-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is the Pope an Atheist?
- Thread starter DHK
- Start date
When Julian Huxley was asked about Darwinianism, he replied, "Do I believe that evolution is credible? Oh no! I don't believe in evolution because it is credible; but rather because belief in God is too incredible."
The great promoter of Darwinianism denied God. He knew that once he put his faith in God, that God would become his master, and he His servant. He was aware of those ramifications, and thus evolution became an easy alternative even though it was not a "credible" one.
The Bible is clear about how God created the world and the universe. It is a matter of simple belief.
If you can read Genesis chapter one, please do. The details are all there. All you have to do is believe them.
DHK,
You seem to acknowledge that great theologians do not have to adhere to a 24 hour 6 day creation. I would agree. Yet, you then seem to blast anything other than that viewpoint. My quagmire is that if we can acknowledge that some of the strongest innerantists in the history of the church could hold to a non-literal 6 day creation period, what criteria would you say is crossing the line? I understand wanting to hold strongly to a 6 day creation period as being Biblical and even holding onto this as being an important doctrine for the church to speak clearly, for I want to speak clearly and strongly for this viewpoint. Yet, I am not going to draw such stark lines either that are being drawn too. I am curious if you understand these great theologian's viewpoint, why you would or would not differentiate these theologians from the harsh statements you are making.
The Big Bang theory is not a theology.
It belongs in the realm of metaphysics.
It is not even a science. As it name implies--big bang theory it has no fact or basis to back it up. The Bible gives far more evidence than it does. In this thread I have been speaking about those who believe in the big bang theory, not those who hold other theological view points as the Gap Theory.
It is ludicrous to say you can hold to the Big Bang nonsense and believe in the Bible at the same time. You can't.
Curious:
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven (KJV)
Now for details- did God create all birds at once, or one species at a time; did he create every species, or was there some cross breeding over the years? Did he create the birds in a split second, an eight hour day, or did it take God a full 24 hours?
This is not a facetious question. You said that "The details are all there." Well, I brought up details that are not specifically stated. And I'm sure there are other details not so stated as well.
And does the Big Bang theory explain those details, or does the Bible give more evidence of an explanation than the Big Bang? You decide.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The Bible says that the earth, the Sun and the Moon and all things on the earth were created in a literal 7 day week less than 10,000 years ago. But the Bible does not tell us when the rest of the Universe was made - only that God "spoke and it was".
In Genesis 1 - the birds fly in the midst of the heavens.
We know creation week is a real literal 7 day creation week with the same day-timeframe as we have because of Ex 20:8-11 "Six days you shall labor...for in Six days the Lord Made"
in Christ,
Bob
In Genesis 1 - the birds fly in the midst of the heavens.
We know creation week is a real literal 7 day creation week with the same day-timeframe as we have because of Ex 20:8-11 "Six days you shall labor...for in Six days the Lord Made"
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. (Genesis 1:16)
The stars don't exist on earth Bob.
They exist in "the rest of the universe."
Yes they are. All the details that we need to know about the creation of the world, the universe and man are all there in Genesis chapters one and two. God has supplied us with all that we need to know concerning creation.
Paul warns us about vain speculations.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Certainly it is true that the Bible is not an exhaustive account of every word spoken in Bible history, or every blink of the eye. But we do have boundary markers in the text telling us what forms of life were created and in what time-boxed unit unit (a single evening and a morning) and in what sequence they were created.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
It tells us some details about the process of creation - just not all of them.
So we know that all of life on earth was created in 7 literal days - seven contiguous evenings and mornings. We know that the sun and the moon were created in that same set of 7 days and we know that God "also created the stars" - we just don't know when He created the stars.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
There are two forms of evolutionism.
1. Distinctively atheist evolutionism - that objects to I.D. evolutionism because I.D. evolutionism is a threat to the religious argument foundational to atheism. To the extent that the RCC tries to join atheists in condemning I.D. evolutionism - they unwittingly make a distinctively atheist argument.
