Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 447,301 views
- 1,678
- Canada
- TheDrummingKING
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
Scaff
I don't care what you are personally more happy with. You said the universe could be explained without a creator. It was a statement which you brought up.
TheDrummingKING
Yes, and what was the cause of the singularity...
So.. The universe popped into existence out of nothing?
- 1,678
- Canada
- TheDrummingKING
Ever heard of virtual particals? They pop in and out of existence (from nothing) all the time.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
TankAss95
Yet again, we come back to the same issue that you seem happy to accept that god has been around forever, but not that anything predated the original matter present in the big bang.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,760
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
I already have, the events of the big bang created the universe, prior to that was the singularity.
I have no idea, however that does not then mean that a God was the creator of the singularity or the universe that followed it (unless you have some evidence to prove otherwise).
You see I'm quite happy with the concept that we can yet fully explain everything, I have no desire or need to run for a touchstone the second anything can't be explained.
A lack of a current explanation does not mean God did it
No. The universe was formed as a result of the big bang, the origin of the singularity before it are not known (to me at least). Neither of which means God did it.
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
TheDrummingKING
Sub-atomic particles come in and out of existence through the sea of energy in which they inhabit. That's not nothing. The quantum vacuum is something.
homeforsummer
Thats irrelevant. Scaff said that the universe's existence could be explained through the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang model does not explain how the universe began, but explains the evolution of the early cosmos.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
And that question is a matter for philosophy and has been pondered on for thousands of years. Someone or something had to start it all. Some people believe it is God that satisfies that answer. Others choose not to address that question, and but rather study hard in the facts of what we know and can prove with hard science. Others even speculate that religion was born of that very question. There is one account, however, that provides the only evidence of a supernatural being, and that person being Jesus. He is the only one that history confirms to have existed. Eye witness accounts of his death and resurrection, and his proclamation to being Lord. Now some will say that eye witness accounts are not good enough, confirmed historical events as written in the Bible is not good enough, nor is the written word of many writers by one author going to be good enough for some. But take for a moment, if you entertain the idea that the Bible could be divinely inspired, then you start to see all kinds of prophesy speaking of Jesus coming to earth and doing all the things that is documented of him doing. Then you look at verses such as John 1:1 that describes Jesus as being with God and being God in the beginning. The beginning of what? He is also described as the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
So what makes my God any different than anyone else? Mine is the only one that can wipe my slate clean. He is the only one that can and promises to forgive me of even the most heinous of acts. He believed this so that he became a martyr, to take on the sins of all who have and all who will sin.
For that I am thankful.
Is there hard evidence of this? No there isn't. Does it take faith to believe? Yes it does. Even in Jesus' time, when he would perform miracles in the streets, proclaiming to be who he said he was, it was not enough. He was still killed for blasphemy against the religion of the time. The thing that is important to remember is that it only takes belief in Him to accept his forgiveness.
Got off track (a bit), so the point I am trying to make here is that if you have been forgiven and have experienced his salvation first hand and have experienced the life changing events in your own life, then why would I doubt what else was said in the Bible. If God said he created the heavens and the earth, I believe him. Do I discount the Big Bang theory? Not entirely. Do I think it was possible evidence of how things came to be? Sure it is, the data supports it's theory. Do I think it happened by chance? Not at all. Do I think that evolution is mans evidence of God's creation? I sure do.
So what makes my God any different than anyone else? Mine is the only one that can wipe my slate clean. He is the only one that can and promises to forgive me of even the most heinous of acts. He believed this so that he became a martyr, to take on the sins of all who have and all who will sin.
For that I am thankful.
Is there hard evidence of this? No there isn't. Does it take faith to believe? Yes it does. Even in Jesus' time, when he would perform miracles in the streets, proclaiming to be who he said he was, it was not enough. He was still killed for blasphemy against the religion of the time. The thing that is important to remember is that it only takes belief in Him to accept his forgiveness.
