Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Perhaps I need to explain more why evolution is bad science and not true so that peope don't believe God created through evolution.Evolution seems to blind people when it comes to what the bible says and it is a problem when we prop up man-made science over God's word and what it says especially when man cannot be trusted to tell the truth and has been wrong so many times in history whether they believed in Christianity or not. Man cannot be trusted to tell the truth.There is absolutely no reason to put your faith in something mn said is true over what God said is true. Science canges and it has changed many of times in history and wht is true scientifically today can be wrong tomarrow.

You're making the same mistake that certain YECs make. You're equating your interpretation of scripture, with what God says. We can just as equally make a mistake with interpreting scripture, as we can interpreting the evidence regarding the age of the earth.

Your Man-made Gap theory can be just as wrong as what you call man-made science. Both have fallible humans interpreting something.

I was'nt even bringing the Gap Theory into this my point is to trust God over man.
http://www.history.co.uk/shows/big-hist ... -the-world

We are all trying to trust God, when we interpret scripture. But again, we are not infallible.

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Perhaps I need to explain more why evolution is bad science and not true so that peope don't believe God created through evolution.Evolution seems to blind people when it comes to what the bible says and it is a problem when we prop up man-made science over God's word and what it says especially when man cannot be trusted to tell the truth and has been wrong so many times in history whether they believed in Christianity or not. Man cannot be trusted to tell the truth.There is absolutely no reason to put your faith in something mn said is true over what God said is true. Science canges and it has changed many of times in history and wht is true scientifically today can be wrong tomarrow.

You're making the same mistake that certain YECs make. You're equating your interpretation of scripture, with what God says. We can just as equally make a mistake with interpreting scripture, as we can interpreting the evidence regarding the age of the earth.

Your Man-made Gap theory can be just as wrong as what you call man-made science. Both have fallible humans interpreting something.

I was'nt even bringing the Gap Theory into this my point is to trust God over man.
http://www.history.co.uk/shows/big-hist ... -the-world

We are all trying to trust God, when we interpret scripture. But again, we are not infallible.

I agree. None of us has a 100% authority on their interpretation of scripture but it should still be our objective to trust God over what man says is true.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Perhaps I need to explain more why evolution is bad science and not true so that peope don't believe God created through evolution.Evolution seems to blind people when it comes to what the bible says and it is a problem when we prop up man-made science over God's word and what it says especially when man cannot be trusted to tell the truth and has been wrong so many times in history whether they believed in Christianity or not. Man cannot be trusted to tell the truth.There is absolutely no reason to put your faith in something mn said is true over what God said is true. Science canges and it has changed many of times in history and wht is true scientifically today can be wrong tomarrow.

You're making the same mistake that certain YECs make. You're equating your interpretation of scripture, with what God says. We can just as equally make a mistake with interpreting scripture, as we can interpreting the evidence regarding the age of the earth.

Your Man-made Gap theory can be just as wrong as what you call man-made science. Both have fallible humans interpreting something.

I was'nt even bringing the Gap Theory into this my point is to trust God over man.
http://www.history.co.uk/shows/big-hist ... -the-world

We are all trying to trust God, when we interpret scripture. But again, we are not infallible.

I agree. None of us has a 100% authority on their interpretation of scripture but it should still be our objective to trust God over what man says is true.

Could you put that in practical terms? How do we trust God over what man says is true? What steps do we actually take, to put that into practice?

We need to believe God -- that His Word Is true -- it does Not change. God's Word says that marriage is to be between one man and one woman. When Society says differently -- two of a kind can get together to form marriage - then- we go by God's Word -- one man and one woman. When Society says that it's okay for men and women to live together without getting married. God's Word says that sex outside of marriage is fornication. So the men and women living together without marriage and having sex are committing fornication. Sex outside of marriage. Fornication is a very old-fashioned word meaning have a sexual relationship without being married. We should Not be trying to rationalize God's Word to fit our desires or beliefs.
God's Word says 6 / 24hr days -- like we have Now. We are to work 6 and rest 1 per week. Don't be content to rationalize simply because it's popular to do so.
We take the things of every day life // do not kill // do not lie // do not commit adultery. Do we find reasons to rationalize Our actions because it's convenient to do so. How much physical activity do we allow while we're dating or engaged. Is our philosophy / if it feels good Do it. God says No sexual activity before marriage. Do we fudge and practice oral sex == after all, it's not intercourse.

