Origins Before Evolution

Back to the VERY beginning.

I am fascinated by this very topic. There are many posts on forums, particularly on the "religion" and "science" themes realtive to this subject. The one thing that I have noticed from having read these posts and been a participant is that nearly all discussions/arguments volley back and forth about evolution v creation (or intelligent design).

On a number of occasions I have thrown in this topic of "origins", and proposed that it is vital to have a theory or explanation that one can work from, as from a platform. Some respondents totally avoided the issue. So, I thought I might just start a hub on it, and put it out there.

Why "origins"?

Because, I see this as the very BEGINNING, of all things. What was there, before anything was there? Time and matter are not eternal. They had a beginning. So, when did they come into being, and how? There are all sorts of time frames as to "when" it happened. Several hundred billion years seems to be the consensus. I don't know, but it was a L O N G time ago, at time = zero. The inquisitive mind wants to know what was there before time zero. And, this poses another set of questions, like, if there was no time, why did it come into being? If there was no matter, how/why did matter "become"? What physical laws were there in operation, before there was a "physical" universe? It's all too deep for many to bother with thinking about.

I propose there are two possible alternative theories. (Theories?), because neither one can be observed, tested, replicated or extrapolated. So, it's not really scientific, but rather, phylosophic, in nature.

One, is the "Big Bang", that many scientists do not adhere to. But call it another name, it doesn't matter. It basically seeks to explain everything coming into being as some "event", which happened at time zero, and it happened all by, and of itself. No known cause. No known (pre)material, material. Or non-matter became matter. An unknown form of matter, somehow transformed into matter (as we know it today). I am no rocket scientist, and I have no degrees behind my name. I consider myself as "Mr Average", who asks questions, seeking meaningful answers. I am always on the lookout for developments in the media about this, and many other topics. So, when (and if), a new discovery ever emerges that answers this hypothesis, I will be all ears.

The other "theory", is that it was all created, by an omnipotent Being, whom we call God. He took "nothing", and out of it (or put into it), all matter as we know it today. Not only matter, but time, all the laws that govern it, and anything else that is required for it all to "be". He, having wisdom, and knowledge, sufficient to design and engineer every detail, was responsible for "putting it all together".

The big issue is as follows;

If God (Intelligant Designer) created everything, then certain truths area natural consequence. There was/is NO evolution. That is to say, life did NOT start all by itself in some "puddle" of just the right chemicals. Which then "evolved" into simple cells-complex cells-fish-lizards-mamals-primates and ultimately man. Yes, ther were some adaptations, and changes, but not a steady upward climb in complexity.

Everything was made (essentially) as we see it today. (Although there are several conjectures about the nature of the whole world pre-flood of Noah's day. I don't want to go there in this hub.) This is not magic,as some would call it. It is not a fairy tale, though many say it is. Neither is it a myth. But even if it were, ther is no way of proving or disproving it anyway. It is a perfectly plausible scenario, and worthy of inclusion to the debate. One thing that needs to be said, is that those that are adversarial to this concept, rarely, if ever have a clear and broad enough understanding of it, to logicaly argue it.

The (supposedly) scientific model, that denies the (existance, or) involvment of "God", has NO choice but to keep coming up with more and more thories, to explain the "unexplained". How did life "start" in a puddle? Well, we don't know, but we have a theory. How did matter come into existance, from seemingly, nothing? Well, we don't know, but we have a thoery. Why do we have so much variety, and order, and interdependence in the natural world? Well we don't know, but we have a theory? We have lots of theories, and we are working frantically to find answers! And none of the thories have been proven, beyond shadow of doubt.

The thing that I find most annoying, is, everytime a refference is made to anything in nature, it is almost always reffered to as having evolved. "Billions of years ago, this evolved. Billions fo years ago, so-n-so evolved". It is always stated in a way as to imply that "it was so"! Or, as FACT. The jury is still OUT. I am not convinced beyond reasonable doubt, that evolution is fact.

To me, Creation is far more plausible, because it explains more than it confuses. Clarifies more than it muddies. Gives more (reasonable) answers, than questions. Has as much "scientific" support, as one needs to understand the world he/she lives in.

