To Creationists

[Edge]

Why is it so hard to see the Big Bang and Evolution as god's tools to create the world and the universe? :cup:

 

And please, refrain from mentioning Intelligent Design and debate "speciation", just answer the question.

[Stargazer]

Indeed if those who believe that their favourite god created everything, then they should realise that the best way to understand the creation is to study the creation itself, not some old book filled with legendary history, half-truths and myths.

 

And anyway, why is god important at all? It's just many different unfounded beliefs.

[TRoutMac]

Why is it so hard to see the Big Bang and Evolution as god's tools to create the world and the universe?

 

Well, from a Biblical standpoint the big bang doesn't fit because Genesis says the sun and stars weren't created until day 4, whereas the Earth was created on day 1. Now, I realize that you may not consider the Bible to be an authority on this matter, and that's your prerogative. If the "big bang" really happened in the way some astronomers believe it happened, then the Bible's account is false. Now before you all jump to conclusions, remember that the big bang is just a theory, too. It may or may not be correct. However the universe came to be, it happened in the past and is beyond our capabilities of direct, empirical observation. So, pardon me if I'm not convinced of the "big bang". For one thing, it appears that the red-shift phenomenon indicates that galaxies may be "grouped" within concentric spherical "shells". (google "quantized red shift) This indicates a distribution that would not appear to be the result of a random explosion. My point, mainly, is that either the big bang is wrong, or the Bible is wrong. I cannot prove to any of you, nor will I try to do so, which is correct on any empirical basis. But again, you have to remember that the big bang hasn't been proven, either.

 

As for evolution, specifically macro-evolution, in the abstract I suppose it's possible that God could have employed such a scheme. But the question is, "Did He?" The evidence, along with some common sense, suggests that he most certainly did not. Creating new species by way of mutation does not work. Mutations are a degradation of information. Mutations cannot transform the genetic information for a one-celled organism into genetic information for a human being, I don't care how much time you give it. As I've said countless times, Darwin's own natural selection mechanism prevents macro-evolution. Nobody has been able to explain to me how macro-evolution can get over the obstacle that natural selection represents!

 

And anyway, why should we conclude that God used macro-evolution as a means of creation or "speciation" when we have literally no hard evidence to support it?

 

Recall that I have also said that micro-evolution is undeniable, and that it's obvious that micro-evolution represents a sophisticated (and designed) system of variation within certain informational boundaries. Again, there is a reason why dog breeders have never created a breed of dog that has wings. The reason is that the information necessary to build wings is not found in the dog genome. You can get different colored dogs, dogs that are big, dogs that are small, etc. But you can't get a dog with wings. Breeders exploit this variability the way they do by "artificially" selecting dogs with certain traits. This is the man-made counterpart to "natural selection". Natural selection "selects" certain breeding pairs according to incidental geographic isolation and other factors. But it can never break out of the information set contained in the ancestral genome.

 

See? I did it!! I never mentioned Intelli– Oops, nevermind!

[Southtown]

BB and Evo are just unconvincing, since I myself can't afford a hundred-thousand-dollar, ivy-league mind-reconstruction.

 

Why is it so hard for people to accept that, if God created the world, he would have made it perfect and eternal. That the degradation we see around us is because we first rejected him. But a good God would allow the repentant a place in the new creation, providing the propitiation himself.

 

I can understand the "no proof" argument, but other arguments as to the actions of believers, or the inconsistencies in the bible, or that other religions are incongruent are not convincing either.

[Edge]

Well, from a Biblical standpoint the big bang doesn't fit because Genesis says the sun and stars weren't created until day 4, whereas the Earth was created on day 1.

Well, Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and Earth. The heavens can be interpreted as well... everything outside the Earth. I mean, the stars, universe, etc.

 

How did god do that? It is still a mistery. Why couldn't god use the Big Bang?

 

As for evolution, specifically macro-evolution, in the abstract I suppose it's possible that God could have employed such a scheme. But the question is, "Did He?" The evidence, along with some common sense, suggests that he most certainly did not.

Well, fossil records, little mutations over and over, on all time... sounds plausible... at least for me.

 

God reveals to man through his own work (nature and universe), why didn't god use a detailed and a explainable mean? I mean, when you do a masterpiece of art, you just don't do it instantly, you start with some details and then you go fixing and improving them... in some way that's how I see it.

[Uber Dwayne]

The Bible does say that God stretched forth the Universe:

Isaiah 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

 

Perhaps the redshift in the universe is due to the stretching motion and the background radiation is all the energy spreading thinly as God stretched forth the universe. Not only that, if God had stretched forth the universe faster than the speed of light (which would have been the case if God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days), then the light would be catching up to whats already there.

 

It appears we both have the same evidence, just a different interpretation of that evidance

[sanctus]

And isn't the background radiation a proof for the big bang?

[Southtown]

And isn't the background radiation a proof for the big bang?

No. It's actually more uniform than the BB predicted. That's why the bandaid of inflation was applied.

[Southtown]

Well, fossil records, little mutations over and over, on all time... sounds plausible... at least for me.

 

God reveals to man through his own work (nature and universe), why didn't god use a detailed and a explainable mean? I mean, when you do a masterpiece of art, you just don't do it instantly, you start with some details and then you go fixing and improving them... in some way that's how I see it.

Less imagination, Hoss. More reading.

“

And Jehovah God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

—

Genesis 2:15-17 asv

The world was perfect, until we rejected God. The seperate versions of origins are totally incompatible.

 

And it erks me that the subsequent story of degradation is passed off as God's intended creation or his "plan".

[cwes99_03]

Less imagination, Hoss. More reading.

