Evolution or Creationism

[Intangelon]

Put your hands together.

It's said that God created the earth in six days. Well, what's a day to an omnipotence/omnipresence? Why, it could be millions or billions of years, by golly. Who's to say evolution isn't part of the creative process?

Then you could also argue that:

• Jesus took three thousand years to rise
• The Israelites marched around Jericho once every one thousand years
• Jesus fasted for forty thousand years

And so on.

You could? How?

[Deathly]

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

That is a Hyperbole, David is saying that God is so great time, basically, means nothing to Him.

Already been over this.

[Intangelon]

Where?

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

I'm pretty sure that if it's in a Psalm, it's more art than science or deity-humanity time conversion, so if that's the strongest link you've got, meh.

[Farnhamia]

Where are you getting this?

Christians should know the Bible is not perfect or, in my view, the First creation narrative is more of saying how powerful God is, that he could make the world in six days. So the six day Creationism is wrong. I believe, as previously stated, that God gave the opportunity for life to evolve.

Except that the first story has plants being created before humans and the second, humans are created first. Oh, and the author in one story calls God one name and the other guy calls him something else.

[Deathly]

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

I'm pretty sure that if it's in a Psalm, it's more art than science or deity-humanity time conversion, so if that's the strongest link you've got, meh.

Thats why I said it was a Hyperbole, which occurs in art.

[Sociobiology]

Ok no, theories cannot ever become laws, laws are different structures, than theories, laws are only recordive in nature and predict themselves. while theories are explanatory and predict other testable scenarios.
theories predict laws, laws cannot predict theories.
the law of evolution is: the morphology and genetic profile of populations of organisms change over time, the Theory of natural selection is the only theory explaining this with any evidence, in fact it has such overwhelming evidence that other theories and laws are built on top of it.

When was the last thing declared to be a law?.......

laws are not declared laws they are observations that are never overturned.
it was posed by Aristotle in the 300's BC, along with the first descriptions of fossils.
it was restated by Al-Jahith in the early 800's AD

Darwin re-describes it as one of the laws underpinning natural selection, and also coined the term "evolution" for it.
it has since been re-described to use a genetic base instead of morphology do to morphology being an effect of phenotype (genetics).
you can also look at principles which is used interchangeably with laws in science.

[Unhealthy2]

If it is proven then why is it still called a Theory?

Because science uses the word "fact" for observations and the word "theory" for explanations of a set of observations. An absolutely proven explanation is still an explanation, not an observation.

I do not see how the big bang theory is true.

What do you mean?

[Deathly]

Christians should know the Bible is not perfect or, in my view, the First creation narrative is more of saying how powerful God is, that he could make the world in six days. So the six day Creationism is wrong. I believe, as previously stated, that God gave the opportunity for life to evolve.

Except that the first story has plants being created before humans and the second, humans are created first. Oh, and the author in one story calls God one name and the other guy calls him something else.

Obviously Moses, or whomever wrote the Pentateuch, was not there at the beginning of creation, therefore he must have used sources and then put them together.

[Arkinesia]

Then you could also argue that:

• Jesus took three thousand years to rise
• The Israelites marched around Jericho once every one thousand years
• Jesus fasted for forty thousand years

And so on.

You could? How?

One of the professors at my school informs me that the middle one in there also uses the same Hebrew word as the Genesis account, yom.

Not sure about a wide variety of possible translations in the Greek for the first and third.

[Farnhamia]

Except that the first story has plants being created before humans and the second, humans are created first. Oh, and the author in one story calls God one name and the other guy calls him something else.

Obviously Moses, or whomever wrote the Pentateuch, was not there at the beginning of creation, therefore he must have used sources and then put them together.

But why are there two sources that say different things, if the Bible is the Word of Yahweh?

[Kobeanare]

Obviously Moses, or whomever wrote the Pentateuch, was not there at the beginning of creation, therefore he must have used sources and then put them together.

But why are there two sources that say different things, if the Bible is the Word of Yahweh?

