Creationism - good or bad?

[Charis kai Dunamis]

That's true. One cannot come to a saving relationship in Christ with general revelation alone. But let us ask a few more questions.

Has anyone claimed that we can come to a saving relationship with Christ through general revelation alone?

No, and I never said anyone did - but what I was trying to prevent was someone equating scripture with creation as a means of relating. God gave us the Scriptures because He is a personal God and wanted to communicate with us. But creation is different. Sure, we can draw conclusions about God through creation - but all it really is is the means for which we exist, and God can relate to us through.

Is general revelation a revelation? Why do the scriptures do often point to creation as testimony to the glory of God if it is not revelation --- not enough for a saving relationship to Christ, but still a genuine revelation.

Yes, general revelation is a revelation as implied by its title, but as you appear to agree with, it is not the same as special revelation. I was just making a distinction.

Is general revelation true?

Does truth ever disagree with truth? Can the truth of general revelation ever disagree with the truth of scripture?

No, it cannot. But this has dangerous consequences, such as changing our interpretation of God's Word to fit into our understanding of nature. General revelation is not our understanding of nature, it is precisely whatever it is. And how do we know what it is? That's the problem. We don't know everything about how the universe was, is and will eventually be, yet we take what we think and apply to our system of hermeneutics and come out with contradicting theologies. Forget general revelation as a means of theology. There is very limited knowledge there as far as how God created the universe, all we have is speculation without the Word of God. So why do we wish to come up with theories and hold to them so dearly that they change exactly what Scripture says? Why do that? That doesn't seem to make sense to me.

That depends. If one was claiming that one could find salvation through studying nature you would be right. But I don't see anyone making that claim.

But if it is a matter of what comes from God, both nature and scripture come from God. If it is a matter of which speaks truth, both speak truth. Do you not agree?

Scripture gives us a more important truth (the way to salvation) but it does not give us a truer truth, if you get what I mean.

I get one you mean, and agree the one truth is just as important as another truth. The question you need to ask yourself is: what is true? I mean what can you really, truly know about this universe? What can you be 100% certain of? The only in my life that has ever been true to me was the Word of God. This should be the first instrument we use to define what we believe, not what we think nature is telling us. One is factual, the other is just an idea or opinion. Like said earlier, I would rather err on the side of God than on the side of man's scientific findings.

 

[Paul365]

And I know you copied and pasted it from wikipedia, so I don't think you know what you are talking about. You stated the theorem but I don't think you know how to apply it.

Well, it's my job to know how to apply it. I'm studying physics. Feel free to ask me if you have any question about angular momentum conservation, or if you want to discuss its application to the Big Bang.

I'm sorry but, as far as your definition is concerned they are the same thing. They both require belief in order to think they are factual. You believe that the big bang and evolution is true whether you recognize it or not.

No. A scientific theory is based on observations and reason, not on belief.

We consider a scientific theory only true as long as it is in agreement with all observations. If one single observation contradicts the theory, it is abandoned. This happened 100 years ago with Newton's gravity law that was abandoned and replaced by Einstein's relativity theory.

Belief on the other hand is not dependent on observations. It doesn't even matter when observations contradict the belief, as with astrology, or with the belief in a flat earth, or in a young earth.

Science asks for truth, while belief just asks for believing. Science is based on reason, belief isn't. Science is objective, belief is personal.

This does not mean that belief is bad. It is most important. But it's almost the opposite to science.

There is a big difference between special revelation (Scripture, Christ, miracles, etc.) and general revelation (nature). One cannot come to a saving relationship through faith in Christ with only general revelation. There are some things to be learned about the character and design of God's universe by studying it, but the Bible was His direct Word to us. The Universe is not a message to us, only a means for us to exist. You are in a way, trying to equate Scripture with nature, which is entirely false. One is meant for our salvation, one is not.

Hmm, I thought that was what Creationists are trying - equating Scripture with nature? Scripture is meant as a message, but not about nature. Nature must be studied by science, not by Scripture.

Both nature and Scripture are made by God, but trying to interpret them as equal would be misinterpreting Scripture.

 

[gluadys]

No, and I never said anyone did - but what I was trying to prevent was someone equating scripture with creation as a means of relating. God gave us the Scriptures because He is a personal God and wanted to communicate with us.

Good, we are on the same page there. Let us keep that in mind, always.

But creation is different. Sure, we can draw conclusions about God through creation - but all it really is is the means for which we exist, and God can relate to us through.

I think we can agree on the conclusions about God we can draw from creation. What I am more interested in is the conclusions we draw about creation from creation. What does creation tell us, not about God, but about itself?

Yes, general revelation is a revelation as implied by its title, but as you appear to agree with, it is not the same as special revelation. I was just making a distinction.

Good. Another important point to keep in mind. Now, does nature aka general revelation reveal information about itself? And is that information true?

No, it cannot. But this has dangerous consequences, such as changing our interpretation of God's Word to fit into our understanding of nature.

Note the highlighted word. Why would a certain interpretation of God's word be sacrosanct? What if the interpretation is incorrect? Would it not then be dangerous NOT to change it?

Note, that I am not asking about God's word itself, but about a human interpretation of it. Why should we fear changing an interpretation?

General revelation is not our understanding of nature, it is precisely whatever it is.

Agreed. Just as special revelation is not our interpretation of the scripture. Scripture is what it is; it is not an interpretation of what it is.

Do you agree?

And how do we know what it is? That's the problem. We don't know everything about how the universe was, is and will eventually be, yet we take what we think and apply to our system of hermeneutics and come out with contradicting theologies.

Yes, we need to deal with the epistomological question, always, but let's leave that to further discussion. I am just laying some groundwork here.

Forget general revelation as a means of theology.

True, theology is the study of God and while nature testifies of the existence, power and glory of its creator, it doesn't go much beyond that.

What I want to focus on is not what nature tells us about God, but on what nature tells us about nature. OK?

There is very limited knowledge there as far as how God created the universe, all we have is speculation without the Word of God.

It depends specifically on what aspect of creation you are speaking of. Some aspects are not at all well-known and some are very well known. We do not have only speculation.

So why do we wish to come up with theories and hold to them so dearly that they change exactly what Scripture says?

I don't think anyone wants to change what scripture says. Interpretation is a different matter. Interpretation does not have the cachet of inspiration or infallibility. There is nothing heinous about changing an interpretation of either nature or scripture.

I get one you mean, and agree the one truth is just as important as another truth.

Actually, that is the opposite of what I said. One truth is NOT as important as another truth. Is it just as important to know that water freezes at 0 C as to know that Christ died for your sins? I don't think so. The first fact is trivial, if useful. The second is personally and eternally important.

But is it just as true that water freezes at 0C as that Christ died for your sins? Yes, it is. The relative unimportance of the first fact does not make it less true.

Got it now?

The question you need to ask yourself is: what is true? I mean what can you really, truly know about this universe? What can you be 100% certain of?

Quite a bit actually, starting with the freezing point of water. Though not everything by a long shot.

The only in my life that has ever been true to me was the Word of God. This should be the first instrument we use to define what we believe, not what we think nature is telling us. One is factual, the other is just an idea or opinion. Like said earlier, I would rather err on the side of God than on the side of man's scientific findings.

Well, this is comparing apples and oranges. Science is not on a par with scripture, because science is not creation. It is an interpretation or understanding of creation.

The correct correlation is science with an interpretation of scripture.

Then the question becomes parallel. How truly does science interpret creation? How true is my interpretation of scripture to the actual word of God?

Is creation (not science, but creation itself) ever out of synch with scripture? Can science (the interpretation of creation) be out of synch with scripture? Can my interpretation of scripture be out of synch with creation (not science, but creation itself)?

How can I know, in the case of any discrepancy, whether it is my interpretation of nature or my interpretation of scripture that requires correction?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

No. A scientific theory is based on observations and reason, not on belief.

We consider a scientific theory only true as long as it is in agreement with all observations. If one single observation contradicts the theory, it is abandoned. This happened 100 years ago with Newton's gravity law that was abandoned and replaced by Einstein's relativity theory.

You're proving my point even more. You consider something true although you can't prove it. It's like... innocent until proven guilty. This doesn't make the person who hasn't been proven guilty innocent necessarily, but it does make him innocent in legal terms. You do the same thing with your theory. You can't prove it's true, you just have trouble falsifying it. And why wouldn't you, when you believe it's true?

Let me put this as plain as possible.

1. You can't prove that the big bang or evolution is absolutely true.

2. Based on observations, you can't falsify it, so you come to the conclusion that it is true.

3. Since the conclusion isn't a total proof of the matter, there must be some element of belief if you really, truly, think it is absolutely true.

Now maybe you just think the big bang is a possibility, I don't know. But if you think it is true, without a doubt, then you are believing. I don't care what you say in your defense, you're being blind to the fact that there is some element of belief if it can't be proven. That's common sense, you are abandoning reason, just as you say religious people do. I don't get how you can contradict yourself, it's staring you right in your face.

Belief on the other hand is not dependent on observations. It doesn't even matter when observations contradict the belief, as with astrology, or with the belief in a flat earth, or in a young earth.

It does matter. As stated before, all truth is a truth in and of itself, and must stand to all other truth. Therefore, the things stated in scripture about nature must stand true. And I'm sorry, but none of my beliefs contradict anything other than human observation, which is not necessarily true. You are willing to believe it is true, which is the whole problem. You don't know what is true about the universe other than what God says about it. Anything else is an opinion or idea. Just as you said, a theory cannot be proven. But Scripture can prove everything it says.

Science asks for truth, while belief just asks for believing. Science is based on reason, belief isn't. Science is objective, belief is personal.

This does not mean that belief is bad. It is most important. But it's almost the opposite to science.

Hmm, I thought that was what Creationists are trying - equating Scripture with nature? Scripture is meant as a message, but not about nature. Nature must be studied by science, not by Scripture.

This is a lie. Are you telling me that whatever Scripture says about nature should not be taken seriously, and that science should take preference over nature as opposed to what the almighty God, who created it in six days, says about it? You need to rethink that through. I would hate to stand before God and have to deal with the fact that I told someone to believe in humanistic reason over His Word.

In no way do I equate Scripture with nature. Go back and read my other posts.

Both nature and Scripture are made by God, but trying to interpret them as equal would be misinterpreting Scripture.

I'm not interpreting them as equal, I'm using one to interpret the other. Nature really has no precedence in determining what real truth is. Nature can be totally subjective if it is not seen through the Word of God.

A good book for you to read would "How Should We Then Live?" by Dr. Francis Schaeffer. This would put modern science into context for you.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Good, we are on the same page there. Let us keep that in mind, always.

I think we can agree on the conclusions about God we can draw from creation. What I am more interested in is the conclusions we draw about creation from creation. What does creation tell us, not about God, but about itself?

Good. Another important point to keep in mind. Now, does nature aka general revelation reveal information about itself? And is that information true?

I think it does. But the amount is questionable. And a lot is speculative. I mean, there are things that we are all unified on as far as science is concerned, like, the fact that water freezes/melts at 0 degrees celsius. But my problem is when people start stating things are true, when it is totally questionable and not provable. They are welcome to believe in those things, but I don't think they should state them as truth, and impose them on others, such as in the school system. The big bang theory is taught as truth in schools, although some may disagree with me because it is stated as a "theory". Let's be honest here though - it is implied. It is implied by scientists all over that the big bang theory is true, although it cannot be proven. It's just that for now, it works. It make sense to us, so it must be true. But in so many years, who knows? Look at the history of science and see all of the changes and errors that have been made. How do we know that the big bang theory will stand? How do we know it is correct, and will always be?

See what I mean? It is subjective. Truth about science becomes subjective, and therefore it isn't truth at all. It's dangerous when it gets to that point. Another proof of this are all of the different variants of scientific beliefs (creationist and theistic evolutionist alike) that are hard to falsify, and each believes his point is the true one. So how is that solved? How do we find out what is true about nature?

