Can religion fit into evolutionary theory?

[Hapsburg]

Can religion fit into evolutionary theory?

Depends on how old they are and if they are willing to make revisions.

Precisely.
It's a case-by-case basis depending on the religion in question, and even the individual in question. I know a lot of Christians (in fact, most Christians do, statistically) who accept evolutionary theory and the Big Bang theory as factual. Hell, the Big Bang theory was thought up by a Catholic priest from Belgium. And Catholicism officially advocates teaching Evolution.

And, in my religion, Wicca, the myths are viewed as that: mythology. Fanciful stories giving hints to the gods' natures. Says nothing about denying science or opposing critical analysis of ideas. Quite the opposite; it's saying not to take religious statements at face value.

Religion can't tell you if a certain painting is beautiful, either.

Well, it could. Depends on if said religion has a clear standpoint on Aesthetics.

 

[Ophiolite]

Thank you Hapsburg for stating an objective fact and countering those who conflate religion with fundamentalists of any stripe.

 

[Ophiolite]

What evidence can you show that time is a dimension and that it can be avoided?
Time appears to be a necessary property of existence. What example could you show where something could exist outside of time.
Describe how something could exist or how events could occur without time, then I might give your idea some credibility.

Relativity, both Special and General, identify time as a dimension. Since these theories represent the consensus in physics it is up to you to offer evidence that time is not a dimension. Calabi-Yau spaces do not possess a time dimension.

Time appears to be a necessary property of existence because we live in a Universe that has a time dimension. You are making my central point for me. Our perceptions are dictated by the Universe in which we live. We cannot - I certainly cannot - envisage something existing outside of time, because I have a 3.5 billion year history of evolving within a time dimension.

Events are time based so asking how an event can occur in a Universe with only spatial dimensions is meaningless.

 

[Yorda]

Whatever way you cut this something MUST have an infinite nature.

I agree that the universe has always existed, but that also means that living beings have always existed, and there is no absolute beginning to lifeforms. In an eternal universe, some lifeforms have evolved much further than we. 'Gods' could be highly evolved lifeforms that exist in ethereal realms who design physical lifeforms.

Time appears to be a necessary property of existence because we live in a Universe that has a time dimension. You are making my central point for me. Our perceptions are dictated by the Universe in which we live. We cannot - I certainly cannot - envisage something existing outside of time, because I have a 3.5 billion year history of evolving within a time dimension.

Time is just the constant change that we experience in the timeless present moment where everything eternally begins. It's a concept (or metaphor) to say that we "move" in time. You can call time a dimension but all that exists is now and everything including time begins here. The present moment is outside of time because it has no duration.

Since the universe didn't begin at some specific location in space (according to Big Bang), why would it begin at some specific point in time? Time and space are in many ways dependent on each other.

If scientists would accept the ether, they could explain the origins of the motions in the universe without some mystical Bang. Big Bang is based on the understanding of the force of gravity. If gravity rules the universe, planets need to get a "push" from somewhere, otherwise they would eternally be stuck at one point ('big bang'), but with magnetism and ether there is no need for a push.

also, if the BB theory is true, there's no reason why it would happen only at one point in nothingness, it should happen everywhere in this infinite nothingness. this way the theory starts to look very similar to the way planets are created in an eternal ocean of ether.

 

[Hapsburg]

Thank you Hapsburg for stating an objective fact and countering those who conflate religion with fundamentalists of any stripe.

O'course. No problem; I always try to be a voice of reason in these kinds of things. I have no problem with religious people (being one myself), or atheists and agnostics. I do have a problem with intolerant people.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ialso, if the BB theory is true, there's no reason why it would happen only at one point in nothingness, it should happen everywhere in this infinite nothingness.

Which is what did happen, so you have told me you do not understand even the basics of BBT.

 

[Yorda]

Which is what did happen, so you have told me you do not understand even the basics of BBT.

Yes, the expansion happens at every point in space, but that's not what I was talking about.

 

[Ophiolite]

Then I have no idea what you are talking about or why you would appear to make a clear statement in post, then deny in the next.

 

[Yorda]

oh comon i was talking about nothing and you're talking about space, they're not the same!!

 

[Ophiolite]

I was talking about the initiation of space and time within nothing, commonly called the Big Bang.
You, on the other hand, don't appear to know what you are talking about.

 

[(Q)]

Relativity, both Special and General, identify time as a dimension. Since these theories represent the consensus in physics it is up to you to offer evidence that time is not a dimension.

Actually, it was Minkowski who included the dimension of time over Euclidean space. Minkowski spacetime is the basis for SR, which became a subset of General Relativity, whereupon Minkowski spacetime is curved.

 

[Ophiolite]

While what you say is true it does not invalidat my own remarks.

 

[(Q)]

While what you say is true it does not invalidat my own remarks.

Yes, it does.

 

[Ophiolite]

How so?

 

[(Q)]

How so?

You said:

Relativity, both Special and General, identify time as a dimension.

That is false. Minkowski identified time as a dimension.

Of course, you're free to substantiate your claim, like anyone else here.

 

[Ophiolite]

And as you note "Minkowski spacetime is the basis for SR, which became a subset of General Relativity,". So unless you are denying your own statements, time is identified as a dimension within Relativity theory. Of course, I am a simple geologist, so perhaps Einstein didn't perceive time as a dimension and treat it as such in his equation. I am stand quite ready to be told that, though it would run counter to what I have read in all those popular treatments of the subject.

If I am not mistaken - which would mean you are - it would seem it is because you appear to think "identified" = "was first identified".

Odd.

 

[(Q)]

time is identified as a dimension within Relativity theory.

If I am not mistaken

You were mistaken, but you also changed your claim, too.

 

[Ophiolite]

Please demonstrate, with relevant extracts how I have changed my tune.

 

[(Q)]

Please demonstrate, with relevant extracts how I have changed my tune.

Relativity, both Special and General, identify time as a dimension.

time is identified as a dimension within Relativity theory

See the difference? The second one can be somewhat considered correct because time is identified within Relativity theory, by Minkowski and HIS theory, NOT by relativity, as you claim in the first.

It may seem trivial to you, but it's rather important towards the understanding of relativity, and time.

 

[CheskiChips]

No
Not in its present state.