Evidence for God from Science

Genesis 2:1,2 says us that God finished His work. Now, when God created things through evolution, how come that things are still evolving?

1over137 wrote:Genesis 2:1,2 says us that God finished His work. Now, when God created things through evolution, how come that things are still evolving?

When Parents are done "completing" their children, to those children stop growing and changing and "evolving"?

Couldn't one similarly ask why, when God had gotten the continents in a nice order, he didn't stop them from moving? Obviously, he couldn't because plate tectonics are necessary for enabling life to exist on Earth. Should he have cause the universe to stop expanding? Should he have stopped the sun from gradually altering its chemical makeup through nuclear fusion? I see no reason to thing that being "finished" with creating means that it has to never change again (how could humans live in a world that couldn't undergo change?) The same is true with evolution. Life has to continue to evolve to adapt to a dynamic world.

Icthus wrote:Couldn't one similarly ask why, when God had gotten the continents in a nice order, he didn't stop them from moving? Obviously, he couldn't because plate tectonics are necessary for enabling life to exist on Earth. Should he have cause the universe to stop expanding? Should he have stopped the sun from gradually altering its chemical makeup through nuclear fusion? I see no reason to thing that being "finished" with creating means that it has to never change again (how could humans live in a world that couldn't undergo change?) The same is true with evolution. Life has to continue to evolve to adapt to a dynamic world.

Are really plate tectonics neccesary for enabling life to exist on Earth? What the universe expansion has to do with evolution? It could have been created static, by the way. I think that humans could live in an unchanging world (well, depends what you mean here). The world could have been created undynamic and no adaptation would be needed.

Hana fana fo fana wrote:

Are really plate tectonics neccesary for enabling life to exist on Earth?

Hana, from our friend Jeff Zweerink, at Reasons.org:http://www.reasons.org/articles/purpose ... -tectonics

1over137 wrote:

Icthus wrote:Couldn't one similarly ask why, when God had gotten the continents in a nice order, he didn't stop them from moving? Obviously, he couldn't because plate tectonics are necessary for enabling life to exist on Earth. Should he have cause the universe to stop expanding? Should he have stopped the sun from gradually altering its chemical makeup through nuclear fusion? I see no reason to thing that being "finished" with creating means that it has to never change again (how could humans live in a world that couldn't undergo change?) The same is true with evolution. Life has to continue to evolve to adapt to a dynamic world.

Are really plate tectonics neccesary for enabling life to exist on Earth? What the universe expansion has to do with evolution? It could have been created static, by the way. I think that humans could live in an unchanging world (well, depends what you mean here). The world could have been created undynamic and no adaptation would be needed.

Impossible.

For a universe to be anthropic (and that includes any kind of life, not only intelligent, or even carbon-based life for that matter), this universe must have an average Hubble expansion greater than zero (as per the BVG theorem). And any universe that has an average Hubble expansion greater than zero by definition is a changing universe.

Thanks guys. I will show the responses to my atheist friend. He started this topic.

BVG theorem:

http://creationwiki.org/Borde-Guth-Vile ... ty_theorem

"The result is that the BGV theorem covers a wide range of cosmogonies (theories on the origin of the universe) because there need only be on average an expansion rate along the geodesic of more than zero for there to be a space-time boundary and therefore cosmic beginning."

So, expansion rate is connected to the beginning. No expansion then possibility of no beginning.

1over137 wrote:BVG theorem:

http://creationwiki.org/Borde-Guth-Vile ... ty_theorem

"The result is that the BGV theorem covers a wide range of cosmogonies (theories on the origin of the universe) because there need only be on average an expansion rate along the geodesic of more than zero for there to be a space-time boundary and therefore cosmic beginning."

So, expansion rate is connected to the beginning. No expansion then possibility of no beginning.

Ergo, no life.

So the idea of having an un-dynamic (static) universe that supports life is totally discounted (in any conceivable type of universe).

Byblos wrote:

1over137 wrote:BVG theorem:

http://creationwiki.org/Borde-Guth-Vile ... ty_theorem

"The result is that the BGV theorem covers a wide range of cosmogonies (theories on the origin of the universe) because there need only be on average an expansion rate along the geodesic of more than zero for there to be a space-time boundary and therefore cosmic beginning."

So, expansion rate is connected to the beginning. No expansion then possibility of no beginning.

Ergo, no life.

So the idea of having an un-dynamic (static) universe that supports life is totally discounted (in any conceivable type of universe).

I do not agree with "Ergo, no life". There could be no expansion and therefore static universe. With life too.

1over137 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

1over137 wrote:BVG theorem:

http://creationwiki.org/Borde-Guth-Vile ... ty_theorem

"The result is that the BGV theorem covers a wide range of cosmogonies (theories on the origin of the universe) because there need only be on average an expansion rate along the geodesic of more than zero for there to be a space-time boundary and therefore cosmic beginning."

So, expansion rate is connected to the beginning. No expansion then possibility of no beginning.

Ergo, no life.

So the idea of having an un-dynamic (static) universe that supports life is totally discounted (in any conceivable type of universe).

I do not agree with "Ergo, no life". There could be no expansion and therefore static universe. With life too.

Then please explain 'life' without change (particularly one capable of continuity outside of space-time).

Why outside spacetime? There could be spacetime with not expanding space, therefore balanced. And inside it solar system as we have it.

1over137 wrote:Why outside spacetime? There could be spacetime with not expanding space, therefore balanced. And inside it solar system as we have it.

Time exists dependent of the universe it exists in.
Time as we know it is base don the universe as we know it, before this universe came to be, time as we know it, didn't exist.
Whatever is the nature of this universe, time is dependent on it.

How is time dependent on the universe?

1over137 wrote:How is time dependent on the universe?

Time as we know it and understand it, is only applicable to OUR universe.