Meteorology is an atheistic deception!

[shernren]

Looking around in the book of Job I came up with some interesting references to the weather in chapters 36-38. First we have an extremely long discourse by Elihu on the wonders of weather in chapters 36 and 37. Pivotal is this:

(ch 37)

15 Do you know how God controls the clouds
and makes his lightning flash?

16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who is perfect in knowledge?

Then we have a discourse by God Himself:

(ch. 38)

37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens

38 when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?

Now, in the light of this, doesn't meteorology pose a problem for the believing Christian? After all, the Bible says that God holds lightning bolts in His hands (36:30, 32), that both thunder and snow are the result of God's breath (37:4, 10), that there are storehouses of snow and hail (38:22, 23) and that lightning and east winds are dispersed from a central location (38:24). All these are absurd in the light of meteorology.

Furthermore, even if one takes these passages as poetic and not literal (even though AiG says there is no dichotomy between spiritual and secular knowledge, and that the Bible has absolute scientific authority, and the passage goes from describing weather to wildlife in a stroke, showing that God is conveying knowledge about the world and therefore this is a "scientific declaration" by their standards as much as is Genesis 1 and 2), there still is the central issue of who's in charge. The Bible tells us that all weather is caused by God. God is responsible for everything from rain to thunder. And yet modern meteorology says that God is not responsible and God is not in control. Modern meteorology starts with the assumption that orderly patterns of heat and pressure are responsible for weather, and not God. God is not needed in meteorology. Furthermore, atmospheric studies tell us how clouds hang in the sky; satellites are used to count clouds and watch how they are controlled and look at the sun; while cloud-seeding techniques can control where rain falls; contrary to direct injunctions that these mark the boundaries between man and God's area of dominion (37:14-17, 21, 38:37-38).

So meteorology is evil because it denies God. Why do the same Christians who denounce evolution believe in atheistic weather reports?

 

[Critias]

This post seems to be out of spite. Nevertheless, I will answer since it is I that has been the cause for your spite to be shown.

I never said the Evolutionary Theory was evil. Theories are theories. I asked how it points to a Creator, since it deals with Origins and because TEs agree that it should replace what the Bible says about God creating in six days.

I understand now how hard this is for many TEs to comprehend. 1) being about Origins and 2) about replacing what the Bible says about origins.

I am of firm belief that God is in control of the weather. If I may, I can use a Biblical account of Jesus on the boat commanding the weather to cease its storming, and it obeyed Him.

I am of firm belief that God is in control of everything. Listening to what a weatherman says about rain is not replacing the fact that God is in control.

Evolutionary Theory is to replace God creating in six days. Evolutionary Theory speaks of no creator.

1) Evolution replaces six day creation.
2) Evolutionary Theory speaking of no creator replaces God as the Creator.

Look to the debates, any theory that assumes or speaks of a Creator is vehemently denied by science. Not by the standards of science, but by the mentioning of a Creator. This system, this belief is being supported by TEs.

Take a lesson from Job, and realize our own limited minds and understanding that we were not there to assume that we know what happened. God told us what He did and that should be good enough for the Christian.

 

[philadiddle]

I never said the Evolutionary Theory was evil. Theories are theories. I asked how it points to a Creator, since it deals with Origins and because TEs agree that it should replace what the Bible says about God creating in six days.
I understand now how hard this is for many TEs to comprehend. 1) being about Origins and 2) about replacing what the Bible says about origins.

please fill in the blank. "you don't think that evolution is evil, but it's _________ because it replaces the literal interpretation of Genesis." I'm guessing the blank would be filled in by creationists with words like "untrue" "a lie" "bad" and even the word "evil".

I am of firm belief that God is in control of the weather. If I may, I can use a Biblical account of Jesus on the boat commanding the weather to cease its storming, and it obeyed Him.

the word that Jesus uses to calm the storm is the same word He uses to cast out demons. this implies that satan had a hand in the storm, to try to stop them from crossing the lake.

