The Big Bang and Evolution

[Shad]

I was walking through the desert in Arizona and I found a watch. I thought to myself, "Gee, it's amazing how this watch just randomly happened!"

DNA, RNA and the simplest life forms are far more complex than a watch. Just telling me it happened without being specific is similar to expecting people to believe the watch just randomly assembled itself.

And I think we can all agree that is absurd. At least I hope so.

Parley's argument was refuted centuries ago by Hume. Standard objections are taught in philosophy classes. Perhaps enroll in one.

 

[David T]

What does the Big Bang have to do with evolution?

Impossible to separate the two literally. We can create a virtual, artificial, subjective separation like frets on a guitar first fret, is big bang, second fret is evolution etc. But that in and of itself is neither the big bang nor evolution thats mechanical reductionism. To treat it literally as true is ...not science,it's not even wrong nonsense.

 

[David T]

No they don't.



Matter, energy and life.

Omega be careful about evolution. Life interconnected, death interconnected is the new testament. St Francis wrote about evolution in 1200 ad "family of god" the scienve narrative most definitely is open for debate, john Muir said Darwin's theory is self evident but interpretively so ungodly". what is not debateable is family of God knows no borders and yhat evolution is a deeper than science narrative because the narrative itself is encapsulated by evolution this subjective, not objective to evolution. Arguing against evolution literally isn't Christian is not biblical is just intellectual accedemic hocum. Atheism generally is just as hocum, nonsense as well. Dogs are evolutionists, hell lilies are evolutionists its self evident.

 

[David T]

If God exists perhaps the big bang was his way of creating the universe making scientist and Religion correct.

Maybe he is also responsible for evolution.

He Could be a she, then all theories are false in religion and science!!!

 

[Bird123]

If God exists perhaps the big bang was his way of creating the universe making scientist and Religion correct.

Maybe he is also responsible for evolution.

This is how I see it. Any Being capable of creating the universe has to be very smart. How would a Smart Being create it all that would benefit everyone? Surely, this Being would be far advanced beyond mankind's need just to be right. So how would you do it?

I think Poof creation is much too simple an answer which actually leaves no answers at all. The way I see it is that God created the universe to unfold and grow just like a seed can grow into a giant tree. The real genius is that God created the universe to unfold in such a way that mankind will figure it all out in time. This is education at it's best.

Let's look at the evidence. Would not evolution fit right in to such a creation? Further, there was a statistical scientist who figured out that with the age of the universe there was not enough time for random chance to form it all. On the other hand, he said if the universe ran like a computer program, then there was enough time. Doesn't fractals supply that evidence?

Clearly there is much to discover. I think it all stares us in the face. We must all strive to discover what actually is rather than rest on the beliefs we may want to be true. In the end, from my experience, the actual truth will always be much better.

 

[metis]

Anthropology is no help; in understanding the Bible.

LOL! That right there indicates that you literally have no clue what you're talking about, as cultural anthropology and archaeology, both of which we do as anthropologists, are tools that are used to better understand the cultural milieu that the scriptures are written in. I worked on a "dig" in Israel, so I at the least I have personal experience in this area that goes beyond just my teaching it. But as we have seen on this and other topics, you really are not willing to do the homework.

You may have taught the Bible, but you certainly don't understand it or you would not have made the statement you made

Keep telling yourself that.

I belong to a conservative Christian church that teaches Bible truths, Evidently you belong to some liberal church that thinks they are smarter than God.

Actually I don't belong to that church as it's my wife's, and they don't teach that they're "smarter than God". Maybe look up the word "interpretation" when you get a chance. Most of the "liberal churches" actually believe in studying, so maybe you should try and be more like them, otherwise you'll never know what you've been missing.

but you will need a better view of Gos inspired and inerrant word to do so.

Nor does my wife's church teach idolatry. The Bible is not God, nor is God the Bible, thus it is simply not "divine" nor "inerrant". To take an object, any object, and saying that it is somehow perfect is a form of idolatry, even if one doesn't pray to it.

You don't even know what a fundamentalist church is.

I probably have been in more of them than you have since when I taught comparative religions, we "church hopped". Also, my father's side of the family was largely Baptist.

So, don't you feel stupid for making such a prejudicial statement? You should, but I think your ego gets too much in the way.

Without knowing, I bet you do not accept the inspiration, and inerrancy of the Bible and you call your self a teacher.

If you actually knew what you're talking about, you would know that the issue of "divine inspiration" is more of a question-mark than an exclamation-mark as there are differing concepts as to exactly what that means amongst theologians. And to claim "inerrancy" is quite laughable because it shows the blindness from which you come. The only way one could know that anything is "inerrant" would be if they were omniscient, thus "inerrant", themselves. IOW, it logically would take perfection to know perfection.

