Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[Oncedeceived]

How were you given this knowledge? How is it that you "know" god exists?

It was a process. It was a lengthy process.

 

[HitchSlap]

It was a process. It was a lengthy process.

So at what point in this lengthy process did you know a god exists?

 

[46AND2]

It was a process. It was a lengthy process.

Why so vague about something that you claim to have knowledge of? Is it a feeling? Did he speak to you? Did you "see" him in the beautiful nature around you? Did unexplainable coincidences convince you?

How is your knowledge of God so much more tangible than the examples of not-knowledge that you gave earlier in the thread?

 

[selfinflikted]

One litmus test I heard that makes seems to make rational sense is: "If it contradicts reality, it's metaphorical, allegorical, or otherwise telling us a story."

But this is potentially problematic, isn't it? According to this test, a thousand years ago the scriptures would've contained far more literal content than they do today. I mean, as science continues to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, that will simply mean that the Bible will eventually contain nothing but metaphor, allegory, or story-telling.

 

[selfinflikted]

It may be to some interpretations but not the actual wording. Like I said it is kinds after its kind.

I believe that it is literal.

I don't understand how you can say a literal reading of Genesis is compatible with common descent. One says humans evolved from a common ancestor, and the other says god poofed humans into existence. Am I missing something, or have I just misunderstood your position?

 

[stevevw]

After seeing flaws in Christianity itself I'm slowly leaving it, but I'm not really going into atheism...Darwin was an Agnostic, same for Einstein. That's why I changed my icon to "Seeker". I don't know what to believe anymore. I don't know much about evolution and the explosion, so if someone could explain it to me in a simple way.

And if someone could explain these:

1. How can nothing create the universe.
2. Since the magnetosphere of the Earth is very young, how could there even be advanced life, because the magnetosphere protects us from solar radiation?
3. The missing links?

And the evidence for your claims. Thank you.

Just a bit of advice. If you think that you can prove faith well think again. That is the idea of faith it cannot be proved by evidence and that's the way God designed it. On the other hand if you think that by getting some assurance and proof that evolution is true you wont get that either as after 140 years there is still no definite proof.

In fact the more we look into the DNA and the universe we will find that things are not the way scientist think and many things will go against what they predicted in their theories. They will not make sense to them and will contradict their predictions. But of course they will adjust the theory to fit the new changes and somehow get around any new evidence so that they can hold onto their theory. Already the study of genetics is bringing some very challenging data to scientists and as yet they have no answers.

The recent discovery of the possible higgs boson is also bringing some interesting data. It seems the empty space out there we call nothing is actually something and plays a part in how everything out there stays in place. In fact around 80% of the universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy. It seems this dark energy and matter has a small effect on keeping everything in its place. So small and precise is the influence that it keeps everything in its right place and stops the whole universe flying all over the place. Some say that it is exactly the right balance so precise that it would be hard to imagine it all just blew or flew into its right place by some big bang. Also our thinking of how gravity affects planets and stars and galaxies could be changed by this new force as well. So these new discoveries are changing what we thought and challenging scientists to come up with the answers.

It seems the higgs boson has something to do with how matter may come into existence, or at least thats what scientists theorize. But as they study the physics of this it seems to be bringing up some unusual results, some they didn't expect. There are laws that make up physics but deep down in the molecule level these laws are somehow broken and they are yet to understand why.

Of course all this is to do with what some call the God particle (the higgs boson) which they say is the process that may more or less create something out of nothing. But they think there is a reason and some sort of reaction that causes this. This all has something to do with the big bang they say but have yet to prove this.

In fact the big bang is just a theory yet to be validated. They also thought it could be the big chill. The problem was with the big bang and chill we had an expanding universe that should eventually slow down from the big bang. But what they have found that the universe is actually speeding up. So like i said there are many contradictory results they are finding so the jury is still out.