I am of firm belief that God is in control of everything. Listening to what a weatherman says about rain is not replacing the fact that God is in control.

but the weatherman isn't talking about God which means it's replacing what the Bible says. He should be on the news saying "God gave us rain this morning and a mix of sun and clouds this afternoon."

Evolutionary Theory is to replace God creating in six days. Evolutionary Theory speaks of no creator.

evolution doesn't replace anything but misinterpretted scripture. When the weatherman talks of low and high pressure systems etc, that is HOW God controls the weather. Just like evolution is HOW God created us. BTW, no science talks about God because God is supernatural, and science only deals with the natural.

1) Evolution replaces six day creation.

other religious texts say things like "the world is held up on the back of a turtle" and stuff like that. i think it's hinduism but i'm not sure. of course they don't take it literally, that would be rediculous, just like thinking the sun was created on the 4th day is rediculous

2) Evolutionary Theory speaking of no creator replaces God as the Creator.

like i said before, science doesn't deal with the supernatural. that doesn't mean they don't exist, it just isn't scientific.

Look to the debates, any theory that assumes or speaks of a Creator is vehemently denied by science. Not by the standards of science, but by the mentioning of a Creator. This system, this belief is being supported by TEs.

i'll keep repeating myself, science doesn't deal with the supernatural, even in the case of miracles etc, God is not a scientific answer.

Take a lesson from Job, and realize our own limited minds and understanding that we were not there to assume that we know what happened. God told us what He did and that should be good enough for the Christian.

yes He told us that He created everything, and through science we discovered that evolution is the means by which He did it.

 

[shernren]

It was not out of spite, Critias, it was meant to be a parody. In any case spite or not it is a very obvious point. Let me just set this down in parallel for you to clearly see the reasoning.

A:
The Bible says that God controls weather.
Science says that no, God doesn't control weather, convection currents and evaporation and solar heating control weather.
Question: does science contradict the Bible here? If yes, how can meteorology be approved by God? If no, why again?

B:
The Bible says that God controlled the origins of creation.
Science says that no, the Big Bang can explain how the universe formed and evolution can explain how biodiversity came about.
Question: does science contradict the Bible here? If yes, is science valid, and if no, why not?

To me the logical parallel is very complete. It remains to you to show why meteorology is not to be compared with evolutionism.

 

[Critias]

It was not out of spite, Critias, it was meant to be a parody. In any case spite or not it is a very obvious point. Let me just set this down in parallel for you to clearly see the reasoning.

A:
The Bible says that God controls weather.
Science says that no, God doesn't control weather, convection currents and evaporation and solar heating control weather.
Question: does science contradict the Bible here? If yes, how can meteorology be approved by God? If no, why again?

B:
The Bible says that God controlled the origins of creation.
Science says that no, the Big Bang can explain how the universe formed and evolution can explain how biodiversity came about.
Question: does science contradict the Bible here? If yes, is science valid, and if no, why not?

To me the logical parallel is very complete. It remains to you to show why meteorology is not to be compared with evolutionism.

Meteorology and the Theory of Evolution can all still be correct even if they don't point to a creator. That has never been my question. My question has been how is that TEs support a Theory that adamently refuses to acknowledge a Creator?

If you believe the ToE to be true, and as a Christian why do you support the Theory being quiet on God being the Creator?

Why is it that it seems so many TEs approve of various things being silent on God? Do you feel being silent about God is a good thing?

Tell me, do you want Jesus to be silent about you when it comes to Him telling the Father about all who believe in Him?

 

[ascribe2thelord]

Looking around in the book of Job I came up with some interesting references to the weather in chapters 36-38. First we have an extremely long discourse by Elihu on the wonders of weather in chapters 36 and 37. Pivotal is this:

(ch 37)

15 Do you know how God controls the clouds
and makes his lightning flash?

16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who is perfect in knowledge?

Then we have a discourse by God Himself:

(ch. 38)

37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens

38 when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?

Now, in the light of this, doesn't meteorology pose a problem for the believing Christian? After all, the Bible says that God holds lightning bolts in His hands (36:30, 32), that both thunder and snow are the result of God's breath (37:4, 10), that there are storehouses of snow and hail (38:22, 23) and that lightning and east winds are dispersed from a central location (38:24). All these are absurd in the light of meteorology.

