Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:You're just 16 Rick, so it's understandable.

Thanks K. What's your excuse?

Err... I'm really a woman

Kurieuo wrote:Err... I'm really a woman

Should we call you Scotlyn?

Jac, while I didn't quote AIG verbatim, I didn't exactly distort the thrust of their message - both in individual assertions and overall. One thing is certain, both dogmatic OECs and YECs are picking and choosing when and where they want to take things literally - they're just doing it in different places. But, let's face it, IF either are wrong about critical points/issues/facts, then their "whole ship" goes down. The one thing hardcore YECs and OECs share (and I do NOT consider myself especially dogmatic about Progressive Creationism, although that's how I lean) is that they both put FAR more emphasis on this issue of time than I think the issue actually warrants. And BOTH camps try to use science to prove Scripture - which I would say, when it comes to certain things of God, will never be absolute proof. I mean, smart Christian boys on both sides of the aisle have long had reasonable points and discourse about this issue. And the thing is, BOTH camps are full of people who support inerrancy and believe the whole of Scripture, as originally given, is inerrant in EVERY way. The other thing is, God could have created in a variety of possible ways, time between, time during, some short, some exceptionally long, some instantly - I mean, He is GOD - which means that anytime a mortal says, "well, yeah, but there is NO way God did this or that - you fill in the blanks with what you think you definitely know God could, couldn't, did or didn't do. I'd say we get on shaky ground being dogmatic about such things.

Based on what I've mentioned, no one has ever compellingly made a case to me that being dogmatic about this issue - EITHER way (AS LONG AS they somehow believe the Scriptures are authentic and true - however they see that played out) - really matters any. We have the same world that Adam's sin left us. We have ALL of God's Words to Adam and Eve that He so desired we have. We didn't miss anything God has wanted man to read in His Word. And He spent the equivalent of a nanosecond mentioning ANY references to time lengths of Creation days. What does that tell us? I think the people who like to tell us that the time issue is much bigger deal than it really is are full of themselves. However, whenever someone says that it IS important to view the whole of Scripture, as originally given, as being "God breathed," I totally agree! But you cannot equate the two, but many assert they are equally valid issues. I can assure you they are NOT! Too many who are willing to die for the Lord they know of in Scripture do not agree on this issue. Do you really think such people - whatever their take on Creation days - don't take Scripture seriously. That's obscene to think!

Philip wrote:

Do you view animals as purely mechanical creatures, like say insects or robots?

Kurieuo, certainly animals are more intelligent than insects. They do feel pain, they suffer. But they function precisely as God DESIGNED them to. Predators cannot live without killing - they were designed to live by killing. Saying this is bad is like saying it's bad that volcanoes occasionally erupt. I don't assign human attributes or judgments to animals. God doesn't view the taking of animal life like that of humans - that's obvious. We are to be good stewards of animals, try to protect them as a species, treat those in our care humanely. But to say the bloodshed of animals is bad is to also say that God designed them to do something that is evil - for predators to kill their prey. In some ways, animals are very much like insects. They are amoral beings - they don't sin, they just function per how they were designed to. How could that EVER be bad? And people are exceptionally inconsistent as to how they view the animal world. They'll think nothing of squashing a cockroach they find in the house, bait a hook with a worm, but the more beautiful, doe-eyed animals kill are, the more people freak out - usually the same ones eating at McDonald's while wearing leather belts and shoes. Bottom line: GOD made the violent world of carnivores and their prey - so, how could that EVER be bad?

I think there is some confusion here over "moral bad" versus just bad as in horrible unloving.
Is the lion being loving as it devours its prey? Or is such, a horrible necessary act for the lion?
Morality doesn't have anything to do with the badness I mean.

Anyway, you might be interested to read some of my old posts here Philip (I think you'll like them):

• http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 218#p30218
• http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 377#p26377

Despite our apparent conflict here, maybe a few poorly chosen words, we're not really as far from each other as you might think.

Kurieuo: Anyway, you might be interested to read some of my old posts here Philip (I think you'll like them):

Yes, Kurieuo, you made some good points in those posts.