Is there a third alternative? I don't know. I have never heard of one. I certainly can't (logically) think of one.

I am very much supportive of teaching BOTH, side by side, and letting the students evaluate for themselves, and come to their own conclusions.

More by this Author


Comments 13 comments

pennyofheaven profile image

pennyofheaven 6 years ago from New Zealand

Excellent thought provoking hub that I enjoyed. Thanks!


aka-dj profile image

aka-dj 7 years ago from Australia Author

Thanks Jim.

Coming from you means a lot. I respect you comment, but especially your work and input here @ HP.

Blessings


JimLow 7 years ago

aka-dj,

I thoroughly enjoyed the Hub!


aka-dj profile image

aka-dj 7 years ago from Australia Author

sorry fatfist.

My intent was not to terminate discussion. Based on many previous discussions I've had others who hold opposing views, it seems that all I get is attacks and demands to prove one thing or other. I am not here to prove anything. So, I assumed this discussion was going the same way.

Another reason for my short answer to you was that I don't get too much time in my day to get into much detail. I have a way too busy life off line to do this more deeply.

I was not offended. I know what I believe, and why I believe it. It takes a fair bit to unsettle me. I appreciate you not taking it too personally also.

If I can answer any questions, I'd be happy to. Perhaps one or two at a time rather than multiple points in multiple paragraphs. :)

Blessing.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 7 years ago

"I suggest you continue on your (current) path, and move on."

I didn't mean to upset you or offend you in any way, as I thought we could have a meaningful discussion about the concept of creation.

That's ok, I don't take things personally and I respect your wishes - I won't post on your hub anymore.

Cheers


aka-dj profile image

aka-dj 7 years ago from Australia Author

@fatfist

After quite some consideration, I have decided to NOT debate you point for point.

A) Because you are fully convinced of your point of view, and there is no room to move. I think there is very little I can say that will cause you to change your mind (on any one of them). If you expect me to define spirit, god, eternity, or anything else, you are wasting your time. It's not my mandate to do so. Neither is it my "job" to prove God's existence, method of creation, or His revelation in the Bible. You either believe, or you don't! If you have no concept, or have rejected any previous concept of His existence, I can't help you.

B)My calling is to help people along their journey to get to know Him, know Him better and teach His ways. I am sharing my personal and subjective experiences, which is basically all I am required to do. I have MET Him, and therefore encourage others to meet Him also.

I have to repeat my earlier rebuttal though. God exists OUTSIDE of space and time. He did not require TIME to create TIME. In Genesis, it says, "In the beginning God..." in other words, when the beginning "became", He already WAS.

Then it says "He said, 'LIGHT BE'". If you study that for just a moment, you will notice that there was NO light-producing sun or star or any other physical object that would shine. If time is a physical property, (which it is) and is relative to matter and space, it was NOT present. So, your assumption here is incorrect.

Anyway, I have said more than I intended to, except to add this. God is ready and willing to meet with ANY human being that sincerely wants to know Him. If you fit the profile, then you are NO exception. If not, then I suggest you continue on your (current) path, and move on. Blessings. DJ :)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 7 years ago

To summarize, here are 4 points that show how a creator is logically impossible:

1) Nothingness means that – nothing. No space, no time, no matter, no energy, no vacuum, and most certainly no god. How can something (a creator) come into existence and be a first cause from nothing? There is no rational answer to this question. If there really was nothing, there would be no universe and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

2) Nothing can be shown to be “created” so we could at least “induce” the universe was created. Everything is “assembled” from pre-existing matter. Creation is nowhere in the cards. You haven’t showed one example of something being “created” in order to even entertain a discussion about creation. Creation is just an assumption with no logically rational support or foundation.

3) If everything that exists has a cause, then there cannot possibly exist anything that does not have a cause – including a creator. This is rational thinking and nobody has been able to refute this point. This means that there obviously is NO first cause – hence no creator.

4) Time has to exist in order for a creator to create something out of nothingness, as it takes time (an event) to create something. But nothingness has no time. So if there is no time, then it is impossible for a creator to exist in order to “begin” an event (requiring time) to create something.

The reason why such creation arguments have been shown impossible for many centuries is because “God” and “spirit” have not been defined.

