How God Creates

[Audie]

Hard to disagree with that.

Do you see the bible as divinely inspired? If so, why?

How does one reconcile something like the flood account
with the obvious fact that it didnt happen? I know its not a science
book but does that not go to credibility of the whole?

Yes, the bible is divinely inspired.
Of course that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, so...
The flood account is an account of a massive flood and the history of the world is full of accounts of floods of a huge magnitude and there is evidence that a massive flood did happen in the geogprahical are referenced in the bible.
The issue is was it a GLOBAL flood and does the bible actually CLAIM it was?
The debate goes on.

So it does. Not among geologists, tho.

The debate is whether it was a global flood ( and what does that mean) or was it a massive local flood.
Scientists believe that there was a massive flood in the local area of the bible ( Mesopotamia) AND insistence also believe there there have been massive local floods ALL OVER the world at given points in history.

The issue is not a scientific one but one of textual interpretation.

The views of geologists are important in dating events and the magnitude of events ( from a geological POV) not in discussion of biblical interpretation.

That there is no evidence of a massive SINGLE EVENT global flood is clear.

The issue for bible interpreters is, how do they reconcile that based on WHAT the bible says BUT HOW it speaks about the flood.

The debate about the Bibilcal flood, metaphorical, local or worldwide, is a debate among Christians.

Of course floods of many different orders of magnitude occur evey day, and have done for as fat back as one could find water.

The valley of the Tigris-Euphrates is classic flood plain, and I would think that the evidence would be of a good many large and small floods, with buried soil horizons between them.

[Audie]

So it does. Not among geologists, tho.

Geologists are too busy arguing amongst themselves and changing their minds to be able to offer any credible assertions around what happened on Pangea billions of years ago.

For example…

“The megaflood that made Britain an island

The island that is now England, Scotland and Wales was severed from continental Europe by a cataclysmic flood during the last ice age, according to a group of researchers based in Britain.

"I had PREVIOUSLY thought the overspill would have been much more organized, more like a river than a deluge," says Philip Gibbard, a quaternary geologist at Cambridge University, UK. "But the assemblage of new observations is fully convincing. It will be very difficult to counter the evidence."


Here below is an article that speaks to the long winded assumptions and speculations as to how a geologist may make headlines, call it 'evidence' that ‘would be difficult to counter’ from guesswork and long stories.

/

There is nothing mysterious about there having been an ice age that lowered the sea level by 300 ft or so. It is not guess work, nor speculation.

The article cited is a very brief summary written for the average person.

If you find something untrue in it, then by all means say so.

Your date for Pangea is off by an order of magnitude and is unrelated to the timing for the Biblical flood. That the continental plates move is well established fact, in any case.

The forum of course, is about finding evidence for God, via science. That is a worthy enterprise, and for those who wish to pursue it, i wish them every success. Dismissing everything that geologists have to say as lacking credibility is neither reasonable, nor in like with the entire meaning and purpose of the website, dont you think so?

[Byblos]

The forum of course, is about finding evidence for God, via science. That is a worthy enterprise, and for those who wish to pursue it, i wish them every success.

The first place to do so is from astrophysics (not OEC/YEC/TE) and that's what I was attempting to do in the other thread but you weren't interested.

[Audie]

The forum of course, is about finding evidence for God, via science. That is a worthy enterprise, and for those who wish to pursue it, i wish them every success.

The first place to do so is from astrophysics (not OEC/YEC/TE) and that's what I was attempting to do in the other thread but you weren't interested.

You may be right, maybe God is to be found there.

