The Big Bang, evolution, and God!

Ruby said:
Hi again.

Some of the questions that my hubby and I wrestle with are things like, "How can the world come into being without a Creator".? While we can no longer believe in a personal God, we just can't fathom the Universe forming all by itself. However, this creates another dilemna because if we have to believe in a Creator, we have to ask why he is absent from people's lives. Why does he not make his presence clear and help us in our daily lives.

I realize that many Christians would say that God does help, heal, and rescue...........but as we all know...for every person who is healed or rescued, a thousand are not!! What sort of God is that?

So, how do you see the universe coming into being without a creator? And if you think there was a Creator, why is he absent?

What sort of proof is there for a big bang? What about the age of the earth............how is the conclusion reached that it's very very old. How do Christians argue that away?

How can we be certain we descended from apes. I was always told that some of the ape findings were planted and the others were skeletal remains of Orangutans or other apes.

Sorry for all the questions. I am just at a place where I need the whole picture......not just what Christian apologetics has spouted off.

Thanks!!!!!;)

Hi Ruby,

Everybody else has answered your evolution/origin of the universe questions much better than I ever could.

But I will take a stab at a couple...

What sort of god would allow some people to be healed or rescued while ignoring others? The kind of childish, vindictive, arbitrary creature that I want no part of.

Why would a Creator not make himself know in our daily lives? Perhaps because he only exists in the pages of books and not in reality.

Bear in mind these are only my bitter, angry opinions. but they might be something to think about. Good luck with everything :)
 
Ruby said:
Hi again.

Some of the questions that my hubby and I wrestle with are things like, "How can the world come into being without a Creator".? While we can no longer believe in a personal God, we just can't fathom the Universe forming all by itself. However, this creates another dilemna because if we have to believe in a Creator, we have to ask why he is absent from people's lives. Why does he not make his presence clear and help us in our daily lives.

I realize that many Christians would say that God does help, heal, and rescue...........but as we all know...for every person who is healed or rescued, a thousand are not!! What sort of God is that?

So, how do you see the universe coming into being without a creator? And if you think there was a Creator, why is he absent?

What sort of proof is there for a big bang? What about the age of the earth............how is the conclusion reached that it's very very old. How do Christians argue that away?

How can we be certain we descended from apes. I was always told that some of the ape findings were planted and the others were skeletal remains of Orangutans or other apes.

Sorry for all the questions. I am just at a place where I need the whole picture......not just what Christian apologetics has spouted off.

Thanks!!!!!;)

Hi Ruby,

Everybody else has answered your evolution/origin of the universe questions much better than I ever could.

But I will take a stab at a couple...

What sort of god would allow some people to be healed or rescued while ignoring others? The kind of childish, vindictive, arbitrary creature that I want no part of.

Why would a Creator not make himself know in our daily lives? Perhaps because he only exists in the pages of books and not in reality.

Bear in mind these are only my bitter, angry opinions. but they might be something to think about. Good luck with everything :)
 
Well, OK.
Humans are apes, then

Edit:
Actually, now I'm wondering if I've got the meaning of "lineage" wrong!

Is TriadBoy refering to someone in Eve's past or future?

Encarta98 say "lineage" = "ancestry" or "the direct descent from a particular ancestor"
I thought he meant the "line" from Eve onwards.

My bad!
 
Ruby said:


I'm finding that a bit pointless!!

:rolleyes:

Well perhaps I can't discuss it rationaly.
Yet, I believe that we humans posses the ultimate gift in consiousness. And that if we use that gift to contact something 'sacred','devine','holy' or 'really cool', then we are creating the sacred space in our hearts and on earth.

So while the idea that there is some ulitimate power that interferes in human exoitance is self destructive, the idea of sacred beauty is not.

We humans are the bridge between the micro cosm and the macro cosm. If we invoke the devine, then it is manifest on earth. There is some debate on what is devine.
 
Re: Re: Re: The Big Bang, evolution, and God!

