[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Evolution vs creationism (Page 1 of 6)
Posted: 6/5/2004 2:50:54 AM EDT
|
I got into a big debate at work about the big bang thorey (or big burp if you keep up on science stuff) vs god creating the universe. Well I work with some very religious born again christians who want to save me and convert me. Well I am always up for a debate so I took him up on it. He keep telling me about all the scientific proof he had that god created the earth 10-20 thousand years ago. So I asked him a simple question. His awnser? "god wanted it to be that way". Well thats not to scientific to me so I figured I will come here and ask since I know we have many very religious christians here. So here is my question. If god created the universe 10-20 thousand years ago, how come we can see the light from distane galaxies that are 20 million light years away? Here is a picture of a black hole we know to be over a billion light years away.  So If anyone could shed a light [pun intended] on this for, me please. Just dont awnser "Because god wanted to." |
|
There are Christians that believe that then the Bible says God created the world in six days, that means six days. Six days as we define six days... Monday through Saturday. I am a Christian that believes God's days are whatever he wants them to be. God is not bound by Rolex. I think evolution did take place under the guiding hand of God, and that is how we arrived at where we are today. |
|
There are generally two outcomes of this presentation. 1.) Time doesn't mean the same thing to god as to us. For the 6 days to work, these guys will claim that god changed time, or simply that the definition of day has changed. 2.) This disinformation was placed into the universe by Satan to lead you away from the truth. Anyone who gives #2 is a fruitcake, argument is futile, as you too may be an agent of Satan. Those who believe #1 face a real problem, and have redefined themselves out of it ah-la Clintons definition of 'is'. The fact is people enjoy their religions. It gives them a feeling of protection and immortality that doesn't really exist. When I see the Hubble deep field photos, it just reaffirms my position that there is little chance of a diety, and no chance of a sentient one as believed by man. |
|
God created a mature universe. The animals he created were full grown. The starlight was already here at the time he created it. He created light before the light source as well according to Genesis. BTW I think 6,000 years would be more accurate. Also, I beleive it was a literal six days. The bible describes a day in relation to the sun's rising and setting then rising again. Pretty straightforward description. Brian Young's books can be found for sale online and have excellent explanations of this type of thing. -GH |
|
I am a christian and everything Ive known to be very real that had happen to me and my family in my past I have seen some really crazy stuff, plus everything in the bible was true. the locations the events was real. The fact is people enjoy their religions. It gives them a feeling of protection and immortality that doesn't really exist. When I see the Hubble deep field photos, it just reaffirms my position that there is little chance of a diety, and no chance of a sentient one as believed by man. yea it does exist; religion is a mans doctrine that if I go to church and sing songs on sunday then I am saved. not true; Jesus said he was the way the truth and the life for a reason, he may have died on the cross right? but the resurection was the reason for his death. god is very much real and so is satan. trust me on this one. |
Pick up a copy of "Parallel Universes-The Search for Other Worlds" by Fred Alan Wolf, read it and you'll better understand what's going on. There is too much to explain here, you really need to read it for your self then you'll see how things happened "in the beginning" and how spacetime works. This has been one of the best books that I've ever read on the subject, Wolf explains everything step by step so you'll understand it too. 
|
|
The bible, especially the old testament, is mainly a nice story of some desert folks trying to make sense of their being. You have to factor the historical context in. I wouldn't put too much into that. The interesting thing is that most great scientists who explore the universe or quantum mechanics come, after being atheists, in a full circle back to a believe that it- the universe, our life, etc.- all makes sense. Of course this is a little different then the naive believe you had as a child...  Btw, ask your co-workers if the major principle behind the creation- "everybody eats everybody"- is proof of a mature, all-knowing God... 
|
|
I believe God created the universe at the big bang. Before the big bang there was nothing but an infinitly small and infinitly dense singularity. Time did not even exist. Then suddenly the entire universe was created from basicaly nothing. I believe that God created a universe where evolution was possible and eventualy led to the creation of man. Even if the Bible is not literaly accurate is still figurativly accurate. The whole In the begining there was darkness, and God said let there be light and there was light, thing sounds errily simmilar to the big bang. Many of the stories in the bible are stories. Many are to provide ethics morality and philosophy. while others are to detail the law of the day, or sanitation, in the case of the Kosher stuff. |
Yeah, And I'm the friggin' Pope  I got my extra large popcorn and softdrink ....Let the games begin!! 
