Evolution or Creation?

[Boothby]

Even though I know I'll elicit a lot of wikisnickering, I like their definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity

Most scientists (and scientifically minded people) consider the "time" before the Big Bang" as not really being "time" (as we know it). It's a "void."

But, you're right--I was being too snarky; I'll "give" you that language use.

[Eaquae Legit]

Let's face it, we really don't have to offer much in the way of "alternates" if all you're going to say is "the time before time!"

*hums* Don't lose your way, with each passing day....

[Locke_]

Even though I know I'll elicit a lot of wikisnickering, I like their definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity

Most scientists (and scientifically minded people) consider the "time" before the Big Bang" as not really being "time" (as we know it). It's a "void."

But, you're right--I was being too snarky; I'll "give" you that language use.

Then we agree that "time" before time, or "time" outside of time is a bit contradictory. Not to get persnickety.

In my opinion, space was created with the big bang, but time as the human mind developed. It's an entirely human concept, and one that we can only hold into realistic context for so long before we get overwhelmed. Time extends so far back and there is complete unknowingness of how far forward it will go--it can be an overwhelming consideration. Thus humans have limited themselves by their own created concept. Yes, when the big bang began thus began forward movement, orbits, development and progress (scientifically), but we latched all of this onto the word "time" and we let it hang there. But because it's a human concept, become an accurate set of numbers to go with the universe's system, we can take those numbers and hypothetically we could apply them to the moments before big bang. I mean it's not possible to do this--that's not what I'm saying--but our system of time could now be pretty detached from the universe system.

Consider Ender's universe. They still maintain the years system based on those on earth, though the characters--in SftD etc.--are far from earth, far from the location from which we derive our system of time. I think humans would do this in actuality--keep the system of time as a frame of reference.

[jotabe]

I mean it's not possible to do this--that's not what I'm saying--but our system of time could now be pretty detached from the universe system.

In such a case, our "time" would become completely meaningless.

In enderverse case, it's just a dating system. They keep using the time as it flows in the Earth frame, but as earth is a perfectly definible system in the universe, it's legitimate. It's not "detached" at all.

On the other hand, if we want to go back to the starting of the universe, time as well as space would behave radically different than our current time, from a geometric point of view. I expect a heavy curvature as we get close to the Big Bang time (which casually fits with the analogy of the north pole).

[Locke_]

That depends on your definition of "meaningless." Our conception of time does not hold the universe together by any means, and yet we function every second (pun) of the day because it is useful--because its usefulness causes meaning. We cannot imagine life without art, yet it is not a necessity. Time is perfect for tracing back history or setting goals for the future, but outside our lives, our world, our humanity--utterly meaningless.

[jotabe]

No, what i mean is different.

In our human size scale, our idea of time, our concept, pretty much fits with what time is. For that, it's useful, and it help us survive: if our concept of time was different than what time is in our world, our fitness for survival would be severely hindered.
If we try to extrapolate this concept to other "places" very far from our daily life experience, that's when our concept becomes meaningless, because it starts to differ severely from reality. That's when we have to start to mistrust our own perceptions, and let mathematics guide us.

For example: try to imagine a 4-dimension space. It's pretty hard, though some people claim that with training, they can reach it. And this is even despite it's actually close to our daily experience; even if we live in 3-dimensions, time is the 4th one, so we kinda experience a 4-dimension space.
But now, try for 5 or even more dimensional space. That just can't be done. At this point, when our perceptions and concepts prove useless, mathematics is our trusty guide. Our mathematics can handle 5 or 500 dimensional space for us.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

That's sort of what I was trying to say earlier, that God exists in the third dimension (i.e. outside of time) while we exist in the fourth.

Also, in the Big Bang, where did all that energy/matter come from? was it created? or was it eternal?

[jotabe]

While the moment of the Big Bang is still highly hypothetical, at least until we have a good theory for quantum gravity, the explanations that are being worked on point to that "energy" not coming from anywhere, nor being created, nor being eternal. Now there's something for you to reflect upon while i sleep lol.

[Boothby]

Crazy Tom,

The typical reference is that 3 dimensions define space, the fourth dimension is time (we live in 4 dimensions, but can only modify our position in 3 of them), and to be "outside of time" (if that actually has any meaning) places you in 5 dimensions or more.

Don't you read any science fiction?

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I do or I wouldn't be on this forum.

The reason why I said that God is in the third dimension is because time has no meaning in the third dimension. However, you make a point. Because we exist in a state of time, God simply transcends time, which, I suppose, would put him in a higher dimension.

Jotabe: Energy is either created or eternal. no other option (unless you hold that MATTER is eternal, which oscillates between being energy and matter) Einstein proved that energy and matter are the same thing in his famous E=mc^2. So the Energy/matter must be either eternal, or created by God. which is it?

[jotabe]

I am not entirely well versed on them, but there are some candidates for the "theory of everything" (which would simply be a unification theory for the 4 fundamental forces) where the nothing can oscillate between nothing and something.

In our universe we have empty space, which is not really empty, there is this small density of short-lived particle pairs being created and destroyed all the time.
Well, the quantum description of the nothing, the non-being, is that this non-being state (no space, no time, no energy), isn't really completely stable. It can go to a state of being through tunnel effect.

