Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Consider a rock. Every atom upon billions times billions times billions has to be in the exactly correct arrangement for the rock to be that very same rock. Amazing, isn't it?

Yep, and I believe God holds it all together by the power of His Word, so having a form is
still something special, any form for that matter, verses cosmic dust without form moving
in countless directions due to a bang of something that was some time before nothing,
plus this something that was nothing was also residing in place that was once before
nothing as well.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Yep, and I believe God holds it all together by the power of His Word, so having a form is
still something special, any form for that matter, verses cosmic dust without form moving
in countless directions due to a bang of something that was some time before nothing,
plus this something that was nothing was also residing in place that was once before
nothing as well.

That's fine - just stop pretending your objection to the Big Bang is anything other than a religious one.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
That's fine - just stop pretending your objection to the Big Bang is anything other than a religious one.

My objection doesn't have anything to with religion when it is being pushed as the answer
to where everything came from, it doesn't answer that even if you accept everything
about it. The fact that a singularity had to be some place shows a place and something in
it! This just means this is just another in a long stream of this came from that, until we get
to the place where the imagination of man can come up nothing else. Nothing about that
event can even really be explained either, it was there in its state then something
changed, what don't know, but it was there in this state some place doing I guess
nothing, then something happens. Please notice not once have I said God did or didn't
do anything.

When it comes to various things being formed, including rocks out of the chaos of the Big
Bang an arrangement forming anything would occur, why? You laid out the rock
formation nicely, but why exactly out of the resulting bang could or would cause that
happen to even get a rock, this something we have evidence for or is it just another item
of possibly this or that, you know something that has to be accepted on faith.

There is nothing about the Big Bang that answers any questions instead it begs for more,
so in competing ideas, it doesn’t answer let alone address the great questions
surrounding how did this all get here. This is true if you believe in God or not, I just
happen to accept that God does answer all those questions and all the others too.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
That's fine - just stop pretending your objection to the Big Bang is anything other than a religious one.

The man who came up with it was a priest.

At first, Einstein and the rest mocked him.

Originally posted by @whodey
The man who came up with it was a priest.

At first, Einstein and the rest mocked him.

Your post contains one falsehood and one misleading statement.

First, the misleading statement. Lemaître was a priest, but he was also a physicist and mathematician who held a professorship and received a PhD from MIT. He was not "just" a priest who came up with an idea out of the blue. The name "Big Bang" wasn't coined by him.

It is not true that "Einstein and the rest mocked [Lemaître]." He was a respected physicist and the view that the Universe was expanding was not uncommon; moreover, it was supported by empirical evidence as early as the 1920s. It was not until 1964, however, that the "steady state"-view initially endorsed by Einstein was widely rejected because of the observation of the cosmic background radiation, considered the strongest empirical evidence in favour of the Big Bang theory. No credible alternative theory has been able to explain cosmic background radiation.

Originally posted by @kellyjay

There is nothing about the Big Bang that answers any questions instead it begs for more,
so in competing ideas, it doesn’t answer let alone address the great questions
surrounding how did this all get here.

No theory in physics is going to answer religious questions for you, except to the degree that those questions pertain to what we can measure.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
No theory in physics is going to answer religious questions for you, except to the degree that those questions pertain to what we can measure.

I agree, which should tell you that there are questions out there that matter, that we
cannot even bring to the table a theory to grapple with them. Are these questions that
cannot be explained away showing us our limitations about the things that matter?

This reminds me of an old cartoon, where the moose lost something, the squire asked
if he had lost it where he was looking. The moose said no, but the light was better where
he was looking. I get that science may be able measure things, but that might not be
where the answers really are.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I agree, which should tell you that there are questions out there that matter, that we
cannot even bring to the table a theory to grapple with them. Are these questions that
cannot be explained away showing us our limitations about the things that matter?

This reminds me of an old cartoon, where the moose lost something, the squire asked
if he had lo ...[text shortened]... et that science may be able measure things, but that might not be
where the answers really are.