Ruby said:

I don't think I can accept that idea.
Hehe... better get used to it. The Real World doesn't particularly care what you feel about it. :p

I realize it is an emotionally unappealing idea, but it's logically valid.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:


Excellent response. The final page of Big Daddy inspired my artistic side one night. Now, I'm not very artistic, so even inspiration cannot improve the skill level of the outcome. ;)

:D I think it's pretty good. :D
 
FireGarden said:
Triadboy
That's not true.

Apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor much older that Mitochondrial Eve (who would have been an entirely modern (biologically) human). And no human has ever had descendants that were apes.


Yes I agree. I said someone in her lineage - and I meant further back in time. Maybe that was the wrong words. Sorry.
 
Ruby,

Yes, this is one of the biggest arguments for the existence of God. In fact, it is the one thing that neither myself or my hubby can comprehend.....that is, how the world came into being without a creator.
One thing to (try) and get your head around - "creation" is an example of cause and effect, and that requires "time". It's hard to think about issues like this because we humans are ruled by an awareness of time - it's a fundamental aspect of our existence.

Yet, if "time" itself as we know and experience it is also a result of the Big Bang, then the concept of "who created the Big Bang" makes no sense. What does "the act of creating" mean if there is no such thing as time? It's an undefinable concept.

Perhaps the easiest way to express this is to ask the question "what existed before the Big Bang"? If time is a result of the Big Bang, then the very question has no meaning, since the key word before relies upon a time-based relationship that doesn't exist.

Anyway, I think the real issue for you is not "how" did the universe get here, but rather "why"? If there's no god, there's no "why", and therefore no meaning. Well, I disagree - there's more "meaning" available to you personally than you can possibly fit into one life, so you really don't need a god-given universe to find (or build) a moral. meaningful and happy life. Well, works for me...
 
FireGarden said:
Triadboy
Unfortunately, this is another potentially lucky guess that looks like falling flat.
The most recent evidence indicates that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down. So the "Big Crunch" end to the universe seems unlikely.


But you must admit - for a cosmology from the year 2000 BC to make a guess like that is eerie.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Big Bang, evolution, and God!

Yahzi said:

Hehe... better get used to it. The Real World doesn't particularly care what you feel about it. :p

I realize it is an emotionally unappealing idea, but it's logically valid.

I would rather be disappointed with the truth than consoled with a lie.

And having said that, I also think that we are the ones who give meaning to the universe. Regardless of the existence/non-existence of a God.

*edit*
Loki:
Well, I disagree - there's more "meaning" available to you personally than you can possibly fit into one life, so you really don't need a god-given universe to find (or build) a moral. meaningful and happy life. Well, works for me...

I agree! :)
 
Re: Re: Re: The Big Bang, evolution, and God!

Ruby said:


There's some new theory from Creationsits about the speed of light playing into it. Know anyhting about that?

Uh...not sure what you're talking about specifically, or how it applies to radiocarbon dating, but one good argument that no creationist I've encountered has been able to even start to answer correctly is why we can see stars more than 6,000 light years away. The speed of light is finite, and thus the light from every star we see is old. The Andromeda galaxy is about 2 million light years away (I think) and so the light has been traveling for 2 million years to reach us. What we are actually seeing is what it looked like 2 million years ago.

The fact that we can see things Billions of light years away implies a minimum age for the universe.
 
Re: Re: Re: The Big Bang, evolution, and God!

Ruby said:
There's some new theory from Creationsits about the speed of light playing into it. Know anyhting about that?


I believe the Creationists claim that light traveled slower the farther back in time you go. I'm not sure how this helps their cause, but it's good n'goofy.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Big Bang, evolution, and God!

Moccomouse said:
... but one good argument that no creationist I've encountered has been able to even start to answer correctly is why we can see stars more than 6,000 light years away.

They counter with the idea that their god created everything in place. Not only were the stars created, but the lights journey was created too.

He is a trickster god. He is planting clues to throw off the non-believers. Only believers have the faith to ignore reality.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Big Bang, evolution, and God!

Originally posted by triadboy

I believe the Creationists claim that light traveled slower the farther back in time you go. I'm not sure how this helps their cause, but it's good n'goofy.

I think it's that light has been slowing down since the start of the universe, but if that were true, wouldn't it still be slowing down? Why would it more or less arbitrarily stop and become a constant speed?