Where is Jac? I hope we did'nt run him off or something.

In case of being concerned, we have the private message feature.

Philip wrote:Jac, while I didn't quote AIG verbatim, I didn't exactly distort the thrust of their message - both in individual assertions and overall. One thing is certain, both dogmatic OECs and YECs are picking and choosing when and where they want to take things literally - they're just doing it in different places. But, let's face it, IF either are wrong about critical points/issues/facts, then their "whole ship" goes down. The one thing hardcore YECs and OECs share (and I do NOT consider myself especially dogmatic about Progressive Creationism, although that's how I lean) is that they both put FAR more emphasis on this issue of time than I think the issue actually warrants. And BOTH camps try to use science to prove Scripture - which I would say, when it comes to certain things of God, will never be absolute proof. I mean, smart Christian boys on both sides of the aisle have long had reasonable points and discourse about this issue. And the thing is, BOTH camps are full of people who support inerrancy and believe the whole of Scripture, as originally given, is inerrant in EVERY way. The other thing is, God could have created in a variety of possible ways, time between, time during, some short, some exceptionally long, some instantly - I mean, He is GOD - which means that anytime a mortal says, "well, yeah, but there is NO way God did this or that - you fill in the blanks with what you think you definitely know God could, couldn't, did or didn't do. I'd say we get on shaky ground being dogmatic about such things.

Based on what I've mentioned, no one has ever compellingly made a case to me that being dogmatic about this issue - EITHER way (AS LONG AS they somehow believe the Scriptures are authentic and true - however they see that played out) - really matters any. We have the same world that Adam's sin left us. We have ALL of God's Words to Adam and Eve that He so desired we have. We didn't miss anything God has wanted man to read in His Word. And He spent the equivalent of a nanosecond mentioning ANY references to time lengths of Creation days. What does that tell us? I think the people who like to tell us that the time issue is much bigger deal than it really is are full of themselves. However, whenever someone says that it IS important to view the whole of Scripture, as originally given, as being "God breathed," I totally agree! But you cannot equate the two, but many assert they are equally valid issues. I can assure you they are NOT! Too many who are willing to die for the Lord they know of in Scripture do not agree on this issue. Do you really think such people - whatever their take on Creation days - don't take Scripture seriously. That's obscene to think!

Point of Genesis chapter one is simply - God created period. The Days of Creation belong to God and these could have been 6 nano or milliseconds of or earth time, or 6 hours, six 24 hour days, or thousands to billions of years long. We don't know.

I lean toward OEC with the view that the point of Genesis chapter one is simply - God created period. When you look into the text and then weigh the evidence within the text I am struck by the intelligence God left in the clues of the use of symbols, biblical numbers meanings, etc, along with the historic, grammar traditional approach what the text reveals - is well outstanding. It does not tell you how long the days of God's creating were. Genesis chapter one does allude that these days (Yom) to indefinite periods of time that are longer than we think and even with that, it does not matter how long as much is that God created something out from nothing, which appears to be the point of the chapter, then to focus in on the earth and humanity from amongst the vastness he made.

What shocks me about militant YEC's is their insistence that if one does not believe in the creation as six 24 hour days based upon the earth's rotation before the earth ever was or did rotate is the sole measure of ones faith being true and any other view is heretical and must be squelched at all cost is illogical. Militant YEC do indeed use there six 24 hour earth day time as the litmus test for the following, bible inerrancy, cure for ills of humanity, main thrust for salvation (if you believe YEC then you are a real Christian who is saved and if not, you are not), in fact it promotes a works based salvation method that denies works but relies on works to make things right - promote only YEC views so God will bless a people or nation again.

Now mind you, most YEC do not believe this way but the militant YEC spokes persons do. And yes, militant OEC or Progressive Creationist can be just as bad too. However, I do find the majority of OEC and Progressive Creationist to be decent folks who just accept that God created out of nothing - something and are satisfied with that no matter how long the creation days were, they make Jesus and the cross the issue for salvation, not six s24 hour days based upon the earth's rotation before the earth ever was or did rotate...