So, the universe just spawned into being, by itself. Well, at least that's an explanation that is coherent with several highly speculative mathematical theories.

The largest problem with these theories is that our experimental range is very far from being able to test them. So until then, we can only content ourselves with making them mathematically coherent.

Btw, the universe was essentially devoid of energy til inflation. It was inflation that "created" the energy during the process of expanding space-time countless times over.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I have studied TOE and the physics related to it. I have also studied the physics of the Big Bang theory. Correct me if I'm wrong: I thought in the B.B., that there was no matter until the inflation; that everything was purely energy. correct?

I do not recall ever studying any theories about anything oscillating between nothingness and existence, and aside from supporting this bogus theory, I see no reason why such a thing might be speculated. I think that people that proposed this theory were just trying to create evidence for their theory to try to deny God's existence.

[human.]

I'd just like to point out that not all scientists who study the origins of the universe are attempting to "deny God's existence." I'm willing to bet that a lot of people, not even just people who research in this field, don't even think about the existence of a god in their research unless they are religious themselves (even then, they may not). I'm not saying people don't try to prove he does not exist, some do. I'm just wanting to make sure you know that for people who don't believe in a god, in general, our world doesn't revolve around proving there is no god. Your God is very important to you, but people who are godless don't view their non-god as super important. It's not the same for them as it is for you because you have an all powerful being who you worship and respect in your life, while they do not. The opposite of living for a higher power is not living to prove the non-existence of a higher power.

I made a couple of vast generalizations, but I hope you understand that I literally mean in general with them, and not for every specific case.

[jotabe]

^What she said. The point of making hypothesis (which mathematically works, but a lot of stuff works in maths without actually being real) without yet a proper theory is the same purpouse of all scientific work, finding natural explanations for natural events.

I thought in the B.B., that there was no matter until the inflation; that everything was purely energy. correct?

Incorrect: The actual energy density of the Universe during inflation falls asymptotically to zero. No photons, no gluons, no gravitons, no leptons, no quarks. After inflation ends, Universe "reheats", and becomes filled with radiation (photons). But at this point universe is still too hot for particles.

[Locke_]

Appropriate vast generalizations.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Jotabe: I was taught that according to big bang theory, the universe existed in an infinitesimally small point, which was almost pure energy. that this energy, when it could be contained no longer, shot the universe out into existence, converting to large amounts of matter in the process. If this is not the correct theory, what does it say?

Human: What I was trying to say was that believing and/or trying to prove any process other than Creation was denying the Judeo-Christian God, and I apologise for insinuating otherwise. The reason why this is so is because if they really believed in the Judeo-Christain God, they wouldn't be trying to come up with a different theory for our existence.

[Eaquae Legit]

I'm very glad to know that apparently I'm not worshipping the Judeo-Christian God. In fact, apparently I'm not Christian at all. But, that's not the first time I've been told that, so I'm not too fussed.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Meaning you do not believe in Creation as God Himself told it? if so, then yes, you apparently don't truly believe in Him because if you did, you would believe and defend what He told us.

[Eaquae Legit]

Judge not.

I believe in a world created by God. I believe there are profound truths contained in the Genesis accounts. I do not believe they are scientific truths. For some of us, that's okay and is no contradiction.

[Taalcon]

Meaning you do not believe in Creation as God Himself told it? if so, then yes, you apparently don't truly believe in Him because if you did, you would believe and defend what He told us.

Did you see my earlier post? I'm curious as to your thoughts on what was presented.

[Rei]

There is also my earlier post. If it's too much effort to look at how the days match up:

no.1 is light and dark; no.4 is sun, moon, and stars
no.2 is water and sky; no.5 is fish and birds, and
no.3 is water and dry land; no.6 is plants and animals.

This is undeniably poetic. Even if God created the world according to the literal understanding of Genesis, you cannot deny that there is a distinctly poetic pattern to it.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

If I remember correctly, someone here named Luther something... Luther95. He quoted some scripture which were examples of how Christ Himself took the scriptures literally.

God never gives us any reason to believe differently than what He said, so all that temple allegory and such is pretty much just throwing ideas around.

Why is it really so hard for any of you to believe that God created everything in 6 days? It's not like He wasn't powerful enough! The Genesis account, told by God through Moses, clearly outlines what is written there as Fact, without allegory or hidden meanings. Why is it so hard to accept?

[Taalcon]

The Genesis account, told by God through Moses, clearly outlines what is written there as Fact, without allegory or hidden meanings. Why is it so hard to accept?

Because then you'd have to completely throw away culture and context when it comes to interpretation. I'm not willing to do that.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Please clarify.

[Eaquae Legit]

Why is it so hard to accept that you're supposed to be eating Jesus? He was pretty clear he meant it.

Of course God could have made the world in six 24-hour days. He could have. But none - NONE - of the evidence that he himself left us except for the Book (which several people have presented plausible and respectful explanations for) seems to indicate that he did. So I can believe in a Liar God or I can believe in a God who understood how much his young children could understand.