He is a trickster god. He is planting clues to throw off the non-believers. Only believers have the faith to ignore reality.

I wonder why god would create an illusion that makes the universe appear older than it "is"? I'd think that would just be begging for people to assume that he didn't actually create anything.
 
- "creation" is an example of cause and effect, and that requires "time"...
Yet, if "time" itself as we know and experience it is also a result of the Big Bang, then the concept of "who created the Big Bang" makes no sense. What does "the act of creating" mean if there is no such thing as time? It's an undefinable concept.

Perhaps the easiest way to express this is to ask the question "what existed before the Big Bang"? If time is a result of the Big Bang, then the very question has no meaning, since the key word before relies upon a time-based relationship that doesn't exist.

Good one! Nicely put.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Big Bang, evolution, and God!

Moccomouse said:
I wonder why god would create an illusion that makes the universe appear older than it "is"? I'd think that would just be begging for people to assume that he didn't actually create anything.

This may be off the subject slightly, but I had a Jewish Humanist friend, who told me of the time he was in Jerusalem and saw an old Hebrew Bible laying open (in a museum or something). He said the thing that struck him odd was the word for "In the Beginning" in Hebrew (Beresheet) looked like a proper name. So it could be translated "Beresheet created God, the heaven and the earth..." weird huh?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Big Bang, evolution, and God!

triadboy said:
Ruby said:
There's some new theory from Creationsits about the speed of light playing into it. Know anyhting about that?


I believe the Creationists claim that light traveled slower the farther back in time you go. I'm not sure how this helps their cause, but it's good n'goofy.

I think "Dr. Dino" has something on his site claiming that light can go as slow as 34mph or some such bull-plop. That's even more outrageous than man and dinosaur living at the same time.
 
I know that other people have addressed the evolution concerns in other posts, However, I came across this piece which I wrote for alt.religion.mormon, a while back. It's cobbled together from a couple of different sources (researched rather than plagiarised :) )

These are some of the reasons why I believe that Humans have evolved from a common ancestor with the apes.


--------------------------------------------------------

1) The Evidence of Genetic Biology.
Amino acid sequencing of homologous proteins, and immunological and
electrophoretic methods of protein comparisons have demonstrated that human
polypeptides are more than 99% identical to those of the chimpanzee (king
and Wilson, 1975). There is a great similarity between the 46 chromosomes of
Humans and the 48 chromosomes of the great apes (Chiarelli, 1972 & Moore,
1977).
Karyotypes of Man, Chimpanzee and Gorilla are so similar that it is
difficult to establish their evolutionary distinction (Miller, 1977) in
fact, The gorilla is much closer to Human, evolutionary speaking, than it is
to the Chimpanzee.
Blood proteins of primates have been analysed and compared (Goodman, Coen,
Barnabas and Moore, 1972) to the Human. The serum proteins can be seen on a
sliding scale of similarity from the prosimians – New world Monkeys – old
world monkeys – apes to Human.

2) The evidence of the digestive system.
The alimentary tract of nearly all the primates is similar. (Clarke, 1973).
While the liver of the monkey is located in a slightley different place to humans, The Apes and Man have the
liver attached in the same place (Strauss 1936).

3) The evidence of parasites
The great apes and man are host to more of the same parasites than man
shares with any other mammal (Dunn1966). Again, predictably, Man shares most
(over 50%) of these with the chimp and the gorilla.
The malarial parasites of man and every one of the apes has evolved from a
common ancestor. This indicates that the hosts did likewise.

4) Evidence of dentition
One of the most important indications of a link between man and ape is the
dental formula. The more primitive new world monkeys have a strikingly
similar dental formula. In the Old world Monkeys, Great apes and Man the
dental formula is exactly the same, i.e.
2.1.2.3
2.1.2.3

5) Evidence of vision
Most primates, including Man have two kinds of photoreceptors, Rods and
cones. The former permitting dim-light vision, and the latter permitting
colour vision. Maximum scotopic (rod) and photopic (cone) sensitivity have
been founds at 510 nm and 550 nm for both apes and man (king and Forbes
1974). Stereoscopy and detailed acuity are two primate features, which
probably evolved as a result of an ancient arboreal habitat.
Colour vision is exceptionally good in primates, unlike most other mammals –
possibly as a result of early fruit bearing trees.