We can go to nature to find out about nature, yes. But only to a certain point. For example, water freezes at 0 degrees celsius here, on earth. But how do we know it is the same in another galaxy? How do we know the laws of our galaxy are exactly the same as another? We don't, and we can't go there to test it either.

This is why Scripture is different than nature. Scripture is the final authority, and gives us answers to pretty much almost every topic with absolute assuredness. The Word of God is always true, when interpreted correctly. And I will agree, that nature is always true when interpreted correctly. And I believe therein, lies the problem. I don't think that anyone would disagree that there is a correct way to interpret Scripture. But how do we know that there is a correct way to interpret nature? We don't. We cannot possibly interpret all of nature correctly, because we don't have any guide to it. The Bible was written in our language, in anthropomorphic terms, so that we can understand it and draw truth from it. But nature is different - it is totally subjective. There is no true way to interpret it, other than through the only source of real, authoritative truth. The Word of God.

Note the highlighted word. Why would a certain interpretation of God's word be sacrosanct? What if the interpretation is incorrect? Would it not then be dangerous NOT to change it?

Note, that I am not asking about God's word itself, but about a human interpretation of it. Why should we fear changing an interpretation?

Because we are changing the interpretation due to something that we can't determine is true. The theistic evolutionist changes his entire interpretation of the Genesis account of creation based on the humanist theory of the big bang. Does that not seem strange to you? Come on. Why compromise something like that?

Changing the interpretation of God's Word because something is true is okay. The problem that I am having is that these things are not necessarily able to be proven as true.

Agreed. Just as special revelation is not our interpretation of the scripture. Scripture is what it is; it is not an interpretation of what it is.

Do you agree?

I do.

It depends specifically on what aspect of creation you are speaking of. Some aspects are not at all well-known and some are very well known. We do not have only speculation.

In some areas yes we do. The area of origins in science has speculations, theories, and assumptions. Yes, they do have very in depth ideas about those, and "proofs" if you will. But these are all speculation. Many of these are guilty of presuppositions, such as universalism. How do we know that the conditions on Earth have always been the same? We don't. No one knows what Earth was like 8,000 years ago. Yet carbon dating and potassium-argon dating assumes it has always been the same.

I don't think anyone wants to change what scripture says. Interpretation is a different matter. Interpretation does not have the cachet of inspiration or infallibility. There is nothing heinous about changing an interpretation of either nature or scripture.

I don't think anyone is purposely trying to change it - it's something people are doing without even recognizing. And I disagree that there is nothing heinous about changing an interpretation. Do you think it is heretical when some one believes Jesus was a shapeshifter, because He said "I am the door", or "I am the Lamb"? There is a correct way of interpreting Scripture, but many abandon it to make room for there own personal ideas.

Actually, that is the opposite of what I said. One truth is NOT as important as another truth. Is it just as important to know that water freezes at 0 C as to know that Christ died for your sins? I don't think so. The first fact is trivial, if useful. The second is personally and eternally important.

But is it just as true that water freezes at 0C as that Christ died for your sins? Yes, it is. The relative unimportance of the first fact does not make it less true.

Got it now?

Maybe I should clarify, I wasn't saying that all truth is the same in the sense that they all should mean just as much. I was trying to say that one is just as important as another in determining what is real truth. One tiny little truth can nullify many false beliefs. In that sense, each truth has the power to falsify. That's what I meant.

Quite a bit actually, starting with the freezing point of water. Though not everything by a long shot.

And that's my point. So much is not provable at all.

I can answer the rest later - I have to go to Church music practice now. take care

 

[gluadys]

I think it does. But the amount is questionable. And a lot is speculative.

As to what is and is not speculative, that would have to be determined on a case by case basis right? One cannot just say "Oh, that's speculative!" because one does not like the conclusion. One has to examine the evidence and the reasoning to see whether it fits the observations and correctly describes nature.

Just as one cannot say "Oh that's wrong" about an interpretation of scripture because one has an automatic negative reaction to it. One has to examine the exegesis carefully to see if the interpreter has a valid point and has made a case.

But my problem is when people start stating things are true, when it is totally questionable and not provable.

If, as stated, one has to work at these things on a case-by-case basis, it is not possible to comment on such a statement without something specific to apply it to.

The big bang theory is taught as truth in schools, although some may disagree with me because it is stated as a "theory". Let's be honest here though - it is implied. It is implied by scientists all over that the big bang theory is true, although it cannot be proven. It's just that for now, it works.

Theory is as close as science gets to truth, and if it works that makes it a good theory---closer to truth than one that does not work. When a new theory that works better comes along, that will be closer to truth than big bang theory.

It make sense to us, so it must be true. But in so many years, who knows? Look at the history of science and see all of the changes and errors that have been made.

And in how many cases has a theory that works well been replaced by one that does not work as well? In how many cases has the new theory been a less accurate description of nature than the one it replaced?

How do we know that the big bang theory will stand? How do we know it is correct, and will always be?

We don't, of course. All theories are provisional. I wish science was so well taught that no one graduated from elementary school without understanding that.

See what I mean? It is subjective. Truth about science becomes subjective, and therefore it isn't truth at all.

oh, wow! I would really like to understand what you mean by subjective? What aspect of big bang theory does not agree with objectively verified observations?

And on another note, why do you associate "subjective" with "not true"? All experience of God is subjective. Does that make it all not true?

It's dangerous when it gets to that point. Another proof of this are all of the different variants of scientific beliefs (creationist and theistic evolutionist alike) that are hard to falsify, and each believes his point is the true one.

I think you are confusing "falsify" and "falsifiable". To be scientific, a theory must be falsifiable i.e. there must be a potential observation that would show the theory is false.

But if the theory is true, we will not ever find an actual observation that falsifies it.

So if a theory is hard to falsify (rather than being unfalsifiable), that's a good thing. It shows it is, if not true, pretty close to the truth. We should not be able to falsify a true theory, because a true theory will agree with all observations. We should be able to state a possible observation that would falsify it, but we should never actually observe that case.

So how is that solved? How do we find out what is true about nature?

I don't know why this should be a problem. Through study, through more observations, especially predicted observations. Predictions based on theory tell scientists what observations to look for.

We can go to nature to find out about nature, yes. But only to a certain point.

How do you know that? And how do you know when you have reached that point?

For example, water freezes at 0 degrees celsius here, on earth. But how do we know it is the same in another galaxy?

Why would the properties of water change? Are you suggesting that God made several different kinds of water for different galaxies? Why would you make that suggestion? Isn't this the sort of speculation you were just condemning?

Why worry about whether water is different in another galaxy before we actually find such different water? When (if) we do, then that water can be studied and its properties explored.

How do we know the laws of our galaxy are exactly the same as another? We don't, and we can't go there to test it either.

Well, that is a little easier to answer. We know that because we can see galaxies via telescopes and analyze them with various instruments. So we know they are made of basically the same stuff (electrons, atoms, photons, etc.) that our galaxy is made of and they behave as we would expect them to do based on our knowledge of the properties of said matter.

That is what I meant about scientists using prediction to tell them what observations to look for. Based on what we know about how matter behaves in our own galaxy, scientists make predictions of what they should or should not observe in other galaxies if they are governed by the same laws. If the other galaxies were governed by different natural laws, the predictions should not accurately describe what will be observed. But they do. So we conclude that distant galaxies are governed by the same laws because they behave as if they are.

Can you see a flaw in this reasoning? Would you expect galaxies governed by different natural laws to behave as if they were governed by the same laws as we are familiar with?

The Word of God is always true, when interpreted correctly.

No problem with that. The question is how do we determine that an interpretation is correct.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that there is a correct way to interpret Scripture. But how do we know that there is a correct way to interpret nature?

Why wouldn't there be? Nature is a given. God himself gave it to us. It can be observed. God himself gave us eyes and ears and other senses so that we could observe it. And God himself gave us an intellect to reason about our observations. So what prevents us from aspiring to a correct interpretation of nature?

Do we not use the same gifts of God to study his gift of creation as we do to study his gift of scripture? If they are adequate for studying scripture, why not for studying nature?

We don't. We cannot possibly interpret all of nature correctly, because we don't have any guide to it.

You know, this reasoning reminds me of Moses telling God he couldn't talk to Pharoah because he was not a good speaker. You remember God reminded him of who had made his tongue.

God made us to have dominion over his creation. Why would he not give us the tools to know it?

But nature is different - it is totally subjective. There is no true way to interpret it, other than through the only source of real, authoritative truth. The Word of God.

In fact, nature is made and upheld by the Word of God, so I agree with you. But this just begs the question of how we know that our interpretation of scripture agrees with God's Word.

Scripture that is not interpreted correctly will not give us a true perception of the Word of God, nor of God's creation.

Because we are changing the interpretation due to something that we can't determine is true.

You say this as if it were a general principle, and I don't know that it is a general principle. Where would you get such an idea or how would you support it?

The theistic evolutionist changes his entire interpretation of the Genesis account of creation based on the humanist theory of the big bang.

Hardly. Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. And there is nothing especially humanist about the theory of the big bang either.

I think you are getting in over your head and speaking about things you don't know much about. That makes it difficult to justify your assertions.

Changing the interpretation of God's Word because something is true is okay.

Good to hear that. Then all you need to know is that something is true and you have no problem changing your interpretation. For example, knowing that distant galaxies do act according to the same basic laws of nature as those we are familiar with. Now that you know this, is there anything about your understanding of scripture you would change?

The problem that I am having is that these things are not necessarily able to be proven as true.

Specifically, which things? Would you agree that perhaps you are not well studied in science and therefore not familiar with the observations that have been made, or how they are made?

But these are all speculation.

How do you know that? Did you determine for yourself that there are no supporting observations or correct predictions? Or were you told by someone? If you were told by someone, how did they support the claim that it is all speculation?

Many of these are guilty of presuppositions, such as universalism.

Why is a working presupposition of universalism bad? Does it not make sense to assume no exceptions until an actual exception turns up? In fact, that is often how science makes progress, by examining an exception to what was thought to be a universal rule.

Unless you propose a universal rule, how will you find the exceptions?

How do we know that the conditions on Earth have always been the same?

Actually we know that they have not been always the same. We know that long ago the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere was much less than the current 20%. We know that at one time there was no life on land--only in the oceans and bodies of fresh water. And the continents were in different configurations than they are today. Even the length of the day was different, because the earth's rotation period was once faster than it is now. Lots of things have changed.

No one knows what Earth was like 8,000 years ago.

Oh, 8,000 years ago isn't that long. We have a fairly good idea what life was like on earth 8,000 years ago. Archeologists have provided lots of info in that regard. The city of Jericho was still standing then. Almost brand new it was then.

Yet carbon dating and potassium-argon dating assumes it has always been the same.

Ah, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. That is a pretty general statement. Radioisotope dating does not assume that everything has always been the same. In fact, carbon dating (in spite of what you may have heard to the contrary) does not assume that the amount of carbon or of c14 in the atmosphere is constant. (We know for a fact that it isn't.)

The only thing constant with radioisotope dating is the rate of radio-active decay. And that is not an assumption. That is an observation.

I don't think anyone is purposely trying to change it - it's something people are doing without even recognizing. And I disagree that there is nothing heinous about changing an interpretation. Do you think it is heretical when some one believes Jesus was a shapeshifter, because He said "I am the door", or "I am the Lamb"? There is a correct way of interpreting Scripture, but many abandon it to make room for there own personal ideas.

Of course, I didn't intend to imply that it is ok to change an interpretation for specious personal reasons or whims. But changing an interpretation because one has discovered that something one thought was true is not, that is a different matter. We don't want interpretations that contradict truth, do we?

