Question's I've never had an answer to.

[Skibabinz]

So I am a devout Christian, but of course I'm not perfect...don't try to be. However, I have always seem to look into this whole evolution vs creationism debate, and I got some questions...as I would imagine everyone would.

I hope you guys don't mind me asking them here, but I figure since I never have anyone to talk about it with, why not drop in and ask here eh? lol

Q1: If the big bang created the universe, and that came from a singularity, what created the matter that said singularity came from? Also, I know you can ask "Well what created that?" an infinite amount of times, however would it not make sense that there would be an "eternal" force that everything came from? Something that always has, always was, and always will be?

Q2: According to the theory of evolution, life was created by energy and matter combining, however why is it when I cook something, it doesn't spring to life?

Q3: The Leafy Sea Dragon. How can ANY creature form such a similarity to a plant without a designer? Its not like it looked at seaweed and was like "hmm, I want leaves....POWER OF EVOLUTION ACTIVATE" or something like that.


Maybe this isn't the right forum to post this, and if it is inappropriate I apologize, but either way God bless and thanks for your time.

 

[Lazarus]

A1, A2, A3: there are many books out there that answer these questions far better than any of us ever could. If you really want to know(and I wouldn't bother), google is your friend.

For what it's worth, I spent quite some time investigating the subject myself and none of the answers on either side of the debate are satisfactory.
Evolutionists: the universe has always been here and always will be in some form or another.
Creationists: God has always been and always will be.
Me: Gosh, that sounds familiar...

Evolutionists: There's no such thing as the soul, with enough time anything can evolve.
Creationists: God created us in His image on the sixth day, etc etc.

Me: prove it.
Evolutionists: We're scientists, man, the scientific method, y'know - we have theories and evidence and such! We've got fossils and carbon dating and - and -
Creationists: Read the Bible, man.

Me: Were any of you there when the universe was created?
Evolutionists and Creationists: No.
Me: Do you have any solid evidence that your theory is correct?
Evolutionists and Creationists: No.

At that point I stopped caring.

 

[Tek7]

I haven't researched evolution much, but what little I understand leads me to believe it (evolution) requires a greater leap of faith than Christianity.

There have been a few threads discussing evolution and creationism in greater detail on these forums. I'd recommend using the forum's search feature to find a few of the lengthier threads as they contain some quality reading.

You might also want to check out the Evolution page on the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry web site.

Others may be able to provider deeper and more immediate insight.

 

[Skibabinz]

I don't know why I think so much into this topic, I guess its just the nagging feeling that I'm gonna have to show my faith and debate it someday.

 

[Tek7]

I don't know why I think so much into this topic, I guess its just the nagging feeling that I'm gonna have to show my faith and debate it someday.

Evolution is a topic that comes up every so often on these forums and I imagine it stands a good chance of coming up eventually if you're vocal about your faith.

1 Peter 3:15 says, "Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you."

 

[RyanB]

I'll do my best to answer; it's definitely a subject I'm passionate about. Holes in evolution led me "outside of the box" and opened me up to the possibility of God. You seem to be looking more for clarification than answers, since you're on a Christian forum asking about obvious evolutionary flaws...I hope the ensuing wall o' text is somewhat helpful.

Q1: If the big bang created the universe, and that came from a singularity, what created the matter that said singularity came from? Also, I know you can ask "Well what created that?" an infinite amount of times, however would it not make sense that there would be an "eternal" force that everything came from? Something that always has, always was, and always will be?

This is what I mean by outside of the box. I'm not sure if the big bang happened, or even if it's a creationist vs. atheist argument. The thing that people need to understand about this is exactly what you stated in your question: the idea that things do not naturally pop out of nothing.

The aggregate question of, "well what created that?" can't go on forever within the confines of our known universe, because nothing can be created from nothing. We even have scientific laws (thermodynamics) describing this. This means at some point, people have to say there is something outside of "the box". It doesn't even need to be "God", per se, it could be some other natural something. Of course...what created that?

So whether we believe God is outside the box, or there is some other "scientific" explanation for it, there MUST be something beyond this universe. So I think you're right on here. Atheists (big bang-ists?) want to "have their cake and eat it too" when they say that A) nothing comes from nothing and B) there is nothing outside of the universe. This cake is a lie.

Q2: According to the theory of evolution, life was created by energy and matter combining, however why is it when I cook something, it doesn't spring to life?