|
|
I believe God has made animals to evolve, because there's so much evidence of extinct animals. This is also why I don't freak out about "endangered" animals; It's a natural progression. Some quick points, because this thread is bringing up lots of different things; 1. The universe was definately not created just thousands of years ago. 2. Jesus didn't rest on Sunday, then work for six days. He worked for six days, then rested. The days weren't named then, other than the seventh day being the Sabbath. It doesn't matter what actual names we call the days of the week, so long as we keep the seventh one Holy because it's the Sabbath. |
Biggest and most ignorant misconception regarding Evolution. Evolution does not claim that humans evolved from apes, or that our ancestors evolved from apes. Only that primates evolved from a common ancestor. I beleive in a Christian God that created evolution. It is the perfect mechanism for an ever changing ecosystem. There is way too much tangible evidence and scientific fact that proves evolution is a working mechanism, not a theory. If anyone really believes that the whole universe, earth and stars, were created in 6 days, then we've been wasting lots of $$ on space exploration. And those same folks have something really wrong upstairs. |
|
There is no higher purpose to life, no savior, and no God. We are simple semi-intellegent, self-aware (sort-of/some of us), electro-chemical piles of carbon based organic tissue with no purpose other than to reproduce so we pretend that there's more to life than there really is. God I hope I'm wrong.
|
Are all Master Cheif's cratchety and dismal, or am I just another delusional squid?
|
|
I gave up evolution when I examined the human eye in detail. The complexities that go into the ability to sense electromagnetic radiation in that narrow spectrum are incredible and inspiring. There are tens of thousands of eyes in everything from spiders to humans all tuned (more or less) to the same spectrum which I find hard to believe could happen by chance. If you get enough monkeys typing away on enough computers eventually one of them will write the flaming backpack story word-for-word perfectly .... but where are the millions of billions of failed copies left around? |
|
There is no higher purpose to life, no savior, and no God. We are simple semi-intellegent, self-aware (sort-of/some of us), electro-chemical piles of carbon based organic tissue with no purpose other than to reproduce so we pretend that there's more to life than there really is. God I hope I'm wrong. Don't worry Paul, I think you're wrong.  I used to pretty much feel the way you do, but the more I thought about it, the more I kept comming to the conclusion that the universe could not have been created from nothing. The fact that time and space has a beginning is very interesting to say the least. Without God someone has to believe that the entire universe just popped out of nowhere for absolutly no reason. |
You're not! |
|
There was even less then a singularity and from what I've read God didn't exsist until the Universe came into being so it's like the Universe and God came into being at the same time. I'm tellin' ya'll, Read the Book, pick up a copy of "Parallel Universes" by Wolf and you'll understand things that you didn't know that you didn't know.
|
I'd prefer to trust in the book inspired by God, rather than one written by a man. 
|
LOL, yes it does, but then it doesn't matter because you don't miss what you've never had. Time is simply another dimention in space like "up" or "down". It's all relitive to where and when you are as to "what" time is. If you could travel at the speed of light time would stop, that means you could go an infinite distance in an instant. Think about that for a while. |
Y'all are possibly confusing Christian belief with being agnostic. There is an enormous difference between saying there must be force of creation, and that the force had a son and interacts with humanity. In this argument, you need to clarify your position. Personally, I don't believe in a diety. I know that the basic questions are unanswered. I beleve that there is a science to it yet to be discovered. Some believe that an organized 'force' is responsible. Some believe that this force is sentient. Some call such a believed force a 'god', but it really doesn't fit the definition. Again, believing that there is a force of creation DOES NOT make you a Christian. That is this argument... |
So if you need to work on a gun you'll go the the Bible for the answers on how to fix it rather than a book written by a man? Also, how do you really know that the Bible was inspired by God and not just dreamed up by man? Most of the writing from the early Church aren't even in the Bible because man didn't think they were worthy to be in the book. They picked what "they" wanted to put into the Bible and left out the rest. Makes you wonder just what we're missing in the Bible today and why it was left out. Your Bible is not a complete collection of early writings so how do you know you have the complete truth? 
