[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang and evolution as viewed by creationists.

[Late_Cretaceous]

Creationists can't seem to agree on much. ALthough many think evolution is wrong, some do accept it to a limited extent. Differences of opinion there can be understood.

But what about other thoeries. Like Big Bang theory. Why is it that the Big Bang theory is looked upon as some creationists as "proof of God", while others regard it as athiestic and attempt to discredit it in much the same way as they do evolution. WHy the dichotomy?

 

[ThinkerMan]

Interesting question....

I think in general, one can apply the "god of the gaps" to any aspect of our knowledge that we don't yet completely understand. And even as an atheist, I do not think that is necessarily always an unreasonable argument.

For example, with respect to the strong nuclear force. We can measure it, we know how it works, and we understand its importance to the structure of our universe.

However, WHY the force is at the strength it is, is an open question. Saying God made it that way is not necessarily invalid or unreasonable, since it can neither be proven or disproven. The anthropic principle is similarly valid and reasonable, though at this point it cannot be proved or demonstrated that other universes exist to make that argument completely valid. It comes down to personal philosophy, to an extent, and neither idea is false prima facie.

Personally, for me, I believe in the anthropic principle. Drew leans towards ID. Neither is necessarily more "provable" than the other at this point, so they are both valid philosophical positions to take, in my opinion.

I don't think debates like the one you demonstrated are clearly science....

I think they are philosophical in nature, which always leads to a dichotomy. But I don't think that's necessarily bad, and as long as the debaters are knowledgable and understand the limitations confronting the questions (Drew and CubedBee are excellent examples from the non-atheist side).

 

[Heidi]

True Christians accept the biblical account of creation. Unbelievers make up whatever sounds good in the generation in which they live. And that has changed throughout the centuries and always will.

 

[Blazin Bones]

I, from the Christian perspective do lean towards more of a Big Bang theory. That is what science clearly points to in fossil records and astronomical studies. However, as a Christian I attribute this event as being caused by God. Others attribute it to chance. It really is up to the individual to decide which seems more reasonable.

 

[Heidi]

I, from the Christian perspective do lean towards more of a Big Bang theory. That is what science clearly points to in fossil records and astronomical studies. However, as a Christian I attribute this event as being caused by God. Others attribute it to chance. It really is up to the individual to decide which seems more reasonable.

So you don't believe the first several chapters of Genesis. If not, then how do you know anything in the bible is true, including that Jesus died for your sins? Just a guess? :o Sorry, but guessing isn't faith. Guessing is a rocky foundation for faith. It is making up your own scenarios about history. That's easy! Anyone can do that. All I have to do is complete the coursework required to earn an advanced degree, pick up a rock, & people will believe anything I say. Scientists do that all the time and fool many people that way.

 

[maribel]

I, from the Christian perspective do lean towards more of a Big Bang theory. That is what science clearly points to in fossil records and astronomical studies. However, as a Christian I attribute this event as being caused by God. Others attribute it to chance. It really is up to the individual to decide which seems more reasonable.

So you don't believe the first several chapters of Genesis. If not, then how do you know anything in the bible is true, including that Jesus died for your sins? Just a guess? :o Sorry, but guessing isn't faith. Guessing is a rocky foundation for faith. It is making up your own scenarios about history. That's easy! Anyone can do that. All I have to do is complete the coursework required to earn an advanced degree, pick up a rock, & people will believe anything I say. Scientists do that all the time and fool many people that way.

I believe Genesis. I also believe in Evolution....the facts are there. I see no inconsistency there. God's time is different than ours. His 7 days of creation could be the thousands and thousands of years of evolution. Nothing is impossible with God. Many things are impossible for humans. I think we sometimes consider God to be limited to what we can understand. I think God has absolutely no limitations at all and anything is possible with Him.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

If you take your own religious text too literally you end up with plenty of internal contradictions, contradiction with reality and contradiction with morality.

YE creationists manage to not only disagree with basic physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. but they manage to make startlingly ludicrous claims in all of those fields.

