• 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!

Science/Faith And origins Of Life!

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
glfredrick

I posted the following:

If you can tell me how Elisha made the axe head float then perhaps I will agree with you.

You presented the following Scripture:

2 Kings 6:5-7 (ESV)
[5]But as one was felling a log, his axe head fell into the water, and he cried out, "Alas, my master! It was borrowed."
[6] Then the man of God said, "Where did it fall?" When he showed him the place, he cut off a stick and threw it in there and made the iron float.
[7] And he said, "Take it up." So he reached out his hand and took it.

Followed by:
Oh, so the real miracle was that the stick thrown in the water made the iron head float. No need to set aside any natural law, but rather, it (could) appear that the true miracle was one of "aim" in that the stick thrown into the water precisely hit the eye of the axe and when the stick floated (perfectly natural) the man was able to retrieve the axe itself.

Nonsense. That is eisegesis to try to prove your point. The Scripture states clearly that: "he cut off a stick and threw it in there and made the iron float."

Float still means float! try again!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Are you trying to say that matter/energy does not exist?

Not at all. But at the end of the day, everything created is nothing more than information FROM GOD that carries with it the divine instructions that cause energy, mass, matter, etc., to exist just as He deems.

I have always believed that God created by His spoken word.

Hebrews 11:3, KJV
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

If you will check the latest current theories that are being promulgated in the sub-atomic and cosmological disciplines you will soon find that science is finally starting to catch up to what God has known (and told us) all along.

I am aware that some evolutionists believe in the spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing but the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory [page 206, Vol. 2 and page 16, Vol. 3 of The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John D. Morris]!

I am also aware that a man by the name of Werner Gitt has written a book In the Beginning Was Information: A Scientist Explains the Incredible Design in Nature. Plan to read it soon. Hope it is not a smoke screan by the Bio Logos crowd.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
I am never sure what a person means when they say inspired. But I do believe the writers of the Bible were inspired. However, inspired does not mean that God revealed everything there is to know to them. Why not? One major reason is that they would not have understood anything there were writing. For instance if God had revealed quantum mechanics to the writers of the Bible they would have had no idea what he was inspiring them to write.

Yes, the Bible was inspired. But not in the way that all was revealed. We can see this as God gradually revealed himself in the OT and gave his fullest revelation through Christ on earth.


I believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. therefore it is inerrant in all that it teaches.

As to quantum mechanics i am not sure its advocates understand what they are doing with it. When you can prove that an electron goes through two different holes in the same plane at the same time, well??????? Someone on this thread quoted Einstein's opinion of quantum mechanics.
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
I believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. therefore it is inerrant in all that it teaches.

As to quantum mechanics i am not sure its advocates understand what they are doing with it. When you can prove that an electron goes through two different holes in the same plane at the same time, well??????? Someone on this thread quoted Einstein's opinion of quantum mechanics.

OR, yes initially Einstein was quite uneasy with quantum theory even to the point that he created and installed a "fudge factor" into his ideas in order to maintain a steady state universe. He later called that the greatest mistake of his career. FWIW
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. therefore it is inerrant in all that it teaches.

That is fine, but being inerrant does not mean God revealed all there is to know about him, or all there is to know about everything.
 

glfredrick

New Member
glfredrick

I posted the following:

You presented the following Scripture:

Followed by:

Nonsense. That is eisegesis to try to prove your point. The Scripture states clearly that: "he cut off a stick and threw it in there and made the iron float."

Float still means float! try again!

The stick was the means. Now, if the text said that the iron just floated, you would have a point. I'm suggesting that you are reading into the text something that is not there when we CLEARLY see a stick (that we know can float, and that does not negate the real and actual miracle of God) involved in the action.

Read the text man! Stick -- float.
 

glfredrick

New Member
I have always believed that God created by His spoken word.

Of course! And "ex nihilo" (from out of nothing).


I am aware that some evolutionists believe in the spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing but the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory [page 206, Vol. 2 and page 16, Vol. 3 of The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John D. Morris]!

