Science says the universe began at the time of the Big Bang, approximately 13.7 billion years ago.

Science says that life began on earth approximately 3.8 billion years ago.

For believers, did God cause the Big Bang and use Evolution to create Man?

I think you'll find more "believers" to offer their opinions on a board that has a lot of "believers".

This board is too diverse for your narrow line of questioning. Sure, there are some "believers" here, but I don't think you're getting the responses you want because of that.

Actually, I was out in that big empty field behind our house setting off a home-made cherry bomb with some buddies and things got a little out of hand.

Somebody actually called the cops & my dad was pissed at me for like, two weeks!

Best summer ever...

Smoke:

I am not looking for any specific response. The more varied - the more interesting.

It is fascinating to hear a wide variety of responses to these existential questions.

I certainly don't have the answers:)

. . . on how he supposedly created people?

Invisible playmates tell no tales.

This topic and questioned was directed to believers - but always appreciate you weighing in.

However, the idea of God-directed evolution isn't really evolution at all, at least not in the version supported by mainstream science today. But that didn't get in the way of my trying to reconcile the concepts.

And I guess many theists could accept a God who lives apart from the universe as the initiator of the Big Bang. However, Mormons, who believe that God lives INSIDE the universe, is coexistent with matter, and only reorganized it in the Creation, might have a problem the Big Bang. As a somewhat scientifically literate Mormon believer, the Big Bang was a bit of a head-scratcher for me.

Interesting Post - with each new passing scientific discovery I wonder if there are more attempts to reconcile the scriptural and scientific explanations by believers.

Since you asked and because I have attracted a number of (negative) followers that 'hate' my posts, I will dedicate this post to my devoted negative followers that also 'hate' anyone giving me a chance to voice my 'opinions' based on my experiences.

I am not a scientist and this was not a 'hot' issue to me, however, I did asked my intuition/universe/spirit some general things and got some general information. I have not read about any other 'mystic type' discuss this much at all as it is not a significant issue here and now. Obviously, I do not believe in any scripture as totally from God although some things are definitely inspired.

Yes, the big bang was caused by the God I believe in. Also, this God does use 'evolution' to advance physical life throughout the Universe. However, my belief is the evolution on this planet was not totally left to 'random chance' ---- I believe in intervention.

Each 'spirit' inhabiting a living organism has a built in but possibly not recognized goal, to 'survive and advance' also the spirit in every living organism is subject to 'guidance and direction' which most would follow. This 'advancement' could be physical or mental. Now I believe we as humans are tasked to gain more 'awareness', there are likely some physical improvement goals also. Obviously, some of these changes take a significant period of time.

I don't know how the first living organism got on this planet (God, alien. etc.). God was definitely involved in the first life to a large extent but I don't believe it occurred here on this planet.

However, using evolution you want xx plant or animal to mate with xxx plant or animal to advance some physical aspect in the population ---- doesn't need to happen randomly with 'spirit' that can be given 'guidance and direction'. I am not talking they 'must' do anything against their will. You want other 'coincidences' to happen ----- possible.

I also believe based on some experiences that 'other life' in the Universe has been introduced or has impacted 'evolution' on this planet.

The actual 'impact and timing' of 'non random evolutionary' actions or events ---- I don't know!

Like I said this was not a 'important' issue to me.

My 2 cents.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since you asked and because I have attracted a
> number of (negative) followers that 'hate' my
> posts, I will dedicate this post to my devoted
> negative followers that also 'hate' anyone giving
> me a chance to voice my 'opinions' based on my
> experiences.

Disagreeing with you and pointing out the factual flaws in your posts is not 'hate.'

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Disagreeing with you and pointing out the factual
> flaws in your posts is not 'hate.'

But people tend to 'hate' it when that happens. ;o)

Yes, there are people that believe God created the big bang, and used evolution to create humans.

Just like people used to think the God Thor created thunder. Well, at least until science figured out what caused thunder.

to me, the refrain "God did it" is as meaningful as the phrase "The butler did it".

I've seen a child suffer and die from Leukemia. Now what's this issue about there being a God?

Back when I was Mormon I used to think this. It was the only way I could reconcile science and religion. It was clear to me that evolution existed and that the Earth was more than 6,000 years old.

I just assumed the six days from the story of the creation in Genesis was more metaphorical and it was simply the best way for the ancient, unscientific prophets at the time of the Bible could describe the creation. To this day, it still kind of sounds like the creation of the universe and our planet, just in a summarized version with God doing the work. I thought that the "first day," when God created light and dark, was the Big Boom. Then god created the planets and Earth. Then he created water and then land on the planet. Then life was put on the planet (or evolved by the hidden power of God). Then out of the life eventually came man.