While typical Christians are more likely to believe what has been shown to be true by science. Those being that a Big Bang occured that started the universe, that Evolution occured, and that modern science has most of the observable universe pretty well explained.

The dichotomy occurs when YECs start cropping up because of fundamentalism, which in itself is really only 150 years old. They start literally interpreting the bible, then they start making No True Scotsman fallacies about christians who don't take the bible as literal, then they start blustering about attempting to refute science or say evolution is religion or some such nonsense. And lately they've been trying to weasel ID into classrooms.

 

[Blazin Bones]

I, from the Christian perspective do lean towards more of a Big Bang theory. That is what science clearly points to in fossil records and astronomical studies. However, as a Christian I attribute this event as being caused by God. Others attribute it to chance. It really is up to the individual to decide which seems more reasonable.

So you don't believe the first several chapters of Genesis. If not, then how do you know anything in the bible is true, including that Jesus died for your sins? Just a guess? :o Sorry, but guessing isn't faith. Guessing is a rocky foundation for faith. It is making up your own scenarios about history. That's easy! Anyone can do that. All I have to do is complete the coursework required to earn an advanced degree, pick up a rock, & people will believe anything I say. Scientists do that all the time and fool many people that way.

Read my post, Heidi. There is not one time I say God didn't created the universe as Genesis teaches. What I did say is that Science points towards a Big Bang. As I said the Big Bang was caused by God.

I look at it like this. God is all powerful, correct? So the Power of His voice was what caused the reaction (*Big Bang*), and God's hand and his will was the that which sculpted all we see. Creation doesn't have to be viewed apart from science. If You truly Believe in God complete power, then he is above science. That doesn't mean He hasn't revealed some of His ways to us through it.

 

[Blazin Bones]

I, from the Christian perspective do lean towards more of a Big Bang theory. That is what science clearly points to in fossil records and astronomical studies. However, as a Christian I attribute this event as being caused by God. Others attribute it to chance. It really is up to the individual to decide which seems more reasonable.

So you don't believe the first several chapters of Genesis. If not, then how do you know anything in the bible is true, including that Jesus died for your sins? Just a guess? :o Sorry, but guessing isn't faith. Guessing is a rocky foundation for faith. It is making up your own scenarios about history. That's easy! Anyone can do that. All I have to do is complete the coursework required to earn an advanced degree, pick up a rock, & people will believe anything I say. Scientists do that all the time and fool many people that way.

I believe Genesis. I also believe in Evolution....the facts are there. I see no inconsistency there. God's time is different than ours. His 7 days of creation could be the thousands and thousands of years of evolution. Nothing is impossible with God. Many things are impossible for humans. I think we sometimes consider God to be limited to what we can understand. I think God has absolutely no limitations at all and anything is possible with Him.

You can't honestly believe both. While the Big Bang theory does not contradict what the Bible teaches, evolution, at least the way you present it, does. Genesis teaches that God spoke all things into existence. The Evolution you explain would make those words incorrect. For such an explaination, then Genesis should have recorded: "and God combined the single celled organisms and waited thousands for them to be as He pleased. That actually takes away from God's power, not add to it.

Not to mention, if life had developed that way, we would still need transitional species fossils, which we don't have.

 

[Blazin Bones]

If you take your own religious text too literally you end up with plenty of internal contradictions, contradiction with reality and contradiction with morality.

YE creationists manage to not only disagree with basic physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. but they manage to make startlingly ludicrous claims in all of those fields.

While typical Christians are more likely to believe what has been shown to be true by science. Those being that a Big Bang occured that started the universe, that Evolution occured, and that modern science has most of the observable universe pretty well explained.

The dichotomy occurs when YECs start cropping up because of fundamentalism, which in itself is really only 150 years old. They start literally interpreting the bible, then they start making No True Scotsman fallacies about christians who don't take the bible as literal, then they start blustering about attempting to refute science or say evolution is religion or some such nonsense. And lately they've been trying to weasel ID into classrooms.

Science has most of the universe explained.....through weak theories, and unsupported hypothesis's. The Big Bang and Evolution are both still theories. While the Big Bang is supported by fossil records, Evolution is not.

