is creation outside of science's scope?

[Deamiter]

that is just wrong. no judge would listen to a lawyer who can't prove his case so why are christians listening to secular science?

lol -- if you're right, why do courts require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not just proof? Did you even read the article I cited from holycross.edu about the philosophical and mathematical definitions of proof being unattainable outside of theoretical constructs?

are you even sure there was a big bang? please prove that scripturally. besides the big bang theory states that there was something in existence (other than God, as it is a secular model for the origin of the universe) which all that we see came from. that is in direct contrast to Hebrews 11, so why accept it? why christianize it?

By that brilliant logic, are we even sure bacteria exist? Please prove it scripturally. Besides, the germ theory of pathology states that something makes us sick (other than God or demons as it is a secular model for pathology).

And no, it is not in direct contrast to Hebrews 11 which only states that God created the universe. If God chose to create via a big bang, who are you to contradict him? And who's Christianizing the theory -- it's purely a conclusion based on our observation of the universe as it is today.

 

[archaeologist]

if you're right, why do courts require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not just proof?

that is a safety measure, to make sure the wrong person is not convicted.

Did you even read the article I cited from holycross.edu about the philosophical and mathematical definitions of proof being unattainable outside of theoretical constructs?

didn't have time, i was getting ready for work.

And no, it is not in direct contrast to Hebrews 11 which only states that God created the universe. If God chose to create via a big bang, who are you to contradict him

The former: the secular big bang theory starts with something already inexistence, held in a tiny ball, so they say. no reference to God, just that tiny compact ball that is in direct contrast to Hebrews which states--'...out of nothing that was visible...'

the latter: God did not go according to the secular big bang model, let's get real. He spoke, it was there. quite a difference beteen the two.

it's purely a conclusion based on our observation of the universe as it is today.

the observations made, can only detect what is happening now, and it is highly doubtful that such actions can lead one back into time to 'see' what originally took place. most conclusions based on those observations are basically assumptions without fact to support it.

again, God spoke and it was so, how that sets things in motion is hidden from us and it would not be wise to speculate or lean towards secular reasoning.

 

[Assyrian]

i have used scripture, theological texts, scholarly quotes so this is an unwarranted charge.

i don't make stuff up but i see you took the easy route and made the accusation and did not provide any evidence.

Again another completely groundless claim. Ludicrous when in my previous post I had given three examples of accusations you made up. Two of them you just ignored, again:

You accused me of dismissing your verse list as allegorical and metaphorical, which you made up as well, but when I pointed out what I said you ignore it.

You accused me of 'not believing of synonyms'. I question you about the accusation and you claimed I was misrepresenting you. When I show you what we actually said you ignore it.

The other was in response to you claim:

excuse me, i don't recall saying i cut and pasted, false accusations are ot christian. My comment wasn't a claim, it is a well known fact plus you failed to provide a link to support your statement.

I said:

I provided the full text of Barr's letter and gave you a link to it http://www.christianforums.com/showp...&postcount=195
Sorry Archie there is really very little point in carry on this conversation when you just make stuff like this up.[

And you went on this completely unrelated defence of:

wow. one link to support one thing you said out of all the other statements you made.

Which had absolutely nothing to do with you strange claim I had not provided a link for Barr.

Your next response was to say:

i don't have the exact link as i have it copied to floppy disk. pretty hard to provide a link when i do not have one. but i did give you a book title i found it in recently.

Why go on about how difficult it was for you to provide a link when the issue was your claim about me not providing one?

It is really weird arguing with you. Apart for all the abuse you throw at us about not being proper Christians or not following the Lord, how are we ever to have a meaningful discussion with someone who just makes up previous conversation as they go along?

 

[Mallon]

It is really weird arguing with you.

So why bother?

 

[archaeologist]

Again another completely groundless claim. Ludicrous when in my previous post I had given three examples of accusations you made up. Two of them you just ignored, again:

i haven't ignored anything you said, i have seen certan things and saw where they were headed and decided to not address them as they were getting off the point and to territory that was not germane to the topic.

It is really weird arguing with you

everything you wrote in your last post just add up to 'looking for an excuse' to get out of a situation you cannot defend.

i reposted quotes from a secular scientist and asked for rebuttal,and not one answer did i get. what i got instead was this complaining how i ignore what you write when you are guilty of it as well.

Apart for all the abuse you throw at us about not being proper Christians or not following the Lord,

i haven't aused anyone yet. the problem with north americans is that they lose sight of the meanings of words. most words like 'abuse' are thrown out there to manipulate a third person's perspective and do not reflect the reality or the intent of the one accused of abuse or whatever word is being used.

as for not following thelord, those are not my words but God's and i quoted scripture to illustrate His view. you chose to state that you did not know if they were allegorical or metaphorical. that tol dme that you were looking for excuses to continue to follow the world inspite of what God commands of His followers.

