Hypothetical for Scientists

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Thirdly, nature currently is hostile to God and His creation. Look around. All you see is death, destruction, and decay, sometimes packaged as a beautiful spectacle, as in nebulas and novas. Nature is a killer that demands absolute obedience to its laws; but as Paul points out, it does so against its intended purpose.

Could the scientific evidence that points to evolution and the big bang be the result of nature's hostility to God? is it so hostile that it wants to fool us into thinking there is no God?
I feel your characterization of nature is unfair. Without death there is no life and without life there is no death. Everything that lives and cannot produce its own food must acquire those nutrients from other living things. If those organisms dont kill, they die. You are among these organisms that must consume dead organisms to survive. The only other ways are photosynthesis and chemosynthesis, and we can do neither. If God wanted to create a Nature without the need to kill, he could have made everything chemo/photosynthetic. Then again if we were photosynthetic we wouldn't get nearly enough energy to support complex functions such as our brains. Ask yourself why God made a universe full of destruction and death. If God didnt plan on a universe full of death, he wouldnt have created so many species with such efficient killing tools such as serrated teeth and razor sharp claws. As a biologist I see much beauty in the struggle for life and the adaptations that have arisen from it. Maybe all you need to do is see nature with fascination rather than horror.

 

[Jet Black]

Roughly 6100 years ago. This earth has only gone around the sun about 6100 times.

so SN1987A never exploded?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I am on record as rejecting the Omphalos Hypothesis.

This universe has the appearance of age, because this universe was created with age.

It looks old, because it is old.

Omphalos says it looks old, but is, in fact, young.

Age is the amount of time spent in existance. If it has only existed for 6,000 years then it is young. Maybe it can be created with the evidence of older age (again deceitfu God), but if it has only existed for 6,000 years then it is only 6,000 years old.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm sorry, I don't see the connection. How do you get from "Nature groans in pain" to "Nature is misleading"?

The same way Fundies go from God said his creation was "good" to claiming it was perfect.

 

[Baggins]

No, obviously you don't. You claim that the universe was created 6100 years ago and is somehow 4.5 billion years old at the same time.

He basically espouses the Omphalos hypothesis while claiming that he doesn't.

He has to do some pretty nifty mental gymnastics to keep his world view in one piece,

It apparantly it works for him, but it makes him look illogical and ridiculous to any reasonably intelligent onlooker.

Does he care? I doubt it, it is a full time job trying to believe what he claims to believe.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucapsa,

First of all, we aren't making the Bible out to be another deity. It is the Word of God, period; nothing more, nothing less.

Look at what you said. "Word of God". Now go to John 1. What is the "Word" with a capital "W"? It's not the Bible, is it?

Thank you for proving that you are making the Bible into your god.

Second of all, God created this universe ex nihilo.

That is one interpretation in the history of Christianity. Many Christians read that God created the earth from pre-existing material "the earth was without form".

Scientists today claim that the amount of matter/energy is a constant, and has always been a constant; whereas the Bible portrays a starting point of zero matter/energy, that steadily increases over a period of six days, until it reaches its current amount.;

You have a misstatement of science there.
1. Yes, the amount of energy/matter in the universe NOW is constant. However, at some point there was NO matter/energy (or spacetime)

2. You are using Genesis 1. However, in Genesis 2:4 scripture states that God created the heavens and earth in ONE day, not 6. The Hebrew is very specific. Also, some of the entities you say God created ex nihilo in Genesis 1 (and thus increases matter/energy) such as animals and people, Genesis 2 says were formed from existing matter. So you have 2 contradictory accounts of creation. Since they contradict, one or both of them must be wrong.

Thirdly, nature currently is hostile to God and His creation. Look around. All you see is death, destruction, and decay, sometimes packaged as a beautiful spectacle, as in nebulas and novas. Nature is a killer that demands absolute obedience to its laws; but as Paul points out, it does so against its intended purpose.

1. There was always death in creation. Look at Genesis 1:27. God gives humans plants to eat. Why? Why do we have to eat? So we don't starve to death.

2. Nature can't be hostile to God. God created nature. How can nature turn hostile to God? Why in the world would God permit such a thing?

3. As MrGoodbytes pointed out so well, how do you get from "nature is in pain" to "nature is hostile to God"? That's a complete non sequitor and misinterpretation.

There is coming a time when God is going to intervene and return nature to its amicable state, starting with the elements on the Periodic Table (as Peter makes clear).

Where does Peter make that clear? Paul says in Romans 8 that God is going to intervene and take everyone to heaven.

Since Jesus Himself is the One behind the strong nuclear force (Colossians 1:17), all He has to do is release His hold, and the events of 2 Peter 3:10 will take place.

How do you get from "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." to "strong nuclear force"?

Colossians 1:17 is making a common theological statement that is a bedrock of Christianity (but is ignored by creationists): God sustains the universe. This is not limited to the strong nuclear force.

Now, as to 2 Peter, what were the "elements" in Peter's day? Earth, fire, water, air! Peter is saying that God will eventually destroy the earth. Again, this is a theological statement, not one of science. 2 Peter is reaffirming what is stated in Genesis 8: that the next time God destroys the world it will be by fire.