The topic is fine, what didnt interest me was the tone of the conversation, so I just quit. Perhaps another try is worthwhile

[pathfinder7]

Greetings Everyone, I am new to this BB. I believe that we must have priorities when trying to think, and of course the primary one is that we think rationally.
That being said the idea that the world was created in only six days violates this principle. If for whatever so called reason you have to doubt this is reason enough for understanding that you either don't posses rational capability or that at least it is being suppressed and corrupted by misapplied Bible interpretation. I believe that the creation days were actually 24 hours long but only because what is recorded in Gen 1 is a record of a series of early morning visions that someone had way back even before the founding of the old Kingdom in Egypt. there is way too much emphasis on literal interpretation and not enough on the reality of visions and voices and spiritual realities. The book of Revelation is an example of a book completely filled with only spiritual visionary information. The literalizers screw up the start of the Bible as well as the end of the Bible. This gives me great confidence that they have also screwed up the middle. Our leaders have deceived us about almost everything. the gospel is much more that we have been told about.

[Byblos]

The forum of course, is about finding evidence for God, via science. That is a worthy enterprise, and for those who wish to pursue it, i wish them every success.

The first place to do so is from astrophysics (not OEC/YEC/TE) and that's what I was attempting to do in the other thread but you weren't interested.

You may be right, maybe God is to be found there.

Not found, perhaps evidenced is a better term?

The topic is fine, what didnt interest me was the tone of the conversation, so I just quit. Perhaps another try is worthwhile

I assure you no 'tone' was intended at all. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a straight shooter and believe me, I and others have had some mighty disagreements on here over the years (in case you didn't know, I'm the theological black sheep of the forum, a Catholic at a largely Protestant site). If anything, I am very passionate about a few subjects and tend to lose interest very quickly if others I'm engaged in conversation with don't reciprocate that same level of passion (irrespective of the level of disagreement). I know I have to learn to get better at that.

Since the topic of this thread is 'How God Creates' I guess it would be appropriate then to continue our discussion here (unless the mods feel otherwise).

[Audie]

The forum of course, is about finding evidence for God, via science. That is a worthy enterprise, and for those who wish to pursue it, i wish them every success.

The first place to do so is from astrophysics (not OEC/YEC/TE) and that's what I was attempting to do in the other thread but you weren't interested.

You may be right, maybe God is to be found there.

Not found, perhaps evidenced is a better term?

The topic is fine, what didnt interest me was the tone of the conversation, so I just quit. Perhaps another try is worthwhile

I assure you no 'tone' was intended at all. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a straight shooter and believe me, I and others have had some mighty disagreements on here over the years (in case you didn't know, I'm the theological black sheep of the forum, a Catholic at a largely Protestant site). If anything, I am very passionate about a few subjects and tend to lose interest very quickly if others I'm engaged in conversation with don't reciprocate that same level of passion (irrespective of the level of disagreement). I know I have to learn to get better at that.

Since the topic of this thread is 'How God Creates' I guess it would be appropriate then to continue our discussion here (unless the mods feel otherwise).

"Evidenced", then. Thats a better word. Im fine with another try at, uh, civil discourse.

I dont have much to offer on the subject of theoretical astrophysics, but i will listen.

Im much more in my element on the subject of down here on earth.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Greetings Everyone, I am new to this BB. I believe that we must have priorities when trying to think, and of course the primary one is that we think rationally.
That being said the idea that the world was created in only six days violates this principle. If for whatever so called reason you have to doubt this is reason enough for understanding that you either don't posses rational capability or that at least it is being suppressed and corrupted by misapplied Bible interpretation. I believe that the creation days were actually 24 hours long but only because what is recorded in Gen 1 is a record of a series of early morning visions that someone had way back even before the founding of the old Kingdom in Egypt. there is way too much emphasis on literal interpretation and not enough on the reality of visions and voices and spiritual realities. The book of Revelation is an example of a book completely filled with only spiritual visionary information. The literalizers screw up the start of the Bible as well as the end of the Bible. This gives me great confidence that they have also screwed up the middle. Our leaders have deceived us about almost everything. the gospel is much more that we have been told about.

Yes...even though I was raised an atheist, I always enjoyed Christmas because that was the only time of the year that fruitcake was plentiful: supermarkets had a nice variety of fruitcake in all price ranges, and my aunt in Vancouver always mailed us one of her homemade dark fruitcakes soaked in rum, deeeelicious!