Furthermore, even if one takes these passages as poetic and not literal (even though AiG says there is no dichotomy between spiritual and secular knowledge, and that the Bible has absolute scientific authority, and the passage goes from describing weather to wildlife in a stroke, showing that God is conveying knowledge about the world and therefore this is a "scientific declaration" by their standards as much as is Genesis 1 and 2), there still is the central issue of who's in charge. The Bible tells us that all weather is caused by God. God is responsible for everything from rain to thunder. And yet modern meteorology says that God is not responsible and God is not in control. Modern meteorology starts with the assumption that orderly patterns of heat and pressure are responsible for weather, and not God. God is not needed in meteorology. Furthermore, atmospheric studies tell us how clouds hang in the sky; satellites are used to count clouds and watch how they are controlled and look at the sun; while cloud-seeding techniques can control where rain falls; contrary to direct injunctions that these mark the boundaries between man and God's area of dominion (37:14-17, 21, 38:37-38).

So meteorology is evil because it denies God. Why do the same Christians who denounce evolution believe in atheistic weather reports?

I think God can alter the weather but usually he does not become involved in this. He's already set things up so that farmers will get just enough rain, and deserts will be dry, and some places cold and some hot. He set the seasons summer, winter spring and fall. He made the earth to work this way and you are saying that He can't have created it to work by itself? If he couldn't set up a natural system that works by itself ... then how do we move on our own?

I believe that meteorology is a valid science. The weather does follow patterns that are generally predictible and when not, it may be attributed to divine influence. Or perhaps one of the many unknown tiny small-scale weather events, even down to the flapping of a butterfly's wings. All of this is God's creation.

I think meteorology demonstrates the glory of God in all that He can do. It is not atheistic!

 

[shernren]

I think meteorology demonstrates the glory of God in all that He can do. It is not atheistic!

And so is evolution! Yay! ... I guess I might not have been very clear but it was more of a "parody" post than anything I really believe in. I myself don't believe that meteorology is atheistic either - I just did an entire physics project on weather satellites - but I was showing that by the same criteria used to judge evolution, meteorology is also atheistic.

I can see that we're getting somewhere, Critias. I'm glad that I'm finally starting to understand your objections and I hope you'll understand why I don't face the same objections in my faith.

Meteorology and the Theory of Evolution can all still be correct even if they don't point to a creator. That has never been my question. My question has been how is that TEs support a Theory that adamently refuses to acknowledge a Creator?

What exactly do you mean by "adamantly refuses to acknowledge a Creator"? I can think of two possible explanations:

1. Evolution inspires a lot of atheist thinking.

Well, that is true, but at the same time proper Christian ideas have spawned very improper actions too (like the Inquisition and the Crusades). The fact that evil people can twist perfectly neutral theories like evolution doesn't mean that evolution is evil in and of itself.

2. Evolution allows an explanation of creation that doesn't require a Creator.

In that case I answered that objection above. Meteorology allows an explanation of weather that doesn't require God to control the weather, and evolution allows an explanation of creation that doesn't require a Creator. It's parallel. The reason for this is that science, in general, creates physical explanations that do not require the supernatural. That's precisely what science does. It breaks down physical phenomena into cause-effect relationships. It takes events that seemed to be supernatural and random and explains them in terms of predictable, measurable causes. That is simply what science does. If you want supernatural and un-measurable causes you can't simply turn to creation science you have to abandon science altogether, in explaining a particular occurrence.

If you believe the ToE to be true, and as a Christian why do you support the Theory being quiet on God being the Creator?

Because it's how science works. I know this is repeated ad nauseam but science at all - creation science, evolution science - is supposed to be quiet on God. Expecting science to talk about God is like expecting ants to talk about human politics. They're different levels altogether. I hope I've made this clear, you know. What do you think? What theories of science, can you suggest, aren't quiet on God? If you can't raise any you can't expect evolution to be one.