Now, i re-posted the quotes a few responses ago which deal with the topic of this thread, please address them instead of ignoring them and deal with the topic at hand.

 

[Assyrian]

i haven't ignored anything you said, i have seen certan things and saw where they were headed and decided to not address them as they were getting off the point and to territory that was not germane to the topic.

You make accusations, and when you are challenged on them and told what was actually said, you drop the subject. Apparently you though the accusation was on topic, but when shown what was actually said and called to explain your claim, you ignore it as 'not germain to the topic'.

Which sound very like...

everything you wrote in your last post just add up to 'looking for an excuse' to get out of a situation you cannot defend.

In spite of being shown that the accusation was wrong and being unable to defend the claim, in spite of your claiming the defence of you accusation was not germane to the topic, you come up with the exact same accusation again.

as for not following thelord, those are not my words but God's and i quoted scripture to illustrate His view. you chose to state that you did not know if they were allegorical or metaphorical. that tol dme that you were looking for excuses to continue to follow the world inspite of what God commands of His followers.

Just two pages back I showed you that this claim bore no relationship to what was actually said.

Originally Posted by archaeologist
nor can you dismiss them as allegorical and metaphorical and make the claims and accusations you are making. God certainly did not say metaphorically to follow Him anyone who reads it as such, is looking for an excuse to ignore God's word and follow their own desires.

Where did I dismiss your verses lists as allegorical? What I said was:

Assyrian: Oh dear, I saw a list of bible quotes and I thought, great, some scripture we can get our teeth into. But no, just a bunch of irrelevant texts that say nothing about whether God was speaking metaphorically or not. Well you say we should follow Jesus, but Jesus never preached six day creationism. Why do you?

As Mallon put is so succinctly, why bother?

 

[archaeologist]

As Mallon put is so succinctly, why bother?

as i said, you are doing exactly what you accuse me of---i just asked you to address those quotes i posted from the book origins:14 Bilion years of evolution and again you decide to pursue the avenue of blaming me .

why are you afraid to deal with those quotes? i think they prove the point of this thread and am waiting for credible rebuttals.

 

[archaeologist]

here you are for a third time:

maybe the following will bring home what i have been saying and bring this back to the topic. taken from the book, Origins: 14 Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution by neil DeGrasse Tyson & Donald Goldsmith,

pg.129-30-- "Since astrophysicists have no way to see back to the universe's first 0.0000000000000000000000000001 of a second, the do the next best thing, and use scientific logic to connect this early epoch to times they can observe..."
(yet what they observe is the present and not the past and do not base their conclusions on fact but scientific logic--no truth there)

pg.183-- "In our attempts to uncover the history of the cosmos, we have continually discovered that the segments most deeply shrouded in mystery are those that deal with origins."
(certainly looks like creation is out of reach of science)

pg. 183-4-- "This in turn implies that we must rely, to an uneasily largeextent, on our theories of how matter ought to behave, with relatively few points at which we can check these theories against observational data."
(not resorting to facts, but theories)

pg. 184-- "When we turn to the origin of planets, the mystery deepen. We lack not only observations of the crucial, initial stages of planetary formation but also successful theories of how the planets began to form."
(again, creation is shown to be out of reach of science)

pg. 184-- "Astrophysicists may now have more data, but they have no better answers than before. Indeed, the discovery of exosolar planets many of which move in orbits far different from those of the sun's planets, has in many ways confused the issue,leaving the story of the planet formation no closer to closure."
(science again proven to be limited and not able toanswer any questions)

pg. 185-- "and the second that 'the most secure prediction about planet formation is that it can't happen' " (science says it can't happen yet the Bible says it did, proved by the fact that we and they are here)

pg. 189-- "becasue astronomers have noway to prove that the instabilities needed for the model to work actually did occur.
(another example of the limitedness of science and that creation is outside of its scope)

pg. 235-- "the origin of life on earth remains locked inmurky uncertainty. Our ignorance about life's beginnings stems in large part from the fact that whatever events made inanimate matter come alive occurred billions of years ago and left no traces behind"
(quite convenient way to get out of saying they can't prove evolution true.)