Still this is all theory at the moment and it is not really creating something out of nothing because that is impossible. But to me that is what they have to come up with because there had to be nothing at one stage. I think the more they go on and investigate the more they will see that it is all to great and beyond their comprehension. All they are doing is pulling gods creation apart and trying to understand which will never happen. The only way you will ever understand is through faith.

Romans 1.18
For kthe wrath of God lis revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be mknown about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, nhave been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,7 in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they obecame futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 pClaiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and qexchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

 

[biggles53]

How did any of that help to answer the questions posed...?

 

[mzungu]

After seeing flaws in Christianity itself I'm slowly leaving it, but I'm not really going into atheism...Darwin was an Agnostic, same for Einstein. That's why I changed my icon to "Seeker". I don't know what to believe anymore. I don't know much about evolution and the explosion, so if someone could explain it to me in a simple way.

And if someone could explain these:

1. How can nothing create the universe.
2. Since the magnetosphere of the Earth is very young, how could there even be advanced life, because the magnetosphere protects us from solar radiation?
3. The missing links?

And the evidence for your claims. Thank you.

1. "nothing" is not a meaningful concept in quantum physics. In fact there is no such thing as nothing. We now know that in what you call "nothing"; both matter and anti matter particles constantly appear and annihilate each other.
Please watch the full video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

2. The Magnetosphere precedes life.

3. There is no such thing as "Missing link" in the Theory of Evolution. This is not a scientific term.

 

[mzungu]

Just a bit of advice. If you think that you can prove faith well think again. That is the idea of faith it cannot be proved by evidence and that's the way God designed it. On the other hand if you think that by getting some assurance and proof that evolution is true you wont get that either as after 140 years there is still no definite proof.

WRONG. ToE is the most scrutinised scientific theory of all time and it has withstood and stands with flying colours. What you state is a falacy.

In fact the big bang is just a theory yet to be validated. They also thought it could be the big chill. The problem was with the big bang and chill we had an expanding universe that should eventually slow down from the big bang. But what they have found that the universe is actually speeding up. So like i said there are many contradictory results they are finding so the jury is still out.

Still this is all theory at the moment and it is not really creating something out of nothing because that is impossible. But to me that is what they have to come up with because there had to be nothing at one stage. I think the more they go on and investigate the more they will see that it is all to great and beyond their comprehension. All they are doing is pulling gods creation apart and trying to understand which will never happen. The only way you will ever understand is through faith.

You have no understanding of the scientific meaning of the word THEORY. A scientific theory explains the facts and makes predictions. In fact you don't get much better than a theory. eg: Atomic theory, Newton's theory of gravity, etc.

You are bearing false witness!

 

[stevevw]

WRONG. ToE is the most scrutinised scientific theory of all time and it has withstood and stands with flying colours. What you state is a falacy.

You have no understanding of the scientific meaning of the word THEORY. A scientific theory explains the facts and makes predictions. In fact you don't get much better than a theory. eg: Atomic theory, Newton's theory of gravity, etc.

You are bearing false witness!

latest DNA evidence show theory is wrong. In fact it says in principle it is impossible.
Taxonomic nested hierarchies don’t support Darwinism — transformed cladism rocks | Uncommon Descent

So, how does a nested hierarchy present evidence for evolution? Well, the short answer is, It Doesn't. A close look at actual genetic evidence shows a substantial amount of data against the idea of nested hierarchies being evidence for evolutionary common descent when you compare protein coding genes and the proteins they produce across mammalian genomes. Why? Because individual organisms which are more closely related by common descent (or 'supposedly' more closely related) should be genetically more similar to each other than they would be to organisms to which they are more distantly related. More closely related means more genetically similar. This is certainly true in the case that you are more closely related to and therefore more genetically similar to your parents and sibling(s) than you are to a person living on a different continent or of different parental lineages. Say for example if you were an African-American born and raised by your parents who were sharecroppers somewhere in Mississippi. Then one day you wonder about your heritage and go for a DNA test and upon getting the results you found that you were genetically more similar to Caucasians you Might at least Wonder if maybe, just maybe you had been adopted.

