Evidence for God from Science

voicingmaster wrote:As for making us animals, according to St. Augustine, Adam and Eve would be the first humans in they have a spirit. He would be evolving us to His image.

If you could evolve to being god-like, then if you believe there are aleins out there somewhere they could be even more god-like than we are. Hey, maybe that's where our God's from! Maybe, as I've heard Mormons believe, you could become so god-like that you'd become a god yourself and get your own little planet to rule! Sorry, but that's a pretty crazy and unbiblical notion. Augustine was just another Christian speculating. He was a pretty good man and all that but he was faulty just like us. Evolution can't build souls and spirits or cause the breath of God to be blown into our nostrils! Don't mean to sound rude at all, if I do.

kateliz wrote:

voicingmaster wrote:As for making us animals, according to St. Augustine, Adam and Eve would be the first humans in they have a spirit. He would be evolving us to His image.

If you could evolve to being god-like, then if you believe there are aleins out there somewhere they could be even more god-like than we are. Hey, maybe that's where our God's from! Maybe, as I've heard Mormons believe, you could become so god-like that you'd become a god yourself and get your own little planet to rule! Sorry, but that's a pretty crazy and unbiblical notion. Augustine was just another Christian speculating. He was a pretty good man and all that but he was faulty just like us. Evolution can't build souls and spirits or cause the breath of God to be blown into our nostrils! Don't mean to sound rude at all, if I do.

Thiestic evolution changes the theory of evolution a little bit more than what you think. In thiestic evolution, evolution isn't the effect of random mutations and natural selection, it's God's will. Meaning, if God thinks that your kind is as advanced as it should be, then your kind can't evolve further. Rendering the evolution from human to a god, impossible. It also means that if God does want your kind to be more advanced than you are, then you will evolve. Hence the ability to evolve us into souls.

However, that's just a theory. But, after pondering it for awhile, I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible, b/c if prehistoric humans evolved into the present day humans, then there would be many humans all over the world. Meaning, Adam wouldn't need God to use one of his ribs to create Eve. It would also render the long lifespans of Adam-Lemech to several others useless b/c I believe that God gave them longer lifespans so that they could have enough kids to plenish the earth (I made a topic about that in Creation talk if you want to see it).

Evolution need not apply to humans...

I'm what you'd call an OEC -- old earth creationist -- and I believe the world looks old because it *is* old. Scientific evidence supports this fully.

Why would God take his time creating the earth? Because he's not in a hurry. Let's look at some of the science we have that verifies an old-earth creation.

The big bang is accepted scientific theory, supported by physics up to a certain point -- the very point of origin. It requires an infinite singularity, which could only have been caused by something greater than the universe.

Note how fine-tuned the "big bang" was. It was caused in such a way that the expansion rate of the universe(the cosmological constant) is perfectly tuned for life on earth to exist. Stars and galaxies formed in such a perfect way, that one was unique(the milky way) with a very unique star(our sun) in just the perfect position within the galaxy to avoid the bulk of cosmic radiation generated within the galaxy that would make life on earth impossible.

Very simply, the order in which all non-life things were formed according to the Bible is actually verifiable with modern physics.

Then we have life. The Bible states that plants came first(a food source), then animals, and then finally people. I'm not sure of all the evidence surrounding plants, but the "Cambrian Explosion" verifies that all known types of animals appeared suddenly, with no transition forms, either from previously-existing mono-cellular entities, or between each other. The only form of life not accounted for in this "explosion" is human life, which has also been verified to come after animals. Again, with no transition forms that haven't been debunked by modern science.

Again, I reiterate that the reason the earth is old, and that the word "day" refers to indefinite periods of time in the Genesis 1 account, is that God wasn't in a hurry. He set things in motion in such a way that they mostly took care of themself(talk about awesome design), up until events that would have required his direct touch, such as the creation of life.

However, why do I not believe that old-earth creationism is compatible with macroevolution? Because all of the evidence supports the spontaneous appearance of life -- not the gradual formation of life from previous forms of life and/or nonliving organic materials.

Do I believe that God could have used a guided evolutionary process to create all life? Yes, of course -- it's well within his power, intelligence, and ability to do so.

Do I believe He did so? No. There is no evidence supporting this, and mounds of evidence that speaks out against it.

I don't believe our God would create things in such a way as to deceive us, or to intentionally baffle us. I am of the firm belief that God wants us to study His creation, in order that we can see how "fearfully and wonderfully made" everything is. The location of our planet and sun within our galaxy supports this -- there is no better place than our location in this, or any other known galaxy, for studying the "heavens." As some scientist I once saw quoted said(paraphrased), it seems that the best location for human life to exist is also the best place from which to study the universe. Amazing, indeed.

