Hawking

[Starman3000m]

I suppose... although I'm not thrilled with the implication that "The God I believe in", and "the God you believe in" are not one in the same.

OK - but here's the dilemma. If we begin to question God's action on one specific issue then it opens the door of "doubt" in any other area that comes up as a questionable issue: i.e. The Great Flood of Noah's days, The parting the Red Sea, Destruction of Sodom and Ghomorrah, the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead, etc., all because these things don't fit into mortal man's concept of how things are supposed to happen.

Still friends

 

[hvp05]

OK - but here's the dilemma. If we begin to question God's action on one specific issue then it opens the door of "doubt" in any other area that comes up as a questionable issue: i.e. The Great Flood of Noah's days, The parting the Red Sea, Destruction of Sodom and Ghomorrah, the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead, etc., all because these things don't fit into mortal man's concept of how things are supposed to happen.

That is a dilemma. Sounds like a death wish, actually.

 

[Starman3000m]

That is a dilemma. Sounds like a death wish, actually.

Yes, it is a matter of Truth from Error and Life from Death. The dilemma happens to be when we are faced with whom to believe and which side to be on, actually.

There Is Only One Truth to these issues.

 

[Toxick]

Yes, it is a matter of Truth from Error and Life from Death.

Hm.

And here I thought that if you accepted Jesus Christ as your savior, you were good to go.







I missed the 'Believe Every Word of the Torah Or Be Cast Into the Fiery Pit' clause. I always miss out on some technicality

 

[Starman3000m]

Hm.

And here I thought that if you accepted Jesus Christ as your savior, you were good to go.

I missed the 'Believe Every Word of the Torah Or Be Cast Into the Fiery Pit' clause. I always miss out on some technicality

LOL

Jesus spoke of the Great Flood of Noah's day. That is a great big point of contention with those who believe the evolution theory.

What is your take on the Great Flood?

 

[Toxick]

LOL

Jesus spoke of the Great Flood of Noah's day. That is a great big point of contention with those who believe the evolution theory.

What is your take on the Great Flood?

I'm bugging out. I'll try and catch up with you on this topic over the weekend.

 

[PsyOps]

No its not, its an exmple of the fallacies of a Man written Bible.

There we have it, yet another argument to attempt to disprove the existence of God. Man is fallible, therefore the bible can’t be trusted, therefore God doesn’t exist. It make no sense me to try to tell you – since you don’t believe anyway – that the writers were inspired by the spirit of God. We’ve hit this road before and it’s a waste of time.

While this maybe true for some, for others, this has nothign to do with Proving God doesnt exist. Cant prove a negative. This only calls into question the validity of the Bible

Yet you spend an awful lot of time trying to prove God doesn’t exist; as your previous reply shows.

The constant search for information, and the testing of the Scientific method, strengthens the validity of Science.

The Bible, the story in/of the Bible, and the God told in the Bible has never changed, even when new information that refutes an assertion in the Bible has been revealed.

It does? Then how was Hawking so wrong on the string theory. His part with the rest of his brainy community almost split the scientific world in half. Then he eventually had to admit he was wrong. What’s valid about: the universe is flat, the universe bends on itself, the universe is in constant expansion in every direction, the universe is in a state of collapse… Which one is true? Which scientific method strengthened any of these theories? The universe began with a big bang. Now Hawking comes along and tells us that it is gravity that created the universe. Well I hate to tell you and Hawking that it was gravity that kept the universe from happening (if you subscribe to a big bang theory). It held everything together until it couldn’t anymore. Then gravity failed. Gravity is a consequnce of mass. It doesn't exist without mass. So how does something that doesn't exist in some regions of the universe be the creator of the universe? Science can’t even tell us what a hurricane is going to do and you expect me to believe they are going to tell me how the universe began and how life came to be?

The bible only tells us two things: How we got here and how we are saved from eternal damnation. It does not go into detail about our universe. The universe God created is in constant motion and change and because of that, we will always remain 20 billion steps behind fully finding out its mysteries. So, the Bible hasn’t changed in terms of the underlying message. What has changed is our growing arrogance that believes we have it all figured out and aim to discredit that which has been true from the beginning: God created this universe and the life in it.

But that isnt where it stops is it?

And if Gen1:1 is important enough to know, so are all the other works attributed to God.