One tiny little truth can nullify many false beliefs. In that sense, each truth has the power to falsify. That's what I meant.

Yes, I see what you are saying.

 

[troodon]

Creationism, I believe, is harmful to Christianity. It projects the illusion that Christianity is out-of-step with modern science and to the educated in our society it gives the impression that Christians are generally ignorant, which reflects badly on Christianity as a whole.

Obviously it's not an argument against the validity of Creationism but I think it's the truth.

 

[shernren]

First of all, you seem to be very kind and willing to discuss in a cooperative manner, so thank you for that.

Here, I am just returning your civility.

I agree that physics itself has never tried squeezing God out of anything, it's some of the people who use physics in order to do so. Physics on its own cannot accomplish anything in the mind of a man. The concept of physics and the laws we have identified are made up entirely on a humanistic scale that makes sense to us. You may say that we are simply identifying things in nature and creating equations to define those laws as constants, which is partially true. But physics is a byproduct of human reason, something that we have identified ourselves. How do we know that this "physics" we speak of is a universal constant? How do we know that the physical laws of our galaxy and our planet are the same in another galaxy, or were the same at the time of the big bang? Universalism tends to be an implication that not many people see. We do not know that these physical laws have always existed, and that they exist everywhere, hence, we cannot be sure about the modern scientific theories prevailing today. And this is why I stick with what the Bible implicitly says, because the Bible is always correct and will never faulter, and science has no bearing on what is true. Science uses humanistic concepts, which leave room for error. The Scriptures were written by God, and I would rather err on the side of God than the side of man.

I think you are mixing two ideas together:

1. Scientific atheism: (some people try to say that) physics has squeezed out God.
2. Universalism: (some people believe that) physical laws are constant everywhere.

The question I would have, then, is: why should one logically imply the other? Why should I believe, if physical laws are constant everywhere, that God doesn't exist?

Furthermore, even though you are skeptical about universalism in theory, you have no problem applying it in practice. You are using a computer today; you use it the same way you did yesterday, and you will use it the same way tomorrow. Are you not assuming that all the science that goes into making a computer work stays constant from day to day? And that's one huge assumption - essentially you are assuming that everything that holds atoms together stays the same, that the speed of light stays the same (because electromagnetism stays the same), that the Internet will be here tomorrow. You do not exercise this skepticism you have when dealing with your computer. Or when you send your car to your mechanic, what makes you think the mechanic is qualified to service your car? After all, just because s/he has serviced many hundreds of cars before doesn't mean your car will be the same, or even remotely similar, does it? (And this has little to do with miracles: most Christians who believe that Christ popped out of His tomb don't expect today's cemeteries to spontaneously empty themselves on a regular basis. They can believe one resurrection without making scientific principle of it.)

Universalism is the working assumption of science, and it is the working assumption of your own everyday life. Why do you believe your computer will work tomorrow? The same reason scientists think physical laws apply throughout the universe. And it is no reason to reject God.

I don't think this is correct. This is the example that I have always heard - You know those things at parks that kids can get on, and have other kids push them in around and around to get them going really fast? I don't know how to explain it... anyways if the kids were to get pushed so fast that they were hanging off of it completely horizontally, and eventually flew off, they would spin whatever way they were being pushed in. If the ride was being pushed clockwise, they would fly off spinning clockwise. Also, what is interesting is that they would never hit each other. The spinning objects would propel away from the initial explosion, making it impossible for them to hit each other.

It really depends on the mass distribution of the fragments of the exploding object. I'll fall back on my example of linear momentum. When I throw a grenade at someone, some fragments will fly back towards me - even though the grenade as a whole has positive momentum, some fragments coming off will have negative momentum, as long as the overall momentum is positive.

Like I said, you'll have to try it for yourself to believe it. Unfortunately I don't know where you can get a grenade easily.

I've never heard that view of the big bang? The big bang has always been thought of (as far as I've been taught) as one tiny, tiny, tiny little dot holding enough energy to produce everything in the universe today, and eventually exploding into it. I never said there was empty space around it, I think the theory states that it was the only thing in existence.

Yup, hold that thought. The dot is the only thing in physical existence. Therefore, there is no space outside it, right?

When you conceptualize it as a "dot", you will implicitly have the idea that there's lots of empty space around it. A dot on a piece of paper is surrounded by a lot of white. That's not how the Big Bang works. Suppose that "dot" is all there is in the physical universe. Nothing else exists, not even any space "outside" the "dot". Now suppose you are in that "dot". Wherever you go, you are still inside the "dot" - inside that high concentration of energy. No matter how far you travel, there is no "outside" to get to, so you could travel for infinite time across infinite distance and still be stuck inside that dot's concentration of energy.

You arrive then at the description I gave earlier.

Some scientists even believe that nothing was there in the beginning, and nothing exploded (huh?) into everything we have today. Your theory is a new one. And, as far as the conservation of angular momentum not being applicable during the time of the big bang, then how are any of our other laws applicable? If none of our laws our applicable during that time, then where did they come from? Were they there before the big bang or were they created by the big bang?

That's a very good question - we really don't know. On the largest distance scales of the universe, gravity is the one dominant force, and so Einstein's general relativity forms the best description we have of it. On the smallest distance scales of the universe, Schrodinger's wave equation describes the particle-wave duality experienced by subatomic particles, and thus quantum mechanics is the best description we have. The Big Bang is really about rolling all those distance scales up into one big energetic mess. The only theory that will work at that point is a theory that rolls up all of general relativity together with quantum mechanics in a way that makes sense. We don't have that theory yet.

To a Christian, of course, all physical laws were ultimately created by God.

Another quick question - if stars are made up by elements, but the stars are what produce the elements through fusion, then what came first? The big bang seems to show that only hydrogen was present in the beginning, so, where did our elements come from? Never gotten an answer to that one either, other than nucleosynthesis, which is another theory.

Well, nucleosynthesis is the answer. What issues do you have with it?

Oh I am very interested in science and God's creation, I just don't base my beliefs off of it. There is only one source of truth to me, the Word of God. Experiential truth can ruin theology and is dangerous, so I keep experimental science away from it.

I don't base my beliefs about God off creation either - but I base many of my beliefs about creation off what I can see in creation. And I think that is a perfectly Christian position to take.

 

[Paul365]

1. You can't prove that the big bang or evolution is absolutely true.

That's correct.

2. Based on observations, you can't falsify it, so you come to the conclusion that it is true.

Partially correct. But passing the falsification test is not enough, the theory must also fulfill other criteria for being assumed to be true. In short, there must be an overwhelming probability for that theory. You can find more about theories here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
(scroll down to Karl Popper's criteria for scientific theories).

3. Since the conclusion isn't a total proof of the matter, there must be some element of belief if you really, truly, think it is absolutely true.

There is no such thing as "belief" or "absolutely true" in a theory. We just assume it is true as long as it fulfills the above criteria. We are making similar assumptions all the time.

When you drop a stone, you assume that it will fall down. The reason you're assuming that is that you have a theory that stones usually fall down. This theory was never falsified. But if your stone floats up into the air instead, you know that your assumption was wrong.

I don't care what you say in your defense, you're being blind to the fact that there is some element of belief if it can't be proven. That's common sense, you are abandoning reason.

Let me ask you a more personal question. I suppose you are a Creationist. How come that you people always tend to personal attacks in such debates? So far you called me a liar, blind, abandoning reason, and even compared me with Hitler - just because I wanted to correct some of your misconceptions about angular momentum conservation or what a scientific theory is. I haven't experienced similar personal attacks when discussing with other Christians or even with Atheists.

Is there something in Creationism that makes you all bitter and aggressive?

If so, then that would be a fourth "bad" category for the initial post in this thread.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

The amount of responding I am having to do is getting out of hand. Maybe I should say less and be more concise...

As to what is and is not speculative, that would have to be determined on a case by case basis right? One cannot just say "Oh, that's speculative!" because one does not like the conclusion. One has to examine the evidence and the reasoning to see whether it fits the observations and correctly describes nature.

Yes, I agree. It has to be determined on a case by case basis.

Just as one cannot say "Oh that's wrong" about an interpretation of scripture because one has an automatic negative reaction to it. One has to examine the exegesis carefully to see if the interpreter has a valid point and has made a case.

Yes I agree as well.

If, as stated, one has to work at these things on a case-by-case basis, it is not possible to comment on such a statement without something specific to apply it to.

I agree, and I thought that was somewhat implied, I guess not. I was implying the big bang theory... I understand that it is only a theory. But I don't think it is treated like one. Scientists of all facets today treat it as though it is absolute truth. I'm not saying all do, but most of them just assume it as truth. But, it is their opinion based on evidence they have seen. And their opinion does not have any bearing on what is actually true.

Theory is as close as science gets to truth, and if it works that makes it a good theory---closer to truth than one that does not work. When a new theory that works better comes along, that will be closer to truth than big bang theory.

I don't think so... as we were stating before, the fact that water freezes/melts at 0 degrees celsius is stated as a scientific truth. In the formal sense, science treats the big bang as a theory. But in the minds of scientists and what they teach, they don't practice that. They have an opinion, and that opinion is that the big bang is true. And that of course, is based on evidence which seems to fit their idea, although never proving it.

And in how many cases has a theory that works well been replaced by one that does not work as well? In how many cases has the new theory been a less accurate description of nature than the one it replaced?

Well I'm glad you asked! It is exactly what we are talking about - creationism was replaced with the big bang! During the times of the Romans, middle ages and even through the renaissance into the Protestant Reformation, creationism was the prevailing belief among scientists. Not just scientists, but those performing in the arts as well saw things in the eyes of creationism. To give you a few scientists who were christians, I might name Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Pascal. These men most undoubtedly held the creationist view - some of the founding fathers of science as we know it. Yet for some reason, this understanding of our origin we have now titled "creationism" has been replaced with the thought that the supernatural never happened - and enter the big bang theory. As the scientific base was made with Christianity, that base was pulled out from under it, and we now see the modern scientist of today. This idea of an autonomous man is now in the mind of science, and creationism is a view that is looked down upon, although never falsified. So the question is, why was it replaced? I think it was because humanistic reason and elevation was at a peak, and the scientist didn't think of God anymore. God wasn't a part of the life of the scientist, the only goal was for man to move forward and progress - my belief of the origin of evolution. This is the world we live in, one where man is praised and God is shunned and anyone who believes in God is thought to be foolish. Little do we see that only in the past few hundred years have things changed so drastically.

So there is is - creationism was replaced with the big bang, not because creation was falsified, but because the big bang was a "better" theory in the eyes of man. Otherwise, what was the reason? Don't tell me that there is no evidence for creationism because scientists know darn well that it's there. It just isn't given any attention by the modern scientist, which doesn't surprise me.

oh, wow! I would really like to understand what you mean by subjective? What aspect of big bang theory does not agree with objectively verified observations?

You glossed over my points. Whether you want to admit it or not, a lot is assumed. Such as, all of the laws in our galaxy being the same in others.

You say later:

Why would the properties of water change? Are you suggesting that God made several different kinds of water for different galaxies? Why would you make that suggestion? Isn't this the sort of speculation you were just condemning?

Why worry about whether water is different in another galaxy before we actually find such different water? When (if) we do, then that water can be studied and its properties explored.

So you're okay with being incorrect as long as it works within the context of today's scientific theories? To me that is total nonsense. You accept things at face value and put your faith in modern science with information that is nonverifiable. Yet people put their faith in what Scripture says, that God created the entire cosmos in six days and they get reemed for it, and receive a reputation of being stupid in the eye of the modern thinker. Not that I really care what they think of me... I am just telling you this in hopes that you understand my point. That the Word of God is verifiable. There is a right way to interpret Scripture, which we can actively practice. But I don't think we will ever be able to rightly comprehend all of the things of the cosmos, and many of things I don't think will ever be unveiled.

