Scientific Evidence for God?

[ted]

Actually, the warning was for everyone.

Thanks,

t.

[The Lorax]

Darwinian evolution doesn't concern everything in the universe, just the evolved life on Earth. It doesn't explain where the universe comes from, or what is the purpose of it all. Those important questions are outside the realm of Darwin. That's what religion and faith are for (and theoretical astronomy and quantum physics, to certain extents).

[Jorge S]

...And I would counter that the problem with 6-day creationists is that they can't spot an allegory when it is staring them in the face.

The Lord has given us endless clues to his allegory. Still not enough for some, though.

And the clues are?

By the way, I'm not a '6-day creationist' but a Bible literalist.

[wingnut]

That's the problem with theistic evolution: It doesn't know where to fit Genesis within its accepted speculation about origins. The easiest shortcut? Allegorize Genesis! And get the best of both worlds at once: Christian Salvation and scientific gratification. The supernatural intervention you're speaking of is more than just intervention - a term that implies interference with an ongoing process. God created the universe and all its inhabitants out of nothing in the span of six solar days. He has neither surrendered His Authorship and continuous Rulership of Creation to anything else than His Own Will and Purpose. Nothing about His handling of Creation has ever stopped.

...And I would counter that the problem with 6-day creationists is that they can't spot an allegory when it is staring them in the face.

The Lord has given us endless clues to his allegory. Still not enough for some, though.

In the beginning (13.5 billion years ago), God created the heaven and the earth (earth consolodated 4 billion years ago). And the earth BECAME without form and void. (at the end of the Cretacious/beginning of the Tertiary).

Then in 7 literal days God recreated the earth making it fit for mankind. He rested on a literal 24 hour Sabbath day, and there was a literal Adam and Eve.

I have no problem with an old universe and a relatively young and late creation of man on this old earth. Oldest civilisations (Egypt, Babylon) don't go back more than about 6000 years. I also believe there were primitive men (ape-men) which predated the creation of Adam 6000 years ago. Is there some allegory I am missing?

[ted]

Time to take this up in PM together, gentlemen?

t.

[ted]

Read it again.

t.

[Guest]

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!"

Psalms 133:1

don't you think there is something dangerously wrong with Creatoin Science

Dear Brother

You Do Have A Certain Way With Words

Although I Think Calling The Bible's Account Of Creation A "Creatoin Science'' May Be A Tad Bit Over The Top, I Do Have To Agree With Your Fundamental Thought As I Read It! Evolution Is To Science As Harry Potter Is To Aviation.

My Bedrock Understanding Is "The Bible Never Lies".

But Of Course, I Would Never Admit I Still Have A Lot The Learn.

I May Indeed Be A Creation "Cretin"' But I Still Enjoy The "Science" Threads.

Partly Because I Am Blessed To Meet You And Many Of The Folk I'll Spend Eternity With And Partly Because I So Enjoy Digging Into Many Of The Scriptures These Discussions Deal With.

For Any Who Would Like To Meet The LORD Of Creation And Of Time And Of Everything,

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16

You'll Even Get A Whole New Creation To Explore In His Time!

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Fraught]

extra-Biblical mythology, based on worthless radiometric dating of rocks and the speed of light in a vaccum

So you are content to use deception to advance God's kingdom. I went through a proof showing that radiometric dating is infact accurate, showing the best scientists and the best journals in the world continue to use it. Your response was that you know more than these scientists.

That seems pretty clear to me that in your opinion, its fine to lie on behalf of God.

Lets assume for a moment that you are insane and can't be held responsible for your comments. Another way to prove this to to identify the body of creation work that shows that no matter what previously "old" earth data they test, they get 100% "New" earth results, a direct conflict with real scientists that could be sorted out by repeated testing using a variety of methods, by a variety of groups. That seems the simplest way to sort it out, and publish it in the same journals the best science has ben reported in. Why don't creationists do this?

It seems that the bulk of Creation "science" is not to do their own research and publish in mainstream journals, but to do nothing more than criticise the methodology and publish in teh creationist pamphlets. In looking at the authors if these articls, I rarely see anyone with any expertise in evolutionary biology or other relevant field. Its lawyers, clinicians, pastors, but no experts. If creationsists actually did some accurate research, there would in fact be a scioentific debate. The problem is they don't, and that's unfortunate because we'd have an answer. Is it because these organizations are merely money making schemes? I have yet to visit a site where on the first page, you don't see the "donate" button.

ahhh the infamous 'donate' button - wouldn't you know creationists are not 'equally' government funded - if they were proven correct, it could just cause all kinds of problems with the basis of the world's economy, now why would governments want that? i think we could safely assume that the world would be turned upside down in a matter of a few hours, don't you think?

(had to edit in equally just to be fair + unequal corporate funding, naturally)

Edited August 19, 2007 by Fraught

[Guest]

Then I read the Bible. All of it, not just the cozy parts and not just the bits the Church wants you to read

Oh

Read it again.

Yes!

Dear Dave, Without The Intention To Obey God's Will As Reveled By The Holy Spirit, We Are Sunk~!

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Jeremiah 29:13

It Is Not About Us, It Is All About God's Grace

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast

Ephesians 2:8-9

And The Lord Jesus Christ.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Romans 10:9-11

We Have Only Two Choises...

Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder

Matthew 21:42-44

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16

Be Blessed Beloved

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Joe

[Jorge S]

How literal are you?

Judge for yourself at the end of this post.

What's the difference? (That's not a rhetorical question).

Creationism proper was born in the XIX century as a scientific reaction against the hegemony of evolutionary thought in science. Although it is mostly associated with Christianity the term encompass other beliefs where divine involvement is claimed. That's why I also dislike the term Intelligent Design.

The '6-day' prefix would certainly make it a synonym of Christian creationism but some non-literal views could be accommodated as well. My views on origins were shaped by the Word of God at a time I didn't even know there was something called creationism in science. Therefore I see myself as an apologetic (1Peter 3:15) rather than a creationist.

I read both creationist and evolutionistic literature and derive conclusions from whatever facts and mechanisms are more scientific than philosophic in both camps.

Do you, for example, think that the laws set down in Leviticus are for you, or just for israelites?

For the Israelites.

What about the 'tree of life'? Is this a literal tree? Is there still a flaming word and cherubims guarding it?

It was a literal tree. Adam's inmortality was not innate but covenantal. The Bible does not specify what happened with the Garden. God may have destroyed it anytime but most probably not immediatly (since cherubs were guarding its entrance.) After the catastrophe of the Flood no one can be sure where it was placed.