And while we're at it, you can stop being so disingenious. We know you and Luther 95 have the same IP. You either are him or you know him very, very well, and I know where my money is.

[Taalcon]

Please clarify.

I provided 7 links above doing just that. In addition, one needs to look at the history of biblical editing. A study of text and context shows that the current form of Genesis is a compilation of materials that was edited (or re-edited)at the very least in the post-exilic period, far removed from when Moses would have lived.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

EL. I do know him very well. he is my father. reguardless, he makes a good point. I showed him this forum because along with being an EG fan, he is more educated than I in theology.

Taal: This is why I study Latin, why my father learned Greek: so we could know the scriptures in as pue a form as possible in this day and age. That is why we can make these very specific interpretations of scripture is because we know what they really say. When someone noted earlier about how the Hebrew for "era" and "day" are the ame word, we knew this did not nullify 6-day creation because that word for "day" was accompanied by the word "yom" which caused the word to mean a literal 24 hr. period.

[Locke_]

no.1 is light and dark; no.4 is sun, moon, and stars
no.2 is water and sky; no.5 is fish and birds, and
no.3 is water and dry land; no.6 is plants and animals.

This is undeniably poetic. Even if God created the world according to the literal understanding of Genesis, you cannot deny that there is a distinctly poetic pattern to it.

I've been considering referencing this vid, and this post was the icing. Rob Bell is a rather progressive contemporary speaker of Christians. He not only notes what you have indicated about the poetic structure, but also points out other potentially poetic details as well. It is, at the very least, interesting if you have 5 to 9 minutes to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqZSqRlVXYk

[Locke_]

or I can believe in a God who understood how much his young children could understand.

And this point, I think, is one of the most significant aspects of our disputed side of this conversation. The challenge we have accepted is to both contextualize Genesis in the period at which it was written and to whom, but to try to apply it to our individual selves and our societies as we progress.

God intended for us to progress. He through Jesus bet on the fact that we could progress. Our thoughts and our achievements. We were created this way, and God frowns not on believers trying to figure out how to apply ever-aging texts to our changing days.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Well if I say "That is stupid", thats three words too, right? and If I say, "Anyone can make stuff like this up" that's 7 words!! wow! I must be divinely inspired! That movie is so ludicrous. It was good until he got to the numerology, then it got ridiculous. to answer, here is Ken Ham on 6 day creation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn3cw9yEGms

[Taalcon]

Taal: This is why I study Latin, why my father learned Greek: so we could know the scriptures in as pue a form as possible in this day and age.

I'd suggest Hebrew then, if you're going to be studying the oldest scriptural texts we have. And I hope, then, you're studying the DSS versions., not just the highly re-touched MT. I also hope you're studying contemporary texts and culture/history surrounding the time/place the Biblical texts were created. And of course, you wouldn't dare to begin a study of text and context of the NT without becoming familiar with the influential intertestamental texts such as 1 Enoch.

That is why we can make these very specific interpretations of scripture is because we know what they really say.

Again: It is inadvisable to interpret linguisticly without text and context. (historical, cultural, a lexicon other than the highly inaccurate Strongs, etc)

When someone noted earlier about how the Hebrew for "era" and "day" are the ame word, we knew this did not nullify 6-day creation because that word for "day" was accompanied by the word "yom" which caused the word to mean a literal 24 hr. period.

How would that in any way affect it being a symbolic reading? How day is defined only matters if we're reading a textbook account of the literal and physical creation of the earth. To me, all evidence points to the other side of the story.

We're not unlearned people here, CTCT. El is crazy good with her Latin, with, I think, Patristic Literature being her expertise. My main focus has been Old Testament / Ancient Near Eastern studies. We're both believing, faithful Christians in our selected traditions. We also heavily disagree in some areas, but fully respect, and for the most part understand, each others' differences.

If your reasons for believing as you do are from conclusions from intellectual research, it is suggested you attempt to do the same.

Frankly, I wish we had written in Krister Stendahl's Rules of Interreligious Dialogue into the forum rules:
(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.
(3) Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

[Ended]

Hello everyone,
I think if you accept the bible as a literal truth, you have to accept that yahweh kills in excess of 2 million people. you also have to accept god's commands and stone witches, burn wizards (that may be the other way round), and believe the existance of demons (jesus frequently takes it upon himself to cast out demons)

[Eaquae Legit]

I don't see why there's any reason we can't have those, Taal.

And actually, my main focus has shifted since you've been away. I still get into some Patristics, but my big passion is disability (especially abnormal mentality) in the High Middle Ages. My supervisors keep pressing for less religion and later texts, but that's where my heart is. And it might surprise you not in the least that sacramental theology is at the heart of it.

[Luet]

Frankly, I wish we had written in Krister Stendahl's Rules of Interreligious Dialogue into the forum rules:
(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.
(3) Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

I just wanted to say that I think these rules are great.

[Locke_]

I also like these rules. But I have a feeling it's easy to spot who would and wouldn't like them in place. Or who would have a more difficult time with them.. and I suppose I could be speaking for myself lol. Vanity is often invisible through the eyes of the self.

Also, Luet, I like the Camus quote and I was wondering what work it's from???