I think you are confusing "falsify" and "falsifiable". To be scientific, a theory must be falsifiable i.e. there must be a potential observation that would show the theory is false.

But if the theory is true, we will not ever find an actual observation that falsifies it.

So if a theory is hard to falsify (rather than being unfalsifiable), that's a good thing. It shows it is, if not true, pretty close to the truth. We should not be able to falsify a true theory, because a true theory will agree with all observations. We should be able to state a possible observation that would falsify it, but we should never actually observe that case.

I am not confusing the two terms, I don't think you understood my point. There are many different scientific theories that contradict each other that (depending on who's opinion) are non-falsifiable. The creationist believes he is right and, according to himself, has yet to be proven wrong. But the theistic evolutionist also believes he is right and is yet to be proven wrong. This is what I mean by subjective - what is reported as "truth" by science is subjective to who is reporting it, and thus, who knows what is really true about nature? There are many differing views that have yet to be falsified. And if you believe one is falsified, be careful, because now it becomes a matter of faith, since it is only a theory and cannot be proven.

I don't know why this should be a problem. Through study, through more observations, especially predicted observations. Predictions based on theory tell scientists what observations to look for.

I know. But we can't observe everything exhaustively. See the next response.

How do you know that? And how do you know when you have reached that point?

It's pretty obvious that nature is not exhaustive. We will never know nature as God knows nature. There is a limit, especially starting from man. Man is imperfect and will never reach a full understanding of the cosmos. This of course, is my opinion. But it seems to be a good one, as well as a safe one.

Well, that is a little easier to answer. We know that because we can see galaxies via telescopes and analyze them with various instruments. So we know they are made of basically the same stuff (electrons, atoms, photons, etc.) that our galaxy is made of and they behave as we would expect them to do based on our knowledge of the properties of said matter.

And it may seem similar to our galaxy, yes? But then again, you don't know. It is not provable yet, is it? Then we have birth to another assumption. There is a very big difference between proving something and having a lot of evidence to support something. One is definitely fact, one still may possibly be false. In light of that, anything that is stated as theory or an idea in general is just that - an opinion, or concept. And until it can be tested in proven it will remain that way. Yet, from my experience, these sorts of things are stated as facts by scientists. Science is supposed to take into account all possible scenarios, and be skeptic about everything. Yet it baffles that when it comes to a modern prevailing belief, they become less skeptic and more accepting of any information to prove their theory. This is especially true of the theory of macro evolution, but that is an entirely different topic.

That is what I meant about scientists using prediction to tell them what observations to look for. Based on what we know about how matter behaves in our own galaxy, scientists make predictions of what they should or should not observe in other galaxies if they are governed by the same laws. If the other galaxies were governed by different natural laws, the predictions should not accurately describe what will be observed. But they do. So we conclude that distant galaxies are governed by the same laws because they behave as if they are.

And that of course, is an evidence. But it doesn't prove anything. We can't go there and test these things, which is precisely my point.

Can you see a flaw in this reasoning? Would you expect galaxies governed by different natural laws to behave as if they were governed by the same laws as we are familiar with?

Well quite honestly I wouldn't expect it. But I don't see any flaw in my reasoning - scientists are to be skeptical of every possible scenario, and this is one case where they are not. Tell me, is there a 0% chance that laws may be different somewhere in the cosmos? No. You don't know that and you can't say that. You may have evidence to support it, but you still can't say it with certainty which is my entire point. Yet these things are stated as though they are true.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Continued from post 130...

Why wouldn't there be? Nature is a given. God himself gave it to us. It can be observed. God himself gave us eyes and ears and other senses so that we could observe it. And God himself gave us an intellect to reason about our observations. So what prevents us from aspiring to a correct interpretation of nature?

Do we not use the same gifts of God to study his gift of creation as we do to study his gift of scripture? If they are adequate for studying scripture, why not for studying nature?

Ah. And here is your flaw in your reasoning - the majority of scientists today are not biblically based Christians, if Christians at all. And therefore, the idea of an "intelligent designer" is not normally option. They prefer not to deal with that, while that is all I wish to deal with! It should be what we start from - God is the universal. Starting from man, we can never reach an exhaustive truth about God's creation, it has to begin with God! That's the entire problem!

You know, this reasoning reminds me of Moses telling God he couldn't talk to Pharoah because he was not a good speaker. You remember God reminded him of who had made his tongue.

God made us to have dominion over his creation. Why would he not give us the tools to know it?

I don't understand where the parallel to Moses fits in... anyways, Adam was in perfect fellowship with God, and therefore, I believe, was much smarter and had a greater understanding than we do. I think he knew how God created the earth - I mean he was part of His creation, and to part in even assigning names to the animals. Adam knew the earth, and knew only because of his relationship with God. But when Adam fell, I believe his humanity suffered a fatal blow. Actually, I believe this is provable, just by the fact that he died. When Adam sinned, his flesh was twisted and corrupted somehow in someway, and lost that fellowship he had, and the power he had over the earth. Yes, we still have dominion over the earth, but not as Adam had. He was in total control of the earth, the animal didn't even attack him. So it is only logical to think that what Adam once knew is now lost forever in sin. We know longer have the tools to know the cosmos exhaustively, because the only tool for knowing it is God!

In fact, nature is made and upheld by the Word of God, so I agree with you. But this just begs the question of how we know that our interpretation of scripture agrees with God's Word.

Scripture that is not interpreted correctly will not give us a true perception of the Word of God, nor of God's creation.

You are using a cyclical argument. You are saying that we can't know nature through the Word of God because we can't determine the correct interpretation. But the only way to find the correct interpretation is to go and find out about nature, and then apply that to our interpretation, right?

Well that's wrong. Nature does not interpret Scripture, the Spirit does. Jesus promised that the Spirit would lead in to the knowledge of all things. This knowledge is found through His Word. And how do we interpret the Word? Straight forward, simple, read as a man would read it, taking context into account and not bring presuppositions to the text, etc. I mean come on. You are walking the fence, almost trying to say that there is no right or wrong interpretation, or that there is no way of finding out which one is right. And I disagree. If you wish to discuss hermeneutics then that is a whole other topic.

You say this as if it were a general principle, and I don't know that it is a general principle. Where would you get such an idea or how would you support it?

I don't know how much more clear I need to be... we have already determined that the big bang is not provable. Yet, many have changed their interpretation of the Genesis account in order to fit the big bang in. Some have entirely omitted it as a literal account and just stated that it is a picture-story. That is borderline heretical, as far as using a consistent hermeneutic is concerned.

Hardly. Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. And there is nothing especially humanist about the theory of the big bang either.

Well, yes and no. Point me to someone who believes in the big bang theory of modern science who denies macro evolution. I have yet to hear of one, maybe I'm wrong. You may deny that they are linked, but they are in a way. They go hand in hand whether you like to admit it or not.

They are two theories that emerged out of this modern scientific revolution where humanism is the focal point. Yes, the big bang is especially a humanistic belief when viewed from a historical point of view.

I think you are getting in over your head and speaking about things you don't know much about. That makes it difficult to justify your assertions.

Well I really have yet to mention anything that I know or don't know about science. You are assuming a lot about me. I have openly admitted that I am not a scientist, but that doesn't necessitate that I know nothing of modern scientific theories or arguments for or against them. I know what I am getting myself into quite well.

Good to hear that. Then all you need to know is that something is true and you have no problem changing your interpretation. For example, knowing that distant galaxies do act according to the same basic laws of nature as those we are familiar with. Now that you know this, is there anything about your understanding of scripture you would change?

No, because you don't know that. This is assumed based upon your evidence stated. That doesn't prove it. And besides, this is one point. I brought this up as an example, I wasn't necessarily using it to debunk the big bang theory. I don't need to do that, as far as I am concerned it is on it's way down. The ultimate fruition of the big bang and evolution is that one cannot make something that is living from non-living material. This is the main crutch that will be the downfall of the natural view of things, the view that a God may not exist. But this is also off topic. I was approaching this topic from a strictly logical perception.

Specifically, which things? Would you agree that perhaps you are not well studied in science and therefore not familiar with the observations that have been made, or how they are made?

Um, the big bang? Certain supports for the big bang and the entire timeline that has been set forth by leading scientists and school textbooks for evolution?

I agree that I may not have as much experience as you or maybe anyone else who has posted on this topic. But that sure doesn't disqualify me to give my opinion, and to challenge what is being said. And it definitely doesn't make me wrong.

How do you know that? Did you determine for yourself that there are no supporting observations or correct predictions? Or were you told by someone? If you were told by someone, how did they support the claim that it is all speculation?

You're taking me out of context - I said that all of the things that cannot be proven as true are all speculation. I never said that that there we no supporting predictions.

Why is a working presupposition of universalism bad? Does it not make sense to assume no exceptions until an actual exception turns up? In fact, that is often how science makes progress, by examining an exception to what was thought to be a universal rule.

Well Scripture itself teaches against universalism, mainly, in the OT. Specifically, before the fall things we obviously much different. I am sure you have heard of the different creationist theories that predict that the earth was much much different before the flood explaining the long life before it.

If you look at science in the light of Scripture, it changes things. Universalism is not taught in Scripture. Scripture seems to teach that the earth was much different before.

Actually we know that they have not been always the same. We know that long ago the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere was much less than the current 20%. We know that at one time there was no life on land--only in the oceans and bodies of fresh water. And the continents were in different configurations than they are today. Even the length of the day was different, because the earth's rotation period was once faster than it is now. Lots of things have changed.

Okay so now you're saying that Universalism isn't correct, or that there are exceptions to universalism? I am pretty sure that one exception to universalism defeats the entire purpose, no?

I would also have to question you on the idea that the oxygen level in the earth's atmosphere was much less than it is now. Many samples of amber have been found (such as the ones portrayed in Jurassic Park with the mosquito in it), where air bubbles were trapped within it. These air bubbles were tested and found to have at least twice as much oxygen as the atmosphere has today. I am more on the side that earth had a higher oxygen level in the past - as that would explain many things in the story of Genesis. Also I would like to question how you know that there was no life on land, or that the continents were arranged differently. These are all based on universalist presuppositions, aren't they?

Oh, 8,000 years ago isn't that long. We have a fairly good idea what life was like on earth 8,000 years ago. Archeologists have provided lots of info in that regard. The city of Jericho was still standing then. Almost brand new it was then.

I meant to say 5,000 years old - hence - the beginning, roughly.

Ah, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. That is a pretty general statement. Radioisotope dating does not assume that everything has always been the same. In fact, carbon dating (in spite of what you may have heard to the contrary) does not assume that the amount of carbon or of c14 in the atmosphere is constant. (We know for a fact that it isn't.)

The only thing constant with radioisotope dating is the rate of radio-active decay. And that is not an assumption. That is an observation.

Once again, I haven't told you anything about what I know or don't know about the subject. And I never said that either type of dating assumed anything about the amount. All I said was that they assume the earth is similar today as is was 5,000 years ago. Yet, you don't know anything about radio-active decay under the circumstances before the fall of Adam, do you? No, you don't. You assume it. And so do scientists. Exactly my point. You, or I for that matter, don't have a clue what the earth was like before the fall, and don't know whether the rate of decay has always been the same. There are many things that we don't know, and we assume. And therein lies the problem.

Of course, I didn't intend to imply that it is ok to change an interpretation for specious personal reasons or whims. But changing an interpretation because one has discovered that something one thought was true is not, that is a different matter. We don't want interpretations that contradict truth, do we?

No, we definitely don't. And like I said before, the only place we can really be 100% sure is in the Scriptures. Yet, you keep science separate from God's Word like so many others. I don't understand it...

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I think you are mixing two ideas together:

1. Scientific atheism: (some people try to say that) physics has squeezed out God.
2. Universalism: (some people believe that) physical laws are constant everywhere.