What predictions are generated by the hypothesis that Humans are more closely related to Chimpanzees, our purported next of kin, than to other species? Well, if Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor more recently than Humans and any other species then Human genes should be more similar to Chimpanzee genes than to any other species because, by evolution theory, we would have had to originate from the same exact gene pool. So, all the genes in the Human genome should be more similar to those of the Chimpanzee genome than to Gorilla, with maybe a couple of exceptions but even these possible exceptions should be very closely similar to each other. By the Nested Hierarchy Humans should be genetically more similar to the great apes such as Chimps, Gorillas and Orangutans than we are to other mammals such as Pigs, Horses or Dolphins. We should be more similar gene for gene to mammals than we are to birds and/or lizards.

Now, how does this prediction measure up to the genetic data? Well, it doesn't measure up very well at all really. For an example within the primate hierarchy, while the Human TAAR1 gene actually is most similar to that in Chimp BUT it is Less similar to Gorilla than it is in Macaque, Orangutan, Gibbon and Marmoset. This is one of many examples that contradicts the hypothesis that Gorillas are our evolutionary 'next of kin' after Chimpanzees.


[FONT='Luxi Sans', Helvetica, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]Gene: TAAR1 ENSG00000146399

[/font]
[FONT='Luxi Sans', Helvetica, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]
Descriptiontrace amine associated receptor 1 [Source:HGNC Symbol;Acc:17734]LocationChromosome 6: 132,966,123-132,967,142 reverse strand.


[/font]

Now, of course it could be argued that the primates are all together, more similar to each other. But it should be noticed that Because this gene in Humans is less similar to Gorilla than it is to Monkeys then the Nested Hierarchy is violated between the Great Ape Gorilla which should be more similar to Humans than Humans are to Marmosets, Gibbons and Macuaques.

three little monkeys sitting in a tree,
one fell out and bumped his knee,
took him to the doctor and the doctor said,
"You drive evolutionists crazy dontcha?​

These violations aren't just happening with the ape they are finding more and more which is disproving nestled hierarchy and that we have a common ancestor. It is also showing that in principle it is showing what evolutionist predicted is wrong. All species they said should be closet to us through the fossil records they used are turning out not so close through the DNA. So now a lot of the branches of the tree of life they promote are starting to fall off and whither.

​

TheNewCreationist: Nested Hierarchies - Evidence of Design

Even Newtons theory of gravity is now being re revalued with the discovery of dark matter and dark
energy.
http://hetdex.org/dark_energy/what_is_it/flawed_gravity.php
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

 

[mzungu]

latest DNA evidence show theory is wrong. In fact it says in principle it is impossible.
Taxonomic nested hierarchies don’t support Darwinism — transformed cladism rocks | Uncommon Descent

Tell me you are kidding? You post a link from a creationist site and expect us to take it seriously?

Even Newtons theory of gravity is now being re revalued

You said it REVALUED not refuted. All that is happening is the theory is getting more accurate.

 

[stevevw]

Tell me you are kidding? You post a link from a creationist site and expect us to take it seriously?



You said it REVALUED not refuted. All that is happening is the theory is getting more accurate.

No that was the theory of gravity. The theory of evolution is not re valued it is in question.

Thought you'd say that . If you look at the links i have included science sites as i know how quickly you jump on them. If you want i can get more as many of them say the same thing if you bother to read. You see thats what happens with your side of the debate you call us ignorant and dumb and fools and then as soon as you get the whiff of the slightest bit of religion connected you throw the baby out with the bath water. At least i read science sites and see what both sides say. Yet i can give you several examples where evolutionist have used the same bias as you are perceiving and you all bow down to it like its gospel. If you bothered to read the links i will include some more non religious ones as well. But if they support the one you said is a creationist site which its not, its a scientific site but then you just looked at the titled didn't you and didn't bothered to read it.
well hears some more.