What I want to know is why he rejects the obvious answer: they were just making shit up.

[Deathly]

If it is proven then why is it still called a Theory?

Because science uses the word "fact" for observations and the word "theory" for explanations of a set of observations. An absolutely proven explanation is still an explanation, not an observation.

I do not see how the big bang theory is true.

What do you mean?

I do not see how destruction can cause creation (besides just creating a mess), even if over 10 million years. If there was nothing before the Big Bang how did the Big Bang happen? If the Big Bang worked for us why have we not found other life? (I do not know if that last one works.) I understand how the arrived at the conclusion, somewhat. The Universe is still expanding.

[Deus Malum]

Because science uses the word "fact" for observations and the word "theory" for explanations of a set of observations. An absolutely proven explanation is still an explanation, not an observation.



What do you mean?

I do not see how destruction can cause creation (besides just creating a mess), even if over 10 million years. If there was nothing before the Big Bang how did the Big Bang happen? If the Big Bang worked for us why have we not found other life? (I do not know if that last one works.) I understand how the arrived at the conclusion, somewhat. The Universe is still expanding.

...wait, what? What the fuck do you mean "destruction can cause creation"? Where in the Big Bang Theory does it even remotely state that?

[Farnhamia]

Because science uses the word "fact" for observations and the word "theory" for explanations of a set of observations. An absolutely proven explanation is still an explanation, not an observation.



What do you mean?

I do not see how destruction can cause creation (besides just creating a mess), even if over 10 million years. If there was nothing before the Big Bang how did the Big Bang happen? If the Big Bang worked for us why have we not found other life? (I do not know if that last one works.) I understand how the arrived at the conclusion, somewhat. The Universe is still expanding.

That last one doesn't work: we've only been looking for other life for 50 years, with any sort of decent technology.

The Big Bang was not an explosion, it was the sudden expansion of the singularity containing all matter and energy. I won't get too cosmological, but it is entirely possible that there was a universe before this one which collapsed and then re-expanded. You can look up all this stuff, and some of it is hard to understand, but it's more reasonable than saying that some supernatural being willed the universe into existence and then took up residence here on Earth, on a mountain top in the Middle East and picked a scruffy, disobedient tribe of hairless apes as his Chosen People.

[Deathly]

But why are there two sources that say different things, if the Bible is the Word of Yahweh?

What I want to know is why he rejects the obvious answer: they were just making shit up.

The point of both stories is not how He created it, but the fact that He did. The sources mentioned are according to other peoples myths. As I said the point of the Creation stories, even if made up, is not how he created the World, but the fact that he had a heavy role in it.
Shall we go to pascal's wager?

[Deathly]

That last one doesn't work: we've only been looking for other life for 50 years, with any sort of decent technology.

The Big Bang was not an explosion, it was the sudden expansion of the singularity containing all matter and energy. I won't get too cosmological, but it is entirely possible that there was a universe before this one which collapsed and then re-expanded. You can look up all this stuff, and some of it is hard to understand, but it's more reasonable than saying that some supernatural being willed the universe into existence and then took up residence here on Earth, on a mountain top in the Middle East and picked a scruffy, disobedient tribe of hairless apes as his Chosen People.

Please go deeper into the cosmological. I am sure you are aware but there is more than one theory for Big Bang. My question is why did it expand, or rather how did it expand if there was no force?

[Kobeanare]

What I want to know is why he rejects the obvious answer: they were just making shit up.

The point of both stories is not how He created it, but the fact that He did. The sources mentioned are according to other peoples myths. As I said the point of the Creation stories, even if made up, is not how he created the World, but the fact that he had a heavy role in it.
Shall we go to pascal's wager?

Pascal's wager has nothing to do with facts.

[Farnhamia]

What I want to know is why he rejects the obvious answer: they were just making shit up.

The point of both stories is not how He created it, but the fact that He did. The sources mentioned are according to other peoples myths. As I said the point of the Creation stories, even if made up, is not how he created the World, but the fact that he had a heavy role in it.
Shall we go to pascal's wager?

