The reason for no Big Bang is that science doesn't support that notion. Those who believe in evolution always talk of science. The truth is science conducted the way of control (such as in any other field) will always support "Intelligent Design". Everyone knows that I believe of course that He is the God of Abraham. Take a bomb and you will always get nothing but a mess
Question for you John. If you take a bomb and yes you will always get a big mess, but can we really say we get "nothing" but a big mess? Reason for the question - take a fire, out of a fire you do get a big mess but that's not all you get - you get new growth. A volcano eruption - produces soil rich in nutrients which results in new growth.
So, "if" the Big Bang Theory could possibly be correct, then couldn't it have produced a lot more than just a mess?
Post by Michael Wells on Apr 6, 2011 9:30:41 GMT -5
You can't have "new growth" without something already there. Big bang (a total oops) ended up creating living microorganisms, atmosphere, and so on? Our best researchers in the world, with high tech technology can't come close to recreating this stuff. They've come close to some things, but after thousands/millions/billions (whatever) of years of attempting it. A book was written WAY before any technology that explained these things. If you research, it even explains how the earth is round (Isaiah 40:22), describes the Hydrologic Cycle (Job 36:27-28), orbit of the Earth (Job 26:7), circulation of the atmosphere (Ecc 1:6), and so on. I watched a 2 hour show, on Discovery Channel, on how it was all created with the Bang. Most of it sounded logical but still didn't seem possible. They lost me when they mentioned how the oceans created either hydrogen or oxygen (forgot which one they said but I'm sure it was oxygen), and that became water. That's crazy because I assumed the ocean WAS water. H2O. I call that bunked
I don't believe that God has to act using a magic wand. Our universe is constructed very ingeniously and governed by hard laws. This is the proper way to engineer something- you put processes in place so that the system you create can be self-sustaining. If there are no processes in place, you have to manage every single action by yourself.
Does it make any sense that a Creator who in his infinite wisdom put the Universe in place would not use the laws of his own creation in the process?
God created this universe as a series of inter-related systems. Scientist for ages have searched for the equation to support a Unified Theory because it makes the most sense. We just aren't smart enough to capture all of the variables. The simple fact is that no natural law in science contradicts any other law. This is a bunch of science talk to tiptoe around the idea that Intelligent Design is the only viable concept.
We aren't talking about some crazy notion of a bearded man in the clouds here. That concept exists nowhere except in Michaelangelo paintings.
The Creator of our cosmos is undeniably rooted in science because he first created the laws of the universe that govern every action of every particle and their interactions with one another. No amount of random chaos can formulate intelligence. The Universe is not about created beings. It is about the intelligence behind the physicality, which is undeniable.
Post by John Parton on Apr 6, 2011 14:17:07 GMT -5
With the volcano or the fire life was already there and the design for that life was in place to alllow it to fill the void the mess made. Take Douglas fur for example. It's seeds are made to only regenerate when burned And the volcanic explosion merely puts into the air and on the ground minerals that are used up over time naturally or leached by rain and so the radical new growth. The problem I have with any of the "theories" is that no constant measure is used, and for me that is not real science. Take the sized of the universe for example which has always been measured (since the time measurement began) by the speed of light which was thought to be 186,000 miles per second. They recently found however that once light leaves our atmosphere it not only accelerates beyond that speed, but continues to accelerate. With that in mind despite what is said no one has any idea how big our galaxy, let alone the universe is. Will the scientific community admit that or that they have made any other mistake in measuring with that which is found to be in error? Could I build a house if the ruler kept changing Here is my theory If you admit their is a God #1 that means that we are no longer the ultimate being here and #2 that someday we will answer to Him. Most people just want to do what they want and judge for themselves whether it is right or wrong. For most of the world right now that is pretty much where we are, and I don't think it takes a genius to see how that is working out! Keeping in mind of course that we are talking about purely what God wants and not how any group might twist His ways to suit their own ambitions or desires
Your Word have I hidden in my heart that I might not sin against You Psalm 119:11 "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil by doing good" The words of Jesus
Alright. The last 5-6 posts have been excellent questions/answers. Now we are getting somewhere. Someone posted earlier that the volcano's may have erupted and caused the oceans. Okay. That is possible. But why have none/most (I think none but could be wrong) of the "THEORIES" of things like that happened again since modern times? I have not seen any NEW oceans lately. I have not seen any suddenly NEW life forms. I know we have discovered new breeds of fish/insects/animals but I'm talking about a new species unlike any others that there are tons of them everywhere (Like people). I do think that things have evolved, I just think that they have evolved from something that someone (GOD) created. To the unbelievers, how do you explain the lack of "NEW" or "REPEATED" processes not happening?
