|
Post by keikikoka on Sept 11, 2003 14:27:43 GMT -5
Theories never become fact. It is impossible. It is apples and oranges. The only point of a theory is to be a model to explain facts.
There is both a thoery of evolution and a fact of evolution. The theory of evolution is to explain the fact of evolution.
No it isn't. You are assuming bang=explosion. That would be your problem not the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Sept 11, 2003 17:07:07 GMT -5
I2AM4GOD - "Theories don't describe facts entirely."Yes, they do. "They remain theories until all the facts become available to either prove or disprove them."No, they do not. The fact that you continue to make this assertion demonstrates that you do not understand what the words "fact" and "theory" mean. Without even an understanding of the vocabulary used in science, you cannot possibly discuss the validity of a scientific concept. "Theories are partly fact-based and partly guess-work at best."Once again you are only demonstrating your ignorance of scientific terminology; you are not furthering your argument in the slightest by repeating such inaccurate claims. "And if the term 'Big Bang' does not suggest a large explosion, it's an erroneous and misleading term to use."As keikikoka said, the term does not necessarily suggest an explosion. Furthermore, the name of the theory is wholly irrelevant; it is the actual theory, and the data which support it, which has any relevance. "And again it is wrong to teach a theory in schools as though it were fact."Once again, theories and facts are wholly separate things. Theories do not become facts, theories describe facts. That all objects exert an attractive force on one another is a fact. Gravitational theory is the statement which describes the collection of these facts. That species arise from pre-existing species is a fact. The statement which describes the collection of these facts is evolutionary theory. "And I'm sorry, but I cannot accept the illogical suggestion that we somehow share a 'common ancestor' with the ape."The statement only appears illogical to you because you have demonstrated yourself quite ignorant of science and scientific terminology. If one examines the body of fossil evidence, such as that presented in Fossil Hominids, the evidence clearly demonstrates that we share such an ancestor. "Humans and apes are two totally different species."Presently, yes. However, in the past, we were not. "Humans, for example, walk upright on two legs, apes don't. They walk on all four limbs."When species diverge from one another, there is no logical reason for presuming that they must remain similar to one another in any aspect of their anatomy or behavior. The fact that we have evolved to be capable of bipedalism is in no way evidence that we do not share a common ancestry with modern apes. "At what point did the 'great ape' actually become us?"Once again, evolutionary theory does not state that humans are evolved from apes, it states that we share a common ancestor. Now, if you are asking when it is that anatomically modern Homo sapiens first appeared, the answer is approximately 125,000 years ago. "Was there a transitional species in-between which incorporated features of both?"Yes, several. Again, for examples, please see the link provided. "Has it been scientifically proven?"Yes, over a century ago. 'The Bible says that Man was created in the "image of God'."First off, the Bible is not a science book; attempting to use it as one is as erroneous as using a scientific publication to learn about God. Secondly, you are assuming that being created in the "image of God" refers to our physical appearance. Should the pkmtyolpage refer to our spiritual likeness to Him instead, there is no discrepancy between science and Scripture. Finally, even if the pkmtyolpage refers to our physical appearance, should God have used evolution to bring about our current physical appearance, there also remains no conflict between science and Scripture. "Do you accept the authority of the Word of God concerning this? The Christian does."I do, and I am. "Theories are proven, theories are disproven. Theories themselves can 'evolve'."While theories certainly do change over time, it is extremely rare that a theory be disregarded entirely. "The Bible remains the same and it has never been proved wrong about anything."The Bible is also not a science book, and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. Furthermore, the fact that there exist several translations of the Bible in English alone disproves your claim that the Bible remains the same. "I've yet to see how evolutionary science and the 'Big Bang' theory can possibly benefit mankind."Well, the fact that they are responsible for our existence could very likely be seen as beneficial. "I'm sure the money could be better spent."Perhaps, but then again, maybe not. It is largely because of evolutionary theory that the medical advances you praised came to be in the first place. You have again managed to post without once presenting a shred of evidence contrary to evolutionary theory or the Big Bang Theory, and without the presentation of any evidence which would support a different model of life or the universe. So far, your arguments have been based entirely on ignorance; ignorance of scientific theory, ignorance of scientific terminology, and ignorance of scientific evidence. Please, before you make up your mind as to the validity of either theory, educate yourself as to what science actually says, why science says those things, and what science means when those things are said. --Traf Daddy
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 12, 2003 7:45:27 GMT -5
I2AM4GOD - The Bible is also not a science book, and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. How I wish we could allrealize this and use the Bible for inspiration rather than prooftexting. It seems to me an abuse of the Word of God to insist that it is addressing issues that fall outside its true scope which is spiritual not physical. References to nature, creation, how it rains, how the sun travels, etc are there to make a spiritual point not a scientific point.
