• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Delta One

Active Member
Apr 8, 2005
331
16
38
✟23,062.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Vance,

We are not talking about science that deals with the present in these debates. Let me define my position:

All the achievements of science, such as modern medicine, electricity and computers, and so on, involve doing experiments in the present, making inferences from these results and doing more experiments to test those ideas. Here, the inferences, or conclusions, are closely related to the experiments and there is often little room for speculation. This type of science is called process, or operational, science.

However, there is another type of science that deals with the past, which can be called historical, or origins, science. When it comes to working out what happened in the distant past, science is very limited because we cannot do experiments directly on past events, and history cannot be repeated. In origins science, observations made in the present are used to make inferences about the past. The experiments that can be done in the present that relate to the distant past are often quite limited, so the inferences require a deal of guesswork. The further back in the past the event being studied, the longer the the chain of inferences involved, the more guesswork, and the more room there is for non-scientific factors to influence the conclusions - factors such as the religious belief (or unbelief) of the scientist.

Therefore, what may be presented as "science" regarding the past may be little more than the scientist's own personal world-view. The conflicts between "science" and "religion" occur in this historical science, not in process science. Both evolutionists and creationists have the same science to use, the same scientific evidence - yet they come to different conclusions about the origin of a given evidence or object. Why is this? They all use the same things, but they have different presuppositions (different underlying belief systems called "world-views"). A scientist's conclusion about the origin of the evidence is governed by his bias or presuppositions, or what the scientist initial believes and takes for granted.

Unfortunately, the respect earned by the successes of operational science confounds many into thinking that the conjectural claims arising from origins science carry the same authority. It is my conviction that you may not totally understand how much a scientist's presuppositions affect their conclusions when dealing with stuff from the very distant unobservable stuff -- i.e. this debate.

With this knowledge, we'll analyse your argument carefully and see which part of science you are talking about:

YEC’s will insist that science also starts with preconceived concepts, such as the basic tenets of evolution, or of gravity, or hundreds of other building blocks upon which they do their current work.

Notice, you bring up evolution and gravity.

What part of science is molecule to man evolution in? Historical science, which implies that assumptions and preconcieved beliefs will be used (see above defintion of historical science and associated consequences. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life from the simple to the complex. No living scientist was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No scientist was there - no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today! The observations that can be done that indirectly relate to the past are filled with holes and unknowns that assumptions must fill.

What part of science is gravity in? Process science. We can test the idea of gravity and experiment with it. We also observe how it works and that it exists. No assumptions based on religious bias or preconcieved assumptions are needed.

Both your examples are in two different areas or types of science. You can't have it both ways if you wish to make a comparison between two vastly different things...

We can observe and test the idea of gravity, but we cannot observe nor test the idea of organisms evolving from the simple to the complex over eons of years - in fact, 2nd law of thermodynamics implies the other direction - nor can we test the idea that life came from lifeless chemicals without assumptions (because we don't know the conditions as we were not there).

IF, however, you're refering to the simple changes we observe in nature today, then creationists have no problem with that. All changes observed turn out to reduce the information in a creature (information = specified complexity) which strongly fits the creationary "varriation within a kind" model.

1. These theories or concepts first arose *from* the physical evidence and data, not the interpretation of the data from a conclusion. YEC’ist preconceptions arose from a particular reading of Scripture (and one that *only* YEC’s accept).

As has been proven time and time again, the evidence can't speak - it has no voice. The conclusions about what the evidence means or it's origin are the direct result of an interpretation of the scientist.

It's often interesting to watch the CSI shows (although I prefer Medical Investigation myself) when they say something along the lines of, "The evidence tells us," in response to "What makes you think that?" More interesting still, the evidence typically "tells" them that a particular person did it, then, near the end of the show it turned out that the person that they accused was innocent all along! If the evidence told them that the original person was guilty, then it MUST have lied! No, the CIS people misinterpreted it.

For example, DNA on a particular object, A. Let's examine this:

* The evidence: - A person's DNA is on A.

There are two possible interpretations:
- The person touched A.
- The person is being framed and someone else who put his DNA on A.

Notice, this is what the CSI shows do NOT tell you. They assume that the first interpreation is true if there is no reason to believe that the person is being framed. Many times, the first interpretation is the most logical and the one most likely to be correct -- but it an interpretation based on logic and rational thinking...

Of course, as mentioned above, the further back in the past the more open to interpretation the evidence becomes and more assumptions are need to fill the ever present unknowns and gaps. These assumptions are based on a scientist's underlying belief system.

This isn't an overly hard concept to understand.

2. The entire scientific community is set up to encourage challenges and criticisms of theories and concepts. THat is why there are always arguments, fights, debates, etc. No one just accepts an idea in order to "toe the party line". The YEC community states right up front that their preconceived starting points (an old earth, some limitation on God’s ability to create through evolution) are not up for debate.

And the TEs and OECs have their own presuppositions. According to Halton Arp, the scientific community is not as clear and in pursuit of the truth as you are implying. He wrote a book called Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science because his work did not get published in the scientific journals. Since the big bang is the current astronomical orthodoxy, it is no surprise that Arp and others with similar views have encountered unrelenting, often unreasonable, opposition in publishing their findings.

Even National Geographic has been criticized by evolutionists. Storrs L. Olson, the Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian Institution said this about National Geographic in their relentless attempt to try and factualise dino-bird evolution:

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.

Radiometric dates that are out of the "correct ball park" are often discarded as Dr Richard L. Mauger says:
In general, dates in the "correct ball park" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.

Notice, all these areas that we have discussed are in the distant unobservable, untestable, and unrepeatable, past -- these are all apart of historical science - not process science.

3. Scientific theories will be abandoned if and when there is sufficient evidence and cogent analysis which shows that it can not be true. In short, the scientific community will go wherever the overwhelming evidence leads them, even if the path is not what they expected or if it upsets their comfort zones. The YEC community has placed a very specific line where they will not go, no matter what the evidence says.

Many times it takes years. For instance, scientists knew that the Ernst Hackael drawings of the embryos were a fraud since the 1960s, but I am willing to bet quite a lot of money that I do not have that I would easily be able to find it written in modern biology textbooks as "evidence for evolution". Galileo also went up against stiff opposition, although his was in process science. The problem with historical science, is that it is so closely linked to what we believe deep down in side and it heavily affects what we believe to be true about a number of issues and also in many times affects how we behave.

4. Lastly, there IS no common worldview among all in the scientific community. There are Christians and non-Christians, those who fully accept the supernatural and those who reject it. For an idea to be accepted it must run the gauntlet of critique from thousands of scientists from a wide variety of worldviews.

Common worldview: that everything can be explained by natural processes and that the universe is old...

I may have missed out a few words between several words, so I will apologise in advance -- I'm a little tired for some reason, even though I had a good night's sleep.

God Bless you Vance,

Delta One.
 
Upvote 0

On the Narrow Road

Regular Member
Mar 24, 2005
153
13
50
✟15,344.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Delta, that was incredibly well said. With regard to the DNA evidence found on object A....I think there is a third option: Object A evolved from the person who's DNA it contains. Maybe object A is a statue that looks like the person...even more EVIDENCE for it having evolved from that person. Don't you just love intrepretting evidence???


Just a little additional food for thought.
Psalm 118:8 (King James Version)



8It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

(The following refers to some earlier posts) If I'm looking at a Bible verse, I think I'll take it literally unless there is evidence it was meant to be taken otherwise. If a DAY is a long period of time, I'm amazed that plants, etc. were able to exist for so long without the sun. If it is mentioned somewhere in the context of that scripture that it is symbolic or a parable, then I take it as symbolic or a parable. To argue that the early chapters of the Bible are stories, one is likely deceiving themselves. The Bible seems to be very good at indicating when it is putting forth a story or a historical event, there is no meniton of the Creation account having been a story or a symbolic reference. In context, it is historic in nature... Thus I will take that account as God relaying to us a historical event...an event which only he witnessed. See above verse again. If the author of Genesis was merely trying to relay a central message, why would he include so many specifics? If God had not inspired his Word and relayed the message to the human author, why would he include a ficticious or symbolic Creation account when not required by the central story as some of the earlier posts seem to suggest?

Is or is not the Bible the written Word of God??? I personally believe it is. Others do not, as is their choice. Now we have two differing opinions, only one of which is right. In the epic Good vs. evil battle, I do not find it unlikely that the evil side is going to use deception and in fact be quite good at it. They say satan's greatest achievement is getting man to believe he does not exist...or maybe it was that God did not exist. Either way, we see deception being used all the time in this whole Creation vs. evolution debate. Whether the deception is intentional or due to a lack of understanding is of little consequence...the only thing that matters is that the deception exists in order to cause Christians to stumble or to prevent people from becoming Christians. The fact that 30 year old lies remain in our students textbooks is very strong EVIDENCE for my theory about this ongoing deception. What better way to destroy Christianity than to attack it's foundation? If you're going to attempt it, why not decieve well-intentioned true Christians? Seems to me a good way to spit in God's face if I was satan....let's see...I'll use this Christian to prevent these others from becoming Christians by causing them to doubt the Bible is God's Holy Word.

When our children are indoctrinated with lies in school, is it hard to believe that they grow up to be scientists with a little less objective approach to their dicipline? For those thinking science has discovered the truth of creation/evolution, let's remember that at one time scientists believed the world was flat (keep in mind the Bible had already told us it was round). Let's allow God back in our schools so we can at least have an honest debate about our origins rather than allowing our children to be indoctrinated by hearing only one side of the argument!
 
Upvote 0

Marshall Janzen

Formerly known as Mercury
Jun 2, 2004
378
39
48
BC, Canada
Visit site
✟23,214.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why not widen the context a bit? What if elsewhere in Scripture we have inspired commentary on how to interpret the length of the days?

In the New Testament, there are two passages in particular that shed light on the length of the seventh day. The most direct is in Hebrews:

Hebrews 4:1-6: "Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, 'So I declared on oath in my anger, "They shall never enter my rest." ' And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: 'And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.' And again in the passage above he says, 'They shall never enter my rest.'

"It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience."


In verses 4-5, the author goes directly from quoting Genesis 2:2 to quoting Psalm 95:11 which talks about God's rest. The implication is that God's rest after creation is the same rest we can enter (if we don't fall short of it).

Also, note the last part of verse 3 which I bolded above: God's work has been finished since the creation of the world. In other words, even if you believe the world is only 6,000 years old, that means God's rest has been going on for 6,000 years now! When Exodus 20:11 explains the Sabbath command by saying "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", we know from this passage in Hebrews that "he rested on the seventh day" refers to a rest of at least 6,000 years so far (and in my view, a much longer time).

Now, to the second passage. John 5 mentions that Jesus performed a number of miracles on the Sabbath. Because of this, the Jews persecuted them. Note carefully how Jesus responded:

John 5:16: "And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, 'My Father is working until now, and I am working.' "

Why did it have any relevance that his "Father is working until now"? It had relevance because God is still observing his Sabbath rest. In spite of that, God is still working. This is why Jesus pointed to the example of the Father to justify his miracles on the Sabbath.

The Sabbath is a symbol of God's rest. The Sabbath is just a day, while God's rest is much more. Just as faith is more than the baptism that represents it, and Jesus' body is more than the bread of the Lord's supper that represents it, so too God's creative work and rest is far more than the six day work week and Sabbath day that represent them.
 
Reactions: shernren
Upvote 0

SBG

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
849
28
50
✟16,155.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Republican

Interesting point, but...if we still want to keep in context, then we will understand that God is not resting from *everything,* He is resting from creating this universe. So, for 6000 years or so, He has rested from creating ex nihilo.

If you are to claim that God is resting from everything He does, then God is not sustaining this world. He couldn't be, if He is at rest from doing anything.


Maybe you can explain more what you mean that God is resting, yet God is not resting but working.

John 5:17, where Jesus says His Father is working now, basically means the Father is continually working, even now.


The Sabbath was set by God, for the seventh day, He rested. It was not after the six day, He rested continually. It is *ON* the seventh day He rested.

The Baptism is not for us to show our faith in Christ. This is not an us to God relationship. The Baptism is Jesus Christ taking us into His death, so just like Christ was raised from the dead, we too can live a new life. Paul teaches this in Romans. It is Jesus Christ who raises us up in faith, not us raising ourselves up into faith of Jesus Christ.

The communion is a symbol of God's forgiveness. We partake of Jesus' Body and drink His Blood, in rememberance of Him and He shows through a personal experience that He has forgiven us.
 
Upvote 0

Marshall Janzen

Formerly known as Mercury
Jun 2, 2004
378
39
48
BC, Canada
Visit site
✟23,214.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
SBG said:
Interesting point, but...if we still want to keep in context, then we will understand that God is not resting from *everything,* He is resting from creating this universe. So, for 6000 years or so, He has rested from creating ex nihilo.
Since creation, God has been in his rest that we can enter. This is what the seventh day of creation is all about.

God has been resting "since the creation of the world", a rest that includes God's incarnation, death and resurrection; hearing and answering every prayer; building his church; and even the preparation of a future paradise for us. All of this is memorialized in the seventh day of creation and symbolized by the Sabbath. Perhaps this gives us a glimpse at God's power. For a mortal, these activities are unfathomable. For God, they're all in a day's rest!

If you are to claim that God is resting from everything He does, then God is not sustaining this world. He couldn't be, if He is at rest from doing anything.
God's rest is not about God physically resting. To oversimplify, it is peace with God. Check out Psalm 95 or read Hebrews 3-4 to find out more about it. God's rest is not something I made up -- it's a biblical term that we can understand by reading what the Bible says about it. It's quite an important biblical concept -- important enough for God to give the Israelites a weekly remembrance of it.

John 5:17, where Jesus says His Father is working now, basically means the Father is continually working, even now.
It means the Father continues to work during his Sabbath rest. If you remove the Sabbath idea from it, then what Jesus said makes no sense in context. He mentioned this to justify doing miracles on the Sabbath.

The Hebrews 4 and John 5 passages together make it very clear that the seventh day of creation was not a 24-hour day that ended long ago. Just as Exodus 31:17 shows that the action on the seventh day is not literal (because God cannot suffer a lack of refreshment and so cannot literally be refreshed), these other passages show that the length of the seventh day is not literal.
 
Upvote 0

SBG

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
849
28
50
✟16,155.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Republican
MercuryMJ said:
Since creation, God has been in his rest that we can enter. This is what the seventh day of creation is all about.

I don't believe God has been at rest since the seventh day of creation. I do believe God rested on the seventh day. Today is not still the seventh day.

I do agree with you though that the seventh day is all about rest. But this rest is not a continuing rest for God.

The Bible says very often that God is always at work.



I appreciate the perspective, but I just don't agree with it. It just isn't Biblical to say God is still resting today from doing any work.



I believe God always had peace, even before He rested. I don't think God was ever not at peace with Himself. Hebrews 3 quotes Psalms 95, which says:

"So, as the Holy Spirit says:
"Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert,
where your fathers tested and tried me and for forty years saw what I did.
That is why I was angry with that generation, and I said, 'Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways.'
So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest.' ""

Because God has given mankind rest, those who accept Him receive this, doesn't automatically mean that God Himself is also at rest. I believe you are stretching Scripture to fit your belief.



I believe Jesus said what He did because on the Sabbath, the Jews would pray and ask for forgiveness. Jesus asked them what is harder to heal a man or to forgive sins. Forgiving sins is a greater act than healing.

Have you noticed Hebrews 4:10? It says"

"for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his."

As you can see, the phrase following 'just as God...' is past tense, referring to something God did do, not currently doing. This clearly teaches that God did rest from His work, but is not resting from His work now. We can enter God's rest, but again, because we can enter God's rest, doesn't mean God is resting.

John 5 further backs up that God is *not* resting because Jesus clearly says the Father is currently at work.

Exodus 31:17 speaks of a literal event that backs up why the Jews must rest on the Sabbath. Often God does something as a sign for man to see and follow. These aren't mythical events, where God just tells a story of HIm doing something that He never did, they are real and true events.

We see Jesus did the same. Why do you think it is said that we ought to strive to be like Jesus? Because Jesus did what we ought to do, He set the example for us to follow. These examples were not mythical. They were true, literal events, just like a six day creation and a seventh day of rest.

This is where man thinks he is so smart, full of wisdom. That he takes a simple reading and twists it to be something only the wise of the world can understand. The Church of the Dark Ages did this as well. They told the people only the priests can understand the Word of God, and all must listen to what they tell them. Again, we are going back to this system, yet this time it is not the priests, but the scientists, when concerning origins.
 
Upvote 0

Marshall Janzen

Formerly known as Mercury
Jun 2, 2004
378
39
48
BC, Canada
Visit site
✟23,214.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
SBG said:
I appreciate the perspective, but I just don't agree with it. It just isn't Biblical to say God is still resting today from doing any work.
I haven't said that. I've said that God's rest is ongoing, and God's rest is what is memorialized in the seventh day of creation.

Hebrews 4:3-4: "Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, 'So I declared on oath in my anger, "They shall never enter my rest." ' And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: 'And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.' "

This passage is biblical. It says that God's rest is something we can enter. It says that God's work has been finished since the creation of the world. Yes, God is still working, but that doesn't change the fact that God is in his rest -- a rest that we can enter if we don't fall short of it.

You seem to be interpreting this verse in a way that contradicts with the verses that precede it. God's rest started in the past but continues to the present. This is what verses 3-4 say. Further, when we enter God's rest, we don't stop working either. You're confusing the symbol (a Sabbath rest from work) with what it represents (God's rest that has nothing to do with the cessation of physical labour).

We can enter God's rest, but again, because we can enter God's rest, doesn't mean God is resting.
No, God doesn't rest as people do. God's rest is metaphorical. That does not mean it isn't real. God's rest is something more than the Sabbath, not something less than it.

John 5 further backs up that God is *not* resting because Jesus clearly says the Father is currently at work.
God is not resting the way a human being rests, but God is still in his rest. Otherwise, John 5 would contradict with Hebrews 4.

Exodus 31:17 speaks of a literal event that backs up why the Jews must rest on the Sabbath. Often God does something as a sign for man to see and follow.
Exodus 31:17: "It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed."

God does not refresh himself. The Hebrew word for "refresh" here only shows up two other times in the Bible:

Exodus 23:12: "Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed."

2 Samuel 16:14: "And the king, and all the people who were with him, arrived weary at the Jordan. And there he refreshed himself."

God does not become weary or need to recuperate after a hard week's work. When the word "refresh" is applied to God in Exodus 31:17, it is an anthropomorphism.

We see Jesus did the same.
Yes, Jesus did get tired and weary. That is because Jesus, "being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death -- even death on a cross!" (Philippians 2:6-8). Jesus is no longer subject to human weakness (Philippians 2:9), and God the Father never was.
 
Upvote 0

Delta One

Active Member
Apr 8, 2005
331
16
38
✟23,062.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
PaladinValer,
Scientists as they are today never believed the world was flat. Please do some historical research before posting such nonsense.

That went swish! Right over your head. I was showing how just because scientist's believe evolution, that doesn't make it any more reasonable than creation which has fewer scientists believing it. As I said, scientists once overwhelmingly believed the world to be flat (in fact, they believed that it was a fact), they also believed in the fact that the universe was geocentric.

Perhaps you should read more carefully before posting such sentences as above...
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
Good discussion, fellas. Let me throw out one question for your input: Is it possible that what God was resting from was the acts of creation set out in the first 32 verses of the Bible? The 33rd verse tells us, "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." [NIV translation]

God created mankind toward the end of the sixth yom of creation. Can either of you think of any new genus that has appeared since that time? Just throwing this out for your input. Thanks!
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP

It is incorrect to say scientists ever believed the earth was flat. That was a pre-scientific understanding before such a thing as science or scientists existed.
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
Let's try this again:

[ Quote=SBG]
I don't believe God has been at rest since the seventh day of creation. I do believe God rested on the seventh day. Today is not still the seventh day. I appreciate the perspective, but I just don't agree with it. It just isn't Biblical to say God is still resting today from doing any work. [/quote]

Good discussion, fellas. Let me throw out one question for your input: Is it possible that what God was resting from was the acts of creation set out in the first 32 verses of the Bible? The 33rd verse tells us, "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." [NIV translation]

God created mankind toward the end of the sixth yom of creation. Can either of you think of any new genus that has appeared since that time? Just throwing this out for your input. Thanks!
 
Upvote 0

Marshall Janzen

Formerly known as Mercury
Jun 2, 2004
378
39
48
BC, Canada
Visit site
✟23,214.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sinai said:
Is it possible that what God was resting from was the acts of creation set out in the first 32 verses of the Bible?
I can't discount the possibility. Personally, I think God is still active in his creation in the same way today as he was when various species came about.

Can either of you think of any new genus that has appeared since that time? Just throwing this out for your input. Thanks!
I can't, but then I don't know much about the scientific side of the picture. Perhaps someone else could shed more light on this.

Anyway, I didn't mean to ignore your earlier post. I was just hoping someone with more knowledge would answer your questions.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Well, since evolutionists put the evolution of man pretty recent, I would say no, new genuses. But that's only because an evolutionary out-branching occurs within its taxon. Every genus starts as a single species that radiates, so that what we see as genuses (genii? ) today were a single species in the past.

Asking if there are new genuses since the out-branching of humans, is like a gardener going up to a tree and asking, "Hmm, why haven't I seen any big branches grow since this little twig appeared yesterday?" Of course the big branches are growing: they aren't big branches yet, though.
 
Upvote 0
B

b*unique

Guest
Can you tell me,why would God create the world in 6 days?
What is the reason for that?
Sure He could do it in an instant.
I think that is exactly what God did,created the universe in an instant.
The universe has time on it's own,the time we know.
Is God confusion?
Is God deception?
Why would he gave poeple brain to work things out?
To be seen as God of deception and cofussion?
Universe is amazing and beautiful,and cosmology is one science,
able to literaly look back in time.
We can see the moment light was separated from darkness,some 13.8 billion years ago,we can see the way stars are being formed,much more,we can directly observe.

Also,don't you think it makes a better designer,to design something able to addapt
to changes,evolve and progress,rather than just come up with finished product?

Being scared of science,means being scared of the gift from God,creativity,
his image in us.
 
Upvote 0

Delta One

Active Member
Apr 8, 2005
331
16
38
✟23,062.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
gluadys,

Scientific institutions have been around for a long time. Science has been around for over two thousand years. We usually think that around the 1800s was when science started - no, that was when it accelerated. Then in the early 1900s, Einstein once again changed the direction of science and started to move away from classical physics and to quantum physics. The scientific view was that the earth was flat. The scientific view was like wise that the sun orbited the earth.

b*unique,

Can you tell me,why would God create the world in 6 days? What is the reason for that?
Because that's what His Word tells us if we let the words of Genesis 1 speak to us. Exodus 20:11 also says that in six days, the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that in them and He rested on the seventh day. Sure, God could have made everything in less than a nano second, or over billions of years, but He said that He made everything in six literal days, Earth Standard Time.

The universe has time on it's own,the time we know.
Actually, thanks to Einstein we now know that time is not absolute but relative. For example, it has been experimentally validated that gravity slows time. So, for example, time would flow slower down here at sea level than that at the top of Mt Everest (8 km plus high). The change in time wouldn't be that much, but nether the less, even over that small change in gravity it is noticeable. You now have to specify which frame of reference you are talking about - from earth? From the sun? The moon? Mars?

Universe is amazing and beautiful,and cosmology is one science, able to literaly look back in time.

Not if what Dr Humphreys has to say in his relativistic cosmology is true; it explains the evidence quite well and uses the same mathematical General Relativity forumla that the big bang theorists use -- he just changes the subject. Anyway, if you want more information, then I would suggest that you see his book Starlight and Time. If what he says is true, then the information that we see from stars is recent and revelent - which is good for all of us! He applies the principle of time dialation due to gravity as his underlying starting position and uses white and black holes in his theory. It is really engaging stuff!

Note also that 1 lightyear does not equal 1 year. A light year is not a measure of time, but a measure of how far light travels in one year. Many have fallen into this trap out of ignorance, I hope that you won't be the next...

Also,don't you think it makes a better designer,to design something able to addapt to changes,evolve and progress,rather than just come up with finished product?
Um, the ability for things to adapt to a particular environment is called "natural selection" and requires no intelligence or design. It is a unguided process. For example, dogs with short fur will obviously die when taken to a really cold environment; while the dogs with long fur will obviously survive (or at least have a better chance of surviving) due to the fact that their fur keeps the heat in a lot more than the dogs with short fur. See, no design needed for things to adapt to a particular environment. It is a very highly debatable issue as to whether or not things "evolve" or have evolved and is by no means close to being a proven fact that most believe it is out of ignorance. Personally, I think that just creating them as a fully function kind is more smarter, more kinder (using evolution makes God out to be a sadistic ogre and a God of death who lacks compassion, mercy and love - directly CONTRADICTORY to what we usually ascribe to God!), and more designful and give them the ability to varry within that kind.

Being scared of science,means being scared of the gift from God,creativity, his image in us.

I am just fasinated when I look out at the environment and see God's Glory. It is clear that we both love science and exploring and explaining God's creation, the only difference is that you define evolution as apart of science - which is one thing that I cannot do given the amount of blind faith required to believe evolution is true. I only really respect and enjoy process science.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
hehe.

White holes don't exist without black holes. Fullstop.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=108
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030702.html
http://www.geocities.com/autotheist/Physics/bh.htm
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1470.html

I'm not sure just which tree Dr. Humphreys is barking up, but it seems to be falling down. Note that this was not taken from you know where. A more technical refutation (which, honestly, is too technical for this armchair astronomer) : http://www.serve.com/herrmann/hump.htm

Delta, what's the (in your opinion) earliest text ever to have been written using the scientific method? And what does it matter to the discussion? I'm lost between you and gluadys.


Question: who designed the environments? And who got the dogs into the environments? Hehe. Obviously it could have happened by chance. It could also have happened by design. I believe that the manipulation of environments and populational movement may have been God's way to guide evolution.

using evolution makes God out to be a sadistic ogre and a God of death who lacks compassion, mercy and love - directly CONTRADICTORY to what we usually ascribe to God

What sort of a God would let His Son die on the cross?

I don't know how right it is to measure God according to our standards. This is a God who performed the first bloodshed recorded in the Bible (killing animals to make skin clothing for Adam and Eve), who commanded several genocides, who killed people who touched His ark and struck down a couple for saying 75% was 100%. God is not in the dock: we are.

What sort of a God would make a whole universe that lies?

the only difference is that you define evolution as a part of science

Why shouldn't I?

Does a viable, rigorous creationist taxonomy exist?
Are there any successful conservation efforts based on the idea that predation is evil?
Does anybody process nuclear waste on the assumption that changing decay rates may shorten the wastes' longevity by 6 orders of magnitude?
Does any proper geology assume that there is still enough water on the earth to cover the whole thing to 2km+?

You tell me how you define creation as a part of science.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.