Evidence for God from Science

What does 'our God is eternal, too' .... and on that alone...." have to do with how old the earth is? Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created. So you're suggesting that because God was here 'in the beginning' that the earth has been here all the time, too?

hughfarey wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:A local church isn't going to be teaching 'transitional fossils' -- the Genesis creation tells us that the animal world was created by God -- to be able to mate with like kind -- like what happens Now.

Your local church might deny evolution, but my local church accepts evolution - embraces it, in fact, as such a glorious demonstration of God's creative imagination. Are both churches correct? If not, how do you know which one has got the right idea?

Your church 'embraces' evolution?! "such a glorious demonstration of God's creative imagination". Then maybe you have a different definition of 'evolution'. "God's creative imagination" -- so God Did create the world? God's "imagination". Please expound on that.

hughfarey wrote:In fact, from the responses above it seems that neither crochet's nor abelcainsbrother's "churches" are very bothered about the meaning of Genesis one way or another. Does this mean that we can all interpret it however we like? That would be splendid. The bible means whatever individuals think it means, so it doesn't really define if there was a global flood or not, or whether all living things evolved from primordial slime. In that case, why should I or Audi or neo not be allowed to find out what really happened by examining the scientific evidence and forming our own conclusions, rather than endlessly having the bible quoted at us as if it was the definitive arbiter of truth?

You first need to know life evolves first though,especially if you're going to blend it into the bible. That is my whole point. I don't see near enough evidence to believe life evolves like is taught. You can choose to believe anything you choose to. Like with me YEC is popular but that doesn't make me accept it. You imply you accept evolution because it is popular with your church,but that doesn't make it right. I do not condemn you if you accept evolution and I never have. You and others just take it personal that I don't agree with evolution and then explain why. You should be able to back it up if its true and not worry about disagreements. We can tell who's right and who's wrong. I get ragged on all the time for the Gap Theory but I don't get angry and refuse to talk to others,etc because they disagree. I just defend it and try to show why its right. I can handle disagreements and I like discussions amongst Christians who have different interpretations.

hughfarey wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:A local church isn't going to be teaching 'transitional fossils' -- the Genesis creation tells us that the animal world was created by God -- to be able to mate with like kind -- like what happens Now.

Your local church might deny evolution, but my local church accepts evolution - embraces it, in fact, as such a glorious demonstration of God's creative imagination. Are both churches correct? If not, how do you know which one has got the right idea?

"Accepts"? "Embraces"?

I thought the Catholic Church had no official position on biological evolution?

From this link:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

Allows a belief in evolution? Certainly.

Accepts? Embraces? That's a little bit of a stretch.

hughfarey wrote:In fact, from the responses above it seems that neither crochet's nor abelcainsbrother's "churches" are very bothered about the meaning of Genesis one way or another. Does this mean that we can all interpret it however we like? That would be splendid. The bible means whatever individuals think it means, so it doesn't really define if there was a global flood or not, or whether all living things evolved from primordial slime. In that case, why should I or Audi or neo not be allowed to find out what really happened by examining the scientific evidence and forming our own conclusions, rather than endlessly having the bible quoted at us as if it was the definitive arbiter of truth?

Okay -- I see where you're coming from. And it Does matter. And God's Word Is the authority. And it Does help to find out what the other person Is Talking about.

God's Word Does state there was a global flood. Because God has told us Why He saw fit to destroy the world that He created. He created us with freedom of choice and the freedom to obey His Word or Not to. And that there Are consequences to our actions. We might not Appreciate His Word or the consequences of not following it. How many of us who have children have rules to follow in our house hold. The rules are Known -- maybe not appreciated by our kids -- they are for their own well-being -- when they choose to Not follow -- there Are negative consequences. But there are Also Good results when they Do follow house rules.

So -- was / Is God powerful enough TO create this world and the animals and people in 6 24-hr days or Not?
I have No problem quoting Bible Because it IS the definitive arbiter of Truth.

crochet1949 wrote:What does 'our God is eternal, too' .... and on that alone...." have to do with how old the earth is? Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created. So you're suggesting that because God was here 'in the beginning' that the earth has been here all the time, too?