Complexity. Life means "made of cells" and "able to grow". Even the most simple cells are extremely complex networks of DNA, cellular machines, protiens, other acids, etc. DNA typically contains millions of nucleotides while cellular machines can have dozens of unique and required parts. This stuff just doesn't pop out of nothing.

Complexity also works against the argument for evolution, though. People try to play off any issue with complexity by saying, "hey, with enough time, anything can happen!". This is why any notion that the universe is less than a bijillion years old is met with fierce opposition and ridicule. Still, with enough time, simple things could turn complex.

The bigger problem for complexity is irreducable complexity. This was identified by Darwin (though not coined) when he published The Origin of the Species:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

Say what you want about Darwin's motives, but he actually was a scientist, which is more than I can say about most of our "scientific" and "free" thinkers today. He recognized that due to the sheer complexity and factors involved with evolution, only the most "simple" changes could ever happen at once. He was also at a pretty big disadvantage - he did most of his work in the 1850s where they really had no concept of what is inside a cell, and had very little fossil records. Michael Behe called it "Darwin's Black Box" in his book of the same name.

The crux of evolution is that you have to go from zero to complex and EVERY step must be an improvement. So when you examine a cellular machine with over 40 unique and required working parts to do it's job, evolution says each of these parts must have come on their own. But how can that be if you take any ONE part out and the machine no longer functions? Add to this you're not talking just one machine. You're talking all the machines required for all the required parts of a cell. Without reproduction, a cell wall, replication, etc, etc, etc, cells would not exist. Or, you can look at complex organs that have many sub-systems. The eye has 11, each complex but doing nothing on their own. So either they popped from nothing, or slowly evolved over time over trillions of years providing absolutely no benefit until one day, someone got lucky and the lights came on. Blood is another good example. There really are hundreds.

The "scientific" answer to this? "Well, um, it just must have existed as a simpler piece, duh". And yet, no one ever offers any idea on any single piece these machines/organs could do without. So, they ironically buy it on faith. Of course, show them a picture of Stonehenge, and they will immediately recognize that it was designed - despite humans of the time having no known ability/equipment to do so. See: Paley's argument/watchmaker analogy. When you compare the complexity of a rock pile to the simplest cellular system, it really baffles the mind how stubborn people are.

Q3: The Leafy Sea Dragon. How can ANY creature form such a similarity to a plant without a designer? Its not like it looked at seaweed and was like "hmm, I want leaves....POWER OF EVOLUTION ACTIVATE" or something like that.

This also takes away from evolution a bit, but there are a few somewhat feasible ways things like this could happen inside evolution. First, you could have primordial ancestors of the leafy sea dragon that was also a seaweed. Or, there could be a change that is somewhat more "likely" or "beneficial" to happen through evolution, so you end up seeing it more through multiple points of evolutionary origin. Still, pretty unlikely.

 

[inkelis]

These things are really not important to a Christian, as our faith is not based on anything other than Jesus Christ.

But, if evolution is the way that we became the way we are, then it was obviously God's doing. I don't understand why we all don't start thinking like this?

 

[Odale]

As far as Christian vs. Scientific answers to evolution and where the universe came from, I believe the answers, like Lazarus pointed out, to be either cop-out answers (e.g. telling me to go read the Bible does not answer my question, it will only lead to more confusion) or incomplete altogether (scientific approach).

My thoughts on evolution mirror those of Inkelis: God is in control - how we (or anything else) got here is beside the point.

Your thoughts on these topics are no more valid than anyone elses' thoughts.

 

[RyanB]

I think the topic is important for a few reasons...

I think to a certain extent, we should study science. Note by science I mean "studying what God made and how it works" and not "attempting to prove God doesn't exist by creating imaginary theories to explain things". Evolution doesn't conflict with Creation per se, it's just a very un-scientific theory.

I think the real importance of the topic is that many see evolution as an "answer" to God. I would wager that evolution is the #1 excuse for why God does not exist, so understanding evolution is a good tool for speaking the truth. Sure, it's doubtful that pointing out complete contradictions in a theory will lead these people to God in and of itself. They reject God because they want to. But if we're loving in our words, we may be able to make someone go "hmmm, you know, that really DOESN'T make any sense". Maybe I'm just too optimistic.

 

[inkelis]

I re-read my post and i think it may have come across a little wrong.

