A simple question

[Solomonthewise]

Why is not being able to prove anything that is not in the bible "the most fundamental fact"???



I can just as easily say--depending upon my hermeneutics--that YECism isn't in the bible either!



You have a very interesting defintion of "logical." Actually, what you propose is anti-logical, or supra-logical. But whatever it is, it is not "logical."



How can I be sure that your interpretation of Scripture is right? Besides, I do feel that my position (TE) is what is in the bible about creation.



Like God? Or the Incarnation? or the Trinity? Perhaps we should stop trying to understand these also, since there is no possible way that we will ever be 101% positive about the exact nature of these things...

I dont presume to say "dont question anything" mearly why question somthing you will never understand in this life!

I say that proving its in the bible is the "most fundamental fact" mearly because if its not in the bible then god did not say it, and if god did not say it then that tells me that thats the wrong version of creation and the one that god says in genisis is the correct version of events!

The only reason that you think my way of understanding and knowlge is illogical and anti-logical is because you are not me there fore you dont have the same understanding of things as i do, as i am my own person and i am an indevidual so thats fine i dont expect to convert you or somthing.

All i seek to do is promote the anti evoloution way of creation!

Just one question, are you saying that god had an hand in the way we evolved? Ie physical charicteristics and specificly pre choosing how we would look?

 

[depthdeception]

I dont presume to say "dont question anything" mearly why question somthing you will never understand in this life!

If this is what you really think, why are you bothering to even offer a perspective?

I say that proving its in the bible is the "most fundamental fact" mearly because if its not in the bible then god did not say it, and if god did not say it then that tells me that thats the wrong version of creation and the one that god says in genisis is the correct version of events!

Again, there are a lot of things that Christians believe that are not in the bible. Furthermore, your point about Genesis presupposes that the text is intended to communicate some form of scientific knowledge to us about the origins of life. I reject that the text is actually intending to do this, and that it actually has a theological intention.

The only reason that you think my way of understanding and knowlge is illogical and anti-logical is because you are not me there fore you dont have the same understanding of things as i do, as i am my own person and i am an indevidual so thats fine i dont expect to convert you or somthing.

If it was merely based upon "not being you" I wouldn't waste my time. However, I have some serious problems with not only the content of what you have said, but also with the methodology which you employ to attempt to establish what you have said.

All i seek to do is promote the anti evoloution way of creation!

And all I seek is to promote the exact opposite!

Just one question, are you saying that god had an hand in the way we evolved? Ie physical charicteristics and specificly pre choosing how we would look?

I don't understand what this has to do with our conversation, but I do understand that you are attempting to trap me into some "theodicy" issue. I will bite, nonetheless. No, I do not believe that God "had a hand" in this, as if God divinely decreed that my nose would look like it does, or that your hair would be ______ color. I believe that God created the universe to be a universe.

 

[Solomonthewise]

quote: I don't understand what this has to do with our conversation, but I do understand that you are attempting to trap me into some "theodicy" issue. I will bite, nonetheless. No, I do not believe that God "had a hand" in this, as if God divinely decreed that my nose would look like it does, or that your hair would be ______ color. I believe that God created the universe to be a universe.

What i ment was, a more generalised hand in creation, Do you believe that god had a hand in the general physical outlook of Mankind?

More specified, what we would look like as a species!?

 

[depthdeception]

What i ment was, a more generalised hand in creation, Do you believe that god had a hand in the general physical outlook of Mankind?

More specified, what we would look like as a species!?

No, not in the sense that God altered the course of evolution to make it so. Again, I think God created the universe to be a universe. I don't think there is a need for God to be mucking about in the natural order of creation in order for God's will in creation to be accomplished.

 

[Solomonthewise]

No, not in the sense that God altered the course of evolution to make it so. Again, I think God created the universe to be a universe. I don't think there is a need for God to be mucking about in the natural order of creation in order for God's will in creation to be accomplished.

So are you saying that when god began evolution it was on a set path, and it would lead us diretly to what we are today and we couldnot have evolved into any other form than what we are now?

 

[depthdeception]

So are you saying that when god began evolution it was on a set path, and it would lead us diretly to what we are today and we couldnot have evolved into any other form than what we are now?

No, that is not what I am attempting to say. I do not see evolution as something which God "started rolling" and then took hands off. In my understanding, part of a "universe being a universe" is that the infinite contingencies and possibilities are truly that--not something that has been "pre-programmed" and is simply playing itself out.

