Creation vs. Evolution

[NebraskaMan]

Hello all,

I am obviously new to these forums, but please don't mistake that to mean I was born yesterday.  I have been searching over many unanswered and unaddressed questions on many different threads, and I guess rather than writing the same thing one hundred different times, I would prefer to only write it once.

So, let the flurry of questions unfold.  First, I am a Christian.  I believe God is the creator of all that was, is and is to come.  I read on one of the posts where someone said "Just because we don't know the answer, doesn't mean that God is the answer..."  In a sense, you are right, but what you are left with, is a choice of faith:

"Do I put my faith in evolution or in God?" 

If evolution leaves a question unanswered, and the Bible makes provision for the answer, it makes it hard to put your faith in evolution.  When neither answer the question directly, you are left with a choice.

So, let's begin with some questions that I would like to see evolution's answers for (This list will grow as this thread grows).

1. Where did all of the matter/dust involved in the "Big Bang" come from?  My answer: Genesis 1:1

2. How did the matter/dust start moving?  My answer: I don't need one, see my answer to #1

3. The law of angular momentum reasons(for all who have never heard this before) that the planets should be rotating in the same direction as the matter that was spinning when the big bang occurred.  Yet, three of the planets in our solar system (and 10 moons) rotate in the opposite direction of the others.  Why?  My answer: Genesis 1:1 

Now, that is only three questions to get us going.  Please don't flame, as I am only trying to start an educational debate.  If you don't know the answer to the questions, then please explain how you are not exercising just as much faith believing in evolution as I am exercising by believing in God.

Thanks for reading.

 

[jephthah's daughter]

Evolution has nothing to do with first cause or cosmology. 

 

[crazyfingers]

Today at 11:48 AM NebraskaMan said this in Post #1

1. Where did all of the matter/dust involved in the "Big Bang" come from?  My answer: Genesis 1:1

This question has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

2. How did the matter/dust start moving?  My answer: I don't need one, see my answer to #1

This question has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

3. The law of angular momentum reasons(for all who have never heard this before) that the planets should be rotating in the same direction as the matter that was spinning when the big bang occurred.  Yet, three of the planets in our solar system (and 10 moons) rotate in the opposite direction of the others.  Why?  My answer: Genesis 1:1 

This question has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

 

 

[Jon]

crazyfingers I don't see how you can say that those questions have nothing to do with evoultion.... The Big Bang is part of evoultion is it not???

 

[Tau]

No. What is normally referred to as "evolution" is the theory of biological evolution which deals solely in change induced in populations of self-reproducing creatures. That is, evolution is about how a group of animals develop. It says nothing about the Big Bang, the formation of star systems, the development of Earth, or even how life started on Earth. It talks only about how life developed after it came into existence.

 

[Tau]

Now, NebraskaMan, your questions.

Today at 05:48 PM NebraskaMan said this in Post #1 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=708109#post708109)

"Do I put my faith in evolution or in God?" 

I think this is a false dilemma. It is quite possible that God did create everything, but used evolution to develop the lifeforms that exist here on earth. The Bible does not say so, true, but still it is possible. About 500 years ago, it was commonly known that Earth was the center of the universe and that the sun moved around the Earth. When Galileo came along and claimed that the Earth moved around the sun, the Christian Church considered it heresy - because it contradicted the Bible. Yet in the end, they had to admit that Galileo was right, and ever since, we have kept this fact in mind when reading the Bible.

1. Where did all of the matter/dust involved in the "Big Bang" come from?  My answer: Genesis 1:1

2. How did the matter/dust start moving?  My answer: I don't need one, see my answer to #1

We have no idea. Science deals only in the observable and testable. We have absolutely no way of knowing what came before the Big Bang, because nothing from that time exists in our universe. Neither can we know whether a conscious being caused the universe to come into existence. Your guess is as good as mine. Science only deals in what happened (and happens) after the universe came into existence.

3. The law of angular momentum reasons(for all who have never heard this before) that the planets should be rotating in the same direction as the matter that was spinning when the big bang occurred.  Yet, three of the planets in our solar system (and 10 moons) rotate in the opposite direction of the others.  Why?  My answer: Genesis 1:1 

This I don't think is correct. I see no reason why everything must spin in the same direction. I mean, you can take a top, spin it one way, then take it and spin it the other way, without violating the law of angular momentum. Isn't it possible that some of the matter that was caught by our sun and later formed the planets spinned the other way from the rest?

 

[Quath]

1. Where did all of the matter/dust involved in the "Big Bang" come from?

My belief is that it is excess energy from the formation of spacetime. Or mass/energy is the binding energy of spacetime.

2. How did the matter/dust start moving?

Space stretches over time. That allows for the universe to cool and for minor quantum effects to shape the universe as it cools.

3. The law of angular momentum reasons(for all who have never heard this before) that the planets should be rotating in the same direction as the matter that was spinning when the big bang occurred. Yet, three of the planets in our solar system (and 10 moons) rotate in the opposite direction of the others. Why?

So far the best I have heard is that it may have been due to some early collisions while the solar system was forming. However, there is still a lot of uncertainity in this.