Now that I'm older and getting on in years, I still enjoy fruitcake but it doesn't sit with me very well. I think it must be all the butter and candied fruit... I can have one slice with a nice cup of black, full-bodied coffee but I can't eat a whole cake in an evening like I used to.

FL

[Mazzy]

So it does. Not among geologists, tho.

Geologists are too busy arguing amongst themselves and changing their minds to be able to offer any credible assertions around what happened on Pangea billions of years ago.

For example…

“The megaflood that made Britain an island

The island that is now England, Scotland and Wales was severed from continental Europe by a cataclysmic flood during the last ice age, according to a group of researchers based in Britain.

"I had PREVIOUSLY thought the overspill would have been much more organized, more like a river than a deluge," says Philip Gibbard, a quaternary geologist at Cambridge University, UK. "But the assemblage of new observations is fully convincing. It will be very difficult to counter the evidence."


Here below is an article that speaks to the long winded assumptions and speculations as to how a geologist may make headlines, call it 'evidence' that ‘would be difficult to counter’ from guesswork and long stories.

/

There is nothing mysterious about there having been an ice age that lowered the sea level by 300 ft or so. It is not guess work, nor speculation.

The article cited is a very brief summary written for the average person.

If you find something untrue in it, then by all means say so.

Your date for Pangea is off by an order of magnitude and is unrelated to the timing for the Biblical flood. That the continental plates move is well established fact, in any case.

The forum of course, is about finding evidence for God, via science. That is a worthy enterprise, and for those who wish to pursue it, i wish them every success. Dismissing everything that geologists have to say as lacking credibility is neither reasonable, nor in like with the entire meaning and purpose of the website, dont you think so?

One of the articles I cited was a research paper published in Nature. Is that what you are calling a brief summary for the average person?

I do not need to specify any detail I find untrue. I quoted two articles where the assumptions appear very obvious. For example, here is an assumption one may accept or challenge that was with the Nature article. "A second spill is LIKELY to have occurred some 200,000 years later, during the most recent ice age, when again ice would have blocked up the north and created a lake where today's North Sea lies.” You may appreciate that the term "likely' has no scientific credibility in the realm of 'empirical evidence'.

You perhaps would like to speak to what within these article you find untrue, given they support a biblical flood….

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcont ... ticle=1729

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... ngaea.aspx


Indeed, I am not off by any magitude as I contest current dating methods as fictitious and many believe the flood occured on Pangea.

Genesis 1:9-10...... tells us that at Creation, all the waters of the sea were "gathered into one place." It appears the author of Genesis had foreknowledge.

[Mazzy]

The forum of course, is about finding evidence for God, via science. That is a worthy enterprise, and for those who wish to pursue it, i wish them every success.

The first place to do so is from astrophysics (not OEC/YEC/TE) and that's what I was attempting to do in the other thread but you weren't interested.

You may be right, maybe God is to be found there.

Not found, perhaps evidenced is a better term?

The topic is fine, what didnt interest me was the tone of the conversation, so I just quit. Perhaps another try is worthwhile

I assure you no 'tone' was intended at all. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a straight shooter and believe me, I and others have had some mighty disagreements on here over the years (in case you didn't know, I'm the theological black sheep of the forum, a Catholic at a largely Protestant site). If anything, I am very passionate about a few subjects and tend to lose interest very quickly if others I'm engaged in conversation with don't reciprocate that same level of passion (irrespective of the level of disagreement). I know I have to learn to get better at that.

Since the topic of this thread is 'How God Creates' I guess it would be appropriate then to continue our discussion here (unless the mods feel otherwise).

"Evidenced", then. Thats a better word. Im fine with another try at, uh, civil discourse.

I dont have much to offer on the subject of theoretical astrophysics, but i will listen.

Im much more in my element on the subject of down here on earth.

As far as evidence is concerned, the bible appears to speak to a higher beings' ability to create the universe. Indeed there was a time not that long ago when the suggestion that energy/light could instantly create matter would have been laughed at, as the ravings of a lunatic. Biblical creationists actually have evidence within physics for the theoretical assertion that God, a great source of energy, created the universe in stages, instantly. The evidence within physics takes this assertion from the mythical into the realm of possibility by speaking to the 'How' God could have created in such a way.