It might shock you but Genesis 1:1 is really the only creating God did in the whole bible everything else was God restoring what had already been created in the beginning whenever that was Genesis 2:2. All God did in the 6 days was work to restore everything so he could have this world. So I'm not suggesting the universe is eternal like God is,I'm suggesting that God has been busy though before just 6000 years ago.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:What does 'our God is eternal, too' .... and on that alone...." have to do with how old the earth is? Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created. So you're suggesting that because God was here 'in the beginning' that the earth has been here all the time, too?

It might shock you but Genesis 1:1 is really the only creating God did in the whole bible everything else was God restoring what had already been created in the beginning whenever that was Genesis 2:2. All God did in the 6 days was work to restore everything so he could have this world. So I'm not suggesting the universe is eternal like God is,I'm suggesting that God has been busy though before just 6000 years ago.

It has Also been suggested that the Hebrew way of presenting is stating the 'end result' and Then proceeding to explain in more detail How it was done. Thus -- vs 2 and following.

And there is the question of Why the earth was without form, and was void. Well -- apparently because God started out with it that way and He's telling mankind how and when He developed it. Step by step / one day at a time.

I don't read anything there that suggests He was restoring anything. I read "Then God said , Let there be light; and there was light." And vs 7 "Thus God made the firmament, ....vs 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the 2nd day." That doesn't sound like anything was being restored.

crochet1949 wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:What does 'our God is eternal, too' .... and on that alone...." have to do with how old the earth is? Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created. So you're suggesting that because God was here 'in the beginning' that the earth has been here all the time, too?

It might shock you but Genesis 1:1 is really the only creating God did in the whole bible everything else was God restoring what had already been created in the beginning whenever that was Genesis 2:2. All God did in the 6 days was work to restore everything so he could have this world. So I'm not suggesting the universe is eternal like God is,I'm suggesting that God has been busy though before just 6000 years ago.

It has Also been suggested that the Hebrew way of presenting is stating the 'end result' and Then proceeding to explain in more detail How it was done. Thus -- vs 2 and following.

And there is the question of Why the earth was without form, and was void. Well -- apparently because God started out with it that way and He's telling mankind how and when He developed it. Step by step / one day at a time.

I don't read anything there that suggests He was restoring anything. I read "Then God said , Let there be light; and there was light." And vs 7 "Thus God made the firmament, ....vs 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the 2nd day." That doesn't sound like anything was being restored.

I used to think the way you do but it goes back to whether Peter was referring to Noah's flood or Genesis 1:2. If it is referring to Genesis 1:2 then we know why the earth is without form and void. Yes God made the firmament,the stars,etc but made means work like the NASB translated it in Genesis 2:2. So it is just saying God worked on the firmament,God worked on the stars. It is not saying he created them like in verse 1. If Peter is referring us to Genesis 1:2 then we can see why God worked on these things and he restored them so whether or not you agree or not we are not adding to God's word by adding restoration,it is biblical if Peter is referring us to Genesis 1:2 instead of Noah's flood like you think. The earth is flooded in Genesis 1:2 also.

Lotsa versions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u92GbUH-SCA

crochet1949 wrote:Okay -- I see where you're coming from.

I'm not sure you do.

And it Does matter. And God's Word Is the authority. And it Does help to find out what the other person Is Talking about.

All true, but I'm concerned about what you think is "God's Word." You simply pick up a bible, no doubt an English version probably published in the US, perhaps a 'New King James Version' or a 'New Revised Standard Version', and pronounce it "God's Word", but I don't think it's as simple as that. All its elements have gone through elaborate selection and translation procedures, by humans, all of whom left notes explaining how difficult it is to extract the definitive "Word" from it. You have agreed that it contains Literature, History, Poetry, Laws, Regulations and various other kinds of "Word", but it is not always easy to decide which is which, and you don't seem to want to allow anybody else's conclusions above your own.

