Quote: If it were just similarity that we based the hypothesis of a common ancestor from, then you'd be right. As I said in that post, there are many reasons from multiple different lines of evidence that support this idea.
I understand. I simply havent had time to review the evidence you are offering. It's been a busy day.
Quote: Here's a decent video explaining whale evolution from a wolf-like ancestor to their current form.
Thank you for the video. I will watch it.
Quote: Oh and don't just focus on creationist websites, as you try to debunk this stuff. Go to other places too.
Actually I don't go to websites to find most of what I say. If I go to websites, it is to help me to verbalize the views that I already have. In other words, I came to be a creationist through my study of the Bible and the innate knowledge that was already in me. I just don't always have the vocabulary to express it.
Dont worry, I am also reviewing websites that support the theory of evolution. I am interested in truth, so I always look at both sides as much as I am able
Quote: The cause doesn't matter. What matters is that we're sure that this event, the big bang, happened and led to the current configuration of the universe.
You still havent answered where the matter that existed before the "big bang" came from. Something had to have existed to expand. What was the cause of that matter, or did it always exist?
Quote: They came as an after-effect of the big bang. As the plasma cooled, and elementary particles were allowed to mingle, Hydrogen and probably some helium formed out of it. Those elements led to star formation, then galaxy formation, and also all the elements we see on earth today.
Understood, but what did the "big bang" bang? In other words, what did the action of the big bang act upon, and what was the origin of that which was acted upon?
Quote: I look forward to the biblical account of this.
Not a biblical account of the "big bang" but a biblical account of how things came to exist.
Quote: Remember "Hangs the world on nothing?" That seems pretty creation-y to me.
The context of that quote was the reliability of the Bible, not Creationism. I know they are related, but Creationism vs Random Evolution wasnt the rabbet that we were chasing at that time.
Regarding the video, let me see if I have this straight. A skull of a wolf like creature was found that had a characteristic in its inner ear that was similar to a whales inner ear. So that automatically made it a land whale?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but arent there amazing similarities between the human eye and the eye of a squid? Does that mean that humans went back to the oceans to became squids, or that squids crawled out of the ocean and became humans? Just because they have similarities, doesnt mean that one evolved from another.
Then they found some leg bones, and automatically assumed that the leg bones were from a basilosaurus. How did they know that the leg bones were from a basilosaurus? How did they know that the leg bones were that of a whale? Because of the inner ear thing?
Just because an organism is extinct doesnt make it a link.
And these wolflike creatures evolved into whales because they spent so much time in water?
And the fact that sea mammals like dolphins and whales move more like land mammals than they do fish proves that they once lived on land?
So is the idea of a supreme being creating the earth and the making man from dirt, then making a woman from one of mans ribs. That's why they call it faith. You or I can't prove or disprove it so we choose to believe it, each for their own reasons.
It amazes me how many times the subject of creation vs evolution is fought out, and both sides just argue away.
Like a blind man and a deaf man arguing over the beauty of the ocean. No matter how much they argue over it, one will never see the beauty the other man hears.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Like a blind man and a deaf man arguing over the beauty of the ocean. No matter how much they argue over it, one will never see the beauty the other man hears.
I agree that you are rarely ever going to get one to admit the other is right.
But I would have to say a better example would be two men standing by the ocean arguing over its existence. One man, will call him Evolution says it is very beautiful, a true wonder and right in front of him, he can see it clearly. The second man, will call him Creation, says no way it exists, I read that it is not real and there are only lakes. The difference being Evolution is facing the ocean, while Creation has never seen the ocean and refuses to turn around and just look!
Like a blind man and a deaf man arguing over the beauty of the ocean. No matter how much they argue over it, one will never see the beauty the other man hears.
I agree that you are rarely ever going to get one to admit the other is right.
But I would have to say a better example would be two men standing by the ocean arguing over its existence. One man, will call him Evolution says it is very beautiful, a true wonder and right in front of him, he can see it clearly. The second man, will call him Creation, says no way it exists, I read that it is not real and there are only lakes. The difference being Evolution is facing the ocean, while Creation has never seen the ocean and refuses to turn around and just look!
The Views Expressed By Me Are Not Necessarily The Views That You Will Agree With, I'm In My Own Little World But They Know Me Here.