The question I would have, then, is: why should one logically imply the other? Why should I believe, if physical laws are constant everywhere, that God doesn't exist?

First of all, I was speaking of the modern scientist who rejects God, not necessarily you specifically. The vast majority of scientists would be classified as agnostics, even if they profess to be Christians. Many say they "believe in God", although that doesn't single them out as Christians. I haven't heard too many confess that they have placed their faith in Jesus Christ's atoning work on the cross and have been made righteous by the washing and cleansing of His blood, and now have been given the pledge of the Holy Spirit and are walking according to the commands given to us in the Scriptures.

But I think one does usually imply the other, if you take the word atheist off. Most scientists are universalists. Universalism leads to the conclusions of modern science.

Furthermore, even though you are skeptical about universalism in theory, you have no problem applying it in practice. You are using a computer today; you use it the same way you did yesterday, and you will use it the same way tomorrow. Are you not assuming that all the science that goes into making a computer work stays constant from day to day? And that's one huge assumption - essentially you are assuming that everything that holds atoms together stays the same, that the speed of light stays the same (because electromagnetism stays the same), that the Internet will be here tomorrow. You do not exercise this skepticism you have when dealing with your computer. Or when you send your car to your mechanic, what makes you think the mechanic is qualified to service your car? After all, just because s/he has serviced many hundreds of cars before doesn't mean your car will be the same, or even remotely similar, does it? (And this has little to do with miracles: most Christians who believe that Christ popped out of His tomb don't expect today's cemeteries to spontaneously empty themselves on a regular basis. They can believe one resurrection without making scientific principle of it.)

Probably a more accurate description of what I practice is Dispensationalism - this is why the things of yesterday, today and tomorrow are the same, to a certain extent. Soon enough the rapture will occur, and then things won't be the same. Things in the past dispensations have been much different as well - especially during the first dispensation of innocence. I spoke of this in my last post. Things had to be different if people were recorded as living almost 1,000 years, although you may not believe that is accurate, or their age is being viewed from a different point of relativity. But no, I don't practice universalism, in the sense that things have always been the same, and that things will always be the same. One day, the earth didn't even exist, and some day coming in the future, it will be destroyed and a new earth will be created. Therefore, I don't think things in the cosmos have always been or functioned in the same way, and won't in the future either.

Universalism is the working assumption of science, and it is the working assumption of your own everyday life. Why do you believe your computer will work tomorrow? The same reason scientists think physical laws apply throughout the universe. And it is no reason to reject God.

Yes, but we have a reason to reject that things were the same in the past - the history recorded in the first few chapters of Genesis. But, you could never accept that as a scientific document, because of course, God doesn't know what he is talking about even though He created the whole thing... higher criticism is the culprit here.

It really depends on the mass distribution of the fragments of the exploding object. I'll fall back on my example of linear momentum. When I throw a grenade at someone, some fragments will fly back towards me - even though the grenade as a whole has positive momentum, some fragments coming off will have negative momentum, as long as the overall momentum is positive.

Like I said, you'll have to try it for yourself to believe it. Unfortunately I don't know where you can get a grenade easily.

And this would be a great experiment for someone to test. Yet, it seems to be brushed off by the big bang supporters, since it is a possible flaw.

Yup, hold that thought. The dot is the only thing in physical existence. Therefore, there is no space outside it, right?

When you conceptualize it as a "dot", you will implicitly have the idea that there's lots of empty space around it. A dot on a piece of paper is surrounded by a lot of white. That's not how the Big Bang works. Suppose that "dot" is all there is in the physical universe. Nothing else exists, not even any space "outside" the "dot". Now suppose you are in that "dot". Wherever you go, you are still inside the "dot" - inside that high concentration of energy. No matter how far you travel, there is no "outside" to get to, so you could travel for infinite time across infinite distance and still be stuck inside that dot's concentration of energy.

You arrive then at the description I gave earlier.

You are assuming I don't know what I am talking about. That is what I said - the little dot of energy was the only thing in existence; there is no space around it, the dot is the only thing that there is, I know that. But how does that necessitate me arriving at your conclusion? I'd like you to explain why.

That's a very good question - we really don't know. On the largest distance scales of the universe, gravity is the one dominant force, and so Einstein's general relativity forms the best description we have of it. On the smallest distance scales of the universe, Schrodinger's wave equation describes the particle-wave duality experienced by subatomic particles, and thus quantum mechanics is the best description we have. The Big Bang is really about rolling all those distance scales up into one big energetic mess. The only theory that will work at that point is a theory that rolls up all of general relativity together with quantum mechanics in a way that makes sense. We don't have that theory yet.

To a Christian, of course, all physical laws were ultimately created by God.

Well I don't understand how you or any other scientist just glosses over this point. I think it is a valid point, and I don't see it being answered. There is no answer as to where the forces of good and evil came from either, and the only fitting answer to that is the Christian or Jewish answer.

Another thing I'd like to point out - how in the world can you believe that every single thing in the entire cosmos today was contained in a ball as small or even smaller than a period on this page? Does that make any sense? I mean think about how nonsensical of an idea that is!

Well, nucleosynthesis is the answer. What issues do you have with it?

Well, only that nucleosysnthesis can only theoretically take place in a very very high energy scenario, such as a star. Only problem is, in order for the stars to exist, the stars should be already made up of the elements. According to the big bang, the only elements in the beginning were hydrogen and maybe helium. Therefore, the big bang assumes that starting with only hydrogen and helium, the higher elements such as uranium came about. How is this possible? There is a chicken and an egg problem. Which came first? The elements or the stars? Without them being created by God simply speaking, there really isn't much that can be provided as an answer. It is a contradiction of the big bang, Chemical evolution and Stellar evolution.

I don't base my beliefs about God off creation either - but I base many of my beliefs about creation off what I can see in creation. And I think that is a perfectly Christian position to take.

And that is fine - but it is not fine when you neglect what Scripture says, mainly, the Genesis account. If you can fit your idea of big bang into Scripture, I would like to hear it. I have yet to hear an interpretation that is consistent with both. So please! Enlighten me.

 

[gluadys]

basis.
I agree, and I thought that was somewhat implied, I guess not.

It's pretty obvious that nature is not exhaustive. We will never know nature as God knows nature. There is a limit, especially starting from man.

But no one is claiming that we know nature exhaustively. How do we know that we are anywhere near that limit? Why should we suppose that the information we are working with now has taken us to a limit of what can be known?

Man is imperfect and will never reach a full understanding of the cosmos.

So what? How does that impair what we do know, which, AFAIK is well within any limit of knowability. We do not need to know everything to know something.

The question is not whether we can know everything, but whether what we do know is accurate according to what nature actually is.

Does science as we know it describe God's creation as it is? If not, where is it wrong, and how do we know it is wrong?

And it may seem similar to our galaxy, yes?

In every way we can observe it, it is similar.

There is a very big difference between proving something and having a lot of evidence to support something.

Sure, there is. But science is evidence-based, not proof-oriented. Evidence, not proof, is the life-blood of science.

And until it can be tested in proven it will remain that way.

Big bang theory has certainly been tested. It gives reliable information about what we observe. It explains much about the cosmos and so far has not failed in its predictions.

So why should scientists doubt that it is at least more true than not?

And that of course, is an evidence. But it doesn't prove anything.

Evidence doesn't prove anything? Finding marked bills in a thief's car does not prove that he is in possession of stolen money?

C'mon, don't overreach here. Evidence is important because it gives us objective information. Tire tracks tell us that a car was in a certain location within a certain time-frame. Striations on a bullet tell us which gun it came from.

Evidence is the basis of all scientific thinking. If you can't deal with evidence, it simply shows you have little understanding of how science works.

Natural evidence is evidence given to us by God. Why would it lead us astray?

We can't go there and test these things, which is precisely my point.

What things do you think we would actually have to go to another galaxy to test? How would that change the things we can test now? We can, for example, analyze the light from a galaxy spectomatically and so determine the nature of the elements in the stars, just as we do with the stars in our own galaxy. We can measure its gravitational pull and so calculate how much mass is in the galaxy. Do you think a closer observation---from within the galaxy in question--would change that observation?

I feel I keep getting back to the same point. We don't need to know everything to know something. We can establish some reliable information about distant galaxies without a manned expedition to the galaxy.

Well quite honestly I wouldn't expect it.

Good. So, since distant galaxies behave as expected given the laws of nature we are familiar with, what is unsound about concluding--provisionally--that they really are governed by the same laws we are familiar with?

Tell me, is there a 0% chance that laws may be different somewhere in the cosmos?

No, in fact, we know that they do not apply at the scale of sub-atomic matter. The familiar laws of nature break down at the quantum level and we need to study quantum-level phenomena in a different way than phenomena at and above atomic level.

But in terms of cosmic geography, we can say there is 0% chance that the laws are different in any observed part of the universe. Both ordinary physics and quantum physics are the same in every place we have found so far.

Perhaps someday we will find a part of the universe that operates differently, but we will cross that bridge when we get to it.

Yet these things are stated as though they are true.

In terms of the observed universe, they are true, and that is all that science deals with: the observed universe, not anything hypothetical that we have not observed yet.

Ah. And here is your flaw in our reasoning - the majority of scientists today are not biblically based Christians, if Christians at all.

And you are overlooking my point. Nature, including human nature, is God-given; created by the Word of God. Does God give different evidence to people depending on whether or not they believe in him? Does God give different eyes and ears to unbelievers than to believers? (What happens then when one is converted--is there a physical change in their sensory apparatus?) Do believers and unbelievers see a different level of liquid in a beaker or get a different reading on a geiger counter? Does one get a different solution to a mathematical equation than the other?

And therefore, the idea of an "intelligent designer" is not normally option.

How does the idea of an intelligent designer affect the evidence? What material difference does it make to any scientific conclusion?

Starting from man, we can never reach an exhaustive truth about God's creation, it has to begin with God! That's the entire problem!

I think a big part of how we see things differently is that you have a very different understanding of what science is trying to do.

To a scientist it is not a problem that we cannot reach an exhaustive truth about creation. Science deals with observable truth, not ultimate truth. All of science is provisional and evidence-based. So what you think of as a problem is based on a conceptual misunderstanding of what science attempts. Correct your understanding of what science does and attempts to do and the problem disappears.

I don't understand where the parallel to Moses fits in...

Moses claimed inability to do something (speak well), but was reminded that God had given him his capacity to speak, so he should not doubt it.


Your whole case against science seems to be based on the proposition that the senses God gave us don't work and therefore give us unreliable information about what God created.

Why do you assume that God created us with such defective senses? Don't we need reliable sensory apparatus to appreciate the marvels of creation which glorify God? Why would he hide his creation from us by giving us unreliable eyes, ears, smell, touch, etc.?

 

[gluadys]

When Adam sinned, his flesh was twisted and corrupted somehow in someway

I don't see that proposition in scripture. Are you sure you are not making an illegitimate addition to scripture?

and lost ... the power he had over the earth.

I don't see anything in scripture that suggests he lost power over the earth.

Yes, we still have dominion over the earth, but not as Adam had.

Where is the scriptural support for this statement?

He was in total control of the earth,

Where is the scriptural support for this statement?

the animal didn't even attack him.

Where is the scriptural support for this statement?

It seems your case depends on adding a lot of questionable assumptions to the text of scripture.

I question an interpretive practice that allows adding so many dubious propositions to the text.

You are saying that we can't know nature through the Word of God because we can't determine the correct interpretation.

On the contrary, we do know nature through the Word of God because it is the Word of God (e.g. Christ) who made nature, including our nature.

But we cannot study nature (general revelation) via scripture (special revelation) because each is given for its own purpose.

But the only way to find the correct interpretation is to go and find out about nature, and then apply that to our interpretation, right?

