Evolution, Science, and God

[christundivided]

And modern humanistic science also contradicts Genesis from day 1.
Modern science teaches that light was created before matter but in Genesis 1:2 we have an earth which is formless and void and darkness all around the earth. If there was light - like from the sun before this than it wouldn't be dark.

Now another question would be did God bring light into being by creating the sun (which would mean it would take about 8 minutes 18 seconds for light to get from the sun to the earth) or was it instantaneous? From what we see about God elsewhere in scripture we see that he does things instantaneously that are out of the ordinary.

Maybe, just maybe....the "light" in Gen 1:3-5 wasn't...

"the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible; electromagnetic radiation from about 390 to 740 nm in wavelength"

...all these pesky little questions go away when you consider that option as a possibility.

Maybe.... it isn't. My "maybe" is just as good as your "maybe".

 

[brianb]

The Bible is NOT a science textbook.  :

I never said it was and I'm glad it isn't. Science is based on observation but some scientists will have a theory that they want to prove based on their philosophy. Ancient Greek philosophers already thought that the earth was much older than thousands years old - so the theory is an old one - it just wasn't what the Jews or God's people believed. Even during the time of Darwin there were those who held to what is called the Gap theory (they were not so young earthers) but they never interpreted those 6 days to be long ages. But the Gap theory was eventually rejected by most evangelical Christians.

However whether you believe the earth is 6000+ years or 4.6 Billion+ years old that is just vain thoughts that don't help to edify Christians. This is why early Christians and Jews didn't dwell on questions like this. I know some think it matters when you witness to someone but very rarely does one bring up the subject. Very rarely does an unbeliever say something like "if you believe in a 6000 year old earth than I don't want to hear about how I can be saved".  There are some such as Hugh Ross (PC and TE) who see people saved through their ministry just as some have become believers because of ICR and other YEC ministries.

 

[rsc2a]

The Bible is NOT a science textbook.  :

Amen.

and that means "what" exactly?

"The Bible is NOT a science textbook" means that the Bible is not a science textbook.

Amen means "I agree".

 

[rsc2a]

And modern humanistic science also contradicts Genesis from day 1.
Modern science teaches that light was created before matter but in Genesis 1:2 we have an earth which is formless and void and darkness all around the earth. If there was light - like from the sun before this than it wouldn't be dark.

Now another question would be did God bring light into being by creating the sun (which would mean it would take about 8 minutes 18 seconds for light to get from the sun to the earth) or was it instantaneous? From what we see about God elsewhere in scripture we see that he does things instantaneously that are out of the ordinary.

Maybe, just maybe....the "light" in Gen 1:3-5 wasn't...

"the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible; electromagnetic radiation from about 390 to 740 nm in wavelength"

...all these pesky little questions go away when you consider that option as a possibility.

Maybe.... it isn't. My "maybe" is just as good as your "maybe".

No...your "maybe" isn't anywhere near as good my "maybe".

My "maybe" takes into account the culture in which the text was written, the genre of the text, what the natural world tells us about creation, and a variety of historical interpretations.

Your "maybe" ignores the culture in which it was written, ignores the genre of the text, ignores what the natural law tells us about creation, and is based on limited (in both historicity and acceptance) interpretations of Scripture.

As such, you are most likely wrong.

 

[christundivided]

Yet the laws we do have accurately and predictably explain the data for every type of experiment we throw at them. When they stop working for some reason, we look at our understanding of the laws and revise it. In fact, I cannot think of a single example (there might be one) where a fundamental law of physics was broken so severely that we just tossed the whole thing. (See Einstein vs. Newton again.)

So you going to give me a "law" and then "revise" it again.... again.... and again.... You sound like a politician.

You know.... you really are silly. Your pretending that no one attempted to define the laws of "physics" before Einstein and Newton. Are you that uninformed?

Ever heard of Galileo?

Take a look at this article....

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/06may_lunarranging/

No one. But I still expect friction from my brake pads as they are applied to my rotors to stop my car when I press the brake pedal as a result of hydraulic pressure. If the same family of tests keep giving you the same results, there is a high degree of likelihood that "something" is causing those tests to have those results

Oh yeah.... Hydraulics has something to with "creation". I get it....  :-X

Let me know when you "break" gravity.

