Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Gregory Thompson]

We don't need to do it at all. At least not to understand the very early universe. No one has said "this explains completely how the universe started" yet. The Big Bang theory only explain the universe to an extremely tiny fraction of a second after the expansion began. Right now physicists can work backwards only so far. Will they ever be able to work back further? We don't know yet. True scientists will admit where there knowledge stops.

So there's some faith in there too.

Not all that different in a sense.

I appreciate the candour. when we say we do not know, we are closer to reaching the truth we are seeking - than when we first started.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One point. Evolution, the Big Bang, various different sciences, do not "refute God". That is the claim of creationists only because their particular version of God has been shown to be wrong. That does not mean that the Christian God, or any other God has been refuted. Just the ones that insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

One point. Evolution, the Big Bang, various different sciences, do not "refute God". That is the claim of creationists only because their particular version of God has been shown to be wrong. That does not mean that the Christian God, or any other God has been refuted. Just the ones that insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I don't think they refute God or that the world was created by God, but also understand knowing God created the world is obtained by faith. So if you don't have it, I understand why it sounds strange that I do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So there's some faith in there too.

Not all that different in a sense.

I appreciate the candour. when we say we do not know, we are closer to reaching the truth we are seeking - than when we first started.

Yes, we keep getting closer and closer to an answer in various sciences. And along the way we often learn that there is even more to know. Christianity has not been refuted, Judaism has not been refuted, Hinduism has not been refuted, nor has Islam. If someone claims that they are overreaching.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think they refute God or that the world was created by God, but also understand knowing God created the world is obtained by faith. So if you don't have it, I understand why it sounds strange that I do.

The problem is that faith has never led to new knowledge. The devices that we depend on for communication were not developed through faith, but through knowledge from the scientific method.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yes, we keep getting closer and closer to an answer in various sciences. And along the way we often learn that there is even more to know. Christianity has not been refuted, Judaism has not been refuted, Hinduism has not been refuted, nor has Islam. If someone claims that they are overreaching.

That sounds about right.

The way I see it is, Truth is truth. Since God created it - then it points back to Him.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The problem is that faith has never led to new knowledge. The devices that we depend on for communication were not developed through faith, but through knowledge from the scientific method.

The basics of scientific method is in the bible in terms of weeding out false ideas, so it's hard to say faith hasn't made any contributions. Since the scientific method came out of Europe during the colonial era, it's a bit of a stretch to say Christianity was not an influence in it's creation.

 

[dlamberth]

I trust what God says.

But the earth is God's Creation, signed off with His own signature. And it's telling a different story. One of evolved life. I'm unable to get pass that point of what God is saying to us through His Creation as more accurate than the Bible Creation story.

 

[Hammster]

It sounds as if you are making an idol of the Bible rather than God. The Earth should be God's work too by your beliefs and it tells us quite a different tale. Even the Bible does not say that the Bible is literally true. The verse that you will want to refer to only says that it is inspired by God and all of it is useful for instruction etc.. That is not saying that one has to take it literally. Genesis is still useful for instruction as morality tales. It need not be taken literally.

God has a word for you.


For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
— Romans 1:18-23

It’s not too late to repent.

 

[Hammster]

But the earth is God's Creation, signed off with His own signature. And it's telling a different story. One of evolved life. I'm unable to get pass that point of what God is saying to us through His Creation as more accurate than the Bible Creation story.

It’s not telling that story. The story is the one in Scripture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God has a word for you.


For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
— Romans 1:18-23

It’s not too late to repent.

Nope, not aimed at me at all. Let's try not to abuse the Bible as a tool of personal attack. That appears to be very inappropriate for a forum

 

[Hans Blaster]

God has a word for you.


For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
— Romans 1:18-23

It’s not too late to repent.

That's a whole lot more than "a word". (And that was written by Paul, not "God".)

 

[Hammster]

Nope, not aimed at me at all. Let's try not to abuse the Bible as a tool of personal attack. That appears to be very inappropriate for a forum

It’s not a personal attack. It’s a warning.


He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
— John 3:36

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s not a personal attack. It’s a warning.


He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
— John 3:36

No, it was a personal attack. I could play the same game but I am working at a handicap as an atheist. I would not be forgiven for such an attack and would be subject to moderation. It was an abuse of the Bible.

 

[Hans Blaster]

He was talking about a large group of people who you fall into.

