Christian Forums

Quote from: Johnb on Mon Aug 11, 2008 - 17:49:38
The evolutonist must answer the questions of life comming from non life, where did it all start?  or where did the universe come from and ultamately where did matter come from.  Either God is eternal or matter is eternal.  Yes the orgins of the universe is tied to evolution.  It has been years since I had to deal with this problem and would have to do some research but there have been several modifications to the "big bang theory".  several laws of physics do not fit.  The real question is why would one who believes in God need a different answer than God spoke the universe into existance?  These theories are just that theories that can not be proven.  Science and physics change.  At one time it was believed that the world was flat.  Then up popped old Albert and E=MC2 and the laws of physicis changed.  I just find it more resonable to believe that God created (made from nothing) the universe and man and all that we see.  Evolution, and the big bang theory just take more faith than a resonable man can muster.   

There is nothing about the big bang theory that indicates that God didn't initiate it.  Science currently does not project back to time = 0.  As it stands, so far as I know, the theory can not do that.  The question that I would ask you is, do you think that God could have initiated the big bang in whatever form that might have been?  If not, why not?  I am not asking whether you think He did, I am asking whether you think He could.  The truth is that much of the events that are predicted (postdicted) by the big bang come about from well tested and experimentally verified science.

The situation with evolution is a bit different.  Personally, I do not consider evolution to be a scientific theory.  It is at best a postulation of historical events.  It is not science, it is history; natural history, but still just history.  But even here, I would ask you if it is possible that God used the evolutionary process as they are postulated to bring the earth to the present biological state.  Not did He, but could He?  Again, if not, why not?

Your comment about science once thinking the earth was flat is interesting.  At the time that the earth was thought to be flat, it was largely the church that held that view.  There was no science as we now know science.  There was no accepted field of science as such.  It was mostly philosophical in nature, not scientific.  There was no real attempt to hypothesize, evaluate and modify theorectical concepts.  

The primary reason that the church thought the earth was flat is first, it sort of looked like it might be flat, and second, and most important, the church thought the word of God said it was flat.  We now know that such Biblical language must be viewed in a figurative sense, not in the literal sense.  That of course was the same situation for a sun-centered solar system.  The church argued against the sun-centered solar system because they thought the word of God specified an earth-centered solar system.  I would argue that is true now for the big bang, and for evolution as well.  That is, the reason that some object to the concept of the big bang is because they think the word of God says otherwise.  I would argue that the Biblical language that says otherwise should be viewed figurative not literal.

Jimmy
I was hoping that was where you were going with this.  It fits with what you have posted in other threads.  I don't know the mechanism that God used to create the universe.  Therefore , although I see no need for the big bang, I conseed that God could have used this in the creation.   Often when speaking with evolutionists they refer to the big bang as the start of everything and every thing evolved from that.  Of course then they have the problem of where did the matter come from and what caused the big bang.  I understand that you are saying that this could be the way that God developed or created the universe. 

Quote from: Johnb on Tue Aug 12, 2008 - 12:27:51
Jimmy
I was hoping that was where you were going with this.  It fits with what you have posted in other threads.  I don't know the mechanism that God used to create the universe.  Therefore , although I see no need for the big bang, I conseed that God could have used this in the creation.   Often when speaking with evolutionists they refer to the big bang as the start of everything and every thing evolved from that.  Of course then they have the problem of where did the matter come from and what caused the big bang.  I understand that you are saying that this could be the way that God developed or created the universe. 

Yes, sort of.  Putting evolution aside for the moment, the question of the big bang for me is not so much that it could be the God created and developed the universe.  It would appear, whether or not God did use the big bang as His tool for the development of the universe, that given all of the well researched and verified physics that all indications are that He did.  If He didn't then He sure made it look that way. But if He didn't why would He make it look as if He did?  Why the deception?

With respect to biological evolution, I have serious doubts about any macroevolution that has been postulated.  But there is no way to test it one way or the other.  It is not any sort of scientific description that can be tested and verified in any way whatsoever.  That is the reason that I am so adamant that it is only an attempt to describe the history and nothing more.