Let's not. And anyway, Pascal's Wager doesn't hold water. At the very least, we don't have enough real information to make an informed decision on our bet.

And how did "other peoples myths" get into the Bible.

[New Unsociety]

Evolution is scientifically proven.

End of story.

[Deathly]

The point of both stories is not how He created it, but the fact that He did. The sources mentioned are according to other peoples myths. As I said the point of the Creation stories, even if made up, is not how he created the World, but the fact that he had a heavy role in it.
Shall we go to pascal's wager?

Let's not. And anyway, Pascal's Wager doesn't hold water. At the very least, we don't have enough real information to make an informed decision on our bet.

And how did "other peoples myths" get into the Bible.

True Pascal's wager does not hold water as far as truth goes. However, I do not think either of us will successfully persuade the other.
Truth is Truth no matter where you find it. That is how "other peoples myths" got into the Bible. There was some degree of truth, which the Biblical Author saw, not literal saw, God reveal as truth, but was not completely true and needed to be rewritten as truth.

[Deathly]

It's just a thread. The 'mega' is only there to stroke your ego, like extra-large condoms.

Sorry this is really random, but i did not read it before so...
EDIT: Forgive my comic relief.

[Kirav]

Evolution happened, but only as God willed it.
This is the stance I take as a religious believer.

Questions?

This. I have no problem reonciling a theistic worldview with biological evolution.

I was actually raised to believe in evolution by my Catholic family, and it wasn't until third-grade Sunday school class that I realised that people actually believed in Genesis as literal truth.

[Arkinesia]

I do not see how destruction can cause creation (besides just creating a mess), even if over 10 million years. If there was nothing before the Big Bang how did the Big Bang happen? If the Big Bang worked for us why have we not found other life? (I do not know if that last one works.) I understand how the arrived at the conclusion, somewhat. The Universe is still expanding.

You realize that the Big Bang was a theory developed with a creator in mind as the initiator, right?

[Deathly]

I do not see how destruction can cause creation (besides just creating a mess), even if over 10 million years. If there was nothing before the Big Bang how did the Big Bang happen? If the Big Bang worked for us why have we not found other life? (I do not know if that last one works.) I understand how the arrived at the conclusion, somewhat. The Universe is still expanding.

You realize that the Big Bang was a theory developed with a creator in mind as the initiator, right?

Do you realize that Science was created with at creator in mind? Actually no i did not.

[Unhealthy2]

I do not see how destruction can cause creation (besides just creating a mess),

First of all, the "big bang" really wasn't destruction per se. It was (and still IS) the expansion of space-time. Secondly, you really can't see how destruction can lead to creation? Haven't you ever heard of creative destruction? It's central to economics, central to biological evolution, and central to any act of development whatsoever. Hell, the second law of thermodynamics pretty much requires that you can't build something up somewhere without tearing something else down, as the net entropy must AT LEAST be maintained.

If there was nothing before the Big Bang how did the Big Bang happen?

1) "What happened before the big bang?" and "Did the big bang happen?" are unrelated questions. Even if we can't answer what happened before the big bang, it doesn't even remotely imply that the big bang didn't happen (and is still happening today).

2) Not all cosmologies require "nothing" before the big bang. Neither string theory nor loop quantum gravity require it.

3) Even if the universe came "out of nothing," this does not violate any present physical laws, as energy conservation only requires that the net energy of a close system be constant in time, and the latest evidence indicates that the net energy of the universe could very well be exactly zero.

If the Big Bang worked for us why have we not found other life?

What? The big bang isn't an explanation for the origins of life. That's abiogenesis. As for why we've yet to find other life, well, we haven't really looked that far. We've yet to thoroughly probe for life on any other planets besides Mars, and there are a hell of a lot of planets in the universe (at least a billion billion) where life could be. It is also possible, though unlikely given our present knowledge, that we are the only life in the universe.

The Universe is still expanding.

Yes it is, which means that the big bang is still happening.