Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Since nature is not beholden to satisfy what we think makes sense, it would probably be more wise to actually see what the rules nature abides by say. Have you looked at the physics involved in the first few minutes after the big bang?

Should be easy to do, only 6000+/- years ago.

But the real question 6 days and others will ask is "Were you there?" They can ask that since they claim an eyewitness on their side.
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dear All,

If God told us more, we would only ask more questions. We can never be satiated. It would boggle our minds to know much more about Him. So He keeps it simple enough for us. You want Him to tell you what He did before Earth's beginning?? I just know that the minute He told you, you would barrage Him with other questions. There has to be a limit. Man doesn't agree now, much less if things were different. Keep all the brain cells you have. You're going to need them, after Armageddon. Those who stay on Earth will need them. Well, I'm going to call it an early night!!

May God Be With Each Of You!!

Michael
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER

Dear patrick jane,

Don't be troubled. Whales are like fish, but they are mammals, nevertheless.

In case you wanted to know!

Michael

 

alwight

New member
Dear All,

If God told us more, we would only ask more questions. We can never be satiated. It would boggle our minds to know much more about Him. So He keeps it simple enough for us. You want Him to tell you what He did before Earth's beginning?? I just know that the minute He told you, you would barrage Him with other questions. There has to be a limit. Man doesn't agree now, much less if things were different. Keep all the brain cells you have. You're going to need them, after Armageddon. Those who stay on Earth will need them. Well, I'm going to call it an early night!!

May God Be With Each Of You!!

Michael
So God doesn't want to be annoyed by silly humans asking silly questions Michael?
I wonder, do you need to get a haircut in heaven? :think:
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
So God doesn't want to be annoyed by silly humans asking silly questions Michael?
I wonder, do you need to get a haircut in heaven? :think:


Dear alwight,

Oh oh!! No, you don't need to get a haircut in heaven. That will be a given. God already puts up with enough silly questions from humans.

Warmest Regards & Cheerio, Matey!!

Michael

:shocked:
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dear All,

There is also no marriage in Heaven, nor male and female. We are all children of God!!

The more you teach people, the more questions they have, it seems. They go around asking "Why" or "How" just like a little kid. I'm not saying it's wrong. It's just God is teaching us all the basics right now, to get you into Heaven, and a lot of it depends on Faith!!

Praise God!! Much Love Coming Your Way,

Michael
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Dear All,

If God told us more, we would only ask more questions. We can never be satiated. It would boggle our minds to know much more about Him. So He keeps it simple enough for us. You want Him to tell you what He did before Earth's beginning?? I just know that the minute He told you, you would barrage Him with other questions. There has to be a limit. Man doesn't agree now, much less if things were different. Keep all the brain cells you have. You're going to need them, after Armageddon. Those who stay on Earth will need them. Well, I'm going to call it an early night!!

May God Be With Each Of You!!

Michael

That doesn't sound like the real Michael !!
 

DavisBJ

New member
Fortunately science is not a system of following along with whatever the mainstream flavor is.
I see you focused on my use of the word “mainstream”, so as to not have to respond to the real issue I was asking about. You say we all perform science in the same manner. Then why the clear diversity in what our scientific conclusions are?
Science is performed by observing, questioning, experimenting and integrating new knowledge.
I generally like this, and I note it includes no provisions for using a religious document as an ultimate and inviolable standard to measure against. And also, what is a scientist to do when the process you allude to clearly indicates that beliefs the scientist initially had are almost certainly wrong?
Science is no threat in the slightest.
What was the incentive for the Scopes trial in Tennessee some 90 years ago?
In fact..... science can be / should be another means of worshipping our Creator."
By “Creator” I think you mean some type of supreme intelligent entity that deliberately formed us. For me it is implicitly ludicrous to worship such, by science or any other way, since I don’t believe it exists.
Henry Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): said "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
I can’t tell if Schaefer is thinking of God like Einstein did - in a metaphorical sense – or if he was expressing a typical feeling shared by many believers. (Nor do I see that it matters.)
Albert Einstein even seemed to think science was a form of worship even though he did not know who the Creator was. He said "One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality."
He also wrote, near the end of his life:
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.​
Simply putting a white lab coat on does not suddenly turn the person into a blank slate.
Specifically, which is likely to be the closest to a “blank slate” – a scientist who is committed to following evidence wherever it leads, or a scientist who deeply feels that God’s Word is in direct opposition to common descent and a universe that is millions of years old?
Yes...some of them may be on the ultimate 'losing' team. :) They are on the wrong side of scripture and science.
I will not contest your evident need to stand as judge of their in theological beliefs, but I am unimpressed by you using no more than assertion to contest their science.
There are also physicists, geologists, astronomers, biologists, geneticists etc who agree with scripture that God created everything in six literal days.
If those scientists you mention had no religious belief in a six-day creation, would they come to the same conclusions?
*Generally atheists and agnostics have a philosophical bias as expressed by*Professor Richard Lewontin,"...we have a priori commitment to materialism….”
With all due respect to Lewontin, I tend to side more with Stenger. If God turns a couple of loaves of bread into a feast for a crowd, then that is a clear creation of matter and energy – the stuff physics deals with. Bring it on, let’s figure how many kilograms of new matter showed up, how many calories of new energy we have. That info would be great data. So when that is going to happen – you know, God creating mass and/or energy right in front of a crowd, – will you let me know, and I will bring the instruments and video to record it and to document the actual measured values.
I also said there are some apostate or heretical who reject the gospel message of salvation. Rejection of Genesis sometimes leads to rejection of God's Word in its entirety.
I don’t think I will interject myself in that squabble any more than you would a squabble between two witch doctors.
Either I'm not understanding you...or, that claim is silly. I've often exchanged comments with you and others here how the complexity, sophistication, the language of DNA points to the Creator. We have discussed and argued about which competing view of various things better fits the Biblical young earth view, or the evolutionist old earth view (comets, origin of life, hominids and more)
When I first asked how you know that science supports God’s Word you soon jumped right in with a dissertation about the accuracy of New Testament archaeology. For a few posts since then you have been kinda waffling. But I can go with this – comets, origin of life, and such. I don’t recall that I have been involved (at TOL) in any significant discussions on comets. If you have some reasonably concise info on comets that you think is bullet-proof, then I would like to hear it.