This one i already included and you cant get a more evolutionary site than this.
PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life

This is a science site. with science forums so they will be promoting evolution.
Intelligent Reasoning: The Nested Hierarchy fiasco

If you need anymore let me know.

 

[mzungu]

No that was the theory of gravity. The theory of evolution is not re valued it is in question.

Thought you'd say that . If you look at the links i have included science sites as i know how quickly you jump on them. If you want i can get more as many of them say the same thing if you bother to read. You see thats what happens with your side of the debate you call us ignorant and dumb and fools and then as soon as you get the whiff of the slightest bit of religion connected you throw the baby out with the bath water. At least i read science sites and see what both sides say. Yet i can give you several examples where evolutionist have used the same bias as you are perceiving and you all bow down to it like its gospel. If you bothered to read the links i will include some more non religious ones as well. But if they support the one you said is a creationist site which its not, its a scientific site but then you just looked at the titled didn't you and didn't bothered to read it.
well hears some more.

This one i already included and you cant get a more evolutionary site than this.
PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life

This site does not refute nor dismiss ToE. Learn to read.

This is a science site. with science forums so they will be promoting evolution.
Intelligent Reasoning: The Nested Hierarchy fiasco

This is NOT a science site it is a creationist site.

 

[Etheri]

A la Ray Comfort, who also claims to "know," that God exists. Actually, my best friend claims the same.

If this is the case, how can he be perfectly just, as the Bible claims, when he allows some people this knowledge, but not others, when our very [eternal] existence is dependent on such knowledge?

Likewise, why is "faith" so tantamount in the Bible, if he provides some people with the means to perceive him, thereby negating the need for faith?

" I know that God exist"

Hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!

 

[stevevw]

WRONG. ToE is the most scrutinised scientific theory of all time and it has withstood and stands with flying colours. What you state is a falacy.

You have no understanding of the scientific meaning of the word THEORY. A scientific theory explains the facts and makes predictions. In fact you don't get much better than a theory. eg: Atomic theory, Newton's theory of gravity, etc.

You are bearing false witness!

No i dont think you do. It has nothing to do with facts. It is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something. Then it is tested to see if it is meets those predictions and ideas.

The thing is evolutionists often turn the theory into fact and go around making statements saying it is proven when it isn't yet. In fact as i said their prediction about natural selection and common decent which is the foundation of the theory are on shaky ground at the very least.

The fossil record was always promoted but it had gaps in it so they turned to the genetics in recent times but now it seems that isn't supporting their cause. It maybe that the theory needs adjusting but they wont even admit that.

 

[Etheri]

Just a bit of advice. If you think that you can prove faith well think again. That is the idea of faith it cannot be proved by evidence and that's the way God designed it. On the other hand if you think that by getting some assurance and proof that evolution is true you wont get that either as after 140 years there is still no definite proof.

In fact the more we look into the DNA and the universe we will find that things are not the way scientist think and many things will go against what they predicted in their theories. They will not make sense to them and will contradict their predictions. But of course they will adjust the theory to fit the new changes and somehow get around any new evidence so that they can hold onto their theory. Already the study of genetics is bringing some very challenging data to scientists and as yet they have no answers.

The recent discovery of the possible higgs boson is also bringing some interesting data. It seems the empty space out there we call nothing is actually something and plays a part in how everything out there stays in place. In fact around 80% of the universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy. It seems this dark energy and matter has a small effect on keeping everything in its place. So small and precise is the influence that it keeps everything in its right place and stops the whole universe flying all over the place. Some say that it is exactly the right balance so precise that it would be hard to imagine it all just blew or flew into its right place by some big bang. Also our thinking of how gravity affects planets and stars and galaxies could be changed by this new force as well. So these new discoveries are changing what we thought and challenging scientists to come up with the answers.

It seems the higgs boson has something to do with how matter may come into existence, or at least thats what scientists theorize. But as they study the physics of this it seems to be bringing up some unusual results, some they didn't expect. There are laws that make up physics but deep down in the molecule level these laws are somehow broken and they are yet to understand why.