Just because they may not fit what you selectively believe in the Bible doesnt make their value any less than Gen1:1

If someone chooses to believe in the literal meaning of Genesis then I have no qualms with that. Could God have done it that way? Yes! I look at the nature around me and see that things don’t work that way. From a logical standpoint it makes no sense to me why God would chose to create this universe any faster than the nature he created would allow it for the sake of getting it done quicker. Take into consideration the last day. God rested. If there is a God that is all powerful; does He really need to rest? It was a rhetorical day of rest. It was to signify for His people that we should take a day and observe Him and his creation. So, if you want to argue for the literal interpretation of Genesis then I guess you believe God really rested. IMHO it's symbolism.

There are ongoing discussions within the Christian community about what God meant by 'a' day. You can believe it’s a literal 24 hour day or you can assume God – living in an entirely different dimension of eternity was measuring things according to His POV of time. Draw a timeline that is one that goes from one side to the other forever. Now, mark where a day occurs. In that timeline - God’s expanse of existence - a day could be billions of years and still be a blink of an eye to God. Now, read Genesis and tell me what God meant by the word “day”.

But you know… in the grand scheme of things it makes no difference how long it took God to create our universe. The fact is, we are here and I believe we are here because of my God. Life doesn’t operate in a random chaotic fashion; it has order to it and the design is intelligent in nature. This cannot happen in a universe of chance and random chemical reactions.

 

[hvp05]

Yes, it is a matter of Truth from Error and Life from Death. The dilemma happens to be when we are faced with whom to believe and which side to be on, actually.

There Is Only One Truth to these issues.

Okay... I'm not sure if my point got across or not.

But hey, I like your closing suggestion, so in the spirit of Friday...

 

[PsyOps]

God is not restricted to "man's laws of nature" - He created nature! God is also not bound to the mortal/physical concepts of being that a person understands with the limitations of the mind of mortal man.

God's presence and abilities transcend anything we can even begin to fathom - that is why I believe the literal six days of Creation as written in the Genesis Account. Actually, God could have created everything in one day, had He chosen to do so, but God has created an order of life that affects nature on earth and the universe as He willed it to be.

The God I believe in is not limited to the restrictions as explained by mortal man.

As mentioned to Toxic, herein you and I shall also need to agree to disagree since There Is Only One Truth.

How long does it take for a child to be born from conception to birth? This is not “man’s laws of nature”, it’s nature; God’s nature. Yet God decided to create man in a day. Why would God create His nature then change those rules during his creation? Was He in some sort of hurry?

How long does it take for a planet to actually form? How long does it take light to travel across our galaxy? In the nature that we live – not “man’s laws of nature” – these things take millions of years. From God’s perspective how long is a million years? Again, why would God chose to create His entire universe in 6 days then change the rules of His nature for things to occur in a far longer period? Given the literal interpretation of the creation our universe would only be about 8000 years old. How can it be that light from objects that are billions of light years away have already reached the earth if our universe is only 8000 years old?

Look, I’m not saying God couldn’t have made these things happen; it just makes no sense to me that He would have. The one truth is that God created this universe. As to how He actually did it… well He didn’t go into a lot of detail did He?

 

[Starman3000m]

The bible only tells us two things: How we got here and how we are saved from eternal damnation. It does not go into detail about our universe. The universe God created is in constant motion and change and because of that, we will always remain 20 billion steps behind fully finding out its mysteries. So, the Bible hasn’t changed in terms of the underlying message. What has changed is our growing arrogance that believes we have it all figured out and aim to discredit that which has been true from the beginning: God created this universe and the life in it.

P.S. PsyOps, in no way will I question yours or Toxick's personal salvation and faith in the New Testament Jesus Christ over this issue. God's Promise of Salvation through faith in Christ resulting in the born-again relationship is what makes people Children of God, sealed unto the day of Redemption. That said, here is my comment to Christian brothers and sisters who have accepted or ponder upon the possibility of the evolution theory in lieu of the Genesis Account of the literal 6 days of Creation:

Comment: On "the day of rest" it could also mean that God rested/stopped from doing anymore creations since everything was created that He wanted to create. He did His job and saw that it was good. No need to go any further in creating things. We on the other hand go week to week at our daily tasks of doing things and needing to finish things. Yes, we should take a day of rest but our work is never done and so we go through another weekly cycle to start all over again. Remember that the one time God wanted to start things over was through the Great Flood of Noah's day and He will do it one more time (Not by water but by fire) as mentioned in prophecy. Then it will be a perfect world that His Children will partake of.
However, there are some who do not believe the Biblical Account of the Great Flood occurred even though Jesus spoke of it happening:

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24: 36-39)

Now, on the basis of His spiritual interaction with mankind, God remained and still remains quite active through His spiritual communication that calls us to have fellowship with Him and this through Jesus Christ, our High Priest and Mediator. (John 14:6) He communicates with us through the interaction of His Holy Spirit and testifies the Truth of Jesus; John 15:26 is only one of the many examples of this.