Well, the theory of evolution and the Big Bang only address what we can measure, not anything else. We can measure that humans evolved from simple lifeforms, we can measure when the Earth and the Solar System formed, and we can measure that the Universe was once in an extremely dense state. We can't measure "where everything comes from."

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Well, the theory of evolution and the Big Bang only address what we can measure, not anything else. We can measure that humans evolved from simple lifeforms, we can measure when the Earth and the Solar System formed, and we can measure that the Universe was once in an extremely dense state. We can't measure "where everything comes from."

You can theorize humans came from simple lifeforms, you do not know. It is quite a leap
of faith suggesting otherwise. It is also a leap of faith suggesting that can measure when
the solar system was formed, for the same reasons we talked about earlier, you do not
know how, why, or when anything began. Just as you don't know how life started either,
and how the universe formed to support it here.

If there was never a dense state what then?
If life all started as fully formed lifeforms what then?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You can theorize humans came from simple lifeforms, you do not know. It is quite a leap
of faith suggesting otherwise. It is also a leap of faith suggesting that can measure when
the solar system was formed, for the same reasons we talked about earlier, you do not
know how, why, or when anything began. Just as you don't know how life started either,
an ...[text shortened]... ere was never a dense state what then?
If life all started as fully formed lifeforms what then?

If you wish to know more about why we know all these things, I suggest you start reading about it. You might learn a thing or two in the process.

"If there never was a dense state," how do you explain the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the observed red-shift?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
If you wish to know more about why we know all these things, I suggest you start reading about it. You might learn a thing or two in the process.

"If there never was a dense state," how do you explain the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the observed red-shift?

Again, it is up to you to prove you points about cosmic microwave background radiation
and red shifts, not up to me to disprove it. You come in with the mindset I have accept
your assumptions as factual, because its your way or nothing else, sort of limits all other
possibilities doesn't it? Can you show me even how that is true, that only a Big Bang
could possibly account for such things, how is that not faith? Is it at all quite possible that
there are other explanations, and one or some of them may be correct, but how would
you know one way or another? What is the driving force for you to think only something
as the Big Bang could account for these, and not some else entirely?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Again, it is up to you to prove you points about cosmic microwave background radiation
and red shifts, not up to me to disprove it.

But it is your claim that there is a different model that is also predicts cosmic microwave background radiation and red-shifted distant galaxies, yet does not predict something similar to a Big Bang. What is that model?

Cosmic microwave background radiation and red-shifted galaxies are observations, not "points" to be "proven."

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
No theory in physics is going to answer religious questions for you, except to the degree that those questions pertain to what we can measure.

Do you think the theory of evolution proves that God is not a necessary agent in explaining the origin of our species?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you think the theory of evolution proves that God is not a necessary agent in explaining the origin of our species?

Why must those who believe in the Biblical account of Creation always suggest that those who believe the findings of science are holding the view that God is not an agent in Creation? One of the foundations of those who believe in a Creator God is that he created the universe and everything in it. Evolution and modern cosmology are simply the current explanations of what we see in the physical evidence. Why can't both be true? Is your God so little that he must be a magician God, who must wave his magic wand, or speak his magic words, and only then do things happen? The tools of God are the forces of physics and nature, that he created. Why is that so hard to grasp, and how exactly does believing this 'disprove' God?

Originally posted by @suzianne
Why must those who believe in the Biblical account of Creation always suggest that those who believe the findings of science are holding the view that God is not an agent in Creation? One of the foundations of those who believe in a Creator God is that he created the universe and everything in it. Evolution and modern cosmology are simply the current exp ...[text shortened]... created[/i]. Why is that so hard to grasp, and how exactly does believing this 'disprove' God?

I would agree that evolution is an intelligent mechanism that is totally compatible with an intelligent creator. I have heard some atheists saying evolution proves that God isn’t required and I would disagree with that hence my question.