So, concluding this "discussion", about the only thing I see you knowing very well is to make prejudicial statements about the Bible and others here who would dare disagree with you, accusing them of being ignorant while you pump up your own ego.

fini

 

[omega2xx]

Omega be careful about evolution. Life interconnected, death interconnected is the new testament. St Francis wrote about evolution in 1200 ad "family of god" the scienve narrative most definitely is open for debate, john Muir said Darwin's theory is self evident but interpretively so ungodly". what is not debateable is family of God knows no borders and yhat evolution is a deeper than science narrative because the narrative itself is encapsulated by evolution this subjective, not objective to evolution. Arguing against evolution literally isn't Christian is not biblical is just intellectual accedemic hocum. Atheism generally is just as hocum, nonsense as well. Dogs are evolutionists, hell lilies are evolutionists its self evident.

Why do I need to be careful about evolution? Life between species is not interconnected. Evolution is not deeper than science, in fact it is not even science. Real science proves/disproves theories, evolution only talks and can't provide any scientific evidence.

Since God says "after their kind," and that is what can be proved, it is Christian to point to that and give
God the glory for what He alone can do. That also makes it Biblical to defend creationism.

Is the TOE also hocum or just creationism and atheism. Have you given your wisdom to the evolutionists also or just to the creationist? Maybe you need to be fair and balanced.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Parley's argument was refuted centuries ago by Hume. Standard objections are taught in philosophy classes. Perhaps enroll in one.

All such secular philosophy is meant to indoctrinate men to believe the lie.

 

[omega2xx]

LOL! That right there indicates that you literally have no clue what you're talking about, as cultural anthropology and archaeology, both of which we do as anthropologists, are tools that are used to better understand the cultural milieu that the scriptures are written in. I worked on a "dig" in Israel, so I at the least I have personal experience in this area that goes beyond just my teaching it. But as we have seen on this and other topics, you really are not willing to do the homework.

Understanding the culture, which you can not be sure if you have all the facts, is of no value in understanding the Bible and you can' give me even one example of how it can help. I have done my homework for 40 years. You need to do yours, as it is evident when it comes to understandindg the Bible, you have not done yours.

Keep telling yourself that.

I will until someone shows me I am wrong, something you can't do.

Actually I don't belong to that church as it's my wife's, and they don't teach that they're "smarter than God".

I didn't meant your wife's church, I meant the liberal church you belong to if any.

Maybe look up the word "interpretation" when you get a chance. Most of the "liberal churches" actually believe in studying, so maybe you should try and be more like them, otherwise you'll never know what you've been missing.

You need to find a definition for "correct," then "interpretation.," Then blend the 2 definitions together. Liberal churches do not seriously study the Bible. They consider it man's word not Gods and doubt most of it. The just read it looking for errors to give them more reasons for not believing what it says.

Nor does my wife's church teach idolatry. The Bible is not God, nor is God the Bible, thus it is simply not "divine" nor "inerrant". To take an object, any object, and saying that it is somehow perfect is a form of idolatry, even if one doesn't pray to it.

I never said or suggested yo9ur wife's church taught idolatry. I said you do not know what a fundamentalist is. One of the most ignorant things liberals and non-belevers has come up with is the conservative Christians worship the Bible. How silly can they get?

I probably have been in more of them than you have since when I taught comparative religions, we "church hopped". Also, my father's side of the family was largely Baptist.

It is not how many you been in, it is the ability to understand what the Bib le says and accept it as the truth. Liberals do neither. Liberal theology is a joke. Until recently all Baptist had a high view of the Bible and believe it is God's inspired word. The fact that you left a conservative denomination is evidence that you are a liberal and liberals can't understand the Bible. The can understand the literal but they can'[t understand the spiritual truths of God's inspired and inerrant world.

So, don't you feel stupid for making such a prejudicial statement? You should, but I think your ego gets too much in the way.

You are the one with the ego problem bragging that you taught the Bible, and implying that gave you understanding of it. I will only feel stupid for remarks I make if you can sdhow me my understanding is wrong. Think you can do that teacher?

If you actually knew what you're talking about, you would know that the issue of "divine inspiration" is more of a question-mark than an exclamation-mark as there are differing concepts as to exactly what that means amongst theologians.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that "divine inspiration" is only a question make for liberals. It is not in doubt among conservative Christians. Another reason you do not understand the Bible.

And to claim "inerrancy" is quite laughable because it shows the blindness from which you come. The only way one could know that anything is "inerrant" would be if they were omniscient, thus "inerrant", themselves. IOW, it logically would take perfection to know perfection.