People who "know god" but pretend they don't. That's Paul's thesis and that's not me. I've never known a god. Never conversed with a god. Never felt the presence of a god. I always thought that notion of "a relationship with Jesus/god" was new-age hippie nonsense until I found out it was a widespread notion in the protestant communities.

 

[trinity80]

There are two things I do not understand about the evolution theory.
1) Evolution does not explain why we are degenerating in regards to desease, illness our bodies etc. You could say it is our lifestyle but I disagree; why has childbirth stayed for some a horrific experience and so many women have died for thousands of years?
2) No scientist has found ´the missing link´ there is no fossil of a fish becoming a monkey from a monkey becoming us etc. No chain exists that shows this.

Evolution contradicts the Big Bang theory as it states we were always here as some form of life on earth.
Apologies if uncorrect but this is my understanding; Evolution is just a theory; it is a guess without proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He was talking about a large group of people who you fall into.

Arguably it is the other way around. Scientists are not allowed to make base theories on speculations. Concepts need to be tested and confirmed. When creationists are asked how they would properly test their ideas they have no answer. If anyone is speculating it would be the creationists. One needs to watch out when one attacks using the Bible. The odds are that the attacker is guilty of the sins that he claims that others have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are two things I do not understand about the evolution theory.
1) Evolution does not explain why we are degenerating in regards to desease, illness our bodies etc. You could say it is our lifestyle but I disagree; why has childbirth stayed for some a horrific experience and so many women have died for thousands of years?
2) No scientist has found ´the missing link´ there is no fossil of a fish becoming a monkey from a monkey becoming us etc. No chain exists that shows this.

Evolution contradicts the Big Bang theory as it states we were always here as some form of life on earth.
Apologies if uncorrect but this is my understanding; Evolution is just a theory; it is a guess without proof.

What makes you think that we have been degenerating? There is no evidence of that that I am aware of.

And the "missing link" is a creationist term. It has been found again and again. There is a long long list of transitional fossils. Nor do we even need a "missing link". Fossils are the most obvious evidence for amateurs only. There is far stronger evidence in genetics. So much so that creationists have no answer to that evidence.

And no. In no way at all does the theory of evolution refute the Big Bang theory. The Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. The universe is 13.8 billion years old.

There is a very well known ex-member of this forum. Actually I think that his membership may still be valid. He made a series of YouTube videos that traces fossils from abiogenesis to man. I could link it for you if you care to watch.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hi Trinity. Let me see if I can answer a few of those questions.

There are two things I do not understand about the evolution theory.
1) Evolution does not explain why we are degenerating in regards to desease, illness our bodies etc. You could say it is our lifestyle but I disagree; why has childbirth stayed for some a horrific experience and so many women have died for thousands of years?

There really isn't evidence that we are "degenerating".

Childbirth is difficult because our species has evolved big brains and brains develop first (note the size of a baby's head relative to the rest of the body). The evolutionary pressure to grow a bigger brain prior to birth and the evolutionary pressure to keep women's hips from getting any wider are in conflict, so we get a situation where birth is slightly dangerous to the mother.
(Baby humans spend at least another year outside the womb before they can walk in contrast to many other animals where newborns can walk within hours. We are similar to other great apes like gorillas and chimps on this aspect.)

2) No scientist has found ´the missing link´ there is no fossil of a fish becoming a monkey from a monkey becoming us etc. No chain exists that shows this.

There are lots of evolutionary links between groups in the development sequence. For example we have examples of fish-like creatures with legs that could walk on land. We have good records of the development of many types like horses and whales. And, we have good records of the development of humans from earlier hominids. (The separation of hominids from their shared ancestors with chimpanzees isn't as well documented as these creatures live in jungle environments that don't preserve bones as well as the savannas that the upright hominids lived in.

Evolution contradicts the Big Bang theory as it states we were always here as some form of life on earth.
Apologies if uncorrect but this is my understanding; Evolution is just a theory; it is a guess without proof.

The Big Bang theory is a theory about the development of the early universe from the first expansion. It makes no claims about life or the Earth.

Scientific theories are explanatory frameworks for documented facts and are not "guesses".

 

[Strathos]

Arguably it is the other way around. Scientists are not allowed to make base theories on speculations. Concepts need to be tested and confirmed. When creationists are asked how they would properly test their ideas they have no answer. If anyone is speculating it would be the creationists. One needs to watch out when one attacks using the Bible. The odds are that the attacker is guilty of the sins that he claims that others have.

I don't see how this is relevant to the post you quoted.