I believe that it can be very interesting learning about science. For instance, i have a fascination with the origins of the universe, so this is right up my alley. But, as with anything of the world and in the world (Or universe, for that matter) it was all created by God. The argument of the Big Bang vs. Creationism is ridiculous, because my personal opinion is that they are one in the same. With that said it's just and opinion. But the one thing we all as Christians can agree on is that whatever did happen to create the universe was Gods doing.

This is what i love about science, everything we know and hold to be universal truths is not sciences doing, but Gods. Unless we start looking at God as the most important scientist ever(I mean he did create everything, you know.) we will miss out on alot of things science has to offer (Like wonderfully interesting theorys pertaining to dinosaurs for instance)

In short, i love science, and i love God. Science is just our way of trying to figure out how God created everything.

 

[RyanB]

I probably came off wrong as well. I often use "science" in quotes, because many things in the "scientific community" are not scientific at all. IE: they don't follow good standards of taking testable, repeatable evidence and making conclusions from that.

I think that studying what God made, even going so far as to attempt to figure out "how" it happened is great. God could have easily created the big bang or evolution. I just don't buy the theories because the data does not support them.

 

[Durruck]

The reason that we can't just say "because I believe God created everything" is exactly the point that Tek made - at some point, you'll come in contact with someone that does not yet believe God. They have questions, they're willing to challenge their world-view. They're willing to challenge their science textbook from high school.

But they have questions. Why does Christian A believe the earth is 6000 years old? Why does Christian B believe the earth is 4.1 billion years old. Why does one Christian subscribe to theories of (macro)evolution while the next blanket refuses to accept it?

We cannot be the disciples that we are called to be if we do not have answers for some of the hard questions that will be asked of us when we try to share the gospel. I've been facing this all week. Someone very close to me is struggling with her faith, and was recently exposed to the Young/Old Earth debate, and she's hung up on that debate, letting it interfere with her faith. But she expected answers from me, and has been challenging me with various "scientific evidence" that draws different conclusions.

Here's the real thing about scientific evidence: we all have the same evidence. But you can't completely reason backwards from the results and tell me with 100% accuracy what the conditions of the test were. At some point, yes we have to have faith... but, knowing the general conclusions and supporting reasons is never unhelpful.

 

[inkelis]

and was recently exposed to the Young/Old Earth debate, and she's hung up on that debate, letting it interfere with her faith. But she expected answers from me, and has been challenging me with various "scientific evidence" that draws different conclusions.

Ya, but this has nothing to do with Christianity... Maybe she is hung up on it, because someone told her it does. I mean it has no bearing on Jesus Christ and what he did for us. It's really no different than the "This video game is better than [Insert game here]" and then allowing that to effect your faith in God. Maybe that is a poor example.

 

[Durruck]

Here's why it matters to her: She read a book about Young Earth Theory... and in it, the Christian author states that to deny anything but a literal translation of Genesis 1 is to say that God's word isn't inerrant or absolute truth, and if it's not absolutely true 100% of the time, why are you bothering believing any of it?

She's not sold on Youth Earth...nor Old Earth. I told her that young earth makes the most sense to me, but ultimately, I'm in the "who cares" category. Like you, I don't let something I can't prove hang up my faith in God's word. But that's not stopping her doubt. But to follow up my previous post: she's hungry, she is looking the right direction for answers... but she can't see the forest through all the trees... but she wants concrete answers before she makes her commitment. If I don't have answers, how can I be a good witness for God? Ultimately He will reach her heart, but how many days will she waste if I'm not prepared and I was the one that God wanted to use?

 

[inkelis]

What answer can you really have when no one really knows. Sure, God says he created everything is 7 days. But later, he says that 1 day to us is a thousand to him, vice versa. I mean were do you draw the line with literals and contexts. In the end it's opinion.

This is what i always say to someone who NEEDS an answer.

I start by explaining how awesome God is, Have them look around and think about everything around them. I mean think about it. God is capable of ANYTHING, and to say anything different is obviously wrong. He is also very complicated, I mean look at our bodys, or the ocean and the earths seasons and cycles. So its very safe to say that i single man could not possibly understand how or even why God has created so many Very Very complex things. I think come to think about why God would even take the time to explain to us the details. I think the recount of creation in Genesis is not a Scientific journal on how he created everything down to the detail, but rather something that the people will understand, just to make it clear that God did do these things.

I hope that made sense.

 

[RyanB]

Here's why it matters to her: She read a book about Young Earth Theory... and in it, the Christian author states that to deny anything but a literal translation of Genesis 1 is to say that God's word isn't inerrant or absolute truth, and if it's not absolutely true 100% of the time, why are you bothering believing any of it?