Another liberal theology hallmark. This what I meant when I said the liberals think they are smarter than God and can tell when He makes a mistake. Do you really not understand that to sad it is not perfect also need to be omniscient?

So, concluding this "discussion", about the only thing I see you knowing very well is to make prejudicial statements about the Bible and others here who would dare disagree with you, accusing them of being ignorant while you pump up your own ego.

fini

is only prejudicial if it is not true. You have not shown me I am wrong yet. You even have to embellish what you say. I have not threatened anyone if the "dare"to disagree with me. I expect it. It is you ego that need to be adjusted. Remembr Trujmans famound words---if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

[Valjean]

Impossible to separate the two literally. We can create a virtual, artificial, subjective separation like frets on a guitar first fret, is big bang, second fret is evolution etc. But that in and of itself is neither the big bang nor evolution thats mechanical reductionism. To treat it literally as true is ...not science,it's not even wrong nonsense.

Everything's interrelated, true, but you go back so many steps that your reduction becomes absurd. By your metric auto mechanics, flower arranging, hydrology, musical composition and shrimp fishing would all have to be judged in the light of the Big Bang.
That there are many different forms of life interacting on this planet is pretty much a given. The particulars of their original appearance don't impact the study of evolution.

Why do I need to be careful about evolution? Life between species is not interconnected. Evolution is not deeper than science, in fact it is not even science. Real science proves/disproves theories, evolution only talks and can't provide any scientific evidence.

Real science "proves" nothing. It just gathers and tests evidence. When the tested and reviewed evidence overwhelmingly supports a particular hypothesis, the hypothesis is accepted as fact -- but all scientific facts remain eternally provisional.
"Life between species is not interconnected?" That's like saying the wheels and cogs inside a watch or car engine aren't connected. Apparently you've never studied ecology -- or even basic biology.

Since God says "after their kind," and that is what can be proved, it is Christian to point to that and give
God the glory for what He alone can do. That also makes it Biblical to defend creationism.

How do you know God said this, and how has it been "proved?"
You're presuming biblical literalism. What does the Tao te Ching, Guru Granth Sahib or Gita say about this? Your approach is a priori.

What does "kind" mean. Did the biblical taxonomists explain this, or are you grasping at straws?

 

[Shad]

All such secular philosophy is meant to indoctrinate men to believe the lie.

Baseless assertion.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Baseless assertion.

Provide a solid base to it, then, if you can.

Hint: You cant.

 

[David T]

Everything's interrelated, true, but you go back so many steps that your reduction becomes absurd. By your metric auto mechanics, flower arranging, hydrology, musical composition and shrimp fishing would all have to be judged in the light of the Big Bang.
That there are many different forms of life interacting on this planet is pretty much a given. The particulars of their original appearance don't impact the study of evolution.
Real science "proves" nothing. It just gathers and tests evidence. When the tested and reviewed evidence overwhelmingly supports a particular hypothesis, the hypothesis is accepted as fact -- but all scientific facts remain eternally provisional.
"Life between species is not interconnected?" That's like saying the wheels and cogs inside a watch or car engine aren't connected. Apparently you've never studied ecology -- or even basic biology.

How do you know God said this, and how has it been "proved?"
You're presuming biblical literalism. What does the Tao te Ching, Guru Granth Sahib or Gita say about this? Your approach is a priori.

What does "kind" mean. Did the biblical taxonomists explain this, or are you grasping at straws?

?

 

[David T]

Why do I need to be careful about evolution? Life between species is not interconnected. Evolution is not deeper than science, in fact it is not even science. Real science proves/disproves theories, evolution only talks and can't provide any scientific evidence.

Since God says "after their kind," and that is what can be proved, it is Christian to point to that and give
God the glory for what He alone can do. That also makes it Biblical to defend creationism.

Is the TOE also hocum or just creationism and atheism. Have you given your wisdom to the evolutionists also or just to the creationist? Maybe you need to be fair and balanced.

Sorry you existing in a religious virtual reality is no different than Elon musks statement that there is a billion to one chance we don't live in a virtual reality. You and Elon are the same person. Normals. You guys are mental how do you all even function? Creationism young earthnintelligemt design all bs not even new testament just make believe. NO TOE there is always a deeper narrative. You are a mechanical reductionist In religious drag so what, you clearly are clueless about nature so it's impossible for you to understand the bible except as a fantasy and I understand the topic god. Normal you are normal and normals did not write the bible.