God's Word Does state there was a global flood.

It also states that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven. I think there's a little exaggeration in each case, for effect.

Because God has told us Why He saw fit to destroy the world that He created. He created us with freedom of choice and the freedom to obey His Word or Not to. And that there Are consequences to our actions. We might not Appreciate His Word or the consequences of not following it.

That is indeed probably the moral of the story, but it is not necessarily evidence that the story is literally true, any more than the story of the prodigal son.

How many of us who have children have rules to follow in our house hold. The rules are Known -- maybe not appreciated by our kids -- they are for their own well-being -- when they choose to Not follow -- there Are negative consequences.

There are indeed. I hope your own children were not so horrible that you felt the urge to drown them all and start again...

So -- was / Is God powerful enough TO create this world and the animals and people in 6 24-hr days or Not?

Of course. The question is not what he could have done, but what he actually did do. I find the seven day creation story describes rather a naive and unimaginative creator compared to that inferred by the billion year evolution story. If I was God (and I was made in his image, you know) I'd much rather create a mechanism that unfolded so variously, so continuously, and so exquisitely coherently, than successively plonk a whole load of animals on the earth, get fed up with them, wipe them all out and start again.

I have No problem quoting Bible Because it IS the definitive arbiter of Truth.

I also have no problem quoting the bible; we can all do that, and I have no problem with the bible being the definitive arbiter of truth, I had a good Christian upbringing too. Our collective problem is in deciding what the arbiter of truth actually means, and I'm afraid a literal interpretation of one particular version of the bible won't do for me.

hughfarey wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Okay -- I see where you're coming from.

I'm not sure you do.

And it Does matter. And God's Word Is the authority. And it Does help to find out what the other person Is Talking about.

All true, but I'm concerned about what you think is "God's Word." You simply pick up a bible, no doubt an English version probably published in the US, perhaps a 'New King James Version' or a 'New Revised Standard Version', and pronounce it "God's Word", but I don't think it's as simple as that. All its elements have gone through elaborate selection and translation procedures, by humans, all of whom left notes explaining how difficult it is to extract the definitive "Word" from it. You have agreed that it contains Literature, History, Poetry, Laws, Regulations and various other kinds of "Word", but it is not always easy to decide which is which, and you don't seem to want to allow anybody else's conclusions above your own.

God's Word Does state there was a global flood.

It also states that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven. I think there's a little exaggeration in each case, for effect.

Because God has told us Why He saw fit to destroy the world that He created. He created us with freedom of choice and the freedom to obey His Word or Not to. And that there Are consequences to our actions. We might not Appreciate His Word or the consequences of not following it.

That is indeed probably the moral of the story, but it is not necessarily evidence that the story is literally true, any more than the story of the prodigal son.

How many of us who have children have rules to follow in our house hold. The rules are Known -- maybe not appreciated by our kids -- they are for their own well-being -- when they choose to Not follow -- there Are negative consequences.

There are indeed. I hope your own children were not so horrible that you felt the urge to drown them all and start again...

So -- was / Is God powerful enough TO create this world and the animals and people in 6 24-hr days or Not?

Of course. The question is not what he could have done, but what he actually did do. I find the seven day creation story describes rather a naive and unimaginative creator compared to that inferred by the billion year evolution story. If I was God (and I was made in his image, you know) I'd much rather create a mechanism that unfolded so variously, so continuously, and so exquisitely coherently, than successively plonk a whole load of animals on the earth, get fed up with them, wipe them all out and start again.

I have No problem quoting Bible Because it IS the definitive arbiter of Truth.

I also have no problem quoting the bible; we can all do that, and I have no problem with the bible being the definitive arbiter of truth, I had a good Christian upbringing too. Our collective problem is in deciding what the arbiter of truth actually means, and I'm afraid a literal interpretation of one particular version of the bible won't do for me.