But the way many of these exchanges end up is that each side has “experts” that dispute what the other side says. When that happens, is there any scientific way to move if off being a stalemate?
Well the thing is Davis.... if it was an evolutionist hiring for your mission to Mars; or, if it was a creationist.... they would hire the best scientists possible. They would want people who understand science...period.
I agree. But to use an extreme example to make my point more explicit, we see that one job applicant graduated with respectable grades from MIT, specializing in physics, whereas another applicant graduated from “Aunt Sally’s Homeschool of Hairstyling and Advanced Physics Theory”. Would that information have any bearing on which applicant you might prefer to hire?
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
I can’t tell if Schaefer is thinking of God like Einstein did - in a metaphorical sense – or if he was expressing a typical feeling shared by many believers. (Nor do I see that it matters.)

He also wrote, near the end of his life:
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.​

That's your hero ?

View attachment 20756

Einschhhstein was a believer.
 

DavisBJ

New member
It's illogical to believe there was ever nothing.
That is the explanation some atheists give though...everything came from nothing.

The most logical explanation..."In the beginning, God created..."
I think it is natural to want an easy answer to what appears to be a “something from nothing” conundrum. But real scientists who understand the physics that indicates time itself was created with the universe understand that the physics doesn’t actually extend to true “zero time”, and that that situation is far removed from anything in the world we have learned to understand. Particularly since the advent of “modern physics”, we have had to come to grips with the fact that nature does not operate in intuitive ways in such situations. Saying “we don’t know, but we are carefully extending our understanding into this new realm” is a very wise a prudent course of action.

In contrast, faced with the “How to create when time itself doesn’t exist” apparent logical problem, the religious folks have a handy-dandy solution, just define the creator as existing “outside of time”. In science, normally it is not considered good form to simply toss out a factor that is causing problems in getting an answer, but religions are not constrained by such niceties. And then, with a creator that has been so conveniently defined without the bothersome time constraint, most Christians find it a minor step to define that timeless “Creator” as being their God that they read about in the Bible.

I remember years ago when Bob Enyart – the pastor who is honored with his own subsection of TOL – spent some time mocking the very idea that God (or at least heaven) exists out of time. As Enyart liked to point out, it would be really hard to sing a praise to God in heaven if the very first note can’t ever be completed - because notes are only supposed to last a second or two - and then the next note is supposed to be sung. It would be interesting for one of the Christian regulars to have Bob Enyart join the discussion and explain how to be consistent on whether God exists in or out of time.
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dear 6days & patrickj,

I see no more purpose for me to try to waste the tugs at my heartstrings for people like DavisBJ. I have tried to reach out to him over and over out of the strong love of my heart and I give up trying to help him. I might pop in here once in a while to see what's happening, but otherwise I have little desire to post here anymore. DavisBJ's going to reap what he sows, and he continues to want to bring sore displeasure to God Himself. He deserves everything he gets. I don't know how often I have tried to help you, Davis, but you would not. I leave you to your own devices. Have at it!!

Michael
 

bybee

New member
I view him as a hero in the sense that he had an incredible ability to see and understand fundamental subtleties of physics.

Einstein, very likely, did not subscribe to a religion. But, in his brilliance I believe he understood the call to ..."be still then and know that I am God". Often, it is in stillness that inspiration and revelation may come.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I think it is natural to want an easy answer to what appears to be a “something from nothing” conundrum.

there is an easy answer
and
the hindus discovered it many years ago

it is all an illusion of a non dual nature

there is only one substance

God

everything is part of God
 

TheDuke

New member
Should be easy to do, only 6000+/- years ago.

But the real question 6 days and others will ask is "Were you there?" They can ask that since they claim an eyewitness on their side.

You know, I was baffled when they finally revealed the identity of this eyewitness.

Do you happen to know why they don't just refer to him as the "perpetrator" instead?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top