Didn't anyone ever tell you that it is invalid to quote out of context?

You do realize that you are cherry-picking science here, right? You take science when you think it is backed by the Bible, but reject it when you think science contradicts the Bible. That's called Special Pleading and is invalid.

Fourthly, Genesis 1 is a detailed account of the Creation, in chronological order. Genesis 2 simply contains 20 words in verse 19 that are considered out of sync, but could easily be parenthetical, not contradictory.

You've got worse problems than that. But forming the animals out of the ground is not parenthetical. After all, once they are formed, God takes them to Adam to name and see if they are fit companions. If the animals had existed before, God wouldn't have to form them, just take them to Adam. In Genesis 1:25, the Hebrew has God forming men and women (both plural) together. Obviously this isn't how it happens in Genesis 2. Also, Genesis 1 has everything spoken into existence, doesn't it? As you said, it is ex nihilo. But in Genesis 2 the animals, Adam, and Eve are formed from existing matter. And there is also that contradiction in timing. Don't forget that the name of God changes between the 2 also. In Genesis 1 it is "Elohim". In Genesis 2 it is "Yahweh". All these tell you that you have 2 different creation stories from 2 different sources.

Take Romans for example. There are three whole chapters that are parenthetical (4,5, and 6 - I think). Do we throw the book of Romans out because of it? --- The book of Proverbs is another example. It contains two back-to-back verses that [supposedly] contradict each other: [bible]Proverbs 26:4[/bible][bible]Proverbs 26:5[/bible] Should we throw that book out too, as some suggest?

Have I suggested throwing anything out? No. I'm telling you the contradictions, when read literally, are signals to tell you not to read them literally! The creation stories are not histories; they are theological stories.

And yes, Proverbs 26:4 and 26:5 do contradict. We have 2 very good sayings put side by side. Am I suggesting throwing out the entire book? No.

We take claims one by one. Not by a group. That those 2 sayings contradict does not mean that each of them is not good and true to some extent. It simply means that there are 2 different ways to look at the situation.

Jesus said that man shall live by every word: [bible]Matthew 4:4[/bible] And since our God is a jealous God, He jealously guards and protects It from even nature itself, which is currently hostile to It.

1. Notice that you capitalized "It", as though the Bible is God. More evidence you worship the Bible and not God. It is you who guard the Bible, not God.
2. You took Matthew 4:4 out of context. Jesus is being tempted. He answers by a direct quote from the Torah. Jesus' ministry shows that he did NOT advocate "every word". Mark 10 and Matthew 14 has Jesus throwing out Deut 2:1. The story of Jesus at the well in John and preventing the crowd from stoning the prostitute has him throwing out words of the Bible.
3. Note that YOU don't live by "every word". You don't obey the dietary laws, do you? Are you a farmer? Do you obey the laws about farming where it says that you must keep fields fallow? Do you forgive all debts every 7 years? Do you sell your daughter into slavery? Do you obey all the laws concerning work on the Sabbath?

You pick and choose.

God in His Creation says that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Instead of listening to God, you reject Him. That is wrong for a Christian to do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Could the scientific evidence that points to evolution and the big bang be the result of nature's hostility to God? is it so hostile that it wants to fool us into thinking there is no God?
I feel your characterization of nature is unfair. Without death there is no life and without life there is no death. Everything that lives and cannot produce its own food must acquire those nutrients from other living things. If those organisms dont kill, they die. You are among these organisms that must consume dead organisms to survive. The only other ways are photosynthesis and chemosynthesis, and we can do neither. If God wanted to create a Nature without the need to kill, he could have made everything chemo/photosynthetic. Then again if we were photosynthetic we wouldn't get nearly enough energy to support complex functions such as our brains. Ask yourself why God made a universe full of destruction and death. If God didnt plan on a universe full of death, he wouldnt have created so many species with such efficient killing tools such as serrated teeth and razor sharp claws. As a biologist I see much beauty in the struggle for life and the adaptations that have arisen from it. Maybe all you need to do is see nature with fascination rather than horror.

Jack, you are confusing nature TODAY with nature YESTERDAY.

Nature today is far different than it was in Genesis 1, before the Fall.

God did not create a universe full of death, or creatures that were efficient killing machines.

They came after the Fall, not before it.

Are death, decay, and destruction going to rule in the New Heaven and New Earth?

No --- and neither did they in the "other" New Earth (when God first created it).

The "laws of nature" are soon to be reverted back to the "good old days".

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Obviously that word "somehow" was your addition?

Does it matter? Either way, you are claiming a logical impossibility by insisting that "age" and "time something is in existence" are two seperate concepts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Age is the amount of time spent in existance. If it has only existed for 6,000 years then it is young. Maybe it can be created with the evidence of older age (again deceitfu God), but if it has only existed for 6,000 years then it is only 6,000 years old.

If my car bumped your car, and I left a note on your windshield detailing what happened, would you say I was being deceitful?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

If my car bumped your car, and I left a note on your windshield detailing what happened, would you say I was being deceitful?

It is if i find evidence that it was someone else's car or that my car was never hit to begin with.

