Evidence for God from Science

I saw something the other day that actually feeds into what I am trying to get across on this thread.

Monkeys are actually smarter than man. When a monkey looks into a mirror he sees a monkey. When a man looks into a mirror some of them see a monkey.

How we view ourselves is given to what we believe. If we are spoon feed scientific junk wrapped in agenda and don't see it then we are following a path to . . . ?

I have made my case for this subject.

Katabole ,

Please post your ideas on a rebuilt earth on a new thread, I would really like to explore this subject. I have always wanted to do so and since you have some background with this it may be a good time. Thanks.

One of the reasons I stick to the KJV and the Strongs's is to distinguish what can be easily overlooked in the English. Here's an example:

Hb 1:2, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (KJV)

Hb 11:3, Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

1Jn 3:17, But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

The word I want you to look at in these three scriptures is worlds, (world's)

Now just reading this in the English in the first two scriptures to me, when I first read it, I simply thought the worlds spoken of here were earth and the planets. And that's what I believed it to be. And I know different churches teach, that is indeed worlds. And the third verse when I read it is speaking of this world, so it made sense it was speaking of this earth.

But on closer look at the actual words found in the Greek and than translated into English, the first two scriptures are not speaking about planets at all but about time. Why? Because there are two different Greek words used for the word "world's" in these three sciptures.

The first two utilize the Greek word aion, Strong's 165

aiwn
aion
ahee-ohn'
from the same as aei - aei 104; properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age, course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world (began, without end). Compare cronoV - chronos 5550.

So the (worlds) mentioned here are not planets but ages. This creates a different and true understanding of what the passage is speaking of. It may be implying this world but the word's meaning and it's placement in this passage, can only represent time. Therefore it is speaking that Christ created ages of time and should correctly be taught this way.

In the third scripture, there is a different Greek word used for (world's). It is the Greek word kosmos, Strong's 2829:

kosmoV
kosmos
kos'-mos
probably from the base of komizw - komizo 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):--adorning, world.

And it is simply speaking about this earth.

Someone reading the Bible in the English, wouldn't know the difference in the words utilized in the above scriptures, unless they studied it themselves. Why I brought this up is because denominationalism is prevelant within Christianity, when it is not supposed to be. You cannot substitute aion for kosmos and vice-versa without creating confusion.

1Cor 1:10, Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Many have not studied the words correctly and then have incorrectly taught others, which has led to denominationalism. Only by sticking to the Word, can we understand the real message, that God wants us to understand. When Jesus said, "Haven't you read?" he meant to read, understand and be united with the same mind in understanding scipture.

My point is only this: it seems disingenuous of someone who is a theistic evolutionist in the strictest sense (i.e. no intervention after the Big Bang) to accuse an IDer of being unscientific in their explanatory model. To me it really just boils down to when a theistic evolutionist believes god(s) intervened - and whether it was once, or thousands of times, the fact remains that both camps believe in divine intervention. And it is even more disingenuous for a theistic evolutionist to claim that they can permit divine intervention prior to the Big Bang and before the laws that govern our universe were created - and are therefore insulated from scientific investigation while an IDer is bound by the fact that their acts of intervention occurred after the laws of the universe were in play - making their intervention outside the laws of science

you are right with the "one or a thousand interventions is still intervention" but God intervening in the big Bang is required since we have no solid explanation for how the Big Bang came about. And he did not create the laws of nature before the creation of the Big Bang, it all was created at the same time (at t=0). So I don't know why you suggest that the laws were created before the Universe. Perhaps our Universe is another of many Universes that God created?

So you are telling me that some people published an article and then you went back and adjusted your view of the Bible to fit a report of man?

I have studied in detail the dating methods of rocks and organic matter. There are big problems.

you don't have much (sorry to use this word) faith in the abilities of man, do you? Don't you think that radioactive dating would have been discarded if it didn't work? I'd think after the first few attempts at dating, they would have said "forget this" and moved on. The fact is that if done correctly and with the appropriate element (carbon, uranium, potassium-argon, etc.), it gives remarkably good results. They've dated several mammoth mummies and they fall nicely into either a timescale of 30-40K years and 9-12K years. This happens to coincide with two periods of glacial recession that allowed their bodies to become entombed. There were no outliers... Creationists love to bash dating methods because it is so easy to mess up or contaminate samples. But this doesn't mean that "dating is all wrong". My point is, you don't see any of these fossils dating <6000 years old unless they are contaminated somehow. Not to mention the people who try and date a 100 million year old rock with c-14!