Got off track (a bit), so the point I am trying to make here is that if you have been forgiven and have experienced his salvation first hand and have experienced the life changing events in your own life, then why would I doubt what else was said in the Bible. If God said he created the heavens and the earth, I believe him. Do I discount the Big Bang theory? Not entirely. Do I think it was possible evidence of how things came to be? Sure it is, the data supports it's theory. Do I think it happened by chance? Not at all. Do I think that evolution is mans evidence of God's creation? I sure do.
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
Scaff
No. The Big Bang does not give an explanation of the beginning of universe. The Big Bang model explains the early evolution of the universe, back to the first planck of time. It does not explain how the universe began to exist.
Scaff
In your recent post which I responded to, you affirmed that:
a)that God does not exist
b)that the existance of the universe could be explained through a naturalistic explanation.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong with that. That's what I saw in your post, and if I'm wrong then please explain - I don't want to misrepresent or distort what you've said. I'm not defending any specific position here - I'm responding to these two points.
Now. There is no naturalistic explanation as to why the universe exists that I know of. I'm not claiming that there will never be a naturalistic explanation - I'm just saying that currently there is no adequate or sufficient explanation as to why the universe exists in scientific terms. I am not affirming that this proves/disproves the existance of a deity, I am simply saying that this does not negate the possibility of Gods existence.
Scaff
Sorry, but do you mean that you are happy that we can not yet fully explain everything, or that we can. I am not claiming that you must accept anything other than a naturalistic worldview because you don't (or do) have answers, I'm simply saying that your two claims which I have noted above (again, waiting conformation) are unjustified to this date.
Scaff
I never said that.
Scaff
No. The best models of the early universe describe the universe expanding from a previous dense state which we call the singularity.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
It's not irrelevant if you keep bringing it up. If you can ask "where does the universe come from?" then we can ask "where does God come from?". And lets face it, we're a hell of a lot more likely to find answers for the first question than we are for the second. The key here is that we're trying to find answers for the first question, rather than blindly accepting the latter.
- 510
Below is an excellent presentation on intelligent design by Neil Tyson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo&feature=related
Last edited:
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
It isn't wrong.
The big bang is the explanation we have for the existence of the universe. What happened before is unknown, but that doesn't mean nothing happened.
It's no less justified than trying to claim he does exist, since neither of you have any evidence. I've had a scan down the previous posts and I'm struggling to see where Scaff outright claimed that God doesn't exist though - it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if you've taken said phrase out of context.
Edit: In fact, he said nothing of the sort. Scaff said the "universe could be explained without a creator". That is not saying "God does not exist". Surprise surprise, you've twisted it to fit your argument.
Just to be clear: Being stubborn to every single point raised does not make you right. Your conversation with Scaff is like watching a kid in the playground stick their fingers in their ears and going "NANANANANANANANANA". You're arguing minutiae and syntax, grasping at straws by using things we justifiably don't know as some sort of argument that the alternative must be god-related.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,760
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
That depends entirely as to what you define as the beginning.
I was simply referring to the events that have occurred since the big bang.
Actually in my original post on this particular point I didn't mention God at all, rather the absence of a need for a creator or designer. I have no requirement to prove that God exists (that burden would not lie with me), nor that a designer or creator of any form was required.
I hope I have now also clarified the 'start' point to which I was referring, all of which is a total distraction away from the point I replied to, which is that my sanity was called into question for not believing in some arbitrary 'designer'.
A point I have not actually disputed, nor does science dispute it.
You are saying it doesn't negate God, that's fine for you. It doesn't prove it either and that's fine for me.
I'm more than happy that we are not yet able to explain everything (hell defining everything let alone explaining it is task enough), what I don't understand is when the absence of a complete answer is automatically used by some as proof of a higher power.
- 1,214
Scientist haven't even figure out how the planets in our solar system were formed let along the universe.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6085/1098.summary
http://www.space.com/15936-astronomy-mysteries-science-countdown.html
- 23,800
- Philippines
We know* how planets form. We know* how stars form.
The only "mystery" within our solar system is the source of all the planets. Some are made with condensed solar material, others are obviously formed from heavy elements excreted into our early solar system by supernovae.
