Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because imho God created this universe intended to be dynamic and interesting.
Well, dynamic and interesting, that it is! But for someone who is all-powerful, I'm sure that for something to take 228,000,000 years would not have taken any more effort, thought, or planning than it would have for 6 days, because the end result was known already....
But anyway, it sure is an interesting topic.. and IMO God has made the universe in such a way that there always will be questions unanswered.
Because imho God created this universe intended to be dynamic and interesting.
Why would the Almighty creator do such a thing? Imagine how boring would it be to finish a game in 6 days? what would you do the rest of eternity!
Now imagine watching for the entire eternity how the game you created develops, until you decide it's time to dissolve it (Big Crunch?) to create it again (Big Bang?)
Respect!
Just a science note:
The discovery that the universe is expanding faster and faster more or less disproves the idea of a "Big Crunch". If the universe showed signs of slowing down than we could postulate that perhaps a "Big Crunch" event may take place. However, it is more likely that the universe will eventually rip itself apart. The "Big Crunch" is more like a "Big Pull".
Location: The world, where will fate take me this time?
3,162 posts, read 11,437,580 times
Reputation: 1463
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
Just a science note:
The discovery that the universe is expanding faster and faster more or less disproves the idea of a "Big Crunch". If the universe showed signs of slowing down than we could postulate that perhaps a "Big Crunch" event may take place. However, it is more likely that the universe will eventually rip itself apart. The "Big Crunch" is more like a "Big Pull".
Interesting concept, do you have a link to do some further research?
I liked the big crunch concept, because our universe is composed of electromagnetic vibration and dark matter/energy, and as you must know vibrations and waves have positive and negative cycles, so imho the universe has them too, but it'd be interesting to read more about the big pull
.... even if I changed my mind right now and just could not accept the fact that something started without the help of a God, than I still wouldn't be picking Christianity as a belief system and I would STILL fully believe in evolution.
Well, GCS, at least that would be a step in the right direction! I wouldn't expect you to accept everything right away!
But what you think is possible, I may think is magic.. and what you think is magic, I may think is possible.
The bottom line is IMO that scientific study will never tell us all we "need to know" about the origin of the universe.. it will always be a theory... and so far, all theories are quite "magical".
Yes, I understand that point. But, we cannot produce analytical scientific data under the assumption that a Creator exists. This goes back to the idea of which Creator is right. As Travelling fella already said, the Hindus have a different time period. So, in order for any postulation for Biblical Creationism to be true, we have to provide ourselves with:
#1- There was/is in fact a 'divine' creator who created everything. (We have no proof of this)
#2- That this divine creator is, in fact, the Christian God. (There is no proof of this except a suggestion in the Bible)
#3- The Christian God created the Earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago. (Again, the evidence is contradictory to this regardless of what some pseudo-sciences are trying to pass off)
Something I have noticed about Creation websites and propaganda is that they consistently talk about a "Creator" and not "Jehovah" the Christian God. However, the implication that they try to pass off is based on Biblical references. There is a reason for this as well. Numerous court cases have determined that creationism is not science and some have precluded that the idea of a "certain type" of God most certainly cannot be taught as fact. There are also some court cases in which ID has been dispensed as not science. Here are a few examples:
Kitzmiller vs. DASD
McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education
Edwards vs. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Epperson vs. Arkansas: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Peloza vs. Capistrano Unified School District
Daniel vs. Waters
Wright vs. Houston I.S.D
Selman vs. Cobb County School District
Hendren vs. Campbell
I encourage people to read the transcripts (where available) of these cases, the rulings, and why the rulings were handed down by the judges.
Interesting concept, do you have a link to do some further research?
I liked the big crunch concept, because our universe is composed of electromagnetic vibration and dark matter/energy, and as you must know vibrations and waves have positive and negative cycles, so imho the universe has them too, but it'd be interesting to read more about the big pull
Yes, I do, but I'm kind of on a short schedule. Mind if I get it to you later in the evening?
Edit: I have a few extra minutes, but I won't be able to respond to this for a little while.
This is an article that I found which is quite good at explaining the Big Bang theory. I think it's important to understand it before talking about the "Big Crunch" theory.
Also, National Geographic Channel did a fantastic TV show on the Big Bang and then the "end" of the universe. I saw it roughly a year ago, but every once in a while I see it on TV as I'm flipping through. It does a wonderful piece on the "Big Pull". I can't remember the name of the show, but it's fairly obvious, something like "The Big Bang", perhaps?
I would like to note that although there are essentially three large theories "The Big Crunch, Chill, and Pull" scientific research is most definitely being continued on all of them. Personally, I kind of side with the notion of a Big Chill followed by a Big Pull.
One other note. There is a very large growing hypotheses of a "string theory". The "string theory" does do a lot for the argument of the "Big Crunch" as well but to be quite honest, I am not very well versed in this theory, and it is rather mind boggling.
