Evidence for God from Science

I refuse to waste words with you. You can wait til the proverbial cows come home.

is that what you would say to a non-believer who challenges your beliefs and says you are wrong?

the website's position were simply be met with "You're wrong", or "you're not biblical"....

you have yet to show me where scripture backs up what you are saying. i do not accept deem's translation because he is not trained in thelanguage nor has he done extensive translation work with qualified scholars. using Strong's, is not good enough.

You really don't wish to understand, you simply wish to criticize

don't assume.

I have provided links to the page that provides scriptural references and you say that they are wrong.

i cannot comment on the credibility and the quality of the author? please the author you linked up, should have known better than to make such statements without some sort of scholarly reference. he graduated from Talbot, which i know about, and i am sure he was taught how to construct a position.

deem is ignored, he has shown he is only a scientists trying to be a theologian and that doesn't work. i won't say more.

why do i say you are wrong--let me give you an example:

the Bible says---God created...God formed...God spoke...God planted but those who believe in evolution, theistic evolution, natural selection, progressive creation, micro-evolution and so on tend to say, 'well this is done by natural selection or micro-evolution,' or 'this means 'ages' not days so it took time...' or'micro-evlution did this... 'etc. people with these beliefs are not pointing to God, they are pointing to something other thanHim and using God as an after thought, 'oh i better mention God or they will think i am not spiritual..'

the result is--1. you call God a liar; 2. you rob God of glory and credit; 3. you are teaching something that is not in the Bible; 4. you tell the non-believer that you do not believe what is in the book you believe in; 5. by doing things the secular way or following secular thought, etc. you are saying that you do not listen to God.

these results tell the unbeliever what you believe about God thus WHY WOULD THEY BELIEVE IN HIM AT ALL? you just said you believed in Him but your actions deny that proclamation. if they do not see you following and listening to God, there is no reason for them to change and you have given them justification to remain an unbeliever.

NOW, i will throw you another bone, don't know why but...,i already know that God calls people to study science in secular universities, there are things that need to be learned by believers that is just common sense and for everyone to learn. but dowe become objective, omit the spiritual, ignore God in our experiments? NO. we stay honest, give the glory to God, let the non-believer see the difference and so on

i say you (general usage) are wrong because you have allowed yourself to compromise and include secular ways that don't belong in a christian's life to affect your judgment, your thinking, your faith. it has taken your eyes off God and put them onto man's ways and that isn't right.

thus you need to repent and allow God to lead you in a better way. doesn't mean you can't do science, just means you do it better.

archaeologist wrote:the result is--1. you call God a liar;

You claim I am calling God a liar, you are the one being dogmatic about the Hebrew meaning of words. Those that believe that the literal interpretation of hebrews, and there are many beyond Deem, are trusting is Gods words. We believe God is telling that the universe is old.

archaeology wrote: 2. you rob God of glory and credit

Nope, God is awesome, powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, the supreme creator, created ex nihilo, beautiful, mysterious....glorious, the alpha and omega. I will ALWAYS teach this. I will ALWAYS give God the credit. And you are now assuming things about me.

archaeologist wrote: 3. you are teaching something that is not in the Bible;

You are the one being dogmatic about this. next time you need an antibiotic, tell the doctor not to give you anything but penicillin "Sorry, doc, can't take this amoxicillin, nope, no zithromax, no levaquin, its' not in the Bible about beneficial mutations and selection, so I believe that penicillin will kill those bacteria"

archaeologist wrote: 4. you tell the non-believer that you do not believe what is in the book you believe in

Now who is misrepresenting? I believe in the book I represent to non-believers. I believe the Hebrew states something different about God's process than you do.

archaeology wrote: 5. by doing things the secular way or following secular thought, etc. you are saying that you do not listen to God

Been through THIS before....


Look, Rich may have written those pages, but the Hebrew tranlation is there. Again, I will say that I have provided those references, you simply don't agree with them. So let's just agree to disagree....but stop accusing us of being bad Christians....you do not have the power to examine our hearts.

