What's your view?

[TheReasoner]

That's my point exactly. I tend not to say, "well, this can't be explained through science so God must have done it." Then if science finds an explanation, it pushes God out of the picture. God gets minimized more and more. I think you can just look at the things that we do understand and appreciate God's works. The fact that our brain is nothing more than cells and chemical reactions, but it allows us to think critically and feel emotions. You can explain how it works, but why it was created that way is more of a philosophical question. There is where you can appreciate God's handy work.

Aye. There's a nun I know of who is also a particle physicist. Her words often echo in my mind:
Science explains how, faith explains why. (Translated from memory)

I think she's absolutely right! And I think it's a shame - a real shame - she will not procreate. We need more people like that raising kids, and less of the mindlocked fanatics IMO. Oh well. C'est la vie, I suppose.

 

[selfinflikted]

You can explain how it works, but why it was created that way is more of a philosophical question. There is where you can appreciate God's handy work.

Why does there have to be a reason why? For me, it just is. And until I am overwhelmed by some form of evidence that there is indeed a god (and thus a reason why), I won't be putting all my eggs in that particular basket.

 

[Michael]

Aye.

You know what else I find funny? I mentioned the church fathers - feel free to read Augustin, he goes on talking about Genesis actually. Interesting read.
But in addition to that the oldest forms of christianity around do not to my knowledge have any problem with evolution. Or big bang.
If you read what the Orthodox churches or even the catholic church - though I find that more boring - have to say on the subject you find that the churches who are the most conservative in the world - theologically - and who can trace their lineage back to the very beginning of the faith have no problem with evolution. They view genesis completely differently to what the more charismatic and new churches do.

True. It's really hard to imagine why a 'religion' would need to come into conflict with ANY particular scientific theory.

FYI, you'll also find if you read some of Origen's writings, he espoused the concept of universal salvation rather than perpetual torment for "sinners". It's interesting when you study to history to see how much 'change' has occurred over time, and how many "branches" there have actually been in "Christianity".

Universal reconciliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many YEC's/Evolutionary theory critics I've met seem to "assume" that they speak for "most" Christians when in fact they represent a minority viewpoint on that topic even today.

 

[Doveaman]

The only problem I'm pointing out is that if you assign God as the cause to everything that is unknown, if science ever figures it out, it seems that it minimizes the need for God.

God is involved in everything in some way.

After all, He is sovereign.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isa 45:7).

 

[RickG]

So this isn't a creation vs. evolution thread per se. I was debating with some friends of mine a recent bill in the state of Tennessee that allows teachers to bring up strengths and weaknesses of topics like evolution. It doesn't change the actual state curriculum. In my point of view, any scientific topic that holds water should be able to take on any opposing views on its own evidence. So I started thinking.

School (education) is about teaching facts. The trouble with creation science is that it is not a different perspective, it is deliberately misrepresented facts.

 

[Doveaman]

Even the church fathers did not read genesis 1 literally AV. That's a fairly new concept. So why do you, when it is even inconsistent with itself?
(I still have not had an answer to that question from you guys)

I think you have. You probably ignored it.

The Bible was written by the church fathers, and one of the most prominent church fathers (the apostle Paul) read Genesis 1 literally.

I can even quote him if you like.


Perhaps you are referring to some other church fathers who are not really church fathers at all.

 

[Doveaman]

I mentioned the church fathers - feel free to read Augustin, he goes on talking about Genesis actually. Interesting read.

Oh, I get it.

 

[Doveaman]

There's a nun I know of who is also a particle physicist. Her words often echo in my mind:
Science explains how, faith explains why.

How was Jesus born to a virgin?

How did He turn water into wine?

How did He rise from the dead?

Does she know?

 

[thegandyman]

Well, this isn't exactly the direction in which I was hoping to go, but, it is what it is.

But, you're right. The Big Bang is only a theory (as if that diminishes it's validity somehow - gravity, it's only a theory ya know ) that of course isn't exactly reproducible in the lab. But simply because we can't reproduce it, doesn't mean we can't make valid extrapolations from what we can see.

Anyway, this atheist doesn't "go to" string theory, multi-verse, or anything else. This atheist is quite content, for the time being at least, to say, "I don't know." But that hardly gives me cause to conclude a goddidit scenario. Some people like any old answer at all better than no answer. I'd prefer no answer to a wrong one.

Fair enough. Well, most everything in science is theory. Somebody always could come along and discredit Big Bang though I seriously doubt it will happen in my life time if it happens. I also don't like to make God the answer for all the unknowns. I would rather observe God in what we do know.

 

[thegandyman]

I think you have. You probably ignored it.

The Bible was written by the church fathers, and one of the most prominent church fathers (the apostle Paul) read Genesis 1 literally.

I can even quote him if you like.


Perhaps you are referring to some other church fathers who are not really church fathers at all.

Paul wasn't God though. Even he had just a man's interpretation. He possibly had less to go on since he lived in an era where science was very limited. He thought the world would be ending soon. Obviously he was wrong. That doesn't make his Epistles wrong or any less worthy of being in the Bible. I don't think anybody makes it to heaven based on whether they're a young earther, older earther, evolutionist, or whatever.

 

[Doveaman]

Paul wasn't God though. Even he had just a man's interpretation.

When you question the credibility of the biblical authors it brings your credibility into question.

He possibly had less to go on since he lived in an era where science was very limited.

He had God.

He thought the world would be ending soon. Obviously he was wrong.

The world is ending soon. These are the last days. Paul lived in the last days, and so do we.

That doesn't make his Epistles wrong or any less worthy of being in the Bible.