6) Evidence of audition.
Auditory ability probably changed during evolution as evidence by the
following.
Animal Max hearing freq.
Prosimian 75,000
New world Monkey 46,000
Old world Monkey 45,000
Chimp 26,000
Man 20,000

It should be noted that, while 20,000 hz is about the maximum sensitivity
that man can hear, his best sensitivity is around 3,000 hz, the same as the
apes. (Forbes and King 1977)

7) Evidence of the grasp response
All primate infants, including Human babies possess an involuntary grasp
response, this possibly evolved as a result of a need to cling to a parent
in an arboreal habitat
Once again the grasp response is on a sliding scale according to the
‘development’ of the primate. Rhesus monkeys can cling for up to 30 minutes.
Chimps can cling for up to 3 minutes. Humans can cling for up to 2 minutes

Evidence of the brain
Primate brains are distinguished from those of other mammals by an increase
of the size of the occipital lobe. The higher intelligence of apes is
probably related to the increased cerebral convolutions, which permit more
efficient use of cranial capacity. Mankind’s convolution patterns are
similar to that of the apes, but with a larger overall capacity the
increased cortical representation for vision versus the decreased olfactory
representation, the increase in the frontal lobe size and, above all, the
increase in complexity of cerebral convolutions, which reach a high degree
in apes and man, indicate an evolutionary linkage.

9) Evidence of intelligence
A controversial word, however it is accepted that chimps are the most
intelligent of the non-human primates. They have been trained in symbol
representation and ASL and have shown evidence of ‘true’ language (the
manipulation of words and concepts – for example the use of two concepts
like ‘water’ and ‘bird’ to represent duck)
The great apes undoubtedly exhibit a most advanced intelligence, similar to
that of mankind. This, along with all other evidences is a further
confirmation of an evolutionary link between Man and primate.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Big Bang, evolution, and God!

Hexxenhammer said:


I think "Dr. Dino" has something on his site claiming that light can go as slow as 34mph or some such bull-plop. That's even more outrageous than man and dinosaur living at the same time.

Far be it from me to add any legitimacy the rantings of crazy creationist wackos... but to play devils advocate here, perhaps this dr. dino, who ever he is, is distorting the research done by Dr. Lene Vestergaard Hau in which she was able to slow light down to not 34, but 38 mph.


link

link


Dr. Hau
 


Actually Hawking's proposal is a simple speculation,there is no law that the universe appeared 'uncaused' or even stronger 'uncaused-out of nothing'.Moreover I am unaware of this 'Wave Function of the Universe' scientific law.Even if it existed I still have no idea of why should we accept this as being a 'scientific law',for that we need some predictions which to be confirmed 'aposteriori',maybe there is an infinite number of hypotheses compatible with the observed facts (having also explanatory power not only being merely neutral).

Some scientists proposed that the positive energy of matter match exactly the negative energy of the gravitational field so that our universe appeared out of pure nothingness in a 'quantum fluctuation' (this has at basis the speculation that the so called energy of the vacuum is exactly 0).Unfortunately for its sustainers we do not have a proof that the energy of the vacuum is indeed 0.Moreover there are logical constraints against the pure nothingness theory:from 'pure nothingness' cannot appear 'something'.

Anyway the majority of physicists do not equate the so called 'pure nothingness' of philosophers with the 'nothingness' from which our universe appeared in a 'quantum fluctuation' (this quantum fluctuation hypothesis is based on the predictions of quantum mechanics standard formalism+the Copenhagen Interpretation).The 'nothingness' of the majority of physicists is still 'something';technically it is possible,indeed,that our universe appeared in a 'quantum fluctuation'.

Having no real basis to sustain the 'out of nothing' hypothesis (intrinsically uncaused also) remain to see whether our universe could have appeared 'uncaused' from the initial 'nothingness' (still something however) in the same way how the decay of a radioactive element seem to be intrinsically uncaused (there does not seem to exist a cause for the decay though no appearance 'out of pure nothingness' is involved) or at least to propose a 'non intelligent purpose' valid hypothesis.