So are you saying that it takes just as much faith to believe that the universe and what it is composed of came into existence by mere chance, than to believe in a creator? Remember, if you say the universe came into existence through the "big bang", you still have to deal with whatever existed before the big bang. Does it take a certain ammount of faith to believe in a universe governed by nothing more than random chance? If not, what is the proof of a universe caused by purely random and naturalistic causes? I am not asking if it is possible, I am asking is it undeniable.
If you add this assumption to the theory of evolution, are you still within the realms of scientific observation, or have you just added a faith or a bias to your observations.
Quote: But I would have to say a better example would be two men standing by the ocean arguing over its existence. One man, will call him Evolution says it is very beautiful, a true wonder and right in front of him, he can see it clearly. The second man, will call him Creation, says no way it exists, I read that it is not real and there are only lakes. The difference being Evolution is facing the ocean, while Creation has never seen the ocean and refuses to turn around and just look!
Here is the progression of my reactions to this statement.
Your parable doesnt make sense.
I usually dont quote scriptures when I talk to atheists, but I think I will make an exception in this case, and let the chips fall where they may.
Quote: Romans 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
It's debatable as to which side is not openig their eyes,
Do you really believe that people who study science are absolutely without bias?
Evolution aside, doesnt reason itself teach you that everything that has a beginning must have a cause, and the thing that exists could not have caused itself any more than the architect of a building could be a wall of that building. This is a paraphrased quote from CS Lewis. CS Lewis was an atheist until he examined his worldview critically, and became one of the greatest Christian minds of the 20th century.
Remember this argument from the article I posted earlier?
1. All things that have a beginning have a cause. 2. The universe had a beginning. 3. The universe has a cause.
Now go ahead and say the "big bang" caused it all. I will answer that the "big bang" also had a beginning, and therefore had a cause.
What do you think of this quote regarding the cause of the Big bang?
Quote: Any answer to this problem must begin with a key realization: both time and space are contained within the universe and came into existence only AFTER the Big Bang occurred. The cause of the universe must not include them, they are not available to us. It must come from outside our experience.In this realm, the solution, whatever it is, will seem very strange to us, and it will almost certainly make no sense to our brains because here, it is possible to have an event with no cause. There is no time, there is no before in which the Big Bang could have occurred, there simply is no cause and effect.We must somehow come up with a solution that exists outside time and space. url=http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-caused-the-big-bang.html]http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-caused-the-big-bang.html[/url]
The cause of the universe according to this quote sure sounds a lot like my earlier definition of God. Yet the writer proceeds to argue against God with the following statement:
Quote: For many "God caused the big bang" is a perfectly reasonable response. This seems to help many cope with the unsatisfying prospect of an event without a cause.
The problem of course is that one is then immediately forced to ask, "From where did the creator come?"If the answer is "he always existed" then we have a situation, from a causality standpoint, that is no more satisfying than a universe that springs forth from nothing. A creator that has always existed is an entity that somehow exists without a cause.So this answer doesn't solve the causality issue whatsoever.
The simple answer to this is that God is the architect of the universe including time and space. As we said before, it is not reasonable to assume the architect is part of the universe, He or it must exist outside of the natural universe. Whatever or whoever exists outside of nature and the universe would not be subject to time, space, or cause.
If you say that the universe that existed before the big bang, and which occupied an infinitesimal point in space is eternal, then that is really no different than saying the universe is eternal, it just existed in a different form. . The author concludes his article by saying:
Quote: The answer to the cause of the universe will almost certainly be something strange and, by definition, wholly beyond our experience. Our occluded brains must always be open the answer, especially when asking questions that push the limits of our capacity to understand.
In conclusion, I contend that the belief in God is not based on scientific evidence but reason and revelation. By reason we know that a "Higher Power" exists. By revelation we know who that Higher Power is.
God is not concerned with Gallup Poll opinion Or if the whole human race were to disagree with Him Truth is what I spit But you ain't hearing it Or you ain't having it But it don't matter which 'Cause God is still himself and He could strike us dead Even in the pink of health You don't think I should say that You say you don't believe that Our opinion counts for zero, And that is simply that, I'm Mojo that's how it goes that's just the way of things God is not impressed disagreeing won't change anything, We all must beg for mercy and surely God'll show it There's a reason for our hope you ask me how I know it God said it and that's without a doubt "He who comes to me I will in no way cast out"
"Escape from Reason" by the OC Supertones
Note: No Creationist websites were accessed while I was typing this post. Just the Deepastronomy website.
