highwaystar101 said:
To address your two points, neither of them are meant to have anything to do with the theory of evolution I'm afraid. Don't worry, this is a common misconception about evolution, people believe it tries to explain everything, from the point the universe came about, to organic molecules being created, to pretty much everything. Evolution is only supposed to tackle how one organism can evolve over time into another one. ... Ah, but usually the arguments revolve around if you believe ID or believe creationism. I believe in creationism for the two aforementioned points. I know abiongenesis isn't evolution, but they are usually tied together by the same camps, AFAIK. Either way I'll attempt to address your two points. Your first point, the creation of the universe. My view is that the evidence that supports the big bang is so overwhelming like...
I never argued if the Big Bang happened . What I argue is how the matter existed in the first place to even create the reaction. I understand redshift, CMBR measurements and other data we have to explain the universe is expanding from a central point - and I agree that there are many theories that help us understand it including aspects of BB. However, anything I've read concerning how the initial matter was created, exploded, ect usually gets very little discussion. As far as I've read, most argue the BB reaction was caused by antimatter atoms coming into contact with matter - how could such a reaction ocurr in a way to project the infinitely dense ball into what we have now? How long was the ball in a state of singluarity before the reaction? What forces caused the reaction in the first place? Those are the questions I am curious about. I'm a huge sci-fi/astronomy nut, so I do try to read up on the various theories out there. I'm not a young-earth creationist in any way shape or form. I agree with all scientific laws concerning the age of the universe, as well as the various empirical data points (redshift, CBMR) you provided. I just have issues with the very root of it all - something I think took a hand well beyond what we understand, and may understand for a very long time. As for the matter point I believe that reading around topics like gravitational fluctuations may hold some answers for you. Personally though I don't see the big bang as infringing on the idea of a creator in any kind of way. If I was a theist, I think I would take the big bang as just a method of creation. As do I. I just questioned the universes' origins to any sort of initial process that brought what we observe now. Your second point about organic matter. Again this isn't meant to be covered by evolution. This is however covered by abiogenesis, which is still formed mainly of hypotheses, therefore it hasn't had conclusive studies done as of yet; Although evidence supporting it is fairly abundant, a quick google would answer a lot of questions. But the gist of it is that amino acids can form via natural chemical reactions, these in turn formed proteins and so on and so forth until it became life. Chemistry is not my thing though so I can't explain it well, perhaps this video will do better...
(Oh and in that video he mentions this video called "ever seen a dog turn into a cat" it is a brilliant video, I often use it as an example to show what macro evolution is when the "macro micro argument comes up" it's worth watching link) Interesting, I will have to read into this more. |
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