Don't we tend to use 'my interpretation' vs 'your interpretation' cause we don't like it when someone comes up with something that disagrees with us. When Scripture doesn't fit with our own ideas.

No one wants to be the 'odd duck' that disagrees with the main stream thought. The 'main stream' is the professor who has the ability to ruin our career goals simply because we choose to believe differently than he does. Or part of our family chooses to live a life-style that we don't believe in. We talk to them about our beliefs and why we disagree with them. We're as pleasant as possible. Do they respect Our beliefs? Are we willing to experience the pain of an estranged relationship Because our beliefs Are important to us. Their beliefs are Also important to Them. So we compromise -- they agree to be sociable / not being physically demonstrative around you / save That for later. Or does the couple insist on doing their own thing in Spite of.

God's Word isn't really That hard to understand -- we simply don't like what it Says at times.

Philip wrote: Jesus confirmed the entirety of what is written in the Old Testament - which you appear to dismiss because of the God it describes. I don't know of the nuances that you believe, but you've asserted that God, as described in Scripture, is not the One you believe in. So, you don't believe what Jesus taught about that. So, do you instead believe Jesus endorsed countless passages or pure fiction? Did He lie about the Old Testament?

If you consistently choose to ignore everything I write in every comment, I'm afraid you're never likely to understand my point of view. Let me spell it out. I do not dismiss the truth of the Old Testament at all. I dare say I have as much faith in it as you do. The difference between us is not one of disbelief or rejection, but one of interpretation. You choose to interpret it more or less literally; I choose to interpret it through the culture in which it was written. I consider my interpretation both more credible and more sensible, historically, artistically, scientifically, poetically and morally, but I accept that there are some who disagree. I understand their point of view, I just disagree with it. Your statement "So, you don't believe what Jesus taught about that," and question, "Did He lie about the Old Testament?" suggests a reluctance even to want to understand my point of view, let alone agree with it. As such, I'm not sure the debate is worth pursuing.

Hugh: "To justify genocide on the grounds that murdered people get to heaven quicker seems very dangerous religion to me."
The Egyptians were mostly a pagan, unbelieving (in the Lord) people of hideous practices, brutal enslavement of God's people. Through Moses, there were relentlessly warned, even showing the powerlessness of the Egyptian false gods, humiliating them. These unrepentant pagans, if allowed to live until old age, still would have met a terrible judgement. That is what would have happened to those children if they had lived.

What appalling racism! There is nothing in scripture to suggest that the Egyptians, as a race, were people of 'hideous practices'. Sure, they endorsed slavery, as did all the good Christians of western Europe and the USA for hundreds of years, but no doubt some were nice and some were nasty, as in every community. The arbitrary slaughter of every first-born would have been petty, cruel and vindictive and reflect very badly on the God who inflicted it, if, in fact, he did any such thing. But this crime depends on a literal reading of the bible, which, fortunately, I do not believe in at all.

In the first place, genocide is the unwarranted/unjustified taking of lives by man - which Scripture teaches is murder and evil. God's purposes ARE justified as He is the very definition of justice. He knows full well what and why He would take a life. And as the GIVER of life, ONLY He has the right to take it, when and as He sees fit.

I dare say, but the justification for the arbitrary slaughter of every Egyptian first-born, according to a literal interpretation of the bible, is pitifully weak. God sat in heaven, thinking up successive incentives to get Pharaoh to release the Israelites, apparently increasingly frustrated when they didn't work, until eventually he decimated them. How very UnChristian this God is! It is inconceivable that Jesus either believed this happened as such, or that he would have approved of such behaviour, had it happened. Being omnipotent, of course, he knew what really happened, and how this passage was to be properly interpreted. Something similar occurred when he was asked about the tower of Siloam falling and killing eighteen people. Many people seem to have considered this some kind of divine intervention, but Jesus told them not to be so silly.

