Big Bang - Evolution

[_Nightlion]

CFR.

Genesis 1:1

Egads, (blush) Moses was only given an account of THIS earth. In the Book of Moses the Lord even tells him that he has created worlds without number............already...........before.........the creation of this earth and its heavens. Since the God I know is without beginning of days or end of years then there never was a time when he was not making worlds and bringing them into and out of existence. NEVER. That means what is measured by science today as a Big Bang is a false reading of the data. Possibly the background radiation from a nearby super nova which may have been in a position between us and what seems to be the center of the universe. Seems to. I am always disappointed by the lack of imagination owned of science types.

[_malkie]

And what details he gives are totally wrong.

He doesn't give any at all.

Sure he does.

But Gen 1 and Gen 2 don't quite agree about the sequence:

Conflicts between the creation stories:
There are some apparent inconsistencies between the first and second creation accounts:
1. There may be a conflict over the number of days over which creation happened.
Genesis 1:3 and subsequent verses say that God created the universe in six days.
In Genesis 2:4, some translations, including the King James Version, imply that it took one day.
2. In the first account, fruit trees appeared before before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam, then the fruit trees appeared, then Eve.
3. In the first account, God created animals before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam. then the animals, then Eve.
4. Genesis 1:20 describes how God had "the waters bring forth ...fowl" ; in Genesis 2:19, God formed them "out of the ground".
5. In the first account, God caussed[sic] fish to appear on the 5th day; in the second account, the fish of the sea were not created at all.

Religious conservatives feel that they they have harmonized these apparent inconsistencies.

[_Buffalo]

Hey Buffalo

Minus the few errors (age of the universe as noted by bcspace

What's 6 and 1/2 billion years amongst friends? :)

yes.

Yes that they are your beleifs? And/or yes that they are facts?

Although I definitely wouldn't lecture you for 90 minutes about it!

Thanks!

And thanks for the replies.

Peace,
Ceeboo

I believe in the facts, and those are the facts. :)

[_Buffalo]

Yes that they are your beleifs? And/or yes that they are facts?

People like Buffalo and Darth J are Draper-Whitists. In other words, they accept Conflict Thesis which posits that there is intrinsic intellectual conflict between science and religion. Science generally rejects this notion as do most clerics.

CFR

[_Ceeboo]

Thanks to all for sharing their worldview, thoughts, beliefs, and "facts" :) (I really do appreciate it)

The bigger question is are you at least an Old-Earth Creationist or are you part of the YEC crowd?

Hi Bond,

"Are you at least an Old-Earth Creationist?" (That caused a huge Ceeboo smile) :)

I am a Creationist because I wear a certain kind of glasses when looking at things (Depending on our personal presuppositions, bias, and beliefs, I believe we are all influenced, greatly, by the spectacles we place on our nose).

To answer your question, I am (and have been for a long time) agnostic concerning the age of the earth. Having said that, I believe that the positions and stances that are held by my beloved YEC friends are, at the very least, extremely interesting and most worthy of simple consideration.
This is to say that I do not find agreement with many of my beloved friends who label the YEC position as "ignorant", "silly", or "laughable". (Clearly, I allow room for those who wish to do so, I simply do not)

Lastly, as a believer in a Creator/God of all we see, I find the belief/explanation itself to be at least as reasonable and/or as plausible as the countering worldview is. (They are both simply and only beliefs----------- as I see it with my Creator/God goggles firmly cemented to my ears) :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_mikwut]

BCSpace: People like Buffalo and Darth J are Draper-Whitists. In other words, they accept Conflict Thesis which posits that there is intrinsic intellectual conflict between science and religion. Science generally rejects this notion as do most clerics.

Buffalo: CFR

http://www.amazon.com/Science-vs-Religi ... 807&sr=1-2

Ecklund, a professor at Rice University, surveyed 1,700 scientists at 21 elite universities to ascertain how many of them were influenced by religion. She sent a 34- question survey and did 275 personal interviews. Her well-footnoted book profiles how natural and social scientists interact with each other in their own departments, the university at large, students they teach, and the general public. Within the survey, she discovered individuals who identified no religious tradition but considered themselves to be spiritual (spiritual atheists). Among those who were religious, she found varying beliefs about the ultimate nature of things, including intelligent design, evolution, and creationism. Professors presented their convictions or silenced them, either bringing religious thinking into classrooms or keeping it out. Many saw religion as useful in teaching ethical behavior in society. Ecklund concludes by dispelling myths about today's science professors, offering an evidence-based peek behind the doors of academia.