The Big Bang (God's speaking the universe into existence ) is supported by the fact that the further back you go, at some point there are no recordable signs of life existing on Earth. Then as you begin to move forward again, fossil records show a sudden appearence of life, not a gradual one.

Evolution, however, has no such support. The Only facet of Evolution that can actually be proven or observed is adaptation.

Also, Creation was taught in schools long before evolution was even suggested. This is supported by the fact that in mid evil europe most schools were owned by churches, who would have taught according to scripture.

 

[maribel]

Brutus says to maribel:
You can't honestly believe both. While the Big Bang theory does not contradict what the Bible teaches, evolution, at least the way you present it, does. Genesis teaches that God spoke all things into existence. The Evolution you explain would make those words incorrect. For such an explaination, then Genesis should have recorded: "and God combined the single celled organisms and waited thousands for them to be as He pleased. That actually takes away from God's power, not add to it.

Not to mention, if life had developed that way, we would still need transitional species fossils, which we don't have.
_________________
"Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through him to God the Father." Col 3:17

Through Christ, we can be the Catalyst this generation needs.

Blessings,
Timothy

Brutus

I can surely honestly put both of them together and believe as surely as each person here honestly believes the strange things they believe. I have heard some pretty wild interpretations of the bible and everything going. Putting together creation and evolution is no more wild than anything else I have heard in here or any other forum.

I leave you all to it.

 

[Barbarian]

Science has most of the universe explained.....through weak theories, and unsupported hypothesis's. The Big Bang and Evolution are both still theories.

Theory is as strong as you get in science. Perhaps you don't know what "theory" means in the strict sense.

While the Big Bang is supported by fossil records,

Um, that's a rather amazing claim. How does the fossil record support the Big Bang.

Evolution is not.

Feel free to drop in here:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 6&start=60

And see if you can deal with the evidence.

The Big Bang (God's speaking the universe into existence ) is supported by the fact that the further back you go, at some point there are no recordable signs of life existing on Earth. Then as you begin to move forward again, fossil records show a sudden appearence of life, not a gradual one.

We see a rather gradual progression in life, from small fossils of bacteria-like organisms, to more complex forms. Would you like to learn about it?

Evolution, however, has no such support. The Only facet of Evolution that can actually be proven or observed is adaptation.

Actually, we have even directly observed the evolution of new species.

Also, Creation was taught in schools long before evolution was even suggested. This is supported by the fact that in mid evil europe most schools were owned by churches, who would have taught according to scripture.

Creationism is a modern invention, no older than the last century.

It has never been orthodox in Christian belief.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Science has most of the universe explained.....through weak theories, and unsupported hypothesis's. The Big Bang and Evolution are both still theories. While the Big Bang is supported by fossil records, Evolution is not.

1: Are you saying general relativity and qm are weak theories, they're what allow us to build the computer that you're using. The fact that, as far as we can tell, there isn't much going on in the universe right now that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever given our body of scientific knowledge.
2: The fossil record supports evolution whole heartedly, and can tell us nothing about the big bang. You seem to have gotten these reversed. Furthermore, the fossil record is not the only evidence claimed for evolution, the genetic record is much stronger evidence for the natural history of life on Earth.
3: All of science is theory, there is nothing in science that can be philosophically called a fact. The idea of the Earth going around the Sun, light traveling at a certain speed, and so on, all theories, not facts. In fact the ideas that electricity will work, the sun will rise, your bones won't turn to jelly overnight, rain won't melt clocks, etc are all theory.

The Big Bang (God's speaking the universe into existence ) is supported by the fact that the further back you go, at some point there are no recordable signs of life existing on Earth. Then as you begin to move forward again, fossil records show a sudden appearence of life, not a gradual one.

Actually fossil records show that life has existed for the past 4.5 billion years on the planet Earth, just about the time when the surface had cooled enough for liquid water to form. So we know that it took billions of years for multicellular life to form, because it really only did as little as 6-700 million years ago, if I recall the numbers correctly. The Cambrian explosion, was a sudden jump in the variety of life, probably only 30 or 40 million years after the development of worms, but since at least 99.99999999999999999% of the species and genus's that were around then have subsequently died off/become other species(some of which did the same, resulting in us).