I grew up with the KJV with the Scoffied notes -- over the past years I've also been with the older NIV and the NKJV and somewhat with the NASV.

My sister and family have spent over 40 yrs in South America -- and she is now working with a group who write college-level Bible courses -- she translates from English to Brazilian Portugese. I'm familiar with the translation process. And I grew up in a church been in numerous churches with foreign missionaries. One of my brother-in-laws classes was translating the Book of John from Greek to English. My husband also took Greek in college. Each language has it's own alphabet and colloquialisms. So the translator has to take Lots into consideration when translating a section of Scripture from one language / culture to another. And - the translator's Goal is to present Scripture in as accurate way as possible. Book by book, section by section, verse by verse. As word perfect as possible.

Okay -- "Jesus Christ is the Word. The Word was With God and the Word Was God. He was in the beginning With God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" John 1:1-3.
There is also a 'word' as sentences are made up of. This sentence has Many words in it.

I've not really Insisted on people following My conclusions -- I read God's Word / Bible on my own and draw conclusions based on That and other material I've come across. At least I haven't Meant to insist. But I Do have my own thoughts and probably biases just like every one else. Some posters have been Very adamant that Their view is the only one that really makes sense. So - we are a combo of individuals who like to think for ourselves and we are 'all correct' -- BUT 'everything' can't be The Truth. So - a lot of people take God's Word 1st and compare everything else to That.

The example of the camel passing through the eye of a needle is easier than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. --obviously not literal -- a camel can't physically go through the eye of a needle. So - obviously there is another meaning. Maybe that lots of people really appreciate their money. Supposedly they can Buy anything they want. God is letting 'people' know that money Isn't everything. God wants our hearts Not our money. Money won't get anyone into heaven. Is a person willing to give up their 'money' and follow Jesus Christ as The Way? The 'effect' is to get us to Think. Meditate on what God is wanting us to know -- our relationship to Him. There's also nothing Wrong with Having money. It's important -- paying bills, etc. But it's the Love OF that gets people in trouble. Do we 'love' our money More than God? Is Money our security or God?

The Prodigal Son -- how many parents have had kids who leave home as an act of rebellion or their family's ways of living or they 'go off a deep end' of some sort. We pray for their safety -- let them know that we still love them -- and eventually, they Do want to come back home. And we welcome them with open arms. I don't doubt for a minute that That account really happened. Why couldn't it have? People Are people. No matter What culture or time in history.

Me and my kids -- and choosing to drown them because they misbehave. Well -- in the 1st place I did Not create this world -- my husband and I gave birth to kids that God chose to give us. What would I do if my kids became unruly -- disrespectful --totally out of control? Totally evil all the time? Well -- I'm a fallible human being. I'm Not in the position of being God. God -- He warned the people He created --gave them 120 years to hear and obey -- He alone has the authority to destroy as He sees fit. His is Righteous judgment. Ours tends Not to be.

A naïve and unimaginative Creator?!?! If YOU were the creator?! Well -- not to burst your bubble - but Your Not. Someday when You have a chance to create your own world -- feel free to do it anyway you choose to. But, in the Meantime -- God did it His way.

And I'll repeat -- I'm familiar with various versions of the Bible. There's very little variation amongst them.

crochet1949 wrote:God did it His way.

Well, I certainly agree with that! And his way was...

crochet1949 wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Okay -- I see where you're coming from.

I'm not sure you do.

And it Does matter. And God's Word Is the authority. And it Does help to find out what the other person Is Talking about.

All true, but I'm concerned about what you think is "God's Word." You simply pick up a bible, no doubt an English version probably published in the US, perhaps a 'New King James Version' or a 'New Revised Standard Version', and pronounce it "God's Word", but I don't think it's as simple as that. All its elements have gone through elaborate selection and translation procedures, by humans, all of whom left notes explaining how difficult it is to extract the definitive "Word" from it. You have agreed that it contains Literature, History, Poetry, Laws, Regulations and various other kinds of "Word", but it is not always easy to decide which is which, and you don't seem to want to allow anybody else's conclusions above your own.

God's Word Does state there was a global flood.

It also states that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven. I think there's a little exaggeration in each case, for effect.

Because God has told us Why He saw fit to destroy the world that He created. He created us with freedom of choice and the freedom to obey His Word or Not to. And that there Are consequences to our actions. We might not Appreciate His Word or the consequences of not following it.

That is indeed probably the moral of the story, but it is not necessarily evidence that the story is literally true, any more than the story of the prodigal son.

How many of us who have children have rules to follow in our house hold. The rules are Known -- maybe not appreciated by our kids -- they are for their own well-being -- when they choose to Not follow -- there Are negative consequences.

There are indeed. I hope your own children were not so horrible that you felt the urge to drown them all and start again...

So -- was / Is God powerful enough TO create this world and the animals and people in 6 24-hr days or Not?

Of course. The question is not what he could have done, but what he actually did do. I find the seven day creation story describes rather a naive and unimaginative creator compared to that inferred by the billion year evolution story. If I was God (and I was made in his image, you know) I'd much rather create a mechanism that unfolded so variously, so continuously, and so exquisitely coherently, than successively plonk a whole load of animals on the earth, get fed up with them, wipe them all out and start again.

I have No problem quoting Bible Because it IS the definitive arbiter of Truth.

I also have no problem quoting the bible; we can all do that, and I have no problem with the bible being the definitive arbiter of truth, I had a good Christian upbringing too. Our collective problem is in deciding what the arbiter of truth actually means, and I'm afraid a literal interpretation of one particular version of the bible won't do for me.

I grew up with the KJV with the Scoffied notes -- over the past years I've also been with the older NIV and the NKJV and somewhat with the NASV.

My sister and family have spent over 40 yrs in South America -- and she is now working with a group who write college-level Bible courses -- she translates from English to Brazilian Portugese. I'm familiar with the translation process. And I grew up in a church been in numerous churches with foreign missionaries. One of my brother-in-laws classes was translating the Book of John from Greek to English. My husband also took Greek in college. Each language has it's own alphabet and colloquialisms. So the translator has to take Lots into consideration when translating a section of Scripture from one language / culture to another. And - the translator's Goal is to present Scripture in as accurate way as possible. Book by book, section by section, verse by verse. As word perfect as possible.

Okay -- "Jesus Christ is the Word. The Word was With God and the Word Was God. He was in the beginning With God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" John 1:1-3.
There is also a 'word' as sentences are made up of. This sentence has Many words in it.

I've not really Insisted on people following My conclusions -- I read God's Word / Bible on my own and draw conclusions based on That and other material I've come across. At least I haven't Meant to insist. But I Do have my own thoughts and probably biases just like every one else. Some posters have been Very adamant that Their view is the only one that really makes sense. So - we are a combo of individuals who like to think for ourselves and we are 'all correct' -- BUT 'everything' can't be The Truth. So - a lot of people take God's Word 1st and compare everything else to That.

The example of the camel passing through the eye of a needle is easier than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. --obviously not literal -- a camel can't physically go through the eye of a needle. So - obviously there is another meaning. Maybe that lots of people really appreciate their money. Supposedly they can Buy anything they want. God is letting 'people' know that money Isn't everything. God wants our hearts Not our money. Money won't get anyone into heaven. Is a person willing to give up their 'money' and follow Jesus Christ as The Way? The 'effect' is to get us to Think. Meditate on what God is wanting us to know -- our relationship to Him. There's also nothing Wrong with Having money. It's important -- paying bills, etc. But it's the Love OF that gets people in trouble. Do we 'love' our money More than God? Is Money our security or God?

The Prodigal Son -- how many parents have had kids who leave home as an act of rebellion or their family's ways of living or they 'go off a deep end' of some sort. We pray for their safety -- let them know that we still love them -- and eventually, they Do want to come back home. And we welcome them with open arms. I don't doubt for a minute that That account really happened. Why couldn't it have? People Are people. No matter What culture or time in history.