Here is a quote from her book relevant to BCspace's claim:

Myth: Atheists are always hostile to religion. Indeed, there are certainly some atheists who—like Arik, a physicist we met earlier—made it clear that they are completely hostile to religion. Their sentiments are that religion should not exist at all. But the majority of atheist scientists and agnostic scientists I talked with were not hostile to religion. Indeed, only five (!) of the atheist scientists I talked with were so hostile that they were actively working against religion. I discovered many spiritual atheists, those who think that key mysteries about the world can best be understood spiritually. Other atheists and agnostics were parts of houses of worship, completely comfortable with religion as moral training for their children and for alternative forms of community. If religious people understood the full range of atheist practice and the way that, for some, it interfaces with religion, they might be less likely to hold such negative attitudes towards scientists who are atheists. Richard Dawkins aside, many atheist scientists have no desire to denigrate religion or religious people.

regards, mikwut

[_Ceeboo]

Hi honor
Thanks for the contribution, I agree with much of what you share.
My time is short today but I wanted to share a few things as a sign of my appreciation for your efforts to me/us. :)

I think when we discuss what you bring up in the OP, it's important to acknowledge that the person with whom you shared dinner was working under the same process, just using a different explanatory structure.

I agree 100% (I think we all do this, no matter what worldview we hold)

What you describe above in the OP as facts are "best guesses" determined using this explanatory structure.

Indeed, they are rooted in the expanatory structure (AKA- worldview) first.

I think most people who use this explanatory structure would generally accept them as close enough

Clearly, if they are using a certain structure, they would indeed accept them. No?

They seem to do a good job of explaining the evidence available without causing too many problems.

We see things very different (perhaps it has to do with the glasses we choose to wear while looking)

If new evidence were to come along that forces a revision to these best guesses, so be it.

Yes, this seems to have been the case.

Where I think an interesting question can be found, and the one I had suggested we attempt to prod out earlier, is to wonder, "Where did this explanatory structure originate

For many reasons, I believe it is rooted in offering an alternative to a Creator/God.

and why does Western civilization seem to be accepting it at an increasing rate while the acceptance of the older explanatory structure is losing ground?"

I am not comfortable in posting my personal thoughts on this, other than to say that I believe there are many reasons.

What do you think the reasons are?

Consider, for example, where BCSpace would fall when asked which explanatory structure he uses. He may claim they are the same, but I think in reading his posts above one sees he is clearly using the more current explanatory structure. That he fits other elements of his worldview into this framework is really just what comes with having so much diversity in our broader cultural identity.

I have no comment concerning BCSpace.

Thanks for the reply! :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Sethbag]

Where I think an interesting question can be found, and the one I had suggested we attempt to prod out earlier, is to wonder, "Where did this explanatory structure originate

For many reasons, I believe it is rooted in offering an alternative to a Creator/God

I think this is the root of at least several problems in your thinking. Science isn't offered as an alternative to God. Science is offered to explain the evidence of the world around us. That's it. That God is not brought up in conjunction with this explanation is a result of the fact that God is simply not needed to provide any of the explanation.

Once upon a time what might be called primitive science was no more or less than religion. Most of those thinkers and experimenters and theorizers who introduced the ideas that have lead to modern science were also religious believers, and it's very common to find religious rhetoric amongst their explanations. Increasingly, scientists have dropped the God references in their scientific discussions because it's simply superfluous, even distracting, and no longer has a recognized explanatory function.

Why did I say this was at the root of at least several problems in your thinking? You have chosen to maintain an allegiance to your God beliefs. By proposing that science is an alternative to God, you are putting yourself into a position to have to choose between two alternatives, one of which already has your allegiance. Science therefor loses out automatically. This puts you at the disadvantage of making you not amenable to facts, evidence, valid argumentation, and so forth.

If you are wrong, your choice puts you in the position of being unable ever to know it, because you will have rendered yourself incapable of properly judging the evidence and arguments that should reveal this fact to you.

[_DarkHelmet]

Maybe God doesn't know how or why the Universe was created. It's like the priesthood ban, and we really shouldn't speculate on it. The fact is, the Universe is here. That's all that matters.

[_DarkHelmet]

My understanding is that the Big Bang happened around 13.75 billion years ago, not 20. But otherwise, all seems to be in order. And yes, God did it.

Yep, God did do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGIen0Pp7TQ