Hypothetical for Scientists

[Split Rock]

Go with the Bible (over nature). Natural evidence will mislead you.

[bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

I would consider that an incorrect interpretation of scripture is more likely to fool you. Especially since there are so many interpretations, and we know they cannot all be correct.

 

[funyun]

No it doesn't --- once again, He would not have put what He did in writing, if He was planning to deceive us.



Why? If you won't answer it here, what makes you think you'll answer it somewhere else?

(Shall I put you down for "inconclusive"?)

Oh, I thought you'd run off, AV. Now that you're back, I'm really itching to hear how you're going to prove me wrong. I bet you've got something really clever up your sleeve, don't you, you sly dog?

 

[AV1611VET]

The reason being that Mr Ian hasn't provided any evidence for God, or that God creates Dalite differently than it forms naturally, or that God did, or that this Book of his is worth listening to.

BUT, if indeed God did create the Dalite, all your assumptions are wrong.

Notice that in my hypo, the Dalite that you're holding is not the Dalite that was created; and you would be drawing a wrong conclusion.

Note: I could have made my hypothetical a lot tougher. I could have simply started it out with:

• In the beginning, God creates Dalite...

 

[AV1611VET]

I would consider that an incorrect interpretation of scripture is more likely to fool you. Especially since there are so many interpretations, and we know they cannot all be correct.

That's fine --- you guys incorrectly interpret science, too.

Remember: point one finger at someone, and three point back.

 

[lucaspa]

Go with the Bible (over nature). Natural evidence will mislead you.

[bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

And so you deny that God created! WHO created? God, right? So everything in Creation was put there by God.

Now, you can also take verses out of context to get them to mean what they don't. All it shows is that you can get the Bible to mislead you. Did you notice that "now" at the end of the verse? Paul is saying that Jesus stopped the "groaning and travail" because Jesus has redeemed our sins.

So, since we found all this evidence AFTER creation stopped "groaning and travail", it is reliable.

 

[lucaspa]

I would consider that an incorrect interpretation of scripture is more likely to fool you. Especially since there are so many interpretations, and we know they cannot all be correct.

Which is why we compare God's two books when possible. If God's Creation tells us that an interpretation is wrong, then we know it's wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

No it doesn't --- once again, He would not have put what He did in writing, if He was planning to deceive us.

1. God didn't put it in writing Himself. Jesus tells us in Mark 10 and Matthew 14 that humans wrote scripture and that they sometimes got it wrong.

2. The Appearance of Age argument makes God a liar. No way around it. There is no reason God had to make creation look old if it is really young. It can easily look to be 6,000 years old.

3. Are you sure Genesis 1-3 were meant, by God, to tell accurate history? If so, why did God allow the 2 craetion stories to contradict each other? They can't both be true. So perhaps God meant to have a theological story told and to let us look in God's Creation to figure out how He created.

 

[Loudmouth]

Notice that in my hypo, the Dalite that you're holding is not the Dalite that was created; and you would be drawing a wrong conclusion.

If we are all brains in a vat being fed sensory experiences then we are all wrong. So what. Perhaps you should leave your solipsisms at home.

Note: I could have made my hypothetical a lot tougher. I could have simply started it out with:

• In the beginning, God creates Dalite...

It would still be just as unsupported.

 

[AV1611VET]

And so you deny that God created! WHO created? God, right? So everything in Creation was put there by God.

Now, you can also take verses out of context to get them to mean what they don't. All it shows is that you can get the Bible to mislead you. Did you notice that "now" at the end of the verse? Paul is saying that Jesus stopped the "groaning and travail" because Jesus has redeemed our sins.

So, since we found all this evidence AFTER creation stopped "groaning and travail", it is reliable.

He's talking about the return of Christ, when all of us will be given our rightful place in Heaven.

Adoption means son-placed --- not son-made.

 

[lucaspa]

That's fine --- you guys incorrectly interpret science, too.

Can't do that. Remember, God in His Creation will tell us when we've done that. However, God can't tell you when you've got an interpretation wrong. He can't add to the Bible.

I see you skipped over the reason a Christian rejects your argument.

 

[Split Rock]

Go with the Bible (over nature). Natural evidence will mislead you.

I would consider that an incorrect interpretation of scripture is more likely to fool you. Especially since there are so many interpretations, and we know they cannot all be correct.

That's fine --- you guys incorrectly interpret science, too.

Yes, sometimes scientists get things wrong. But, how many different theories are there that explain the diversity and distribution of life on earth? Only one. How many estimations for the age of the Earth are there? Only One.

Now, how many different interpretations of scripture are there that cover these two topics? Many. Therefore, you are more likely to go wrong with using scripture.

Remember: point one finger at someone, and three point back.

I am not pointing any fingers AVET. I am simply explaining how easy it is to go wrong utilizing one person's interpretation of the scripture to understand the physical world we live in.

 

[Pesto]

Yes, sometimes scientists get things wrong. But, how many different theories are there that explain the diversity and distribution of life on earth? Only one. How many estimations for the age of the Earth are there? Only One.

Now, how many different interpretations of scripture are there that cover these two topics? Many. Therefore, you are more likely to go wrong with using scripture.