Why is it that it seems so many TEs approve of various things being silent on God? Do you feel being silent about God is a good thing?

I'm not sure which arena you are talking about in particular, but I'll assume you're either referring to the world of scientific peer review or the world of science education. For the first: by the very nature of science God doesn't come into the picture. (If you don't like it go ask God why He created perfectly coherent natural laws that run the world and make it look like He's not needed. He could easily have made this world a world of magic with curses and spells and divine intervention 24-7.) Any experimenter - Christian, Buddhist, atheist, whateverist - given the same experimental setup is supposed to get the same result, within reasonable bounds of error. Science is objective. But of course, science glorifies God by pointing to a rational God who was smart enough to design what is basically a self-running world. *points to Augustine quote on the "creation science denies God!" thread*

Secondly, when it comes to the school education system. I agree that evolution should not be taught as dogma. But it should not be taught as if there are scientific alternatives either. I agree that there are holes and gaps in our knowledge. I agree that abiogenesis is sketchy and human evolution is a mess, but everything in between is reasonably solid, not to mention the entire non-biological edifice of old-earth geology and Big Bang cosmology. Children should be told that creationism exists and that some people believe in it. But they should not be told that creationism is scientific ... because it is not. If creationism was scientific i.e. creation science it would stop pointing to God.

The school is a civil institution and not a religious institution, and the doctrine of separation of church and state is very real and very necessary. If the USA declares itself an official Christian country because the majority of its citizens are Christian, that opens the door for India to call itself a Hindu country and my own country to call itself a Muslim country. If Christianity is to be taught in schools it can only be taught if students choose it independent of official policy, or if it is taught with equal coverage given to other religions. And if you think you don't have freedom of religion in America, try coming here to Malaysia where it is an official crime to share Christianity with the 60% of people here who are Muslims.

Tell me, do you want Jesus to be silent about you when it comes to Him telling the Father about all who believe in Him?

There is a fine line between being bold for Jesus and being berserk for Jesus. Throwing evolution out of biology in schools would officially cross that line.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Meteorology and the Theory of Evolution can all still be correct even if they don't point to a creator. That has never been my question. My question has been how is that TEs support a Theory that adamently refuses to acknowledge a Creator?

If you believe the ToE to be true, and as a Christian why do you support the Theory being quiet on God being the Creator?

Why is it that it seems so many TEs approve of various things being silent on God? Do you feel being silent about God is a good thing?

Tell me, do you want Jesus to be silent about you when it comes to Him telling the Father about all who believe in Him?

Science cannot talk about God. God isn't a lab rat which we can poke and prod at our leisure. God isn't constrained to act in any particular way, so we can't predict what God will do. It is only through his gift of revelation of himself and his gift of the Holy Spirit that we can see his hand at work in his creation.

 

[philadiddle]

Meteorology and the Theory of Evolution can all still be correct even if they don't point to a creator. That has never been my question. My question has been how is that TEs support a Theory that adamently refuses to acknowledge a Creator?

You just don't get it do you? the ToE won't point to a creator because it is SCIENCE.

from dictionary.com;

Science:
-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
-Such activities restricted to a class of NATURAL phenomena.
-Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

God:
-A being of SUPERNATURAL powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

Do you see what keeps them apart? No other science points to God because He is supernatural, and that isn't scientific. But that doesn't mean they deny Him. I repeated this in my last post on this thread but you seemed to skip over that one.

If you believe the ToE to be true, and as a Christian why do you support the Theory being quiet on God being the Creator?
Why is it that it seems so many TEs approve of various things being silent on God? Do you feel being silent about God is a good thing?

it's quiet about God because that is a theological discussion, not a scientific one. the ToE does NOT say "God didn't set this in motion". that's just a misconception IDers have, He may very well have been the reason for it all, but that's not a scientific topic.

Tell me, do you want Jesus to be silent about you when it comes to Him telling the Father about all who believe in Him?

i don't see how this is relevant. i don't hear sermons that save ppl because they talk about evolution and not creation, or vise versa, i hear messages that save ppl because of Jesus love and grace. it's denying science that makes Christianity look foolish.