Scott (Quath)

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

First of all Nebraska man, your argument is not even original. In fact, somebody posted the exact same thing here a couple of weeks ago. And a few months before that, somebody else posted the exact same thing. Word for word. If you care to debate this subject why dont you put things into your own words, rather then just copying and pasting other people's garbage.

This argument is not only plagerized it is totally muddled up. You either did not read it, or perhaps you did not understand it any better then the original author.

The Big Bang and the formation of the solar system are two totally different things. Talking about planets spinning and rotating has NOTHING to do with the big bang. THe universe is NOT thought to rotate.

Please, try and gain some simple understanding of what you are talking about before even trying to attempt debating it. How can you possibly hope to do more then make a fool or yourself. Besides, the BIBLE cautions us not to speak on subjects of which we are ignorant.

 

[Arikay]

Yep, none of these really have to do with evolution. Evolution is the study of how animals evolve. Not how they began, or how the universe began.

 

[NebraskaMan]

It seems most everyone else didn't have a problem with my questions.  As for saying that evolution has nothing to do with the big bang theory...WHAT?

There are six forms of evolution, as I understand it:

Cosmic,Chemical,Stellar,Organic,Macro and Micro.

Of the six, Micro is the only one that has been observed, true or false.  Cosmic evolution is contingent on the Big Bang.  If you other guys only want to talk about Organic, that is your perogative, but I'm afraid that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Maybe it would be easier for people to state what they believe, and then pick them apart?  I don't think so.  I didn't plagiarize, I didn't copy, I stated my opinions and questions that I have come up with from my own studies and research.  Everyone avoided the questions, save Quath, and said "That is irrelevant to our subject matter."  I think that what you believe about how this evolution process began has the world to do with what you believe about the rest of the process.

So please, indulge me, let's pretend it has nothing to do with evolution, tell me how the universe formed.

 

[NebraskaMan]

Quath,

What formed spacetime?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 03:11 PM NebraskaMan said this in Post #10 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=708644#post708644)

It seems most everyone else didn't have a problem with my questions.  As for saying that evolution has nothing to do with the big bang theory...WHAT?

There are six forms of evolution, as I understand it:

Cosmic,Chemical,Stellar,Organic,Macro and Micro.

<snip>

I don't recommend using Hovind as a science source, and he tends to get his "science" quite wrong. As has already been mentioned, the Theory of Evolution refers to the process by which biological life changes over time.

Technically, there is "cosmic evolution", "chemical evolution", etc, however they are seperate entities and not part of the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Tau]

Today at 09:11 PM NebraskaMan said this in Post #10 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=708644#post708644)

It seems most everyone else didn't have a problem with my questions.&nbsp; As for saying that evolution has nothing to do with the big bang theory...WHAT?

There are six forms of evolution, as I understand it:

Cosmic,Chemical,Stellar,Organic,Macro and Micro.

Of the six, Micro is the only one that has been observed, true or false.&nbsp; Cosmic evolution is contingent on the Big Bang.&nbsp; If you other guys only want to talk about Organic, that is your perogative, but I'm afraid that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

In science, the term "evolution" normally refers to biological evolution. While the others in your list could resonably be called "evolution", since the word actually means the process of developing or gradual development, the "Theory of Evolution", or "evolution" for short, is purely biological.

 

[Cantuar]

The law of angular momentum reasons(for all who have never heard this before) that the planets should be rotating in the same direction as the matter that was spinning when the big bang occurred._ Yet, three of the planets in our solar system (and 10 moons) rotate in the opposite direction of the others._ Why?_ My answer: Genesis 1:1_

The existence of retrograde orbits and retrograde rotation is perfectly in line with the theory of orbits (NOT the theory of evolution; that's a biological theory which doesn't apply here). Collisions early in the formation of the solar systems can cause retrograde rotation without causing any problem for laws dealing with conservation of angular momentum; in fact, for some sorts of collisions, retrograde rotation would be the expected outcome. In other words, the inference that retrograde rotation somehow breaks laws of nature is false.

What makes me think that this won't make any difference to your trust in the source of this question, with its false inference.?

 

[Freodin]

Today at 09:11 PM NebraskaMan said this in Post #10 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=708644#post708644)

It seems most everyone else didn't have a problem with my questions.&nbsp; As for saying that evolution has nothing to do with the big bang theory...WHAT?

There are six forms of evolution, as I understand it:

Cosmic,Chemical,Stellar,Organic,Macro and Micro.

Of the six, Micro is the only one that has been observed, true or false.&nbsp; Cosmic evolution is contingent on the Big Bang.&nbsp; If you other guys only want to talk about Organic, that is your perogative, but I'm afraid that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Maybe it would be easier for people to state what they believe, and then pick them apart?&nbsp; I don't think so.&nbsp; I didn't plagiarize, I didn't copy, I stated my opinions and questions that I have come up with from my own studies and research.&nbsp; Everyone avoided the questions, save Quath, and said "That is irrelevant to our subject matter."&nbsp; I think that what you believe about how this evolution process began has the world to do with what you believe about the rest of the process.