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 13, 2003 5:24:46 GMT -5
Traffic Demon, A theory may be worded in such a way as to accommodate certain facts, but it remains a theory until it can be fully proven or disproven. That's a fact. Whilst the Bible is not a scientific book, it nevertheless states that man is created in the image of God, i.e. body, soul and spirit. How you can't fully accept this is beyond me. It seems to me you are compromising your Christian faith with the theory of 'evolution'. You have also compromised your faith with the theory of the 'Big Bang'. This theory calls into question the idea of there being a God who has created everything and that somehow the universe brought itself into being. There was no Creator/Designer. Have you ever known a magician to pull a rabbit out of an empty hat? I haven't. How sad it is that you have to call me ignorant for asking you questions concerning 'evolution', and daring to disagree with you about that and the 'Big Bang'. A truly scientifically-minded person doesn't need to behave in such a way. Your Brother in Christ, Andy.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Sept 13, 2003 12:45:32 GMT -5
I2AM4GOD - "A theory may be worded in such a way as to accommodate certain facts, but it remains a theory until it can be fully proven or disproven."
Repeating your false definition of the word "theory" does not cause your definition to become the correct one. Regardless of how many times a theory is "proven," it remains a theory. Gravitational theory has been demonstrated as accurate countless times since Newton, but it is still considered a theory. Once again, theories describe facts, theories do not become facts.
"Whilst the Bible is not a scientific book, it nevertheless states that man is created in the image of God, i.e. body, soul and spirit. How you can't fully accept this is beyond me."
Would you care to point out where I have ever demonstrated that I do not believe that man is created in the image of God? As for being created in His image in "body, soul, and spirit," you are no longer referencing the Bible, but your own interpretation of the pkmtyolpage. While the former is a legitimate resource in a theological or philosophical discussion, the latter is not without conclusive evidence that it is the correct interpretation. Of course, being that this is a scientific discussion, neither is applicable.
"It seems to me you are compromising your Christian faith with the theory of 'evolution'. You have also compromised your faith with the theory of the 'Big Bang'."
If you would further your position, it is not enough to simply state that I have done so, you must provide evidence to that effect. If you want to look around for such evidence, be my guest. Since I'm a swell guy though, I'll save you some time and tell you that you're not going to find any.
"This theory calls into question the idea of there being a God who has created everything and that somehow the universe brought itself into being."
No scientific evidence, principle, or theory is in any capable of calling into question God's existence. Science deals only with the natural, never with the supernatural. That the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago is a scientific fact. Whether or not God exists is a question for theology not science.
"How sad it is that you have to call me ignorant for asking you questions concerning 'evolution', and daring to disagree with you about that and the 'Big Bang'."
Had you not so conclusively demonstrated your ignorance, there would have been no need to inform you of it. I did not call you ignorant because you asked questions concerning those theories, but because you continue to attack them as invalid without the slightest understanding of what those theories say or mean. I have no problem with asking questions, that is the foundation of science. My problem is when someone continues to insist that a theory is erroneous without understanding it first, and continues to do so without presenting any evidence to that effect.
"A truly scientifically-minded person doesn't need to behave in such a way."