Knowing this I had to reject this foundation and view the scripture without a filter, as best that I could.

wow, and looking at the evidence through the Bible's filter isn't the same? You are guilty as well.

It is so common that everyone expects it and if someone were to only show one view they would feel cheated in a college class. Why is a biology class and geology class so different? I ask you to examine your view of science. Are you in fact using a theory of man to filter scripture? If you get that lost feeling, welcome to the crowd. Maybe we are not supposed to have a grounding except in scripture.

scriptural grounding for our spiritual and moral existence, not for science. The way Genesis is written is much too short and lacking in detail to make anything out of our origins. Genesis never mentions any of the specific laws of nature, nor any details about planetary or stellar motion and formation, or why the rocks are how they are, or how long ago all of this happened. All that you claim does this is just YOUR interpretation. God may very well have placed us on Earth WITH this curiosity and expects us to try and figure all of this out for ourselves. He may not have even bothered telling ancient man the REAL truth. Whatever that is, I'm sure it gives God something to watch as we toil here on Earth... haha

It started with a picture of a Bible and said in the past people believed in the Old Testament, it stated that science has now shown that Genesis is wrong. They then went on to talk about monkeys. Do you not see this? Does this not concern you? At what point do Christians push back? Just what is a Christian?

if Genesis is just a story, so what? The majority of us, atheist and religious, have gone on with their lives accepting that. Science has shown literal Genesis to most likely be false, or else just a fantastic re-telling of an actual event. This change happened just as people looked at the world around them and pondered why things were. As we began to put the puzzle together, it became clear that the literal "6 days of Genesis and the global flood" were just stories. Stories meant to teach us Humans a lesson on the power of God.

Do we now ask for a show of hands of the atheist Phd's to define the belief of Christians?

what percentage of PhD's are atheists? Why lump all of secular science into their camp?

I disagree. If in fact a theory was found to match all data and no anomalies were found then I might have to agree, but that is not the case. I have placed numerous examples of "settled science" on this board where anamolies exist that negate the accepted theory. Science has been prone to vast errors in the past, what makes you think that today is any different. Those scientist were just as sure as you are today.

yes, there are errors and problems scattered all over. But the errors get corrected over time and the problems are solved. Just compare the year 1800 and now and you see my point about the beauty of science and progress. Anomalies and problems do not worry science because Man does not know it all. We're working on the problems...
Regarding the theory that matches the evidence, if you compare the two, evolution should win simply by default. YEC existed before we knew anything about our past, evolution is still blurry but the picture is becoming clearer as we learn more and more.

When have you ever heard of a petition signed by scientist telling PBS not to portray macroevolution as a fact? Never. Science is being used and scientist are fine with it. Yes, there are many fine scientist that are not agenda driven but many are.

another "pot calling the kettle black" statement. The creationists and IDers have the agenda (to save peoples souls) and they are desperate to get people back behind their beliefs (supposedly because evolution disproves the Bible or something?). Science scares them to no end and they want to change science. Most secular scientists just ignore them and are usually frustrated when they come around challenging debates and what-not.

While it is certainly true and very evident that what we understand as science today is being used by many to promote a man-centered, humanistic and in some cases, atheistic world view, it doesn't follow that science itself as a methodology when viewed in proper relation to Scripture and incorporated in a Biblical world view, is what the scriptures here are speaking about.

you can follow all of secular science as fact and still believe in a God and the Bible. The conflict is simply in interpretation. Man nor God is wrong. If God had a hand in our creation (either directly or through evolution), I doubt he'd want us to be a bunch of "blind followers". He'd want us to be able to figure the creation out for themselves, NOT give them the directions all at once at the Beginning and tell us to believe them!

Himantolophus ,

Yes, I am guilty of using the Bible to filter my view of the world. Do you see this as a problem?

frankbaginski wrote:Himantolophus ,

Yes, I am guilty of using the Bible to filter my view of the world. Do you see this as a problem?

Obviously, I don't have a problem with it. I'd clarify however, that we all have filters in place when we look at the Bible and that those filters can lead to wrong conclusions without the Bible itself being wrong.

Katabole ,

When speaking of worlds I always assumed that they were talking the future not the past. Revelation calls for a new earth so it would fit with most of the rest of scripture in the sense that most things are in multiple places in the text. I also see it as refering to the worlds of spirit, earth, heaven, and the new earth. I don't see it making a case for the past but the future, I could be wrong and would always allow for the possibility. However in looking at the creation week I don't see how that could be just a redo. Again this is just my view.