But the thing that believers should understand, is that no matter how strong one's faith might be, no matter how deeply one believes in God as the creator of the universe there is no way to formulate a scientific description, at any level of an hypothesis, that includes God.  The scientist cannot formulate any process that says that God did anything.  All the scientist can do is to provide a description of the processes involved.

I understand where you are comming form.  However, I don't put a lot of stock in these theories.  Science can't even agree on such things as simple as weather or not salt will cause a raise in boold persure.  They can't agree on much of what they can see feel touch and measure.  One study will contridict another.  Now I am suppose to believe that they are able to accuratly predict how the universe started billions of years ago?  I don't think so! 

Quote from: Johnb on Thu Aug 14, 2008 - 16:45:37
I understand where you are comming form.  However, I don't put a lot of stock in these theories.  Science can't even agree on such things as simple as weather or not salt will cause a raise in boold persure.  They can't agree on much of what they can see feel touch and measure.  One study will contridict another.  Now I am suppose to believe that they are able to accuratly predict how the universe started billions of years ago?  I don't think so! 

We shouldn't worry too much about endangered species and extinction.  Why, we can't even get rid of the cockroach!   (Secretary James Watts)

Quote from: Johnb on Thu Aug 14, 2008 - 16:45:37
I understand where you are comming form.  However, I don't put a lot of stock in these theories.  Science can't even agree on such things as simple as weather or not salt will cause a raise in boold persure.  They can't agree on much of what they can see feel touch and measure.  One study will contridict another.  Now I am suppose to believe that they are able to accuratly predict how the universe started billions of years ago?  I don't think so! 

What have you read or heard that you think contradicts the theory of relativity?  Whether you believe it or not you put a lot of stock in those theories.  Every time you fly on an airplane, or everytime your use the GPS directly on indirectly, you put stock in those theories.  There are some things that are just more basic than others.  Not knowing the specific effects of salt on blood pressure is not one of those.  Just how accurately do you think the determination of the age of the universe would have to be for you to give credence to it?  But all of that gets us a little of the topic of evolution and the teaching thereof.

For what it is worth I do not think that we ought to be teaching Darwinian Evolution in the science classes in our schools.  But then I do not think that we outght to be teaching "creation science"  in the science classes in our schools either.

Jimmy you are comparing apples and oranges.  relaticity is something we can test and prove and has been prety well proven by those every day things.  The orgin of the universe is much more complex than knowing the efevt of salt on the body.  The simply is no way to prove that theory.  It is the same as an atheist that declares that you can not prove that God exists.  He is correct.  I can give evidence I believe is strong but I can not prove it.  Like wise you can not prove the orgin of the universe.  I simply do not see the big bang theory containing overwhelming for the orgin of the universe.  I also do not understand why it is a sigificant point for you.    

Quote from: Johnb on Thu Aug 14, 2008 - 19:20:32
Jimmy you are comparing apples and oranges.  relaticity is something we can test and prove and has been prety well proven by those every day things.  The orgin of the universe is much more complex than knowing the efevt of salt on the body.  The simply is no way to prove that theory.  It is the same as an atheist that declares that you can not prove that God exists.  He is correct.  I can give evidence I believe is strong but I can not prove it.  Like wise you can not prove the orgin of the universe.  I simply do not see the big bang theory containing overwhelming for the orgin of the universe.  I also do not understand why it is a sigificant point for you.    

It isn't really apples and oranges at all.  The big bang is a prediction (postdiction if you like) from relativity.  The existence of the expanding universe comes out of a solution to the field equations of relativity.  That and all of the evidence and data that has been gathered over the last century seem to suggest that the big bang is more than a stand alone theory.

I suppose it is a significant point for me partly because of my science and engineering background.  While I do not credit science and engineering above God's word in any sense, I do credit it above some folks' interpretation of God's word.  But more important to me is just how marvelous, magnificent and totally awesome that we have a God who created the universe as we know it and that He has created us with the intellect to be able to understand what and by what process he created the universe.