 

[JBrian]

Looking around in the book of Job I came up with some interesting references to the weather in chapters 36-38. First we have an extremely long discourse by Elihu on the wonders of weather in chapters 36 and 37. Pivotal is this:

(ch 37)

15 Do you know how God controls the clouds
and makes his lightning flash?

16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who is perfect in knowledge?

Then we have a discourse by God Himself:

(ch. 38)

37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens

38 when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?

Now, in the light of this, doesn't meteorology pose a problem for the believing Christian? After all, the Bible says that God holds lightning bolts in His hands (36:30, 32), that both thunder and snow are the result of God's breath (37:4, 10), that there are storehouses of snow and hail (38:22, 23) and that lightning and east winds are dispersed from a central location (38:24). All these are absurd in the light of meteorology.

Furthermore, even if one takes these passages as poetic and not literal (even though AiG says there is no dichotomy between spiritual and secular knowledge, and that the Bible has absolute scientific authority, and the passage goes from describing weather to wildlife in a stroke, showing that God is conveying knowledge about the world and therefore this is a "scientific declaration" by their standards as much as is Genesis 1 and 2), there still is the central issue of who's in charge. The Bible tells us that all weather is caused by God. God is responsible for everything from rain to thunder. And yet modern meteorology says that God is not responsible and God is not in control. Modern meteorology starts with the assumption that orderly patterns of heat and pressure are responsible for weather, and not God. God is not needed in meteorology. Furthermore, atmospheric studies tell us how clouds hang in the sky; satellites are used to count clouds and watch how they are controlled and look at the sun; while cloud-seeding techniques can control where rain falls; contrary to direct injunctions that these mark the boundaries between man and God's area of dominion (37:14-17, 21, 38:37-38).

So meteorology is evil because it denies God. Why do the same Christians who denounce evolution believe in atheistic weather reports?

I don't understand why God can't use the "causes of weather" eg, the atmospheric conditions in his plan. Why does God have to do everything in a purely supernaturalistic way? Why can't he use natural laws to accomplish his work? He does. Just because moder meteorology says that we don't need God does not mean that God is not using the atmospheric conditions.

 

[shernren]

I don't understand why God can't use the "causes of weather" eg, the atmospheric conditions in his plan. Why does God have to do everything in a purely supernaturalistic way? Why can't he use natural laws to accomplish his work? He does. Just because moder meteorology says that we don't need God does not mean that God is not using the atmospheric conditions.

(emphasis added)

Precisely! Meteorology is fine even though it says that we don't need God. So why is evolution a theory spawned in hell just because it "says" that we "don't need" God?

 

[Critias]

And so is evolution! Yay! ... I guess I might not have been very clear but it was more of a "parody" post than anything I really believe in. I myself don't believe that meteorology is atheistic either - I just did an entire physics project on weather satellites - but I was showing that by the same criteria used to judge evolution, meteorology is also atheistic.

I can see that we're getting somewhere, Critias. I'm glad that I'm finally starting to understand your objections and I hope you'll understand why I don't face the same objections in my faith.



What exactly do you mean by "adamantly refuses to acknowledge a Creator"? I can think of two possible explanations:

1. Evolution inspires a lot of atheist thinking.

Well, that is true, but at the same time proper Christian ideas have spawned very improper actions too (like the Inquisition and the Crusades). The fact that evil people can twist perfectly neutral theories like evolution doesn't mean that evolution is evil in and of itself.

2. Evolution allows an explanation of creation that doesn't require a Creator.

In that case I answered that objection above. Meteorology allows an explanation of weather that doesn't require God to control the weather, and evolution allows an explanation of creation that doesn't require a Creator. It's parallel. The reason for this is that science, in general, creates physical explanations that do not require the supernatural. That's precisely what science does. It breaks down physical phenomena into cause-effect relationships. It takes events that seemed to be supernatural and random and explains them in terms of predictable, measurable causes. That is simply what science does. If you want supernatural and un-measurable causes you can't simply turn to creation science you have to abandon science altogether, in explaining a particular occurrence.