 

[Toxick]

LOL

Jesus spoke of the Great Flood of Noah's day. That is a great big point of contention with those who believe the evolution theory.

What is your take on the Great Flood?

I believe there was one. There is much evidence that such a flood occurred. I don't know if it was a global deluge (I doubt it), but it probably was enough water to appear that way, and for all intents and purposes, it doesn't really matter much to me.

However, with that much of the story ringing true based on physical evidence, I see no reason to doubt the rest of the account, except perhaps on a semantic level.

For instance, there were supposedly two of each of earth's species on the ark. I find this extremely hard to believe based on the sheer volume of animal life that would have to be squeezed into such a small area - although the ark was supposedly huge, there's a massive amount of life on this planet. We're still discovering species daily, 5000 years later. So when they say "two of every species", I think they were being liberal with the term "every". Plus supplies needed for feeding all those animals would take up as much room as the animals themselves, if not more. And this is to say nothing about the care and actual feeding of so many animals, and the amount of fecal matter that would have to be shovelled overboard every single day!

So yeah, I think the core of the account is true, however, I do not doubt there are some inaccuracies in the details. NOTE: By "inaccuracies" I do not mean "mistakes", I mean embellishments, hyperbole, favoring style over substance, "guesstimating" and things such as that.

 

[sleuth]

However, how can you rationally defend believing in God as defined by the Bible while still believing in evolution? Starman seems to be the only theist on these forums that gets that...that is why he denies evolution and subscribes to a literal view of the Bible. He's still wrong to deny so much scientific proof, but at least he's consistent!

As a man of science and faith myself, I still don't see where the proof is. All I see is circumstantial evidence predicated upon the theories and ideas and assumptions of man. Carbon-14 dating seems to me to be the closest thing we have to proof of a millions-of-years old Earth, but even that has been proven to be fallable. Granted, I have not kept up on the latest scientific attempts to date the Earth.

The truth is that despite our best guesses as a human race, we will never know beyond a shadow of a doubt the truths of evolution, creation, and the development of planets, solar systems, and galaxies. At least not on this side of heaven, and maybe not even on the other side. As for me, I will stand on the side of God's Word. Even if I am wrong, at least the Creator will deem me faithful.

 

[Starman3000m]

As a man of science and faith myself, I still don't see where the proof is. All I see is circumstantial evidence predicated upon the theories and ideas and assumptions of man. Carbon-14 dating seems to me to be the closest thing we have to proof of a millions-of-years old Earth, but even that has been proven to be fallable. Granted, I have not kept up on the latest scientific attempts to date the Earth.

The truth is that despite our best guesses as a human race, we will never know beyond a shadow of a doubt the truths of evolution, creation, and the development of planets, solar systems, and galaxies. At least not on this side of heaven, and maybe not even on the other side. As for me, I will stand on the side of God's Word. Even if I am wrong, at least the Creator will deem me faithful.

 

[Starman3000m]

I believe there was one. There is much evidence that such a flood occurred. I don't know if it was a global deluge (I doubt it), but it probably was enough water to appear that way, and for all intents and purposes, it doesn't really matter much to me.

However, with that much of the story ringing true based on physical evidence, I see no reason to doubt the rest of the account, except perhaps on a semantic level.

For instance, there were supposedly two of each of earth's species on the ark. I find this extremely hard to believe based on the sheer volume of animal life that would have to be squeezed into such a small area - although the ark was supposedly huge, there's a massive amount of life on this planet. We're still discovering species daily, 5000 years later. So when they say "two of every species", I think they were being liberal with the term "every". Plus supplies needed for feeding all those animals would take up as much room as the animals themselves, if not more. And this is to say nothing about the care and actual feeding of so many animals, and the amount of fecal matter that would have to be shovelled overboard every single day!