I am also aware that a man by the name of Werner Gitt has written a book In the Beginning Was Information: A Scientist Explains the Incredible Design in Nature. Plan to read it soon. Hope it is not a smoke screan by the Bio Logos crowd.

I read everything and do not limit my reading to that which might be seen as "right" by any particular crowd. That grants me a greater exposure to the entire argument at hand, as source material from the other side is just as important in the debate as a constant view of one's own side. In fact, it is this ignorance of the opponent's source material that often drives error in debate. We need to be just as familiar with arguments with which we disagree as with those we agree in order to formulate our own biblically informed perspectives. Hence, though I most often disagree with Bio Logos and especially with their un-biblical melding of science and Scripture, some of their work has merit to advance the argument.

About the Morris book, while I am fond of the work Morris and Morris have done, that text is dated 1996. Meanwhile, Science has made some progress, and also has had a few setbacks in favored theories that do not often make public news. One must stay current in this debate lest you be accused of arguing a straw man, if only because the information upon which you are basing your appeal is so dated as to be worthless in the current debate.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
That is fine, but being inerrant does not mean God revealed all there is to know about him, or all there is to know about everything.

I don't believe that I have ever said that God revealed "all there is to know about everything." I have read where some who made significant discoveries indicated that they came almost as a revelation. And don't ask me for a source unless you can source every claim you have ever made.

Your remark that "being inerrant does not mean God revealed all there is to know about him" is completely asinine.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don't believe that I have ever said that God revealed "all there is to know about everything."

Your remark that "being inerrant does not mean God revealed all there is to know about him" is completely asinine.

It seems to me you contradicted yourself with these two sentences above. But perhaps I do not understand what you are saying in these two sentences.

Inerrant and total revelation are two very different topics.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
The stick was the means. Now, if the text said that the iron just floated, you would have a point. I'm suggesting that you are reading into the text something that is not there when we CLEARLY see a stick (that we know can float, and that does not negate the real and actual miracle of God) involved in the action.

Read the text man! Stick -- float.

You are still dodging the question. Scripture states that the axe head floated. Now no stick is going to make an axe head float unless the two are joined and the buoyancy of the stick, or should I say tree, is sufficient to counter the weight of the axe head.

I realize that some people like to deny the clear teaching of Scripture by attaching a natural explanation to every miracle in the Bible. But as they say "that dog won't hunt!"
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Of course! And "ex nihilo" (from out of nothing)

I know what "ex nihilo" means! But thanks anyhow!


I read everything and do not limit my reading to that which might be seen as "right" by any particular crowd.

Can I assume "everything" is metaphorical. Otherwise everything is a pretty tall order!

That grants me a greater exposure to the entire argument at hand, as source material from the other side is just as important in the debate as a constant view of one's own side. In fact, it is this ignorance of the opponent's source material that often drives error in debate. We need to be just as familiar with arguments with which we disagree as with those we agree in order to formulate our own biblically informed perspectives. Hence, though I most often disagree with Bio Logos and especially with their un-biblical melding of science and Scripture, some of their work has merit to advance the argument.

Merit to advance what argument: that evolution is true? If you believe in evolution then say so. You may have already confessed as I have not read all the posts on this thread.

About the Morris book, while I am fond of the work Morris and Morris have done, that text is dated 1996.

You are fond of Morris but have you read the Trilogy? We can disagree as to whether the book is dated.


Meanwhile, Science has made some progress, and also has had a few setbacks in favored theories that do not often make public news.

Is science [physics and astrophysics] making progress or running around in circles, you know like a dog chasing its tail!

One must stay current in this debate lest you be accused of arguing a straw man, if only because the information upon which you are basing your appeal is so dated as to be worthless in the current debate.

So just what is the current debate? There is really nothing to debate. Evolution is the invention of godless minds which in the final analysis is simply to deny accountability.