Because it's how science works. I know this is repeated ad nauseam but science at all - creation science, evolution science - is supposed to be quiet on God. Expecting science to talk about God is like expecting ants to talk about human politics. They're different levels altogether. I hope I've made this clear, you know. What do you think? What theories of science, can you suggest, aren't quiet on God? If you can't raise any you can't expect evolution to be one.



I'm not sure which arena you are talking about in particular, but I'll assume you're either referring to the world of scientific peer review or the world of science education. For the first: by the very nature of science God doesn't come into the picture. (If you don't like it go ask God why He created perfectly coherent natural laws that run the world and make it look like He's not needed. He could easily have made this world a world of magic with curses and spells and divine intervention 24-7.) Any experimenter - Christian, Buddhist, atheist, whateverist - given the same experimental setup is supposed to get the same result, within reasonable bounds of error. Science is objective. But of course, science glorifies God by pointing to a rational God who was smart enough to design what is basically a self-running world. *points to Augustine quote on the "creation science denies God!" thread*

Secondly, when it comes to the school education system. I agree that evolution should not be taught as dogma. But it should not be taught as if there are scientific alternatives either. I agree that there are holes and gaps in our knowledge. I agree that abiogenesis is sketchy and human evolution is a mess, but everything in between is reasonably solid, not to mention the entire non-biological edifice of old-earth geology and Big Bang cosmology. Children should be told that creationism exists and that some people believe in it. But they should not be told that creationism is scientific ... because it is not. If creationism was scientific i.e. creation science it would stop pointing to God.

The school is a civil institution and not a religious institution, and the doctrine of separation of church and state is very real and very necessary. If the USA declares itself an official Christian country because the majority of its citizens are Christian, that opens the door for India to call itself a Hindu country and my own country to call itself a Muslim country. If Christianity is to be taught in schools it can only be taught if students choose it independent of official policy, or if it is taught with equal coverage given to other religions. And if you think you don't have freedom of religion in America, try coming here to Malaysia where it is an official crime to share Christianity with the 60% of people here who are Muslims.



There is a fine line between being bold for Jesus and being berserk for Jesus. Throwing evolution out of biology in schools would officially cross that line.

Well, then we will just have to agree to disagree. I do not believe in there being places where it is ok to be silent about Jesus Christ and what He has done.

Try going to Iran where you can be killed for being a Christian, yet Christians there won't be silent about the One who came and died for them.
Only in places like America, where the people are complacent, will they agree that it is ok the be silent about Jesus Christ.

 

[Critias]

You just don't get it do you? the ToE won't point to a creator because it is SCIENCE.

from dictionary.com;

Science:
-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
-Such activities restricted to a class of NATURAL phenomena.
-Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

God:
-A being of SUPERNATURAL powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

Do you see what keeps them apart? No other science points to God because He is supernatural, and that isn't scientific. But that doesn't mean they deny Him. I repeated this in my last post on this thread but you seemed to skip over that one.

it's quiet about God because that is a theological discussion, not a scientific one. the ToE does NOT say "God didn't set this in motion". that's just a misconception IDers have, He may very well have been the reason for it all, but that's not a scientific topic.

i don't see how this is relevant. i don't hear sermons that save ppl because they talk about evolution and not creation, or vise versa, i hear messages that save ppl because of Jesus love and grace. it's denying science that makes Christianity look foolish.

You don't need to have a theological discussion to give credit to God.

I know people who have been saved because of hearing creation when they believed in evolution.

Is Jesus the King and High Priest or is He separated into two to carry out each apart from one another?

It is refusing to speak of God because man says you shouldn't that makes Christians look foolish. Judge for yourself who is better to listen to, man or God.

 

[philadiddle]

(emphasis added)

Precisely! Meteorology is fine even though it says that we don't need God. So why is evolution a theory spawned in hell just because it "says" that we "don't need" God?

this, almost word for word, would have been my response.