See previous article....

Do you think the resurrection might break the "laws of gravity"? How about that "house eternal in the heavens" Paul spoke of after we die.  Do you think we might not know as much as we think we know?

No one is claiming to know all the variables. That would be asinine. No one is claiming to know what happened since creation began. That would be an equally asinine statement. They are about as asinine as holding onto a particular Biblical interpretation in spite of fact that all scientific evidence and (culture) contextual evidence and the vast majority of the historical and (literary) contextual evidence says your interpretation is wrong.

I can think of a few more things that "asinine".....

Question.... Don't run away....

If Science is ALL about "observation". Then just maybe what God told Job may help YOU.

Job 38:4  Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5  Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6  Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7  When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:8  Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
Job 38:9  When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
Job 38:10  And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
Job 38:11  And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
Job 38:12  Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
Job 38:13  That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

If you were not there to "OBSERVE" God action in creation.... then why do you think you know so much about it?

Would you actually try to answer God if he asked YOU these questions?

I'm pretty sure Job did the right thing....

Job 42:1  Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
Job 42:2  I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
Job 42:3  Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

 

[christundivided]

The Bible is NOT a science textbook.  :

Amen.

and that means "what" exactly?

"The Bible is NOT a science textbook" means that the Bible is not a science textbook.

Amen means "I agree".

The Bible isn't a "banana" but that's neither here nor there.

If you're trying to say you can't learn about Science from the Bible.... then you're being silly.

I bet you didn't know that "Newton" often worked on extracting scientific information from the Bible. I suspect that "Newton" wouldn't care for what you just wrote.

 

[rsc2a]

I never said it was and I'm glad it isn't. Science is based on observation but some scientists will have a theory that they want to prove based on their philosophy.

All scientists will.  ;D

The question is whether or not the scientists will recognize their biases and let the evidence inform their thinking instead of their thinking dismiss (or elevate) the evidence.

Ancient Greek philosophers already thought that the earth was much older than thousands years old - so the theory is an old one - it just wasn't what the Jews or God's people believed.

Actually, this isn't true. There were a variety of Jewish and Christian scholars who didn't hold to a YEC interpretation for Genesis.

"We answered to the best of our ability this objection to God's "commanding this first, second, and third thing to be created," when we quoted the words, "He said, and it was done; He commanded, and all things stood fast;" remarking that the immediate Creator, and, as it were, very Maker of the world was the Word, the Son of God; while the Father of the Word, by commanding His own Son--the Word--to create the world, is primarily Creator. And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone, and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." - Origen

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally." - Origen

"But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" - Augustine"

"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar." - Augustine

"Now we have understood that the expression used among these words,

 

[christundivided]

No, non-believers think Christians are ignorant and backwoods because they deny evidence that is so readily observable. I think I'll let Augustine say it since he said it so eloquently:

The #1 problem with no-believers....is the fact that don't "Believe" most anything to do with God. This includes far more important things such as why God would have to die for ANYONE.

I'm sure that "science" in creation hasn't changed too many minds to accept Christ dying for man's sin.

It might make you feel better around your friends to be able to explain creation in the proper light of "Science".... but I can tell you..... Most people are probably just rolling their eyes.

 

[rsc2a]

If you're trying to say you can't learn about Science from the Bible.... then you're being silly.

I guess I'll just have to repeat what has already been stated: The Bible is not a science textbook.

I bet you didn't know that "Newton" often worked on extracting scientific information from the Bible. I suspect that "Newton" wouldn't care for what you just wrote.

What is the Scripture reference for the 3rd law of thermodynamics?

Yet the laws we do have accurately and predictably explain the data for every type of experiment we throw at them. When they stop working for some reason, we look at our understanding of the laws and revise it. In fact, I cannot think of a single example (there might be one) where a fundamental law of physics was broken so severely that we just tossed the whole thing. (See Einstein vs. Newton again.)

So you going to give me a "law" and then "revise" it again.... again.... and again.... You sound like a politician.

Do you know anything at all about science?