Rick I want to answer your question about new things not happening and I believe new things are happening all the time. Were cycling through the US life span right now and its almost over as far as I can see. We havent backed our money up with gold since 1971 and the average life span of a country without backing is about 40 years. Too bad everyone fell into this big family and relationship thing and forgot about our country. Ive always said chinas rivers are toxic and the water can kill you. But after they suck us dry for money, unless they just use us to live on, than they will just shut our power down and Maybe even move over to the land of the free. that is a perfect example of things that change. And they have changed because of religion. Right now China has their people believing just a little better ;). As far as non-religious changes, im not saying its true but pangea probably happened? The history of the world has been people falling into these belief valleys and just riding along until the big man on top gives it up or the people take him over. This is starting to interest me.
Post by Johnny Edwards on Apr 6, 2011 15:26:28 GMT -5
And if there had been ancient atomic warfare then ALL carbon dating and such would be completely wrong. Which it's already not very accurate to begin with, yet spoken of as fact. There are a lot of theories. lightning is not even understood just theorized. Good discussion guys.
Post by Simon Berriochoa on Apr 6, 2011 16:21:47 GMT -5
I nor anyone on here wants me type that much on this subject, I have other things I need to be doing and no one wants to read that much of my typing.
I have spent over half of my life developing my theory around what is being eluded to in some of these posts, it started from my attempt to challenge my own conclusions in these areas and though contrary in a very significant way to my own beliefs, it is almost undeniable in logic. In the world of nickle versions this is decimal point 100 places version of this theory.
Divine Evolution, though you can find it out on the web now I have been using that terms since 1988 and had never heard it before, at one time I was tossed out of a Creationism vs. Evolution debate exercise for defending this position on merit.
It is the idea that even a divine act such as creationism recognizes the necessary developmental requirements of evolution to the success of a species or even the planet.
In the grand scheme of time our existence is but a blip so looking for instances of direct evolution is difficult outside of the undeniable advancements we make in science and technology.
It is not a matter that we randomly happen to have enough air to breath it is more the matter that we as creatures developed in concert with what is available to us... potentially by design.
The sun dies a little bit each day, so in theory some day it will not support life on this planet, conversely it was once more powerful than it is now, meaning could it have supported life on another planet, maybe not life as we are or know it but life, maybe other conditions at that time prevented life on other planets around this sun, we don't know but we know that someday the sun will die, the assumption hopefully is we will have learned to adapt to that change by then.
More directly it makes sense that an entity of divine creation may set the stage for life as we know it but would also do so with the intent that all of the items would evolve and change in concert with one another, this includes chaos, destruction, and death, as well as the order, growth and creation that inevitably ensues. Each of those cycles creates a developmental step in the evolutionary process.
Big Bang? Well we know that there are more planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies than we can count, were these merely created for us to explore when we finally find our way past everything on our own planet? We also know that if you drop a bag of marbles on a concrete slab they will all eventually come to rest in some form of order based upon how they interacted with each other the floor, the walls etc.
To a god where time is unending why would one have a need to complete something as magnificent as the world and its inhabitants in a about a week? Subsequenlty would not a devine creation take into consideration that the appropriate creature need be one in a state of harmony with the level of development of its surroundings there fore allowing both to grow and develop in conjunction with one another?
Post by Simon Berriochoa on Apr 6, 2011 16:27:03 GMT -5
Just read your post John Wilson... fn brilliant.
The reality of evolution is that even through intelligent design it fails to be completely predictable, which means a plan of outcome is never finite, it is merely planning for a series of possible paths that may die out while others flourish, split, change die and give birth to those that carry the chain forward.
It is not the development of certainty that exists but setting the stage for the high probability of perpetuation through self propelling trial and error.