Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[dad]

I think that you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. Perhaps you could start by reading A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss, The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, and the last three chapters of Calculating the Cosmos by Ian Stewart.

Or perhaps Peter Rabbit.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- I know the reason the bible gives for the flood, and that has nothing to do with whether or not there is physical evidence for the flood. If you are trying to imply that sin is the reason for the vertebrae problem humans experience, then you are stating that YHWH actually changed the design of humans to inflict more pain, meaning that modern human spines are NOT designed for bipedal movement but rather are designed to inflict pain with the only movement humans can do with any degree of comfort.

Because no matter what you do, the human spine at its healthiest is still a bad structure for bipedal movement. Glad to know you have abandoned the idea that you can promote it as being good for bipedal movement, though I can't say I approve of your half done explanation for why.

-_- if you are just going to wave away any bad physical traits as "because of the fall" I don't know why you wasted my time trying to defend human spines. But the fall isn't an adequate explanation unless you can actually demonstrate that it was a real event. And no, the bible itself doesn't accomplish that.


-_- also, it is immensely insulting that you thought the concept of the fall and sin was beyond me.

Not at all. Why would I be trying to say original sin was the reason for the shared DNA? That’s not why the flood occurred because of original sin. Otherwise it would have happened long before it did.

Apparently it is beyond you as you equate the reason for the flood back to original sin. So why would you find it insulting when apparently it is still beyond you? Perhaps you need to reread the portion concerning why the flood happened...

Then perhaps we can discuss why you observe shared markers in the DNA....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think that you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. Perhaps you could start by reading A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss, The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, and the last three chapters of Calculating the Cosmos by Ian Stewart.

Which will require me to have faith in random creation from nothing?

Even if we start at the point of a hot dense state, the hot dense state must itself have had a beginning.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I know you like to believe that--it sounds more important than the truth: If evolution is true it's only your interpretation of scripture which is false. No big deal for the rest of us.

Sorry, but that’s your interpretation of scripture.

My scripture says God created each animal after it’s kind, not that one kind developed into another kind. Not sure if we both have the same Bible?

The fossil record shows each animal stayed its own kind across millions of years from the oldest for every type to the youngest fossils for every type.

It’s your belief in missing links which promote your flawed determination that one creature becomes a new kind of creature. That and you simply can not tell from a pile of bones if two things are the same species or separate species. Mostly because you have no consistent definition of species to begin with, hence your species problem....

 

[inquiring mind]

I think that you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. Perhaps you could start by reading A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss, The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, and the last three chapters of Calculating the Cosmos by Ian Stewart.

I'm sure, but often the truth becomes lost in the "Sea of Details."

 

[inquiring mind]

I think that you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. Perhaps you could start by reading A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss, The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, and the last three chapters of Calculating the Cosmos by Ian Stewart.

Perhaps you could read and study the Bible first, and let the Lord establish the truth in your heart, then set sail on “Sea of Details.” You’ll never get lost that way.

 

[pitabread]

Either everything was created by an almighty God, or everything just spontaneously developed “from absolutely nothing” “on its own” for “no apparent reason.” You honestly can’t see that even the possibility of a Creator is more logical thinking than “something from nothing, by nothing.”

Because you still haven't addressed the core issue: namely the origin of everything. Invoking an arbitrary creator is simply a way of avoiding the issue of the origin of the universe. On top of that you now have to account for the origin and existence of said creator which you have already stated is a mystery.

So great, you've wound up in the exact place where we started. How is that more logical?

If you really want to claim the superior answer you need to do more:

1) You need start by accounting for the origin and existence of whatever creator being you are invoking.

2) You need to account for how said being would have created the universe to begin with. How do they interact with the universe? What energies did they use? Where does that energy come from? And so on...

"Goddidit" is not an answer; it's certainly not an explanation. More than anything it appears to be just an excuse to not have to think about the problem anymore.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because you still haven't addressed the core issue: namely the origin of everything. Invoking an arbitrary creator is simply a way of avoiding the issue of the origin of the universe. On top of that you now have to account for the origin and existence of said creator which you have already stated is a mystery.

So great, you've wound up in the exact place where we started. How is that more logical?