Well, then we will just have to agree to disagree. I do not believe in there being places where it is ok to be silent about Jesus Christ and what He has done.

this is rediculous. are u saying we should incorporate the message of the cross into 5th grade math class dealing with fractions? what about 12th grade physics? what about 7th year university quantum physics? are the teachers being silent about what Jesus has done? are they denying Him the glory for setting that stuff up?

Try going to Iran where you can be killed for being a Christian, yet Christians there won't be silent about the One who came and died for them.
Only in places like America, where the people are complacent, will they agree that it is ok the be silent about Jesus Christ.

not talking about God in science has nothing to do with being complacent, it has to do with the fact that God is supernatural, and science deals only with the natural. this has been said in this thread now about a dozen times and no YEC has quoted it to respond to it.

 

[philadiddle]

You don't need to have a theological discussion to give credit to God.

so how then? i kinda see what you mean but maybe you could elaborate and give me a detailed explanation on how God isn't theological or philosophical.

I know people who have been saved because of hearing creation when they believed in evolution.

and i know ppl that were taught that creationism HAD TO BE TRUE, and that Genesis can only be interpreted as literal. then they got an education and learned all the evidence pointing to evolution, and it shook their faith.

It is refusing to speak of God because man says you shouldn't that makes Christians look foolish. Judge for yourself who is better to listen to, man or God.

i don't refuse to speak about God, and it is better to listen to God, that's why, when we study the evidence of His creation, we see that evolution is the most logical conclusion based on the evidence thus far.

BTW, my father is a minister (happens to be YEC) but he told me in his 40 years of ministry it's never even been an issue, he's never saved anyone with a creation message, ppl get saved because of personal emotional and spiritual reasons.

 

[Critias]

(emphasis added)

Precisely! Meteorology is fine even though it says that we don't need God. So why is evolution a theory spawned in hell just because it "says" that we "don't need" God?

You don't see anything wrong with the above piece that I bolded [we don't need God], shernren?

 

[philadiddle]

critias, y do you not respond to my posts? the only response you gave me was that u quoted the whole post and then made a vague comment as if you made a point. I'd really like to hear a YEC debate the things i've said

 

[Critias]

I haven't responded to you because I was speaking with shernren. My apologies for not addressing your concerns.

You just don't get it do you? the ToE won't point to a creator because it is SCIENCE.

I am quite aware of what science is and what it means. Are you aware that in science there are numerous statements such as "could be", "might be", "speculated as", etc? These statements can be found in many presentations of the Evolutionary Theory and many of them don't have the backing of observations or even experimental investigations, as your definition states.

Are you aware that the late Francis Crick put forth science material postulating that aliens created mankind? And yet, we see the assertions made that science cannot deal with a Creator such as God, but can deal with postulating aliens as a creator.

from dictionary.com;

Science:
-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
-Such activities restricted to a class of NATURAL phenomena.
-Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

God:
-A being of SUPERNATURAL powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

Do you see what keeps them apart? No other science points to God because He is supernatural, and that isn't scientific. But that doesn't mean they deny Him. I repeated this in my last post on this thread but you seemed to skip over that one.

But it is acceptable to point to something other than God as a creator within science.

Do you believe being silent about Jesus Christ is not the same as denying Him?

In the other thread, you again interjected into a conversation I was having with someone else. In aiding myself to keep up with responding to others whom I was currently speaking with, I skipped your response. It wasn't personal, just trying to be able to keep up with everyone.

it's quiet about God because that is a theological discussion, not a scientific one. the ToE does NOT say "God didn't set this in motion". that's just a misconception IDers have, He may very well have been the reason for it all, but that's not a scientific topic.

It isn't a theological discussion to say that there is a creator or even that God is the Creator and leave it at that.

ID'rs are the ones who are trying to say that there must have been an intelligent Creator behind all of this that we see. It was again, intelligent scientists like Francis Crick who said it is impossible for life to come from non-life because a single cell is vastly too complex. This doesn't directly speak to the evolutionary theory, but abiogenesis, but even here in science, Crick refers to something greater as a creator. He later, in many papers, postulates this 'creator' as aliens.