Forum Monk wrote:

zoegirl wrote:

archaeologist wrote:
I think at that point Arch would be saying if you are trying to find truth in science is it any wonder you're confused?

Just for clarification...is that you being specific to me, or a general you?

I wrote that, not Archaeologist.

And since I was referring to me scratching my head and wondering what is truth, why would I suddenly have Arch making a statement to z/g?
**geesh**
I thought I wrote that all pretty clearly.

Nope, simply those keyboards in the way again!!

So sorry, simply rushed in writing the quote bit....

forgot till the end there to say that the word 'you' is being used in the genral usage not the specific one.

but you missed what was being said anyways

We believe God is telling that the universe is old.

you don't get it do you--God avoids using dates, time, specifics for each and so on because He isn't telling you that the universe is old, He is telling you 'HE DID IT".

Nope

sorry but when you give credit to micro-evolution or natural selection then you are robbing God. those two items (among others) are not a spiritul construct. they are trying to replace God and His work.

You are the one being dogmatic about this. next time you need an antibiotic

well you are getting extreme and ridiculous now.

about beneficial mutations and selection

like i said, you rob God. did you ever stop to think that God created those things to act in such a manner? it has nothing to do with selection, you seem to think that God has no foresight and could not prepare certain things for what it will encounter.

I believe the Hebrew states something different about God's process than you do.

again you missed the point, and you are selecting what you want to believe not what it is saying. all the scholars God had work on the Bible can not be wrong and only deem right, who has not worked on a Bible or had God direct him to do so?

you are putting your faith in a man not God.

Been through THIS before.

so, you still don't listen.

....but stop accusing us of being bad Christians....

it is not me accusing you and you do not see the bigger picture nor the ramifications of your words and actions. you just don't get it.

Sorry i was gone again for the weekend.

Obviously, Enigma can speak for himself, but I never interpreted what he wrote when he opened this thread as worry, fear, or repentence in his belief in science. I merely thought that he was saying, perhaps he let science take more credit that it was due.

Let me just clarify my position. I am not necessarily sorry for how i came to God, but i think that since i came through science, i tend to lean on it too much. I don't have the kind of relationship with Christ that i should, and i think my thought process has a lot to do with it. I give a lot of credit to science, and i don't think that is the problem since i give more to the bible. My problem is my thinking, not science.

it is not me accusing you and you do not see the bigger picture nor the ramifications of your words and actions. you just don't get it

I specifically said in the subject of this topic "Not a competition." If someone is an OEC or a YEC, neither makes them a better christian or seeing less of the picture or anything else. They view the bible differently. ANd, personally, i thank God they do. If everyone dogmatically adhereed to one interpretation of the bible and never looked at different meanings then we would be like the pope yelling at Galileo for saying the earth orbits the sun (or whoever it was that said that). The point is that we cannot claim science is wrong just based on one interpretation of the bible. I think God left it open to discussion so that more people would be saved. As i said, if it wasn't for things like OEC or ID, i would probably not be a christian. So, to say those are 'unchristian views' or anything like that is saying that i was saved by something unchristian, which doesn't make sense to me. I have a relationship with Christ, but i have a lot of growing to do. Science brought me that relationship, so i thank God for Science.

you don't get it do you--God avoids using dates, time, specifics for each and so on because He isn't telling you that the universe is old, He is telling you 'HE DID IT".

Since God is avoiding using dates and times, how can you say without a doubt that the earth isn't old. And i never once heard anyone here who is an OECer say that God didn't do it. Just because we disagree on the timeframe doesn't mean we disagree on the creator or his creative power. i believe zoe was perfectly clear on that.

how can you say without a doubt that the earth isn't old

i have never said that. i have said it is a possibility that the earth and theuniverse are old but not the details of creation. as i have said, the Bible doesn't indicate that and we only have archaeological evidence going back to about 10,000 years, not the multi-thousands or millions claimed by secularists.

