I am so tired of people trying to use science to prove that the “miracles” described in the Bible are really not a “miracle” at all, but only a well timed natural phenomenon. In the end they will convince themselves that it was the laws of nature, and not God, that has parted the red sea and turn the moon to blood (Rev 6:12) That the bible was written by ignorant philosophers trying to explain what science had not yet taught them and thus the Bible becomes akin to Greek and Roman mythology. No No No
Christians, rather than striving to prove that the miracles cited in the scriptures are scientifically plausible, we should strive to prove that what we see around us can be explained through no other means than intelligent design. The fine tuning of gravity so that the universe is filled with planets and stars rather than a single black hole or dust unable to cling together. That the atomic force has been similarly tuned that we have the entire spectrum of the table of elements. The fine tuning of life itself with the delicate balance of ecosystems – it is in the things science cannot explain that God is revealed.
Last edited by Idea; 16th January 2008 at 11:07 PM.
it is in the things science cannot explain that God is revealed.
That's always been the case! Unfortunately for you, those things are constantly getting slimmer. It's only a matter of time before more things slip into the realms of metaphor and allegory in the face of overwhelming evidence.
I was at a faith discussion meeting a while ago, and that was the first time I'd encountered Christians in real life trying to side-step the idea that we did not evolve from apes. The fact that we have conclusive fossil evidence for a dozen or more strains of early hominid seemed of no consequence whatsoever (one fellow even depressingly brought up the idea of hoaxes!), which made me wonder how much evidence these people actually need before coming to their blinkered conclusions. How much longer are they going to worship gaps in evidence rather than evidence itself, and shelter in the comforting shade of ignorance which science is at least trying to roll back?
The quote above is a prime example of resorting to a divine creator because things seem incomprehensibly complex and conveniently perfect for planets, gravity, life and so on to harmoniously exist. Two points:
(A) just because something appears amazingly engineered beyond our understanding, does not mean we should default to dreaming up a Creator for it.
(B) we are only HERE to marvel at the perfect conditions suitable for life, BECAUSE of those perfect conditions! If the universe (or this universe at least, if you want to venture in that direction) was not "fine-tuned" to be more than a black hole, we wouldn't BE here to speculate about our origins in the first place!
__________________
'Tis the times' plague when madmen lead the blind.
That's always been the case! Unfortunately for you, those things are constantly getting slimmer. It's only a matter of time before more things slip into the realms of metaphor and allegory in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Getting slimmer? Quite the contrary - for the more we learn, the more we knowwe don't know. Learn about the big bang - then learn we can never know what caused it or what kind of universe possiblly existed before it.
We watch the universe become increasingly larger and larger as we become able to peer into the night sky farther and farther. The microscopic world becomes similarly mysterious – the definition of what an “elementary particle” is has changed considerably and it seems will continue to change. Infinity lies in both directions of magnification.
An accelerating universe ??!!?? As part of the High-Z team, I recognize that the accelerating universe was not discovered by us alone. But Saul's version of events does not match the available facts. If I learned one thing from writing The Extravagant Universe, it is that memory plays tricks. You have to go back to the documents if you want to know what happened 9 years ago. Since this claim of an announcement in January 1998 is confusing, even to experts...
You will never be able to prove that there is no God – in order to prove His absence you would have to observe every point of the universe throughout all time – ie – He is not here, not here, not here – in other words, you have to become a God to prove there is no God. It is impossible for the mind of any human being to prove to itself 'non-existance' and so there will always be either uncertainty, or the proof of Diety. Take your pick, you can either go through life uncertain and ignorant, or you can Believe.
I was at a faith discussion meeting a while ago, and that was the first time I'd encountered Christians in real life trying to side-step the idea that we did not evolve from apes. The fact that we have conclusive fossil evidence for a dozen or more strains of early hominid seemed of no consequence whatsoever (one fellow even depressingly brought up the idea of hoaxes!), which made me wonder how much evidence these people actually need before coming to their blinkered conclusions. How much longer are they going to worship gaps in evidence rather than evidence itself, and shelter in the comforting shade of ignorance which science is at least trying to roll back?
The quote above is a prime example of resorting to a divine creator because things seem incomprehensibly complex and conveniently perfect for planets, gravity, life and so on to harmoniously exist.
I do not "resort to a creator" out of ignorance, but out of knowledge, for I have felt His presence. You would be proud to know that I used the scientific method, theorize, test, observe – to find Him. I have gained for myself conclusive evidence that He does in fact exist for He has actually spoken to me.
As for the origin of man, I do not believe that God created everything, I believe in a self-existent universe in which God has "organized", "formed", the immortal intelligences... rather than created out of nothingness - and so do not fall within the mainstream of Christianity... althogh I am not alone in this belief - there are now 13 million others who have similar beliefs with more being converted every minute
“I remember when I was a college student there were great discussions on the question of organic evolution. I took classes in geology and biology and heard the whole story of Darwinism as it was then taught. I wondered about it. I thought much about it. But I did not let it throw me, for I read what the scriptures said about our origins and our relationship to God. Since then I have become acquainted with what to me is a far more important and wonderful kind of evolution. It is the evolution of men and women as the sons and daughters of God, and of our marvelous potential for growth as children of our Creator.” —President Gordon B. Hinckley, “God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear,” Ensign, Oct. 1984, 5.
Last edited by Idea; 17th January 2008 at 08:41 AM.
Take your pick, you can either go through life uncertain and ignorant, or you can Believe.
What's the difference?
I do not "resort to a creator" out of ignorance, but out of knowledge, for I have felt His presence. You would be proud to know that I used the scientific method, theorize, test, observe – to find Him. I have gained for myself conclusive evidence that He does in fact exist for He has actually spoken to me.