I personally believe the big bang comes as close as we will ever get to "proving" the existence of God.  When you study what the cosmologists, astronomists and physicists describe as the beginning (or nearly so) and development of the universe and compare that with an open mind to what God has told us in Genesis some 3000 years ago, the correlation between the two is absolutely remarkable, even to the "hovering of the Holy Spirit" in the very early stages.  Even passages in the scriptures telling us that God "stretched out the heavens" (Job 9:8 and elsewhere) seems to me to be a remarkable affirmation of the big bang.

I think that once people understand that the description that God gave us 3000 years ago is a very good description of what has actually happened, there will be a lot of people who were once sceptics at the very least that will be open to listening to what else the Bible has to say.  I think the approach being taken by the so-called creation science types only exacerbates the scepticism that so many have about the Bible being the word of God.  I mean if He is so wrong about the description of the physical universe He has created, how can we expect any better concerning the Spiritual universe He has promised.

God doesn't demand blind faith.  Peter introduced Jesus to his listeners at Pentecost with

Act 2:22  "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--

Paul said,

2Co 12:12  The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.

God demonstrates to us that our faith in Him is well supported and justified.

So much for the soap box.  Thanks for listening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/opinion/13judson.html?ref=opinion



Speaking of teaching evolution.

Quote from: zoonance on Sat Aug 16, 2008 - 15:18:08
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/opinion/13judson.html?ref=opinion



Speaking of teaching evolution.

That was mostly pure poppy cock to be sure.  There were all sorts of claims made that just simply are not true.  For example, I would like to read about any experiment that might be conducted that would test the idea of evolution.  I would like to see a prediction of the theory that could be tested.  There is always the implication by those promoting evolution to speak about micro-evolution such as the building of resistance to diseases or drugs, or things like smaller rams horns and then use that, erroneously, to extrapolate to macro or Darwinian evolution.

It is, I think, a real travesty that is being promulgated on a largely uninformed public.  The reference to "a contempt for scientific evidence — or indeed, evidence of any kind — [that]has permeated the Bush administration's policies, from climate change to sex education, from drilling for oil to the war in Iraq. A dismissal of evolution is an integral part of this general attitude," is interesting.  Note how smoothly the author segued to popular hard liberal left leaning political issues in an attempt to justify his "science".

Jimmy
I am going to suprise you here.  Like evolution science tend to give more support for creation than evolution.  I tend to agree with you on the big bang theory.  There is nothing in the theory that excludes it as being a method that God used to create the universe.

I agree that evolutionary and conservation biologies tend to support creation to a greater degree - though not in the 6,000 year old sense.     As we all have frequently discussed, the evidence is either supportive of a young earth or an old earth, a flat earth or a round earth, etc.  The interpretation of the evidence is really what is being questioned at times I think.   I really don't believe it is most scientists purpose in life to disprove genesis, the existence of God and so forth.  Their whole careers, their investigative studies, the advancement of science in their field as they lean on other fields is either 1) all one big hoax with a grand lie proving productive or 2) the evidence provides solid clues to the truth.

Quote from: Johnb on Thu Aug 21, 2008 - 06:55:13
Jimmy
I am going to suprise you here.  Like evolution science tend to give more support for creation than evolution.  I tend to agree with you on the big bang theory.  There is nothing in the theory that excludes it as being a method that God used to create the universe.

i agree with this too. and i would like to bring up another point that i don't think has been covered yet. the bible says that the world was created in 7 days, yet does not define what a day is. particularly before the creation of the sun, who's to say a day in genesis standards wasn't actually 5 million years in today's standards?

There are plenty that would say that the day in genesis is not 5 million.  (Look around the archive posts on this subject in the Forum - especially on the discussion of the biblical definition of "day")  By the way, I really thought you were that girl...

Quote from: zoonance on Fri Aug 22, 2008 - 10:32:29
There are plenty that would say that the day in genesis is not 5 million.  (Look around the archive posts on this subject in the Forum - especially on the discussion of the biblical definition of "day")  By the way, I really thought you were that girl...