Philip: Upon what basis do you consider yourself to be a Christian, because you reject what Jesus confirms to be truthful.

No, I don't. As I have said before. I reject, and I bet Jesus rejected too, a literal interpretation of the bible, in terms of a more culturally sensitive one.

But whenever I see someone claiming to be a Christian who denies Scripture, I ask them, upon what basis. So, again, please tell me upon what basis you consider yourself a Christian? I sincerely want to understand.

No, you don't. You actively refuse to understand. You have presented no justification for a literal interpretation of the bible, but do not accept the justification for a less literal interpretation, as presented by the evidence behind an evolutionist view.


Abelcainsbrother: "Perhaps I need to explain more why evolution is bad science and not true so that people don't believe God created through evolution." Not more, abelcainsbrother, as you haven't even begun yet.

Abelcainsbrother: "Man cannot be trusted to tell the truth." He can mostly be trusted to tell the truth as best he can.

Abelcainsbrother: "There is absolutely no reason to put your faith in something man said is true over what God said is true." That's quite true. However, what God said is true is not easy to understand. Interpreting the bible is a continuous process.

crochet wrote:
God's Word says 6 / 24hr days

Book, chapter and verse please.

And on this:

crochet wrote:
So the men and women living together without marriage and having sex are committing fornication.

Were Adam and Eve married? If two people live together and have sex, and made a commitment between themselves and God, is that enough? Or do they have to have a marriage certificate from the state?

Don't we tend to use 'my interpretation' vs 'your interpretation' cause we don't like it when someone comes up with something that disagrees with us. When Scripture doesn't fit with our own ideas.

Only if we are approaching scripture the wrong way. If we read scripture for what it actually says, and come up with a different interpretation than someone else, then what? So we just go with the unpopular interpretation if that person has dibs on it being what God actually meant?

Hugh,

I think the point that Philip is trying to get you to see, is that you continually give examples of something in scripture, and say it's not meant to be taken literally. With that hermeneutic, how can you take Christ's atonement, and our need for a savior, literally(if you do)?

You take some scripture literally, and other parts not so literally?

Do you see the potential for problems, that Philip is trying to show you?

Or at least show how you interpret scripture. How do you decide what to take literally, and what to not take literally?

And to say that you don't think Jesus meant us to take scripture literally? To me, that sound heretical. So, I'd rather have you explain what you mean, so maybe I can see I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

Did Christ literally get crucified on a cross for the literal sins of the world? Or do you think sin is just a metaphor for something else, and we don't really need a savior? See what I mean?

From my perspective it makes no difference what interpretation we go by as long as it is with the intent to understand God's word truthfully and is not heretical. But I see a problem that seems overlooked by so many people and that problem is evolution and how it has impacted how we interpret the bible when there are very good reasons to reject evolution.Let's just say that oneday it is realized that the theory of evolution is wrong and it gets dropped from science and replced by a better theory.All of those who allowed it to influence the way they interpret the bible will be impacted and it would then change how we interpret the bible even if you were a biblical theologian who found a way to make evolution fit into an interpretation of the bible.Now sure it looks like evolution is sound science and is here to stay but it is not definite.This is why, if you're one who accepts evolution? You need to know it is sound. I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist based on the evidence and the way no scientist has ever demonstrated life evolves and cannot do it and so it does not and will never influence the way I interpret the bible,but it does for so many other people.