I don't see why its such a big deal for believers in God and the Bible to believe in evolution and the old planet. I didn't understand why certain parts of the Bible had to be taken so literally and they sounded so metaphorical, or even an ancient way of describing God creating the universe through evolution and such.

Oops. Meant to say Big Bang.

For believers?

Catholic priest Father Georges Lemaître was the man who proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe...ie big bang theory

He was a believer.

Science and faith are not in opposition for many believers. They support each other

So, the Big Bang theory and Evolution supports the Biblical account of creation?

Bang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, the Big Bang theory and Evolution supports the
> Biblical account of creation?


From the Catholic POV, the Biblical account of creation is not a literal explanation of creation. Catholics are discouraged from literalism and see the Bible as a compliation of a variety of different literary forms

The following article can help shed light on how Catholics are taught to view science and faith.

http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201508/do-catholics-believe-evolution-30288



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2017 09:37PM by angela.

So, how, exactly does the story of creation as told by the Bible metaphorically relate to the actual creation.

To me, you have to admit the Bible is fiction because I see no way of relating the story of creation to the big bang or evolution.

The whole "7 days of creation" sound like a step by step evolutionary process to me.

You mean other than getting everything out of order.

http://www.alamosa.org/things-to-do-in-alamosa/alamosa-history-and-heritage/403-historic-exploration/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=rr_story

Some how you are hung up on the idea that the Biblical account of creation is meant to be a scientific account of creation. It's not.

It's a faith based account of creation.

Ah, so you are saying that faith trumps facts.

Yeah, people had faith that Thor created thunder as will.

No,

Where did I say that??????

You said the bible is not a scientific explanation of creation but rather a faith based explanation.

Seems clear to me that you are claiming they are two different claims about creation.

The statement I am questioning is "Science and faith are not in opposition for many believers. They support each other" In the context of a Catholic being the publisher of the BB theory

So, how do your faith based description of creation and the scientific theory support each other?

angela Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some how you are hung up on the idea that the
> Biblical account of creation is meant to be a
> scientific account of creation. It's not.
>
> It's a faith based account of creation.

Actually, it's a made-up mythical account with no factual foundation of any kind.

Which is pretty much what 'faith' is. So maybe you were right after all.

By the way, the catholic church used to declare the biblical creation account WAS a literal account of creation. They even imprisoned, tortured, and murdered people who dared say otherwise.

Bang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, the Big Bang theory and Evolution supports the
> Biblical account of creation?

Ummm....that is not exactly what angela said. The biblical account of creation is just that, 'the biblical account of creation'. It says nothing about an 'expansion of the universe' or a 'big bang'. angela was merely saying that the man who first posited that theory was a Catholic priest. And she then said that "science and faith are not in opposition for many believers". But, on the other hand, you can be assured that they are in huge opposition for a great many other believers.

If you read further she said:

"Science and faith are not in opposition for many believers. They support each other"

The bible is canonized scripture of the Catholic faith. The man that proposed the big bang theory is Catholic, so how does the Big Bang support the Canonized scriptures of the religion the scientist believes in. To me, he would have to ignore the canonized scripture to believe the big bang theory.

Oh, and if you want to try the metaphor card, do tell how the metaphor of creation actually relates to the BB theory and Evolution. If you do not able to show how the creation story actually relates to the big bang, you are telling me that the stories of the bible can be ignored because they are only metaphor

Read the link.

And don't be a coward. Use the screen name you are normally known by

I did read the link, it does not answer the question I asked.

It does not say how the creation story relates metaphorically to the actual creation.

So don't be a coward, answer the question "How does the creation story metaphorically relate to the BB theory?"

You first, Bang. Why hiding behind a different screen name for this thread?

You are assuming that I have a regular name here, I do not.

Time to stop the dodge with irrelevant dodges and answer the question.

So you use multiple screen names here? I thought that was against forum rules.

You assume I am a regular poster, I'm an occasional poster. I do not recall the last name I used.

Wow, you are really desperate to make this about ANYTHING other than the point I raise!

Time to answer the question, if you can.

So, in the case of the creation story and the BB theory, you are saying they do not support each other, they are different.

That contradicts the claim "
Science and faith are not in opposition for many believers. They support each other" which is the claim I am talking about.

