Applying Ocaam's Razor to the Creation/Evolution Discussion

[The Barbarian]

On 10/6/2021 at 4:06 PM, Riverwalker said:

But no proof of an expanding universe that was caused by a big bang that was a super blob of mass and energy that blew up and created all of this

Sorry, you've been misled about that.   The fact just about everything in the universe is moving away from us, and the farther away it is, the faster it's moving, is consistent with an expanding universe.    Further, the predicted microwave background from that initial expansion was accidentally found by two Bell Lab engineers, looking to improve microwave antennas. 

Lots more of that.   Would you like to see some more?

 

[Riverwalker]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Sorry, you've been misled about that.   The fact just about everything in the universe is moving away from us, and the farther away it is, the faster it's moving, is consistent with an expanding universe.    Further, the predicted microwave background from that initial expansion was accidentally found by two Bell Lab engineers, looking to improve microwave antennas. 

Lots more of that.   Would you like to see some more?

 

That is a long way from proof. Unless you need it to be proof

 

[Guest]

(Genesis 1:1)  In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.  [ESV]

In the beginning — a period of remote and unknown antiquity, hid in the depths of eternal ages; and so the phrase is used in Proverbs 8:22, Proverbs 8:23.
God — the name of the Supreme Being, signifying in Hebrew, “Strong,” “Mighty.” It is expressive of omnipotent power; and by its use here in the plural form, is obscurely taught at the opening of the Bible, a doctrine clearly revealed in other parts of it, namely, that though God is one, there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead - Father, Son, and Spirit, who were engaged in the creative work (Proverbs 8:27; John 1:3, John 1:10; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2; Job 26:13).

created — not formed from any pre-existing materials, but made out of nothing.

the heaven and the earth — the universe.  This first verse is a general introduction to the inspired volume, declaring the great and important truth that all things had a beginning; that nothing throughout the wide extent of nature existed from eternity, originated by chance, or from the skill of any inferior agent; but that the whole universe was produced by the creative power of God (Acts 17:24; Rom_11:36).  After this preface, the narrative is confined to the earth.  [Jamieson-Fausset-Brown] 

It is important to note here, that the Hebrew word for create out of nothing is only used three times in Genesis: 1) Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:21 and Genesis 1:27.  It always involves God creating something out of nothing.

(Genesis 1:2)  The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.  [ESV]

1:2   One of several conservative interpretations of the Genesis account of creation, the creation-reconstruction view, says that between verses 1 and 2 a great catastrophe occurred, perhaps the fall of Satan (see Ezekiel 28:11-19). This caused God's original, perfect creation to become without form and void (t–hû wãv–hû).  Since God didn't create the earth waste and empty (see Isaiah 45:18), only a mighty cataclysm could explain the chaotic condition of verse 2. Proponents of this view point out that the word translated was (hãyethã) could also be translated "had become." Thus the earth "had become waste and empty."  [Believers' Bible Commentary]

"had become waste and empty", and that is the beginning what is commonly called the Gap Theory, of which there are a number of variations.  I will leave it at that.

[The Barbarian]

On 10/19/2021 at 7:09 PM, Riverwalker said:

That is a long way from proof. Unless you need it to be proof

You can't prove the sun will appear in the east tomorrow morning, either.   But like the big bang, the evidence for it is overwhelming.  Science is inductive.    We can use deductive reasoning only when we know all rules and apply it to the game.   We can only watch the game and infer the rules.

However, the fact that the theory has reliably predicted all sorts of things that were not known before the predictions, make it very reliable.

 

[The Barbarian]

On 4/23/2021 at 10:17 AM, Guest kingdombrat said:

When we see Galileo use PATTERNS, we see the Bible uses FORMED [which is a MOLD because we know humans are called CLAY], and then we look at all humans, look at all Species and see they reproduce offspring that look just like them [we see a Machine Shop Mold mass producing the same thing over and over.

No.   Machine shops and molds are man's way.   God's way is creation, and it's very different.

On 9/15/2021 at 1:51 PM, Riverwalker said:

BTW the only "evidence" that the big bang has is the doppler red shift. Which could be caused by any number of things.

No, that's wrong.   For example, the remnant light from the initial expansion was predicted to have cooled to microwaves by now.    Some years after the prediction, two engineers accidentally found it.   It's isotropic, no matter which way you look, again precisely what the theory predicted.

 

 

[Riverwalker]

34 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You can't prove the sun will appear in the east tomorrow morning, either.   But like the big bang, the evidence for it is overwhelming.  Science is inductive.    We can use deductive reasoning only when we know all rules and apply it to the game.   We can only watch the game and infer the rules.

However, the fact that the theory has reliably predicted all sorts of things that were not known before the predictions, make it very reliable.

 

Deductive reasoning man to discern the things of God.....well that surely is an inadequate tool

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;

[The Barbarian]

7 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

Deductive reasoning man to discern the things of God.....well that surely is an inadequate tool

No, that's wrong.  About God and man and our relationship, dediuctive reasoning works very well.   Because in this case, we are given the rules by which we may deductively reason.

God didn't give us the rules for creation itself, and for thousands of years, scientists have been using inductive reasoning to find the rules.   It works better than anything else humans can do.

 

[Riverwalker]

42 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

No, that's wrong.  About God and man and our relationship, dediuctive reasoning works very well.   Because in this case, we are given the rules by which we may deductively reason.

God didn't give us the rules for creation itself, and for thousands of years, scientists have been using inductive reasoning to find the rules.   It works better than anything else humans can do.

 

God very clearly stated how and when He did creation.  He spoke it into existence and did it all in 6 days. He capped his creation by forming man out of the dust of the ground and breathing life into Him. He did not evolve.

To accept scientific notions that are opposed to this word of God, is to place man above God

 

Romans 1: 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God (creation) into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (Evolution)

 

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Riverwalker

[The Barbarian]

6 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

God very clearly stated how and when He did creation.  He spoke it into existence and did it all in 6 days.

Left out a lot of details.  And since the text itself tells us that they aren't literal days, we know it's a figurative account.   He left the details for us to find out.

7 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

He capped his creation by forming man out of the dust of the ground and breathing life into Him. He did not evolve.

That's also taking a figurative verse and trying to revise it into a literal verse.   In fact, we still observe humans evolving.  Would you like to learn about that?

8 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

To accept scientific notions that are opposed to this word of God, is to place man above God

YE creationism isn't a "scientific notion."    But it is opposed to the word of God.   Fortunately, God doesn't care if they like the way He did creation or if they don't like it.   Not a salvation issue, unless they make an idol of their new doctrines and claim it is an essential Christian doctrine.

10 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

Romans 1: 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God (creation) into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (Evolution)

If you feel it necessary to add words to God's word to make it more acceptable to you, isn't that kind of a clue for you?

[Riverwalker]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Left out a lot of details.  And since the text itself tells us that they aren't literal days, we know it's a figurative account.   He left the details for us to find out.

That's also taking a figurative verse and trying to revise it into a literal verse.   In fact, we still observe humans evolving.  Would you like to learn about that?

YE creationism isn't a "scientific notion."    But it is opposed to the word of God.   Fortunately, God doesn't care if they like the way He did creation or if they don't like it.   Not a salvation issue, unless they make an idol of their new doctrines and claim it is an essential Christian doctrine.

If you feel it necessary to add words to God's word to make it more acceptable to you, isn't that kind of a clue for you?

Calling the bible figurative is placing the knowledge of man above the knowledge of God

Did God lie to us when he SPECFICIALLY told us how he did things?