Quote: So are you saying that it takes just as much faith to believe that the universe and what it is composed of came into existence by mere chance, than to believe in a creator? Remember, if you say the universe came into existence through the "big bang", you still have to deal with whatever existed before the big bang. Does it take a certain ammount of faith to believe in a universe governed by nothing more than random chance?
No, what I am saying that if someone doesn't have "faith" then no matter what bible verse you show them, they aren't going to believe your "creation" story any more than you believe their "evolution" story.
Quote: If not, what is the proof of a universe caused by purely random and naturalistic causes? I am not asking if it is possible, I am asking is it undeniable.
If you add this assumption to the theory of evolution, are you still within the realms of scientific observation, or have you just added a faith or a bias to your observations.
No more than your bias to believe in pages printed in a book are fact. Without your faith, those pages are nothing but stories. You can not prove creation anymore than he can prove evolution. It's a dead argument.
And for the record, I have faith and believe in creation, but I am also open minded enough to allow someone else to believe in evolution until such time that God enters into his/her life and opens their eyes to what we of faith see. It's not my job as a Christian to herd the non-believers like cattle, but to witness my testimony in the belief that my words will reach their ears through Gods good grace and plant the seeds of faith.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: No more than your bias to believe in pages printed in a book are fact. Without your faith, those pages are nothing but stories. You can not prove creation anymore than he can prove evolution. It's a dead argument.
And for the record, I have faith and believe in creation, but I am also open minded enough to allow someone else to believe in evolution until such time that God enters into his/her life and opens their eyes to what we of faith see. It's not my job as a Christian to herd the non-believers like cattle, but to witness my testimony in the belief that my words will reach their ears through Gods good grace and plant the seeds of faith.
Bravo! This post should end this discussion. It can resume on October 13.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Quote: So are you saying that it takes just as much faith to believe that the universe and what it is composed of came into existence by mere chance, than to believe in a creator? Remember, if you say the universe came into existence through the "big bang", you still have to deal with whatever existed before the big bang. Does it take a certain ammount of faith to believe in a universe governed by nothing more than random chance?
No, what I am saying that if someone doesn't have "faith" then no matter what bible verse you show them, they aren't going to believe your "creation" story any more than you believe their "evolution" story.
Quote: If not, what is the proof of a universe caused by purely random and naturalistic causes? I am not asking if it is possible, I am asking is it undeniable.
If you add this assumption to the theory of evolution, are you still within the realms of scientific observation, or have you just added a faith or a bias to your observations.
No more than your bias to believe in pages printed in a book are fact. Without your faith, those pages are nothing but stories. You can not prove creation anymore than he can prove evolution. It's a dead argument.
And for the record, I have faith and believe in creation, but I am also open minded enough to allow someone else to believe in evolution until such time that God enters into his/her life and opens their eyes to what we of faith see. It's not my job as a Christian to herd the non-believers like cattle, but to witness my testimony in the belief that my words will reach their ears through Gods good grace and plant the seeds of faith.
Very good. I am not trying to herd anyone, I am answering the people who came and said things like "there is no God", "the Bible is nonsense", and "Christians are a bunch of murderous butchers". Do you think that we as people of faith should let these types of statements go unchallenged? If we remain silent while others go around making these types of claims, then people may accept these claims uncritically. We are constantly being bombarded with messages and claims of atheism, agnosticism, hatred of God, hatred of religion, etc through the educational system and the media. I believe this trend is having an incredibly destructive effect on our great nation and our youth. Are we as people of faith going to sit by idly and let this happen? Did Jesus, or the prophets, or the apostles sit around on their thumbs while their nation slipped into apostasy?
My only goal in this whole discussion was to challenge the assumptions and provide the other side of the argument. If an atheist can come on and say God doesnt exist, why cant a Christian give supporting evidence for the existence of God?
I have no problem with people who believe in evolution. I have tremendous respect for Draftdayz that has developed in conversations I have had with him. Someones sig reads something like, "if everyone had like minds, we would never learn anything.", and I agree with that. I have learned much from my discussion with Draftdayz, and others.
For those who dont believe in God, I am not trying to insult you or attack you, I am just sharing why I dont think atheism is logical. Furthermore, the point I was trying to make is that atheism is not logical, not that evolution is not logical. To be honest, I lack the scientific knowledge to even try to disprove evolution, I was merely posing challenges and questions. Can you point to one post where I said "evolution is not true"? No, I merely asked questions and raised objections. I know it can be very dangerous to ask critical questions about evolution.