If he was wrong on one point, as you claim, what's to prevent him from being wrong on others. According to you, it's possible that some future scientific discovery can prove him wrong on others. So why believe anything he says now?

I don't think anybody makes it to heaven based on whether they're a young earther, older earther, evolutionist, or whatever.

You are not going to make it to heaven if you are a "whatever".

 

[thegandyman]

When you question the credibility of the biblical authors it brings your credibility into question.
He had God.
The world is ending soon. These are the last days. Paul lived in the last days, and so do we.
If he was wrong on one point, as you claim, what's to prevent him from being wrong on others. According to you, it's possible that some future scientific discovery can prove him wrong on others. So why believe anything he says now?
You are not going to make it to heaven if you are a "whatever".

Well, I never questioned Paul's credibility. I stated that he was a man and could make mistakes. Every author of the Bible was. However, they were all divinely guided by God to write his Word. Paul was divinely guided by God to write his Epistles, but what were they dealing with? Spiritual guidance not science instruction. I don't think God cares if we ever figure out how he created the earth and life. Genesis wasn't a science book. What would have been the point? The point is the He did it. The Bible is a story of salvation for the world through Jesus Christ. Paul's Epistles complete that story no matter what his personal opinions were.

Science has never and can never prove the Epistles wrong.

 

[driewerf]

There isn't anybody trying to prove the christian creation story either. There are a lot of people claiming to have prove of a young earth? But really doing it? Nobody.

Check out groups like Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International. They have PhD scientists in biology, geology, etc. that go against the grain of consensus to claim the earth to be about 10,000 years old and the universe to be about 1 million years old.

They have the titles, yes. But they don't do any resaerch.

 

[thegandyman]

They have the titles, yes. But they don't do any resaerch.

They have statistics and data if you actually look at their articles. You may not agree with their facts, but they are there to dispute.

 

[TheReasoner]

How was Jesus born to a virgin?

How did He turn water into wine?

How did He rise from the dead?

Does she know?

Does it matter? He did it. If this was done this way or that... What difference does that make? Is God any less God if He did things one way and not another?

 

[KCfromNC]

When somebody states "evolution is a science fact" does it ever bother you or make you wonder about the other long accepted theories of science that have been discounted: geocentricism, static state universe, spontaneous generation, etc?

More like Newtonian mechanics or the Bohr model of the atom - whatever replaces them will include all of the facts that the older theory explained plus a lot more. See Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong for more of what I mean.

 

[TheReasoner]

I think you have. You probably ignored it.

The Bible was written by the church fathers, and one of the most prominent church fathers (the apostle Paul) read Genesis 1 literally.

I can even quote him if you like.


Perhaps you are referring to some other church fathers who are not really church fathers at all.

Can you bring forth a satisfactory answer, Doveaman? A logically consistent one perhaps? It seems most creationists I have spoken to have justified their view with a series of logical fallacies such as straw man arguments, circular reasoning and other fallacies.
I do not think I have heard a logically consistent explanation for why:

• The first creation story has to be literal and the second ignored
• How one avoids the inconsistencies within the first one
• How the new kids on the block theologically can possibly have the oldest - and most accurate - theological stance
• How God's existence depends on evolution being wrong
• How evolution is somehow antithetical to Christianity
• How a sound ethical foundation is threatened by biological evolution.

I've seen people regurgitating some nonsense on the matter, but never anything which stands up to scrutiny.

That's probably good though. If those flawed thinkers were to be right in their interpretation they will - successfully - have disproven christianity. Piled it up with all the other dead religions as yet another man-made hoax.


What you do not appear to get is that OPINION does not remove or alter HARD FACTS. Just as you can't make Napoleon a velociraptor if you just believe enough, you cannot discount genetics, geology, physics, chemistry at will. You can delude yourself into thinking Napoleon was a velociraptor, but that will not change the facts.

You can keep pushing the agenda. Say that what is known to be true is false in a good 1984 style, though applied to science not society. Or, you can realize that, hey, you're human beings. And you've been wrong. That's not a big deal. Interpretations have been shown to be wrong before. Geocentrism is one such. If you stick to it though, you'll shove people away from Christ. The Christian message is not one of ignorance, but of love. So - shift your focus perhaps? Start applying your energy to anti-war protests. To humanitarian aid. To medical research. Great good can come of such energy well applied.

 

[thegandyman]

This seems like it's starting to become more theological debate than anything. I realize that when you discuss topics like creation that theology is bound to come in, but I would prefer if we kept it less on what the founding church fathers thought or believe and more on what could you give in terms of evidence.

 

[Doveaman]

Does it matter? He did it. If this was done this way or that... What difference does that make? Is God any less God if He did things one way and not another?

I was simply responding to this:

There's a nun I know of who is also a particle physicist. Her words often echo in my mind:
Science explains how, faith explains why.

If science explains how, then tells us:

How was Jesus born to a virgin?

How did He turn water into wine?

How did He rise from the dead?

Can science explain how?

​

 

[Doveaman]

Can you bring forth a satisfactory answer, Doveaman?

I was simply responding to this:

Even the church fathers did not read genesis 1 literally AV. That's a fairly new concept. So why do you, when it is even inconsistent with itself?
(I still have not had an answer to that question from you guys)

The church fathers were not Catholics.

The church fathers were those who actually followed Jesus when he walked the earth, and who were left to establish the Christian Church, and those who were inspired by God to write the Bible.

The Catholic Church did not become a state religion until the 4th century, so quoting Catholic bishops as if they are the authority on truth is meaningless to those whose church history goes back to Christ and his apostles.