Note how fine-tuned the "big bang" was. It was caused in such a way that the expansion rate of the universe(the cosmological constant) is perfectly tuned for life on earth to exist. Stars and galaxies formed in such a perfect way, that one was unique(the milky way) with a very unique star(our sun) in just the perfect position within the galaxy to avoid the bulk of cosmic radiation generated within the galaxy that would make life on earth impossible.

I'm fine with everything except this (and the whole day-age thing...but I'm cool with that). I don't see why God would have detonated something personally....and an explosion couldn't be fine-tuned to make orde after the explosion...I don't think any part of creation was just a natural event....(if you're not saying that, excuse my interpretation and say so).

The most obvious answer isn't that God detonated something -- I don't believe the Big Bang was a literal explosion. It was simply God speaking, and the universe proceeding forth. In other words, the singularity required by physics is God Himself. Not that the universe was a part of Him that exploded outwards, but that it was caused by Him.

And if God caused the universe to proceed forth with but a word, why couldn't he give it natural laws that would cause the universe to literally be nothing but a huge mass of expanding light(technically a giant matter/energy blob) that later cooled down(entropy) and formed into stars, which then beget planets(planets come from the stars they orbit, you know). This actually fits with verifiable physics and cosmology.

When was the last time you heard of an explosion that resulted in the same thing the "Big Bang" did? And when was the last thing you knew an explosion to be intentionally and purposefully engineered by God? The problem isn't with the Big Bang. It's that you think of the Big Bang as just another explosion, rather than as something fundamentally different from explosions that we're used to.

Different causes. Different results, both immediate and distant. It wasn't technically an "explosion," but that's the best word we have to describe the sudden proceeding forth that happened.

All righty I get what you mean. The supernatural Big Bang didn't go bang

LittleShepherd wrote:It was simply God speaking, and the universe proceeding forth. In other words, the singularity required by physics is God Himself.

I really, really like that picture! As for the Big Bang not being an explosion I'll quote from an article in Scientific American, "The space we inhabit is itself expanding. There was no center to this explosion; it happened everywhere. The density and pressure were the same everywhere, so there was no pressure difference to drive a conventional explosion," (Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis in March, 2005.) Something in this article perplexes me though: "The universe does not seem to have an edge or a center or an outside." This would mean it is not spherical. That means we have to throw out the picture of the sphere in thinking of it, and I can't do that. It would also mean, along with, "there is [no] room to expand into." If these are all true, then you can just say goodbye to, (and I'm still studying this,) most models of a multiverse that Scientific American claims exists based on data. It likens the expansion, instead of the whole of a balloon, to just the rubber part. If you're an ant on the rubber, and the balloon is expanding, you can't see it expanding, but things are moving further and further away from you as the ground beneath you stretches. So, no sphere, but stretching ground beneath your feet. How do you make sense of that in your thinking of it? Please tell me more then that you don't know! Or if you don't, tell me so I get some response to this!

That's interesting stuff about the "Big Bang" apparently happening everywhere at once, rather than at a central point.

As for the non-spherical universe model, I don't undestand why you'd have a problem with that. I mean...there's really nothing to say "The universe is this shape" in science, spherical or otherwise. And no, I don't understand how the universe can expand with no space to expand into.

It just does, and that's amazing.

Well, without a shape, it's hard to picture! My brain tells me it must have a shape, and when I tell it that there's no shape, all I get is, "DOES NOT COMPUTE"! I don't think there's anything that can fix that problem. With there being no center of the universe, what happens it that you have space, and then space expands, and because every "part" of space expands all at once, maybe that's why it's accelerating. I don't know. It makes sense to me on some level. I guess that would only work if you do have these "parts". If so, then the "parts" would "push" on each other and therefore cause acceleration. But if all of that is happening wouldn't it be like a bubble? Or a balloon? But again, those are spheres, and there's no edge. I don't know. All this talk makes me think space must be infinite! And I don't think I agree with that! But if it were, then it would be infinite, and then the infinite would get stretched! How can the infinite get stretched, when "stretch" implies changing shape, and there is no shape! I think I need a padded room.

Who says the universe doesn't have a shape? All we seem to know is that the shape of the universe isn't a sphere.

Take a handful of mud(or something similar) and slap it down and watch how it spreads out in an irregular manner. The resultant shape isn't a square, or a circle, or a triangle -- it's irregular. But remember, irregular shapes are still shapes.