pg. 235-- "Their conclusion reies on a reasonable supposition about primitive organisms."
(not fact, not evidence, not truth but 'reasonable suppositions...not enough to stake one's soul on)

pg. 240-1-- "wqe do not know whether life already existed 4 billion years ago, having survived the early impact storm or whether life arose on earth only after relative tranquility began."
(in other words science fails again to pinpoint/find an alternative to gen. 1)

pg. 241-- In either case, the crucial question of how life actually began on earth, either once or many times over, has no good answer though speculation on the subject has acquired a long and intriguing history."
(science can't provide the answer and can only resort to speculation and not fact. speculation is not truth, fact or evidence. in short creation is outside the scope of science)

pg. 245-- "The key question still remains: How does a collection of molecules, evenone primed for life to appear, ever generate itself."
(they are looking in the wrong places, they need to look to Gen.1)

pg. 249-- "What a hopeful, even prescient fairy tale this may prove to be. Life, far from being rare and precious, may be almost as common as planets themselves. All that remains is for us to go find it"
(science again shows it has no answers,no facts, no proof. all they have to do is turn to Gen. 1 and believe and they will get their answers---God created in the beginning, in 6 days)

this could go on but i think this presents a fine case for what i have talked about, secular science cannot find the answers and needs to be shunned by all those who say they believe in God.

it also shows that creation is well out of the scope/reach of science.

 

[archaeologist]

if you're right, why do courts require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not just proof?

i think i have created enough reasonable doubt against evolution and the big bang theory.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

i think i have created enough reasonable doubt against evolution and the big bang theory.

To your mind, perhaps, but in better minds no.

"M'Lud, the case for the defence rests".

 

[ExpatChristian]

i think i have created enough reasonable doubt against evolution and the big bang theory.

No, you haven't. You have created doubt, but the obejct of this doubt is not evolution or the big bang, but something closer to home.

 

[archaeologist]

one more try--

maybe the following will bring home what i have been saying and bring this back to the topic. taken from the book, Origins: 14 Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution by neil DeGrasse Tyson & Donald Goldsmith,

pg.129-30-- "Since astrophysicists have no way to see back to the universe's first 0.0000000000000000000000000001 of a second, the do the next best thing, and use scientific logic to connect this early epoch to times they can observe..."
(yet what they observe is the present and not the past and do not base their conclusions on fact but scientific logic--no truth there)

pg.183-- "In our attempts to uncover the history of the cosmos, we have continually discovered that the segments most deeply shrouded in mystery are those that deal with origins."
(certainly looks like creation is out of reach of science)

pg. 183-4-- "This in turn implies that we must rely, to an uneasily largeextent, on our theories of how matter ought to behave, with relatively few points at which we can check these theories against observational data."
(not resorting to facts, but theories)

pg. 184-- "When we turn to the origin of planets, the mystery deepen. We lack not only observations of the crucial, initial stages of planetary formation but also successful theories of how the planets began to form."
(again, creation is shown to be out of reach of science)

pg. 184-- "Astrophysicists may now have more data, but they have no better answers than before. Indeed, the discovery of exosolar planets many of which move in orbits far different from those of the sun's planets, has in many ways confused the issue,leaving the story of the planet formation no closer to closure."
(science again proven to be limited and not able toanswer any questions)

pg. 185-- "and the second that 'the most secure prediction about planet formation is that it can't happen' " (science says it can't happen yet the Bible says it did, proved by the fact that we and they are here)

pg. 189-- "becasue astronomers have noway to prove that the instabilities needed for the model to work actually did occur.
(another example of the limitedness of science and that creation is outside of its scope)

pg. 235-- "the origin of life on earth remains locked inmurky uncertainty. Our ignorance about life's beginnings stems in large part from the fact that whatever events made inanimate matter come alive occurred billions of years ago and left no traces behind"
(quite convenient way to get out of saying they can't prove evolution true.)

pg. 235-- "Their conclusion reies on a reasonable supposition about primitive organisms."
(not fact, not evidence, not truth but 'reasonable suppositions...not enough to stake one's soul on)

pg. 240-1-- "wqe do not know whether life already existed 4 billion years ago, having survived the early impact storm or whether life arose on earth only after relative tranquility began."
(in other words science fails again to pinpoint/find an alternative to gen. 1)

pg. 241-- In either case, the crucial question of how life actually began on earth, either once or many times over, has no good answer though speculation on the subject has acquired a long and intriguing history."
(science can't provide the answer and can only resort to speculation and not fact. speculation is not truth, fact or evidence. in short creation is outside the scope of science)

pg. 245-- "The key question still remains: How does a collection of molecules, evenone primed for life to appear, ever generate itself."
(they are looking in the wrong places, they need to look to Gen.1)

pg. 249-- "What a hopeful, even prescient fairy tale this may prove to be. Life, far from being rare and precious, may be almost as common as planets themselves. All that remains is for us to go find it"
(science again shows it has no answers,no facts, no proof. all they have to do is turn to Gen. 1 and believe and they will get their answers---God created in the beginning, in 6 days)

this could go on but i think this presents a fine case for what i have talked about, secular science cannot find the answers and needs to be shunned by all those who say they believe in God.

it also shows that creation is well out of the scope/reach of science

 

[gluadys]

one more try--

OK, I'll bite. But one claim at a time.

pg.129-30-- "Since astrophysicists have no way to see back to the universe's first 0.0000000000000000000000000001 of a second, the do the next best thing, and use scientific logic to connect this early epoch to times they can observe..."