You know.... you really are silly. Your pretending that no one attempted to define the laws of "physics" before Einstein and Newton. Are you that uninformed?

Ever heard of Galileo?

What in the world are you even talking about? Your comments make no sense.

No one. But I still expect friction from my brake pads as they are applied to my rotors to stop my car when I press the brake pedal as a result of hydraulic pressure. If the same family of tests keep giving you the same results, there is a high degree of likelihood that "something" is causing those tests to have those results

Oh yeah.... Hydraulics has something to with "creation". I get it....  :-X

It does. That's the whole point.

Let me know when you "break" gravity.

See previous article....

You mean this?

"Scientists have been pinging the Moon since the Apollo days. So far, Einstein's theory of gravity--and the Equivalence Principle--has held up to a precision of a few parts in 10^13"

Do you think the resurrection might break the "laws of gravity"? How about that "house eternal in the heavens" Paul spoke of after we die.  Do you think we might not know as much as we think we know?

Are you trying to equate the natural with the supernatural?  I don't recommend throwing the gun when you run out of bullets.

No one is claiming to know all the variables. That would be asinine. No one is claiming to know what happened since creation began. That would be an equally asinine statement. They are about as asinine as holding onto a particular Biblical interpretation in spite of fact that all scientific evidence and (culture) contextual evidence and the vast majority of the historical and (literary) contextual evidence says your interpretation is wrong.

I can think of a few more things that "asinine".....

You don't want to address the actual problems with what you are saying?

Question.... Don't run away....

If Science is ALL about "observation". Then just maybe what God told Job may help YOU.

Job 38:4  Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5  Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6  Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7  When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:8  Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
Job 38:9  When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
Job 38:10  And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
Job 38:11  And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
Job 38:12  Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
Job 38:13  That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

If you were not there to "OBSERVE" God action in creation.... then why do you think you know so much about it?

Would you actually try to answer God if he asked YOU these questions?

I'm pretty sure Job did the right thing....

Job 42:1  Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
Job 42:2  I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
Job 42:3  Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

hehehe.....

I'll answer that question as soon as you answer these questions about the text you provided....I need the answers so I can give a full response:

Where are the doors that shut up the seas?
What kind of material is that garment made out of?
Where are the foundations of the earth?
What about the cornerstone?
Where are the ends of the earth?

 

[Izdaari]

And: What have I got in my pocket?

 

[christundivided]

What is the Scripture reference for the 3rd law of thermodynamics?

Why did you choose the "3rd" law? Was it a random reference?

Either way.... Do all of them have to be there for any of them to be there?

It does. That's the whole point.

Scientifically explain it for me...

Are you trying to equate the natural with the supernatural?  I don't recommend throwing the gun when you run out of bullets.

You can't be this dumb. Guns and bullets are both "natural". What a analogy. Usually analogies match the preceding comments.

I'll answer that question as soon as you answer these questions about the text you provided....I need the answers so I can give a full response:

Where are the doors that shut up the seas?
What kind of material is that garment made out of?
Where are the foundations of the earth?
What about the cornerstone?
Where are the ends of the earth?

LOL...

Then by all mean..... just reference verse 4

Job 38:4  Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Either way.... metaphoric references used by God...... doesn't preclude the fact, "Job", didn't know what he was talking about.

Do you?

Did you OBSERVE creation? Isn't Science all about "OBSERVATION"?

 

[christundivided]

And: What have I got in my pocket?

Dust, lint, leftover detergent residue, dead skins cells, a small amount of oxygen and various aromas....    8)

 

[rsc2a]

What is the Scripture reference for the 3rd law of thermodynamics?

Why did you choose the "3rd" law? Was it a random reference?

Either way.... Do all of them have to be there for any of them to be there?

Totally random. Doesn't matter anyways since you completely missed the point.

It does. That's the whole point.

Scientifically explain it for me...

At creation, God wired the universe to operate a certain way. Those pesky laws and constants that govern hydraulics would be included in that wiring.

Are you trying to equate the natural with the supernatural?  I don't recommend throwing the gun when you run out of bullets.

You can't be this dumb. Guns are bullets are both "natural". What a analogy. Usually analogies match the preceding comments.