|
|
I believe that, like most issues, people think singularly and are incapable of going beyond what they are told. I believe that God created a universe of random perfection. It works in a guideline and continues on along the rules of physics. I don't know one religious person who considers that God might have known exactly what he was doing and how it would work best. I think God has a lot more to do than micro-manage our existence; it simply would not fit into the entire scheme of religious thought. We are here to learn. What is it we will accomplish if God guides our every step? We will have learned nothing and the essence of our existence would be illogical. Adam and Eve, along with other parts of the bible, is an illogical concept in that we are all suffering for the one mistake of two finite beings. I'm sure someone is going to tell me that Adam and Eve are simply a metaphor. Well if they are then how much more of the bible is a metaphor? Einstein believed in God because of his knowledge of science. There is no reason to deny the existence of the universe as a growing expanse in infinity when we believe it was created by an infinite being. |
Sunday is/was the first day of the week...God worked for six days and rested on the seventh, the sabbath which is/was saturday. |
|
Why I stopped going to CCD classes: Discussing the dawn of man with Adam and Eve and all that jazz... I raised my hand and asked [notmy exact words], "...so if this was the beginning of everything, how come in science class they say dinosaurs came before man?" The teacher could give no straight answer. That was enough for me to seriously question the whole thing. |
|
Evolutionist science journal gives exciting support to creationist cosmology! Is the wind beginning to shift against the big bang? by Carl Wieland, AiG-Australia "The prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has published a revolutionary paper1 which (probably unwittingly) gives powerful support to the basic principles of Dr Russell Humphreys’ creationist cosmology. Humphreys’ proposal, which sought to solve the ‘light-travel-time’ problem, is set out in the popular-level (with technical appendix) book Starlight and Time2. Because it starts with different assumptions from the standard ‘big bang’ notion, applying the same mathematical ‘machinery’ provides startlingly different conclusions. Now the establishment seems prepared to consider that the foundational beliefs of big bang thinking may be radically wrong. For more information on the latest in creationist cosmology, see Dr Humphreys' book, Starlight and Time, available from our bookstore. The standard assumption upon which big bang thinking is built (an assumption is a belief for which there is no proof either way) is that the universe does not have a center or an edge. Smoller and Temple’s paper assumes the opposite, just as does Humphreys in Starlight and Time. And just as Humphreys’ model has the universe expanding out of a white hole (a black hole running in reverse) so too does their paper! (In their model, the event horizon (the hypothetical boundary around a black or white hole at which time slows down dramatically) is still ‘out there’, whereas Humphreys has it touching the earth during Creation Week. So the Smoller-Temple paper is not concerned with time dilation.) In a number of other areas, too, the Smoller-Temple paper gets into issues that Humphreys has already published on in the creationist literature. For instance, their consideration of the shock waves in such an expanding cosmos was raised by Humphreys as a possible explanation of the ‘concentric shells’ distribution of the galaxies. (This is powerful evidence that there is indeed a center (and hence an edge) to the universe, and, more than that, it indicates that our galaxy must be somewhere near that center.3) Physicist Dr John Hartnett has written4 of his conviction that 1994, the date of publication of Humphreys’ cosmology, will go down as a momentous time in the history of the creationist movement. Critically examining the foundational assumptions of big bang thinking and introducing the notion of relativistic time dilation was, he believes, crucial to launching an exciting new era of creationist cosmologies and models which overcome the light-travel time problem (a problem which big-bangers also have, incidentally—the so-called ‘horizon problem’5).6 All this is exciting news indeed, and a strong vindication of the direction of Humphreys’ cosmology. But it also has powerful implications for the ‘progressive creationist’ compromises that have seemed so beguiling to many evangelical thinkers. In such views, most prominently represented by Dr Hugh Ross of the Reasons to Believe ministry, big bang cosmology, with its philosophical assumptions, is foundational and crucial. The very fact that such a prestigious establishment journal now publishes such a major departure from (and challenge to) these very assumptions should be incredibly sobering for those who have been prepared to depart from the obvious and straightforward words of the Bible to bow to establishment thinking on the big bang and its billions of years. Russell Humphreys has commented on this issue as follows: ‘Dr. Ross has (a) founded his theology on the big bang theory, (b) made a career of criticizing my “white-hole” cosmology, and (c) always shifted his course to conform to the latest winds of doctrine from the cosmology establishment. Now that those winds have (at least temporarily) veered toward a creationist view, will he now change his course?’7 The purpose is, of course, not any sort of personal critique, but a highlighting of the principles involved. Science keeps on changing. If we marry our interpretation of God’s Word to today’s science, we will be out of step tomorrow; ‘but the word of the Lord stands forever’ (1 Peter 1:25)." References and notes 1. Smoller, J. and Temple, B, Shock-wave cosmology inside a black hole, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(20):11216–11218, 30 September 2003. 2. Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1994. Available from our web bookstore. 3. Humphreys, D. Russell, Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ red shifts show, TJ 16(2):95–104, 2002. 4. Hartnett, J., personal communication, September 2003. 5. Newton, R., Light-travel time: a problem for the 'big bang', Creation 25(4): 48–49, 2003. 6. Humphreys has long seen his work as only the beginning, and Hartnett is one of those who has put forward modifications and refinements of the Humphreys model. 7. In a press release emailed September 2003 www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0929cosmology.asp |
Ooooooh. The Book of great old stories. Look I respect the Bible and its teachings. But God and what he does/is can’t be written in a book or is something we cant even comprehend. If being a Christian and reading the Bible makes you a better person and makes you help your fellow man than that’s a wonderful thing. That goes for the Koran or the Torah, but please spare us all the "Christian" elitism. Being a Christian makes you no better than a Muslim or even a non-believer. We are all equal in Gods eye's and whet you do on this earth I am sure is far more important to God than what songs you sing in church or even what church you go to. Respectfully yours, M4_@_U |
Dude, I'm an athiest! I'm just pointing out that the tenents of Christianity don't allow much deviation. I simply feel that many true agnostics claim a morphed view of Christianity so they don't have to endure the scarlet letter of being 'unchristian'. |
I see. I didn’t mean any disrespect, I was simply replying to you posts . |
So what your saying is that man/men did not write the bible? Oh, I see, you say "God" inspired them.....say's who? And if "God" actually "inspired" the bible exactly as written in it's original form, why has it been re-written so many times? |
This is quite possibly the stupidist thing I have ever read on this board. The Theory of Natural Selection (let's call it by it's proper name shall we?) is quite simple the tool that God used to develope this earth. Why is that so hard to understand? Sgtar15 |
Psst: It was intended to mock! And yes, there are those who believe this. Actually, I would have thought you would have been one... |
"A day is a thausand years and a thausand years is a day" I can't remember the exact location of that in the bible, but it is in there. I believe in creative evolution. Similar if not the same as Illi. The six days are actually 6 phases of creation. Also, if you notice, god created the plants and the animals. However, Man was "Molded" of clay. When you mold something, you start witha rough form and adjust and tweak until you have a finished form. That object "evolves". Hence biblical support for evolution. Also, God breathed the breath of life into man. He did not do this to the plants and animals. We can not deny that they are living creatures, so what is the difference? Mans intelligence and his soul. The bible was written to be each mans (man as in mankind. Not to leave women out) book. Up to individual interpretation. The ones that are wrong are the people that say you must attend a church where some one else tells you how you are to believe. |
That is absolutely not true. God himself came down to the Earth as a man - THAT is the basic tenet of Christianity. While on Earth, he continuously had problems with religious authorities that were too stubborn and stupid to see beyond theire written scriptures - and he chastised them for it - and WAS KILLED FOR IT. It is small, primarily American faction - albeit a very LOUD faction - of Christians who take a passage from one of Paul's letters - WRITTEN BEFORE THE BIBLE AS WE KNOW IT WAS EVEN ASSEMBLED (obviously - or how could Paul's letters be IN the bible?) as somehow proof that the current bible is the be all and and all with regard to scientific knowledge about the origins of the universe. Funny, but if such was SO important to Christ's message - so CENTRAL to his teachings, why was he never quoted talking about it? To suggest to me that a timeless, omniscient GOD could not foresee modern science is nothing short of blasphemy. In fact, Christ chose to teach most of his lessons in the form of parables ans other stories - showing, to anyone willing to pull their head out of their King James Bible, further support to the idea that the EARLIER lessons taught by God were consisten with the later ones, thus ALSO parables and stories - not that they REALLY happened. Personally, many "fundamentalist" Christians scare me as much as their Muslim brethren. I will close with Kris Kristofferson, before he went Commie: Jesus was a Capricorn, he ate organic food He believed in peace and love and never wore no shoes Long hair, beard, and sandals - and a funky bunch of friends, Reckon if he came back down they'd nail him up again.  One more thing - too many of the so-called "Creationsists" are inherently dishonest. They use the same BS logic traps that the anti-gunners use. The above article about light transmission reads like aq VPC press release to anyone who understand how science works. That dishonesty in inherently UN-CHRISTIAN. |
Yup, That's exactly what I just said. Someone else had just posted that the week of creation was Monday through Saturday, thereby making the day of rest come before the work.