Believe it or not, I do not accept the claims of Christianity uncritically either. I am constantly asking questions of my own beliefs, not out of doubt,but because I know that a person can never learn or grow in knowledge without asking questions. As Ive studied the Bible, history, languages, and even a little bit of nature, I have come to conclusions I never would have accepted 20 years ago. It's not that my worldview has changed, its that new questions have caused me to find new answers that I hadnt even considered before. Therefore, I like to ask questions and be asked questions by others.
I realize 1 Peter 3:15 says to be ready to give an answer of the hope that we have, but to do so with gentleness and respect. If I have failed in the gentleness part, please forgive me, but I don't think I showed anyone any disrespect. I did say some things in humor, I hope they werent misunderstood.
Quote: You still havent answered where the matter that existed before the "big bang" came from. Something had to have existed to expand. What was the cause of that matter, or did it always exist?
I believe you answer it yourself later on. We don't know, and possibly can never know. I'll reiterate the point that this doesn't matter. We know that the big bang occurred, and we know that the universe is the result of it.
Quote: Understood, but what did the "big bang" bang? In other words, what did the action of the big bang act upon, and what was the origin of that which was acted upon?
The big bang acted on everything you see today. Elementary particles like quarks, electrons and photons that now make up all the matter and energy in the universe was packed into a very small area. That was what underwent the process, or whatever, that is the big bang. As the universe cooled below 3000 kelvin, protons and neutrons started to form and pair up with electrons to make hydrogen atoms. From that hydrogen all the elements were fused together in the first stars.
Quote: Before I share the biblical explantion of how life came into existence, would you mind answering a few question?
Ok.
Quote: 1. In your opinion, what events led to the origin of life? In other words, how was life generated from non-living matter?
There are many plausible hypotheses. Darwin's "Warm pond," the miller-urey experiment, RNA world all have some evidence showing at least some plausibility. As I've said before, precursors to amino acids are nothing spectacular outside of earth. Alot of the building blocks that cellular metabolism as we know it is built on, occurs in nature with differing amounts of frequency.
Quote: 2. Is there scientific evidence for the theory of Pangaea?
Umm, yes. Quite a bit. The proving of plate tectonics back in the 50's and 60's vetted continental drift theory that was proposed in the early 1900's. Since then have been able to go around the world and create not only a map of how the plates used to fit together, but also the paths that led to their current configuration. There's also evidence for super-continents before pangaea too. You're not going to try to call this into doubt are you?
Quote: 3. Is there any scientific evidence that the earth once had a tropical or subtropical climate over most of its surface?
Possibly. I mean at some point all the continents have been along the equator I think.
Quote: 4. I How do you define light?
As a photon, an elementary particle that exhibits both wave and particle characteristics.
Quote: Umm, yes. Quite a bit. The proving of plate tectonics back in the 50's and 60's vetted continental drift theory that was proposed in the early 1900's. Since then have been able to go around the world and create not only a map of how the plates used to fit together, but also the paths that led to their current configuration. There's also evidence for super-continents before pangaea too. You're not going to try to call this into doubt are you?
Actually no, quite the opposite. I'm actually not going to call any of your answers into doubt. I agree with you on your answers for 2-4, and line one you just give hypothesis, so there is not disagreement here.
Regarding Pangaea, I definitely will not call that into question because the Bible has portions of scripture that seem to mention it. More on this later.
Quote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but arent there amazing similarities between the human eye and the eye of a squid? Does that mean that humans went back to the oceans to became squids, or that squids crawled out of the ocean and became humans? Just because they have similarities, doesnt mean that one evolved from another.
You're right, similarity does not necessarily mean that they evolved from one another, but it's one highly plausible explanation. Similar selective pressures can lead very diverse animals into similar roles in the ecosystem, called a niche. For example, take placental vs. marsupial mammals. Very different developmentally and physiologically, splitting from their most common ancestor before the dinosaurs died off. When pangaea started to split, placental animals went one way, and marsupials the other. Over 65 million years they they bred apart from one another. And yet we see fossil and living animals from each of those very different mammals that look vaguely similar to one another, causing naturalists (early biologists) to lump them into similar groups. However, we now know that although they look roughly the same, they come from different ancestors and have different evolutionary histories. But, through natural selection, they reached similar adaptive outcomes over those millions of years to become the top predators, or the best diggers, or tree climbers, etc. that tried to occupy that niche.