If someone would define exactly what “God” is, and positively predicate God in that definition, then it would be much easier to show how this entity exists. These discussions have been going on for centuries and they always lead to the same conclusion. In that god is not what the original humans envisioned him to be. What God is, is yet to be defined.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 7 years ago

I am not assuming that everything that exists came from nothing as there is no rational argument that can support this position. From my response and discussion below, the logic and reasoning induces or points to the suggestion that the cosmos always was there with no creation. Of course this cannot be proven with any certainty, but it is rationally "induced", just like it is induced that the sun will continue to rise one year from now, as it always has.

(It is widely accepted that the total known and as yet unknown universe is NOT without beginning. Stephen Hawking instantly springs to mind.)

Please, let’s have an “intelligent” discussion here. Arguments from “authority” are always fallacious because the authority is not here to defend their position, and we really don’t know what their position is, or whether it’s significant in reality or in mathematical physics. Also, you are assuming that Hawking knows something about the cosmos that you and I don’t, even though all 3 of us are confined here on this planet with the same human senses and reasoning abilities. I would love to debate and brainstorm with Hawking on this issue, but unfortunately this is not possible.

(It actually says that God made the things that are seen, from things that do not appear or cannot be seen. I'm sure I don't know what that is/was, but it certainly is NOT nothing.)

Please explain what “things that do not appear” mean? What are they? Are they matter? How do you know God did this in this way the Bible says? Where is the proof that this is actual fact?

You also stated that you DONT’ KNOW what that is, but you are CERTAIN that it is NOT nothing. I’m sorry to bring this up, but can’t you see that you are contradicting yourself here? How can you possibly be certain when you clearly state that you don’t know? Certainty means truth that is proven. You are only claiming belief here, and there is nothing wrong with claiming belief on any issue. Beliefs are part of human reality as 99% of what we do depends on beliefs. We believe the sun will rise tomorrow. When it does rise tomorrow, then it becomes a truth – until then, it is only a belief. We believe we will be safe during a long trip. We believe we will or won't retire with enough funds, and so on.... But to claim that something IS the case, that needs a truth.

(God being the creator, He Himself is NOT a product of some form of creation. We are just as lost for understanding His eternal existence.)

Either everything that is supposedly created needs a creator or it doesn’t. We must be consistent otherwise we are being irrational and dishonest. It can either be one way or the other - not both. In your scenario, God must have been created - that is the only rational position according to creation and first cause. You are creating a “special pleading” case for “God”, in order specify it exists because you or your bible say it does. It is obvious that any special pleading is inconsistent, contradictory, and irrational. Reality does not work this way. You can’t go into the bank and tell the manager that you’ve always had 50 million dollars in your account since the bank was “first created”, and expect them to take you seriously and give you the money – all claims have to be rational and proven.

(The Bible says of Him, as ALWAYS was, IS and ALWAYS will be)

Yes well, the bible and people say a lot of things. I don’t get into discussion about judging the bible or people. It’s best to look at the facts and what makes sense. The evidence for the claims in the bible, is only in the bible itself. Both you and I are smart enough to logically and rationally determine what is true, false or just belief. I’m sure you don’t take people’s word as fact, as I don’t expect you to take anything I say as factual. I expect you to rationally reason whether my discussion makes sense. And where it doesn’t make sense, I would expect you to point it out and call me to defend my position as would do to you. This is what good discussions are about, and both sides actually take something with them at the end of the discussion. We learn new things every day.

(He is Spirit, so, there is no "material" that needed creating.)

No. Material, matter, time, space all exist. So if you are saying god is the creator, he “must” have created all that. So how can god create time when time did not exist? You agree that it takes “time” to create something. To have creation you need to create time. And to do that you need a cause. But this cause must exist before time does, which needs time itself. Please explain how that is possible. To say something exists before time is to say there was a time when there was no time, a contradiction. Therefore creation is impossible.

(What exactly IS Spirit? Well, that is just as easy to describe as "nothingness" and "eternal")

No. Nothingness is completely nothing – no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no god, no spirit, no vacuum, just nothing. You are making an irrational special pleading case and inconsistently popping whatever you like into existence. You earlier stated that the bible said god didn’t create out of nothing. And now you are saying that it did, since “spirit” is nothingness – thus creation out of nothing. This is a contradiction.