Evolution, however, has no such support. The Only facet of Evolution that can actually be proven or observed is adaptation.

What part of "took 3 billion years to develop multicellular life" is hard to understand? The fact that we can show that two very different species had at one point, millions of years in the past, the same genetic pool, were exchanging information via the oldest social activity on earth, is an even better piece of evidence in support of the ToE.

Also, Creation was taught in schools long before evolution was even suggested. This is supported by the fact that in mid evil europe most schools were owned by churches, who would have taught according to scripture.

Church != science classroom.

 

[Blazin Bones]

1: Are you saying general relativity and qm are weak theories, they're what allow us to build the computer that you're using. The fact that, as far as we can tell, there isn't much going on in the universe right now that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever given our body of scientific knowledge.
2: The fossil record supports evolution whole heartedly, and can tell us nothing about the big bang. You seem to have gotten these reversed. Furthermore, the fossil record is not the only evidence claimed for evolution, the genetic record is much stronger evidence for the natural history of life on Earth.
3: All of science is theory, there is nothing in science that can be philosophically called a fact. The idea of the Earth going around the Sun, light traveling at a certain speed, and so on, all theories, not facts. In fact the ideas that electricity will work, the sun will rise, your bones won't turn to jelly overnight, rain won't melt clocks, etc are all theory.

1.GR and QM have nothing to do with Evolution. Also, just as GR and QM may expalin the Big Bang, so does God.

2. Incorrect. Fossil records do not support evolution wholeheartly because for far too many species there are no transitional species records. Genetically, evolution becomes even less likely because of how Improbable the combination of the first creatures would be.

3. Yes, by that premice, all science is theory. However, if it could be proven consistently true, it would be considered Law.

Actually fossil records show that life has existed for the past 4.5 billion years on the planet Earth, just about the time when the surface had cooled enough for liquid water to form. So we know that it took billions of years for multicellular life to form, because it really only did as little as 6-700 million years ago, if I recall the numbers correctly. The Cambrian explosion, was a sudden jump in the variety of life, probably only 30 or 40 million years after the development of worms, but since at least 99.99999999999999999% of the species and genus's that were around then have subsequently died off/become other species(some of which did the same, resulting in us).

All this is based on more weak science. There is little concrete evidence for an earth that is billions of years old, a Cambrian explosion or of all these species that you claim to have just died off.

What part of "took 3 billion years to develop multicellular life" is hard to understand? The fact that we can show that two very different species had at one point, millions of years in the past, the same genetic pool, were exchanging information via the oldest social activity on earth, is an even better piece of evidence in support of the ToE.

Incorrect, you can not show, but merely suggest such things happened Billions or Millions of years ago, because there is no proof that the Earth is that old.

 

[Barbarian]

1.GR and QM have nothing to do with Evolution. Also, just as GR and QM may expalin the Big Bang, so does God.

Just another way of saying the same thing. One by religious faith, the other by scientific evidence. They are completely consistent.

2. Incorrect. Fossil records do not support evolution wholeheartly because for far too many species there are no transitional species records.

On the other hand, the numerous transistionals we do have are decisive. If evolution were not true, there wouldn't be any.

Genetically, evolution becomes even less likely because of how Improbable the combination of the first creatures would be.

I would like to see your evidence, or calculations for that.

3. Yes, by that premice, all science is theory. However, if it could be proven consistently true, it would be considered Law.

This is a common misconception about science. First, science "proves" nothing. It is inductive, drawing inferences based on evidence.

Second, theories are stronger than laws in science. A law is simply a statement of what scientists expect to see under given circumstances, without an explanation. A theory predicts what will be seen, but also explains why it happens. Hence, Kepler's laws described how the planets moved around the sun, but Newtons gravitational theory (not his laws of motion) not only described the motion, but explained why it happened. As a result, the gravitational theory of Newton could be applied to a large number of other phenomena, something that could not be done with Kepler's laws. In fact, the theory occured to Newton, according to his testimony, when he was observing the moon, and was distracted by the fall of an apple from a tree. At that moment, he realized that the moon and the apple were both acted upon by the same force.

