Questions for evolution believers

[Michael37]

2 minutes ago, Eli1 said:

people were surprised to see how fast galaxies were forming after the Big Bang. 

You do know the big bang is a theory, right?

[Eli1]

1 minute ago, Michael37 said:

You do know the big bang is a theory, right?

Well yes of course. It's a best guess based on what we see and it keeps changing. It just changed in the last year because of new observations with the new telescope. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Eli1

[RV_Wizard]

I do believe in the "Big Bang."  It happened on day four when the sun, moon and stars were formed, presumably from the singularity called "light," since there is no unaccounted for source of light illuminating the earth.  It was not, of course, an explosion, but rather a rapid and immediate formation based on God speaking the universe into existence.  

[FJK]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

I do believe in the "Big Bang."  It happened on day four when the sun, moon and stars were formed, presumably from the singularity called "light," since there is no unaccounted for source of light illuminating the earth.  It was not, of course, an explosion, but rather a rapid and immediate formation based on God speaking the universe into existence.  

And that formation took place everywhere all at once which is why young earth vs. old earth arguments are nonsense and only stand in the way of Truth.

[Still Alive]

18 hours ago, Michael37 said:

Opinion noted but with a reminder of the Worthy Statement of Faith.

Quote:

"We believe that the 66 books of the Canon, from Genesis to Revelation are the exhaustive, inerrant and inspired word of God."

 

I don't agree with any individual or group on every little detail of anything. If I disagree with that statement does that mean that I'm not a Christian? Does it mean I should not be allowed to post on this site? 

I don't worship the bible. I worship God. And frankly, I've compared the bible to a biography that I read about a woman who I was inspired to get to know. I married her and have had a relationship with her for 25 plus years. How important is this biography for me to better know her? It can apply nuance, but when I've known her intimately and had a positive relationship with her for that time, Should I focus* on the contents of the biography, or on our relationship that continues to grow through communication with each other and our experience together?

* I'm not saying the "biography" is irrelevant, but that its primary focus for me was to introduce me to her, and it can sometimes add clarity to aspects of her I still don't fully understand. And first comes the relationship and communication. Second comes the biography. 

[Still Alive]

16 hours ago, enoob57 said:

Then you would have to agree with 
Genesis 1:5 (KJV)
[5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

It can't grammatically be understood any other way than a 24 hr. period of time...

 

It's poetry (genesis, that is). And we are reading an English translation. I agree that it pretty clearly says it was the first day in that one verse. But the first day of what? I see it as the first day of the age of man. Who knows how many ages preceded it. Maybe there was an "age of Neanderthal". 

I'm not saying I believe what I'm writing below, but at least the bible leaves room for the possibility:

The earth is like a canvas. A painting is created on it and, eventually, it is whitewashed, and another painting is put over it. And that cycle can be repeated over and over. And on a canvas if you carefully peal back the paint of the "current" painting, you can actually find evidence of the preceding paintings underneath. In the case of the earth, that evidence would be primitive primates, dinosaurs, etc. There is even evidence that the earth had a very different ecology, atmosphere, and/or gravity. Hence the bones of flying creatures that appeared to be 200 lbs or more, well over 35 lbs, which is roughly the current weight limit for flying creatures. So something changed.

I take this perspective: The Bible is not a science book, nor does it claim to be, and God doesn't use it to impart 23rd century scientific knowledge. And I think that when one puts oneself into the mindset of primitive man and their "scientific" worldview, it can sometimes slightly - or dramatically - change ones interpretation from what they wrote.

A new favorite phrase of mine: As far as we're concerned.

e.g. "as far as we're concerned, the earth as we know it in the age of man is 6,000 years old." Though this ball may actually be billions of years old and this is age 5,000, to be followed by another 5,000 ages, on which the bible is silent. Because "as far as we're concerned", and as far as the message of the bible is concerned, that is irrelevant. A subject for another book to come when this age ends and another begins.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Still Alive

[Eli1]

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I do believe in the "Big Bang."  It happened on day four when the sun, moon and stars were formed, presumably from the singularity called "light," since there is no unaccounted for source of light illuminating the earth.  It was not, of course, an explosion, but rather a rapid and immediate formation based on God speaking the universe into existence.  

Well, just for the sake of talking ... i don't think you have the events rights based on what we see, but like i said, we cannot know anything for sure and that's were faith comes in. Faith in our Creator and His son Jesus Christ.