For the old testament I use the septuagent for the real meaning. The hebrew has changed over time as any language so the greek version from 270 BC is close to the old meaning of the words. Even the KJV mostly came from the rewrite of the Jews after the council of Jamnia. (spelling?) I wish there was a spell check on this board.

I have a piece of software from E.C. Marsh that shows the septuagent and KJV side by side verse by verse. It is so nice to have. I also use esword for my searches. It has buried in it the greek and hebrew translations. Also a very nice tool.

Canuckster1127,

While we are in the flesh it is impossible to not have filters. The point I am making is that we should be aware of them and try and place everything in perspective. Maybe I add a little drama to my post, but believe me some people need to be shocked into the light of day. Not so much here. After 200 post I think the people here know where my heart is.

frankbaginski wrote:Canuckster1127 ,

What science should be and how it actually manifest itself are two different things. I do not believe I am stretching anything in my description of how science is viewed and used in our society today. There are many purest out their with the ability to separate whay we know from what we think we know. They are many more out there that don't talk in terms with limits, they say that the view of mainstream science is fact. They do not expose the incomplete nature of our data, they don't talk about anomalies in the data, and they bridge science into political action. This is what I am talking about.

If you had a herd of tigers you would place a fence around them to protect your children. The misuse of science is worst in that your childrens eternal destination is at risk. Am I the only one on this board who can see this?

Frank,

I agree that there is a higher percentage of people with the views you are concerned about in the scientific community than in the general population with the following qualifications below that I hope will make sense to you.

I'm going by memory here so please accept these numbers as general estimates but know that they are based upon prior reading of mine in this area.

Belief in the existence of God has been pretty consistent in the general population of the United States for the past 40 years. When you look at the scientific community, overall, the percentages are fairly reflective of the general population with perhaps a little higher level of unbelief but usually not pushing too far away from the margin of error in whatever methodology is being used to measure. What is significant however is when you look at the breakdown by the type of scientific discipline.

There is a far higher level of unbelief in the biological fields of science than there is in the others. In fact, and again please allow me the restate I'm going by general memory, the rate of unbelief in that discipline is about twice that of the general population and the other science fields.

So, yes, I see a problem and I am not blind to it.

The use (or as we see it, the misuse) of Science in this regard is as much a result of how we as a Christian Community have defined the issue as what the scientific community is doing or not doing.

We have invited this to a large extent by drawing a line in the sand and allowing a faction of Christianity (particularly in this case the Young Earth Creationists, in my opinion) to define the issue in terms of absolutes to where Christianity appears to be saying, if Evolution is true, then the Bible is false. I happen not to agree with that statement. However, many in the scientific community look at that and pretty much say, "OK, I guess you know what you are talking about. I know evolution exists and is a proven theory and lynchpin to the entire discipline of Biology and since you know your own religion and beliefs, I'll accept your tems and reject your religion."

The fact of the matter however, as I've looked at it and continually sought to learn through my own reading, participation on this board, study of science and history and thinking, is that we're creating an unnecessary conflict and a false dilemma.

I marvelled at a recent post of your, Frank that I read in another thread speaking of DNA generation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I read you saying something to the effect that it didn't surprise you that DNA showed signs of the ability to self-form because you believe this universe was created by God specifically for the purpose of being able to sustain life and therefore even if life did not spontaneously generate (and evolve,) it could certainly give that appearance because of the nature of how God created it.

I pretty much agree with you on that statement, if I've captured your thoughts accurately. What amazes me, is that you have the ability to say that in that context and then I see you arguing in the manner that you are in this thread.

Given what you've said above, why would you fault a scientist for coming to conclusions that work within the context of their discipline when they seek to understand how this world works and then turn around and fault them for coming to certain conclusions with regard to our faith and Christianity, when we're in large part setting things up to where the choice they are presented with is blind faith and intellectual suicide?

You don't see any similarities to this situation and what a sector of the Church did in the historical situation of Galileo? "Believe the earth is the center of the universe or be a heretic?"

What frosts me the most about it is that the whole framework of the argument is unnecessary and false. The idea of non-24 hour days in Genesis is not new. It is not a response to this recent development in Science. It was in fact the position of St. Augustine and many early Church Fathers. There were similar, less technical theories of development and explanations for things among the early Greek philosophers. They wondered why there were fossils, such as they knew them at the time. They wondered why there were sea shells in the rocks at the tops of mountains. They certainly didn't define things in terms of the ages we work with now, because they had no evidence or reason as they could see to imagine that times frames were as large as we believe them currently to have been.

