I think when there are Christians who are out there saying that Evolution does not occur are simply banging their heads against the wall. They are completely ignoring evidence. Of course Evolution occurs, of course Evolution leads to the development of new species there is obvious evidence. Of course there are still some things to work out in the Evolutionary theory from a Scientific standpoint but those aren't the things I see Christians talking about.
Why not talk about cosmology? Cosmology has a lot of presuppositions and "faith" based or probability based conclusions. Plus, the Big Bang theory assumes that there was a beginning marker. Also the Big Bang theory evidence is dependent on hypothetical unlimited amount of multiple universes. Scientifically speaking it is impossible for the Earth to land where it is in conjunction with its nearest star (the sun) to land in the perfect orbit and the perfect tilt in order to inhabit life.
2007-10-25 04:58:38 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
In my opinion Christianity has a lot more credibility in terms of cosmology than arguing against Evolution.
2007-10-25 04:59:45 · update #1
***UPDATE 1***
TO PUNCH:
You said, "There is almost unlimited amount of multiple universes." You do realize that this is a "faith" based or probability based conclusion.
2007-10-25 05:03:30 · update #2
I am not here debating cosmology right now, I am trying to understand why Christians use Evolution as the hot topic rather than cosmology?
2007-10-25 05:08:32 · update #3
***UPDATE 2***
I think it would be awesome if the new machine would be able to create a universe, curious what that will mean for the future of science and if anything weird will happen when that happens. LoL
2007-10-25 05:09:55 · update #4
***UPDATE 3***
No Super Atheist, I know that Science does not say that. They base Earth's placement based on the mutiple universe theory.
2007-10-25 05:25:39 · update #5
Most Christians do not take the time to understand evolution or cosmology anyway. They have their book and need little else. Good to see, though, that you have something positive to say about evolution. Bravo!
As for cosmology, it is a relatively young science. Give it time, who wants all the answers at once anyway!? It will take away the creative, curious and novel nature of this science.
2007-10-25 05:10:59 · answer #1 · answered by fierce beard 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
So you're comparing apples with a few bruises on them to your imaginary oranges? Well done.
There is way more evidence for the Big Bang than there is for any supernatural occurrence.
God made the heavens and earth - thee end!
Wow, that was a riveting read- that explains everything!
If God made the entire universe which we are just a speck on by the way. Why would he say Heavens and Earth? Wouldn't it be more like, "He created millions upon millions of galaxies each with numerous planets but made this one special, for his extra extra special science project."
The only reason the holy books written that way was because men had very limited knowledge of the Universe and didn't know that the earth revolved around the sun or even that the earth was not the center of the universe. This is why god never mentioned it - because a god didn't write it - men did.
2007-10-25 06:08:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are right that science has more to learn about space than it does the finite Biology here on Earth. But the fact that the Big Bang happened still has a mountain of evidence and several key predictions that have been later shown right.
But I am glad that you have figured out the biology part.
Edit: The math makes a lot of sense on the multiple universes. There is even a predicted way to cause one. The new particle accelerator in France will likely be able to generate enough power. We will see.
2007-10-25 05:04:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Scientifically speaking, you are looking at the earth's location from the wrong perspective. You are trying to take one hunk of matter and throw it so that it lands perfectly to be habitable for life. That's not how it worked. Billions upon billions of hunks of matter exploded outward with the Big Bang. They ended up in all sorts of different orbits and trajectories and tilts and gravitational fields. There was this one hunk, however, that ended up in orbit around a ball of gas just far enough away to keep it warm, but not so far as to freeze. Some chemical reactions happened on that hunk to create living cells. Those cells evolved to suit the given environment.
It wasn't a one shot thing and it didn't have to end up perfectly the way the earth is now. One hunk of matter out of bazillions had some good conditions for these proteins to evolve the way they did. The resulting complex life evolved to fit the environment. If the environment had been a little different, perhaps slightly different life would have evolved. You just can't look back and say how unlikely it was - it happened. Life matched the environment, the environment was not engineered for life. Out of bazillions of hunks of matter, surely one of them could support the chemical reactions that led to life. I'd imagine there are others out there with different kinds of life as well.
2007-10-25 05:12:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
That is utter bollocks.
There is a significant variation in the "Goldilocks" zone. given that there is a series of planets in the solar system it would be difficult to arrange them so none were in the zone without leaving a rather glaring gap.
Even if there was not, then the tautological argument comes into effect.
Of all the trillions of trillions of trillions of stars, we are seeing that many if not most, that we can see clearly enough, have planets. So there are trillions of trillions of planets out there. the odds that none of them are in the 'Goldilocks' zone is effectively zero. In fact there is probably billions of billions of planets where life, as we know it, could form.
Also what of life not as we know it? Does life have to be based on organic chemistry? Why? Why not silicon or germanium crystals? Why not life based on liquid methane rather than water? Or liquid sulfur?
Douglas Adams talked of a great analogy for you:
You are like a puddle of water that suddenly becomes self aware. And as it looks around at the little bit of the universe it can perceive it things "Isn't it incredible that this rock that I am sat in is perfectly shaped to fit my form?"
We are on this planet because this planet can support life. If it could not we would not be here to point out how tragic it was. We are in the from that we are in because evolution and our environment have molded us to that form. It is not the other way around.
2007-10-25 05:23:47 · answer #5 · answered by Simon T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Physical cosmology, in its earliest form, was what is now called 'celestial mechanics'. sounds like doubting God to me.
That is the study of "the heavens", and astrophysics that deals with the study of the origins of the Universe, and the nature of the Universe on its very largest scales.
There is not that much about the heavens in the Bible so we can ony speculate on such things.
A contemporary distinction between religion and philosophy, "esoteric cosmology", is distinguished from religion in its reliance on modern "intellectual understanding" rather than faith.
Not interesting to my Assembly. We believe God's Word. Period.
This ancient field of study seeks to draw intuitive conclusions about the nature of the universe, man, without trusting the Bible as infallible. Some Christian churches could be cool with that.
But for me and my house, if God didn't say it, I am not ready to argue about it.
2007-10-25 05:55:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do I understand that you think science proposes that Earth's position in orbit around the sun is an accident?
I think you should study a bit about solar system formation before making any grand claims about faith, sunshine.
CD
2007-10-25 05:20:11 · answer #7 · answered by Super Atheist 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is almost unlimited amount of multiple universes. There went your theory.
2007-10-25 05:02:05 · answer #8 · answered by punch 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
When Tammy Fae passed away, they stopped debating Cosmetology.
I hope this helps.
2007-10-25 05:04:00 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. Vincent Van Jessup 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Considering there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe, is it that surprising that one is the right distance / tilt?
2007-10-25 05:02:27 · answer #10 · answered by Eleventy 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