistically following the hypothetically supernatural origin of the Big Bang, the question of how the Big Bang occurred in the first place seems moot.

Why is that? Is asking how the universe formed bringing up a moot point?

I meant that it was moot in terms of considering a naturalistic development of the universe subsequent to the creative impulse of the Big Bang, be that creative impulse natural or supernatural.

[quote:3ei5fd8h]As I understand it, the origin of matter as we understand it is a consequence of the physics of the early Universe following the inflationary period.

That doesn't answer the question of where matter may have come from - it sounds good, but it is no answer to the question. "Something from nothing."[/quote:3ei5fd8h]
It does not answer the question in detail, but it points you towards the understanding that matter is a natural consequence of the physics of the early Universe after the so-called inflationary period. I am not certain that I have the ability to explain this understanding satisfactorily, but there are several books available on the subject, such as Edward Kolb's The Early Universe.

 

[RND]

I meant that it was moot in terms of considering a naturalistic development of the universe subsequent to the creative impulse of the Big Bang, be that creative impulse natural or supernatural.

The "Big Bang" theory is the equivalent of taking a handful of dirt, throwing in up in the air, and expecting a '76 Cadilac Eldorado to come down. Discussing creation in light of it is certainly not a moot point.

It does not answer the question in detail,

It doesn't even address the question.

but it points you towards the understanding that matter is a natural consequence of the physics of the early Universe after the so-called inflationary period.

Great, where did the matter come from? Just give me the only answer available, "I don't know."

I am not certain that I have the ability to explain this understanding satisfactorily,

I am. You can't.

but there are several books available on the subject, such as Edward Kolb's The Early Universe.

Maybe you could paraphrase. As I understand it matter can only be produced by the photons that light produces. Heck, if you asked Kolb he wouldn't be able to definitely where the very first particles came from - fortunately the Bible does. It says that God created all things.

 

[lordkalvan]

I meant that it was moot in terms of considering a naturalistic development of the universe subsequent to the creative impulse of the Big Bang, be that creative impulse natural or supernatural.

The "Big Bang" theory is the equivalent of taking a handful of dirt, throwing in up in the air, and expecting a '76 Cadilac Eldorado to come down.

Er, no it isn't. It's about discussing the predictable consequences of the physical organization of the post-Big Bang Universe. I have already said that for the purposes of this discussion the cause of the Big Bang could be either natural or supernatural. The point following this is that the development of the Universe thereafter can proceed naturalistically without the need for divine (or any other) intervention.

Discussing creation in light of it is certainly not a moot point.

I am willing to concede for the purposes of this argument that the cause of the Big Bang could have been non-naturalistic. The argument is about the development of the Universe after this creative event.

[quote:2cfz6h98]It does not answer the question in detail,

It doesn't even address the question.[/quote:2cfz6h98]
I have quite carefully done my best to avoid attributing either a natural or supernatural cause to the Big Bang. I have been concerned only with the development of the Universe by natural processes after the Big Bang.

[quote:2cfz6h98] but it points you towards the understanding that matter is a natural consequence of the physics of the early Universe after the so-called inflationary period.

Great, where did the matter come from? Just give me the only answer available, "I don't know."[/quote:2cfz6h98]
The development of matter is a consequence of the physics of the post-inflationary period Universe: matter and energy are interchangeable and the Big Bang released tremendous amounts of energy into the expanding Universe, energy which interacted to form heavy and (later) light particles. Whether or not this theory is correct, it remains the case that I don't know does not immediately allow for the presumption that the only resolution of that ignorance is to slip a god into the resulting gap in understanding and knowledge.

[quote:2cfz6h98]I am not certain that I have the ability to explain this understanding satisfactorily,

I am. You can't.[/quote:2cfz6h98]
And this is a bad thing because?

[quote:2cfz6h98]but there are several books available on the subject, such as Edward Kolb's The Early Universe.

Maybe you could paraphrase.[/quote:2cfz6h98]
To what purpose? The explanation relies on naturalistic processes subsequent to the Big Bang. My argument relates to those naturalistic processes, not to whether or not the Big Bang had a natural or supernatural cause.