 

[AV1611VET]

It apparantly it works for him, but it makes him look illogical and ridiculous to any reasonably intelligent onlooker.

Indeed --- I plead "guilty as charged".

("Peculiar" is a better word, though.)

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people;

As for you, this applies:

[bible]1 Corinthians 3:19[/bible]

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Age is the amount of time spent in existance. If it has only existed for 6,000 years then it is young. Maybe it can be created with the evidence of older age (again deceitfu God), but if it has only existed for 6,000 years then it is only 6,000 years old.

If my car bumped your car, and I left a note on your windshield detailing what happened, would you say I was being deceitful?

BTW you failed to address the meat of my point which is that if the universe is created with all the evidence of old age but has only existed for a short time then it is young, since age is the time of existance. This endangers your whole "i'm not with omphalos" logic.

 

[Split Rock]

1. There was always death in creation. Look at Genesis 1:27. God gives humans plants to eat. Why? Why do we have to eat? So we don't starve to death.

Creationists do not consider plants to really be living, because they do not have the "breath of life." This is nonsense, of course, since plants are living organisms by every definition of the term. They even undergo respiration and therefore do "breath," in a sense.

The other problem I have with this "no death before the Fall" concept is that God threw Adam out of the garden to keep him from eating of the Tree of Life and thereby becoming immortal (apparently, this only became a possibility after Adam ate of the Tree of Knowledge first). If he was already immortal, this would hardly have been a concern.

2. Nature can't be hostile to God. God created nature. How can nature turn hostile to God? Why in the world would God permit such a thing?

According to most Creationists, God's perfect creation went bad because Adam disobeyed God. The logic is that creation existed only to serve Adam and when he sinned it corrupted all of creation. Why God didn't prevent this (as He must have forseen it) is beyond me, but has something to do with free-will.

 

[AV1611VET]

God in His Creation says that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Instead of listening to God, you reject Him. That is wrong for a Christian to do.

Any other basic theology you want to deny before I have to go?

 

[lucaspa]

I am on record as rejecting the Omphalos Hypothesis.

This universe has the appearance of age, because this universe was created with age.

It looks old, because it is old.

Omphalos says it looks old, but is, in fact, young.

Sorry, but your hypotheticals said otherwise. They were the Oomphalos.

So, since the universe is old, as in billions of years, how do you get creation packed into 6 days?

the Bible portrays a starting point of zero matter/energy, that steadily increases over a period of six days, until it reaches its current amount.;

Nature today is far different than it was in Genesis 1, before the Fall.

God did not create a universe full of death, or creatures that were efficient killing machines.

Here you are misreading the Bible. Look at Genesis 3:14-19. The consequences of Adam and Eve's disobedience are very specific and very limited. All of nature is not affected.

Are death, decay, and destruction going to rule in the New Heaven and New Earth?

No --- and neither did they in the "other" New Earth (when God first created it).

That does not follow at all. What God does after closing down this universe has nothing to do with how He has this universe operate.

Look also at Genesis 3:22. Adam and Eve were going to die anyway. They had to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life to live forever. (BTW, the death in Genesis 2:18 has to be spiritual, because Adam lived for 900 years after he ate the fruit and died "in THE day".)

If my car bumped your car, and I left a note on your windshield detailing what happened, would you say I was being deceitful?

I would if the paint transferred to my car was a different color than your car. I also would if your note was internally contradictory.

You concentrate ONLY on the Bible. You keep trying to ignore that God really did create. Creation is just as much God's book (actually more) than scripture. In scripture, God had to work thru the limitations of the people He was inspiring. He could not give concepts that they could not understand. In Creation, God didn't have those limitations. He could wait until humans learned enough to figure out how He created.

You aren't defending God, you are defending your interpretation of Genesis. That is an indication that your god is your interpretation of scripture, not God. Please come back before it is too late.

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW you failed to address the meat of my point which is that if the universe is created with all the evidence of old age but has only existed for a short time then it is young, since age is the time of existance. This endangers your whole "i'm not with omphalos" logic.

No I didn't "fail to address the meat of [your] point".

I'm ignoring you because I don't have time to repeat myself over and over.

 

[Split Rock]

If my car bumped your car, and I left a note on your windshield detailing what happened, would you say I was being deceitful?

Ah, but you didn't write the note... it was written by someone else who claims to speak for you.

 

[lucaspa]

Any other basic theology you want to deny before I have to go?

You are the one denying basic theology, not I. You are pitting God vs God. Can't you see how wrong that is and how God can only lose?

 

[Split Rock]

No I didn't "fail to address the meat of [your] point".

I'm ignoring you because I don't have time to repeat myself over and over.

You only repeat your assertion over and over again. You have never explained how age was "embedded" into the universe. Until you do, your assertion will continue to be rejected by everyone else here.

 

[AV1611VET]

You aren't defending God, you are defending your interpretation of Genesis. That is an indication that your god is your interpretation of scripture, not God. Please come back before it is too late.

Fair enough, Lucapsa.

You have your "bible" --- I have mine.

It looks like we're both Sola Scriptura, eh?

(Or solo scriptura, as someone liked to call me. [tomato/tomatto])