Oh, come on. You know better than this. This is weaker than most of what AV posts.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. God didn't put it in writing Himself. Jesus tells us in Mark 10 and Matthew 14 that humans wrote scripture and that they sometimes got it wrong.

2. The Appearance of Age argument makes God a liar. No way around it. There is no reason God had to make creation look old if it is really young. It can easily look to be 6,000 years old.

3. Are you sure Genesis 1-3 were meant, by God, to tell accurate history? If so, why did God allow the 2 craetion stories to contradict each other? They can't both be true. So perhaps God meant to have a theological story told and to let us look in God's Creation to figure out how He created.

Lucapsa, I have less than 10 minutes left on my session. Suffice it to say, I have covered these points over and over and over; but I'm going to make it a point tomorrow morning to cover each of these points again.

 

[TheManeki]

Why? If you won't answer it here, what makes you think you'll answer it somewhere else?

(Shall I put you down for "inconclusive"?)

You attempted to ask a scientific question (involving creation and evolution), but you instead asked a theological one (nature of God). I answered your underlying (and more interesting) theological question in the negative -- I do not believe God would prank us the way you described.

If you want a scientific answer, please ask a scientific question.

No it doesn't --- once again, He would not have put what He did in writing, if He was planning to deceive us.

Oh. So you were playing devil's advocate, then. I see! You believe that God is not arbitrary, but were asking about a hypothetical situation in which God was acting arbitrarily in the OP. I'm sorry for misunderstanding you -- I'm still new to CREVO.

 

[lucaspa]

He's talking about the return of Christ, when all of us will be given our rightful place in Heaven.

Not really. Go back to verses 2 -4 :

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

This isn't future, but is NOW.

Paul is returning to his theology: sin came into the world via Adam (altho this isn't scriptural) and now sin has been redeemed thru Jesus.

You want it to say that we can't trust nature. Look, if you want to turn the Bible into your god, you can do so. I'll do my best to stop you because I don't want you to worship a false idol. But I'm certainly not going to follow you into sin and violating the 1st Commandment.

Christianity has always recognized that God has 2 books: scripture and Creation. Denying Creation is denying God. Are you sure you want to do that? Especially since science doesn't mean you have to give up God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can't do that. Remember, God in His Creation will tell us when we've done that. However, God can't tell you when you've got an interpretation wrong. He can't add to the Bible.

I see you skipped over the reason a Christian rejects your argument.

Go back and take my Apple Challenge, and see if you can prove, via a natural explanation, how anyone can create an apple ex nihilo.

Nature can't tell us Who did it. It needs to be supplemented by the Author, Who told us what He did - in writing.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucapsa, I have less than 10 minutes left on my session. Suffice it to say, I have covered these points over and over and over; but I'm going to make it a point tomorrow morning to cover each of these points again.

I"ve been over the entire thread. Nowhere have you covered the points. So I'm looking forward to you doing it for the first time.

While you are covering those points, add another one:

GOD DID IT --- CASE CLOSED

Saying "God did it" isn't sufficient. It doesn't tell you anything. What you need to look at is "How did God do it."

The evolution vs creationism controversy isn't about whethere God did it or not. It's about 2 different ways that God did it.

Oh, yes, and be sure you address my point about rejecting your OP as a Christian. All you've done is say "God may have had a reason we don't know about yet." That isn't really an answer, because it stilll means God lied. It just means He supposedly had a good reason for doing so.

That doesn't help our trust. Maybe God had a good reason for deceiving us that Jesus Resurrected? Maybe God has a good reason for promising salvation and everlasting life when He has no intention of delivering.

In order to worship God, we must trust Him. Your 2 hypotheticals means God deliberately lies. Good reasons are irrelevant.

 

[lucaspa]

Go back and take my Apple Challenge, and see if you can prove, via a natural explanation, how anyone can create an apple ex nihilo.

That's a nonsensical challenge. God tells us He didn't create apples ex nihilo. God created apple trees thru evolution. If you are going to invoke ex nihilo, you have to go back to creating the universe ex nihilo, not apples.

BTW, if you read Genesis 1:2 literally, God didn't create the earth ex nihilo. He started out with pre-existing matter that was "without form".

Nature can't tell us Who did it. It needs to be supplemented by the Author, Who told us what He did - in writing.

You're right, nature can't tell us Who created. That's what Genesis 1-3 is for. To tell us the Who and Why of creation. However, you are misusing scripture when you insist that it also tells us How God created. Genesis 1-3 isn't trying to tell us how. By insisting on looking only at the writing, you are turning scripture into a god. The 1st Commandment forbids that. There is only one God, and it's not scripture.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Go with the Bible (over nature). Natural evidence will mislead you.

[bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

How is a book of at least speculative origin more reliable than looking at nature? By your logic there's no point to science, the bible should be sufficient. but the bible leaves out almost everything we learned from science. why didnt God inform us about plate tectonics, bacteria, supernovae, gravity or even basics such as molecules and atoms? Could it be because 5,000 years ago my ancestors didnt know about those things when they wrote the bible?

 

[us38]

Nature can't tell us Who did it. It needs to be supplemented by the Author, Who told us what He did - in writing.

But you also use the bible to tell you how. What I find incredibly odd is that you will trust a fallible book written by fallbile men, but you won't trust the things that your god made itself.