So yeah, I think the core of the account is true, however, I do not doubt there are some inaccuracies in the details. NOTE: By "inaccuracies" I do not mean "mistakes", I mean embellishments, hyperbole, favoring style over substance, "guesstimating" and things such as that.

I have thought of that as well. The possibility is that the species brought into the ark were "young-uns". Who knows? Just because we see the artists' conception of a wooden Ark with hundreds of large animals walking up a plank doesn't mean it happened that way. Noah and staff could have had incubator rooms where very young animals and fertilized eggs were kept within compartmentalized areas for the duration of the 40 days. Man has been appointed steward over this earth and Noah would have been a good caretaker in his responsibilty with God's Guidance of what to do and how to do it. With God - all things are possible.

Also: Scientists have gone back & forth on the possibility that a subterranean layer of earth actually shows consistency of a global flood happening - particularly with the fossils that are found within.

 

[Silver301]

As a man of science and faith myself, I still don't see where the proof is. All I see is circumstantial evidence predicated upon the theories and ideas and assumptions of man. Carbon-14 dating seems to me to be the closest thing we have to proof of a millions-of-years old Earth, but even that has been proven to be fallable. Granted, I have not kept up on the latest scientific attempts to date the Earth.

The truth is that despite our best guesses as a human race, we will never know beyond a shadow of a doubt the truths of evolution, creation, and the development of planets, solar systems, and galaxies. At least not on this side of heaven, and maybe not even on the other side. As for me, I will stand on the side of God's Word. Even if I am wrong, at least the Creator will deem me faithful.

I would like to see some proof that radiometric dating is fallable. I recall reading a study by the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory of Columbia University at Palisades, N.Y. which indicated that some early carbon-14 dating techniques had a potential margin of error of up to 3,500 years. I think this is WELL within a 1% margin of error for 4,540,000,000 years...which is the current estimate of the age of our planet.

In any case, accurate tree ring records of age are available for a period extending more than 9,000 years into the past...do Christians doubt tree ring dating as well? How about the fact that the Chinese were making beer from rice at roughly that same time (7,000 BCE). This was...of course...2,000 years AFTER the Egyptians and Mesopotamians were brewing beer (9,000 BCE). That's just the history of beer...I can get other examples we have proof of (from written records) if you'd like.

Of course, there is also the age of the Universe itself we should be looking at...considering that God made the Universe and the Earth in the same week. Current estimates place the age of the Universe at 13,750,000,000 years (+/- 1.2%). That number is based on many things...least of which is the assumption that a Creator wouldn't have created a Universe with light and other forms of radiation from distant stars and phenomenon ALREADY in transit to earth...for example, on 23 April 2009 a gamma-ray burst was detected which was later confirmed at being over 13 billion years old. Background radiation and expansion rate measurements are based on the assumption that the "Big Bang" occurred...I'm sure you are fully prepared to ignore all scientific proof of that "theory", so no further explanation is really worthwhile.

Or, some contradictory books written by outcasts and recluses between 3,000 and 1,700 years ago could provide a true account of the history of humanity. Either way, right?



You call yourself a man of science and faith....to be a man of science means that you embrace...not any particular scientific theory...but the scientific method itself. This method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these findings to make useful predictions. Taken in its entirety, the scientific method allows for highly creative problem solving whilst minimizing any effects of subjective bias on the part of its users. How can you do that and stay true to your faith, when your faith requires that you believe regardless of any and all proof (or lack thereof)?

 

[sleuth]

I would like to see some proof that radiometric dating is fallable. I recall reading a study by the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory of Columbia University at Palisades, N.Y. which indicated that some early carbon-14 dating techniques had a potential margin of error of up to 3,500 years. I think this is WELL within a 1% margin of error for 4,540,000,000 years...which is the current estimate of the age of our planet.

In any case, accurate tree ring records of age are available for a period extending more than 9,000 years into the past...do Christians doubt tree ring dating as well? How about the fact that the Chinese were making beer from rice at roughly that same time (7,000 BCE). This was...of course...2,000 years AFTER the Egyptians and Mesopotamians were brewing beer (9,000 BCE). That's just the history of beer...I can get other examples we have proof of (from written records) if you'd like.