Bang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, in the case of the creation story and the BB
> theory, you are saying they do not support each
> other, they are different.
>
> That contradicts the claim "
> Science and faith are not in opposition for many
> believers. They support each other" which is the
> claim I am talking about.

Fides et Ration, by JPII.....

For many believers, science and faith are not in opposition.

Read his encyclical

That may be so, but it appears that Catholics have to ignore their scriptures, or at the very least try to claim it is a metaphor, without being able to explain the metaphor.

Bang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That may be so, but it appears that Catholics have
> to ignore their scriptures, or at the very least
> try to claim it is a metaphor, without being able
> to explain the metaphor.

If it's really something you are honestly and authentically interested in understanding, read his encyclical. It explains how Catholics view both science and faith, and how they are not in opposition to each other, from the Catholic POV.

Dollar to donuts, though, are you not really interested in the seeking an explanation or understanding that POV.

Your intent is entirely different.

I am asking in relation to the person making the claim "Science and faith are not in opposition for many believers. They support each other" in a post on this board. It is not up to me to research their claim, it is up to them to provide something to support the claim. If you know that document so well, you can point to relevant information as to how the Big bang theory relates to the biblical story of creation.

Or better yet, if you actually understand it, and not just trying to deflect attention from you not, you should be able to explain it.

"The realm of religion has to do with the meaning of life and existence in a way that surpasses the physical world."

Here is my issue, he says "surpasses" does that mean contradict? Because the biblical story contradicts the BB.

Also, I do not think that a story that mandates that the human population was started by incest.

When I look at the story of creation, it pales to the enormity and beauty of the BB and Evolution.

But hey, if you think the story of human population being founded by incest give a meaning of life that surpass the scientific theory, more power to you. I'm glad that incest gives you such meaning, it creeps me out.

His writing is fine for people so desperate to reconcile the two they will take it on faith and not examine its details.

My Dad's Big Bang caused me. The Boner.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2017 09:26PM by BYU Boner.

How do we know man was the end goal? Maybe God was partying a little too hard.

This may better help explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

From the first line of text on the first link:

"Having to prove the existence of God to an atheist is like having to prove the existence of the sun, at noon on a clear day"

Um, everything but the God listed above is visible and measurable. If that is supposed to discredit the views of Atheists, it failed and does the opposite.

rebeljamesdean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science says the universe began at the time of the
> Big Bang, approximately 13.7 billion years ago.
>
> Science says that life began on earth
> approximately 3.8 billion years ago.
>
> For believers, did God cause the Big Bang and use
> Evolution to create Man?

Sure. The Genesis account is obviously allegorical. That interpretation, both among Jewish and Christian theologians, is not even remotely new. Evolution is a fact and Big Bang cosmology is the prevailing model.

If you are getting at Creationism being brainless, it most certainly is. In related news, water is wet.

A better question is why you insist on posting all of these huffy question threads within the last couple days. It might be time to relax.

"Science says that life began on earth approximately 3.8 billion years ago."

Abiogenesis, the theory of how life began on Earth, is not a scientific consensus.
Many scientists, including me, favor a 'transpermia' theory.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/abiogenesis-definition-theory-evidence.html

Viruses are not technically alive to start with, so they could have easily traveled here aboard a comet or a meteorite and landed in water containing simple proteins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMKlPDBRJ1E

The viruses combine their DNA with the proteins and viola, life.


"For believers, did God cause the Big Bang and use Evolution to create Man?"

It depends on what you mean by the word "God". When I hear that word I think, "Mother Nature". So yes, "Mother Nature" caused the big bang and used Evolution to create Man, apparently. Or at least that's the best narrative we have to explain where we came from, but I think it's mostly incomplete.

We're still missing 96% of the Universe. We have a huge black hole in our understanding of the Universe. Scientists call it "Dark Matter/Energy", but I think that's just a really stupid name for a 96% Fudge Factor.

We used to call that "Mystery", which is a lot better name for it than "Dark Matter/Energy".



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2017 11:09PM by koriwhore.

In regards how life started, I find the comet thing a distraction, it only changed the locations, but not the "how".

Viruses would still have to come into existence somewhere. Be it on earth or some other place, the question of how they came into being still exists when talking about them coming via comets.

Nobody knows.
It's a MYSTERY.
I'm fine with existing in mystery, because I doubt we'll ever know. I doubt we'll ever know where that other 96% of the Universe went missing.