And i never once heard anyone here who is an OECer say that God didn't do it

i have. when they insert evolution in the mix, then they are saying God didn't do it, the process did. Gen. is very specific, God did not initiate a process, He made, He formed, He created.

Just because we disagree on the timeframe doesn't mean we disagree on the creator or his creative power

actually, yes you are.you are saying God didn't do it in the timeframe He said, that is disagreeing on the creator. you are saying He used a process but guess what you are disagreeing on His power because the Bible says He spoke and there it was thus you are denying Him His creative power.

I am not necessarily sorry for how i came to God, but i think that since i came through science, i tend to lean on it too much. I don't have the kind of relationship with Christ that i should, and i think my thought process has a lot to do with it. I give a lot of credit to science, and i don't think that is the problem since i give more to the bible. My problem is my thinking, not science

what i am about to write is not an attack but an explanation:

God used science to point you to Him but that doesn't mean that science is 100% correct or 100% true. he probably used elements that are true to reveal Himself to you. for example:

many people come to Christ through Billy Graham movies but does that mean porno movies are okay and of God? No.

the same with science, many people come to Him through the scientific field but does that make evolution or natural selection true? NO. does it make following secular thought, and conclusions right? NO. there is still right and wrong in that field and the christian needs to see that and stay away from what leads away from God.

because someone comes to Christ through a certain field that action does not cleanse the field, just the person. the field is still ripe with corruption, deception, greed, lust and so on. the christian can have no paet of those things.

thus they must look to God to guide them through these traps and spurn secular ways, thoughts and so on or they too will be caught up in the wrong thinking and be led astray.

which is why you have to remove all evolutionary thought from the process and your beliefs, it is not of God and having it in your belief structure leaves doors open for the evil one to wreck havoc.

there is more at work here than you realize. also if God used science why are you giving some of the credit to that field? science didn't do anythng, God did.

why do you hold onto science so strongly for? science is merely an avenue which is wrongfully elevated to a position of superiority it was not meant to have. it is no greater than anything else God created. once you put your eyes on science then your eyes are off God. put your eyes on God and let Him put science in its proper place.

Enigma7457 wrote:Sorry i was gone again for the weekend.

Obviously, Enigma can speak for himself, but I never interpreted what he wrote when he opened this thread as worry, fear, or repentence in his belief in science. I merely thought that he was saying, perhaps he let science take more credit that it was due.

Let me just clarify my position. I am not necessarily sorry for how i came to God, but i think that since i came through science, i tend to lean on it too much. I don't have the kind of relationship with Christ that i should, and i think my thought process has a lot to do with it. I give a lot of credit to science, and i don't think that is the problem since i give more to the bible. My problem is my thinking, not science.

it is not me accusing you and you do not see the bigger picture nor the ramifications of your words and actions. you just don't get it

I specifically said in the subject of this topic "Not a competition." If someone is an OEC or a YEC, neither makes them a better christian or seeing less of the picture or anything else. They view the bible differently. ANd, personally, i thank God they do. If everyone dogmatically adhereed to one interpretation of the bible and never looked at different meanings then we would be like the pope yelling at Galileo for saying the earth orbits the sun (or whoever it was that said that). The point is that we cannot claim science is wrong just based on one interpretation of the bible. I think God left it open to discussion so that more people would be saved. As i said, if it wasn't for things like OEC or ID, i would probably not be a christian. So, to say those are 'unchristian views' or anything like that is saying that i was saved by something unchristian, which doesn't make sense to me. I have a relationship with Christ, but i have a lot of growing to do. Science brought me that relationship, so i thank God for Science.

Very nicely said, Enigma

If I may bring up the original topic, you were wanting to discuss OEC or YEC.

If an analogy may be used here? If you watched that video
http://aimediaserver.com/studiodaily/vi ... height=520

it stuns me everytime I watch it....it is like watching a sculptor work in clay, or a musician writing a stunning composition. But unlike the artists or musicians that may start something only to scribble it out, this sculptor or musician always has His moves planned, intended. And what we may see as scribbles or perceive as wrong notes may be because we have not the ears or eyes to truly perceive His magnificence.