Informing somebody that they have not shown any understanding of the topic certainly does not make one less "scientifically-minded."
Do some research, find out what evolutionary theory and the Big Bang Theory really say, and then figure out whether or not you think they are valid. If you research and still consider them invalid, please present some evidence which would support a different model of the universe or of life.
--got Traf?
|
|
|
Post by michaeldark on Sept 13, 2003 13:22:36 GMT -5
Traffic Demon, A theory may be worded in such a way as to accommodate certain facts, but it remains a theory until it can be fully proven or disproven. That's a fact. Whilst the Bible is not a scientific book, it nevertheless states that man is created in the image of God, i.e. body, soul and spirit. How you can't fully accept this is beyond me. It seems to me you are compromising your Christian faith with the theory of 'evolution'. You have also compromised your faith with the theory of the 'Big Bang'. This theory calls into question the idea of there being a God who has created everything and that somehow the universe brought itself into being. There was no Creator/Designer. Have you ever known a magician to pull a rabbit out of an empty hat? I haven't. How sad it is that you have to call me ignorant for asking you questions concerning 'evolution', and daring to disagree with you about that and the 'Big Bang'. A truly scientifically-minded person doesn't need to behave in such a way. Your Brother in Christ, Andy. I'm waiting for you to prove how the Big Bang discredits God.
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 15, 2003 6:11:33 GMT -5
I'm waiting for you to prove how the Big Bang discredits God. Michael Dark, I'm waiting for you to prove how the 'Big Bang' supports the existence of a Divine Creator. And since scientists claim the 'Big Bang' happened billions of years ago, I'd like to know how they managed to measure that. How can they be certain that it even occurred? Were they there? It remains a theory. Andy. ;D
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 15, 2003 7:28:52 GMT -5
Traffic Demon,
It says in the Bible that we have been 'created in the image of God'. That is the truth and not theory. God doesn't lie. He didn't create us in the image of the ape. When Christ came into our world, He came in our likeness. He had a human body, a soul and a spirit of his own. The soul consists of the mind, will and emotions without which He would have been a vegetable! I'm surprised that as a Christian you don't know this. Now if you're right about Man sharing a 'common ancestor' with the ape then we have a problem. It goes like this:
Either:
1. The apes were also created by God in His image.
or
2. God decided to create our ancestors in His image only after we and our supposed ape relatives started to evolve separately. In which case, our 'common ancestor' had no soul and was incapable of being a spiritual creature. He was purely a dumb animal. But why? And I'm surprised that the Bible doesn't mention this 'common ancestor'. It is after all the Word of God and a historical record.
It seems to me that you really have fallen for 'evolutionary' scientific heresy in a big way. The same goes for Michael Dark. What makes you so certain that the 'evidence' for 'evolution' is genuine? Do you really believe that scientists are incapable of making mistakes or telling 'porkies' like the rest of us? And if they told you that pigs really could fly millions of years ago, and appeared to produce 'evidence' for it, would you believe them? And don't be so quick to be dismissive of the scientists who don't accept the theory of 'evolution' as 'factual', just because they comprise only a small fraction of the scientific community. If it was that simple, then truth would simply be based on numbers. But we know better than to make that mistake, don't we? And a 100% proven theory is no longer theory, but fact!
Your Brother in Christ, Andy. ;D
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Sept 15, 2003 16:56:11 GMT -5
We agree!
We agree!
I disagree. The soul consisits of the spirit and the body. Humans beings are living souls. There are only spirit + body = soul.
Perhaps that is because you don't know what you are talking about.
The image of God is refering to the mental aspect of God. It is The ability to think with reason and emotion that no other animal posseses. God isn't made of living organic tissue.
Why can't we be created in the spiritual image of God?
What makes you certain it isn't. It doesn't contradict the bible. Only your non-sensical literal view.
Sure, they make mistakes all the time. But science has only confirmed evolution in the last 150 years. If you disagree please post some evidence and stop stalling with these asinine argumentsl
We're not. We are dismissive because they, like you, have failed to produce any evidence.