You say you're not YEC. Again, it wouldn't bother me in the least if you were.

Why then buy into what the practical effect of YEC is in terms of condeming the entire scientific community for coming to conclusions when so many Christians are the one defining the terms!

I'm not about compromise. I'm about truth.

The fact is that there is very little overlap between the Bible and the study of science when you look at the big picture. The Bible I expect to completely true when it speaks to scientific issues. I also expect nature to reflect the creative power and handiwork of God that is spoken of in the Bible.

I'm frankly excited about what nature is showing. The Bible says God spoke the world into creation from nothing. Physics and astronomy is pretty clear on the evidence of the Big Bang. It wasn't that many years ago, most of science was in the Steady State camp (Einstein himself wrestled with this) and that was a point of argument between the community of faith and that of science. Now, the Bible is remarkably in line with what is happening. I don't completely understand all the mechanics of biology being discovered and observed but I see it as a reflection of a creative God and worthy of marveling at. I don't see anything in the Bible itself that precludes what is being seen and found.

Most of all, I don't see any need at all for establishing a false, human based filter upon the Bible such as what I believe YEC does when it drives sincere and intelligent people away for no other reason that I can see except we've told them they can't believe what they are seeing and what the Bible says.

Sorry to take so long to say it, but again.

Science can be misused, just as Theology can. The misuse of something doesn't justify throwing the whole discipline out or condeming the whole community.

frankbaginski wrote:Canuckster1127 ,

Let us take global warming. According to mainstream media most scientist believe we are in the mist of global warming and the earth is doomed. We need to completely change everything we do and take all of the money from developed countries and ship it to the third world. Do you believe we are doomed? Do you want to buy beach front property here in Tucson? Give me a break.

The simple facts are over the history of the world temperature has always lead CO2. The outgassing of the warm oceans are what cause the CO2 to rise. This is junk science and although most of science is not junk it is used that way by others.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5023002/

Al Gore and others have said that the antartic is melting. Although they fail to mention that only one part is getting thinner, the rest of the ice is getting thicker. As it turns out the part that is getting thinner has a good reason. See link.

Denial is not a river in Eqypt.

Human activity is contributing to the raising of temperatures. Humans are part of nature. We can't help but have impact.

I agree there are political and philosophical agendas that dictate how scientific data is used for purposes that are not scientific.

So what?

Why does Christianity have to tie into one particular political philosophy or view of a popularly discussed scientific issue?

frankbaginski wrote:I saw something the other day that actually feeds into what I am trying to get across on this thread.

Monkeys are actually smarter than man. When a monkey looks into a mirror he sees a monkey. When a man looks into a mirror some of them see a monkey.

How we view ourselves is given to what we believe. If we are spoon feed scientific junk wrapped in agenda and don't see it then we are following a path to . . . ?

I have made my case for this subject.

You have? There's a case in there?

Global warming is an example of the problem with science. I don't want to talk about global warming.

frankbaginski wrote:Global warming is an example of the problem with science. I don't want to talk about global warming.

Need I point out that you were the one who raised it in the first place?

A problem with the use of science, does not equal a problem with science.

That's like blaming a pencil for spelling mistakes.

the global warming fiasco is all caused by sensationalist media and all of their doomsday stories and movies (The Day after Tomorrow, MegaDisasters, it could happen tomorrow, amongst many others). They are making us all panic.

On the other hand, there is no question the planet is warming (changes in animal distribution, ice melts globally) but there's a good chance that this is all part of the Earth's natural cycling. Yes, Man may be accelerating this process a little, but we aren't the sole cause.

Speaking of sensationalism, all of this warming stuff has been adopted by apocoliptic <sp> preachers who warn that all of this warns of Jesus' coming. So I guess we have over-hyping on both sides

Canuckster1127 ,

Canuckster1127 wrote:A problem with the use of science, does not equal a problem with science.

What?
The problem with using the wrong tool, does not equal a problem with the tool. Using a rocket to go to the grocery store does equal a problem with the rocket.

What is science? Without man does it exist? If I get an "A" in science does that mean I am filled with science? What weighs more science or a grain of sand? If I have murdeous thoughts and then I murder, my thoughts are not a problem? Is science immune from being questioned? If the theory of evolution is taught as fact and people are swayed to abandon faith, does evolution have any responsiblity?