And of course there is always the Second Law, of Thermodynamics that is!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
It seems to me you contradicted yourself with these two sentences above. But perhaps I do not understand what you are saying in these two sentences.

What I said was perfectly clear! You made a distinction between the revelation of "everything" and the revelation of "everything about God." I simply maintained that distinction. I am sorry that it eludes you.

Inerrant and total revelation are two very different topics.

We are obviously not communicating. I made a very simple statement:
I believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture, therefore it is inerrant in all that it teaches.
Now if you do not understand what that means I am sorry. I suggest that you do a little research and find out.
 

glfredrick

New Member
You are still dodging the question. Scripture states that the axe head floated. Now no stick is going to make an axe head float unless the two are joined and the buoyancy of the stick, or should I say tree, is sufficient to counter the weight of the axe head.

I realize that some people like to deny the clear teaching of Scripture by attaching a natural explanation to every miracle in the Bible. But as they say "that dog won't hunt!"


i guess it depends on which translation one uses. The KJV is more accurate to the Greek and says "swim."
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
Substitute "inference" for "proof" and you are right on the money.

The concepts of "proof" whether in science (empirical) or testimony (evidential), or in philosophy (deductional), are similar. One must be able to say Q.E.D. at the end of a statement and have no potential for refutation by any means --
No reasonable means. Those who don't believe the Gospel could not be convinced even if one came back from the grave with the message, Luke 16:31.

But, God's eternal power and godhead are proven enough by the things that are seen to hold one accountable on Judgment Day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Would Have to Agree....

No, this is unknowable.

....Creation, without a doubt :thumbsup: If God said it, that is what it is. However, as I've been reading, there are some who try to mix faith and the supernatural creation of all we see and know with "worldly" ideas and intellectual theories.

I guess that it will take the death of each person to realize and discover that they were "lost in space" when it comes to explaining life, the Bible and creation!

You either believe God created us and all we see and know, or, you don't. For me, to believe anything other than God's hand in making us, is nothing but mental gymnastics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

glfredrick

New Member
I know what "ex nihilo" means! But thanks anyhow!

I cannot assume that everyone reading these posts knows that terminology.

Can I assume "everything" is metaphorical. Otherwise everything is a pretty tall order!

True that, reading "everything" would take a world full of men devoting a lifetime to the exercise. I've only read somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 books on the subject from various vantage points in the past 10 years or so, so I guess that I may be behind the curve of "everything." I concede the point in your favor...

Merit to advance what argument: that evolution is true? If you believe in evolution then say so. You may have already confessed as I have not read all the posts on this thread.

You somehow derive from my posts that I support evolution? That would be rather weird, for I do not, save that there is plenty of evidence to support "micro-evolution" that remains within the bounds of any given "type" (biblical language) or "species" to use a more scientific term. Even the good folks at ICR at the Creation Museum hold that point, and I align somewhat with their stance on most things evolutionary related save one -- their dating scheme for the age of the earth. I find no actual dates in the Scriptures, so any scheme for dating the earth is (in my mind) akin to trying to name the date for the return of Christ. I am YEC, but see a slightly longer age than 6500 years based on some rather solid evidence, even biblical.

No, GOD created everything that we see by fiat, ex nihilo, as expressly offered to humanity via the "specific revelation" in Genesis and other places.

But, that does not eliminate the evidences that we can observe from the "general revelation" that is God's creation. These observations from general revelation cannot trump what God specifically revealed, but as has been said before, the specific revelation of God, while perfect, truthful, and innerant, is not the entire revelation. God continually asks us in that specific revelation to "look and see" the glory of God. That is what we do when we observe His creation.

You are fond of Morris but have you read the Trilogy? We can disagree as to whether the book is dated.