But guys like Michio Kaku thinks we have a good suspect, like other dimensions and parallel universes, making up a multi-verse.
Which to me is as good a guess as any.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI50HN0Kshg
But your guess is as good as mine or his.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2017 11:28PM by koriwhore.

Whatever. You were making a point about the creation of life, I was only pointing out that 'transpermia' does not actually address the creation of life.

Even calming different dimensions only changes the where, it does not address the issue of how.

Like I daid, its a mystery.

Yeah, where the dragons went is a mystery, but there is a good candidate, alternate dimensions, that is where all the dragons went.

Definition of terms:

"'God of the gaps' (or a 'divine fallacy') is logical fallacy that occurs when 'Goddidit' (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an 'explanatory principle.' 'God of the gaps' is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of 'gaps' being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting 'we don't know yet' as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered. The 'God of the Gaps' is a 'digit' fallacy and an 'ad hoc' fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an 'informal fallacy.'"


(Source: "God of the Gaps," at "RationalWiki," http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2017 12:17AM by steve benson.

"god directed evolution" sounds like something a pope would say.

Very Pope-ish, and very Mormon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2017 06:38AM by steve benson.

I think those that can't handle evolution can't comprehend the amazing amount of time gone by--that there were thousands of generations dinosaurs that walked on top of the fossil remains of thousands of generations of their own ancestors.


OTOH, God could have played around with dino's for a few hundred million years and thought: "I'm tired of those beasts, I'm going to turn them into chickens. Maybe I should start playing with those tiny little mammals hiding in hollow logs."

If you've heard of Dinesh D'Souza, I listened to him explain earthquakes as part of God's plan; he basically said that Plate Tectonics renews the Earth and earthquakes happen when the plates move in the subduction zones--so earthquakes aren't bad, they're necessary!

Things exist because things exist--and we happen to exist in such a way that we are able to wonder why things exist...

It is curious and incredible that matter floating around in space eventually came together to produce an enormous explosion (big bang) and eventually a life sustaining planet that was at one time mostly composed of molten rock, somehow producing single celled life that eventually evolved into humans who marvel at the whole process and question the existence of God. It is truly remarkable, whether or not God exists.

Lauren Eiseley, a literary naturalist and scientist, wrote:

"...in the world there is nothing to explain the world. Nothing to explain the necessity of life, nothing to explain why the stolid realm of rock and soil and mineral should diversify itself into beauty, terror, and uncertainty. To bring organic novelty into existence, to create pain, injustice, joy, demands more than we can discern in the nature that we analyze so completely... In the world there is nothing below a certain depth that is truly explanatory. It is as if matter dreamed and muttered in its sleep. But why, and for what reason it dreams, there is no evidence."

It's kind of nice not having all the answers...curiosity is a wonderful thing.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2017 06:42AM by steve benson.

I have had too many "miracle" experiences to call myself atheist. I also believe that Jesus was a real being. Do I believe every word of the Bible? No way as so much of it "bears false witness" and each verse should be judged fairly with much praiseworthy and much being condemned as outrageous or fiction. Do I believe every sermon given in churches? Definitely not and each one deserves fair scrutiny, particularly when their deliverer ignores the flaws of the Bible. Also I think the scientific method is the best way, though full of short term risks of bias & random errors, to discern truth from error. And I do not wish to convince anyone to believe the way I do so I would make a terribly ineffective missionary.

Yes I think that some supreme being is behind the universe, Big Bang, evolution, etc. and that the actual mechanics as explained my scientists seem plausible. But I reject the idea that there is a God and Jesus stalking humankind in the way that so many zealots evangelize happens as I think such people are just trying to control others and/or push theiR haughty prIde on others. There are some very negative characteristics of many people who claim to be Christian and I condemn these. At the same time therE are many commendable things too about having faith, hope, and so many good principles espoused by many Christians and others.

I can certainly sympathize with the thinking of atheists and agnostics. But I have not visited every place in the universe to prove that there is no God and Jesus anywhere. And even if I had then I would think that God could relocate or hide so I could not locate them. Thus I reject the dogma and faith that God does not exist as I lack sufficient proof that God does not exist.

I haven't visited every place in the Universe, either, but I accept that it's reasonable to not buy the claim that the Mormon Kolob exists or that the Xtian heaven exists, either.

All this question begging makes my head hurt. So how long has everyone (who believes in everyone) been beating their spouse or significant other?

HH =)

"Once you conclude God did it, you becoe worthless in the lab because you have abandoned the search for the real cause." NdGT

There's no evidence to support that hypothesis.