Bible verse thread

[Remus]

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

18 For this is what the LORD says- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited- he says: "I am the LORD , and there is no other. 19 I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob's descendants, 'Seek me in vain.' I, the LORD , speak the truth; I declare what is right.

22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. 4By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
5By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
7By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

God bless

 

[Vance]

God can use a natural process but also created all things...even the natural process. If I take the flood and creation to be literal accounts then it is possible that the environment was different prior to the flood to the extent that the process to cause a rainbow never occured until that point. To man it was a miracle because they could not understand the scientific process at that time but now we research so many scientific things to find out the origin of the earth and find that there are many laws that are consistent but you cant tell me that you believe macro-evolution comes under the same banner as laws such as gravity and mathematics and other laws of the universe can you?.

Of course. There is a THEORY of gavity, just like a theory of evolution. We see the effects of gravitational reaction (something falling), this is a fact. It just fell, and keeps falling in specific ways. We then come up with a THEORY as to why it falls. That is the theory of gravity. The theory we have now is the best explanation going that explains the facts. Theories are never proven, since they are not facts, they are detailed explanations.

Similarly, we have the facts of evolutionary development. Tons of them. It is considered a fact, not a theory, that species have developed over billions of years from earlier species. The theory of evolution, as it has developed, is the best explanation we have to explain the FACTS of evolutionary development.

A good theory is one that has not been falsified (shown to be false because of facts that exist which can not be explained by the theory, and the theory can not be fine tuned to explain it), makes accurate predictions, etc. The theory of evolution has met all these tests with flying colors for 150 years. In fact, it finally became so convincing that even Creationists had to come to accept that the mechanisms which make up the theory of evolution (natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc) are actually true. They even acknowledge that speciation occurs. They just argue that it can only go back so far and can not create macro changes. So, they accept the THEORY of evolution (the mechanisms which explain the change), but deny the FACTS of evolution! Kind of ironic.

I think you would be surprised to learn that the theory of gravity is actually considered less solid than the theory of evolution. There are studies which show that the current theory might have some problems and will need to be refined. Which shows that science is willing to do this.

We all must work within the realm of these laws regardless of what we believe. Anything that requires certain assumptions to be made however will have an element of faith attached wont it? To accept TE as correct, one must also assume that the global flood has been disproven. If this were proven to be incorrect then all the evidence must be re-interpreted to take this into account.

No, we don't assume it has been disproven. It has been disproven for more than 100 years. The evidence is literally overwhelming and has been presented in very detailed posts over in the Creation and evolution forum. This does not require faith, just a review of the actual evidence, rather than what you would find on a Creationist site. That is why there is now a society of Christian Geologists who want to make it clear to fellow Christians that this concept of a global flood just doesn't work.

That is why you will not find any geologist who accepts a global flood who is not also someone who believes it for religious reasons. In short, no one who views the evidence without the bias of traditional interpretations of Scripture believes in a global flood.

 

[Alchemist]

See I dont look to the church, I look to the Holy Spirit who can lead each one of us and also to my brothers and sisters in Christ. Our leaders are men just like us so whilst we look to them with respect, it doesnt make them infallible.

Yes, very good point . My point though is that if the Catholic Church does not find biblical problems with evolution and/or an old Earth, then this is pretty strong evidence for me that a young earth is not the only valid interpretation of the Bible. No, the Church is not infallible; we still have sin in this world. But if two groups, who we must assume are led by the Holy Spirit, have contradicting ideas about creation, then I think we can rightly assume that both are valid from a biblical point of view.

Just that today we have much more scientific evidence available.

Which is where I raise my second point. The Church has been divided over the old earth issue. We cannot really rely fully on church teachings to give us the answers (whether YEC, OEC, or TE). Therefore, I do not see a problem with looking to science to give us the answer. Evolution is a concept that, whether one likes it or not, has much support from the scientific community, based on around 200 years of research. The Big Bang theory is by far the most widely accepted view of the universe's creation.
So why are many Christians opposed to these theories?

Unfortunately, several researchers have been propogating materialistic pseudo-science, claiming that science is at antithesis to God - a claim unfortunately many people, including Christians, have believed. Richard Dawkins comes to mind as one such researcher, a publisher of numerous books stating that evolution 'disproves God'. This is far from the truth. To leave God (or any metaphysical force) out of the equation is by definition not science, as it shapes its hypotheses around atheistic conclusions. Likewise, the multiverse theory, which claims that the physical laws of this universe are affected (and came to be the way they are) by other universes, influencing our own. This is not science, as we can by no means detect other universes - we do not live in another universe. This is why the Big Bang theory is commonly accepted. Really no Christian should be upset about the Big Bang theory, as the concept itself dictates that the universe has a definite beginning. If the universe has a beginning, by logic it must have been created, as something cannot come from nothing. The Big Bang does not deny God; if anything it proves He is there!

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation."
​

[size=-1]- Dr. James Tour
Professor of Chemistry,
Rice University, Texas[/size]
​

If science does not disprove God, and the Bible interpretation is unclear, then I think we can quite rightly accept mainstream scientific opinion about the age of the Earth - and this includes not propogating a young-earth as the only possible interpretation of Scripture (and henceforth, science). I do not have a problem with YEC. If God wanted to create the Earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago, then He would have, and certainly could have done it. I don't even really have a problem with Creation science, per sé - it is quite scientific to form a hypothesis about the Earth and look for evidence to support it. The problems start when the arguments for a young-earth are not convincing, have unexplained problems, or, worse still, based on long-disproven evidence; yet the hypothesis is touted as infallible scientific fact - much to amusement of other scientists - and any other hypotheses or existing theories are passed off as näive, atheistic nonsense. This cannot have any advantage to Christianity at all; as St. Augustine remarked:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience..."