So please, indulge me, let's pretend it has nothing to do with evolution, tell me how the universe formed.

WARNING! - WARNING! DR.DINO ALERT! WARNING! - WARNING!

These categorization of "evolution" in these six files is complete and utter ****. Evolution is basically nothing but that latin word for change. A tree, in this sense, evolves from a sapling to a grown tree. Languages evolve. There is evolution in computers, arts, society.

Now if you are talking science, "evolution" is usually meant in relation to the origin of the different species. There are theory, summarized under "The Theory of Evolution" that proposes a mechanism for this observable fact.

So, please humour the poor scientists, and use their language, if you want to talk to them, and not the Dinoist strawman version.


But if you want to talk about cosmology...

The Big Bang Theory is based on observations. What was before, or how it came to be is not observable, because observations are limited to this universe, to this space-time-continuum. As this is proposed to have began at the Big Bang, there is no "before" to be observed. There are even a hypothesis that states there was no "before" at all: time started at the Big Bang.

So the only honest answer to your question would be: I do not know. All I can do is speculate.#

But, on the other hand, this is exactly what you are doing. The answers you propose are also not based on observation, but on speculation.

Genesis 1 does not help in this regard. It leaves open to many questions, starting from "In the beginning of what?" to "How do you create matter without any form of radiation?"


So the posters here may have proposed some speculations - but you did nothing else.

 

[Cantuar]

"There are six forms of evolution, as I understand it:

Cosmic,Chemical,Stellar,Organic,Macro and Micro."

Actually macroevolution and microevoluion aren't different forms; they're both covered by biological evolution. Evolution in the physical world (cosmic, stellar, and so on) refer to the original definition of evolution as a sort of unfolding of a predictable developmental process toward a known endpoint. Biological evolution is different from that, and the use of the same word has caused confusion, because biological evolution depends on the interaction of individuals and populations of lifeforms with the environment and hence has an important random component.

 

[NebraskaMan]

Actually macroevolution and microevoluion aren't different forms

&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; I thought macroevolution was change from potentially one species or "kind" of animal (i.e. dog) to another (i.e. cat); while, microevolution was change within a kind (i.e. siamese cat evolving to a tiger)

&nbsp;

So the only honest answer to your question would be: I do not know. All I can do is speculate.#

Thus, we both have faith for the creation of the universe and all that is in it.&nbsp; I put my faith in God, what do you put yours in?

Cantuar, your information was very good and quite enjoyable.&nbsp; I will actually remember it and will hence probably not ask that question again, since you seem to have addressed it.&nbsp; I always tell people to take ownership of their beliefs, so I will heed my own advice here and do some more studying.

Pete, I was hoping you would get involved in this dialog as I have a question specifically for you (but others may feel free to answer).&nbsp; Please visit this site: evolutionfairytale.com/cleanerf.htm

I can't hyperlink it, because I haven't had 15 posts or whatever.&nbsp; The site outlines a symbiotic relationship?&nbsp; How does evolution theory account for such a thing?

 

[Arikay]

From my understanding,

Micro evolution: A species changing within its species. the old and new animals can still successfully mate together.

Macro Evolution: A change from one species to another one. These two species cant mate successfully anymore.

Today at 12:56 PM NebraskaMan said this in Post #17 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=708763#post708763)

&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; I thought macroevolution was change from potentially one species or "kind" of animal (i.e. dog) to another (i.e. cat); while, microevolution was change within a kind (i.e. siamese cat evolving to a tiger)

&nbsp; Thus, we both have faith for the creation of the universe and all that is in it.&nbsp; I put my faith in God, what do you put yours in?

Cantuar, your information was very good and quite enjoyable.&nbsp; I will actually remember it and will hence probably not ask that question again, since you seem to have addressed it.&nbsp; I always tell people to take ownership of their beliefs, so I will heed my own advice here and do some more studying.

Pete, I was hoping you would get involved in this dialog as I have a question specifically for you (but others may feel free to answer).&nbsp; Please visit this site: evolutionfairytale.com/cleanerf.htm

I can't hyperlink it, because I haven't had 15 posts or whatever.&nbsp; The site outlines a symbiotic relationship?&nbsp; How does evolution theory account for such a thing?

 

[Cantuar]

Really?_ I thought macroevolution was change from potentially one species or "kind" of animal (i.e. dog) to another (i.e. cat); while, microevolution was change within a kind (i.e. siamese cat evolving to a tiger)

Siamese cats and tigers are different species, you know.

Evolution between species and within species still uses the same mechanism of variation and selection. The particular conditions favourable for formation of new species are just variations on the general theme of what goes on all the time. There's no difference between macroevolution and microevolution beyond one of definitions.
_

 

[Cantuar]

You know, I don't quite get your original post, having re-read it. You put up a bunch of questions and answer them with "Genesis 1:1" or whatever. But Genesis 1:1 doesn't tell you anything about how God did what he did, it just said that God created everything. Don't you have any curiosity about how God did all that? I assume he left all those clues about that in his creation for a purpose.