On the other hand, Big Bangers have a theory full of discrepencies that also falls apart at the singularity. Just because this is the best theory astrophysicists have to offer does not mean it has validity.

I also am a Catholic, although I attend an Anglican church. Having said that I am going back to the Catholic church soon. Neither faith dictates to me what I should believe about many things. I feel I have spiritually moved on from bricks and mortar.

I like 'science' and find it difficult to address the thread topic without refering to physics and observation.

[Starhunter]

Great conversation on the flood and other things.

The powers God invested in nature, have always been there since the beginning of the world, which powers He uses to either destroy or recreate the world.
2 Peter 3, talks about the Word of God creating the world, destroying it with water, and preserving the earth until it will be destroyed by heat, and it also mentions the recreation of the world or paradise, "new heavens and a new earth."

The Word cannot be changed or destroyed, God spoke it for creation and it will accomplish what He wants, through whatever means, like the laws of nature.

[Mazzy]

Great conversation on the flood and other things.

The powers God invested in nature, have always been there since the beginning of the world, which powers He uses to either destroy or recreate the world.
2 Peter 3, talks about the Word of God creating the world, destroying it with water, and preserving the earth until it will be destroyed by heat, and it also mentions the recreation of the world or paradise, "new heavens and a new earth."

The Word cannot be changed or destroyed, God spoke it for creation and it will accomplish what He wants, through whatever means, like the laws of nature.

The "Word" is either figurative or is referring to a person, even if same is one of three. This being the case I suggest the "Word" also does not use magic to create, but actually used the laws of physics to create the universe and all we see in it.

[Audie]

One of the articles I cited was a research paper published in Nature. Is that what you are calling a brief summary for the average person?

Hi Mazzy. The thing that you posted was a sort of pop science summary. It was not a research paper. Did you read the original research paper?

I do not need to specify any detail I find untrue. I quoted two articles where the assumptions appear very obvious. For example, here is an assumption one may accept or challenge that was with the Nature article. "A second spill is LIKELY to have occurred some 200,000 years later, during the most recent ice age, when again ice would have blocked up the north and created a lake where today's North Sea lies.” You may appreciate that the term "likely' has no scientific credibility in the realm of 'empirical evidence'.

You may appreciate that the existence of the large body of water referred to and a significant flow of water, the continental glaciers, the lowered sea level etc are not matters in reasonable dispute.

There is nothing about the word "likely' that is problematic. Science does not do certainties, but rather, probabilities. The probability that the gas laws are reliable is so high that we call them laws, and depend on them.

A high level of probability, as deduced from a body of evidence, could be termed "likely".

There is no "assumption" involved. If you found some detail that you think is untrue, please say so. I did not find any

You perhaps would like to speak to what within these article you find untrue, given they support a biblical flood….

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcont ... ticle=1729

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... ngaea.aspx

You may appreciate taht such articles can only find a publisher in a creationist site because they do not have any credibility in the scientific community.

I could look one up and it would not take me long to find where they go off the rails, but that is a bit of a digression.

Indeed, I am not off by any magitude as I contest current dating methods as fictitious and many believe the flood occured on Pangea.

Why do you think they are fiction?

[Audie]

[


"Evidenced", then. Thats a better word. Im fine with another try at, uh, civil discourse.

I dont have much to offer on the subject of theoretical astrophysics, but i will listen.

Im much more in my element on the subject of down here on earth.

As far as evidence is concerned, the bible appears to speak to a higher beings' ability to create the universe. Indeed there was a time not that long ago when the suggestion that energy/light could instantly create matter would have been laughed at, as the ravings of a lunatic. Biblical creationists actually have evidence within physics for the theoretical assertion that God, a great source of energy, created the universe in stages, instantly. The evidence within physics takes this assertion from the mythical into the realm of possibility by speaking to the 'How' God could have created in such a way.