 

[Solomonthewise]

No, that is not what I am attempting to say. I do not see evolution as something which God "started rolling" and then took hands off. In my understanding, part of a "universe being a universe" is that the infinite contingencies and possibilities are truly that--not something that has been "pre-programmed" and is simply playing itself out.

What im getting at is, Mankind was created in the immage of god, so how does the theory of evolution, explain this?

 

[gluadys]

What im getting at is, Mankind was created in the immage of god, so how does the theory of evolution, explain this?

It doesn't. The theory of evolution does not deal with spiritual nature.

 

[GenemZ]

It doesn't. The theory of evolution does not deal with spiritual nature.

Translation: It totally ignores it. And, in doing so, claims innocence in mocking God's Word.

"How can we be mocking God's Word? God's Word is not even mentioned?"

I can accept that from those who call themselves atheists. At least they are being consistent with what they claim to believe. Secular Humanists seem to be controlling the damage control of TOE. But, for Christians to goose step to their apologetics? I wonder.... seriously.

I ask you? Who set this rule to ignore and leave out the mentioning of God in scientific observation? Never to give God credit for his masterful hand in creation? Why must it always be clinical and cold? Never a celebration is discovering how great the creative genius of the Lord really is? Never giving him the glory! After all, that is what God created the scientific mind for!!! To reveal how amazing he was in the details!

It goes like this. Someone discovers a masterpiece in an estate sale. Its not signed.

The person takes it and displays it in the finests art galleries around the world. People from all over praise its workmanship. The one who found this piece is written up about and becomes a celebrity. Then one day, the artist walks into where the work is being displayed. He introduces himself to the owner of the painting. The owner suddenly becomes overwhelmed with a desire to not share the glory he is receiving from his peers. He also does not want to be corrected when he finds out he was wrong about saying what technique was used in its creation. So he calls the artist a liar, and not really the one who did the work. He rejects the artists and pushes him off the scene. Why? He wants the glory for himself. Secular science is that way.


John 12:42-43
"Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees (secular scientists) they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue (peer review); for they loved praise from men more than praise from God."

There is nothing new under the sun.....

Scientists who are Christians should not be ashamed of proclaiming praise in discovering how amazing the Lord was in the fantastic details. Yet, they are silent. They even try and say that God's Word misreprents how creation was implimented. I can almost see why. For, the YEC's do not make it easy to do. For some of what they say is a total embarrasment to scientists who will not alter the data they find.

Be that as it may..... Scientists who are Christians, should be free to declare the glory of the Lord's handiwork in their observations. If the secularists complains? Why should they be lord of your life?

Problem is..... marginal belief will never produce what I just presented. For it attempts to reconcile both worlds. Be that as it may.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What im getting at is, Mankind was created in the immage of god, so how does the theory of evolution, explain this?

ask the question in a scientific way.
how do you define image of God in a scientific manner?
and how do you test for it in human beings?
how would you look at early fossils and test for the image of God in them?
do you see the problem?

science and religion may talk about the same things, at times, but not in the same way. A person can do both science and theology, but s/he needs to be aware of the differences in vocabulary and technic, for instance.

 

[GenemZ]

ask the question in a scientific way.
how do you define image of God in a scientific manner?
and how do you test for it in human beings?
how would you look at early fossils and test for the image of God in them?
do you see the problem?

The answer is this. God did not transform an ape into the image of God. God created man in his image.

You seem to be completely oblivious to what he was saying and asking.

science and religion may talk about the same things, at times, but not in the same way.

And? secular humanist scientist just love to find things that apear to be contradictions to God's Word. They want to prove that what they see as the ancient "superstitious/ignorant mind" is no longer to rule the day. That the new secular humanist thinking is to be the new lord over our lives.

They want to take over, a bit at a time. Disproving the creation account is having their foot in the door for their desired goal. It would keep young minds from accepting the Bible as being God's Word.

A Christian who knows God can not lie, would keep seeking for the truth in the Word till its found. The GAP theory answers all questions about the fossil remains.... but the secular humanists, and their opposite side of the pole, the religious legalists, both are too content with fighting each other and proving how smart they are. They desire to glory in their own ability than to turn around and face the truth they have been pushing down and away.


http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

Its there to be found. It explains why we find fossil remains. And, it also keeps in tact that we are now living in a most recent creation from the hand of God. Just like God will replace this one with a new one in the future. This one will be the fossil remains to that one!

Isaiah 65:17 niv
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

Translation: It totally ignores it. And, in doing so, claims innocence in mocking God's Word.

self-contradiction. you cannot mock what you are ignoring.

I ask you? Who set this rule to ignore and leave out the mentioning of God in scientific observation?

Jesus did.