Why do I need to account for the origin of a creator? The laws of thermodynamics state that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So even science believes that energy would have no beginning or end. It is the Alpha and Omega, which is why God is spoken of as an invisible power from which all things originated. Energy is what makes us capable of thought.

So why would a being that is pure Energy/Thought/Mind need a beginning when science agrees it had no beginning?

 

[dad]

Invoking an arbitrary creator is simply a way of avoiding the issue of the origin of the universe.

NOT invoking the creator is simply a way of avoiding the issue of the origin of the universe.

 

[inquiring mind]

"Goddidit"

That satisfies me.

 

[Speedwell]

That satisfies me.

It satisfies a lot of us who have no issue with the findings and conclusions of science.

 

[inquiring mind]

It satisfies a lot of us who have no issue with the findings and conclusions of science.

Yes, proper findings and conclusions in scientific study are a wonderful blessing, up until the point we begin to question the existence of God instead of praying for the next insight.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, proper findings and conclusions in scientific study are a wonderful blessing, up until the point we begin to question the existence of God instead of praying for the next insight.

That's just bad theology, not bad science.

 

[pitabread]

NOT invoking the creator is simply a way of avoiding the issue of the origin of the universe.

Can you actually address the points I laid out in post #1807 though? Because if not then you really aren't bringing anything any more relevant to the table.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you actually address the points I laid out in post #1807 though? Because if not then you really aren't bringing anything any more relevant to the table.

What is it you want to know?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It satisfies a lot of us who have no issue with the findings and conclusions of science.

Agreed.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ation-evolution.8058343/page-91#post-72978436

 

[inquiring mind]

That's just bad theology, not bad science.

Just curious… do you believe God plays no part at all, provides no guidance, in proper scientific findings and conclusions?

 

[Astrophile]

Which will require me to have faith in random creation from nothing?

It is not really a matter of faith, and the origin of the universe may not have been random.

Even if we start at the point of a hot dense state, the hot dense state must itself have had a beginning.

It depends what you mean by a beginning; in conventional Big Bang cosmology there was not a time when the Universe did not exist and a later time when it did exist. According to Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking (so far as I understand them), a state of nothingness is unstable because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and in quantum gravity with inflation tiny closed universes can come into existence and then expand exponentially to become infinitely large flat universes. See Chapter 10 of A Universe from Nothing and Chapters 5 and 6 of The Grand Design.

On the other hand, according to Ian Stewart in Chapter 18 of Calculating the Cosmos, scientists are exploring apparently viable theories of physics and cosmology that would get rid of dark matter, inflation and even the Big Bang, and that would allow the universe to be infinitely old. Of course, this is far beyond my scientific range (and, I suspect, yours as well), but it suggests that cosmological theories are not static, and that it may not be necessary to believe in 'random creation from nothing', or even in any creation at all.

I agree that this is unsatisfactory, and you may prefer to believe in a supernatural creation of the universe; so far as I know, there is no way of disproving this possibility. However, all the scientific evidence goes to show that young earth creationism is false, that the universe is very old (at least 13.8 billion years old), and that most of what we can observe can be explained by natural causes.

Even if I was convinced of the necessity for a creator, I should not believe in the God of Christianity or of any of the theistic religions. Like Einstein, I regard the idea of a personal god as a primitive conception. In my opinion, we have created gods in our own image and endowed them with supernatural powers; to believe in and to fear such gods is almost literally to be frightened of our own shadow.

 

[Astrophile]

Perhaps you could read and study the Bible first, and let the Lord establish the truth in your heart, then set sail on “Sea of Details.” You’ll never get lost that way.

I have read and studied the Bible, but I do not see any reason why I should believe most of it. Even its historical sections, for example the stories of the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, are not relevant to my life, and its moral and legal teaching are so archaic and even barbarous as to have lost any value for modern societies. In my opinion, it would be better to replace Bible study in schools with courses in moral philosophy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just curious… do you believe God plays no part at all, provides no guidance, in proper scientific findings and conclusions?

I know you're not asking me, but I believe God has "easter eggs" embedded into His creation, and empowers scientists to find the right ones at the right time.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

It could very well be that He had chosen Darwin to find a cure for cancer, but instead Darwin went astray.