Me and my kids -- and choosing to drown them because they misbehave. Well -- in the 1st place I did Not create this world -- my husband and I gave birth to kids that God chose to give us. What would I do if my kids became unruly -- disrespectful --totally out of control? Totally evil all the time? Well -- I'm a fallible human being. I'm Not in the position of being God. God -- He warned the people He created --gave them 120 years to hear and obey -- He alone has the authority to destroy as He sees fit. His is Righteous judgment. Ours tends Not to be.

A naïve and unimaginative Creator?!?! If YOU were the creator?! Well -- not to burst your bubble - but Your Not. Someday when You have a chance to create your own world -- feel free to do it anyway you choose to. But, in the Meantime -- God did it His way.

And I'll repeat -- I'm familiar with various versions of the Bible. There's very little variation amongst them.

If you grew up with the KJV with Scoffield notes then you should know Gap Creation doctrine. I have a KJV Dake annotated reference bible which is similar. It helped me better understand Gap Creationism. It was written in about the 1920's too so it gives a good understanding of what was believed back then. It gives reasons why evolution cannot be considered true,for example. It also talks about a Pre Adamic race of beings confirmed by hominids,etc. So this has been understood for a long time.

Oh, yes, I Am familiar with the Gap Theory of creation.

Why would there Need to be a Pre-Adamic race of beings. Because some of us don't believe there Was one. Because -- that means that people were dying. According to Genesis 1 or 2 -- one of the penalties for Adam and Eve eating the fruit -- they were to die instead of living Forever as the original plan had been. So -- apparently everyone who would have been around Before that would still be alive at that time. But Genesis tells specifically how Adam was formed and then Eve. So apparently there were No other people before then.

Slightly different subject -- but -- along the same lines. Your thoughts concerning the virgin birth of Jesus.

How about the Tower of Babel / God's creating the languages and thus separating the people from the large population to gravitate to smaller groups -- the people were Forced to find others of the same language to be able to communicate and thus spread out into new land. Thus -- the various groups of people would inbreed and various cultures came into being -- various physical features became more pronounced over time. Thus, the various Indian groups, etc. I don't know about the time line, but your comments are interesting.

crochet1949 wrote:Oh, yes, I Am familiar with the Gap Theory of creation.

Why would there Need to be a Pre-Adamic race of beings. Because some of us don't believe there Was one. Because -- that means that people were dying. According to Genesis 1 or 2 -- one of the penalties for Adam and Eve eating the fruit -- they were to die instead of living Forever as the original plan had been. So -- apparently everyone who would have been around Before that would still be alive at that time. But Genesis tells specifically how Adam was formed and then Eve. So apparently there were No other people before then.

Slightly different subject -- but -- along the same lines. Your thoughts concerning the virgin birth of Jesus.

How about the Tower of Babel / God's creating the languages and thus separating the people from the large population to gravitate to smaller groups -- the people were Forced to find others of the same language to be able to communicate and thus spread out into new land. Thus -- the various groups of people would inbreed and various cultures came into being -- various physical features became more pronounced over time. Thus, the various Indian groups, etc. I don't know about the time line, but your comments are interesting.

Yes this is true in this world before Adam and Eve sinned there was no death,but when they sinned death passed to all men. You know the former world perished completely which is why the earth is in a without form and void state.It is uninhabitable until God gets done and rests on the seventh day. The tower of babel effected this world. It does not matter if there was death in the former world with a pre-Adamic race in it,but there were many kinds of life as the fossils show. The no death before Adam thing is a strawman when it comes to Gap Creationism. Also reading bible commentaries from Gap Creationists is no different than somebody going to AIG or young earth creation science ministries and going by what they teach. This is why I said accepting the Gap Theory does not effect anything else in the bible,because it is all after the gap between the former world and this world we live in since Adam and Eve. The bible is a book of redemption and God restoring what was lost until he is finally finished.