If you look into a lot of these new theories now, which again are based on what we are able to see and measure, you will see that they simply glorify our God. 
Now, the scientific community doesn't want to say the word "God" because it's a career-ending move for them, but all they're doing in glorifying God whether they realize it or not. 

So in relation to creation, there are two new major theories. 

1. One of them is the multiple dimension theory and the only "proof" that we have for this is that the math checks out. 
So in a multiple dimension theory, we have other realms which are invisible to us from this point of view. But the Bible does say about the Third Heaven doesn't it? 
This is also why i also tend to believe that Eden wasn't even in this dimension. 

2. The other theory is that this whole thing that we see is an illusion. This sounds a bit crazy but without getting into the technical details, here they're also implying a Creator without saying the word Creator. 
Now in this version, the Bible connection you can make is that God extended the firmament and all that we see is not the real reality. 

Why would God do this? I don't know. All i know is that He is awesome. 

So, there are a lot of scientific theories out there today which glorify God and to me these are very interesting things. 

[Still Alive]

17 hours ago, enoob57 said:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”  The word for “inspired” is the Greek θεόπνευστος, “theopneustos,” which means “God-breathed.”  In other words, this means that the Scriptures are authored from God and that God moved through the personality and abilities of the biblical writers in such a way that what they wrote was without error and was correct in everything that it addressed.  Therefore, the Scriptures are the product of both God and man, and the Scriptures reflect the writing style of different individuals.

This process of inspiration was not a mechanical dictation where the writer simply wrote down what was heard.  Neither did they go into a trance-like some cases of “automatic writing” which are said to occur in occult practices.  Instead, the writers of the Bible were free to write what they wanted, the way they wanted, and when they wanted; yet it was God moving through them to ensure the integrity and accuracy of what was said.

Furthermore, the Christian church recognizes the inspired Scriptures because the Holy Spirit, who indwells believers, recognizes the voice of God.  The church did not give us the Scriptures.  The Christian church recognized the Christian Scriptures.

I agree with that. However, here is where it gets dicey: At the time 2 Timothy was penned, what would a person alive at the time interpreted "all scripture" to be? There was no new testament, and the primary "scripture" read by the people then, and in that area was the LXX, which contains a lot of books we now ignore. And, of course, they actually quote it verbatum in some places in the NT, and they even quote 1 Enoch, which is considered canon only by the Ethiopian church, IIRC. 

So why do we not hold up all the books of the LXX as canon?

On a side note, the discovery of the dead sea scrolls also really threw a monkey wrench into this. 

[Eli1]

Sounds like @Still Alive knows what he's talking about in relation to context, historical flow and cultural customs on region at the time. 

[Still Alive]

12 minutes ago, Eli1 said:

Well, just for the sake of talking ... i don't think you have the events rights based on what we see, but like i said, we cannot know anything for sure and that's were faith comes in. Faith in our Creator and His son Jesus Christ.

If you look into a lot of these new theories now, which again are based on what we are able to see and measure, you will see that they simply glorify our God. 
Now, the scientific community doesn't want to say the word "God" because it's a career-ending move for them, but all they're doing in glorifying God whether they realize it or not. 

So in relation to creation, there are two new major theories. 

1. One of them is the multiple dimension theory and the only "proof" that we have for this is that the math checks out. 
So in a multiple dimension theory, we have other realms which are invisible to us from this point of view. But the Bible does say about the Third Heaven doesn't it? 
This is also why i also tend to believe that Eden wasn't even in this dimension. 

2. The other theory is that this whole thing that we see is an illusion. This sounds a bit crazy but without getting into the technical details, here they're also implying a Creator without saying the word Creator. 
Now in this version, the Bible connection you can make is that God extended the firmament and all that we see is not the real reality. 

Why would God do this? I don't know. All i know is that He is awesome. 

So, there are a lot of scientific theories out there today which glorify God and to me these are very interesting things. 

Regarding your number 2. It's not crazy at all.Everything around us is, basically, empty space. Atoms are, basically, empty space. What we see is only our interpretation of energy. What we touch, smell, hear, etc. is the same thing. And we learned to interpret it from before birth. We touch a table and can feel smooth or rough. Hot or cold. Yet the atoms in our hand and those in the table are not actually touching. We only interpret it so. 

I really see matter as just a sort of "coagulated energy". But "as far as we're concerned, it's real. C.S. Lewis touched on this concept in "The Great Divorce" when the buss climbs "out of the grass".