Have a nice day

God Love You
-
-
-

B. W.,

That's a good point. While it may seem like we bash AIG, it's because they are so dogmatic. They're cult like. If the subject was something besides creation stances, and a prominent group was promoting their cult like beliefs, then I'd point out their errors too.

Look, while I may disagree with their belief, I have no problem if someone wants to believe in YEC, or any other creation belief. But when someone constantly misrepresents other believer's beliefs, as much as AIG does, I'm going to say something. It's not like they're ignorant with what they do.

While I certainly lean toward Progressive Creationism, I still believe we've got to be extremely careful how we apply and discern the possible "use of symbols, biblical numbers meanings," etc, as obviously, context is critical. We get in major trouble when we apply things not meant to be connected because they fit better with our analysis of what the text might be saying. It's someone like when I see people conveniently seeing or assuming mere allegory when the literal doesn't square with what they believe. Of course, that cuts several ways. Just saying we have to be VERY careful with such. I'd say some of the Progressive Creationists have been rather too, well, "creative," with some of Scripture. Same with the theistic evolutionists, various theists.

"it does not matter how long as much is that God created something out from nothing, which appears to be the point of the chapter, then to focus in on the earth and humanity from amongst the vastness he made"

Amen!!! And I would expect if the TIME of the days issue were anywhere near the focus as of the raging debate over it, God would have had Scripture dwell on it in much greater length and with unmistakeable detail. But, alas, for whatever reasons, He did not.

"Militant YECS" can be no worse than some militant OECs or creationists of other stripes. It's all an intense focus on the mostly irrelevant. It's so important - to a point beyond reason - to many to be able to match up science, its discovered evidences, and Scripture. There are VAST limits to us ever being able to do that. That is something people need to grow beyond, as it's NEVER going to happen - whether you're a YEC, OEC or sitting on some "Gap" in between. Give it up! Those burning to prove certain parts of Scripture scientifically are chasing a dead end! Grow beyond that! But when a YEC says we should take Scripture as 1) God's Word that 2) is true - I totally agree! But HOW is it true? That's where the disagreement is. And that is, obviously, after so much time of this intense debate, the HOW is unsolvable. Fascinating, but unsolvable. The sexy side of science applied to Scripture to me, is those things showing life and the processes of the earth and universe, in fact, their very existence, is impossible without God - as the existence of DNA, The Big Bang evidences (a universe suddenly begins). Those matter, and science can provide very strong evidences that not believing a Great Intelligence is behind it all is not a reasonable position. Other than those...

Look, here is the reality:
Even great theologians like Augustine didn't believe that genesis was a literal and concrete statement on the creation of the universe.
It's ok to have different views about things of this nature ( textual interpretation).
What isn't ok is when these things cause brothers and sisters in faith to become antagonistic.
Our Lord would not be happy about that.

I think if GOD thought the issue of the how long the days were is a big deal, He would have made the truth of the matter CRYSTAL clear - and not only with the pertinent texts, but with other evidences as well. And He had to have known the big "to-do" that this issue would become, the division it would one day cause. But He chose not to head that off with a certain level of clarity. Due to how this issue has impacted Christianity, that may well be the more interesting question.

Philip wrote:I think if GOD thought the issue of the how long the days were is a big deal, He would have made the truth of the matter CRYSTAL clear - and not only with the pertinent texts, but with other evidences as well. And He had to have known the big "to-do" that this issue would become, the division it would one day cause. But He chose not to head that off with a certain level of clarity. Due to how this issue has impacted Christianity, that may well be the more interesting question.

I respectfully disagree.God not only tells us how long the days were but that the heavens and earth are old too,here is the thing though it does not tell us how old it is,he leaves that open for us to discover and we have because just based on the amount of death and exctinction in the earth there is noway the earth is only 6000 years old andyoung earth creationists cannot make it fit from Adam and Eve to Noah's flood a 1500 year span.