So you were trying to equate the supernatural with the natural...

I'll answer that question as soon as you answer these questions about the text you provided....I need the answers so I can give a full response:

Where are the doors that shut up the seas?
What kind of material is that garment made out of?
Where are the foundations of the earth?
What about the cornerstone?
Where are the ends of the earth?

LOL...

Then by all mean..... just reference verse 4

Job 38:4  Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Either way.... metaphoric references used by God...... doesn't preclude the fact "Job" didn't know what he was talking about.

Ah! A glimmer....you're starting to recognize genre. Let's go a little deeper...what was the point that God was making to Job in this exchange? What point was the human author trying to convey to his audience?

Do you? Did you OBSERVE creation? Isn't Science all about "OBSERVATION"?

Observe creation? No. Observe the laws that govern the universe, absolutely. And those laws say that a YEC view is bogus.

 

[christundivided]

Ah! A glimmer....you're starting to recognize genre. Let's go a little deeper...what was the point that God was making to Job in this exchange? What point was the human author trying to convey to his audience?

You tell me.... I know you will. No need for me to explain it when you can do it for me.

Observe creation? No. Observe the laws that govern the universe, absolutely. And those laws say that a YEC view is bogus.

So you didn't OBSERVE the creation act..... nor take part in it... SO...... you have totally missed out on the core "Scientific" principle of "OBSERVATION". ALSO...

You haven't OBSERVED the span of time between the time of creation till now. You haven't confined all these variables into a "controlled environment" and ran base lines to establish definable limits and boundaries......

ALL you have..... is what you call "laws that govern the universe".

Just as an unbiased....outside observer....

you're not hitting on much when it comes to Scientific principles.

 

[rsc2a]

Ah! A glimmer....you're starting to recognize genre. Let's go a little deeper...what was the point that God was making to Job in this exchange? What point was the human author trying to convey to his audience?

You tell me.... I know you will. No need for me to explain it when you can do it for me.

I find people learn better as they work through the problem themselves. So what was the God's point in this passage? How about the human author's?

So you didn't OBSERVE the creation act..... nor take part in it... SO...... you have totally missed out on the core "Scientific" principle of "OBSERVATION". ALSO...

You haven't OBSERVED the span of time between the time of creation till now.

*shakes head sadly*

Do you not realize that one does not have to necessarily observe point T=0 in order to determine cause? Often enough, observing the effects over time will reveal what the cause is. This is elementary physics we are talking about here. Seriously...half the problems I dealt with in my dynamics classes dealt with determining conditions at T=0 knowing conditions at T=x, T=y, and T=z.

In case, you don't really get the physics, we can switch to practical biology. I didn't observe the spermatozoon join with the ova when any of my children were conceived. Yet, enough children have been conceived so that the cause is obvious even if we can only observe the effects.

You haven't confined all these variables into a "controlled environment" and ran base lines to establish definable limits and boundaries......

Actually, that work has been done. Remember that article you erroneously posted earlier?

ALL you have..... is what you call "laws that govern the universe".

Where do you think those laws came from? I'll give you a hint: someone "confined all these variables into a "controlled environment" and ran base lines to establish definable limits and boundaries".

Just as an unbiased....outside observer....

you're not hitting on much when it comes to Scientific principles.

Based on what I've seen regarding your analytical abilities and general scientific knowledge, that would be like the mechanic criticizing the cardiologist for not closing up an artery the right way.

 

[christundivided]

Based on what I've seen regarding your analytical abilities and general scientific knowledge, that would be like the mechanic criticizing the cardiologist for not closing up an artery the right way.

Humm.....

Don't blame the mechanic for complaining when he's got blood pooling in his chest....

Many cardiologist can quote a biology book from cover to cover but that doesn't mean they don't make mistakes or that can make a practical application of that knowledge. Some of those mistakes are fatal.

I personally believe..... you should be charged with Scientific malpractice....

In case, you don't really get the physics, we can switch to practical biology. I didn't observe the spermatozoon join with the ova when any of my children were conceived. Yet, enough children have been conceived so that the cause is obvious even if we can only observe the effects.

