Creation and Evolution

[idav]

There is no beyond the Big Bang.

Sounds like it was quiet.

 

[shawn001]

To: Shawn001. Just because "This is a picture of the oldest light in the universe" does not prove that it is indeed the oldest. Yes it may seem the oldest but only according too man's discovery. How about beyond that point. The great possibility is there that there is beyond what can human discover or reach. Knowing the undeniable fact that human knowledge is limited.

The light is 13.7 billion years old with a margin of error of 1%.


Scientific American
When this cosmic background light was released billions of
years ago, it was as hot and bright as the surface of a star.
The expansion of the universe, however, has stretched space by a
factor of a thousand since then. The wavelength of the light has
stretched with it into the microwave part of the electromagnetic
spectrum

Its been stretched into the electromagnetic spectrum, which today we pick up as microwave.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-cos mic-microw

'First Light' Findings Reveal Seeds of Galaxy Clusters

"Until the age of about 300,000 years, the young universe consisted of no more than a cloud of photons tightly coupled with ionized precursors of matter. This was a "dark" time--no light could escape the burgeoning universe since all the photons were trapped and scattered within the plasma of ionized matter."

'First Light' Findings Reveal Seeds of Galaxy Clusters: Scientific American

That plasma of ionized matter was

"Scientists Create Hottest Temperature, Compare It To Big Bang"

"

Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York report they have created the hottest temperature in the lab — 4 trillion degrees Celsius — which is thought to be consistent with actual temperatures that existed when the universe was born.

From redOrbit (share this quote)​

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1823886/
scientists_create_hottest_temperature_compare_it_to_big_bang/?source=r_technology


garrydons, but the point is everything evolved from that point on. Not that we can't go back to planck time, which is trillionths of a second before the bang mathematically. We haven't been able to go back BEFORE the bang yet, but we might be able to soon.

The universe has evolved and with it all the stars and galaxies, including our solar system and planet and life on it earth. This is a done deal in science has we can observe it, test it, made predictions with it that later born out to be true and is support by all the sciences. Details are still be worked out, but the CMB was one of the greatest discoveries of mankind and the origins of the universe.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Knowing the undeniable fact that human knowledge is limited.

This fact does not make what we do no, incorrect. It may be limited but it isn't therefore false.

But that is a tired creationist ploy.

 

[crocusj]

Because we can see them being born in stellar nurseries with the Hubble space telescope.

So, there is no such thing as Star Formation Theory, then?

 

[shawn001]

So, there is no such thing as Star Formation Theory, then?

There is the science of how stars are born and form. There are also tons of observations from visaible light, xray, infared of new stars being born, new planets being born and new solar systems being born.

Stars: Stellar Nurseries

APOD Index - Stars: Stellar Nurseries

 

[garrydons]

Have I understand it right? that evolution is the process of creation?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Have I understand it right? that evolution is the process of creation?

No.
Evolution, whether cosmic, geographic, or biological, is the process of change.

 

[Ingledsva]

Which do you think is correct, Creation or Evolution. Religion especially Judaism and Christianity teaches that man and everything in this world is created by a Super natural Being, a Creator called God. While evolution teaches that everything just evolve without the benefit of a Creator. Your answer is very much appreciated.

I think we evolved here on earth, but the original spores could be from anywhere.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was directed to a link about that. The origin of DNA as for evolution is pure theory. I don't like theories.

Oh okay. So then you have also have a problem with the theory of gravity? Germ Theory? Molecular theory? Atomic theory? Please elaborate.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm a theist and I have no problem with evolution.

oh, and the origin of DNA is not "pure theory" there is a lot of chemistry backing it up and a lot of research providing supporting evidence on the subject.

Honestly, it's not that hard to do some rudimentary fact finding on the subject.

wa:do

 

[Agnostic75]

Which do you think is correct, Creation or Evolution. Religion especially Judaism and Christianity teaches that man and everything in this world is created by a Super natural Being, a Creator called God.

While evolution teaches that everything just evolve without the benefit of a Creator. Your answer is very much appreciated.

Evolution certainly does not teach that a god does not exist. What you are referring to is naturalism, abiogenesis, or spontaneous generation. Evolution is about change, not origins.

Consider the following definition of the word "evolution" from the Encyclopedia Britannica online:

"theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations."

That is, "other preexisting types" except for the first lifeform. Evolution does not speculate where the first lifeform came from.

Since Charles Darwin was a theist when he wrote "On the Origin of Species," I do not have any idea why so many Christians try to equate evolution with naturalism.

 

[Agnostic75]

Evolution cannot explain how life on Earth began and has given up trying. It is, therefore, a theory without a foundation, in my opinion.

But it is not necessary to know how life on earth began in order to study how it has changed. Even some of your own sources admit that there are at least some intermediate fossils.

With your limited knowledge of biology, you cannot make an entirely scientific claim that evolution is not true. Many creationists know very little about biology. Do you object to that?

With you limited knowledge of geology, you cannot make an entirely scientific claim that a global flood occured.

 

[Agnostic75]

Have I understand it right? That evolution is the process of creation?

Please define the word "creation."

There is a Wikipedia article on theistic evolution at Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that will help you understand evolution better from a liberal, and moderate Christian perspective. However, you must already know what common descent is.

 

[Ouroboros]

Have I understand it right? that evolution is the process of creation?

Evolution basically means "change over time." It's not the literal etymological understanding of the word, but that's basically how it's used in all different sciences.

 

[Ingledsva]

Evolution certainly does not teach that a god does not exist. What you are referring to is naturalism, abiogenesis, or spontaneous generation. Evolution is about change, not origins.

Consider the following definition of the word "evolution" from the Encyclopedia Britannica online:

"theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations."

That is, "other preexisting types" except for the first lifeform. Evolution does not speculate where the first lifeform came from.

Since Charles Darwin was a theist when he wrote "On the Origin of Species," I do not have any idea why so many Christians try to equate evolution with naturalism.

However, we can see the process of evolution, and we cannot see your god - so we are back where we started - there is no proof of any Deity.

Belief in a Deity is through faith.

 

[painted wolf]

However, we can see the process of evolution, and we cannot see your god - so we are back where we started - there is no proof of any Deity.

Belief in a Deity is through faith.

No emperical evidence.... that does not mean that there is no "proof".

Proof is a very poor term to use regardless... "Proof" is for mathematics, logic and liquor, it has no place in Biology (and thus no place in evolution) or most other branches of science.

wa:do

 

[Ingledsva]

No emperical evidence.... that does not mean that there is no "proof".

Proof is a very poor term to use regardless... "Proof" is for mathematics, logic and liquor, it has no place in Biology (and thus no place in evolution) or most other branches of science.

wa:do

So tell me - what proof is there?

 

[painted wolf]

So tell me - what proof is there?

Non-empirical subjective experience. If evidence isn't empirical then it's subjective that's pretty basic. :sarcastic

Subjective evidence is still valid, if extremely limited in it's application.

wa:do

 

[SkepticThinker]

Non-empirical subjective experience. If evidence isn't empirical then it's subjective that's pretty basic. :sarcastic

Subjective evidence is still valid, if extremely limited in it's application.

wa:do

But only valid to the person experiencing it.
Beyond that ... not so much.

 

[painted wolf]

But only valid to the person experiencing it.
Beyond that ... not so much.

And your point?

Faith is only valid to the person experiencing it.

The person talking to angels doesn't care if you can't see them too. In fact they may take that as just more supporting evidence that they are uniquely blessed.

wa:do