Another example, you use squid vs human (some jelly fish too, believe it or not) eyes as an example, which is a good one for this argument because they both work by way of the same light-capturing device, the camera. Upon closer inspection, we see that they can't be more different. Developmentally, all vertebrate eyes form early in life as an outgrowth of the early brain. This outgrowth forms the retina and optic nerves which carry the signal back to the brain. The optic vesicles need to touch the ectoderm to initiate cellular differentiation that results in the lens, cornea, sclera, etc. Basically everything that contacts and interacts with the world. These processes result in two major design flaws. The first is that the lens inverts the picture. This means that the brain must first interpret everything from upside down, to right side up. The second is that the retina forms inside out. Instead of light passing through our eye and impacting directly onto cells that sense photons, the photons must pass through all the connective tissue, blood vessels, support cells and nerve fibers before the picture gets sent to the brain. All those nerves need to join up to form the optic nerve, and this leads to our blind spot, which is an area devoid of photon-sensing cells, and just has nerve bundles.
Squids, and other cephalopods, did it right evolutionarily though. Instead of developing as an outgrowth of the brain, their eyes develop as an invagination of the ectoderm (or skin). This results in a signal that is transmitted right-side up, and cells that are uncovered and free to receive photons of light. As a result, they have no blindspot.
Here's a good picture showing the different between the two types of eye. Vertebrate is on the left, Cephalopod on the right. You can see that the retinal tissue layers are inside out (Photon-sensing cells = #1, nerves/blood vessels = #2, optic nerve = #3) with vertebrates, resulting in the blind spot indicated with the number four. Cephalopod eye labeling: #1 = nerves/blood vessels, #2 = Photon-sensing cells, #3 = optic nerve.
And no, humans or squid haven't shared a common ancestor in around 500 million years or so. Our two species have vastly different development, and therefore belong to very separated phyla. They belong to the phyla "Mollusca" where we belong to "Chordata."
Quote: A skull of a wolf like creature was found that had a characteristic in its inner ear that was similar to a whales inner ear. So that automatically made it a land whale?
No. What it's saying is that the portion of the inner ear that was preserved is a highly specialized structure that only exists now in cetaceans and helps them sense up and down in the water, no easy feat. Land mammals don't have this now, nor do any of the other fossil mammals from that time or before that we've dug up. What this makes it is a probable ancestor for whales and dolphins.
But it's not just that either. They've found more of the skeleton for Pakicetus skeleton and have almost a full Ambulocetus skeleton. Both of them show similar adaptations to their skeleton that infer an aquatic type of life. Denser bones, arrangements of bone and ligament/tendon attachment sites all point to swimming behaviors, as well as the nose moving up the head to it's current place in cetaceans.
Quote: Then they found some leg bones, and automatically assumed that the leg bones were from a basilosaurus.
I assume because they found them together, in close proximity, within the same layer of rock. Fossils aren't just (usually) lying around in large numbers you know
On a semi-side note, you know that whales still have a pelvis right? It's shrunken, but still present. They're vestigial (for the most part), like our ear muscles, or appendix.
Quote: And these wolflike creatures evolved into whales because they spent so much time in water?
Kind of. But what happened is they probably became more and more reliant on the ocean for their food, safety, etc. Them living more in the ocean than on land had to allow them a better chance of surviving until they were able to reproduce and pass on their genes. This happening repeatedly over many generation is what led from the wolf-like ancestor to other more cetacean-like forms that include the movement of the nares to the top of the head. Those that were better able to do this survived, those that didn't have the adaptations didn't. Remember in order for natural selection to occur you need 4 things: A trait, that confers an advantage over other in the population, that is heritable, and a long amount of time so that the more advantageous genetic code can spread through the population to a fixed state.
Quote: And the fact that sea mammals like dolphins and whales move more like land mammals than they do fish proves that they once lived on land?
No, their kinetics of movement is just icing on the cake. Remember from above about the bones. We can tell where ligaments and tendons attached on these bones, and from that we can infer the stereotypical movements that they made to live their lives.
Quote: That's a lot of speculation if you ask me.
I hope I convinced you that it's not speculation at all, but direct observation of processes that occurred millions of years ago.
thank you for taking the time to answer my questions and providing details. I appreciate the time you are putting into this. I just wanted to post a question on the origin of the universe and to give you part of the biblical account of creation, though I imagine you already know it. Because of time constraints, I am only able to post the biblical accounts of days 1-3 at this time. I do believe that these days are literal days, due to the fact that the words evening and morning are used in each instance.