One last note: Sorry to ramble, but looking at my first post where I gave that "science note" I made it sound as if all other theories had been disproven. This is not so, I suppose it was a poor choice of wording. I merely meant to show that there is evidence that could possibly prove something different. Also, sorry if I call it the Big Pull instead of the Big Rip or mix the two together, I just do that I suppose. It's not two separate theories (Rip and Pull) just my poor choice of wording
The Universe. Big Bang. Big Crunch. Much "data" and various theories. All very interesting to me. But I must admit that as a scientist ( graduate degree in theoretical physics ) I have learned a few things about science. One is that "data" can be interpreted in so many ways, and it is easy enough to "prove" anything that one believes in ( thanks to human bias ). Science and scientists ( myself included ) are not entirely objective, simply because we are human and have human biases. For example, what we "know" is a bias. Because if we are "wrong" then it is hard to see it. So I tend to discount what we think we "know" and try to see beyond what people think and believe. Truth is what it is, whether we can see it or not.
But, more to the point. It seems to me that "we" really do not understand time and space. Everything we "know" from astrophysics and astronomy is a matter of interpretation of observable data based on various assumptions ( things we "think" we know and understand, but maybe we don't ). Thus the various types of matter in the universe, distances, and time, may be very different than what we think they are. We are interpreting according to our experience ( and assumptions ) but we may be missing some very fundamental concepts.
I am admittedly a fan of Peter Ouspensky, discounting the moon and green cheese, he had a lot of insights, in my opinion, to dimensionality. So if we want to understand the universe, it seems to me we have to integrate over time and space, to some other dimension. Currently beyond our ken. Like a five-dimensional creature looking at a four-dimensional world. We currently only "see" in four dimensions, and that seriously limits what we can apprehend. But mathematically, the universe is much "bigger" than that. If we were ants, living on a two-dimensional surface, how could we possibly comprehend anything that occurs beyond those two-dimensions ?? We would interpret all that other "stuff" in terms of our two-dimensional experience and perception. And be wrong. Or at least be misleading ourselves.
The Universe. Big Bang. Big Crunch. Much "data" and various theories. All very interesting to me. But I must admit that as a scientist ( graduate degree in theoretical physics ) I have learned a few things about science. One is that "data" can be interpreted in so many ways, and it is easy enough to "prove" anything that one believes in ( thanks to human bias ). Science and scientists ( myself included ) are not entirely objective, simply because we are human and have human biases. For example, what we "know" is a bias. Because if we are "wrong" then it is hard to see it. So I tend to discount what we think we "know" and try to see beyond what people think and believe. Truth is what it is, whether we can see it or not.
But, more to the point. It seems to me that "we" really do not understand time and space. Everything we "know" from astrophysics and astronomy is a matter of interpretation of observable data based on various assumptions ( things we "think" we know and understand, but maybe we don't ). Thus the various types of matter in the universe, distances, and time, may be very different than what we think they are. We are interpreting according to our experience ( and assumptions ) but we may be missing some very fundamental concepts.
I am admittedly a fan of Peter Ouspensky, discounting the moon and green cheese, he had a lot of insights, in my opinion, to dimensionality. So if we want to understand the universe, it seems to me we have to integrate over time and space, to some other dimension. Currently beyond our ken. Like a five-dimensional creature looking at a four-dimensional world. We currently only "see" in four dimensions, and that seriously limits what we can apprehend. But mathematically, the universe is much "bigger" than that. If we were ants, living on a two-dimensional surface, how could we possibly comprehend anything that occurs beyond those two-dimensions ?? We would interpret all that other "stuff" in terms of our two-dimensional experience and perception. And be wrong. Or at least be misleading ourselves.
There is a lot of truth in what you write. I do concede that. However, there must be a point at which we can concede rationally, based on scientific evidence, that although nothing is 100% provable there is much scientific evidence to suggest these things are real and the theories are valid without a reasonable doubt. If we approached everything in the manner you are speaking of, than every criminal in jail would need to be let free because we couldn't PROVE that they committed the crime.
I agree with you on this, GCSTroop. Even though we can't be completely sure of some things, we still need to be prudent, and do what is reasonable. There is a lot that I believe, based on experience and learning, that guides my actions and decisions, even if I can't prove something. Sometimes I am even quite reasonable.
But, we cannot produce analytical scientific data under the assumption that a Creator exists.
This could be true in the sense that science is has to work with the observable, whereas God is scientifically unobservable.. and IMO science will never be able to "prove" (and if it can't prove, how can it disprove?) the existence of God. I liked the point that bels brought out about dimensions... science cannot see all the dimensions... and so, the existence of God will have to be proved with a dimension apart from science.
But, back to your statement about "scientific data under the assumption a Creator exists"... IMO, this goes both ways when it comes to "unprovable theories." If we assume a Creator does not exist, we will have to come up with these theories... and both sides will be biased and tend to overlook inconsistancies. I guess for me the important thing to remember is that there will always be "five-dimensional" mysteries...and a "lame answer" for some of these mysteries which we can't see in all it's dimension sometimes will have to suffice for now, and shouldn't cause me to abandon the theory.. for then where would I be? There are "lame answers" on both sides.
So, basically, (IMHO!!) we are approaching the problem from different angles...
Evolutionary theory with no intelligent design tries to interpret or assign natural, scientific events to current events AND to the origin of things.
Creationists try to interpret or assign natural, scientific events to current events but believe that the origin of things came from God.. because to them He has been "provable" aside from science.
And so, back to the OP question: I believe in creation because God has been proven to me aside from scientific proof or evidence... the fifth dimension.
Sorry for the rambling! Congratulations for reaching the end!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't expect you to accept everything right away!