Yet, TEs here say science cannot speak of a creator and we see otherwise in science when it doesn't involve God. Is that the point you want to make, that it is ok to point to creator as long as it is not the God of the Bible?

i don't see how this is relevant. i don't hear sermons that save ppl because they talk about evolution and not creation, or vise versa, i hear messages that save ppl because of Jesus love and grace. it's denying science that makes Christianity look foolish.

It is relevant because many TEs support being silent about God and what God has done when it is spoken about publically. Do you want Jesus to extend the same attitude as many TEs here when it comes to receiving eternal life or not?

 

[f U z ! o N]

if you honestly believe meteorology is wrong because they don't mention God something is SERIOUSLY WRONG with you. Science does not deny or accept the supernatural. To say God did it is wrong. Science trys to explain through natural phenomena. You can say thats God controlling it but in science you can't say God did it because that won't work.

 

[philadiddle]

I haven't responded to you because I was speaking with shernren. My apologies for not addressing your concerns.

fair enough

I am quite aware of what science is and what it means.

yet u insist on science talking about God.

Are you aware that in science there are numerous statements such as "could be", "might be", "speculated as", etc? These statements can be found in many presentations of the Evolutionary Theory and many of them don't have the backing of observations or even experimental investigations, as your definition states.

when someone investigates a murder they start with could be, might be, speculated as, etc. then they examine the evidence to see if their "could be" would work or not. when all the evidence is examined inductive reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning) is used. this means that in light of all the evidence gathered a conclusion can be made. this conclusion may possibly be wrong but until some contradictory evidence is found it is reasonable to assume the conclusion is correct. In the case of evolution, the nested groups of animals within larger groups suggest evolution. that alone doesn't prove evolution. evidence that coincides with that is that the fossil record has the order of animals that is required for evolution to be true, otherwise you would find cats alongside triceratops.

you aware that the late Francis Crick put forth science material postulating that aliens created mankind? And yet, we see the assertions made that science cannot deal with a Creator such as God, but can deal with postulating aliens as a creator.

it's just speculation, i don't see aliens as leading explanation for life on earth. it's a view held by a minority, not by all scientists

Do you believe being silent about Jesus Christ is not the same as denying Him?

as i said in a previous post, not talking about Jesus while teaching grade 12 physics isn't denying Him, just like talking about evolution isn't denying Him. I believe that God created the universe to evolve in a way that would create earth which would evolve in a way that would create life that would evolve into humans. that's pretty awesome to be able to set up the laws of the universe so precisly. the glory goes to God!

It isn't a theological discussion to say that there is a creator or even that God is the Creator and leave it at that.

if it's not theological or philosophical could you pls define what it is?

ID'rs are the ones who are trying to say that there must have been an intelligent Creator behind all of this that we see. It was again, intelligent scientists like Francis Crick who said it is impossible for life to come from non-life because a single cell is vastly too complex. This doesn't directly speak to the evolutionary theory, but abiogenesis, but even here in science, Crick refers to something greater as a creator. He later, in many papers, postulates this 'creator' as aliens.

so you're saying that scientists think evolution needs a creator, but didn't you say earlier that the ToE doesn't need a creator? now you're confusing me. what exactly does the ToE say about God?

Yet, TEs here say science cannot speak of a creator and we see otherwise in science when it doesn't involve God.

maybe it's just me but that doesn't make sense.

Is that the point you want to make, that it is ok to point to creator as long as it is not the God of the Bible?

don't put words in my mouth. I give all the glory to God. I don't talk to ppl in ministry and say "hey do you know we evolved?!!" and then not talk about God at all. in fact, when witnessing to my friends evolution doesn't even come up. Jesus gift of salvation is what i like to talk about. when i was a YEC (for most of my life) i found that some of my friends found it silly that the Bible says otherwise, therefore evolution can't be true. had i just focused on what mattered, their relationship with Jesus, they may have been saved.

It is relevant because many TEs support being silent about God and what God has done when it is spoken about publically.

if they "supported being silent" then they wouldn't be TE, they would just be evolutionists. you see, the "T" stands for theistic, meaning they believe God had a hand in it. when are TEs silent about God?