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Sept 15, 2003 17:32:58 GMT -5
Michael Dark, I'm waiting for you to prove how the 'Big Bang' supports the existence of a Divine Creator. And since scientists claim the 'Big Bang' happened billions of years ago, I'd like to know how they managed to measure that. How can they be certain that it even occurred? Were they there? It remains a theory. Andy. ;D God spoke, and an infinite amount of energy appeared in a single point in space. This infinite amount of energy then expanded to over half the size of the current univese in a fraction of a second. The energy then became matter through the equation (energy = pkmtyolm * speed of light ^2). God directed this newly forming matter into stars, and then planets, with one special one about 93 million miles away from a perfectly sized star.... Does this disprove the existence of a divine Creator? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Sept 15, 2003 17:52:52 GMT -5
Traffic Demon, It says in the Bible that we have been 'created in the image of God'. That is the truth and not theory. God doesn't lie. He didn't create us in the image of the ape. When Christ came into our world, He came in our likeness. He had a human body, a soul and a spirit of his own. The soul consists of the mind, will and emotions without which He would have been a vegetable! I'm surprised that as a Christian you don't know this. Now if you're right about Man sharing a 'common ancestor' with the ape then we have a problem. It goes like this: Either: 1. The apes were also created by God in His image. or 2. God decided to create our ancestors in His image only after we and our supposed ape relatives started to evolve separately. In which case, our 'common ancestor' had no soul and was incapable of being a spiritual creature. He was purely a dumb animal. But why? And I'm surprised that the Bible doesn't mention this 'common ancestor'. It is after all the Word of God and a historical record. It seems to me that you really have fallen for 'evolutionary' scientific heresy in a big way. The same goes for Michael Dark. What makes you so certain that the 'evidence' for 'evolution' is genuine? Do you really believe that scientists are incapable of making mistakes or telling 'porkies' like the rest of us? And if they told you that pigs really could fly millions of years ago, and appeared to produce 'evidence' for it, would you believe them? And don't be so quick to be dismissive of the scientists who don't accept the theory of 'evolution' as 'factual', just because they comprise only a small fraction of the scientific community. If it was that simple, then truth would simply be based on numbers. But we know better than to make that mistake, don't we? And a 100% proven theory is no longer theory, but fact! Your Brother in Christ, Andy. ;D Actually, there have been books written about how evolutionary theory could coincide with what it says in the Bible. I will tell you one that I bet you haven't heard, if you are willing to listen. First of all, you need some introductory quantum physics. Time does not necessarily move at a constant pace. The relative pace of time depends on the gravitational force that is applied to it. The higher the gravity, the slower time goes. This has actually be seen and recorded through what is known as a "red-shift" in light. The light waves will move slower in higher gravitational fields than in lower ones, thus stretching out the wavelength and moving the light towards the red end of the spectrum. Time actually moves about 3 seconds slower every year on the surface of the sun than on the surface of the earth. Of course, this is all relative. If you were on the surface of the sun, it would seem as if time moved 3 seconds faster on the surface of the earth than it does on the sun. If you could get a telescope and look at a populated planet that had a hundred thousand times the gravitational force of earth, it would look like the people on that planet were moving half as fast as we are. They would all be in slow motion. While to them, we would be moving around in fast forward, at double speed. I am saying all this to try to show you something. Gravitational force is related to the pkmtyolm of the object creating it. Earth creates a certain gravitational force. The sun is many times more pkmtyolmive than the Earth, and so has a much larger gravitational force. Same with Jupiter, and any other larger planet. Now, if we go back to the beginning of time. God speaks, and an infinite amount of energy is placed at a point in space. This is all the energy that will be in the entire universe. By the laws of physics that God set up, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. So in the very beginning, God put the amount of energy in the universe that would be seen for all time. It is the same amount we have now, just scattered all over the universe. Now imagine all of this energy condensed into one point. This means that all the pkmtyolm in the universe would also be in this one point. Can you imagine how HUGE the gravitational force would be? You could even say that there was an INFINITE gravitational force. This would mean that time would be standing still at this