If you wouldn't mind, could you explain this experience? I'm quite interested.
__________________
'Tis the times' plague when madmen lead the blind.
If you wouldn't mind, could you explain this experience? I'm quite interested.
I should have said "Know" not "Believe"
I have only had one experience where I have heard actual words, however I have had many experiences where I have felt His presence, the first one I wrote about on this thread. This thread talks about the difference between "know" and "Believe".
I had just gotten out of the shower, I was mulling over in my mind if I should go on to graduate school or not – having a little conversation with myself in my head over the pro’s and con’s of it. I asked myself “If I go will I even make it?” A voice replied “You’ll make it”. The words were so clear – I grabbed a towel frightened out of my wits looking around to find where the voice came from. I think you have to be in a peacful relaxed open state (like Samuel was) and that state of being was gone from me the moment I heard the words. It appears there are no thoughts that are private J A human voice - friendly, but a little strange to hear as He was replying to thoughts in my head. The voice was in the room but also inside of me - the strange feeling that I was not hearing the words with my ears, but that they were able to gain straight access to my thoughts without any middle-man. Hard to describe. Anyways, I did go on and was able to get my degree. Those 3 words actually got me through a lot.
a hair of his head shall not fall to the ground unnoticed... (Doctrine and Covenants | Section84:116)
A human voice 4 That the LORD called Samuel: and he answered, Here am I. 5 And he ran unto Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou calledst me. And he said, I called not; lie down again. And he went and lay down. 6 And the LORD called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And he answered, I called not, my son; lie down again. 7 Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed unto him. 8 And the LORD called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And Eli perceived that the LORD had called the child. 9 Therefore Eli said unto Samuel, Go, lie down: and it shall be, if he call thee, that thou shalt say, Speak, LORD; for thy servant heareth. So Samuel went and lay down in his place... (Old Testament | 1 Samuel3:4 - 9)
Last edited by Idea; 18th January 2008 at 01:04 AM.
You need to read scientific journals, and no, it is not a "christian" scientist phenomena.
John
I think you need to do your research a little better. Can you provide a single published paper from a scientific journal that opposes the theory of evolution?
In the Kitzmiller versus Dover trial excerpt, the following quote can be found (source here):
Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks used prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees. (1:94-100 (Miller)). As the court in Selman explained, “evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science. To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists.”
Other sources that prove you wrong can be found here, here, and here. This source is particularily damaging to your viewpoint as it is a clear statement made by the largest scientific organization in the world.
I hope you see your error and refrain from making such unsupported statements in the future - these sources were easy to find, after all.
__________________ Errare humanum est, ergo non sum humanus.
I don't think that science and religion can be reconciled. Paul makes this plain in Romans 1. His description of man's descent from truth into error could have happened in pre-flood times, at the time he was writing, or today. He is focusing on the consequence of what man believes. We should be careful what we throw out with the bathwater.
Romans 1 (a few verses that make the point)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creation more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Anytime religion is mixed with science religion loses. Science, for all it's value, is still an earthly/worldly pursuit that has virtually nothing to do with spiritual development, and is often an impediment to it.
owg
Last edited by oldwiseguy; 27th February 2008 at 11:39 AM.
As I am trying to show in my paper called The Genesis Enigma. I believe that sin is something that Christians commit against God. That Christ died to give us new life, that life that Adam lost when he sinned against God. Original sin was the cause that led to Adam's immediate death and demotion to the knowledge of good and evil and a place on our physical world. Sin is easy to deal with, but only after we have become new creatures in Christ. We simply ask him for forgivness if we sin. Once again original sin led to DEATH and Jesus died to give us back that life. We dwell too much on sin and not enough on LIFE.
It requires envisioning a completely different story about the beginning or a completely different interpretation about Genesis 1-11 than is commonly taught by evangelicals.
Here are a few ways I have heard it explained.
1) Satan's rebellion happened from the moment he perceived God's intention to create man in a place more special than one he was given (1 Pet 1:12 Peter says salvation is a matter the angels long to look into.) This rebellion of Satan happened almost at the dawn of Creation when the intention to create man in a special place of fellowship was made known. Because Satan had a special place in relationship to the created world (the precious stones were his covering Ezekiel 38) he was able through warfare to distort the intentions of the Creator (though God in His sovereignty and wisdom allowed it.) Then God made a covenant with a man Adam and gave him a wife and special place protected by God. When the devil succesfully tempted Adam and Eve their descendants were plunged into darkness, this darkness required the death of Christ (God as Man.) Whether this all makes sense to us is moot. God knows the end from the beginning and all of His ways are perfect. That in and of itself should settle for us that though we may not understand the world we see, the witness of God's Spirit in our hearts is sufficient to know that we are the children of God, who believe in Jesus.
2) Genesis is not intended to tell us specifics about how things were Created as much as to confirm that they were.
In the first original sin is explained though in way that does not at all fit with most Christian thought on the matter. In the second original sin is left shrouded in mystery, since without a specific act to point to how could it be inherited? And yet Paul concludes that through one man's sin death came to all, since all sin. (Romans 5)
I clever preacher once pointe out to me that the Bible gets you whether you believe in original sin or not because you can always show that we have all fallen short of God's best and that falling short in one area is the same as falling short in all areas (cursed is eveyone who fails to keep the whole law.)
As pertains to salvation, with or without a doctrine of original sin, we all still stand in need of being saved.
It is so hard for our ambitious minds to understand how awesome is the mind of God (Isaiah 55)
Linear Mode
