I believe in God and I don't believe in the theory of evolution. They are indeed exclusive of one another.

Darwin was just speculating.

>>I believe in God <<

I've heard that one from many people, then with further inquiry found out almost all of them had no idea of what/who exactly they believed god was/is.

Well, you never asked me.

fell free to explain right here :-)

"Darwin was just speculating"

...and was apparently extremely good at it.

My personal belief is that a God who can create a world like ours (that may even have multiple universes) won't have to work on the same time scale as ours.

A day on Mercury is 59 Earth days (and it has only 2 days in a year!).

I see no reason why the Creator of the Universe should feel limited by the rotational speed of a single one of His planets.

This concept probably has its origin in the old earth-centric view, where we are the center of the universe and all planets and stars revolve around us. This is attractive because it makes us feel good. We all want to be at the center of attention, so we're totally sold on this. :O)

Let's remember also that Darwin was not a "Darwinist." He said "it's not about the survival of the fittest, but survival of the most adaptable."

Personally I have no problem with the current scientific timeline, which remarkably matches the timespan stated by Vedic scientists a long time ago (who were also able to calculate precisely the precession of our solar system long before we even knew precession existed), although they say the "Big Bang" is more like a swamp bubble. It grows from nothing and expands until it collapses, then a new bubble is generated. I wonder why this idea never caught on here? :O)

Actually it did.

The latest in astrophysics is that the Big Bang was just one of many, and that the universe we live in is currently expanding before it collapses again. Scientists say matter grows from a bulge in a truly 2-dimensional "brane" (think "mem-brane") in vacuum, but this is better understood on a mathematical level currently.

Okay...

There are three Gods - the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - who, though separate in personality, are united as one in purpose, in plan, and in all the attributes of perfection.

By definition, God (generally meaning the Father) is the one supreme and absolute Being. He is the ultimate source of the universe. He is the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is the only supreme governor and independent Being in whom all fulness and perfection dwell. He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. He is the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings centers for life and salvation.

He is the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them, including man. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

(Do not be surprised if this thread is closed or erased entirely.)

Dan, this theory assumes as a fact that life, millions of years ago, originated itself spontaneously. This is the foundation of the theory of evolution. The question naturally arises, if spontaneous generation could be possible then, is it possible now? If not, why not?

Why would evolution, or theory thereof, not be one of His creations? Maybe evolution is one way he works?

Jay,

At first glance it indeed seems like believing in God and believing in Darwin are mutually exclusive.

The part that is exclusive is the concept that all of life is a random creation caused by chemical reactions and happenstance.

The part that is not exclusive is that the timeline (billions of years) is not in any way "too big a task for God."

My belief is that the entire creation (one or more universes, it doesn't matter) was created the same way a seed is created.

Just like the oak seed had to grow up to become an oak tree, our creation had to become what it is today and what it will be like later.

All of creation over time was inherent in that original seed, and just like branches on an oak are not a result of the trunk feeling lonely, our existence developed various life forms in the same way a tree branch unfolds new leaves, based on what we call "the inherent nature of the oak."

So there is no reason to give up on the timeline of creation. Let's get to the bottom of how it was created instead.

1. Was it created like a seed that contained all instructions to become a huge oak tree?

or

2. Was it created like a chess set with 16 chess pieces of good and 16 chess pieces of evil that live statically on an 8x8 board?

I'll take #1.

Bjorn, you're absolutely correct! God is not limited to our time scale. The scriptures state that 1000 years is but a day unto the Lord (2 Peter 3:8). Such things are relative, depending upon which planet one dewells!

Maybe evolution is one way he works?

No, He stated Himself that man was created in His image. Nowhere in all of scripture does God mention anything about "evolution," i.e., one creature evolving into another. Everything He created was formed after its own kind--plant and animal, including man.

>>He is the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings centers for life and salvation.<<

Is he an object , is he a man, is he a burnig bush, what exactly is he. And what exactly ( assuming all you say is true ) is the point of all that.

To me , this solves absolutely nothing. What exactly is the purpose of that?

Why do I need salvation in the first place.

It's exactly the same theory as the big bang theory. It completely avoids the obvious. Where did IT ( god or big bang ) come from? Trying to convince us there was nothing before those, or that one of those goes back to infinity just doesn't work.

Both, big bang and god theories go back in time, but only to a certain point, then they stop , and unable to comprehend much beyond that, just try to make up what happened beyond that point.

Not quite accurate, but close, Jay. One of the hypotheses of the theory is that life began some long time in the past as a result of some event as yet unknown. Causality, not spontaneity.

Why not now? Indeed. In fact, there have been many experiments attempting to "spontaneously" create life from concoctions mimicking our best guess of Earth's primordial soup. There have been varying degrees of "success", but I don't think scientists have created one-celled organisms out of lifeless organic elements.

The point is this: The theory of evolution will stand or fall under the scrutiny of the scientific method...a constant striving to reproducibly prove or disprove the predictions the theory proposes.

Faith and religion are not scientific theories. Unlike evolution, cosmetology, quantum mechanics, genetics, etc...Religions assert their beliefs as The Truth without the benefit of trial by the scientific method. There is not a Theory of Christianity. It is a belief system, not a science.

Is he an object , is he a man, is he a burnig bush, what exactly is he. And what exactly ( assuming all you say is true ) is the point of all that.