Of course, there is also the age of the Universe itself we should be looking at...considering that God made the Universe and the Earth in the same week. Current estimates place the age of the Universe at 13,750,000,000 years (+/- 1.2%). That number is based on many things...least of which is the assumption that a Creator wouldn't have created a Universe with light and other forms of radiation from distant stars and phenomenon ALREADY in transit to earth...for example, on 23 April 2009 a gamma-ray burst was detected which was later confirmed at being over 13 billion years old. Background radiation and expansion rate measurements are based on the assumption that the "Big Bang" occurred...I'm sure you are fully prepared to ignore all scientific proof of that "theory", so no further explanation is really worthwhile.

Or, some contradictory books written by outcasts and recluses between 3,000 and 1,700 years ago could provide a true account of the history of humanity. Either way, right?



You call yourself a man of science and faith....to be a man of science means that you embrace...not any particular scientific theory...but the scientific method itself. This method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these findings to make useful predictions. Taken in its entirety, the scientific method allows for highly creative problem solving whilst minimizing any effects of subjective bias on the part of its users. How can you do that and stay true to your faith, when your faith requires that you believe regardless of any and all proof (or lack thereof)?

I am a man of science in that I use scientific models based on measured observation to predict future results - it's called engineering. I respect the scientific method for the purposes of creating simulations and models. But the scientific method can produce erroneous simulations and models too.

Man has learned a lot from observing. I am not negating that. I believe, however, that an almighty God could have created the universe in any physical state He might have desired, including a transitionary one in which light was already in transit from other galaxies. Do I know He did this for certain? No. Do I know that your theories are wrong for certain? No. But as I said, as a man of science, I recognize that mankind's models and simulations are fallable, and to date, I have never found God to be fallable, so for now I will put my faith in an omnipotent, all-powerful, infallible, undescribable, uncontainable, everlasting God who hung the stars in the skies and knows them by name.

 

[wxtornado]

I would like to see some proof that radiometric dating is fallable. ....(snip)

Good luck, whoever looks for it! It's not fallable. There is coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates.

 

[Starman3000m]

I am a man of science in that I use scientific models based on measured observation to predict future results - it's called engineering. I respect the scientific method for the purposes of creating simulations and models. But the scientific method can produce erroneous simulations and models too.

Man has learned a lot from observing. I am not negating that. I believe, however, that an almighty God could have created the universe in any physical state He might have desired, including a transitionary one in which light was already in transit from other galaxies. Do I know He did this for certain? No. Do I know that your theories are wrong for certain? No. But as I said, as a man of science, I recognize that mankind's models and simulations are fallable, and to date, I have never found God to be fallable, so for now I will put my faith in an omnipotent, all-powerful, infallible, undescribable, uncontainable, everlasting God who hung the stars in the skies and knows them by name.

again!

Our God is an Awesome God!

Psalm 147:

3: He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds.
4: He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names.
5: Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.
6: The LORD lifteth up the meek: he casteth the wicked down to the ground.
7: Sing unto the LORD with thanksgiving; sing praise upon the harp unto our God:
8: Who covereth the heaven with clouds, who prepareth rain for the earth, who maketh grass to grow upon the mountains.
9: He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry.
10: He delighteth not in the strength of the horse: he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man.
11: The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy.

 

[sleuth]

Good luck, whoever looks for it! It's not fallable. There is coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates.

From the Answers in Genesis organization website:

"We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.3

A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.4 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated."

Yes, it is an organization promoting Creationism, but they have dozens of examples posted as to why radiometric dating should not be trusted.

 

[Silver301]

I am a man of science in that I use scientific models based on measured observation to predict future results - it's called engineering. I respect the scientific method for the purposes of creating simulations and models. But the scientific method can produce erroneous simulations and models too.

Man has learned a lot from observing. I am not negating that. I believe, however, that an almighty God could have created the universe in any physical state He might have desired, including a transitionary one in which light was already in transit from other galaxies. Do I know He did this for certain? No. Do I know that your theories are wrong for certain? No. But as I said, as a man of science, I recognize that mankind's models and simulations are fallable, and to date, I have never found God to be fallable, so for now I will put my faith in an omnipotent, all-powerful, infallible, undescribable, uncontainable, everlasting God who hung the stars in the skies and knows them by name.

You respect the scientific method when it serves your purposes...when it says something contrary to your beliefs, you disregard it.

I'm an electrical engineer...that doesn't make me a man of science. What makes me a man of science is that I apply the scientific method to ALL things to which it will apply. It doesn't mean that I can't believe in things outside of what science has proven, but it certainly doesn't allow me to believe things that the scientific method contradicts.