Unless you are prepared to demonstrate that Maxwell's equations are wrong, the Earth is billions of years old. Nothing in physics is better demonstrated.

 

[Heidi]

Barbarian, the problem you're having is that you think scientists are omniscient so you rely on calculations instead of common sense. That's not seeing the forest because you are analyzing the trees! Again, reality has shown how animals reproduce and the biblical account of creation verifies that. Even scientists use the term "reproduce" to describe where offspring come from. Yet evolutionists claim that apes didn't reproduce, but produced another species called "homonids"! This assertion is the basis behind evolution but has not been proven at all, either in reality or through cell production. It is as much of a "what if" as "Lord of the Rings" is. A faulty premise will always produce faulty conclusions. There is no proof anywhere in recorded history that any animal has produced offspring so different to itself as to be given a new name. That is not reproduction at all & therefore contradicts the notion that animals reproduce themselves! ;-)

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

1.GR and QM have nothing to do with Evolution. Also, just as GR and QM may expalin the Big Bang, so does God.

1: God can explain anything, it isn't a scientific explanation however, it's a cop out. You can say god makes lightning, crafts every single one to look just right, then flings it down to earth from his chariot, then turns into a swan and impregnates someone, and that is an equally good explanation of the existence of the universe. Or I might say Equally bad. The way in which the universe exists is understood to a high degree through the theories of GR and QM, and you said that science had only weak theories.

2. Incorrect. Fossil records do not support evolution wholeheartly because for far too many species there are no transitional species records. Genetically, evolution becomes even less likely because of how Improbable the combination of the first creatures would be.

2: No, correct, the no transitional fossils argument is fallacious. It's like saying the clock on the wall that says 10:30 was created 6 seconds ago, and those poleroids of it saying 10:00 are not of the same clock, because it's impossible for a change as big as 30 minutes to pass.

Your attempt to refute DNA as evidence for evolution is poorly worded and unclear, as such I can't refute it, because it doesn't make any sense. So I will reiterate. You and a chimpanzee at the zoo have a genetic mistake in common, on some allele on some there is a marring left by a virus that changed the DNA of one of your ancestors millions of years before humans existed, or chimps, or gorillas. Back when there were only a few types of primates. That's the best explanation for it. The actual code doesn't do anything, and even though it's in other animals, it only occurs in humans and other primates.

3. Yes, by that premice, all science is theory. However, if it could be proven consistently true, it would be considered Law.

No it can't, that's silly. Laws were around when Newton and others thought that they were understanding the absolute way that the universe acts. Einstein, Lorentz, Poincare and others humbled science, by showing that such certainty can't exist in science. As long as there is something about the universe we can't see but is possible to observe in some way, there is the possibility that there are rules of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc etc completely undiscovered and unaccounted for.

All this is based on more weak science. There is little concrete evidence for an earth that is billions of years old, a Cambrian explosion or of all these species that you claim to have just died off.

There's plenty of concrete evidence that the Earth is billions of years old. We understand very well how some isotopes decay, and they show this.
Furthermore, we can see that there were so many species throughout time that they really could not have coincided.
I find your attitude toward the fossil record quite contradictory, you claim that there was a sudden jump in the variety of life, which there was and I'm not claiming there wasn't, then you say there is no evidence for a Cambrian explosion. Have you ever seen a live trilobite? Are you saying the that thousands of trilobite fossils we have aren't evidence enough for their existence?

Incorrect, you can not show, but merely suggest such things happened Billions or Millions of years ago, because there is no proof that the Earth is that old.

Well there's the geologic column, are you going to say that developed itself over a period of a few thousand years? There's radiometric dating, which is a pretty good clock, if its rates ever changed, we'd know it, from the way the sun has exploded or gone dark. There's the fact that we can see out to the time when the universe was just at the density where light could go for more than 2 nanometers before hitting another particle, this transition occured about 300,000 years after the big bang, and we can't tell from red shift that it occured about 13.7 billion years ago.