But do we think of God as a magician that simply "poofs" every thing here (He certainly could do so, of course, why even use 6 days?), or rather can we see HIm as the author, creator, engineer, artist who patiently brought together every force, every element, every particle, every molecule to create a gorgeous symphony of molecular and cellular movements? So powerful His elements obey Him, His molecules obey him, going where He tells them.

Sometimes we limit God unintentionally, thinking that He could only use sudden appearance as the way to create. Whether He created a beautiful new symphony from another symphony, it is still HIS symphony and He is the one writing the music. And He intended that new symphony from the beginning.

God said He did it, God said it was through His will, God said it was in HIS order, God said that what He planned, He accomplished. We see nothing in HOW God created it.

Pretty awesome video z/g.

There were were complicated structures that I have never seen before. Talk about specified complexity.

zoegirl wrote:But do we think of God as a magician that simply "poofs" every thing here (He certainly could do so, of course, why even use 6 days?), or rather can we see HIm as the author, creator, engineer, artist who patiently brought together every force, every element, every particle, every molecule to create a gorgeous symphony of molecular and cellular movements? So powerful His elements obey Him, His molecules obey him, going where He tells them.

Sometimes we limit God unintentionally, thinking that He could only use sudden appearance as the way to create. Whether He created a beautiful new symphony from another symphony, it is still HIS symphony and He is the one writing the music. And He intended that new symphony from the beginning.

Your analogy of the sculptor or composer is good, but from my point of view I see it differently. For example, you ask, do we think of God as a magician that simply poofs everything here or you say we limit God, thinking he could only use sudden appearance {paraphrased}. I think the concept of God creating over time, slowly molding the beauty, relishing each creative moment (extrapolating from your analogy) is a beautiful thought but I think it limits God even more. We know that God planned and looked ahead, for he knew us even before the creation. From a realm where time has no meaning, he planned. How long? We cannot know, the concept of time as we know it is nonexistent. but at a moment of his choosing, there was a beginning and he spoke and the timeless, eternal plan of God was launched.

From my point of view it is restrictive and limiting to have God now work within the contraints of time, fashioning a creation like a common worker, albeit the most highly skilled. So why six days and not a mere flash of time? I don't fully understand it z/g, but it is called the Law of the Sabbath and God exstablished it in those days and in that method. And it was to stand until Jesus came and fulfilled it, declaring, I am the Lord of the Sabbath and it will continue into all eternity.

Forum Monk wrote:

zoegirl wrote:But do we think of God as a magician that simply "poofs" every thing here (He certainly could do so, of course, why even use 6 days?), or rather can we see HIm as the author, creator, engineer, artist who patiently brought together every force, every element, every particle, every molecule to create a gorgeous symphony of molecular and cellular movements? So powerful His elements obey Him, His molecules obey him, going where He tells them.

Sometimes we limit God unintentionally, thinking that He could only use sudden appearance as the way to create. Whether He created a beautiful new symphony from another symphony, it is still HIS symphony and He is the one writing the music. And He intended that new symphony from the beginning.

Your analogy of the sculptor or composer is good, but from my point of view I see it differently. For example, you ask, do we think of God as a magician that simply poofs everything here or you say we limit God, thinking he could only use sudden appearance {paraphrased}. I think the concept of God creating over time, slowly molding the beauty, relishing each creative moment (extrapolating from your analogy) is a beautiful thought but I think it limits God even more. We know that God planned and looked ahead, for he knew us even before the creation. From a realm where time has no meaning, he planned. How long? We cannot know, the concept of time as we know it is nonexistent. but at a moment of his choosing, there was a beginning and he spoke and the timeless, eternal plan of God was launched.