point in creation. At the point when God spoke and place the energy there. At that point, time began, and it began standing still. Then, because again of the laws of physics that God made, there was nothing containing this point of infinite energy and gravity, so it began to expand at a phenomenal rate (aka the Big Bang). As the energy expands, the total energy remained the same, but there was more volume it was spread over, so the energy at any one point was going down. This meant that the gravity was also going down, and thus, time was speeding up. If you compare the strength of the gravity there to the strength of the earth gravity now, relatively speaking, billions of years could pkmtyolp in the matter of a few days of how we perceive time now. In fact, 13.7 billion years could pkmtyolp in the matter of six current earth days. If you want a more detailed explanation of it, you can always pick up "The Science of God" by Gary Schroeder. I found it a very interesting read. And just as a side note, I don't claim to be on either side of the creation debate. I don't know how exactly God created the universe. I know he could have done it literally as in the Bible, and I know he could have used evolution. He is a powerful God after all. All I do know is that He created the universe, and that is good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Sept 15, 2003 21:48:57 GMT -5
I2AM4GOD - "I'm waiting for you to prove how the 'Big Bang' supports the existence of a Divine Creator."Confirming or refuting God's existence does not fall to science, but to theology instead. Again, science deals only with the natural, never with the supernatural. "And since scientists claim the 'Big Bang' happened billions of years ago, I'd like to know how they managed to measure that."In a couple ways, such as by measuring the background radiation of the universe and the rate at which it expands. For a more in-depth look at the most recent measurements of the universe's age (currently measured to be 13.7 billion years, give or take 0.2 billion), please see NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. "How can they be certain that it even occurred?"Because every piece of evidence observed confirms that. "Were they there?"Direct observation is hardly necessary to learn that an event has occurred; entire fields of science exist that deal entirely or nearly entirely with past events, this certainly does not make them less scientific. "It remains a theory."And you continue to misuse the word "theory." If you would continue in this discussion, at least show the courtesy of learning the meanings of the words you use. "It says in the Bible that we have been 'created in the image of God'."Yes, it does. However, the Bible is also a religious text, and therefore irrelevant to the discussion. "That is the truth and not theory."That is your belief, and one that I happen to share. However, since it ultimately cannot be proven, only accepted by faith, the statement has no bearing on a scientific discussion. "God doesn't lie."I never said that He did. "He didn't create us in the image of the ape."No, but He certainly created both of us in the image of a shared ancestor. "When Christ came into our world, He came in our likeness."Physical likeness, yes. As far as his spiritual likeness, He was still far greater than us. "I'm surprised that as a Christian you don't know this."On the other hand, I am certainly not surprised that you again attack my beliefs without any evidence to support your claims. "Now if you're right about Man sharing a 'common ancestor' with the ape then we have a problem."No, if I (not to mention the tens of thousands of scientists who have independently confirmed the accuracy of evolutionary theory) am correct, you have a problem; I have long since reconciled evolutionary theory with Scripture. "Either:
1. The apes were also created by God in His image."If God used evolution to bring about our species, why should this be the case? "or
2. God decided to create our ancestors in His image only after we and our supposed ape relatives started to evolve separately."Why should this be a problem? "In which case, our 'common ancestor' had no soul and was incapable of being a spiritual creature."Which certainly wouldn't exclude the possibility that God imbued our ancestors with their spirits after our lineage diverged from the apes. Of course, you are once again attempting to dispute science with theology. As usual, it's not working. "And I'm surprised that the Bible doesn't mention this 'common ancestor'."I'm not. The Creation parable was meant to establish that God created, not to explain how God created. "It is after all the Word of God"Once again, this statement cannot be confirmed by any independent evidence, but only believed by faith. Whether the Word of God or not, the Bible is a religious text, and therefore irrelevant to a scientific discussion. "and a historical record."If that is the case, why does this "historical record" not match up with the truths that God has revealed to us through the natural world? Furthermore, why does this "historical record" contain such things as two different records of Judas' death? "It seems to me that you really have fallen for 