An interesting side note.  If you take into account the effect of relativity and the expansion of the universe on time itself, you can show that from the reference frame of the point of the big bang as the beginning (Where God is speaking from in Genesis) looking forward, day one (24 hours) calculates out to about 8 billion years from here looking back.  Day two (24 hours) at the origin looking forward calculates out to be about 4 billion years from here lookin back. Day three calculates to be about 2 billion years.  All added up the six 24-hour days from the point of origin looking forward equates to about 17 billion years from here looking back.  That 17 billions years is a good number for the age of the universe.

God was simply counting time in days from the point of the origin of the big bang looking forward. With the creation of Adam, the record begins to count time from the point of view of Adam.

Just another interesting bit of information from basic physics.

Physics is the antichrist.   


In fact, if you say it three times and listen to the phonetics you will have the Proof!

Quote from: zoonance on Fri Aug 22, 2008 - 12:16:04
Physics is the antichrist.   


In fact, if you say it three times and listen to the phonetics you will have the Proof!

God created physics, man only discovers physics.  God created physics, the rules He put in place to govern his physical creation, just as surely as he created the stuff that is governed by those rules.  That He would create the antichrist seems a bit strange, don't you think.

I look forward to the day you catch my humor.

Quote from: zoonance on Fri Aug 22, 2008 - 12:41:33
I look forward to the day you catch my humor.

Believe me I caught it.  But the fact is that there are those who believe precisely what you present as humor.  I think a large number of those who read here, would see your posts as good solid Bible teaching with no humor attached at all.

If the physicist ( or chemist or doctor or veterinarian or school teacher or homemaker or....) claimed that Jesus did not come in the flesh, then the shoe fits.  Fortunately, physics is not a person who can claim or disclaim... only prove or disprove - at least to a point.

I am reading a book from the early 80's with a variety of writers addressing various concerns of scientists about creationism versus evolution.   They affectively explain that creationism is not science.  The truth is, they make sense that is really irrefutable - save for calling on faith outside of evidence.

From what i have read from the sites posted , thank you so much , there is enough "Scientific" evidence that evloution is not real but has being forged to trick people example they might create a fossil looking like a missing link . Thank God i found this site

Evolution is not so much a hoax, although there have been a couple of hoaxes; rather it is a matter of circular reasoning.

People assume that evolution happened, and so they interpret the evidence in the light of their assumptions.  Thus in their book the evidence "proves" evolution.

If anyone dares to interpret the same evidence without starting with the assumption that evolution happened, then the evos will happily assert that that is not true science, and will even take steps to silence or ridicule that point of view.

Basically, the vast majority of evos are opposed to true scientific debate - pretty much like the majority of climate change scaremongers.

And the circle of self delusion goes on

Quote from: Howdyboyalan on Fri Dec 05, 2008 - 07:12:18And the circle of self delusion goes on

You have made it clear already that you are an evo.

Do you honestly believe that intellectual fascism is justified as a means to combat what you perceived as self delusion?

Many a tyrant down the ages has happily marched down that road.

since this topic might spring up again, I have a quick question.

For old earth creationists, was earth created 4.5 billionish ago, and then life was created in its current form 6000 years ago? Or was life created at the same time as the earth etc? Did god introduce life in phases? So he created dinos, then he created mammoths etc, so that there was multiple creation events?

Howdy,

If you haven't had occasion to visit reason.org, you should.  Hugh Ross is essentially an OE creationist.  You might find that his site interesting.

So, Howdyboyalan, you're not going to answer my question from my previous post?  Let me repeat it:

Do you honestly believe that intellectual fascism is justified as a means to combat what you perceive as self delusion?

As for old earth creationists ...

In my experience, OECs believe that the world is millions of years old and that this is proven by the fact that it is the scientific consensus.  They also believe that humans did not evolve from animals, even though that is the scientific consensus.

Quote from: Pokhara on Fri Dec 05, 2008 - 08:04:09
In my experience, OECs believe that the world is millions of years old and that this is proven by the fact that it is the scientific consensus.  They also believe that humans did not evolve from animals, even though that is the scientific consensus.

Evolution is true, if you are talking about our adaptation to our environments. Evolutionists really need to devise a better word for what they believe. I just watched "Expelled" with Ben Stein, it was highly entertaining to see evolutionists hint at intelligent design...they tried to be mystical about it, ended up sounding foolish, and still confessed on camera that intelligent design is likely. Micro cellular biology is becoming so advanced that its proving intelligent design now, doh! So by trying to become smarter & smarter, to disprove God, they have proven God.