From my point of view it is restrictive and limiting to have God now work within the contraints of time, fashioning a creation like a common worker, albeit the most highly skilled. So why six days and not a mere flash of time? I don't fully understand it z/g, but it is called the Law of the Sabbath and God exstablished it in those days and in that method. And it was to stand until Jesus came and fulfilled it, declaring, I am the Lord of the Sabbath.

Oh, I absolutely agree that God's power is such that He could "use" any amount of time. I absolutely agree that He is not constained by time. I don't see that He is under any constraints with Old Earth, any more than He would be under constraints if He did it in 6 days. It will always be from our earthly perspective and perhaps that it how it is lost in translation

The laws of the sabbath was also seen in the years of rest as well, I will come back to this but I am being tempted from my work...

From His infinite Godly perspective, it did occur with a "poof"

Let me provide another thought. From scripture we see God working in multiple fashions with people, sometimes it is with Paul on the road with the blinding interaction with God. Obviously God can work this way, other times we see God working over longer periods of time... MOses in the desert for 40 years, the Hebrews wandering the desert, the years Joseph spent in prison, the years Jacon worked for his father-in-law....and yes we must factor in the human rebellion, but ceratinly God is capable is working within seconds, minutes with PAul, but He choose to do so differently with His people elsewhere. In fact, most of the time, God calls us to wait, for His perfect timing. Now we know God is not bound by time, and yet no one would dare to assume that He waits because He HAS to wait, rather we say that God waits because He chooses to wait.

And Yet, somehow we are limiting God if we say that HE CHOOSE to wait during creation?

Whatcha think?[/b]

Forum Monk wrote:Pretty awesome video z/g.

There were were complicated structures that I have never seen before. Talk about specified complexity.

(nerd alert )
Incredibly, that all happens when a white blood cell receives a chemical signal regarding inflammation and the white blood responds by constructing proteins that act as anchors dragging on the capillary wall proteins. This then sends signals to change the "tumbleweed" action of the WBC to moving from the vessel to the site of inflammation.

Now that, is amazing

Hey, wait a minute, isn't specified complexity a term from ID's?

zoegirl wrote:(nerd alert )
Incredibly, that all happens when a white blood cell receives a chemical signal regarding inflammation and the white blood responds by constructing proteins that act as anchors dragging on the capillary wall proteins. This then sends signals to change the "tumbleweed" action of the WBC to moving from the vessel to the site of inflammation.

Talk about nerds. You knew what it was. I couldn't get the sound. Not even a musical score which would have made it cooler.

Hey, wait a minute, isn't specified complexity a term from ID's?

If you go back and check my ID posts, I said I thought Specified Complexity (also known as Complex Specified Information (CSI)) is the only tenet that has some merit. It is closely related to information entropy (not the same as the second law of thermodynamics - well kinda). Right now, in my opinion, when and if it is fully developed has the potential to kill evolution.

Forum Monk wrote:

zoegirl wrote:(nerd alert )
Incredibly, that all happens when a white blood cell receives a chemical signal regarding inflammation and the white blood responds by constructing proteins that act as anchors dragging on the capillary wall proteins. This then sends signals to change the "tumbleweed" action of the WBC to moving from the vessel to the site of inflammation.

Talk about nerds. You knew what it was. I couldn't get the sound. Not even a musical score which would have made it cooler.

Hey, wait a minute, isn't specified complexity a term from ID's?

If you go back and check my ID posts, I said I thought Specified Complexity (also known as Complex Specified Information (CSI)) is the only tenet that has some merit. It is closely related to information entropy (not the same as the second law of thermodynamics - well kinda). Right now, in my opinion, when and if it is fully developed has the potential to kill evolution.

Oh, sorry
I meant I was the nerd...oops

Thought I had you there with the ID Oh well, it was worth a try

Yeah, I find that the hardest thing that evolutionists have to explain is the great gulf between the Urey/Miller experiment and macromolecules and cells. It is like playing with tinkertoys versus building a skyscraper

Also, why can't we view God as a worker? Isnt' that the view of the 6 creation days? That he worked and then rested?

He may work, but it is leagues above our definition of work