'evolutionary' scientific heresy in a big way."I have fallen for nothing, I have merely followed the evidence to its logical conclusion. On the other hand, you have yet to present even a shred of evidence to either contradict evolutionary theory or the Big Bang Theory, or support a different model of life or the universe. "What makes you so certain that the 'evidence' for 'evolution' is genuine?"First off, stop with the scare quotes, they're only damaging your case further. Now, as for the validity of the evidence supporting evolutionary theory, I acknowledge it as genuine because I have examined it for myself, and seen nothing to contradict the current scientific model. "Do you really believe that scientists are incapable of making mistakes or telling 'porkies' like the rest of us?"Of course not, nor have I ever stated that to be the case. However, when a hundred fifty years of evidence points in one direction, without a shred of evidence pointing any other way, there is no logical basis for concluding that it is not valid. "And if they told you that pigs really could fly millions of years ago, and appeared to produce 'evidence' for it, would you believe them?"If the evidence was valid, why should the conclusions not be as well? Of course, your hypothetical falls miserably flat, as there are no currently accepted scenarios analagous to it. "And don't be so quick to be dismissive of the scientists who don't accept the theory of 'evolution' as 'factual', just because they comprise only a small fraction of the scientific community."I don't dismiss their conclusions because they are such a minority in the scientific community, I dismiss their conclusions because they are wholly contradictory to the evidence. "If it was that simple, then truth would simply be based on numbers."I have never so much as implied that scientific theory was based on numbers, or anything else other than the support of the evidence. "And a 100% proven theory is no longer theory, but fact!"Once again, you misuse the terms "theory" and "fact." You have so far based your objections to evolutionary theory on misunderstandings of scientific evidence, scientific theory, and scientific vocabulary, while basing your case on an entirely theological foundation. You have yet to put forward a shred of evidence to support your case, nor any damaging the present scientific models. If you would continue in this discussion, kindly take the time to educate yourself in science, and if you still consider the theories invalid, bring some falsifiable evidence which runs contrary to those theories. Don't come with theological arguments, don't set up your straw men which bear no resemblance to reality, and don't make unsupported claims. Have something relevant to say, and some evidence to back it up. --Big Daddy Traf
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 16, 2003 11:25:32 GMT -5
Traffic Demon,
Here are some simple and very, very relevant, scriptural pkmtyolpages from the book of Genesis which clearly disprove the theory of evolution and the erroneous belief you have that Genesis is just some parable. Now if you're a Christian, you will accept that the authority of God is behind them:
Ch.1, vv.20-21:
On the 4th day, God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, great and small, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the creatures of the sea, according to their kinds and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw it was good.
vv.24-25: On the 5th day, God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that creep along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was done. And God was pleased.
Note the words "according to their kinds" in each of the above pkmtyolpages. There's no mention of any process of evolution. On to verses 26 and 27:
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over all the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the creatures that live on the land." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Now we go on to how God created the first two human beings who ever walked the earth:
Ch.2, v.7: And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being. And God called him "Adam."
vv.20-23: But Adam had no suitable helper. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman', for she was taken out of man." Adam called his wife "Eve."
It says in Genesis that Adam died when he was 930 years of age and had fathered many children by Eve. Some of Adam's descendants are mentioned. But he had no ancestors. Sorry to disappoint you. The first ever murder is also mentioned, that of Abel by his brother Cain. The book of Genesis is not a parable as you seem to like to call it. It's far too detailed for that. I don't understand why you doubt the Genesis account of Creation. Don't you realise that God is perfectly able to do what it says he did. After all, HE IS GOD. If your contempt for the book of Genesis is anything to go by, you place more faith in the theories of 'evolution' and the 'Big Bang' than you do in God's Word. Seems evolution is your 'God', your idol. You place your trust in what men say instead of what God says. And by the way, theory isn't 100% fact. You may be ignorant, but I certainly am not.