Never to give God credit for his masterful hand in creation? Why must it always be clinical and cold? Never a celebration is discovering how great the creative genius of the Lord really is?

Because science is not a person. It is like asking the dictionary to sing hymns of praise.

Now if you wish to speak about scientists, rather than science, you can ask them to celebrate the creator and many of them do.

The person takes it and displays it in the finests art galleries around the world. People from all over praise its workmanship. The one who found this piece is written up about and becomes a celebrity. Then one day, the artist walks into where the work is being displayed. He introduces himself to the owner of the painting. The owner suddenly becomes overwhelmed with a desire to not share the glory he is receiving from his peers. He also does not want to be corrected when he finds out he was wrong about saying what technique was used in its creation. So he calls the artist a liar, and not really the one who did the work. He rejects the artists and pushes him off the scene. Why? He wants the glory for himself. Secular science is that way.

You see what I mean? Your whole analogy is about people. So instead of talking about science, you should be talking about scientists. Science is not analogous to the person who found the painting. It is not analogous to the artist either. Science is analogous to the painting. Or even more to the description of the painting in the art gallery's catalogue.

Now, supposing the name of the artist was unknown, what do you expect the catalogue to do in order to give credit to the artist?

Scientists who are Christians should not be ashamed of proclaiming praise in discovering how amazing the Lord was in the fantastic details.

They aren't. Have you read the works of Kenneth Miller, John Polkinghorne, Rev. Bob Bakker, Carl Drews, Denis L'amoureux or Glen Morton?

If you haven't you have no right to slander the name of these working scientists who are also Christians and evolutionists and let the world know it.

 

[GenemZ]

self-contradiction. you cannot mock what you are ignoring.

At least you admit they ignore God. But, mocking has many forms of expression.

If the President walked into a room and everyone ignored his presence. That would be a mocking of him. The Lord is much greater in importance than any president.

Jesus did.

He did not. (my answer is as informative as your's usually are. I can play that game, as well).

Because science is not a person. It is like asking the dictionary to sing hymns of praise.

Dictionaries at least acknowledge the existence of hymns of praise. They do not eliminate the word "God" either.

Now if you wish to speak about scientists, rather than science, you can ask them to celebrate the creator and many of them do.

Who is their creator, though? The Lord? Or, their own recreation?

You see what I mean? Your whole analogy is about people. So instead of talking about science, you should be talking about scientists.

I really have no problem with science. Its what most scientists do with science when God stands in the way of their theories that bothers many Christians.

Science is not analogous to the person who found the painting.

I am not speaking of science. I am speaking of scientists attitudes. Many are secularists is attitude. And, too many Christian scientists are worldly in bowing to peer pressure.

It is not analogous to the artist either. Science is analogous to the painting.

The artist is the Lord. The painting is creation. Scientists who are arrogant want the glory for what they discover about the creation, and they do not want the creator to get the glory. They wish to be seen as intellectually superior to the common man. Yet , in God's eyes we are all mental midgets. That is what many scientists do not want to deal with concerning the humbling experience of being in the presence of God.

Now, supposing the name of the artist was unknown, what do you expect the catalogue to do in order to give credit to the artist?

I said it was unsigned. Just like the Lord does not reach down each evening and sign the corner of a gorgeous sunset. The scientist who is arrogant would rather impress others on how much knowledge he has concerning what causes a sunset. Yet, the arrogant ones are not humbled by a God which they wish to ignore who created that sunset.

They aren't. Have you read the works of Kenneth Miller, John Polkinghorne, Rev. Bob Bakker, Carl Drews, Denis L'amoureux or Glen Morton?

Theology is my interest. But, to quote Kenneth Miller...

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/globe.html

Exactly. What the sticker said was that "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." The problem with that wording is that evolution is both a theory and a fact. It is a fact that living things in the past were different from living things today and that the life of the past changed, or evolved, to produce the life of the present. Recent news reports the discovery of a new mammalian fossil in China that has a small dinosaur in its stomach. This fossil is a fact -- clear evidence that some early mammals were able to prey upon dinosaurs, at least little ones. And it is just one of millions of fossils that support the fact that life has changed over time, the fact of evolution.

What I have shown you before, shows that what KM claims does not have to be true. It is not fact as he states it. Here it is, again.

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

And, Dr. Custance was a scientist. His bio is below.

http://www.custance.org/insight.html

Your choice.

As for me and my family? No need to say what it is. You already know.