Quote: We know that the big bang occurred, and we know that the universe is the result of it.
You keep saying that, but doesnt the big bang theory state that the universe existed in a infinitesimal and very hot state before the big bang , ( I think they call it a "singularity") and the big bang merely caused this singularity to begin to expand and cool, forming the universe as we know it today. Forgive my ignorance, but to me that seems to imply t that the big bang altered the universe rather than caused it. By the way, do you contend that this "simularity had a beginning, or did it always exist? Or does anyone even know?
Quote: Genesis 1: 1- In the begiining, God created the heavens and the earth..."
In the beginning of what? I believe it is the beginning of time and the beginning of the physical universe, ( space). Did anything exist before this beginning of time and space? Well science says the singularity that later became the universe did. The Bible adds the assertion that the spiritual world, ( God, angels, etc else also existed). We cannot scientifically observe this spiritual world so I will not linger on this point.
Genesis 1:1 describes the beginning of the materiel universe. The following verses describe God preparing the earth for life and creating life.
Quote: Genesis 1:2- And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:2 presents earth in its primordial form. There is no life, the earth is empty and formless, just basic matter. In other words, God first created the materials which He would later use to form life, then He began to fasion it as a master craftsman.
Notice it says that darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. This verse and Genesis 1:9 seem to indicate that the earth in its earliest state was completely covered with water. I noticed you said in an earlier post that the secret to unlocking life may be in an abundance of water. Well here's your abundance of water.
The spirit of God moved or hovered or brooded over the face of the waters. I believe it was the Spirit of God that produced the energy that acted upon the matter to create life.
I want to move on quickly, so I just want to make a few points.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Here we see the formation of the atmosphere on the second day or period if you prefer. Some skeptics argue that the Bible teaches a false cosmology, because they insist the word “firmament” implies a solid dome above the earth. I believe that this idea is refuted by Genesis Genesis 1:20, where the “winged creatures” fly above the earth in the open firmament. The waters above are the clouds, and the waters below are the vast water covered earth. The dry ground has not appeared yet at this point, ( Genesis 1:6-7) in the text. The firmament is the sky, which God named heaven
Quote: 9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Notice the waters that covered the earth were gathered together to one place, causing the dry ground to appear. This seems to hint that the continents were all at one time connected. Genesis 10:25 says the earth was divided duing the days of Peleg. The word "earth" in Genesis 10:25 is the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:10, where God called the dry land "earth". The Hebrew word Palag literally means "divided", cleaved, or split. When do scientists say the continents began to separate? How did Moses know about this continental split if it happened millions of years ago?
That’s all I have time for right now. I will discuss days 4-6 at a later time if you are interested.
Quote: I just wanted to post a question on the origin of the universe and to give you part of the biblical account of creation, though I imagine you already know it.
Yeah, I grew up christian. To get through a sermon I would read Genesis and revelations, so I'm pretty well read in those areas.
Quote: By the way, do you contend that this "simularity had a beginning, or did it always exist? Or does anyone even know?
No one knows, and it's possible we can never know empirically.
Quote: I do believe that these days are literal days, due to the fact that the words evening and morning are used in each instance.
Fair enough. So let me ask you, where's the evidence for this? If God created the universe, he also created the natural laws that run it. As a result, we would have to see days 1 through 3 in the way the earth formed and see evidence of it. Since we don't, why is it hidden from us? Why is the fossil evidence such that it suggest that life started 3.5 billion years ago and up through the billions of years became more complex, and line up morphologically with extant species of today? What's the point of it all? So yeah, I may as well hear the rest of your interpretation to help explain the differences in what we see.
Quote: When do scientists say the continents began to separate? How did Moses know about this continental split if it happened millions of years ago?
As far as we can see back the continents have always been shifting. How fast is up for debate, but it's believed that there were at least two supercontinents before pangaea, which broke up around 150 million years ago. The other problem i see with your interpretation is that water condensed into oceans after the crust had cooled and the lack of volcanic activity allowed liquid water to exist. Next, we have evidence of a super-cold earth, nicknamed snowball earth, that occurred after the super hot earth. Sometime after that everything equilibrated and we got into our current cycles. I don't necessarily think Moses was talking about continental drift. It's quite a jump to go from "cleaving earth" to mean pangaea breaking up. Looking up alternate interpretations, many seem to think that pelag means "to divide" and that passage is in reference to the dividing of the lands between the new tribes that were planting themselves after the flood (something else that's not in the strata of rock that tell the earth's history).