Actually, I believe about 10 zeros have been left out of that decimal. I have usually seen the figure 1*10^-37 and there are only 27 zeros there.

So astrophysicists cannot see back to the universe's first 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second. Can you really comprehend how small a slice of time that is? Do you realize this means they CAN see back 13.7 billion years down to the first second and most of the way through the first second?

It's like examining my arm from shoulder to fingertip and saying "I can see all but the outermost electron in the outermost atom on the very end of my fingertip."

Given all that the astrophysicists CAN see what is the point of referring to this infinitesimal slice of time that they cannot see?

What is concealed in that infinitely smaller than a pinpoint of time that would radically change theories built on the 13.7 billion years available for study?

(yet what they observe is the present and not the past and do not base their conclusions on fact but scientific logic--no truth there)

Actually, IIRC, it is the mathematical equations that break down as one approaches the beginning point. Are you suggesting that mathematical principles change with time? Or that eternal math is different in some way from universal math? Maybe in heaven 2 + 2 =/= 4?

 

[gluadys]

We've actually been back and forth on the politeness question before. Most of the regulars here have developed some respect for their colleagues of differing opinions (though I can think of one exception who shall remain nameless).

It is our three newcomers, beginning with archeologist, who haven't picked up on our culture yet, who have been rather free with insults.

I find it interesting that you have (with some justification) noted the tone of RudolphHucker and Expat Christian, but failed to reprimand the many insults of archeologist which set the current round of unpleasantness in motion in the first place.

I would appeal to all three to take a look at some earlier threads (as well as the CF rules) to get a sense of what the regulars here (both creationist and TE) find unacceptable.

 

[Critias]

We've actually been back and forth on the politeness question before. Most of the regulars here have developed some respect for their colleagues of differing opinions (though I can think of one exception who shall remain nameless).

It is our three newcomers, beginning with archeologist, who haven't picked up on our culture yet, who have been rather free with insults.

I find it interesting that you have (with some justification) noted the tone of RudolphHucker and Expat Christian, but failed to reprimand the many insults of archeologist which set the current round of unpleasantness in motion in the first place.

I would appeal to all three to take a look at some earlier threads (as well as the CF rules) to get a sense of what the regulars here (both creationist and TE) find unacceptable.

Then that was a lack, on my part, at investigating all peoples' posts. I completely agree, regardless of theology concerning origins that all who throw insults around, should review the rules, but more importantly what the Bible has to say on the said subject.

 

[Mallon]

I would appeal to all three to take a look at some earlier threads (as well as the CF rules) to get a sense of what the regulars here (both creationist and TE) find unacceptable.

Limed for truth.

 

[Critias]

What is more important the CF rules or what God has to say about it, in the Bible?

 

[archaeologist]

Actually, I believe about 10 zeros have been left out of that decimal. I have usually seen the figure 1*10^-37 and there are only 27 zeros there.

minor point, there should be 35 but then i disagree that anyone can see into the past (except the trinity). o far no one has given me an example and starlight is not an example as that is our present not the past.

Do you realize this means they CAN see back 13.7 billion years down to the first second and most of the way through the first second

prove it. give me some links that describe how they are doing that. they can't even see into yesterday so how can they look back 13 billion years?

Given all that the astrophysicists CAN see what is the point of referring to this infinitesimal slice of time that they cannot see?

you're making the claim they can do it so cough up the evidence.

What is concealed in that infinitely smaller than a pinpoint of time that would radically change theories built on the 13.7 billion years available for study?

the truth. your unwillingness to credibly discuss this and provide credible sources proves that it is false.

Actually, IIRC, it is the mathematical equations that break down as one approaches the beginning point. Are you suggesting that mathematical principles change with time? Or that eternal math is different in some way from universal math? Maybe in heaven 2 + 2 =/= 4?

math is subject to the results of the fall like any other field. it is not immune. until you realize that you will always miss the answer you seek. there is only one truth--jesus.

 

[Melethiel]

Everybody, play nice, or the sandbox will be closed.

 

[archaeologist]

IF I AM AS BAD as expat christian, rudolph hucker and charles intimate then why are they stalking , misrepresenting and harassing me? {among other things}

i speak in all forums as i do here, my perspective as revealed to me through God's working in my life. so why would they feel they need to focus on me if i moved on from their little forums?

obviously i have said something that God has wanted me to say and they cannot bear other people hearing it for if i was not of God, they would have let me go in peace.

all three mentioned above have all heard the same message and they all have rejected it. so if i am wrong they would not be here causing trouble.