Have a nice Day, GeneZ

 

[shernren]

Genez, would you honestly be happier if Newton had said "Okay, I'll give God the credit and not attempt to understand gravity"? If Kelvin had said "I'll take it by faith that heat flows from hot to cold, and I won't attempt to take credit for it by trying to invent human flawed laws of thermodynamics"? If Faraday had said "It is God's will for electrical flow to affect compasses, and thus I need not seek a naturalistic explanation"?

There is no difference between secular science and Christian science except that one is performed by non-Christian people and one by Christian people. Christians' petri dishes aren't any cleaner, Christians' lasers aren't any more accurate, Christians' computers aren't any faster. And if they are honest with themselves, the results of the experiments are the same whether or not the researcher crosses himself before looking into the microscope. Peer review works not because the scientific community is some massive centrally-controlled instrument of evil that throws out anything remotely Christian. It works because science should be the same whether it is New York or Chile, whether it is 9:00am or 9:00pm, whether the event happened a few minutes ago or will happen tomorrow or happened a few millenia in the past.

The "science doesn't agree with my pet theories, therefore it must be anti-God!" mindset amongst popular YECism is a tremendous setback to the intellectual legacy of Christianity. Christianity has been at the forefront of scientific development for as long as there has been proper science, and this arises naturally from our idea of God as the creator: if God is rational, and His rationality is reflected both in His creation and in us His image, then it is only natural that our rationality should be able to systematize the rationality in creation.

YECism suggests otherwise (when it isn't doing "creation science", where oddly values take a flip and science is suddenly a most credible verification of God's word despite its naturalist foundations), and how can it do so? To suggest that God is not rational is heresy. Yes, God is supra-rational, but He allows Himself to be essentially rationally understood (though maybe not systematized - no "falsifiable hypotheses"!) by our rational mind. To suggest that man is completely irrational may be a convenient excuse, but it does away with almost all of civilization - after all if science has turned out to be such a flawed thing, what more theology, democracy, judicial systems etc. which are also natural products of man's intellect? These things may have no ultimate/eternal value but they serve us well on Earth.

This leaves only the possibility that this universe was not created rational. For Christianity to admit that is to side, ironically, with atheism, for whom all that exists has no purpose for which to exist. The idea that God has pulled a fast one on us (by making the universe look several orders of magnitude earlier than it actually is) is philosophically disturbing, and difficult to maintain for any long period of time, as I can personally attest.

 

[gluadys]

At least you admit they ignore God. But, mocking has many forms of expression.

If the President walked into a room and everyone ignored his presence. That would be a mocking of him. The Lord is much greater in importance than any president.

It wouldn't be mocking if they were all blind and deaf and had no way of knowing that he had walked into the room. That is the situation with science and God. Scientists cannot put God under a microscope or view him through a telescope. They cannot measure God, or weigh God or do a chemical analysis of God. So what can they say about God in their scientific work?

He did not. (my answer is as informative as your's usually are. I can play that game, as well).

Yes, he did. John 4:24

Who is their creator, though? The Lord? Or, their own recreation?

You can't put all scientists in one basket. Each will have a different answer.

I really have no problem with science. Its what most scientists do with science when God stands in the way of their theories that bothers many Christians.

Yet you keep carping about science. I had to remind you to discriminate between science (a body of knowledge) and scientists (people).

How does God stand in the way of a theory when there is no way for a scientist qua scientists to take account of God?

I am not speaking of science. I am speaking of scientists attitudes. Many are secularists is attitude. And, too many Christian scientists are worldly in bowing to peer pressure.

Well, then , stop saying "science" when you mean "scientists".

The artist is the Lord. The painting is creation. Scientists who are arrogant want the glory for what they discover about the creation, and they do not want the creator to get the glory. They wish to be seen as intellectually superior to the common man. Yet , in God's eyes we are all mental midgets. That is what many scientists do not want to deal with concerning the humbling experience of being in the presence of God.

So now it is only "arrogant" scientists you have a problem with. What about scientists who are not arrogant? After all the non-arrogant scientists use and produce the same science as the arrogant ones. The scientist's attitude does not change the science.

I said it was unsigned. Just like the Lord does not reach down each evening and sign the corner of a gorgeous sunset.

So what does the catalogue writer (scientist) write about the artist? What can the catalogue writer do other than describe the painting and the skill of the artistry without ever mentioning the artist, since he knows nothing of the artist?

The scientist who is arrogant would rather impress others on how much knowledge he has concerning what causes a sunset.

Does his arrogance lead him into error when describing the refraction of light that causes the wondrous colours of a sunset?

Yet, the arrogant ones are not humbled by a God which they wish to ignore who created that sunset.

