[_ Old Earth _] Big band theory/evolution?

[rzr]

The premise behind the big bang theory is that all of the mass and energy that we see in the universe was at one time contained in a space smaller than that of an atom; a one singularity. And for some reason a big bang or explosion occurred which set the universe, as we know it, into motion. All of this is concluded based on the fact that we know that the universe is still expanding( red shift observation). But remember, science never proves anything. It is based on inductive reasoning based on finite observation. Example: gravity is just a theory and cannot be proven but I bet you dont dispute it. No doubt, God is the only possibility in the realm of creation. We are only told that He created. We are not told on how He created. I have faith in God and in Science--

 

[jasoncran]

The premise behind the big bang theory is that all of the mass and energy that we see in the universe was at one time contained in a space smaller than that of an atom; a one singularity. And for some reason a big bang or explosion occurred which set the universe, as we know it, into motion. All of this is concluded based on the fact that we know that the universe is still expanding( red shift observation). But remember, science never proves anything. It is based on inductive reasoning based on finite observation. Example: gravity is just a theory and cannot be proven but I bet you dont dispute it. No doubt, God is the only possibility in the realm of creation. We are only told that He created. We are not told on how He created. I have faith in God and in Science--

you mean about the size of a grape fruit. the problem i have with the toe is that it continues. meaning that God wasnt done on the seventh day. so another intellegent species could arrive on the earth. you can rule that out if you believe in evolution. for if men arrrived with intellect via natural selection then there is the possibility of another species doing the same. and evolution has no purpose nor desire, GOD does.

 

[Deavonreye]

"....God is the only possibility in the realm of creation". You cannot make that claim because you first must prove that the words written down in that ancient text was trust worthy and true. THEN, you must prove it wasn't a misunderstanding on the writer's part. But the most important is that you must prove that this god being actually exists as many claim.

There are countless possibilities of how the universe [then life] came into being. Such unyielding statements serve no purpose in science because science only cares about what postulation that CAN be tested/observed. There is no "home of god" that you can ring the doorbell at. What you CAN "ring the doorbell at" is observation that can be secured in a form that truly makes sense in reality.

Having said that, people are free to hold whatever individual belief they choose. No harm there [as long as it doesn't harm, that is].

 

[rzr]

"....God is the only possibility in the realm of creation". You cannot make that claim because you first must prove that the words written down in that ancient text was trust worthy and true. THEN, you must prove it wasn't a misunderstanding on the writer's part. But the most important is that you must prove that this god being actually exists as many claim.

There are countless possibilities of how the universe [then life] came into being. Such unyielding statements serve no purpose in science because science only cares about what postulation that CAN be tested/observed. There is no "home of god" that you can ring the doorbell at. What you CAN "ring the doorbell at" is observation that can be secured in a form that truly makes sense in reality.

Having said that, people are free to hold whatever individual belief they choose. No harm there [as long as it doesn't harm, that is].

For me, it is a no brain-er. But for you, let me state it in another way. " God is but one possibility in the realm of creation" --do you agree?

 

[Free]

you mean about the size of a grape fruit. the problem i have with the toe is that it continues. meaning that God wasnt done on the seventh day. so another intellegent species could arrive on the earth. you can rule that out if you believe in evolution. for if men arrrived with intellect via natural selection then there is the possibility of another species doing the same. and evolution has no purpose nor desire, GOD does.

You are making several assumptions. If God used evolution, then it could be argued that it isn't done, which doesn't change anything, or it could be argued that it is in fact done, it has achieved its purpose with man. Evolution can be thought of as a mechanism, similar to a computer program which can only do what it was programmed to do and nothing more. It could be said that God "programmed" what was to happen and then merely got things started and set them in motion.

 

[rzr]

There is not a physicists or an University in the world that would dispute this....But what I find interesting is this: What makes man think he knows all about the spiritual world of God when he has only scratched the surface of the world in which he lives?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk&feature=related

 

[jasoncran]

You are making several assumptions. If God used evolution, then it could be argued that it isn't done, which doesn't change anything, or it could be argued that it is in fact done, it has achieved its purpose with man. Evolution can be thought of as a mechanism, similar to a computer program which can only do what it was programmed to do and nothing more. It could be said that God "programmed" what was to happen and then merely got things started and set them in motion.

so you deny speciatation ie the arrival of new species that have occured ie the mosquitoes, that were observed being different?(not that i buy that conclusion)

 

[Deavonreye]

For me, it is a no brain-er. But for you, let me state it in another way. " God is but one possibility in the realm of creation" --do you agree?

If you mean a creation that magically popped into existence, then no. That would not be one of the possibilities. It goes against science and such position cannot be stated with any TRUE authority.

IF you hold to a position of "God did it", then you must also hold other creation myths on the same level because they have equal level of veracity. And if you do a bit of research, . . . . you will find that older [than hebrew texts] myths were around before.

 

[rzr]

If you mean a creation that magically popped into existence, then no. That would not be one of the possibilities. It goes against science and such position cannot be stated with any TRUE authority.

IF you hold to a position of "God did it", then you must also hold other creation myths on the same level because they have equal level of veracity. And if you do a bit of research, . . . . you will find that older [than hebrew texts] myths were around before.

I am asking you a simple question. Do you think that divine creation is a possibility? When it comes to creation, it takes just as much faith to believe in science as it does to believe in God....Some of our greatest scientific minded people such as Einstein and Newton held to the belief that God created...

 

[jasoncran]

deveonrye, what originated the laws of physics? where they just there? the big bang doesnt adress that at all.

 

[Deavonreye]

I am asking you a simple question. Do you think that divine creation is a possibility? When it comes to creation, it takes just as much faith to believe in science as it does to believe in God....Some of our greatest scientific minded people such as Einstein and Newton held to the belief that God created...