2. Theistic evolutionism - that relies on the I.D. forme of evolutionism to make it's case.
=================
There are two forms of Cosmology -
1. Distinctively atheist cosmology that "needs" to imagine a "multiverse" (an almost infinite number of other universes) so as to make the fine-tuning observed to exist in our universe at least "imaginable by an atheist" without the benefit of God.
2. "God spoke and it was" Cosmology where no multiverse is needed to explain the delicate balance and fine tuning in our universe. It simply accepts the observations as the "expected outcome" in a Creator God model.
in Christ,
Bob
1. Distinctively atheist evolutionism - that objects to I.D. evolutionism because I.D. evolutionism is a threat to the religious argument foundational to atheism. To the extent that the RCC tries to join atheists in condemning I.D. evolutionism - they unwittingly make a distinctively atheist argument.
2. Theistic evolutionism - that relies on the I.D. forme of evolutionism to make it's case.
=================
There are two forms of Cosmology -
1. Distinctively atheist cosmology that "needs" to imagine a "multiverse" (an almost infinite number of other universes) so as to make the fine-tuning observed to exist in our universe at least "imaginable by an atheist" without the benefit of God.
2. "God spoke and it was" Cosmology where no multiverse is needed to explain the delicate balance and fine tuning in our universe. It simply accepts the observations as the "expected outcome" in a Creator God model.
in Christ,
Bob
This is not a false dichotomy. You can believe the big bang or believe God. The two beliefs are incompatible. God created all things within six days. Nothing from the last day of creation has ever been created, apart from some of Jesus miracles, even then creation may be a dubious word to use.
At the end of chapter one God looked upon his creation and pronounced it very good. It was finished. All of creation was finished.
I take the word of God over the philosophies of men any day. So what if the universe is expanding. That doesn't affect creation. It doesn't mean that new things are being created. Where is common sense here?
Did out of the Big Bang come perfectly ordered solar systems, a perfectly shaped earth, a complete and fully populated plant and animal kingdom all living in perfect harmony with each other. Is the big bang the author of Intelligent Design in this universe and on this earth. Is this your belief?
If you maintain "big bang" must be atheistic and darwinian, it is a false dichotomy. Many creationists believe in a "big bang" of sorts, where there is one point of origin, but not in the darwinian model.
Nothing here contradicts a single point of origin for creation.
So do I, but scientific fact is not philosophy.
Never said it did, but the fact you so easily brush off a fact (not theory) as God not having a role in it exposes your error in understanding they are not necessarily opposed.
Complete strawman...who ever said anything about new things being created?
If God so designed it that way, yes. You fail to understand this single origin IS God.
No that is not my belief, and the question you ask is silly. You are not following along with what is being told to you, but you hare hearing what you want to hear.
Name me one Creationist (a reputable scientist who is a Christian) who believes in the big bang. The truth is that more and more evolutionists are pulling away from that theory, and that is what it is: theory, not fact. That is why it is so named. It goes against the laws of nature that order results from chaos. God is not a God of chaos but of order. It is anti-Biblical and anti-scientific. It falls into a category of scientism (not science) and the realm of faith and metaphysics, where true science can never venture. Science has limitations. The origin of the world is outside the realm of science. It is in the realm of faith. Science needs an observer by very definition. There was no one there to observe the big bang. It is not science.
Good, then demonstrate from the Bible that the Big Bang is taught in the Bible. Chapter and verse please.
There is no scientific fact in the big bang. Most evolutionists already admit that. That is why it is called "theory." If they are honest with themselves they will readily admit that it doesn't even hold up to the standard of an "hypothesis" using the "scientific method." It is not science at all. Look up the meaning of science. Science needs an observer. Who observed the big bang.
If you never said it did why did you bring in this red herring. Your point is moot--irrelevant.
Again, the Big Bang is not fact. If it is, demonstrate it.
If God has a role in it, demonstrate it. Give chapter and verse.
You did when you brought in your red herring about the universe expanding. What else would a person conclude?
If God created all things through the Big Bang, then Genesis chapter one is null and void, and the Bible contradicts itself. Demonstrate through Scripture your theory of the Big Bang.
No, I am stating to you what the Big Bang theory results in. It is irresponsible scientism, an alternative to believing in God, even as Julian Huxley honestly and openly admitted.