Evolution

When it just doesn't fit anywhere else.

Do you believe in evolution

Yes, God directed.
6
16%
No, God created it all in a literal 6 days and no evolution can happen now.
5
13%
yes God created it all in literal 6 days but evolution can happen now.
3
8%
I don't know
3
8%
Other
3
8%
This field is blank (gap) (not gap theory)
0
No votes
Flat earth
0
No votes
Round earth
17
45%
Other
1
3%
 
Total votes: 38

silentreader
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Evolution

Postby silentreader » Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:23 pm

Wayne in Maine wrote:
Josh wrote:
silentreader wrote:But how light acts in quantum theory is an whole other thing.


The speed of light is rather central to quantum mechanics. Whilst there is fluctuation, the average over time will still come out to the same physical constant.

The speed of light in a vacuum is one of those fundamental constants of the universe, perhaps similar to mathematical constants like the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference (π) or Euler's number (the base of the natural logarithms).


Light waves or light particles?
0 x

User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Anabaptist Seeker
Contact:

Re: Evolution

Postby Wayne in Maine » Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:43 pm

silentreader wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:
Josh wrote:
The speed of light is rather central to quantum mechanics. Whilst there is fluctuation, the average over time will still come out to the same physical constant.

The speed of light in a vacuum is one of those fundamental constants of the universe, perhaps similar to mathematical constants like the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference (π) or Euler's number (the base of the natural logarithms).


Light waves or light particles?

It makes no difference how you describe light, as moving particles or a propagating wave.

To be more precise though, it is not that the speed of light in a vacuum is a fundamental constant, it is the speed at which any massless particles and changes of the associated fields travel in a vacuum. It is, essentially, the universal speed limit.
1 x

Dan Z
Posts: 347
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
Location: Central Minnesota
Affiliation: CMC

Re: Evolution

Postby Dan Z » Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:05 pm

Wayne in Maine wrote:
silentreader wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:The speed of light in a vacuum is one of those fundamental constants of the universe, perhaps similar to mathematical constants like the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference (π) or Euler's number (the base of the natural logarithms).


Light waves or light particles?

It makes no difference how you describe light, as moving particles or a propagating wave.

To be more precise though, it is not that the speed of light in a vacuum is a fundamental constant, it is the speed at which any massless particles and changes of the associated fields travel in a vacuum. It is, essentially, the universal speed limit.


Not in Star Trek...:)
0 x

Dan Z
Posts: 347
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
Location: Central Minnesota
Affiliation: CMC

Re: Evolution

Postby Dan Z » Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:51 pm

Wayne in Maine wrote: You are probably thinking of the time dilation effect. Time is relative to your velocity, it passes more slowly for you as you travel faster relative to something else. If you could travel near the speed of light you could travel for a year of your life but when you return to earth a thousand years would have passed there. It is one of the consequences of the speed of light being fixed throughout the universe. This effect has actually been measured.

I would like to think that it explains the discrepancy between the apparent age of the universe and the age implied in the book of Genesis, but I don't see how. I think we just have to accept that the universe is old in the same way we accept that the world is not a flat disk covered by a dome with moving lights on it and gates that allow it to rain.


I've often felt the same thing Wayne - the Genesis 1 account is a beautifully poetic and unambiguous declaration of God's hand in forming and filling all of creation. I believe this declaration with all my heart!

However, the obvious use of figurative language, the differing details in Gen 2, the limited scientific understanding of the account's original audience, the relative nature of time, the vastness of the universe, the witness of the stars and rocks and ice, the overwhelming and multi-disciplined scientific evidence of great age, all affirm to me what the Genesis account is (a foundational declaration of God's centrality as Creator and Sustainer of the universe) ...and what it isn't (a scientific treatise on the particulars of the formation of time, matter, and life).

Faith and science are not nearly as conflicted as some would make them out to be.

Frankly, the whole young-earth industry seems to be exploiting a manufactured controversy...robbing the church of tremendous energy and resources, dividing communities of faith, cutting young people off from the wonder of scientific inquiry, imposing faulty litmus tests of orthodoxy, and benefiting no one - with the exception of a few textbook vendors, some seminar speakers, and one or two "museum" owners. :)
3 x

Josh
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Josh » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:12 pm

silentreader wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:
Josh wrote:
The speed of light is rather central to quantum mechanics. Whilst there is fluctuation, the average over time will still come out to the same physical constant.

The speed of light in a vacuum is one of those fundamental constants of the universe, perhaps similar to mathematical constants like the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference (π) or Euler's number (the base of the natural logarithms).


Light waves or light particles?


Both.
0 x

silentreader
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Evolution

Postby silentreader » Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:05 pm

Josh wrote:
silentreader wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:The speed of light in a vacuum is one of those fundamental constants of the universe, perhaps similar to mathematical constants like the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference (π) or Euler's number (the base of the natural logarithms).


Light waves or light particles?


Both.

Well I, for one, am not claiming an expertise in physics that I do not have, but I remember 50 years ago they were teaching us that light was a wave, but they have and are discovering that it is much more complex than that, things that 50 years ago would have been considered science fiction. And I'm not referring to speed of travel, which is a fairly settled science, but rather to presence, entanglement and so forth.
Whether this has any bearing on what we are attempting to discuss is something I don't know.
We will each have to believe what we are comfortable with, God alone knows the truth.
1 x

User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Anabaptist Seeker
Contact:

Re: Evolution

Postby Wayne in Maine » Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:00 pm

silentreader wrote: Well I, for one, am not claiming an expertise in physics that I do not have, but I remember 50 years ago they were teaching us that light was a wave, but they have and are discovering that it is much more complex than that, things that 50 years ago would have been considered science fiction. And I'm not referring to speed of travel, which is a fairly settled science, but rather to presence, entanglement and so forth.
Whether this has any bearing on what we are attempting to discuss is something I don't know.
We will each have to believe what we are comfortable with, God alone knows the truth.