Hugh, I don't assert to know all of how you interpret Scripture - nor you, me. Clearly, some of Scripture is meant to be literal, some allegorical/symbolic, metaphorical, some poetry, some history, but if you try to explain away so much of Scripture that you would say, "But a loving God never would do such a thing" - well, you then have to regulate a HUGE amount of Scripture from meaning what the context and plain language it reveals it to mean. Yes, there are passages that the meaning is debatable. But you also have not only so many such passages that make us go, "What???!!!" - but you also have to look at the context and the fact that so many such passages are referenced with the very same literal meanings and used to illustrate an appropriate point or attribute of God, in many other places across Scripture. For example, the first born deaths of the final Egyptian plague are referenced by 4 different places by writers in Psalms, 5 times in Exodus, and once in Hebrews, with the writer (probably the Apostle Paul) referencing not only that, but several other pretty amazing things that people have often said were fictional. Why would Paul make up or reinforce a crazy tale to illustrate attributes of God's faithfulness and the faithfulness of His messengers? Moses? The Psalmist? And if these references don't really mean what they say, what, pray tell, are they supposed to mean?

So, whenever I encounter people who question so much of Scripture as meaning what it appears to say, in plain language - again, I well realize that there are passages that are reasonably open to a variety of possible meanings - well, I always like to know where their understanding lies. So, a third time, Hugh, why do you consider yourself a Christian, upon what basis? Please realize that this is is not meant in any way to be insulting or some kind of "gotcha" question, but it is important to understand why you consider yourself a Christian? And I am not asserting you are not, I just wonder the basis?

Let's talk about fruit flies they were used by scientists to try to demonstrate life evolves and all they ever got were more fruit flies and after zillions of generations no evolution,like they wished.

Fruit flies were favored because they have chromosomes in their salivary glands that are 100x the size of normal chromosomes,making them much easier to study.But also, because of their gestation period of just a few days,low cost,small size and they can survive on a simple diet of bananas.

Yet in all of the thousands of breeding experiments all over the world for more than 50 years a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge.Only in bacteria,where drug resistance emerges and the ability to survive without normal dietary food can emerge is the closest scientists can come to showing it evolves But still no evolution has been demonstrated only the ability to adapt and yet they reproduce themselves,in favorable conditions,every twenty minutes but fossil evidence going back atleast three and a half billion years,to the time of life itself are virtually identical with modern forms of bacteria,so that evolution has never been conclusive.

RickD.

The 6 / 24 hr days has been discussed So much. So you want a chapter and verse Again -- vs 5, Genesis 1 " so the evening and the morning were the 1st day." And the 2nd day ,etc. onto vs 31 chapter 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth and the hosts of them, were finished. God rested of all His activities and blessed the seventh day.
This world operates on a 24 hr day.

Adam and Eve -- Genesis 2: 22 " Then the rub which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. vs 24 , "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh; Chapter 4 : 1 " Now Adam knew Eve, his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain......."
The only culture I'm familiar with is This Country. Legally there is a marriage license required to be Legal. The idea Usually is that a man and woman who fall in love and want to be married, their friends and family are invited to a ceremony of some kind and they exchange marriage vows , exchange rings and are pronounced husband and wife. That is a Christian marriage. A couple Can simply go to a justice of the peace and be pronounced legal. But there is usually a ceremony of Some sort. There is Happiness involved in being joined together as a couple.
I Also realize that the above paragraph doesn't happen all that much now days. But it Does still happen.
Commitment is not taken very seriously these days. People are in and out of relationships like they were going steady rather than 'not until death do we part'. That gives stability / emotional security to those involved. Including the children being born and raised. Maybe Especially For the stability and emotional security of children being born into that union.

Is the commitment between themselves and God, Enough? Well -- that would be Basic -- is it Enough? Maybe that depends on the culture and the people involved. Why they're getting married in the 1st place. Those would be Big Things to a marriage relationship -- two people who Want to be together for their live time. A marriage usually is stronger when there is a strong religious componant involved. Not Always, but usually.