It is not a matter of applying nature to scripture. It is a matter of understanding what scripture tells us about God and creation. Does scripture tell us that God makes an unreliable creation? Does it tell us God makes us incompatible with the creation he put us into, such that we cannot know his creation?

Does scripture tell us that God is the sort of Being who would give us one story in general revelation and a totally different story in special revelation? That God deliberately lies in either one or the other so that we must be confused about what scripture and/or creation say?

I mean come on. You are walking the fence, almost trying to say that there is no right or wrong interpretation, or that there is no way of finding out which one is right.

No, I do think there is a right way to interpret scripture and that we can find the right way: although we have not found the perfect interpretation yet.

But I don't think the right way to interpret special revelation will be in conflict with a good interpretation of general revelation. God does not speak out of two sides of his mouth, saying one thing in one revelation and contradictory things in the other.

After all, though scripture is infallible, we are not, and we can make as many mistakes in interpreting scripture as we do in interpreting nature. We cannot assume that we have a privileged interpretation of scripture that allows us to ignore the clear message of God's created nature in the form of observable evidence.

And I disagree. If you wish to discuss hermeneutics then that is a whole other topic.

No, it is not another topic. Creationism IS hermeneutics, through and through.

I don't know how much more clear I need to be... we have already determined that the big bang is not provable.

This gets back to your misconception of what science attempts to do. The big bang does what a good theory does. It provides a reliable model of how nature works accounting for all the relevant evidence and correctly predicting observations. It is closer to the truth of nature than any other proposed model.

Furthermore, from a believer's perspective, it does not contradict anything we understand about God and the fact that nature is God's creation. There is no inherent contradiction between general revelation (big bang) and special revelation (God is creator, nature is God's creation).

Yet, many have changed their interpretation of the Genesis account in order to fit the big bang in.

I do not think it is appropriate to try and fit scientific theories into scripture. Scientific theories change, so if you attach scripture to one scientific theory, a change in science becomes an attack on scripture. We went through that with Copernicus and Galileo. We should not repeat the same mistake.

Some have entirely omitted it as a literal account and just stated that it is a picture-story.

Well, this begs more questions.

What do you mean by "literal"? Is the scriptural account "literal" whatever that means? How do you know?

What do you think people mean by "a picture-story"?

That is borderline heretical, as far as using a consistent hermeneutic is concerned.

One person's hermeneutic may seem to be heretical from the standpoint of another person's hermeneutic. But consistency is a consideration and so is sound exegesis--exegesis which does not add material to the text.

Point me to someone who believes in the big bang theory of modern science who denies macro evolution. I have yet to hear of one, maybe I'm wrong.

naturally, anyone who follows the science agrees that both are sound scientific theories, but that doesn't make them the same. It is part of science that every theory must be consistent with every other, because we expect nature to be seamless. It is a UNIverse after all.

Yes, the big bang is especially a humanistic belief when viewed from a historical point of view.

I would say your reading of history is incorrect then, since many of the scientists at the forefront of big bang theorizing and research have been Christians and one of the strongest reactions against it was that it smuggled creation into science.

Of course, now that even atheists have to admit that big bang theory is correct, they are starting to conceptualize scenarios in which big bang does not depend on a creator, but this just confirms that in essence, big bang theory is not anti-creation. You have to devise ways to disassociate it from creation.

I have openly admitted that I am not a scientist, but that doesn't necessitate that I know nothing of modern scientific theories or arguments for or against them.

I am not suggesting that you know nothing of the theories and arguments. I am suggesting that you may have an inadequate knowledge of the evidence. I know, that as a non-scientist myself, this is my weak area.

No, because you don't know that.

Perhaps you are misreading what I said. I did not say we know distant galaxies are like ours.

But we DO know that they act like ours. We DO observe them behaving AS IF they responded to the natural laws we are familiar with.

Now we can speculate that they act in the same way IN SPITE OF being under a different system of natural law, but since it makes no difference in their behaviour that seems rather pointless.

Since any such supposed difference in natural law makes no difference in their actual behaviour, for all practical purposes we can treat them as if they obeyed the same natural laws as those we know.

I was approaching this topic from a strictly logical perception.

This again, is a difference between science and logic. Science always goes in the way of observed evidence even if it seems to break all the rules of logic. Logic is useful to science, but where logical conclusions disagree with observation, it is evidence that holds the trump card as far as science is concerned.

Um, the big bang? Certain supports for the big bang and the entire timeline that has been set forth by leading scientists and school textbooks for evolution?

Now that we have established that science is not proof-oriented, that what science aims to do is not prove theories but develop working models that help us understand nature better, would you agree that although big bang and other theories cannot be proven, they are good working models of God's creation? If not, why do you think they fail as suitable working models?

But that sure doesn't disqualify me to give my opinion, and to challenge what is being said. And it definitely doesn't make me wrong.

Of course not. But when you give your opinion publicly, you need to be prepared to defend it. Your opinion is not right just because it is your opinion. (Or wrong either). Your opinion is right or wrong on the basis of sound evidence and reasoning.

Well Scripture itself teaches against universalism, mainly, in the OT.

I think you may be ignoring a lot of scripture.

Specifically, before the fall things we obviously much different.

The huge difference is that we are now alienated from God. But that is hardly something science deals with.

I am sure you have heard of the different creationist theories that predict that the earth was much much different before the flood explaining the long life before it.

I have heard the theories, but I also see very little scriptural support for these theories. They strike me as a lot of eisegesis---reading stuff into scripture to make it agree with presuppositions--rather than sticking to basic exegesis.

Scripture seems to teach that the earth was much different before.

Creationism seems to teach that. I have not seen evidence that scripture does.

Okay so now you're saying that Universalism isn't correct, or that there are exceptions to universalism?

More likely I am saying that universalism is not what you think it is. Universalism is not uniformism; it does not mean things never change; it does not mean things always happen gradually; it does not mean unexpected or improbable things never occur; it doesn't even mean miracles never occur.

It does mean we can expect the sun to rise in the east tomorrow and expect that when we plant carrot seeds we will not harvest onions instead. It does mean that in normal circumstances we can expect water to flow downhill and iron to rust and children (of any species) to inherit the DNA of their parents. And it means that when something unexpected or improbable happens (like an asteroid crashing into the earth) we can expect to find evidence of the occurrence.

I would also have to question you on the idea that the oxygen level in the earth's atmosphere was much less than it is now. Many samples of amber have been found (such as the ones portrayed in Jurassic Park with the mosquito in it), where air bubbles were trapped within it. These air bubbles were tested and found to have at least twice as much oxygen as the atmosphere has today. I am more on the side that earth had a higher oxygen level in the past - as that would explain many things in the story of Genesis.

There may have been both higher and lower levels. The Jurassic was much more recent than the time period I was thinking of. I was considering the oxygen levels before there was anything more than bacterial life.

Also I would like to question how you know that there was no life on land, or that the continents were arranged differently.

Evidence. Check it out.

These are all based on universalist presuppositions, aren't they?

See above. "universalist presuppositions" is a catch phrase. You have to be specific on what is being "presupposed".

I meant to say 5,000 years old - hence - the beginning, roughly.

Well that is well within the time frame of civilization. We have a good deal of info on where and how people were living then. Jericho (as earlier mentioned) had been inhabited for about 4,000 years by then (though I am not sure if it was continuously.) People had moved across the land bridge into the Americas about 5,000 years earlier.

Here is a brief look at some of the things we know were happening 5,000 years ago.

http://christianforums.com/t1170380

Yet, you don't know anything about radio-active decay under the circumstances before the fall of Adam, do you?

What I know is that nothing in scripture suggests that Adam lived in a world that a human could not live in. Nothing in scripture suggests than any fundamental law of nature was changed by the fall.
Scripture does not tell me that c14 was not formed before the fall or that the plants and animals in the garden did not absorb it before the fall or that it had a different half-life before the fall.

Why should I add any of these speculations to scripture?

You, or I for that matter, don't have a clue what the earth was like before the fall

Sure we do. We know there was an earth and a sky, that the earth was covered with vegetation similar to what we find today (herbs, fruit trees) and lots of animals including many we find today (birds, cattle), and humans. Assuming normal physiology we know that there was an oxygen-rich atmosphere suitable for sustaining human and other animal life. We can assume a process of photosynthesis in plants. We have sun, moon and stars in the sky and presumably a normal day-night and seasonal cycle.

and don't know whether the rate of decay has always been the same.

Given all the above, why would it not be? Why should we dream up ad hoc changes not testified to in scripture without reason? If the rate of decay of c14 was not the same, what makes you think the length of day was the same? See, I can dream up ad hoc changes too. But I see no reason to do so.

No, we definitely don't. And like I said before, the only place we can really be 100% sure is in the Scriptures. Yet, you keep science separate from God's Word like so many others. I don't understand it...

We can be 100% sure of nature too, since it is also God-given. Especially that part of nature that was here before we were. It wasn't us who put fossils in the rocks was it.

What we are less certain of is our understanding of nature and our understanding of scripture. Not that we are totally in the dark in either case, (we don't need to know everything to know something.) but we can make interpretive mistakes whether we are reading galaxies or Genesis.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

But no one is claiming that we know nature exhaustively. How do we know that we are anywhere near that limit? Why should we suppose that the information we are working with now has taken us to a limit of what can be known?

Because it cannot be proven, that's why. You have evidences, but that isn't exhaustive proof, such as proofs for water freezing at 0 degrees celsius. I don't know why I need to keep repeating this.

So what? How does that impair what we do know, which, AFAIK is well within any limit of knowability. We do not need to know everything to know something.

Ah, but you you should be 100% sure of something if it is to be stated to be true, and typically you should be 100% sure of an abundance of things. This is the way it is with bible doctrine. Typically a doctrine is not proven by one verse, but many verses forming a main idea. But the big bang theory uses many assumptions and ideas which have not been completely and totally proven true to prove it. Therefore, we have theories proving theories - another large problem. And again, I understand that these are called theories, not facts, in formal science. My contention is that it is not necessarily practiced, my argument with Paul who is also posting on this thread. The ultimate fruition is that these are opinions, and take an amount of belief in order to state that it is true, much like religion.

The question is not whether we can know everything, but whether what we do know is accurate according to what nature actually is.

Again, my contention is that most of the support for the big bang is theoretical and has not been proven. Yet you keep stating that it is proven because there is evidence for it. I don't think that proves it though, and I disagree with a lot of the evidence brought forth as well.

Does science as we know it describe God's creation as it is? If not, where is it wrong, and how do we know it is wrong?

It is my opinion that it is wrong. That's the point! It hasn't been proven. It is an opinion. I'm not stating it as a fact, yet many scientists try to state that the big bang is factual. All I wish is that you would admit that it is a theory that has yet to be proven, and therefore remains an opinion/idea/something that may not be true.

In every way we can observe it, it is similar.

Sure, there is. But science is evidence-based, not proof-oriented. Evidence, not proof, is the life-blood of science.

You somewhat contradict yourself in what you say later in your response, that evidence is proof. I will answer this when I get there.

Big bang theory has certainly been tested. It gives reliable information about what we observe. It explains much about the cosmos and so far has not failed in its predictions.

And maybe it does. But again, this doesn't make it true.

So why should scientists doubt that it is at least more true than not?

You mean like... it's not absolutely true? Not proven? You're admitting to my whole argument here.

Evidence doesn't prove anything? Finding marked bills in a thief's car does not prove that he is in possession of stolen money?

C'mon, don't overreach here. Evidence is important because it gives us objective information. Tire tracks tell us that a car was in a certain location within a certain time-frame. Striations on a bullet tell us which gun it came from.