Quote: Yeah, I grew up christian. To get through a sermon I would read Genesis and revelations, so I'm pretty well read in those areas.
Interesting. So do you believe in God? I noticed you never said you didnt. Science aside, what do you believe regarding the existence or non-existence of God, if you don't mind me asking.
Quote: No one knows, and it's possible we can never know empirically
I guess that is my point.
Quote: Fair enough. So let me ask you, where's the evidence for this? If God created the universe, he also created the natural laws that run it. As a result, we would have to see days 1 through 3 in the way the earth formed and see evidence of it. Since we don't, why is it hidden from us? Why is the fossil evidence such that it suggest that life started 3.5 billion years ago and up through the billions of years became more complex, and line up morphologically with extant species of today? What's the point of it all? So yeah, I may as well hear the rest of your interpretation to help explain the differences in what we see,
I don't have evidence that they were literal days. That is a statement of faith. I believe they were literal days, because the Bible said so. I know this is unscientific, but it is where I stand. On each of the days of Creation the account reads " and the evening and the morning"...though there are Creationists that believe in an "old earth". I would have to say that my conviction is literal days, but I'm not dogmatic about it.
I dont know if the scientific method for dating fossils is accurate. I have heard that scientists date the oldest fossils based on the geological layer in which they are found, yet they then date geological layers by examining the fossils that are in that the various strata. I know this is probably an oversimplification, so please dispel the myth for me.
A second question. Could a global flood have caused the rock layers to form much more rapidly than had they formed over billions of years. Remember, the Bible says that not only did the rain pour down from the heavens, but also the fountains of the deep were broken up. Also, you would think if an animal died, it would decay, but if it were rapidly buried by the sedimentation caused by the flood it would be more likely to fossilize. I know you have heard these arguments, I'm just curious as to your answer of them.
Quote: As far as we can see back the continents have always been shifting. How fast is up for debate, but it's believed that there were at least two supercontinents before pangaea, which broke up around 150 million years ago. The other problem i see with your interpretation is that water condensed into oceans after the crust had cooled and the lack of volcanic activity allowed liquid water to exist. Next, we have evidence of a super-cold earth, nicknamed snowball earth, that occurred after the super hot earth. Sometime after that everything equilibrated and we got into our current cycles. I don't necessarily think Moses was talking about continental drift. It's quite a jump to go from "cleaving earth" to mean pangaea breaking up. Looking up alternate interpretations, many seem to think that pelag means "to divide" and that passage is in reference to the dividing of the lands between the new tribes that were planting themselves after the flood (something else that's not in the strata of rock that tell the earth's history). [/quote
]
Actually, in the same chapter that I quoted about the division of the earth, the division of the peoples is also described, but the writer uses a different Hebrew word. In the verse about the division of the earth, he uses the word that is translated earth in Genesis 1, but later he describes the divison of the tribes, or early nations by using the word that means "Peoples" or "nations"
Quote: Interesting. So do you believe in God? I noticed you never said you didnt. Science aside, what do you believe regarding the existence or non-existence of God, if you don't mind me asking.
I don't believe in a personal God, as much as I'd like to, and as much as parents would like. From talking to people from other religions who have their own creation stories and religious fact to back up their arguments, I felt the bible and christianity were in the same boat. That's not to say I don't believe in a creator, a prime-mover so to speak, that may or may not have initiated this universe and set the laws in place that govern it. I don't really go out of my way to think about it though as I don't believe it could be measured or quantified or anything like that.
Quote: I guess that is my point.
It is. My point was that it doesn't matter. Just knowing that it happened is enough to be able to ask questions, observe, test and answer those questions.
Quote: I dont know if the scientific method for dating fossils is accurate. I have heard that scientists date the oldest fossils based on the geological layer in which they are found, yet they then date geological layers by examining the fossils that are in that the various strata. I know this is probably an oversimplification, so please dispel the myth for me.