In other words, you're looking at a mystery that's asking where all the billard balls in our solar system came from, sitting as it is in a near-infinite field of billiard balls.
Explain, in mathematical terms, how God created the Universe.
There's no explanation for the the pre-singularity because there simply isn't.
Again, our points of view differ in that science is perfectly happy to concede the fact that it doesn't know anything about events prior to time zero... whereas religion isn't. We're just content not to make up stories about things we can't see, understand or explain.
*in a manner of speaking. Parts of the process are still not fully understood, but we understand the basic mechanics
The only "mystery" within our solar system is the source of all the planets. Some are made with condensed solar material, others are obviously formed from heavy elements excreted into our early solar system by supernovae.
In other words, you're looking at a mystery that's asking where all the billard balls in our solar system came from, sitting as it is in a near-infinite field of billiard balls.
Explain, in mathematical terms, how God created the Universe.
There's no explanation for the the pre-singularity because there simply isn't.
Again, our points of view differ in that science is perfectly happy to concede the fact that it doesn't know anything about events prior to time zero... whereas religion isn't. We're just content not to make up stories about things we can't see, understand or explain.
*in a manner of speaking. Parts of the process are still not fully understood, but we understand the basic mechanics
- 510
This video doesn't do the last video I post justice, but its pretty darn funny and true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
What, pray tell, is "the planck of time"? Note: I'm not asking what planck time itself is; I know that already and so does anyone else with access to Wikipedia. I'm asking what the plank of time is supposed to be.
We don't know, and it's possible we may never know.
Some people seem unable to accept "we don't know" as an answer, so they make up all kinds of fantastic things. This is a big part of how religions came to be originally.
In any case, perhaps that question should be asked in the proper thread; it's off-topic in the "Creation vs Evolution" thread.
- 1,214
In another word they have no clue how the planets formed but this doesn't hinder their imagination and story telling. That's the point so far man's simple "stories" have fallen very short of explaining how all of them could have formed as a whole. Most of their past predictions were shown to be false.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
[Citation needed]
We have a fairly good idea at the moment of how planets and stars are formed based on solid scientific theory. Still, don't let those who do that sort of thing for a living stop you from convincing yourself that you know better.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
I know several ministers that study the Bible for a living.....
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
Not sure I follow? That sentence means very different things depending on whether you mean a religious minister or a political one.
If the former, I'd assume a religious minister studying the bible for a living knows very well what's in the bible, but that's a fairly limited field and certainly can't be used as justification for explaining how the earth was created, next to something like observation and mathematics based on absolute physical processes.
While I'd go to a religious minister (well, I wouldn't, but for the sake of argument) if I was having problems at home, I'm not inclined to trust their entirely one-dimensional view of the creation of the universe.
- 7,625
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
This is too good. So unless you know things for 100% certain, it's really just imaginary?
It's too bad then that we don't know anything about fluid mechanics, structural mechanics, or gravity (despite having working planes, sky scrapers, and sending ships to other planets).
Your post should have read:
"In other words, scientists are only willing to state as fact what can displayed with evidence and are not afraid of admitting a lack of knowledge when appropriate instead of relying on their imagination to make up answers."
- 9,262
- Corsham
- lipming
I believe that all we need to know about creation from the Bible is 'In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth'. I'll leave science to do the nitty gritty details.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Well, you were validating the scientific point of view because scientists do it for a living. I was showing the irrelevance of that statement or to validate my own point of view with a similar statement.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
I prefer to think that Slartibartfast did it. There's equally as much evidence to suggest it was him...
- 29,380
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Hmm. He started off well, but goes horribly wrong in the latter half. I fully agree that acceptance of evolution is compatible with (some) Christian beliefs, and that it is perfectly possible to be a Christian and reject the special creation myth on the grounds that it cannot be and isn't substantiated by any evidence... but, I would urge any Christians out there who do not accept or understand evolution to pick up any one of a vast array of excellent books on the subject, or to study it for themselves, rather than to accept the word of someone who sounds like he doesn't really get it, or worse still, actively seeks to perpetuate misunderstandings and misinformation regarding the subject.
Last edited:
