Evidence for God from Science

Geesh enigma - I hope you are not feeling ganged up on.

Geesh enigma - I hope you are not feeling ganged up on.

No worries, i'm okay (zoe...i need you ).

Sorry if I seem like I'm fighting - I'm debating.

My fault. FIghting was a poor wordchoice. I have no animosity towards any here. It is helping me grow enormously.

If you are strictly talking scince here I can agree for the most part. I would caution about interpreting theology anyway we want.

I did not mean any way we want. I meant that when we apply our limited understanding, even when combine that with "the witness of the Spirit and the testimony of the believers" we will always come up with different interpretations.

Good for Behe or anyone that wants to do it but in my opinion it comes with enormous responsibility at some point. The things some people say reflect on Christians at large and especially in the scientific arenas. Recently there have been a series of debates featured on national television as sort of Christianity vs. Atheists over evolution theory. Kurt Cameron is representing the Christian side. God bless Kurt, a beautiful, God fearing Christian and good example, but clearly out of his league in this debate. It tends to hurt our cause rather that help it.

Agreed. anyone who enters that arena better be armed with knowledge and the help of God. But, if they can do it, great.

I agree in some respects, but again I caution. Be very careful about what is truth. I am sure you know it must be tested. "For there is a way which seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death." {poor paraphrase}

Good thing we have the bible as a bullet-proof vest.

ID is an example that this statement is not true. ID does not acknowledge the living God.

In the sentence, i did say theoretically. And i thought we all agreed that science cannot acknowledge that?

Enigma7457 wrote:I did not mean any way we want. I meant that when we apply our limited understanding, even when combine that with "the witness of the Spirit and the testimony of the believers" we will always come up with different interpretations.

Youch! You're right.

In the sentence, i did say theoretically. And i thought we all agreed that science cannot acknowledge that?

Not quite, science can and must acknowledge God; science can not prove God exists.

As i've said, i do not believe in evolution...

your responses seem to imply that you hold to some form of it for the creation process. is that right?

How fast do you drive? I bet you follow the speed limit

depends on the situation, not always.

Everything from man is not opposed to God

never said that, that is where discerment and living by the Spirit come in.

so why shouldn't we use it when we are trying to discern the natural

didn't say you couldn't use it, i said to remove those secular methods, etc. from the process.

A christian scientists is not taking God out of the equation.

but if they compromise with secular people then what are they doing?

Newton is a perfect example. He said "Gravity" and the Church went "No"

the church has been known to be wrong from time to time, though it depends on what you mean by 'the church'.

They fought him

the organized church has fought a lot of truth over the years, this isn't earth shattering.

saying he was taking GOd out of the equation. He wasn't. (Sorry if you're getting tired of Gravity, but it is a very similar situation).

no he wasn't but the church...well that is a diferent topic. suffice it to say that man limits his knowledge and lacks discernment of what is the truth.

not tired of it.

So we look at the evidence and say "Flood

this is an example that requires a lot of explanation. science is very limited when looking into the past, just as we are as neither us or the scientists were there to observe.

so we must rely on certain things, one such thing is interpretation--which is very subjective and prone to corruptible influences. we can use science but again the same applies plus we do not get definitive evidence. the same with archaeology. and so on.

we are left with the Bible, the only written eye witness account, which carries a warning of ading to and subtracting from thus one must be very careful in what they are saying took place.

this is an annotated explanation as i was interupted and need more time and space.

Now, the problem is everyone doesn't agree on what holds up to scripture.

which is why we need to identify what is secular and what is God, why we need the Holy Spirit's help. we are not left alone to figure this out nor are we to lean on our own understanding. we have to look to God.

That means that we are limited in our ability to interpret scripture (hence a hundred million different denomonations all worshiping the same god in a slightly different way).

this again points to another problem, God didn't say in the Bible to do it anyway you want, He did say to do it 'in Spirit and in truth.' if you do not have the faith that God created life in 6 days how are you going to have faith to worship Him properly? you do not believe His word thus...

you have to remember there are reasons for everything, God is a God of order not confusion.

Enigma7457 wrote:

Geesh enigma - I hope you are not feeling ganged up on.

No worries, i'm okay (zoe...i need you ).

Sorry if I seem like I'm fighting - I'm debating.

My fault. FIghting was a poor wordchoice. I have no animosity towards any here. It is helping me grow enormously.

If you are strictly talking scince here I can agree for the most part. I would caution about interpreting theology anyway we want.

I did not mean any way we want. I meant that when we apply our limited understanding, even when combine that with "the witness of the Spirit and the testimony of the believers" we will always come up with different interpretations.

Good for Behe or anyone that wants to do it but in my opinion it comes with enormous responsibility at some point. The things some people say reflect on Christians at large and especially in the scientific arenas. Recently there have been a series of debates featured on national television as sort of Christianity vs. Atheists over evolution theory. Kurt Cameron is representing the Christian side. God bless Kurt, a beautiful, God fearing Christian and good example, but clearly out of his league in this debate. It tends to hurt our cause rather that help it.

Agreed. anyone who enters that arena better be armed with knowledge and the help of God. But, if they can do it, great.

I agree in some respects, but again I caution. Be very careful about what is truth. I am sure you know it must be tested. "For there is a way which seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death." {poor paraphrase}

Good thing we have the bible as a bullet-proof vest.

ID is an example that this statement is not true. ID does not acknowledge the living God.

In the sentence, i did say theoretically. And i thought we all agreed that science cannot acknowledge that?

Enigma, glad to try and help out...but, hmm, I wonder what will be the result....I will be called to reject my secualr thinking and come back to scripture....

To be honest, it seems like we will be going around and around and around

Arch is steadfast in his belief that he is being called to be here
He is steadfast in his thinking that somehow we have "given in", no matter how many times we show that we have not compromised God's position.

Do you honestly think that we haven't thought about this? Somehow we are just blindly wandering around saying things like "Gee, those gosh darn scientist sure are brilliant, guess we ought to scrap everything we know about God and believe anything those smart scientists are saying....my God's word surely can't stand up to this scrutiny...."



(Arch,....the audacity in you thinking you alone have been led by God to a conclusion about His creation. )

It won't do any good, but for the record....

I have not given in to the evolutionists....evolution demands a random, meaningless process....the blind watchmaker, to use the famous analogy.

I have never used this language, nor will I ever. I have never called it random, I have never called it meaningless, I have never called it a blind process. Even when I discussed selection, I made it absolutely clear that God set these rules in place. Somehow, you manage to always steer clear of understanding my position. (ah yes, here is where you will say....selection was not used! evolution was not used!)

God's word says He did it, God said He did it an orderly process, He says that what He intended to do, He did. He called the universe into being, doesn't say how this happened. There were no accidents. God did not simply set things into motion. God did not look down at some cosmic soup and say "wow, look what happened" HE KNEW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, HE CAUSED IT TO HAPPEN, HE PLANNED IT, HE INTENDED IT. WE don't know how God did it. We know He did it with pure will and power. He said "Let there be" and there was...Doesn't imply anything about His structuring and setting things in place.


I have no problem discussing this....but, Arch, you will never be satisfied unless we essentially say "you're right". YOu are not here to discuss or debate...you are here because you feel you have been called by God to call us back to biblical thinking. You are coming off as sounding like we are just a bunch of pansies that shrivel under the scientists glare, or a dog that simply rolls over and gives in.

Good grief, Rich has spent hours finding research journal articles that show the limitations of evolution. Have you even looked...oh wait, but these are secular journals...


Sure, if we all the scientists were christian, then things would go better, but then again, God reveals Himself on His timetable, not ours.

,....the audacity in you thinking you alone have been led by God to a conclusion about His creation

did i say it was me alone? no i said i was led, etc. didn't imply that i am the only one.

I have never used this language

but you have used--natural selection, micro-evolution and other words which indicate that you do not accept the Biblical account. i believe you said you were a progressive creationist and in reading their position, i find many words and ideas used & believed that are not found in the creation account.

doesn't say how this happened

He spoke--that is how it came into being.

...Doesn't imply anything about His structuring and setting things in place.

there are things you will never find out. you may find all the ingrediants He used but finding the ingrediants doesn't prove the action. besides exactly how is not a priority, it is a distraction meant to take away from what is important.

you will never be satisfied unless we essentially say "you're right".

it isn't a matter of you saying 'i'm right', as it is not about me but God and what He wants. whatever path you choose doesn't change the fact that i have a message to bring. i am not at liberty to change the message because you want me to or you do not like it.

no one is saying you can't be a scientist--you just have to do it God's way if you want the correct answer.

Good grief, Rich has spent hours finding research journal articles that show the limitations of evolution. Have you even looked...oh wait, but these are secular journals

the limitations of evolution? are you saying it exists and functions in the world even though it is unprovable and God never created it?

i read secular articles, journals, books but i do not take what they say and fit the Bible to their conclusions and theories. they are subject to the Bible not vice versa.

one of the bigest problems archaeology faces today (especially christian archaeologist) is that secularists are allowed to fit the Bible to what evidence is discovered. unfortunately, such evidence is so minuscule that the conclusion is often wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

as i have deconstructed several articles and arguments here i figure it would be fair play to post one of mine in this thread so you can analyze it and try to deconstruct it. i will have to wait till i get home to do that, which will be several hours from now.

Good grief,

How many times...the words may be ones used by evolutionists BUT I HAVE NEVER IMPLIED THEY ARE RANDOM. those are words that they have used which have philosophical implications. But the processes are there, I am simply saying that God is there.

And Rich uses those articles to show that evolution has problems. You are twisting my words.

And of course we will never know how, doesn't mean we can't think about it....

I never said it was a priority....if it isn't, then why can't you simply agree to disagree and let's move on to doing God's work....obviously you do feel it is a priority or else you wouldn't be here.

archaeology wrote: read secular articles, journals, books but i do not take what they say and fit the Bible to their conclusions and theories. they are subject to the Bible not vice versa.

No, we do not either, we look at the scripture and look at science and see them corroborate each other....you simply have disagreed with us concerning the Hebrew.

And Rich uses those articles to show that evolution has problems. You are twisting my words.

actually i was asking for clarification. you mean to say 'the theory of evolution' not 'evolution'. evolution does not exist.

we do not either, we look at the scripture and look at science and see them corroborate each other....you simply have disagreed with us concerning the Hebrew

not at all, you have disagreed with qualified scholars who translated the Bible with other qualified scholars who wrestled over these words.

it isn't just over the words but over what is true or not. i asked in another post that if the account meant 'ages' and not 24 hour days, when did God create the 24 hour day?

no one responded. if you look at the creation account, yo will see that every item is meticuously mentioned and described. if the term 'ages' is meant, we see no act to create the 24 hour day thus what we see today is missing.

how do you explain that?

if you take the meaning as '24 hour day' then you see when God created it and its purpose-- human time was created at that point--.

your side is changing the meaning to fit your theory but it doesn't work because it leaves too many holes.

there are reasons why certain words are used at certain points because certain meanings will not convey the truth of what took place.

But the processes are there, I am simply saying that God is there

micro-evolution and natural selection are not there.

BUT I HAVE NEVER IMPLIED THEY ARE RANDOM

doesn't matter, random is only one aspect of the theory. there is no evolutionary process in existence.

Arch, my intention was not to attack you at all. The reason was because I was really ccnfused about your position until now, thanks!...Its unfortunate things ended up the way they did.