He is indeed a Man--a perfected, exalted man! He has a body of flesh and bone, just as His Son does.

To me , this solves absolutely nothing. What exactly is the purpose of that?

God, through the gospel of Jesus Christ, has challenged us to change. “Repent” is its most frequent message, and repenting means giving up all of our practices—personal, family, ethnic, and national—that are damaging and/or contrary to His commandments. The purpose is to transform common creatures, you and me, into celestial citizens. That requires change.

It's exactly the same theory as the big bang theory. It completely avoids the obvious. Where did IT ( god or big bang ) come from? Trying to convince us there was nothing before those, or that one of those goes back to infinity just doesn't work.

You're right. Trying to comprehend the infinite is difficult at best. However, with the proper study and exercise man can come close to understanding it within its proper context. Then the question becomes, "Do I want to understand?" If so, it's available. If not, that's okay, too. That's the individual's choice and right!

Dan, you use the term theory yourself, and I have no problem with that. That's all it is. A theory--an unproved assumption. Nothing more, nothing less.

>>Trying to comprehend the infinite is difficult at best. However, with the proper study and exercise man can come close to understanding it within its proper context. Then the question becomes, "Do I want to understand?" If so, it's available. If not, that's okay, too. That's the individual's choice and right!<<

That is the problem. I do want to understand and coming close , especially as you say within the context ( because context is defined by humans ) just won't cut it ( in my opinion actually, neither science nor religion are even remotely close ).

And religion is also just a theory ( no matter what anybody else wants to call it or pass it off as )

Yep. There's no denying that evolution is still a theory. (Unproven, as you say, in many ways. On the other hand many of its predictions have been validated within the rigors of the scientifc method.)

Many theories are accepted as fact by most reasonable people - gravitation, quantum mechanics, general and special relativity - by virtue of verifiable predictions they make. I daresay evolution is in the same boat.

That is the problem. I do want to understand and coming close , especially as you say within the context ( because context is defined by humans ) just won't cut it ( in my opinion actually, neither science nor religion are even remotely close ).

Well, the context I am referring to is not defined by humans.

And religion is also just a theory ( no matter what anybody else wants to call it or pass it off as )

No, true religion is not a theory. My experiences over the past 31 years have proven otherwise!

Regarding your next post...

No, gravity is not a theory. Gravity is a law! And just because a person accepts a theory as fact does not make it a fact. The fact is there is no irrefutable evidence that proves the theory of evolution. It simply doesn't exisit. Therefore, it is a theory.

The fact that evolution is a theory does not make it weak. It is a theory because it is an explanation. Only data dan be a fact, never explanations of data. Likewise Creation is also a theory. As a theory it is no stronger and no weaker than evolution. The only data required to coherently allow for Creation is the existence itself.

Evolution on the other hand does have a lot of data to coherently agree with it as well as a few significant gaps that should be a bit troubling if not humbling.

Anyhow, I see the entire issue as a fight over fighting. The two sides square off because they refuse to consider a mutually possible explanation. Both want a belief that forces the other side to be absolutely wrong. Both views are often held in amanner that is unjustifiably mutually exclusive.

If God creates adam as an apparant adult and creates the light from the stars as if it had been traveling for hundreds of thousands of years that never existed then God can do that.

What if it was entirely necessarry in order to create a universe where there would be a sufficient window of opportunity for a race of humans and an ecological system in perfect balance that such a creation would have to be completely consistent with an evolution that could have happened but just never did?

In deed God could have created the universe only two minutes before my post which would mean that when he created it, it included all the memeories and physical residue of the past we merely imagine the current physical proof seems to indicate has been around.

You see we are speculating about things that cannot be proven or disproven and that also do not matter because evolution can be biologically viable even if it never happened that way. Both stories sustain a completely coherent possibility.

So why are we fighting? Because we like to fight. We like to be right and we secretly love it when others are proven wrong. In deed some people who believe in an eternal rest are lusting for the day when they shall be vindicated by God himself. Now that ought to inspire some real fighting.

I personally believe that God created the Universe somewhere in the recent past. I also beleive that scientific inquiry into evolution is absolutely biologically valid.

The church argued with Copernicus for 150 years before admitting he was right. What was the result of that fight? -- We had one hundred and fifty years of scientific scholarship where the scientists knew confidently and certainly without a doubt that the church was wrong. Prior to that fight most Western scholars were Christians, after that fight most western scholars were not.

Christians, with Copernicus you shot yourselves in the foot, with evolution you are shooting yourselves in the gut. In the next big battle you may very well end up shooting yourselves in the head.

>>No, true religion is not a theory<<

Sorry, but it is. Until god himself not only comes down, but proves everything in the bible/talmud/koran/whatever actually is true, it will be just a theory.

That's the way it works. You can't just call something you dislike, just a theory, then try to pass off something you believe in as fact.

You have to be consistent.

Until god himself not only comes down, but proves everything in the bible/talmud/koran/whatever actually is true, it will be just a theory.

Oh, but He has! That's why it is true!

You know, as Bob pointed out, "fighting" about such topics never achieved anything. You said you were interested in learning, but I am left with the impression that you only want to argue.

In either case, if you wish to pursue this further, I would be happy to do so off-line, in e-mails. That way we don't burn up so much space and bandwidth here.