Shame on that author. What he really is saying is, "anyone who doesn't agree with my interpretation is wrong", abusing his position as a writer, and sinning greatly against his readership. I should add that I do believe in a literal translation, but who am I to say that anyone who believes differently is wrong? We have no way of knowing 100% whether or not it was 7 consecutive days, 7 days millions of years apart, 7 days that were like millions of years in our time, or if the thing is complete metaphor. We just don't know.

Since your friend is searching for answers, I would tell her this to help her not be fooled into believing false ones:
Don't listen to people's conclusions. Listen to the reasons they give for forming those conclusions. In the above example, there is absolutely zero basis for the author's assertion that we *must* interpret things literally. Many people believe in new earth, old earth, etc. Listen to the reasons they give and make your OWN conclusions without regard to theirs.

Edit: I also have a friend who always NEEDS an answer....so I feel that pain. I really do think people need to come to the conclusion that "Answer X is the most likely answer, but I really have no way of knowing for sure" when it comes to Genesis.

 

[RyanB]

Wanted to add...this is what I feel is *most likely* the answer to creation:
Young earth, old look.

It's not because God wanted to "trick unbelievers", it just makes perfect sense if you think about it. As far as I can tell from my interpretation of scripture, God spoke things into being but they didn't just *pop* or *poof* into place. I mean, he spent an entire day on each thing.

So, I have this picture in my mind of God taking the earth and moulding it. It must've been pretty magnificent. Anyway, what would happen when forming the mountains? Pretty much the exact same thing that occurs naturally. So I guess if I had to really describe it...it would be to picture billions of years of "natural" earth science happening in a short period of time, giving the exact same end result. Remember, too, that at first the earth was just a mass, so that sort of enforces this view.

This process could be applied to evolution, too...imagine the animals forming out of the soil and differentiating before His eyes. No idea, though, and I see that as less likely, but it's just as good as any theory out there.

Anyway, that's my guess. God is probably laughing right now at how my tiny brain can't even begin to grasp the full extent of His glory.

 

[Sassamo]

I can't help but feel I am that friend who always 'needs' an answer, if not, then at least this still states my stance.

As I have always stated, I agree that there are some things that there's no way of knowing 'for sure', but for me, that is in no way an excuse not to study the subject and have my own firm belief on it. I certainly would never go around pointing, saying, "You don't agree with me, therefore, you're wrong", I'll simply state my belief, and why I think it's correct.

2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

1 Pet 3:15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear

If someone asks me my belief about something, "I don't know, but this question you have is totally irrelevant to the whole picture and you should just ignore it" is not a viable answer! If it's something I haven't yet studied and come to a firm belief on yet, I would simply indicate that, tell them the closest piece of helpful information I can think of at the time, then study it out so the next time I'm asked this question, I'll be able to do as God instructed me.

Also, I never let any study interfere with my relationship with God, not everyone may be currently in a position to state that, and for them, they should focus on the foundations, however, it never helps to totally ignore an issue that's already been brought up.

As for the topic at hand, I also believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Also, i believe that there are two types of sciences, observational, and non-observational, and that all observational science agrees with the scriptures, while only non-observational sciences(those that are basically taken on faith!) are the only ones that differ. A good site for a list of observational young earth evidences is http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth. Again, this is my believe and the facts as I see them(though I don't feel a christian, or anyone for that matter, should have to preface everything they say with "I could be wrong, but I believe...". Just because I state my belief doesn't mean I'm saying if you disagree, you're stupid and wrong, but again, that's just how I feel about having to be overly-cautious to not step on any toes)

 

[Durruck]

Inkelis, I'm not trying to put down your method, as I'm sure it will work with some people. But this gal wants more than "just play along and you'll see". She is in the process of attempting to shape her worldview to include angels and demons and an all-powerful God and Resurrection and everything else. She is trying to process it all and put it all together. She's okay with "I don't know for sure", but she wants to hear why people say what they say.

I think RyanB makes a great point (that I'll have to remember to share with her) Shame on that author for pigeon-holing something that while he feels strongly about it, there isn't clear, undeniable evidence to say that it's the only way something could have happened. Red and Yellow make Orange, have always made orange, and will always make orange. There's no argument there because there's no other way it could be. But the Earth's age is something that we can only speculate about, giving what evidence supports our opinions.