I'm not a physicist (I studied Electrical Engineering and applied mathematics because I was in a hurry to earn a living!). I was fortunate enough to have studied a lot of physics including some of the more esoteric brands (quantum mechanics - I just love the name). I can't do the math anymore, but it's familiar territory to me.

The wave-particle nature of light has been known since the 17th century. The behavior of light can be described as a wave phenomena in some circumstances and a particles in other circumstances. The whole topic is referred to as the wave–particle duality. Any "particle" can be described as a wave, or a particle, but the wave nature of large objects (like people!) is undetectable (the wavelength is too short) and irrelevant.

Studying the actual nature of God's creation has given me much more reverence and awe than any "Creationi$t" museum ever could.
4 x

silentreader
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Evolution

Postby silentreader » Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:09 pm

Wayne in Maine wrote:
silentreader wrote: Well I, for one, am not claiming an expertise in physics that I do not have, but I remember 50 years ago they were teaching us that light was a wave, but they have and are discovering that it is much more complex than that, things that 50 years ago would have been considered science fiction. And I'm not referring to speed of travel, which is a fairly settled science, but rather to presence, entanglement and so forth.
Whether this has any bearing on what we are attempting to discuss is something I don't know.
We will each have to believe what we are comfortable with, God alone knows the truth.

I'm not a physicist (I studied Electrical Engineering and applied mathematics because I was in a hurry to earn a living!). I was fortunate enough to have studied a lot of physics including some of the more esoteric brands (quantum mechanics - I just love the name). I can't do the math anymore, but it's familiar territory to me.

The wave-particle nature of light has been known since the 17th century. The behavior of light can be described as a wave phenomena in some circumstances and a particles in other circumstances. The whole topic is referred to as the wave–particle duality. Any "particle" can be described as a wave, or a particle, but the wave nature of large objects (like people!) is undetectable (the wavelength is too short) and irrelevant.

Studying the actual nature of God's creation has given me much more reverence and awe than any "Creationi$t" :up: museum ever could.
1 x

MaxPC
Posts: 1883
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Full time RVers
Affiliation: Catholic
Contact:

Re: Evolution

Postby MaxPC » Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:46 pm

Wayne in Maine wrote:
silentreader wrote: Well I, for one, am not claiming an expertise in physics that I do not have, but I remember 50 years ago they were teaching us that light was a wave, but they have and are discovering that it is much more complex than that, things that 50 years ago would have been considered science fiction. And I'm not referring to speed of travel, which is a fairly settled science, but rather to presence, entanglement and so forth.
Whether this has any bearing on what we are attempting to discuss is something I don't know.
We will each have to believe what we are comfortable with, God alone knows the truth.

I'm not a physicist (I studied Electrical Engineering and applied mathematics because I was in a hurry to earn a living!). I was fortunate enough to have studied a lot of physics including some of the more esoteric brands (quantum mechanics - I just love the name). I can't do the math anymore, but it's familiar territory to me.

The wave-particle nature of light has been known since the 17th century. The behavior of light can be described as a wave phenomena in some circumstances and a particles in other circumstances. The whole topic is referred to as the wave–particle duality. Any "particle" can be described as a wave, or a particle, but the wave nature of large objects (like people!) is undetectable (the wavelength is too short) and irrelevant.

Studying the actual nature of God's creation has given me much more reverence and awe than any "Creationi$t" museum ever could.

:clap: :up:
0 x
Max (aka Plain Catholic)
Psalm 105
“Prayer is putting oneself in the hands of God, at His disposition, and listening to His voice in the depth of our hearts.” ― Mother Teresa

RZehr
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Location: Palisades Mennonite Church Oregon
Affiliation: Western Fellowship

Re: Evolution

Postby RZehr » Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:04 pm

Dan Z wrote:I've often felt the same thing Wayne - the Genesis 1 account is a beautifully poetic and unambiguous declaration of God's hand in forming and filling all of creation. I believe this declaration with all my heart!

However, the obvious use of figurative language, the differing details in Gen 2, the limited scientific understanding of the account's original audience, the relative nature of time, the vastness of the universe, the witness of the stars and rocks and ice, the overwhelming and multi-disciplined scientific evidence of great age, all affirm to me what the Genesis account is (a foundational declaration of God's centrality as Creator and Sustainer of the universe) ...and what it isn't (a scientific treatise on the particulars of the formation of time, matter, and life).

Faith and science are not nearly as conflicted as some would make them out to be.

Frankly, the whole young-earth industry seems to be exploiting a manufactured controversy...robbing the church of tremendous energy and resources, dividing communities of faith, cutting young people off from the wonder of scientific inquiry, imposing faulty litmus tests of orthodoxy, and benefiting no one - with the exception of a few textbook vendors, some seminar speakers, and one or two "museum" owners. :)


I have heard this Genesis 1 is poetic argument before.

I have a friend that lives in Jerusalem, has a Ph.D. in Jewish grammar, specifically with comparisons to the Arabic language which help us understand the ancient Hebrew text.

I asked him for clarification if the writer of Genesis was writing in poetic form because this is a common thread that comes up on Genesis 1 discussions.
This is his answer:
"I am indeed saying that the writer of Genesis is writing what he sees as a historical account, even if he uses occasional rhetorical flourishes to enrich the language. There is no indication in the text that the reader is supposed to view it as allegorical or fantasy."
2 x


Return to “Other”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests