Frances Collins concept of God

[SteveB28]

All right, I've watched it, from beginning to end.

First, there is no mathematics in Gerald Schroeder's presentation. Second, it is not true that 50 years previously the overwhelming opinion was that the universe was eternal. During the 1950s, most astronomers accepted the views of Lemaître and of Gamow, Alpher and Herman that the universe had 'a superdense singular explosive origin' and that 'all the elements were built up ... during the earliest phases of the existence of the Universe - in the first 20 minutes or so: according to Gamow's phrase "in less time than it takes to cook roast duck and potatoes".' (I am quoting from chapters 18 and 19 of Fred Hoyle's book Frontiers of Astronomy (published 1955).) Hoyle's own 'steady-state cosmology' was always a minority theory.

Going back further in time, Sir Arthur Eddington, in chapter IV of The Nature of the Physical World (first published in 1928), deduced from the second law of thermodynamics that the universe could not be infinitely old, and that it must have had a beginning. In his later book The Expanding Universe (1932), he refers several times to Lemaître and to his theory that the universe began from a state 'in which it is condensed to a point or atom'.

The rest of Schroeder's argument seems to me to be a non sequitur; the existence of God does not follow from the fact that the universe had a beginning. Again the absence of any mathematical reasoning weakens Schroeder's argument; one would have to show mathematically that the laws of physics pre-dated the quantum fluctuation that produced the universe and that they could not have come into existence with the fluctuation itself.

As I said earlier, responding to his pitiful excuses for arguments is a waste of time.

 

[Hoghead1]

I already did that and you made the choice to ignore the response and disregard it.

He's dead right. Genesis does present two conflicting creation accounts. He is my brief synopsis of teh situation.



When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.



Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.



Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled

“The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from tow different time periods.



Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.



There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.



There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.



There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.



Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.



Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts.

I do not see any contradiction at all between Genesis and Science.

 

[joshua 1 9]

First, there is no mathematics in Gerald Schroeder's presentation.

The mathematical evidence is in the fine tuning of the universe. My point was that Schroeder has the qualification to present this evidence a lot more then I do.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/FineTuning.aspx

 

[joshua 1 9]

Genesis does present two conflicting creation accounts.

There is no conflict between Genesis one and Genesis two. I am a dispensationist so each day in Genesis would represent 1,000 years. Then God rested on the seventh day and Adam and Eve show up on the eighth day which was almost 6,000 years ago. I also accept the OEC day age interpretation of Genesis chapter one, but that is a lot more difficult to explain. Schroeder has a theory that each day is half the length of the day before it. The Bible begins around 12,975 years ago. This was at the end of the last ice age. There was an extinction at the time followed by a Radiation or Explosion. That is why we read: "1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." I am interested in the layer of nano diamonds that they find at that time. That very neatly marks this event.

"At the end of the Pleistocene era around 13,000 years ago, North America lost most of its megafauna—including mastodons, giant ground sloths, saber-toothed cats, and short-faced bears. Some researchers think the mass extinction was caused by climatic changes or maybe even humans; others think it was the abrupt environmental changes resulting from a comet collision with Earth that led to the Younger Dryas period of global cooling just a couple centuries later. "

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/13000-year-old-nanodiamonds-found-three-continents

Interestingly enough this was the end of the sixth ice age for the Earth. There has also been six extinctions. We are told that God created the Earth in Six days and rested on the seventh day. The universe is around 13 billion years old. So we see the same numbers come up again and again.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Collins agrees with evolutionists. The divergence of junk DNA is compelling evidence for evolution.

If that is what Collins said then I have no reason to argue with him. Only this was given in Aug. 4, 2002 and Collins may have a better understanding of "junk" DNA now then he did then at that time.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Do you also argue against a Round Earth?

The actual shape of the Earth is actually an oblate spheroid.

 

[Hoghead1]

I do not see any contradiction at all between Genesis and Science.

Wel tehn, it would appear you paid no attention at all to my previous post. Indeed, you did not offer one single rebuttal to anything I had to say.

 

[Hoghead1]

If that is what Collins said then I have no reason to argue with him. Only this was given in Aug. 4, 2002 and Collins may have a better understanding of "junk" DNA now then he did then at that time.

Do you seriously think any of this is going to work? The Bible makes it clear, Gen. 1, that and and woman were created on the same day. There is no day 8. Essentially you are positing two separate creations, and if you had read my post, you would see I have already pointed out the absurdity of this approach.

 

[Jimmy D]

Joshua, you didn't respond to my post earlier, I would be interested to hear what you think about it, I asked......

I don't understand though why you can't also go along with the theories of mainstream science like Collins does, he has spent his life studying biology and knows that the evidence for the TOE is undeniable. I realize it would be difficult for you to abandon some of your core beliefs but you must be at least open to fact that maybe your interpretaion of the Bible is erroneous?

http://www.pewforum.org/2008/04/17/the-evidence-for-belief-an-interview-with-francis-collins/

"The whole area of hermeneutics – the effort to try to read Scripture in a way that represents, as best one can, what the real meaning was intended to be – requires more sophistication than simply saying the most literal interpretation of every verse has to be correct.

