[W:94]THE ABRAHAMIC GOD and THEISTIC EVOLUTION

[tosca1]

First, let's introduce theistic evolution again. It is a religious creation belief - that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

That definition came from the National Academy of Sciences.
The NAS - surprisingly - went on to explain that Theistic Evolution,
is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."


WMAP Site FAQs



There are many scientists who are Theistic evolutionists. A lot of them are Christians and believers of the Abrahamic God.
A lot of them have been non-believers who ended up being convinced - and converted - by their scientific findings.
They do not see any contradiction(s) between the Biblical narrative of creation, and evolution. They see compatibility between the Bible and science.

Therefore, they're saying the Creator is the Abrahamic God.


Many believers of Intelligent Design, also refer to the Abrahamic God.
Though the science community refuses to acknowledge Intelligent Design as “real science,” nevertheless, they share the same reaction and premise that has the science community – including the National Academy of Sciences – touched with awe over the order and complexity of nature.



Just for the record, I want to make it clear that I am not an evolutionist. I don't believe in macro evolution.
I do not believe in common descent.

I do not care for the age of the world, either. It does not impact my faith in any way.
I believe that the message of Genesis is that GOD is the Creator.

However, I couldn't help but be astounded too, as to how Genesis is indeed in-lined with the scientific claims about the universe.



The purpose of this thread is to show how theistic evolutionists (scientists) can say that theistic evolution is in-lined with the Bible.
There are quite a few versions as to how scientists see the compatibility of the Genesis narrative with evolution......but the fact that there are many versions only strengthen the argument and validity for DESIGN by the ABRAHAMIC GOD.

 

[tosca1]

Of course, we'll have to start with the very first 3 words of Genesis 1.

In the beginning,


The universe has a beginning.
This is based on the best cosmological evidence which suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite.

It began with the “BIG BANG.”


Of course, there are atheist scientists who argue, and believe that the universe existed before the Big Bang,.......but they present no evidence for it! NONE!

The Big Bang theory is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science.

It explains the observed facts; it has made successful predictions; it has stood the test of time; and there is no alternate theory that the professional scientific community deems valid.

New observations could always cause the Big Bang theory to be abandoned, but that is not likely. Scientists have a theory of why the sky is blue. One day you could wake up to find the sky is green and the "blue-sky theory" was wrong, but that's not likely to happen either.

It is likely that the Big Bang theory will take on additional add-on ideas, or models, to explain more than it currently explains.

WMAP Site FAQs

 

[Manc Skipper]

Please stop shouting.

 

[tosca1]

Theistic evolutionists point out that God has not revealed the ENTIRE creation process in the Bible.
How can they say that?
Obviously He left out detailed explanations of things like unicellular life forms.
Maybe because it would've been too complicated at the time to get into those details, it would only confused people of that time –
they wouldn't have understood what became understandable only a couple of centuries ago.
Therefore, He gave only what is particularly relevant to mankind.


Genesis 1
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth



Science version: the inflationary Big Bang happened.

Big Bang Timeline
1. 0 second to 10-43 second. Only God knows or can know what happened during this period of time. We know only that at least 9 dimensions of space existed as what is called singularity. All of the universe-to-be existed as a point of no volume. Time as we know it was created.

2. 10-43 second, also known as Planck time. This is the point at which gravity, one of the four unified forces, became separate from the remaining three forces.

3. 10-36 second. The strong nuclear force (the force that holds the nuclei of atoms together) separated from the other three unified forces.

4. 10-36 to 10-32 second. Immediately following and triggered by the separation of the strong nuclear force, the universe expanded rapidly for this brief period of time.

5. 10-32 to 10-5 second. The universe is filled with quarks, antiquarks, and electrons. The quarks and antiquarks combine and annihilate each other. Quarks are in excess of antiquarks by a ratio of 1,000,000,001 to 1,000,000,000. The remaining quarks will make up all the matter that exists in the universe.

6. 10-12 second. The final two unified forces split from one another. Electromagnetism, which controls the attraction of negatively and positively charged particles, becomes separate from the weak nuclear force, which controls radioactive decay.

7. 10-5 second. The universe cools to 1,000,000,000,000°K allowing quarks to combine to form protons and neutrons, the building blocks of atomic nuclei.

8. 1 second to 3 minutes. The universe continues to cool, allowing protons and neutrons to combine to form the nuclei of future atoms.

Inflationary Big Bang Model

 

[Irredentist]

First, let's introduce theistic evolution again. It is a religious creation belief - that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

That definition came from the National Academy of Sciences.
The NAS - surprisingly - went on to explain that Theistic Evolution,
is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."