Mine quoting and appeals to authority do not make a valid argument. And I already stated that "divine creation" isn't a possibility. . . a VIABLE possibility. Even if there were the smallests of possibilities, it would be irrelevant because no one religion could make the claim that it was "their god" who did it.

Jason, I don't know that answer. I can only speculate. If so, I would speculate that, . . . yes, the potential always existed in some form, . . . but not being a theoretical physicist, your guess [outside of a supernatural "instantaneous occurance"] is as good as mine.

 

[jasoncran]

Mine quoting and appeals to authority do not make a valid argument. And I already stated that "divine creation" isn't a possibility. . . a VIABLE possibility. Even if there were the smallests of possibilities, it would be irrelevant because no one religion could make the claim that it was "their god" who did it.

Jason, I don't know that answer. I can only speculate. If so, I would speculate that, . . . yes, the potential always existed in some form, . . . but not being a theoretical physicist, your guess [outside of a supernatural "instantaneous occurance"] is as good as mine.

they dont have the answer. they dont have a clue at present to what started the big bang,just hypothesis ie the multiverse theory, string theory, but at some point it has to start or the universe it self must always be eternal and everchanging so say.

 

[Deavonreye]

they dont have the answer. they dont have a clue at present to what started the big bang,just hypothesis ie the multiverse theory, string theory, but at some point it has to start or the universe it self must always be eternal and everchanging so say.

I heard someone say, . . . a while ago, . . . that if you see time traveling infinitely into the future, then you must also conclude that it has an equally infinite past.

 

[jasoncran]

I heard someone say, . . . a while ago, . . . that if you see time traveling infinitely into the future, then you must also conclude that it has an equally infinite past.

so something according them the universe self created itsself in an orderly fashion and for no reason because it just wanted to.

interesting. if that isnt similiar to a diety , i dont know what is.

 

[Free]

If you mean a creation that magically popped into existence, then no. That would not be one of the possibilities. It goes against science and such position cannot be stated with any TRUE authority.

IF you hold to a position of "God did it", then you must also hold other creation myths on the same level because they have equal level of veracity. And if you do a bit of research, . . . . you will find that older [than hebrew texts] myths were around before.

And what, "physics did it" is a better proposition? Certainly an intelligent cause is far superior to "it just happened and we know it because here we are," or something of the sort. How is anything of that sort "science" and how can "such a position...be stated with any true authority"?

And no one is appealing to magic. We are appealing to the existence of a Creator with the power and intelligence to create all that exists. That is much different than magic. In fact, it is your position that argues to magic, not ours.

I heard someone say, . . . a while ago, . . . that if you see time traveling infinitely into the future, then you must also conclude that it has an equally infinite past.

And I have heard it said that if one argues to an infinite past, then today could never have happened...

 

[Deavonreye]

so something according them the universe self created itsself in an orderly fashion and for no reason because it just wanted to.

interesting. if that isnt similiar to a diety , i dont know what is.

This is all theoretical, of course. But no, . . . not "created itself". Always was because it MUST be. Strong and weak forces must be obeyed by particles.

 

[Deavonreye]

And what, "physics did it" is a better proposition? Certainly an intelligent cause is far superior to "it just happened and we know it because here we are," or something of the sort. How is anything of that sort "science" and how can "such a position...be stated with any true authority"?

And no one is appealing to magic. We are appealing to the existence of a Creator with the power and intelligence to create all that exists. That is much different than magic. In fact, it is your position that argues to magic, not ours.


And I have heard it said that if one argues to an infinite past, then today could never have happened...

There is a big difference. Naturally, there are always steps that are taken. Some forward. . . . some backwards. Yet, change is and has always been a process, even if the change is miniscule.

However, the christian position has life literally popping into existance . . . with no steps. One moment, nothing. The next, . . . nearly literally . . . EVERYTHING. I really do not see how you cannot see how one position appears much closer to "magic" than the traditional christian doctrine from Genesis.

 

[Free]

There is a big difference. Naturally, there are always steps that are taken. Some forward. . . . some backwards. Yet, change is and has always been a process, even if the change is miniscule.

However, the christian position has life literally popping into existance . . . with no steps. One moment, nothing. The next, . . . nearly literally . . . EVERYTHING. I really do not see how you cannot see how one position appears much closer to "magic" than the traditional christian doctrine from Genesis.

Are there steps that are always taken? Has science proven abiogenesis? Has science proven how the Big Bang occurred and why? Has science proven how the natural laws came to be? What are the steps involved in these processes? What about the backwards steps? How could there even be backwards steps in these processes? It was a one shot deal and it had to be absolutely perfect. This is where science ceases to be science and enters the realm of metaphysics, where it utterly fails.

And again, nothing is "popping into existence." Christianity posits that there is an intelligent agent who has created everything. This is far different from things just popping into existence. And once again, I must say that that is what your position states, not mine. You cannot even begin to talk of anything existing.

 

[jasoncran]

This is all theoretical, of course. But no, . . . not "created itself". Always was because it MUST be. Strong and weak forces must be obeyed by particles.

so that is different from a diety as he must always be.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Sorry if this has been posted before, or if this is in the wrong forum. What are your thoughts on the big bang theory and evolution?

Of course it's been posted before, but as you now see - that does not stop us from talking about it again, as if it has NEVER come up before!

I don't see evolution as a very believable theory. I just don't see a creature, over time, developing new attributes.

For example:
What good is a half-evolved set of wings? How does the creature survive with the handicap of a partly-evolved set of wings without the benefit of a fully-developed set of wings?

As to the "Big Bang Theory" - I have come to totally believe in it. It sounds to me like a scientific interpretation of early Genesis.