From my understanding, Old Earth is mainly centered on heavenly bodies & their distances from earth. Since the speed of light is definable, you can determine how long it would take for light to reach earth from a heavenly body. So if you said, "I see the north star", OEC's would say...the light you see began transmitting millions of years ago due to the speed of light and the star's distance from earth.

My argument is that God made all the Heavenly bodies with their full light spectrum in relation to earth (so we could see at night) instantaneously...but only God knows for sure. The bible tells us that God created the moon & stars to govern the night, which hints at least to me, that the full light spectrum was turned on instantaneously. Light is a fixed stream/beam, whatever you want to call it, so if it was turned on instantaneously or allowed to expanded over time...we still see the same starlight today...so its up to interpretation.

The only "Instant" God we read about is in the first part of Genesis.    The rest of history is slow and dependent on humans and their "dominion", dependent on natural laws.   Look how God works in the rest of biblical history.  From building of a big boat out of wood by Noah (what He could have done in an instant He had done a few years earlier) to the geneology leading up to the Messiah (really Himself), limited to a human reproductive tract.   Though He might have created "old" appearing data to be misinterpreted thousands of years later by human investigators made in His image, bound by physical evidence themselves, He certainly doesn't provide any evidence that He did or does things "instantly" before or after the recorded words in early Genesis.   Patience and taking His time would be consistent with His character as witnessed in scripture.  That doesn't answer the question of OE versus YE but might shed a teeny bit of light on why the evidence that can be seen and measured does not correlate well with a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis.  The only way it could correlate is to demand that He instantly made things look measurably but deceivingly older - something that
suggests an unusual aspect of Him that is not as clear in scripture about His character.  It is He that states that He has made Himself evident in the creation in Romans as to be without excuse.  The data must not direct us away from Him!

As an aside, or not... not sure ~ the movie Expelled is now out on DVD, we plan on renting it and watching. It should be interesting.


http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php

Quote from: Just As I Am on Fri Dec 05, 2008 - 14:34:35
As an aside, or not... not sure ~ the movie Expelled is now out on DVD, we plan on renting it and watching. It should be interesting.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php

It is quite entertaining and an interesting look at 'fairness' & 'freedom' in America

QuoteMicro cellular biology is becoming so advanced that its proving intelligent design now, doh! So by trying to become smarter & smarter, to disprove God, they have proven God.

Could you give me an example? ID in what form?

QuoteDo you honestly believe that intellectual fascism is justified as a means to combat what you perceive as self delusion?

I dont know what intellectual fascism is, and to the later part of your post, the important thing to me is, WHEN do they they think like was put on this aincent earth, 4 bill years ago? 3 bill? 500 mill? 6000 years ago?

Quote from: Howdyboyalan on Fri Dec 05, 2008 - 15:37:33

QuoteMicro cellular biology is becoming so advanced that its proving intelligent design now, doh! So by trying to become smarter & smarter, to disprove God, they have proven God.

Could you give me an example? ID in what form?

ID at the cellular level, the hundreds of actions & reactions inside a single cell. Cells used to be believed to have just a few parts, which made it easier for evolutionists to explain its initial bonding from elements...but now they know each cell to have hundreds of parts. How those single cells communicate & bond with each other. Cells learn & store data, just like a PC. These are just surface examples. Unfortunately, its not my profession, I am merely in the medical field...but the studies are fascinating.

Quote from: HowdyboyalanI dont know what intellectual fascism is...

Intellectual fascism is how I describe the lamentable attitude of huge numbers of people today who are happy to present one point of view as factual, but who believe also that any conflicting point of view shoiuld receive either negative publicity or not publicity at all.

If you remember, I asked the question:

QuoteDo you honestly believe that intellectual fascism is justified as a means to combat what you perceive as self delusion?

I am still waiting for a reply, but I will not hold my breath, because I know from your other posts elsewhere that you are often unwilling to answer probing questions.