WMAP Site FAQs



There are many scientists who are Theistic evolutionists. A lot of them are Christians and believers of the Abrahamic God.
A lot of them have been non-believers who ended up being convinced - and converted - by their scientific findings.
They do not see any contradiction(s) between the Biblical narrative of creation, and evolution. They see compatibility between the Bible and science.

Therefore, they're saying the Creator is the Abrahamic God.


Many believers of Intelligent Design, also refer to the Abrahamic God.
Though the science community refuses to acknowledge Intelligent Design as “real science,” nevertheless, they share the same reaction and premise that has the science community – including the National Academy of Sciences – touched with awe over the order and complexity of nature.



Just for the record, I want to make it clear that I am not an evolutionist. I don't believe in macro evolution.
I do not believe in common descent.

I do not care for the age of the world, either. It does not impact my faith in any way.
I believe that the message of Genesis is that GOD is the Creator.

However, I couldn't help but be astounded too, as to how Genesis is indeed in-lined with the scientific claims about the universe.



The purpose of this thread is to show how theistic evolutionists (scientists) can say that theistic evolution is in-lined with the Bible.
There are quite a few versions as to how scientists see the compatibility of the Genesis narrative with evolution......but the fact that there are many versions only strengthen the argument and validity for DESIGN by the ABRAHAMIC GOD.

What is an "evolutionist"? Evolution is not a belief system that requires your faith in it. It is a fact that you share common traits and DNA sequences with every other living creature on this planet, because you share common ancestry with all other living species of plant or animal that have ever existed. We all descend from the same original unicellular life form. Maybe god had a hand in it, maybe he didn't, who knows. But evolution and the mechanisms behind it are solid facts.

 

[Divine_Wind]

....The purpose of this thread is to show how theistic evolutionists (scientists) can say that theistic evolution is in-lined with the Bible.
There are quite a few versions as to how scientists see the compatibility of the Genesis narrative with evolution......but the fact that there are many versions only strengthen the argument and validity for DESIGN by the ABRAHAMIC GOD.

Agreed that theistic evolution doesn't conflict with science, but, unlike science, there is no way to prove or disprove the theory.

 

[tosca1]

What is an "evolutionist"?

Speaking for myself in explaining where I'm coming from - that means, I don't believe in macro evolution. I don't believe in common descent.

I'm delving into theistic evolution (or how theistic evolutionists see the compatibility of science and the Bible), just for the purpose of discussion.

 

[zyzygy]

Why bring an imaginary being into evolution?

 

[tosca1]

Agreed that theistic evolution doesn't conflict with science, but, unlike science, there is no way to prove or disprove the theory.

But.....theistic evolution is supposed to be based on science!

The National Academy of Sciences also says:

......... many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,'
is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.


Indeed,

it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the

physical universe revealed by

cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

WMAP Site FAQs

 

[Divine_Wind]

But.....theistic evolution is supposed to be based on science!


WMAP Site FAQs

That's not what it says. It says "not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution." If was based in science, then there'd be proof of God, the supernatural or anything beyond the Natural Universe.

 

[lemmiwinx]

Anyone think creatures other than humans realize early on they're going to die one day? I'm sure none of them have convoluted religions like us and they're probably better off for it.

 

[Manc Skipper]

But.....theistic evolution is supposed to be based on science!



WMAP Site FAQs

Theistic evolution is oxymoronic, Science does not recognise magic.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Anyone think creatures other than humans realize early on they're going to die one day? I'm sure none of them have convoluted religions like us and they're probably better off for it.

Unknown at this time. It's possible simians and dolphins can be self-aware ala' René Descartes' Cogito, ergo sum.

 

[tosca1]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
That verse indicates that the universe, the solar system, earth, sun etc...were already created in the first day.





GENESIS 1

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was
hovering over the waters.




Establishing the initial conditions, or the frame of reference..........is the first rule of scientific method.
Describing the position is a frame of reference.

The frame of reference in Genesis 1:2 is the surface of the waters of the earth.
God was hovering over the waters of the newly-formed earth.

Infant earth was also covered with dense layers of clouds and gases, which could've made it dark at its surface.






Science:

Earth was barren, flat and almost entirely under water 4.4 billion years ago

Earth was barren, flat and almost entirely under water 4.4 billion years ago



Early Earth had a hazy, methane-filled atmosphere

Early Earth had a hazy, methane-filled atmosphere

 

[lemmiwinx]

Unknown at this time. It's possible simians and dolphins can be self-aware ala' René Descartes' Cogito, ergo sum.