For the first of the above hypotheses,again,we have no good reasons to prefer it since it is interpretation linked:indeed the seemingly 'acausal' decay of the radioactive nuclei is fully compatible with the existence of determinism at quantum level (as in Bohm's fully causal interpretation).In fact we do not know whether our universe is really inherently random (indeterminacy inbuilt in nature).The existence of mere uncertainty at measurements is another thing,so that Hawking's hypothesis has no compelling support either.

For the second proposal there are some interesting hypotheses,extensions of the 'clasical' now inflationary theory (which says nothing about the Big Bang itself or what happened before the Big Bang).Exactly this is the way the majority of cosmologists adopt now.Indeed in the last 10 years more and more scientists became dissatisfied with the old cliches that 'it is futile to ask what was before the Big Bang since time itself is linked with the Big Bang' or that 'the universe appeared out of pure nothingness'.

This type of hypotheses postulates the existence of an infinity of 'bubbles' (universes) so that there is nothing suprising that life appeared in our universe:we just exist in an universe that is fully compatible with life as we know it.

See at www.pbs.org the 'infinite bubbles' hypothesis as Alan Guth proposed it (Andrei Linde made another,basically similar,proposal).


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/uns_guth_1.html


Anyway these hypotheses do not advocate acausality (how we define it in quantum mechanics):all they advocate is that there might be causes but not inteligent design.The usual argument used to back them is similar to that given in the Scientific American:'

Although we cannot interact with other Level II parallel universes, cosmologists can infer their presence indirectly, because their existence can account for unexplained coincidences in our universe. To give an analogy, suppose you check into a hotel, are assigned room 1967 and note that this is the year you were born. What a coincidence, you say. After a moment of reflection, however, you conclude that this is not so surprising after all. The hotel has hundreds of rooms, and you would not have been having these thoughts in the first place if you had been assigned one with a number that meant nothing to you. The lesson is that even if you knew nothing about hotels, you could infer the existence of other hotel rooms to explain the coincidence.

.........................................................

Such observer-related selection effects are referred to as "anthropic," and although the "A-word" is notorious for triggering controversy, physicists broadly agree that these selection effects cannot be neglected when testing fundamental theories.

What applies to hotel rooms and planetary systems applies to parallel universes. Most, if not all, of the attributes set by symmetry breaking appear to be fine-tuned. Changing their values by modest amounts would have resulted in a qualitatively different universe--one in which we probably would not exist. If protons were 0.2 percent heavier, they could decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms. If the electromagnetic force were 4 percent weaker, there would be no hydrogen and no normal stars. If the weak interaction were much weaker, hydrogen would not exist; if it were much stronger, supernovae would fail to seed interstellar space with heavy elements. If the cosmological constant were much larger, the universe would have blown itself apart before galaxies could form.

Although the degree of fine-tuning is still debated, these examples suggest the existence of parallel universes with other values of the physical constants [see "Exploring Our Universe and Others," by Martin Rees; Scientific American, December 1999]. The Level II multiverse theory predicts that physicists will never be able to determine the values of these constants from first principles. They will merely compute probability distributions for what they should expect to find, taking selection effects into account. The result should be as generic as is consistent with our existence.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000&pageNumber=4&catID=2


I think we are entitled to be skeptics here,even to disbelieve...to state that we can infer the existence of other universes from the 'anthropic principle' is ridiculous.Why should be so with necessity?.The universe is not a hotel and probabilities are mere probabilities...we need additionally experimental 'confirmations'.

The only base for the above conclusion (that anthropic principle points out toward the existence of many universes) is that since from nothing cannot appear something and naturalism (including 'no personal God hypothesis') has always worked so far the multiverse hypothesis is the most probable to be true.Or this is simply not enough in order to prefer it,to consider it really superior.Indeed tradition is never a proof or a sufficient argument.

As a conclusion the 'personal God hypothesis' is as valid as our best scientific hypotheses (admited as being speculative even by some scientists).All we are entitled to say now (in what objective knowledge is concerned) about the appearance of the universe is that 'we do not know'.
Indeed we don't have compelling 'objective',scientific,evidence,for the moment at least...
 

Back
Top Bottom