 

[omega2xx]

Everything's interrelated, true, but you go back so many steps that your reduction becomes absurd. By your metric auto mechanics, flower arranging, hydrology, musical composition and shrimp fishing would all have to be judged in the light of the Big Bang.
That there are many different forms of life interacting on this planet is pretty much a given. The particulars of their original appearance don't impact the study of evolution.
Real science "proves" nothing. It just gathers and tests evidence. When the tested and reviewed evidence overwhelmingly supports a particular hypothesis, the hypothesis is accepted as fact -- but all scientific facts remain eternally provisional.
"Life between species is not interconnected?" That's like saying the wheels and cogs inside a watch or car engine aren't connected. Apparently you've never studied ecology -- or even basic biology.

How do you know God said this, and how has it been "proved?"
You're presuming biblical literalism. What does the Tao te Ching, Guru Granth Sahib or Gita say about this? Your approach is a priori.

What does "kind" mean. Did the biblical taxonomists explain this, or are you grasping at straws?

You can blow the smoke of ignorance til the cows come home. You simply do not understand science, especially genetics.

Once upon a time there was a Big Bang and all the evolutionists lived happily ever after---What is presented as evidence for the BB, is not provable. It is the produce of a vivid, but necessary imagination.

Life between species is another fairy tale, disproved by DNA. Something else you don't 'understand.

I can't prove God said it and you can't prove He didn't . You can prove what He said is true very easily. Plant some corn and in about 90 days, not only will you ALWAYS get corn, you will get the exact same variety. For that to be true, makes it likely that God dis say it.

To say science doe snot prove anything is one of the most disrespectful, and ignorant things one can say about the scientist who do the work. Science has proved there is more than one type of blood, that all living things have DNA, that a tumor is benign or cancerous. The list goes son and on.

And you evolutionists like to accuse Christian of not respecting science. We love it, it points to our favorite saying---GO DID IT.

 

[omega2xx]

Sorry you existing in a religious virtual reality is no different than Elon musks statement that there is a billion to one chance we don't live in a virtual reality. You and Elon are the same person. Normals. You guys are mental how do you all even function? Creationism young earthnintelligemt design all bs not even new testament just make believe. NO TOE there is always a deeper narrative. You are a mechanical reductionist In religious drag so what, you clearly are clueless about nature so it's impossible for you to understand the bible except as a fantasy and I understand the topic god. Normal you are normal and normals did not write the bible.

It is amusing that when you evos can't present the evidence for your wild guesses, you think insulting us is an intelligent thing to do. All you do is expose your ignorance. Thanks.

 

[David T]

It is amusing that when you evos can't present the evidence for your wild guesses, you think insulting us is an intelligent thing to do. All you do is expose your ignorance. Thanks.

Don't you know how to read? Oh wait no you don't. I have already stated that the scientific narrative is to be challenged but you clearly are incapable of splitting narrative from experience and obviously you have spent no time at all away from books tv media etc which is normal. Go watch the nature channel and play make believe that you are in nature like how you read the bible. Your view has zero to do with the bible like watching pixels on a monitor has zero to do with hiking. Its fantasy you" believe"... if I actually built buildings like that I would be in jail for genocide, or locked up in a mental institution because I became lost in fruit loop land. Normals arrrgh.

 

[Shad]

Provide a solid base to it, then, if you can.

It was your claim, support it yourself.

Shifting burden of proof and argument from ignorance

Hint: You cant.

Hint. Your points are fallacious.

 

[omega2xx]

Don't you know how to read? Oh wait no you don't. I have already stated that the scientific narrative is to be challenged but you clearly are incapable of splitting narrative from experience and obviously you have spent no time at all away from books tv media etc which is normal. Go watch the nature channel and play make believe that you are in nature like how you read the bible. Your view has zero to do with the bible like watching pixels on a monitor has zero to do with hiking. Its fantasy you" believe"... if I actually built buildings like that I would be in jail for genocide, or locked up in a mental institution because I became lost in fruit loop land. Normals arrrgh.

If you ever have some evidence that takes you belief out the fairy tale category, instead of you usual harangue, get back to me.

 

[siti]

You have not given any scientific evidence as to HOW it happened.

Omega - I am writing this slowly because I know you don't read very fast...as far as the origin of the biodiversity we observe evolution IS "HOW it happened" and this interpretation of HOW it happened is well-supported by scientific observations some of which were explained in the video that I posted earlier. Did you bother to watch it? I promise it doesn't have too many difficult words in it. Your contention seems to be not about the HOW at all but that evolution did not happen at all.

As for the Big Bang - well the evidence that it happened was in the link (I know you don't like links to those evil 'evo' sites like the BBC) but I did also ask that you find an alternative explanation as to HOW the red shift and the microwave background radiation arose. In fact, the best explanation (regardless of whether God did it or not) of HOW these came about IS the Big Bang. But if you want a simpler explanation of HOW it happened, here goes: it wasn't very big and then it went bang and then it was very, very big. Will that do?