Well I think I am being a critical thinker and you may not be. The example you give shows it - marked bills in someone's car doesn't prove they were his. Being as critical as possible, could they not have been planted there? Could they be someone else's that he knows? These questions need to be asked and falsified with scientific theory, yet it is not. I don't think I'm overreaching, I'm just being skeptical. Maybe you should try it.

Having evidence doesn't necessarily prove something, it points towards something, sometimes many different things.

Evidence is the basis of all scientific thinking. If you can't deal with evidence, it simply shows you have little understanding of how science works.

I understand how science works, such as the scientific method. But science demands skepticism. And scientists themselves need to be skeptic, which many seem to have abandoned.

Natural evidence is evidence given to us by God. Why would it lead us astray?

I've said this before. It leads you astray when you come to a conclusion that cannot be proven, or you accept an idea that sounds correct and looks correct. It is the same with the way Satan acts against Christians - he makes things look good and right to trip us up and make us fail. I'm not relating the big bang with Satanism, so don't go there. I'm just making a parallel. I don't see a difference between the two.

What things do you think we would actually have to go to another galaxy to test? How would that change the things we can test now? We can, for example, analyze the light from a galaxy spectomatically and so determine the nature of the elements in the stars, just as we do with the stars in our own galaxy. We can measure its gravitational pull and so calculate how much mass is in the galaxy. Do you think a closer observation---from within the galaxy in question--would change that observation?

I feel I keep getting back to the same point. We don't need to know everything to know something. We can establish some reliable information about distant galaxies without a manned expedition to the galaxy.

And let me ask you the opposite question - is there nothing we can learn by going to another galaxy and studying it? Do we know it already? Is there even a possibility that going to another galaxy could falsify theories we have made today? It's called being skeptical, something you and other scientists are not doing.

Good. So, since distant galaxies behave as expected given the laws of nature we are familiar with, what is unsound about concluding--provisionally--that they really are governed by the same laws we are familiar with?

Because it isn't proven. Just admit it - it has never been 100% proven. Therefore, we have theories supporting theories supporting theories. With evidence, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that none of it has ever been proven, and therefore I have a right to be skeptical.

No, in fact, we know that they do not apply at the scale of sub-atomic matter. The familiar laws of nature break down at the quantum level and we need to study quantum-level phenomena in a different way than phenomena at and above atomic level.

But in terms of cosmic geography, we can say there is 0% chance that the laws are different in any observed part of the universe. Both ordinary physics and quantum physics are the same in every place we have found so far.

I have a serious problem believing this. I question your scientific evidence for concluding that there is a 0% chance.

Perhaps someday we will find a part of the universe that operates differently, but we will cross that bridge when we get to it.

Well we haven't been anywhere other than our galaxy (personally). So, I think you should be skeptical of the rest of the cosmos. You seem to be very easily swayed and take things at face value. I am not about to believe something you say just because you tell it to me. Yet, you believe what science tells you although I doubt you have done all of these calculations yourself.

In terms of the observed universe, they are true, and that is all that science deals with: the observed universe, not anything hypothetical that we have not observed yet.

Ha! What a lie. So we did observe the big bang? We did observe all of the various forms of evolution? No we didn't, and these are not testable either. We have no proof that these ever took place, and I contend they should be categorized as belief systems and not science. There is an element of faith that goes into thinking these things are true.

And you are overlooking my point. Nature, including human nature, is God-given; created by the Word of God. Does God give different evidence to people depending on whether or not they believe in him? Does God give different eyes and ears to unbelievers than to believers? (What happens then when one is converted--is there a physical change in their sensory apparatus?) Do believers and unbelievers see a different level of liquid in a beaker or get a different reading on a geiger counter? Does one get a different solution to a mathematical equation than the other?

Yes and no. Unbelievers do not have the Spirit, and therefore do not have the spiritual discernment, as well as the interpretation of Scripture to lead them to the understanding of the Genesis account. I don't know how important you think that is... it's only the story of creation given to us by God. Yet you trust all of the scientists who deny that account.

How does the idea of an intelligent designer affect the evidence? What material difference does it make to any scientific conclusion?

I think a big part of how we see things differently is that you have a very different understanding of what science is trying to do.

You need to study the history of science, and how the eyes of modern science have changed so drastically and went back to the ways of that of the renaissance, the idea of an autonomous man. Look at the scientists at the time of the reformation and see how their view of science was different than that of what we have today. It was science seen through the Word of God, and entirely different approach. You actually believe that science doesn't have a proper context? That it doesn't matter whether it is looked at as creation or a complete chance with no God?

To a scientist it is not a problem that we cannot reach an exhaustive truth about creation. Science deals with observable truth, not ultimate truth. All of science is provisional and evidence-based. So what you think of as a problem is based on a conceptual misunderstanding of what science attempts. Correct your understanding of what science does and attempts to do and the problem disappears.

I disagree. I start with the reference point of God and work back to man. But the modern man starts from man and tries to work his way to God, which is an absolute impossibility based on aristotlean thought. Study Leonardo Davinci and his life work, and you will see the conclusions of the autonomous man using mathematics to work out the purposes of man, and trying to give meaning or depth, some sort of universal. In the end, without God, science does no good. It cannot bring any usefulness at all, other than particulars. It has no universal thoughts to contribute to mankind, unless it is thought of with God being at the center of. This was the heart of the Reformation.

Moses claimed inability to do something (speak well), but was reminded that God had given him his capacity to speak, so he should not doubt it.

Your whole case against science seems to be based on the proposition that the senses God gave us don't work and therefore give us unreliable information about what God created.

Why do you assume that God created us with such defective senses? Don't we need reliable sensory apparatus to appreciate the marvels of creation which glorify God? Why would he hide his creation from us by giving us unreliable eyes, ears, smell, touch, etc.?

I think you make a large leap here. It is one thing to claim inability to do the work of God, but it is another to claim the ability to discover the origins of the universe without Him, which is what science aims to do. It is the modern thought pattern, that man is mighty, and that he is searching to unlock the truths of this cosmos on his own. It is a denial of the Word of God. I am not saying that you practice this; I am saying that the typical modern scientist does.

I don't believe God created Adam with such defective senses, but I believe that sin has taken its toll. The human mind and body has been infected by it. Reading the Genesis account, after Adam sinned, many things about himself, his mind and his surroundings changed. Do you disagree? Then why is it so hard to understand that man is quite imperfect, depraved and in need of the Spirit to understand the things of God? Is the universe not one of those things, which is shown to us in God's Word?

There are many things that you didn't respond to in my last post. That's fine, but the one thing I would like you to respond to is the fact that the big bang and evolution have replaced creationism for no good reason, and how that is an example of scientific failure.

 

[shernren]

First of all, I was speaking of the modern scientist who rejects God, not necessarily you specifically. The vast majority of scientists would be classified as agnostics, even if they profess to be Christians. Many say they "believe in God", although that doesn't single them out as Christians. I haven't heard too many confess that they have placed their faith in Jesus Christ's atoning work on the cross and have been made righteous by the washing and cleansing of His blood, and now have been given the pledge of the Holy Spirit and are walking according to the commands given to us in the Scriptures.

But I think one does usually imply the other, if you take the word atheist off. Most scientists are universalists. Universalism leads to the conclusions of modern science.

I'd ask, though, how many modern scientists you actually personally know. From my personal experience the proportion of scientists who are professing, living Christians isn't too much lower than the average proportion in the general populace.

Probably a more accurate description of what I practice is Dispensationalism - this is why the things of yesterday, today and tomorrow are the same, to a certain extent. Soon enough the rapture will occur, and then things won't be the same. Things in the past dispensations have been much different as well - especially during the first dispensation of innocence. I spoke of this in my last post. Things had to be different if people were recorded as living almost 1,000 years, although you may not believe that is accurate, or their age is being viewed from a different point of relativity. But no, I don't practice universalism, in the sense that things have always been the same, and that things will always be the same. One day, the earth didn't even exist, and some day coming in the future, it will be destroyed and a new earth will be created. Therefore, I don't think things in the cosmos have always been or functioned in the same way, and won't in the future either.

Yes, but we have a reason to reject that things were the same in the past - the history recorded in the first few chapters of Genesis. But, you could never accept that as a scientific document, because of course, God doesn't know what he is talking about even though He created the whole thing... higher criticism is the culprit here.

Fair enough - but do you have any physical evidence of it?

Nobody has said that God doesn't know what He is talking about. However, between you and the Bible there is this wonderful little piece of machinery called your brain, and all sorts of nonsense happens in your brain (and mine). The picture of the Bible that I get in my brain may be quite different from what God intended me to get - and it is always that picture that I criticize, not the Bible itself.

And this would be a great experiment for someone to test. Yet, it seems to be brushed off by the big bang supporters, since it is a possible flaw.

Hmm? Nobody "brushed it off". Since you haven't personally tested the assertion that all fragments of a rotating object will rotate in the same direction, you don't even know if your objection is a sensible one.

You are assuming I don't know what I am talking about. That is what I said - the little dot of energy was the only thing in existence; there is no space around it, the dot is the only thing that there is, I know that. But how does that necessitate me arriving at your conclusion? I'd like you to explain why.

Let's say you're an intelligent observer in that universe. Let's say that the dot is, say, 1cm across.

Now you can't be any bigger than the dot - because then you would need space outside the dot to exist. So you have to be smaller than the dot. Say you're half a cm big.

Now, suppose that you can travel 1cm in a second. You travel for one second. However, you don't hit the "edge" of the dot, because an "edge" would imply that there is space which the dot doesn't extend to. Therefore, you find yourself completely surrounded by "dot" and not seeing anything outside. The situation is exactly the same after you've traveled for 2 seconds, 3 seconds, ... indeed, for an infinite number of seconds (though of course the universe won't stay the same long enough for you to do that!). In other words, to you who are trapped inside the dot, the dot's extent is infinite - even after traveling an infinite amount of time you are still in the dot.

Thus you arrive at my description of it, from within the dot.

Well I don't understand how you or any other scientist just glosses over this point. I think it is a valid point, and I don't see it being answered. There is no answer as to where the forces of good and evil came from either, and the only fitting answer to that is the Christian or Jewish answer.

I didn't gloss over it. I honestly said I don't know. It's as simple as that. You'll find that scientists are generally quite honest in admitting what they don't know. And how can "I don't know" be an inadequate answer if I honestly cannot say much more, especially without arcane mathematics?

And I never denied the Christian answer to the existence of good and evil. I am still a Christian, no matter how much I disagree with you in certain things.

Another thing I'd like to point out - how in the world can you believe that every single thing in the entire cosmos today was contained in a ball as small or even smaller than a period on this page? Does that make any sense? I mean think about how nonsensical of an idea that is!

Infinite amounts of energy can be compressed into a very, very small point - not matter, but energy, although thanks to Einstein we know that the distinction is just a fake one.

Well, only that nucleosysnthesis can only theoretically take place in a very very high energy scenario, such as a star. Only problem is, in order for the stars to exist, the stars should be already made up of the elements. According to the big bang, the only elements in the beginning were hydrogen and maybe helium. Therefore, the big bang assumes that starting with only hydrogen and helium, the higher elements such as uranium came about. How is this possible? There is a chicken and an egg problem. Which came first? The elements or the stars? Without them being created by God simply speaking, there really isn't much that can be provided as an answer. It is a contradiction of the big bang, Chemical evolution and Stellar evolution.

Well, stars can be formed out of hydrogen. And that is exactly what the first stars were: hydrogen and helium and almost nothing else.

And that is fine - but it is not fine when you neglect what Scripture says, mainly, the Genesis account. If you can fit your idea of big bang into Scripture, I would like to hear it. I have yet to hear an interpretation that is consistent with both. So please! Enlighten me.

My signature says enough.

 

[gluadys]

Because it cannot be proven, that's why.

Ah, but you you should be 100% sure of something if it is to be stated to be true,


Again, my contention is that most of the support for the big bang is theoretical and has not been proven. Yet you keep stating that it is proven because there is evidence for it.