In such a scenario....All you have is a circumstantial understanding of "conception".

Does the term "eye witness"... mean anything to you?

There are a lot of murders running around free because "science" couldn't determine who did it from all the "circumstantial" evidence.

Thank God you're not a "Judge" of anyone. You'd find everyone guilty of murder because you know a "human being" committed the crime..... 

 

[Izdaari]

And: What have I got in my pocket?

Dust, lint, leftover detergent residue, dead skins cells, a small amount of oxygen and various aromas....    8)

Pretty good guess, but actually it was just a reference to The Hobbit, Bilbo's riddle game with Gollum. 

 

[rsc2a]

In case, you don't really get the physics, we can switch to practical biology. I didn't observe the spermatozoon join with the ova when any of my children were conceived. Yet, enough children have been conceived so that the cause is obvious even if we can only observe the effects.

In such a scenario....All you have is a circumstantial understanding of "conception".

Does the term "eye witness"... mean anything to you?

There are a lot of murders running around free because "science" couldn't determine who did it from all the "circumstantial" evidence.

Thank God you're not a "Judge" of anyone. You'd find everyone guilty of murder because you know a "human being" committed the crime..... 

Ok....you are not allowed to use the word "science" anymore.

 

[redgreen5]

So you didn't OBSERVE the creation act..... nor take part in it... SO...... you have totally missed out on the core "Scientific" principle of "OBSERVATION". ALSO...

Sounds like someone here doesn't understand what the scientific requirement "observation" actually means.  :

Observation in science is the observation of experimental data. There is *no* requirement in science that you have to be present to witness an event, in order to make valid scientific deductions about the event. That's obvious nonsense that most people would realize, if they would slow down and think about it for a moment. 

Being a first-hand witness *cannot* be a requirement of science; because if it were, then forensic investigation (like at a murder scene) could never be done.  How do you investigate a murder scene, if there are no first-hand witnesses?  If someone breaks into your house and there are no witnesses, does that mean you cannot draw any conclusions from the evidence (broken window, muddy footprints, china cabinet broken, etc.)?

You fundamentally misunderstand what "scientific observation" means.

What it actually means is that the observational data that you record about the event - for example, the number of drops of blood on the floor, the blood type of the victim, etc. must be reproducible.  Other people must be able to run the same tests on the evidence, and arrive at the same answers.  There is actually a formalized six-step method (called the Scientific Method) that uses scientific observation. 

In the field of biology, geology, etc. there are often no first-hand witnesses to events.  For example, there are craters around the earth (one in Arizona, another in Siberia, etc.) that are many hundreds of feet across.  But nobody alive today saw the events that caused them. By your broken definition of observation, science must be at a dead-end, unable to make any statements about the evidence or the event.  "Gee, guys, nobody saw it happen.  It could have been a giant dragon. It could have been a cosmic beachball.  Or it might have been God scooping up some dirt. We just can't tell from the evidence.  Everyone pack your bags and go home; this will just be another unsolved mystery."  :

That's obviously not how science works.  How? Because it isn't necessary to be present at an event, in order to draw scientific conclusions about that event.  All events leave behind evidence of their occurrence - details, "fingerprints", etc. which can be observed, measured, and incorporated into a testable hypothesis about the event which caused them.  Nobody alive was present at the Revolutionary War; do you *honestly* beleive that we cannot make any scientific conclusions about that historical event?

One other item: only the experimental results must be repeatable, not the initial event itself.  There are some events in history that may only occur once (again; the American Revolution).  But they still leave behind trace evidence of their occurrence; evidence which can be measured and tested.

So obviously, you are mistaken and do not understand what "observation" means in terms of science.

You haven't OBSERVED the span of time between the time of creation till now. You haven't confined all these variables into a "controlled environment" and ran base lines to establish definable limits and boundaries......

Neither of which is necessary.  See above.

ALL you have..... is what you call "laws that govern the universe".

Which is actually quite a lot for him to have.

you're not hitting on much when it comes to Scientific principles.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Educate yourself on what scientific observation means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation#Observation_in_science

 

[Castor Muscular]

And: What have I got in my pocket?

Tricksy...