Your Brother in Christ, Andy. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Job19:25 on Sept 16, 2003 11:29:57 GMT -5
Keiki....Rabbits DO chew their cud. They also graze. I have often seen rabbits laying in my yard in the early morning, CHEWING. Just laying there, and chewing their CUD.
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 16, 2003 12:13:47 GMT -5
Actually, there have been books written about how evolutionary theory could coincide with what it says in the Bible. I will tell you one that I bet you haven't heard, if you are willing to listen. First of all, you need some introductory quantum physics. Time does not necessarily move at a constant pace. The relative pace of time depends on the gravitational force that is applied to it. The higher the gravity, the slower time goes. This has actually be seen and recorded through what is known as a "red-shift" in light. The light waves will move slower in higher gravitational fields than in lower ones, thus stretching out the wavelength and moving the light towards the red end of the spectrum. Time actually moves about 3 seconds slower every year on the surface of the sun than on the surface of the earth. Of course, this is all relative. If you were on the surface of the sun, it would seem as if time moved 3 seconds faster on the surface of the earth than it does on the sun. If you could get a telescope and look at a populated planet that had a hundred thousand times the gravitational force of earth, it would look like the people on that planet were moving half as fast as we are. They would all be in slow motion. While to them, we would be moving around in fast forward, at double speed. I am saying all this to try to show you something. Gravitational force is related to the pkmtyolm of the object creating it. Earth creates a certain gravitational force. The sun is many times more pkmtyolmive than the Earth, and so has a much larger gravitational force. Same with Jupiter, and any other larger planet. Now, if we go back to the beginning of time. God speaks, and an infinite amount of energy is placed at a point in space. This is all the energy that will be in the entire universe. By the laws of physics that God set up, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. So in the very beginning, God put the amount of energy in the universe that would be seen for all time. It is the same amount we have now, just scattered all over the universe. Now imagine all of this energy condensed into one point. This means that all the pkmtyolm in the universe would also be in this one point. Can you imagine how HUGE the gravitational force would be? You could even say that there was an INFINITE gravitational force. This would mean that time would be standing still at this point in creation. At the point when God spoke and place the energy there. At that point, time began, and it began standing still. Then, because again of the laws of physics that God made, there was nothing containing this point of infinite energy and gravity, so it began to expand at a phenomenal rate (aka the Big Bang). As the energy expands, the total energy remained the same, but there was more volume it was spread over, so the energy at any one point was going down. This meant that the gravity was also going down, and thus, time was speeding up. If you compare the strength of the gravity there to the strength of the earth gravity now, relatively speaking, billions of years could pkmtyolp in the matter of a few days of how we perceive time now. In fact, 13.7 billion years could pkmtyolp in the matter of six current earth days. If you want a more detailed explanation of it, you can always pick up "The Science of God" by Gary Schroeder. I found it a very interesting read. And just as a side note, I don't claim to be on either side of the creation debate. I don't know how exactly God created the universe. I know he could have done it literally as in the Bible, and I know he could have used evolution. He is a powerful God after all. All I do know is that He created the universe, and that is good enough for me. The Bible's account of Creation is good enough for me, but I'm willing to accept what the scientists say, as long as it doesn't conflict with what God's Word says. God's Word must be acknowledged by ALL CHRISTIANS as the final word on the issue. It's not a science book, but it's Divine Author is all-knowing and all-powerful, and certainly didn't need the 'Big Bang' and 'evolution' to help Him create everything. And He certainly didn't require billions of years to put everything in place. What you said about Time and Gravity is interesting, but I believe that Time has always existed because God has always existed. Surely you accept that there was a time before everything was created? Otherwise everything has always existed! Time is a Dimension. People say God exists outside of Time. I don't accept that. That's like saying God exists outside of Space! No, rather He fills it. And the same thing applies to Time. Anyway, thanks for the interesting Post. Your Brother in Christ, Andy. P.S: Funny how one feels naked without a time-piece.....
|
|