As I understand it matter can only be produced by the photons that light produces. Heck, if you asked Kolb he wouldn't be able to definitely where the very first particles came from - fortunately the Bible does. It says that God created all things.

The Bible only says that this is so; it offers no explanation of the process by which God undertook this act of creation so in that sense it offers us no insight at all.

 

[RND]

Er, no it isn't. It's about discussing the predictable consequences of the physical organization of the post-Big Bang Universe. I have already said that for the purposes of this discussion the cause of the Big Bang could be either natural or supernatural. The point following this is that the development of the Universe thereafter can proceed naturalistically without the need for divine (or any other) intervention.

In discussing the predictable consequences of the physical organization of the post-Big Bang Universe it would be helpful first of all to discuss how matter came into existence.

It's good to see however that you are willing to give God some credit.

I have quite carefully done my best to avoid attributing either a natural or supernatural cause to the Big Bang. I have been concerned only with the development of the Universe by natural processes after the Big Bang.

In other words, you want to say that either natural or supernatural could be the cause but you only want to talk about the natural. Great. Where'd the matter come from....naturally of course?

The development of matter is a consequence of the physics of the post-inflationary period Universe: matter and energy are interchangeable and the Big Bang released tremendous amounts of energy into the expanding Universe, energy which interacted to form heavy and (later) light particles.

Great, what did the energy interact with?

Whether or not this theory is correct, it remains the case that I don't know does not immediately allow for the presumption that the only resolution of that ignorance is to slip a god into the resulting gap in understanding and knowledge.

Why not? You already conceded that the supernatural could be part of creation. Why not explore that possibility deeper instead of suggesting we can't slip God into the mix? That seems highly disingenuous.

And this is a bad thing because?

Because it shows just how shallow your arguments really are.

To what purpose? The explanation relies on naturalistic processes subsequent to the Big Bang. My argument relates to those naturalistic processes, not to whether or not the Big Bang had a natural or supernatural cause.

And that's the problem! On one hand you say and concede it could be natural or supernatural in origin but are only willing to debate one side without exploring the other. I thought science looked at all angles not just the one's it wanted to.

The Bible only says that this is so;

Long before the birth of any scientists!

it offers no explanation of the process by which God undertook this act of creation so in that sense it offers us no insight at all.

Fortunately science, the more it tries to disprove God did it confirms He actually created all things.

 

[Barbarian]

This is the real fear of those who hate science:

Fortunately science, the more it tries to disprove God did it confirms He actually created all things.

Science envy is at the root of most of the hatred directed at science. And it's so unnecessary; science can't disprove God, and scientists don't want it to.

 

[RND]

This is the real fear of those who hate science:

Fortunately science, the more it tries to disprove God did it confirms He actually created all things.

Science envy is at the root of most of the hatred directed at science.

I don't hate science, I love science for the reason I mentioned. The more it tries to disprove God the more it confirms God. Like the recent theory regarding a quark that can appear simultaneously in two different locations! That explains to me how through quantum leaps light may have traveled from on end of the universe to the other.

And it's so unnecessary; science can't disprove God, and scientists don't want it to.

That's right! Science can't disprove God - but it can, and does, confirm Him!

 

[Barbarian]

I don't hate science, I love science for the reason I mentioned.

You seem to be very resentful of the things science has found. And you don't seem to know much about it.

The more it tries to disprove God the more it confirms God.

Science can't try to disprove God; it's limited to the natural. It can neither affirm nor deny God.

Like the recent theory regarding a quark that can appear simultaneously in two different locations! That explains to me how through quantum leaps light may have traveled from on end of the universe to the other.

Sorry. Won't work. Light won't do that for you.

Barbarian on hatred and envy of science:
And it's so unnecessary; science can't disprove God, and scientists don't want it to.

That's right! Science can't disprove God - but it can, and does, confirm Him!

Nope. If your faith isn't strong, science can't shore it up for you.