I don't think that proves it though, and I disagree with a lot of the evidence brought forth as well.

All I wish is that you would admit that it is a theory that has yet to be proven, and therefore remains an opinion/idea/something that may not be true.

You mean like... it's not absolutely true? Not proven? You're admitting to my whole argument here.

No, I am saying your argument is built on the wrong foundation. Your premise is that science ought to be in the business of proving its theories.

But that is not the case. Science does not prove theories or need to. It builds theories as an aid to understanding nature and exploring nature. It tries to generate models of nature that are accurate insofar as the available evidence permits. But scientists will be the first to tell you that there is a lot of evidence that has not been found yet and a lot of evidence they don't understand yet, so of course, no theory, no model of nature can be perfectly accurate.

Demanding proof for a theory only shows you are not conversant with the nature of scientific work, with what a theory is and how it is used.

What scientists demand is not proof of a theory but that what they observe can be explained by or derived from the theory.

But the big bang theory uses many assumptions and ideas which have not been completely and totally proven true to prove it.

I don't think that proves it though, and I disagree with a lot of the evidence brought forth as well.

You cannot disagree with evidence. Evidence simply is. You may disagree with how the evidence is understood, how it is used to support a conclusion, but not with the evidence itself.

The evidence is what must be accounted for. It can never be dismissed.

As for theories, it is true that complex theories often include sub-theories so theories can be built on theories. But we could only continue this line of conversation by looking as specific pieces of evidence, specific "assumptions" and dealing with each on a case by case basis. So if you want to deal with anything specific in terms of the evidence or assumptions or theories you disagree with, go ahead. Spell out what the particular point of disagreement is.

It is my opinion that it is wrong.

Can you be more specific about the grounds for holding this opinion? Can you show what aspects of the scientific description of nature are wrong and why they are wrong?

And maybe it does. But again, this doesn't make it true.

But it does make it the best model we have and the one most likely to take us closer to a more accurate model.

The example you give shows it - marked bills in someone's car doesn't prove they were his.

And I did not say that it proved they were his. In fact they are not his, since they were stolen. I said, it showed he had them in his possession.

Now the police will theorize they are in his possession because he stole them. He can counter with a theory that they are in his possession because someone planted the evidence in his car. Both theories will lead to predictions about where his car was, whether it was accessible to someone without his knowledge or permission, etc. etc. and these will have to be followed up during the investigation.

So while we can question how the stolen bills came to be in his possession---there is no doubt at all that they are in his possession. That is the evidence; that is the observation that has to be explained.

Having evidence doesn't necessarily prove something, it points towards something, sometimes many different things.

Evidence both proves the existence of something and points toward new things. That is what makes it so scientifically valuable.

Hoof-prints in a field are evidence that proves something made them. The most likely cause is a horse or other hooved animal. It could be someone faking them. It could even be God zapping them into existence. But there is no doubt the prints are there and were made by something/someone.

I understand how science works, such as the scientific method. But science demands skepticism.

Science demands rational skepticism. It does not require taking the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster seriously. That doesn't mean the FSM has been falsified. It does mean it is not worth spending any effort on trying to falsify it.

I've said this before. It leads you astray when you come to a conclusion that cannot be proven,

But the conclusion is not the evidence. I asked if the evidence (which comes from God) can lead us astray.

In our thinking about the evidence, we can make errors that take us to the wrong conclusion, but that will not be the fault of the evidence.

And let me ask you the opposite question - is there nothing we can learn by going to another galaxy and studying it?

Question for a question, eh? OK, I'll answer yours after you have answered mine. Fair deal?

Because it isn't proven. Just admit it - it has never been 100% proven.

No, it is not proven, but what is wrong with the reasoning? Why suppose the two galaxies behave the same way for different reasons instead of for the same reasons?

I have a serious problem believing this. I question your scientific evidence for concluding that there is a 0% chance.

Which evidence? And why is this evidence suspect?

Well we haven't been anywhere other than our galaxy (personally).

Right, so if there is something different about it that is not to be seen through our telescopes, we won't know till we get there. We can't form any new theory until we have new evidence, right?

So, I think you should be skeptical of the rest of the cosmos.

I think you don't understand what skepticism is. It is not pretending we don't know what we do. Nor is it dreaming up ad hoc theories for which there is no evidence. It is being willing to change your theory when new evidence is available. It is not about throwing away a good theory before new evidence requires it.

Ha! What a lie. So we did observe the big bang?

Big bang is a theory. We observe evidence, not theories. We have observed evidence for which big bang theory is the best predictor and explanation. That is why it is considered a good theory.

We did observe all of the various forms of evolution?

We don't need to. We need to observe the process and verify that the mechanisms work. Beyond that we need only a sufficient representation of various forms to be assured that the process was operative in the past.

No we didn't, and these are not testable either.

Evolution is put to the test every year as new flu vaccine is made.

And it is put to the test by every fossil found. Especially when predictions of which fossils will be found are made in advance and subsequently shown to be correct. It is also tested by DNA sequencing. The theory helps us make verifiable predictions about what genetic material we will find in various species.

No, there is no lack of testing of the theory of evolution.

Yes and no. Unbelievers do not have the Spirit, and therefore do not have the spiritual discernment, as well as the interpretation of Scripture to lead them to the understanding of the Genesis account.

I was not asking about the Genesis account. I was asking about the reliability of God-given evidence and God-given means of perceiving that evidence. Does it require spiritual discernment to determine whether a beaker contains 6 or 10 ounces of a liquid? Will a believer and an unbeliever dispute whether its colour is red or blue because one is guided by the Holy Spirit and the other not? Will they see different readings on a geiger counter or get different results when they make the same mathematical calculations? (Assuming neither errs.)

I don't know how important you think that is... it's only the story of creation given to us by God. Yet you trust all of the scientists who deny that account.

My question was not about the Genesis text. It was about the God we learn about in scripture? Does that God give us either an unreliable creation or unreliable means of perceiving creation?

You actually believe that science doesn't have a proper context? That it doesn't matter whether it is looked at as creation or a complete chance with no God?

First, that is philosophy, not science. It is only important to science if it makes a difference in the evidence. Show me that it makes a difference in the observations science is built on.

Scripture tells us God sends rain on both the just and the unjust. Do both get wet? If so, nature works the same for both and both will use the same science.

In the end, without God, science does no good. It cannot bring any usefulness at all, other than particulars.

We started off noting that special revelation is far more important ultimately than general revelation. Yet general revelation is still true. Yes, science gives us lots of specific particular information that has little if any spiritual importance and answers few, if any, ultimate questions.

That is not the point. The point is that within its sphere of limited particularities, insofar as it is making correct observations of nature and drawing correct conclusions about nature, science is still true.

Error in science is due either to faulty observation or faulty reasoning. So when error is alleged, one must show where observation and/or reasoning are faulty.

It is one thing to claim inability to do the work of God, but it is another to claim the ability to discover the origins of the universe without Him, which is what science aims to do.

That is not a claim of science, nor was it my point. My point is that God who made the world and us made us able to observe and know the world. So we need to honour God by not waving away those observations as if they did not count.

I don't believe God created Adam with such defective senses, but I believe that sin has taken its toll. The human mind and body has been infected by it. Reading the Genesis account, after Adam sinned, many things about himself, his mind and his surroundings changed. Do you disagree?

I most certainly do disagree. You are rewriting scripture wholesale.

Let us look at what Genesis actually says.

2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil for when you eat of it, you will surely die.

3: 17b-19
Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.

So, as a consequence of the fall, Adam must toil for his food, fighting off thorns and thistles and will eventually die.

Scripture mentions no other consequence of the fall for Adam. It does not say that Adam's mind, body or senses were affected in any way while he lived. It does not say his surroundings changed in any major way. The only change named is that he will have to struggle with thorns and thistles competing with his food grains in his field. But if his surroundings were significantly changed, the capacity of the earth to produce any vegetation--including thorns and thistles--would be impaired.

The changes you are writing into the text are put there by your imagination, not by God's inspiration. And I think you tread on dangerous ground to change scripture so drastically.

Then why is it so hard to understand that man is quite imperfect, depraved and in need of the Spirit to understand the things of God?

Why are you changing the subject? I have not been asking about understanding the things of God. I have been asking about understanding the physical world around about us.

Is the universe not one of those things, which is shown to us in God's Word?

The universe shows us itself. And it is God's Word that brought it into being. When we study the universe we are reading another of God's books.

You spoke of the scientists of former centuries, many of whom were Christian. That is the way they thought of nature: as God's second book. That is why they called it revelation--general revelation, the revelation God gives to all, believer and non-believer alike, because he wishes all to live and see his glory.

Why do modern creationists think this book is not worth reading? Or that it cannot be read? They disown the heritage bequeathed them by their Christian forbears in the pursuit of science.

That's fine, but the one thing I would like you to respond to is the fact that the big bang and evolution have replaced creationism for no good reason, and how that is an example of scientific failure.

What can I say?

1. It is not a fact.
2. Hence it is not an example of scientific failure.

If you wish to contend that it is a fact, provide the evidence for your opinion.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Here is one obvious mental change-

Before the fall

Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

After the fall

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Another -

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Adam and Eve had never wanted anything beyond God. They never desired anything else. God was fully sufficient. Yet, wisdom captured their eyes...

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Man died not only physically, but spiritually when he ate of the tree.

Eph 2:1 ¶ And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

Here is your quote-

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;

Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

Here we have many physical changes mentioned about the earth. First, the ground is cursed. How? Looking at verse 18, it says "thorns also and thistles it shall bring forth". A couple of things are implied here; Firstly, that this wasn't the original case. It is pretty obvious that Eden did not yield thorns and thistles, so this is a physical change. Also, it means that the ground would not behave as it used to. In verse 19 we see that Adam will have to face physical death because of his sin. This means a decay of his flesh, as well as his mind and senses.

Before the fall:

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Dominion is not "you are the strongest creation among earth, so you can be in charge of it". Dominion was that Adam had power and control over the Earth and all that was in it - something we don't necessarily have now.

Gen 1:29 ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

After the fall:

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.


After the fall:

Gen 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...



Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Here again, the implication was that the fear of man was not in animals before this - this would explain how Noah gathered all of the animals so easily. This is a physical change to the earth after the fall, that animals became fearful of man.

So, I think it is safe to say, based on these few texts, that pre-fall man was highly superior in comparison to post-fall man, in all areas: mentally, physically, and spiritually. Do you still disagree?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Gluadys-

As I stated before, I approached this discussion from a mere logical point of view, only partially science. I believe this is our contension - that science doesn't claim to answer the questions I am asking. And I guess that is the whole point. If you bring logical assessment into the picture of science, the picture becomes clear to me. Yet you probably claim that science should only be judged by science and nothing else.

So, I contend that this discussion is going nowhere.

One thing I would like to ask you though, is what you think of the Genesis account, your exegesis of it, and how you fit the big bang/evolution into the text. I would be most interested in this.

 

[Mallon]

One thing I would like to ask you though, is what you think of the Genesis account, your exegesis of it, and how you fit the big bang/evolution into the text. I would be most interested in this.

I won't speak on gluadys' behalf, but I will point out that evolutionary creationists do not read Genesis as a primarilly historical document, but a theological one. Therefore, we make no attempt to read scientific theories like the Big Bang or evolution into Genesis because the book was not written to tell of historical/scientific truths, but spiritual ones. Any attempt to do otherwise, to fit modern science into the Bible, is scientism because it promotes science as the arbiter of truth. Until we can agree on this, I don't see this conversation progressing much further.

(P.S. Jesusfreak5000: You make no mention of the Tree of Life in your analysis above, yet its very presence in the Garden of Eden has strong implications for the existence of death before the Fall, don't you think?)