One can look at Genesis 1-2, for instance, and see that there is not just one but two stories of the creation of humanity, and those stories do not quite agree with each other. That alone ought to be reason enough to argue that the literal interpretation of every verse, in isolation from the rest of the Bible, can’t really be correct. Otherwise, the Bible is contradicting itself.

I take great comfort looking back through time, particularly at the writings of Augustine, who was obsessed by trying to understand Genesis and wrote no less than five books about it. Augustine ultimately concluded that no human being really was going to be able to interpret the meaning of the creation story. Certainly Augustine would have argued that the current ultra-literal interpretations that lead to young earth creationism are not required by the text, and would have warned that such a rigid interpretation, regardless of what other evidence comes to the scene, could potentially be quite dangerous to the faith, in that it would make believers out to be narrow-minded and potentially subject to ridicule. And in a certain way, that warning has come true with the battles we’re having right now."

 

[DogmaHunter]

I only argue against the random mutation theory

There's no such theory.

and I do not want to argue against Francis Collins.

So, then you accept evolution theory?
All life having common ancestry and all species being the result of evolution through natural selection?

No one seems to want to argue against him.

You keep saying this, but you keep doing the opposite.

I am just disappointed that there are not more people like him to set the record straight.

"Setting the record straight" by saying things like "the evidence for evolution is overwhelming"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

My math is not that good: geometry, algebra, trigonometry. I actually flunked out of algebra 2 because I had transferred from private to public school and I could not get help with it.

So, you actually don't know if the math is "against" evolution? You just believe whatever this dude in the vid is saying (or what you think he's saying)?

So I have to defer to people like Schroeder that has a PhD from MIT. Or Hoyle. If you can not accept that then I have nothing further to contribute beyond what they say about it. I have my conclusion and I suppose that you are going to come to your conclusion based on what you choose to beleive.

No, I don't form conclusions based on what I "choose" to "believe".

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am more for it then against it. But I argue against the theory because there are already plenty of people here to argue for it and they have no one to argue with so I feel sorry for them. They are worthy of sympathy.

Wait, so you don't actually really stand behind the "arguments" you are presenting here?

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, I don't form conclusions based on what I "choose" to "believe".

Of course you don't: NOT!

So, you actually don't know if the math is "against" evolution?

I am basing this on what the experts have to say about it. My math is better then average but not nearly as good as some people. My son for example is quite a bit better at math then I am. That was one of the reasons we had a Foreign Exchange student from China because my son needed someone to help him with the math and it was to advanced for me. So I defer to the people who understand math better then you do. For example Schroeder who has a PhD from MIT. Now if you want to show me your PhD from MIT then we can talk. Otherwise Schroeder is more of an expert then you are and you do not have any defense to present.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Wait, so you don't actually really stand behind the "arguments" you are presenting here?

When it comes to evolution I can argue either side of the issue. It really does not matter. There are point for and point against evolutionary theory. Any debate is that way in that you have to be prepared to argue either side of an issue. Interesting question though, do you stand behind your "arguments"? I wonder why you would question me and not examine yourself.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course you don't: NOT!

I believe whatever convinces me.

And I am convinced by compelling evidence. I don't "choose" what convinces me. Being convinced of something for me, is rather a compulsion. Based on a combination of sound evidence and reason.

I can't "choose" to suddenly be convinced that Big Foot exists, for example.
If and when I'm shown compelling evidence after which I'ld be no longer in a position to have reasonable doubt, that's when I'll be compelled to believe it. By following the evidence.

That's how reason works. Beliefs aren't "chosen". They are rather compulsory.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When it comes to evolution I can argue either side of the issue. It really does not matter. There are point for and point against evolutionary theory. Any debate is that way in that you have to be prepared to argue either side of an issue. Interesting question though, do you stand behind your "arguments"? I wonder why you would question me and not examine yourself.

I don't make arguments I don't stand behind myself, unless explicitly mentioned.
Don't see the point of it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My math is better then average but not nearly as good as some people. My son for example is quite a bit better at math then I am. That was one of the reasons we had a Foreign Exchange student from China because my son needed someone to help him with the math and it was to advanced for me. So I defer to the people who understand math better then you do. For example Schroeder who has a PhD from MIT. Now if you want to show me your PhD from MIT then we can talk. Otherwise Schroeder is more of an expert then you are and you do not have any defense to present.

Is his PhD in biology?

It seems, after a quick google search, as if the guy is on a quest to take the bible and force fit the evidence of reality into it.

In any case, I advice you to go to biologists if you wish to learn about biology.

 

[joshua 1 9]

There's no such theory.

Really your going to let me define the parameters? Isn't that pretty much what you do? All that means is that everything is pretty much a strawman to you. We are usually guilty of what we accuse others of.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."

 

[DogmaHunter]

Really your going to let me define the parameters? Isn't that pretty much what you do? All that means is that everything is pretty much a strawman to you. We are usually guilty of what we accuse others of.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."

There's no strawman.

There's simply no such thing as "mutation theory".

Mutations demonstrably happen. There's no theory there. Genetic mutations are present in ever newborn. We even have a name for it: the mutation rate.

Mutation is thus a fact.