The universe has a shape -- it's just an irregular shape. As for the universe expanding even though there's nowhere for it to expand into? Well...why wouldn't God create an edge to the universe that can expand as the material within it expands? I see no problem with this.

kateliz wrote:It likens the expansion, instead of the whole of a balloon, to just the rubber part. If you're an ant on the rubber, and the balloon is expanding, you can't see it expanding, but things are moving further and further away from you as the ground beneath you stretches. So, no sphere, but stretching ground beneath your feet. How do you make sense of that in your thinking of it? Please tell me more then that you don't know! Or if you don't, tell me so I get some response to this!

The ballon expanding is only an analogy - it removes one dimension so that it can be visualized by us. I'll try to explain my understanding further.

The ant lives in 3 dimensions, though it can only sense 2 dimensions. It can move back and forth, and left and right, but not up and down. The ant on the balloon has no notion of leaving the surface of the balloon, so it doesn't perceive the 3rd dimension of height. Thus as the balloon expands, his two dimensions seem to grow, but along with them so does the 3rd, but he cannot perceive that, and the ant cannot really perceive the shape of the universe.

So then, this may equate to us as well with a 4th dimension. We can only perceive 3 (depth, width, and height) dimensions, but we live in 4. Though we're bound by the 4th, we cannot perceive it or move freely within it. Thus, the shape of our universe doesn't fully make sense within only 3 dimensions - and we can't visualize it because we can't really visualize anything more than 3 dimensions. And the 3 dimensions all seem to be expanding because of what is happenning with the 4th. Incidently, we're not totally oblivious to the 4th, which is likley time. Through Einstein we have begun to see that space and time are linked. Space and time are in essense, the same thing - as one bends, so does the other.

Little Shepherd your 2:29 post was an absolute gem. I admire people who can write logically and actually say what they meant. There are some really interesting points in it.

I agree with the idea about God taking His time to create the universe. Who has more time than God after all, there is no hurry. Also it takes more skill and intelligence to engineer something than it does to simply conceive of it. If you want to build an SST you could simply think it into existence, but creating a being and a civilization that is capable of doing it is of a whole different order. I read somewhere that someone once said that God is the ultimate engineer and to me that is a good description.

I never thought about the 'big bang' as simply the process of creation in action, a neat concept.

I also am in agreement with Mastermind about man and evolution. We don't fit into a natural world very well. I don't think there are many adherents to Rousseau's noble savage concept anymore. Man acts like he came from somewhere else, and didn't come prepared to stay long. The only thing that makes us compatible with this world is the biblical concept of stewardship, a concept that has been little used in our history.

kateliz wrote:I think I need a padded room.

I'll Second that... Just Jokin

Felgar, I think you took the analogy further then intended. The third dimension that the ant lived in had nothing to do with the purpose of the analogy. I myself concluded from that article at some point that there had to be another dimension, but then the author wrote something about how despite the logic of it there wouldn't be one here in the sense that you and I concluded... or something like that. The rubber of the balloon was not intended to represent space-time as something with less dimensions than exist, though of course in reality it could be though it doesn't matter for this situation, apparently.

LittleShepherd, there isn't an edge because there isn't an edge. It isn't a sphere because it had no shape. This is what my confusion was about. I speculated a few weeks ago that maybe it was lumpy because the different masses would pull on space-time, but then it occured to me, (duh,) that there wouldn't be large formations of matter at the "edge". If there is matter out there in the "outtermost" parts of the universe, it wouldn't have time to form into something that would bend space-time before it was far away from this "edge".

But would there be matter out there? Or would it be restricted in some way, and have to be closer to the "center"? Or are these questions and speculations all useless because there are no "outtermost" parts or "edge" or "center"? It sure sounds infinite to me! Or is it somehow self-contained? Is it more similar to the rubber of the balloon than that was intended? Is it somehow like the infinity symbol or an "8"? Without a shape, is it somehow like those shapes in the sense that it's all connected to itself? Someone else here would be able to phrase what I'm trying to get across, I believe. Space-time, with it's waves in it and bends from large collections of matter, might somehow be fully connected to itself so that it doesn't have edges? Does that sound possible? And this all while holding no shape because there's nothing out there besides itself? Could there also be no edges because there's nothing out there to butt against it causing actual edges? Maybe it's just the concept of nothingness that's creating all of my confusion on this. No edges or dissipation all because of nothing!

Anybody out there know anything to help me with these speculations- why they can't be correct or anything?