Approaching Scripture -- the Wrong way? -- why bother with it then. The Right way -- curiosity -- wanting to know God better. There is a healthy questioning of what a passage is saying. Being willing to look at the context. Willingness to compare Scripture with other Scripture. Willingness to listen to other people's thoughts about a passage and learn from each other. Which would include Not having the attitude that "I'm right and you're wrong" -- however, I've known people who refuse to listen to another thought. Cause the other person Has to be Wrong if they don't agree with you. And people have said that of Me more than once. But on Some subjects I AM dogmatic. Like I believe that evolution has too many non-provables.
As has been said before -- God's Word has been translated into English so we Can Read it. When it says "thou shalt not commit adultery" but we want to Anyway. Someone calls us on our actions and we dicker about 'what exactly constitutes adultery'. The man might not have actually been inside of the woman, But 'letting loose right beside her body'. Or we make excuses for having a side-relationship. Why not take positive steps to strengthen the marriage -- being committed to that relationship because you promised to.
We seem to be leaving out the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives / attitudes. And sometimes people Have been misguided in their beliefs and practices. Someone points it out to us -- do we get miffed and leave? or consider what's being said and maybe adjust our practices.
This is getting fairly long.
And, yes, evolution Has impacted our views of the Bible in a very negative way. Mankind would rather follow his own thoughts than give credence to a God. Discredit One part of the Bible and create doubt about other parts and after a while satan has us putting it in a corner somewhere and ignoring it.
We Need to get back to taking God's Word Seriously. It Is His Word.

crochet wrote:

The 6 / 24 hr days has been discussed So much. So you want a chapter and verse Again -- vs 5, Genesis 1 " so the evening and the morning were the 1st day." And the 2nd day ,etc. onto vs 31 chapter 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth and the hosts of them, were finished. God rested of all His activities and blessed the seventh day.
This world operates on a 24 hr day.

The bible still doesn't say that God created in six 24-hour days. You interpret morning and evening to mean a 24-hour day. Even when there were no literal mornings and evenings on the first 3 creation days, because in your interpretation, the sun didn't even exist yet! You have yet to tell me how a morning and evening, in your meaning, can be literal, with no sun! And you interpret yom as a 24-hour day. You are not seeing my point. You are equating your interpretation, with God's word itself. And everyone who believes yom is something other than a 24-hour day, isn't believing God's word.

How can you be so 100% sure that your interpretation is the right one? IS IT POSSIBLE IN YOUR MIND, THAT YOU MAY BE WRONG?

RickD: "I think the point that Philip is trying to get you to see, is that you continually give examples of something in scripture, and say it's not meant to be taken literally." I do, and I thought that was a problem for Philip, until I read:

Philip: "Clearly, some of Scripture is meant to be literal, some allegorical/symbolic, metaphorical, some poetry, some history ..."

So, the difference between us is not, as I thought, that one thought the bible had to be taken literally in its entirety, and the other not, but that we both differ in our variations of interpretation.

RickD, continuing from above, says: "With that hermeneutic, how can you take Christ's atonement, and our need for a saviour, literally(if you do)?" and later, "You take some scripture literally, and other parts not so literally? Do you see the potential for problems, that Philip is trying to show you?", and indeed I do see the potential for problems - why should one individual's interpretation be any 'truer' than anybody else's? Why Philip's, or RickD's, rather than mine?

RickD continues: "How do you decide what to take literally, and what to not take literally?" I have already suggested a way of resolving the dilemma. How well do our interpretations of the bible conform with the God that Jesus described and knew so well, and with our own observations of his works? If God is described as a "father" we find ways of understanding the Old Testament that conform with, rather than conflict with, that description. If we see evidence for billions of years of evolution (in an astrononomical as well as biological sense), then we find ways of interpreting the Old Testament that conform with, rather than conflict with, that description. Notice, before we go on, that there is no need to oppose "literally true" with "complete fantasy" or "crazy tale."

Let me give an illustration.

"As a science teacher to children, I explain ionic bonding by saying that a stable atom has equal numbers of protons and electrons, and complete electron rings. If an atom needs an electron to complete a ring, it borrows one from an atom which has one too many. Although this results in both atoms having different numbers of protons and electrons (the borrower now has one too many and the lender one too few), if they go around together, the pair of atoms have an equal total of protons and electrons, and so the pair is stable, and that is what a chemical compound is."