What the Bible appears (seems likely) to say is quite subjective, and quite distinct from what it explicitly says.

One cannot properly say that there is any "theoretical assertion' of course, as a theory and an assertion are also quite distinct.

I have no issue with whether there may be a God who created the universe, and is on some level running things. Its outside my ability to comment on it, other than to say I think its possible.

Where I do have commentary is on the "how" of things, AFTER the universe came into being.

On the other hand, Big Bangers have a theory full of discrepencies that also falls apart at the singularity. Just because this is the best theory astrophysicists have to offer does not mean it has validity.

Of course being a theory does not mean it is valid. No theory is proved, none are guaranteed valid. I do tho, think that its not reasonable to says that BB is full of
discrepancies such that it falls apart.

Science as you no doubt know, works with data, and may eventually get a theory going. The theory is only good as long as it
does not have discrepancies or contradictionsl then it is disproved and discarded. The theoretical astrophysicists dont seem to know of any disproof of BB, so it would be presumptuous of you or me to say there are such.

I also am a Catholic, although I attend an Anglican church. Having said that I am going back to the Catholic church soon. Neither faith dictates to me what I should believe about many things. I feel I have spiritually moved on from bricks and mortar.

Does faith require that you believe in the Flood? Just curious..
The Catholic Church does not seem to have a problem with accepting evolution as real.

I like 'science' and find it difficult to address the thread topic without refering to physics and observation.

That is to the good, I'd say.

[Mazzy]

One of the articles I cited was a research paper published in Nature. Is that what you are calling a brief summary for the average person?

Hi Mazzy. The thing that you posted was a sort of pop science summary. It was not a research paper. Did you read the original research paper?

I do not need to specify any detail I find untrue. I quoted two articles where the assumptions appear very obvious. For example, here is an assumption one may accept or challenge that was with the Nature article. "A second spill is LIKELY to have occurred some 200,000 years later, during the most recent ice age, when again ice would have blocked up the north and created a lake where today's North Sea lies.” You may appreciate that the term "likely' has no scientific credibility in the realm of 'empirical evidence'.

You may appreciate that the existence of the large body of water referred to and a significant flow of water, the continental glaciers, the lowered sea level etc are not matters in reasonable dispute.

There is nothing about the word "likely' that is problematic. Science does not do certainties, but rather, probabilities. The probability that the gas laws are reliable is so high that we call them laws, and depend on them.

A high level of probability, as deduced from a body of evidence, could be termed "likely".

There is no "assumption" involved. If you found some detail that you think is untrue, please say so. I did not find any

You perhaps would like to speak to what within these article you find untrue, given they support a biblical flood….

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcont ... ticle=1729

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... ngaea.aspx

You may appreciate taht such articles can only find a publisher in a creationist site because they do not have any credibility in the scientific community.

I could look one up and it would not take me long to find where they go off the rails, but that is a bit of a digression.

Indeed, I am not off by any magitude as I contest current dating methods as fictitious and many believe the flood occured on Pangea.

Why do you think they are fiction?

I never said geologists THEORIES were fiction. I am claiming such theories to explain what is observed in strata are theories that are backed by flawed science and then passed off as if they are incontestable facts. These so called 'facts' change like flavours of the month, untimately meaning none of these theories ever were credible nor did they have any merit, to begin with.

Secondly, on the thread topic, it has been proven beyond doubt that energy can turn to matter in an instant. Therefore biblical creationists that do not accept Big Bang theory have some hard science behind their claims.

Geologists and scientists that are also Creationists also have theories that hold as much merit as those that challenge a world wide flood.

As for evolution, I like to debate this topic. Indeed all observed data supports a creative event, not evolution. Data suggests all humans alive today are the decendants from one male and one female. It takes convoluted algorithms and assumptions to suggest other humans were present at the time and just so happend to have their entire lineage die out. Indeed breeders have been trying to breed larger and larger dogs. One will never breed a dog as big as an elephant and yet a bacteria supposedly evolved into a dinosaur.