The fact that we have several different methods of dating the universe, the solar system, etc and that they all correspond to the universe being billions of years old, the solar system being a third of that age, then that's pretty strong evidence for what they're all saying to have occured.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, the problem you're having is that you think scientists are omniscient

More false witness from Heidi? Imagine that.

so you rely on calculations instead of common sense.

"Common sense" tells you that common sense works on things commonly encountered.

Again, reality has shown how animals reproduce

They reproduce in a way that produces variations in the offspring that are not found in the parents. That is why evolution works.

and the biblical account of creation verifies that.

Actually, Genesis does not comment on it. You added that to make it more acceptable to you.

Even scientists use the term "reproduce" to describe where offspring come from. Yet evolutionists claim that apes didn't reproduce, but produced another species called "homonids"!

You've still got it hopelessly garbled. Isn't it time you spent a little effort on learning what science says about it?

A faulty premise will always produce faulty conclusions. There is no proof anywhere in recorded history that any animal has produced offspring so different to itself as to be given a new name.

Being renamed is not a requirement for evolution. However, we certainly have seen the evolution of new species. Would you like to learn about some of them?

 

[aiki]

Hey, all!

Every once in awhile I drop in on this part of the forum and find the same old debate being waged, in the same old way, with the same old results. Don't you guys ever tire of covering the same ground over and over to no effect?

I find those who are trying to pose as purely scientific on this thread to be working from opinion as well as fact. Here's a few examples:

Syntax Vorlon wrote:

God can explain anything, it isn't a scientific explanation however, it's a cop out.

What may or may not constitute a "cop out" in this instance is purely a matter of opinion. Many eminent scientists and philosophers alike have held God to be the ultimate explanation for everything. Were they all simply "copping out"?

You and a chimpanzee at the zoo have a genetic mistake in common, on some allele on some there is a marring left by a virus that changed the DNA of one of your ancestors millions of years before humans existed, or chimps, or gorillas. Back when there were only a few types of primates. That's the best explanation for it.

Whether or not this is the "best explanation" for what you've described is, again, a matter of opinion. It is an explanation, but not necessarily the best or the only one.

The Barbarian wrote:

On the other hand, the numerous transistionals we do have are decisive. If evolution were not true, there wouldn't be any.

What is called a "transitional" fossil by evolutionists is just one interpretation of what that fossil represents. Whether or not it is the best interpretation or the only interpretation that may be made is largely a matter of opinion and/or philosophical persuasion.

The issue of Evolution vs. Creation seems to come down to the individual's presuppositions about themselves and their world. The "facts" of science are inevitably filtered through and adapted to these presuppositions. Really, there is no truly, purely scientific point of view. Both Evolution and Creation are simply different interpretations of the same facts of science.

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
On the other hand, the numerous transistionals we do have are decisive. If evolution were not true, there wouldn't be any.

What is called a "transitional" fossil by evolutionists is just one interpretation of what that fossil represents.

No. The idea that "we each have our own reality" is not a defensible argument in science or in theology. There are objective criteria required for transitionals.

Whether or not it is the best interpretation or the only interpretation that may be made is largely a matter of opinion and/or philosophical persuasion.

Not for a Christian. We are supposed to follow the truth wherever it goes.

The issue of Evolution vs. Creation seems to come down to the individual's presuppositions about themselves and their world.

Nope. If that were true, we'd only see people of a certain persuasion accepting science. But we see Christians, Jews, Muslim, agnotistics, athiests, etc. all accepting evolution.

That one won't fly.

The "facts" of science are inevitably filtered through and adapted to these presuppositions. Really, there is no truly, purely scientific point of view.

I can tell you aren't a scientist. Why not find out what it's about.

Both Evolution and Creation are simply different interpretations of the same facts of science.

Creation, yes. Creationism, no. Creation is consistent with science, creationism is not. Big difference between the two.