I have read other of Morris' works. I expect that he has much the same thing to say in Trilogy. I have it on my reading list. It is dated to a publish date of 1996, and therefore it is dated, even if his arguments remain sound. Science advances with new discoveries almost every day, some of which overturn theories argued by Morris in the year or so leading up to his publication date of 1996. For crying out loud, the Internet was still a fantasy for most people in 1996... Things have changed due to the technology that computers bring to the field of science. They are able to see more, deeper, finer, with more clarity -- and by the way, every new evidence that Science brings gives God more glory, for He is the sole Creator and already knew that all of what humans are now just discovering exists, for He made it so.

If Morris brought some earth-shattering evidence to bear on the nature of Science, it sure did not make much of a splash in the greater theological or scientific world. And, again, I am not against Morris per se, other than the fact that he tends to re-hash arguments that are not always factually based or up to date with the current state of affairs which helps to fuel the fires of those opposed to him.

Is science [physics and astrophysics] making progress or running around in circles, you know like a dog chasing its tail!

Both... For every progress they make, they also postulate another error (in a lot of cases) based on their a priori presupposition that all they see as evidence NEEDS to be naturalistic and not pointed at a Creator God.

So just what is the current debate? There is really nothing to debate. Evolution is the invention of godless minds which in the final analysis is simply to deny accountability.

What you just offered is a "head in the sand" attitude that does not get God's Church a seat at the debate table. I reject the principles that you outline -- NOT because I am a believer in evolution, far from it, but rather because it is precisely the position that Science has painted us, and we must respond with the exercise of the minds that God has given us as well as with the revelation that God has given us instead of sitting back and saying that there is nothing at all to debate.

Recently, Anthony Flew (now deceased), one of the foremost spokesmen for atheists, and the man who invented the current philosophical arguments used against God's revelation and people -- the first new arguments since Hume -- turned to deism based on the scientific evidence that he saw regarding the anthropic principles. Other scientists are doing likewise and I have a book at home of 500 prominent and formerly secular naturalistic scientists of every stripe who now look to a Creator God to solve the riddles of creation that they observe as scientists. That is the sort of argument that Christians can and ought to make -- one that gives evidence for a different presupposition (or at least a neutral presupposition) that gives at least a chance for evidence of an Intelligent Design Creator to be seen.

The current debate centers around two main fronts -- the anthropic principles and the "machinery/information-based" inferences that scientists are now grappling with. They have already (for the most part) decided that the universe did indeed have a beginning, now they argue as to how that might have happened without violating their a priori presuppositions against a First Cause Creator. They postulate alternative universes (multi-verse) and alternative dimensions in this universe, with random quantum effects popping into existence matter or energy from out of nothing, but in so doing, they admit that there really was not "nothing" but something, and so their argument becomes circular. Shifting tghe advent of our universe to some alternate universe only succeeds in removing any hope of falsification, and so is nothing more than metaphysical belief by faith, not actual science. In the realm if microbiology, we now know, virtually for certain, that life did not arise on earth by chance. There is no mechanism that exists that can explain how non-organic materials (nor how they came to exist) became organic, assembled, and gained the ability to reproduce. This is where some of the largest "science of the gaps" occurs and I am remided of a cartoon that I saw that illustrates it well. A scientist has a blackboard filled with equations of an utterly advanced nature, then another blackboard next to it, and yet another after that again filled with equations. On the center board it just says, "And evolution happened." That, at the end of the day, is about the gist of things...

And of course there is always the Second Law, of Thermodynamics that is!

Of course... The dance danced around this law by Science would be funny if it were not so, well, disasterous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

glfredrick

New Member
No reasonable means. Those who don't believe the Gospel could not be convinced even if one came back from the grave with the message, Luke 16:31.

But, God's eternal power and godhead are proven enough by the things that are seen to hold one accountable on Judgment Day.

Again, we agree at a personal level. We cannot offer that as "proof" to any one else until they too personally experience that in-filling of the Holy Spirit.
 

glfredrick

New Member
Swim or float: In either case there is no natural explanation for this event as recorded in the "inerrant Word".

That a piece of wood, which can indeed float, was used to retrieve the axe means that the wood was necessary to the miracle. Why do you think that the wood makes it less a miracle?
 
Top