Of course all this is to do with what some call the God particle (the higgs boson) which they say is the process that may more or less create something out of nothing. But they think there is a reason and some sort of reaction that causes this. This all has something to do with the big bang they say but have yet to prove this.

In fact the big bang is just a theory yet to be validated. They also thought it could be the big chill. The problem was with the big bang and chill we had an expanding universe that should eventually slow down from the big bang. But what they have found that the universe is actually speeding up. So like i said there are many contradictory results they are finding so the jury is still out.

Still this is all theory at the moment and it is not really creating something out of nothing because that is impossible. But to me that is what they have to come up with because there had to be nothing at one stage. I think the more they go on and investigate the more they will see that it is all to great and beyond their comprehension. All they are doing is pulling gods creation apart and trying to understand which will never happen. The only way you will ever understand is through faith.

Romans 1.18
For kthe wrath of God lis revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be mknown about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, nhave been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,7 in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they obecame futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 pClaiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and qexchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

NICE! A lifetime of believing something for which is no evidence and that you won't actually get until after you're dead! In fact, there's pretty much no good reason to believe it at all, but please, just take your word and live a happy life believing in one of the 100,000 gods humans created! And by the way, you don't actually deserve it so feel a bit unworthy too. (atheist quiz, Bible contradictions)

Please if Yahweh is real, then why Zeus isn't?

 

[Etheri]

No that was the theory of gravity. The theory of evolution is not re valued it is in question.

Thought you'd say that . If you look at the links i have included science sites as i know how quickly you jump on them. If you want i can get more as many of them say the same thing if you bother to read. You see thats what happens with your side of the debate you call us ignorant and dumb and fools and then as soon as you get the whiff of the slightest bit of religion connected you throw the baby out with the bath water. At least i read science sites and see what both sides say. Yet i can give you several examples where evolutionist have used the same bias as you are perceiving and you all bow down to it like its gospel. If you bothered to read the links i will include some more non religious ones as well. But if they support the one you said is a creationist site which its not, its a scientific site but then you just looked at the titled didn't you and didn't bothered to read it.
well hears some more.

This one i already included and you cant get a more evolutionary site than this.
PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life

This is a science site. with science forums so they will be promoting evolution.
Intelligent Reasoning: The Nested Hierarchy fiasco

If you need anymore let me know.

Yep bow down to evolution, before I will be molested by the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Ginger123]

This is a science site. with science forums so they will be promoting evolution.
Intelligent Reasoning: The Nested Hierarchy fiasco

This is an ID site, a creationist site by another name.

You have been duped and you don't realise it, they are taking you for a mug.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So at what point in this lengthy process did you know a god exists?

I'd say five or six years into the process.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The grasses, flowering plants and so forth are kinds that come from the kinds that came before. So although this lists certain plants that come about later after other kinds that come before.

Then your claim to a literal interpretation is strained, since that's not what the text literally states:

"And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day."

In the morning of the third day, God made the Earth produce fruit-bearing trees, and in the evening God looked at said trees and say "it was good".

But there's a larger problem. Even if we take a non-literal interpreatation and say that Genesis 1:10-13 is actually saying God made the first living proto-cell that would eventually yield trees, this still all happens prior to the existence of the Sun (the fourth day).

Genesis still says that life existed prior to the Sun, which contradicts science, which says the Sun is a billion years older than the first whiff of terrestrial life.

There is a process that is called Chemosynthesis that has been discovered that explains how this happens.

That explains how what happened? If you're referring to the March discovery of bacteria in oceanic crust, then you misunderstand my point - I'm not questioning how plant-life could have survived without the Sun, I'm saying the Sun preceeds plants (and, indeed, all life on Earth) by hundreds of millions of years. This contradicts Genesis, which says life is older.

So which came first: life, or the Sun? Genesis says life came first, science says the Sun came first. Who's right, who's wrong?