“

And Jehovah God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

—

Genesis 2:15-17 asv

The world was perfect, until we rejected God. The seperate versions of origins are totally incompatible.

 

And it erks me that the subsequent story of degradation is passed off as God's intended creation or his "plan".

 

Well spoken CraigD. I believe this was the point of my thread After Adam and Eve, Evolution? http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/4506-after-adam-eve-evolution.html?highlight=adam+eve+evolution

 

As for whether the Big Bang is correct and fits in with what the Bible says about creation, I don't know the entire theory of the Big Bang. I do know that the Bible says that God set forth the laws governing the stars in the heaven (I believe it is in Psalms 119, though I'd have to check). In fact the Bible says that he created all the physical laws.

 

The only problem I have so far with this thread is the inflamatory reponse of Stargazer toward all who believe in a god.

 

Really, I believe that the reason most people believe in a god, or specifically the God of the Bible, is twofold. One they are looking for something that gives them hope for a future (that death is not all that we live our lives for). Two, they are looking for an explanation to all the things that science has not been able to difinitively explain (yes there are some things out there that some scientist may try to explain as swamp gas or whatever, but truth be told that is because that scientist doesn't want to believe that there is something he can't explain).

I believe that the Bible is not just stories and myths as Stargazer seems to believe. I've studied it long enough to understand how it fits together, and to see that the explanations offered in the Bible fit almost all the empirical evidence we do have (not to mention it is a theory that is over 4000 years old), whereas Big Bang and evolution don't fit all the empirical evidence available (and are only about 100 years old or less). Which is usually easier to believe?

I'll stick to the theory (which I personally hold to be fact, but since the empirical evidence seems to be hard to prove to those who don't read the Bible) that so far explains almost everything (I'll leave the whole dinosaurs existence and the belief by some that man first existed nearly 2 million years ago to the evolutionists as I don't know all the evidence supporting the belief and timing of all of it) and gives me hope for happiness if I live my life according to the principles He gave to the ones who followed Him.

[Southtown]

No. It's actually more uniform than the BB predicted. That's why the bandaid of inflation was applied.

Plus, not to harp, but the ΛCDM is dependant on Hubble's Law which currently contradicts butt-loads of data. I can't see how any thinking scientist could believe ΛCDM, unless their protected by a filtered feed of publications.

 

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=1

[Uber Dwayne]

No. It's actually more uniform than the BB predicted. That's why the bandaid of inflation was applied.

So if God deliberatly "stretched forth" the universe, than the background radiation being very uniform supports my claim

[Southtown]

So if God deliberatly "stretched forth" the universe, than the background radiation being very uniform supports my claim

That depends on how much heat is generated by the act. A non-expanding universe would claim the CMB as a type of ambient temperature of space generated by continuous creation of matter.

 

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=10

 

I think it's totally local myself. It does seem to have a signature the eliptic, although not conclusive.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/4029-critique-intelligent-design-7.html#post65535

[Uber Dwayne]

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=10

So according to this article, BB theororists began with an assumption that the speed of an object is directly proportional to its distance. Which as this article seams to suggest, its wrong. Of course, if galaxies could crash into each other, as NASA suggests that the andromeda will someday crash into the milky way, then this would disprove the idea that the redshift shows evidence of an expansion. Just out of curiosity, how do scientists measure the distance from Earth to the other stars. Im sure there's more to it than seeing it in Hubble and tacking on a couple million light years.

 

So if the Universe is not expanding, would we not have a valid argument for a creator (not that we didn't anyway). Cause one must simply ask, if the universe is not expanding, where did it come from? I could argue that the Eternal God created it, or a non-creationist could argue that matter is eternal. Either way, something has to be eternal, without beginning and without end; to prove something eternal, is impossible

 

On the other hand, I think the idea of the "Exploding Planet" is kinda nifty. Kinda like the universes own death start :cup:

[cwes99_03]

There are many different ways to measure distance to stars. 1) Paralax http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/java/parallax/parallax.html

 

and 2) by measuring the intensity of the star, and figuring out what kind of star it is from the spectra it gives off (which then tells us how bright it should be) we can determine an approximate distance.

 

The problem with saying "if the universe is not expanding, then don't we have a valid argument for the existence of a creator" is that the Bible does not specify whether he created the universe to be expanding or not, specifically. We can make educated guesses based upon the scripture available, but if anyone were to say definitively that this was proof, they themselves would be wrong. Take this as someone who has no doubt that the God of the Bible exists and that the words recorded in the Bible are true.

There is no scripture that says that "God created the heavens and the earth and spread them out to a certain radius and caused them to never expand or contract again."

[Uber Dwayne]

the Bible does not specify whether he created the universe to be expanding or not

Your right, the Bible does not say that the universe is expanding; ecclesiastes 3:14 seems to state otherwise. When I said:

would we not have a valid argument for a creator (not that we didn't anyway).

I was stating that the theory of a non expanding universe would then exemplify my claim of a creator, and in the perenthesis you see that I acknowledged a valid case for a creator either way. I do not believe that the universe is expanding, however the Bible does say that God "stretched forth" the heavens. But as a 6 day Creationist, that "stretching forth" would have been done before the end of the first day, which means He is done "stretching forth." So logically, from scripture, I can conclude that the universe is no longer expanding; assuming that "expanding" is a creative force, in that it creates space and time!

 

 

Aside -- I do believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, therefore, I have a horribly biased opinion towards the existance of a Creator. I believe that every word of the Bible is true, and thus I base my opinions off what I read.

[cwes99_03]

Nice to hear that. I think you may be stretching the passages a bit beyond what they say, but I can't say that anything definitively precludes any of your notions either. Welcome to Hypography, enjoy the forums. Please fell free to comment on the theology threads if you feel so inclined.