It is not a question of wishing to ignore. It is being unable to do otherwise for the reasons stated above. God is not responsive to scientific ways of knowing. So how can science know God?

Theology is my interest. But, to quote Kenneth Miller...

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/globe.html

Excellent article. Of course, it does not discuss his theology. Have you read his book? Finding Darwin's God.

And, Dr. Custance was a scientist. His bio is below.

http://www.custance.org/insight.html

According to his bio, Dr. Custance was not a scientist. He took his degree in the Humanities and acquired practical experience in engineering. He knows no more about biology than you do. Miller, OTOH, is a professional biologist. His degree is in biology and he teaches it every day.

 

[depthdeception]

They aren't. Have you read the works of Kenneth Miller, John Polkinghorne, Rev. Bob Bakker, Carl Drews, Denis L'amoureux or Glen Morton?

I absolutely love Polkinghorne! I also have a soft-spot for Peacocke. I love his "fugue" analogy.

 

[GenemZ]

Genez, would you honestly be happier if Newton had said "Okay, I'll give God the credit and not attempt to understand gravity"? If Kelvin had said "I'll take it by faith that heat flows from hot to cold, and I won't attempt to take credit for it by trying to invent human flawed laws of thermodynamics"? If Faraday had said "It is God's will for electrical flow to affect compasses, and thus I need not seek a naturalistic explanation"?

I am speaking in reference to something God does mention how he did something, then certain scientists attempt to contradict with a theory.

Genesis 2:7 niv
"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

God would have told us different if we evolved from an ape.

John 14:2 niv
"In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you."

Any scientists who has a true fear of God could have to admit that TOE appears to be an answer, but it can not be they way because God does not lie.

Titus 1:2 nkjv
"In hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began."

For God can not lie.

Romans 3:4 niv
"Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

If he were fearing God, the scientist who is a Christian would wait upon the Lord to show him what really happened, rather than run with the herd mentality that many scientists follow today with this theory. Just like the YEC's run with their herd mentality.

Proverbs 14:12 niv
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."

If one leaves God out of the picture, then TOE can seem logical and right. If one puts God back in, as God really is, then one must conclude that there is another answer. I have to admit that YEC's left me with no hope. Yet, if you keep the nature of God in the picture you will know that there was to be an answer that does not contradict God's Word, nor the scientific data which is accurately understood.

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

According to his bio, Dr. Custance was not a scientist. He took his degree in the Humanities and acquired practical experience in engineering. He knows no more about biology than you do. Miller, OTOH, is a professional biologist. His degree is in biology and he teaches it every day.

So? What are you doing here in this forum? If a brilliant mind like Dr Custance is not qualified to properly evaluate? Why then do you wish to promote your theory here with all us non-biologists?

That's really disengenuous when you use that argument. Only a biologists is qualified to properly determine what the data means, but we who are not biologists? Must accept what you tell us?

Think about what you just said! If you are to remain consistent, you are wasting your time expecting us to be able to properly evaluate TOE. But, you see us as being unreasonable if we disagree.

I'm not a biologist. You? Everyone here? Then go find a forum for biologists, and have them evaluate TOE! Stop wasting your time with us mental inferiors.

GeneZ

 

[The Lady Kate]

So? What are you doing here in this forum? If a brilliant mind like Dr Custance is not qualified to properly evaluate? Why then do you wish to promote your theory here with all us non-biologists?

Would you ask a heart surgeon to check the transmission on your car?

That's really disengenuous when you use that argument. Only a biologists is qualified to properly determine what the data means, but we who are not biologists? Must accept what you tell us?

You're not God. Must we accept what you tell us about the Bible?

Think about what you just said! If you are to remain consistent, you are wasting your time expecting us to be able to properly evaluate TOE. But, you see us as being unreasonable if we disagree.

One need not have a degree to learn something.

I'm not a biologist. You? Everyone here? Then go find a forum for biologists, and have them evaluate TOE! Stop wasting your time with us mental inferiors.

Are you often in the habit of rejecting things you don't even bother to understand? That says a lot more about who is a "mental inferior" than a biology degree.

 

[GenemZ]

Would you ask a heart surgeon to check the transmission on your car?

If he understood transmissions? Yes.

You're not God. Must we accept what you tell us about the Bible?

Just try accepting what the Bible tells you about the Bible. That would be a good place to start.

One need not have a degree to learn something.

Yet, Dr. Custance did not qualify because he did not have such a degree?

Are you often in the habit of rejecting things you don't even bother to understand? That says a lot more about who is a "mental inferior" than a biology degree.

So? You understood the following?

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

Have a nice Day, GeneZ