"If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"
​

I am not saying that Creation science is inheritantly wrong, or that it is worthless - yes it is true, some atheists have been converted through YEC, although it is no secret the opposite is certainly true also. But we should be wary not to effectively place our own scientific views, whatever they may be, against the 'world-view', especially when there is no reason that the two should be mutally exclusive. After-all, we do not have a definite view of which interpretation of Scripture is more valid, otherwise we would not still be arguing about it after around 2000 years!

Peace,
Alchemist

P.S. Got a verse, seeing this is a Bible-verse thread :

"Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing."
- Isaiah 40:26
​

 

[Andy D]

Of course. There is a THEORY of gavity, just like a theory of evolution. We see the effects of gravitational reaction (something falling), this is a fact. It just fell, and keeps falling in specific ways. We then come up with a THEORY as to why it falls. That is the theory of gravity. The theory we have now is the best explanation going that explains the facts. Theories are never proven, since they are not facts, they are detailed explanations.

Similarly, we have the facts of evolutionary development. Tons of them. It is considered a fact, not a theory, that species have developed over billions of years from earlier species. The theory of evolution, as it has developed, is the best explanation we have to explain the FACTS of evolutionary development.

A good theory is one that has not been falsified (shown to be false because of facts that exist which can not be explained by the theory, and the theory can not be fine tuned to explain it), makes accurate predictions, etc. The theory of evolution has met all these tests with flying colors for 150 years. In fact, it finally became so convincing that even Creationists had to come to accept that the mechanisms which make up the theory of evolution (natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc) are actually true. They even acknowledge that speciation occurs. They just argue that it can only go back so far and can not create macro changes. So, they accept the THEORY of evolution (the mechanisms which explain the change), but deny the FACTS of evolution! Kind of ironic.

I think you would be surprised to learn that the theory of gravity is actually considered less solid than the theory of evolution. There are studies which show that the current theory might have some problems and will need to be refined. Which shows that science is willing to do this.

No, we don't assume it has been disproven. It has been disproven for more than 100 years. The evidence is literally overwhelming and has been presented in very detailed posts over in the Creation and evolution forum. This does not require faith, just a review of the actual evidence, rather than what you would find on a Creationist site. That is why there is now a society of Christian Geologists who want to make it clear to fellow Christians that this concept of a global flood just doesn't work.

That is why you will not find any geologist who accepts a global flood who is not also someone who believes it for religious reasons. In short, no one who views the evidence without the bias of traditional interpretations of Scripture believes in a global flood.

But the differences between macro and micro evolution is a BIG gap. I havent studied them but I imagine one involves changes within a species and one involves changes between species...to create new species, etc. I dont see any evidence that can prove that a new species can in fact evolve. I guess if it was as easy as seeing a monkey slowly evolving towards a human, being at the top of the chain at present, then we would all believe evolution. This is the flaw with this theory. No solid proof of macro evolution other than some fossils that can be debated either way.

Natural selection I also havent studied but would love to know how it explains colourful fish with lights (lights needed in order for colour to be seen) at the deepest parts of the ocean. Can someone please give me one practical reason for bright colours like on a parrot or tucan? The evolutionary theory still has much to explain. Oh, Im sure some theory could be made up but you can see there are things that are still unexplainable...abnormalities in the evolutionary process. Things that dont add up. Anyhow, am sure this will be on another thread somewhere and I can be pointed to it.

I dont think im supposed to be debating in this thread haha

Blessings
Andy

 

[Vance]

At least you are honest about not having studied it in detail! I have found that most of the "incredulity" about evolution comes from a simple lack of knowledge of what it really says, what evidence we have for it, etc. Or, worse, people get a lot of very bad information from Creationist sites, which means they think they know about evolution. (see my signature line).

If you ever want to learn about what evolution really says and the scientific answers to all of the seemingly "unanswered" questions of Creationists, check out

www.talkorigins.org

I think you might be surprised to hear that the majority of Christian scientists in the relevent fields accept evolution.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

But the differences between macro and micro evolution is a BIG gap. I havent studied them but I imagine one involves changes within a species and one involves changes between species...to create new species, etc. I dont see any evidence that can prove that a new species can in fact evolve.

There are many observed instances of speciation. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I guess if it was as easy as seeing a monkey slowly evolving towards a human, being at the top of the chain at present, then we would all believe evolution.

Individuals do not evolve; populations do.

But we can see exactly this progression in the fossil record. However:

This is the flaw with this theory. No solid proof of macro evolution other than some fossils that can be debated either way.

No. They can be handwaved away if the evolutionary conclusion is too painful. But how exactly can this sequence be "debated either way"? Which ones are human? Which ones are not? How do you decide? Isn't the explanation that they are transitionals more realistic?

Natural selection I also havent studied but would love to know how it explains colourful fish with lights (lights needed in order for colour to be seen) at the deepest parts of the ocean.

Can you give examples. Lights are used as lures. But once they illuminate the fish, sexual selection can take over, as in...

Can someone please give me one practical reason for bright colours like on a parrot or tucan?

Females prefer the colourful mates. It's the same reason male guppies are colourful. This is because a male in good condition shows better colours; producing a good display shows you have resources to spare for non-essential stuff like crests, big fins, bright colours.

The evolutionary theory still has much to explain. Oh, Im sure some theory could be made up but you can see there are things that are still unexplainable...abnormalities in the evolutionary process. Things that dont add up.

Fire away.