It tells in the Bible the He inspired them to write what He wanted written, and I believe it. It's been re-written so many times for several different reasons. Here's a few I can think of; 1. Different languages. 2. Some people didn't like what it said, so they left out or changed certain parts. 3. Some did it just to make themselves "known", trying to feel important. 4. Some try to "modernize" it, making it easier to understand. (O.K., if you don't change the meaning). It's up to each of us to decide whether we'll believe or not. I post what I believe, but in no way think everyone has to believe the same way. It just strikes me kind of odd when people make things up that aren't in the Bible, like the Sabbath being the first day of the week, but then try to follow other parts. We're not supposed to pick out the parts we feel like following, but rather try to follow all of it. |
Sunday, the day he created the sun. (and it was God, not Jesus), Monday, the day of the moon etc... Saturday is actually the 7th day and the day of rest. In this, the adventists have it right. But, as previously stated, the bible is for individual interpretation.
The failed copies are the extinct species. As to the eyes, that supports evolution. A common ancestor that had the ability to see. An offshoot of that species and another off shoot each taking the eyes with them. Suddenly multiple species with sight. As to the same spectrum, that is inaccurate. Dogs see closer to UV than white light. Our eyes are attuned to white. Dogs, and deer are tuned to UV. Fish are tuned to reds. |
This was a CATHOLIC teacher? The Catholic Church has accepted the scientific understanding of Natural History for over 100 years. Heck, most of the original scientists who discovered the things that wer later combined to create our current understanding WERE Catholic. Many scientists are Jesuits. While admittedly the Jesuits and the Papacy have had thier disagreements, I have yet to meet one who believed in all of this modern literal 6-day creation stuff. They are a pretty good authority on Catholic beliefs in my eyes - at least more so than your ignorant teacher. |
I don't know much about Adventists, other than that they're Sabbath-keepers too. It was Jesus who did the work in Genesis. He's known as the Word in the Old Testament. It says in the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It also refers to the Word as the one through whom all things were done. He used God's Holy Spirit to do as God instructed Him, but He was the one who did it. |
Here's the problem with Bible dabates where the Bible isn't consulted.
Nope, it was Jesus. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Nope. The Evangelical Christian church knows that Saturday is the Jewish Sabbath. But we do not worship on the Sabbath. Instead, we choose to worship on Sunday in recognition of the fact that Jesus arose on Sunday and assured our salvation.
Nope. See below: 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. Other than that, I hope you are having a fine day, PsyWarrior.  |
|
The question you have to ask is God bound by physics. If so, then the light from two billion light years away is actually two billion miles away. If God is NOT bound by physics, who's to say he's not bending light or doing something to make us think it's two billion miles away? I don't believe in a supreme being, but it's really hard to explain all of this happening by chance and chaos. |
Painless, If you know that much, you also know we're not to change any of the Holy Days or Sabbaths. How can you justify where you said "we choose" to change the Sabbath to the first day of the week? |