Now, although this is a generally accepted and easily understood description, almost not one single word is literally true. The electron 'cloud' circling the nucleus of an atom does not consist of a number of discrete electrons, and they are not arranged in literal 'rings'. Atoms do not 'borrow' or 'lend' electrons, and ionic bonding does not result in happy little pairs of atoms. And yet the story is true!

Philip asks how I can be a Christian "on this basis" and RickD asks "Did Christ literally get crucified on a cross for the literal sins of the world? Or do you think sin is just a metaphor for something else, and we don't really need a saviour? See what I mean?" I do see that by not relating to my explanation of how I interpret scripture, anything goes, but hope that if you read what I wrote above, it may become clearer. Seeing as this is the most scientific forum on this website, and being a scientist more than theologian, I don't care to delve more deeply into the meaning of Christianity, sin, salvation, redemption and so on, except to say that I am a Christian because I follow the teaching of Christ, who, faced with other people who were also less theologically gifted than himself, said: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Jesus used the Old Testament for a number of reasons - to justify his claim to authority, as an authority of its own to support his teachings, and to illustrate the nature of God among others, but really, he didn't need it, and neither does anybody else to follow his teachings. It is important, useful, illustrative guidance (properly interpreted), but it isn't Christianity. Christianity is a method of living now, not a discussion of antiquity. "He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err."

And is this 'heresy'? An interesting word. What does it mean?

Hugh,

My ADD just kick in big time. You lost me at "ionic bond".

I'm just saying, that if you don't take Adam literally, and Christ does seem to refer to him as a literal, historical person, then how do you know to take Christ literally?

I'm not questioning your Christianity on this basis. I'm just asking how to justify the need for a literal belief in Christ, if one doesn't hold to a literal Adam?

If im understanding you correctly, you don't believe Adam was a literal, historical person. But Christ is a literal, historical person. All I'm asking is how you can say one is, and one isn't? What basis do you have for that?

If I've misrepresented what you believe, please correct me. I'm trying to understand how TEs interpret scripture non-literally, and still hold to a literal need for a savior.

I'm not understanding the way that works.

RickD wrote:Christ does seem to refer to [Adam] as a literal, historical person...

Does he? Where?

I'm not questioning your Christianity on this basis. I'm just asking how to justify the need for a literal belief in Christ, if one doesn't hold to a literal Adam?

There are those who think Christ is a fictional personification of a foundation for a set of beliefs rather than an actual person but I am not one of them. I think the Gospels' rapid appearance after his death and the concurrent spread of Christianity are sufficient evidence of a real person (continued...).

If I'm understanding you correctly, you don't believe Adam was a literal, historical person. But Christ is a literal, historical person. All I'm asking is how you can say one is, and one isn't? What basis do you have for that?

(... continued) On the other hand, the earliest people developed thousands of years before writing was invented, and, indeed, before any evidence of oral tradition, so the idea that a couple of them happened to be named after the Hebrew words Adam and Eve seems inherently unlikely. Even if those weren't their actual names (after all Jesus wasn't called Jesus either, was he?), 'Adam' is often taken to be a generic term for the 'first man', although Genesis 1 does not specify how many there were of 'man' when "male and female he created them". If Genesis 2 means that another, independently created man, called Adam, was placed in the Garden (not a paleolithic context, if I may say so), and that Eve was formed from one of his ribs, then I think we get into all sorts of difficulties about talking snakes, and the problem of what happened to all the other people made in Genesis 1. The emergence of modern 'man', as opposed to other hominids, included the emergence of self-consciousness, and the possibility of his deliberately doing something which he knew was wrong, or sin, which does not seem possible in creatures with less introspective capabilities. Of course, the possibility of doing something wrong does not, of itself, mean that sin was inevitable, but sure enough, along it came, along with all those feelings of responsibility, guilt, shame, and so on which appear to have blighted humanity since. I think Christ's doctrine of repentance should probably be seen in this light.
But as I say, I'm not really a theologian. Still I guess I can't be far from what Theistic Evolutionary theologians think. In short, 'Adam', like 'electron', is a simple and convenient cover-all for quite a complex process.

You didn't say what you meant by 'heresy'.