We know the age of the rock surrounding fossils two ways. The first is a bit more old fashioned, but people have mapped a good bit of rock strata by just recording what the layers look like and comparing them over large distances. It's not perfect, but in well characterized areas this can be quick to do. The other way is by measuring radioactivity of certain types of rock embedded in those layers. Depending on it's composition we can use any number to radiometric dating methods. Radioactive elements all decay at different stereotypical rates and are differentiated by the length of their half-life. Their "half-life" is the amount of time it takes for a fully homogenous (100%) sample to degrade to another ion or element so that only 50% of the original radioactive element remains. This Half-life allows us to calculate the relative age of rocks with some error because of the inherent large numbers in some half-lives.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Since you already know the basic creationist view and points, I will conclude my part in this discussion by citing the most important passage relating to the belief in Creation, ( other than perhaps Genesis 1:1)
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
The Bible does not make man equal with the animal kingdom, it describes man as the only part of God's materiel creation that is made in His own image. Now how is man made in Gods own image and likeness? Does it mean that he resembles God in physical appearance? I believe the answer is certainly no, because the Bible describes God as a Spirit, not a physical being. So how does man resemble God? Two ways that man resembles God are his creativity and his dominion over the earth.
Regardless of the apparent similarities between man and ape, the differences are far more striking. The accomplishments of this creature we call man are staggering! Weve built cities, planted farms, written books, composed music, developed fantastic works of art, studied the universe, travelled in earth, space, and sea, studied atoms, cured diseases, and developed technologies. Weve even studied our own minds and bodies. God created us to be creative and inventive, and He also created us with curiosity and a strong desire to know the truth. Weve demonstrated dominion over the earth in the fields of energy, resources, etc. We have lost some of the rights of dominion due to breaking God's laws, the greatest loss of all being the fact that we cannot exercise dominion over ourselves, hence the terrible realities of pain and suffering in our world.
Psalm 8
1 LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory in the heavens. 2 Through the praise of children and infants you have established a stronghold against your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger. 3 When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, 4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?[c]
5 You have made them[d] a little lower than the angels[e] and crowned them[f] with glory and honor. 6 You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their[g] feet: 7 all flocks and herds, and the animals of the wild, 8 the birds in the sky, and the fish in the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas.
9 LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!
thank you for the recommendation. I googled it and I found these comments: ( I'm too broke to buy a book right now, maybe they'll have it at the library.)
Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution is a 2000 book by the American cell biologist and Roman Catholic Kenneth R. Miller wherein he argues that evolution does not contradict religious faith. (1) Miller argues that evolution occurred, (2)that the earth is not young,(3) that science must work based on methodological naturalism, and (4) that evolution cannot be construed as an effective argument for atheism.
I numbered the points so that I could interact with them.
1. Regarding evolution: If evolution means changes in living organisms over time, then I have no objection to that. If by evolution one means that life evolved randomly and by mere chance, to me that is highly speculative. As far as all life evolving from a common ancestor, I am highly skeptical of this as well, and I believe that the evidence given for a common ancestor could just as reasonably be interpreted as evidence that all life had a common creator.
2. Regarding the young earth/old earth debate, I am undecided. The Bible doesnt even attempt to answer this question. Some speculate that there was a long period of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, ( see "the Gap Theory). This theory is not merely a device to make the Bible agree with science, but there is actually a grammatical reason for the uncertainty, because the Hebrew word which is translated "was" in Genesis 1:2 could actually mean "was" in the sense of existed, or it could also be translated "became". In other words, the clause could be interpreted as...
the earth was without form and void...( materials created first, then fashioned.) pr the earth became formless and void...
I lean toward the former, but I realize that the latter may be possible.
3. If point three means that science can only deal with what is observed and testable, then I definitely agree. At the same time, and equally important the other side of the coin, that we must realize that atheism and naturalism as a philosophy, (in other words a system of thought that says that the supernatural does not exist), should not be taught as science, for science cannot disprove the supernatural any more than it can prove it.
4. I strongly and fully agree with line 4
Just my humble opinion.
Boy, we sure did go on some rabbet trails in this thread! What Ive tried to do in all this chattering is merely to show that the Christian faith is a reasonable and a rational faith, even though some make ridiculous claims in the name of God, like the guy that predicted the world was going to end a couple weeks age, I'm going to shut up now, and take the advice of Proverbs 10:19.
What Ive tried to do in all this chattering is merely to show that the Christian faith is a reasonable and a rational faith, even though some make ridiculous claims in the name of God, like the guy that predicted the world was going to end a couple weeks age, I'm going to shut up now, and take the advice of Proverbs 10:19.