I'm sure there are animals who mourn the deaths of their kin you're correct. Elephants have sort of funerals for their deceased.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
That verse indicates that the universe, the solar system, earth, sun etc...were already created in the first day.





GENESIS 1

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was
hovering over the waters.




Establishing the initial conditions, or the frame of reference..........is the first rule of scientific method.
Describing the position is a frame of reference.

The frame of reference in Genesis 1:2 is the surface of the waters of the earth.
God was hovering over the waters of the newly-formed earth.






Science:

Earth was barren, flat and almost entirely under water 4.4 billion years ago

Earth was barren, flat and almost entirely under water 4.4 billion years ago

Genesis is contrary to science in several respects. Specifically that Earth wasn't created until billions of years after the Big Bang.

 

[tosca1]

Genesis 1

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.



With those words, God had removed much of the cloud/gases that covered the earth. The light from the sun came through.



Genesis 1

4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.


Reminding everyone that the universe, and solar system, moon etc.., were already created on the first day.
With earth already moving on its axis, the light from the sun now coming through (daylight) - this is what it means by
separation of light and darkness. There is now differentiation (light-wise), with night and day.

 

[tosca1]

Genesis is contrary to science in several respects. Specifically that Earth wasn't created until billions of years after the Big Bang.

:roll:

Never mind the knee-jerk remarks that mean squat. Can't you tell?


I'm showing you why it isn't contrary.

Just read.




If you got nothing relevant and rational to contribute......it's better to zip it!

 

[Divine_Wind]

:roll:

Never mind the knee-jerk remarks that mean squat.

I'm showing you why it isn't contrary.

Can't you tell? Just read.

If you got nothing relevant and rational to contribute......it's better to zip it!

Wow. Obviously you do not care to discuss anything which conflicts with your set opinion. Sad.

/subscribe

 

[tosca1]

Genesis 1

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.
10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.


This must be about the beginning or inception of a stable water cycle, and the formation of continents through tectonic activity.




9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.
10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

About 300 million years ago, Earth didn't have seven continents, but instead one massive supercontinent called Pangaea, which was surrounded by a single ocean called Panthalassa.

The explanation for Pangaea's formation ushered in the modern theory of plate tectonics, which posits that the Earth's outer shell is broken up into several plates that slide over Earth's rocky shell, the mantle.



Cycle in history

The current configuration of continents is unlikely to be the last. Supercontinents have formed several times in Earth's history, only to be split off into new continents.

Geologists have noticed that there is a quasi-regular cycle in which supercontinents form and break up every 300 to 400 million years, but exactly why is a mystery, Murphy said.

What Is Pangaea? Theory and Facts About the Supercontinent | Live Science

 

[tosca1]

Wow. Obviously you do not care to discuss anything which conflicts with your set opinion. Sad.

/subscribe

:roll:

You weren't discussing anything. You were knee-jerking!

What is so hard to understand about this?

I'm showing you why it isn't contrary.


You're doing nothing more but to disrupt without reading!
You couldn't even tell that I am giving evidences that negate what you claim to be contrary!

Based on the fact that you couldn't tell what is right before your eyes - should you be taken seriously?
READ! CONCENTRATE!

 

[tosca1]

Most, if not all responses here so far are nothing more but knee-jerks! :lol:



To be continued.......

 

[tosca1]

Genesis And Science: More Aligned Than You Think?


The following explores the possibility of reconciling what’s in each of the seven days of creation in Genesis with the prevailing information of contemporary science. I think you may find the results quite astounding.

This is not the first time this has been attempted, but this is a shorter and more readable version.

Below are listed the seven days of creation, day by day, and what happened according to Genesis in the Old Testament. With each day we examine how it corresponds with current scientific information. In this comparison, the seven days are not important; it is the description of what took place on each day, and in what order, that is relevant.


---------------

A review of how the 12 elements of the biblical creation story compare to science.

Nine are scientifically correct, and just two are in the wrong order: birds and plants.

Genesis And Science: More Aligned Than You Think? | HuffPost

 

[tosca1]

The essay above indicates that birds and plants were in the wrong order.
That might change.



A study was published in 2011 that pushed back the date of the origin of the non-marine photosynthetic eukaryotes to at least 1 billion years ago. The discovery also includes fossils.

If proven - this means the Biblical order is correct: land plants appeared before animals in the ocean.

The apparent dominance of eukaryotes in non-marine settings by 1 Gyr ago indicates that eukaryotic evolution on land may have commenced far earlier than previously thought.

(PDF) Earth's earliest non-marine eukaryotes

 

[Jetboogieman]

Evolution is science.

Religion is fiction.

The two things don’t mix.