This is an interesting discussion. Thanks for your response.


aka-dj profile image

aka-dj 7 years ago from Australia Author

Hello fatfist.

I can see where you are coming from. However you also make assumptions on which you base your argument.

Namely three (@ least).1) Everything that IS, either is eternal, or came into existence of itself, or by some still unknown process. 2) Everything that is, was made from nothing. Like you, I CANNOT imagine total "nothingness". 3) God is also a (somehow) created Being Himself.

I will attempt deal with those three as briefly and concisely as I can.

1) It is widely accepted that the total known (and as yet unknown) universe is NOT without beginning. If that were the case, then the work of many extremely gifted and intelligent men is a total waste of time. Stephen Hawking instantly springs to mind. I'm sure I need not comment on his work.

2)Creation, as according to the Bible does not say that God created everything out of nothing. It actually says that God made the things that are seen, from things that do not appear (or cannot be seen). I'm sure I don't know what that is/was, but it certainly is NOT nothing.

3)God being the creator, He Himself is NOT a product of some form of creation. (Maybe just as you and I can't fathom the meaning of "total nothingness", we are just as lost for understanding His eternal existence.) The Bible says of Him, as ALWAYS was, IS and ALWAYS will be.Literally the Great I AM. He just [b]IS[/b]!

He is Spirit, so, there is no "material" that needed creating. What exactly IS Spirit? Well, that is just as easy to describe as "nothingness" and "eternal".

Hey, thanks for reading, and for giving your time to comment. I appreciate it. Blessings.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 7 years ago

(To me, Creation is far more plausible, because it explains more than it confuses.)

You are "assuming" that the universe or anything has a creator. There is no evidence of a "single" thing in the universe that was "created". Are stars created? Are cars created? Are babies created? None are created. Everything is "assembled" from pre-existing matter.

Creation means to "create out of nothing" (ex nihilo). Please show 1 thing in the universe created from nothing so we can have a basis or a foundation for an "inductive" argument to even entertain the idea for the creation of the universe. This is one of the issues for the creation problem.

Nothingness means just that - no space (not just empty space, but no space), no matter, no time, no creator - just ziltch! Can you envision such a situation? No human being can comprehend such a scenario because of no space. If you can, then please explain how nothingness is possible and then a creator springing into existence out of nothingness.

Another issue is that everything must be "created", in accordance with your reasoning. Then logically there cannot be a creator, since a creator must be created.

Creation has been proven impossible for many centuries yet people continue to use this argument because they do not understand the specifics of the problem of creation.

You will need to propose another argument showing how a creator came to be, and also give 1 example of something that is created in order for your argument to have any merit.


TheMoneyGuy profile image

TheMoneyGuy 8 years ago from Pyote, TX

I think we agree on this! I am for not teaching either one. I would like to see their minds stimulated to be curious. They will find the right answers if taught to think on their own. I believe it has worked well for you.

TMG


aka-dj profile image

aka-dj 8 years ago from Australia Author

Fair comment.

Then lets throw evolution out the same way, for the same reason.

Or at least point out, VERY CLEARLY, that what they are being taught is NOT fact, only theory.

I was taught evolution, but I opted for creation later in life, precisely for the fact that I stated above. (IE, Ev'n generated more questions than answers). But that was all because I have a curious mind, something that many either don't have, or are not using it. I guess they are the ones you call "spoon fed".


TheMoneyGuy profile image

TheMoneyGuy 8 years ago from Pyote, TX

Good Hub,

The problem with creation stories is that there are almost as many of them as there are scientific theories.

Once you go down that path you have to take all paths. No school has that much time. In fact, teaching either theory is a waste of time as this knowledge is not required to be successful in any way defined as successful.

It is just a way to waste children’s time in order to dull their thinking ability. I am not saying it isn't worthy of research, just not worthy of wasting a child’s precious time on. As you stated they are all just theories.

Teach children to think and who knows that kid might solve the puzzle. If we keep spoon feeding them facts they will solve nothing.

TMG

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working