Science/Faith And origins Of Life!

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!

 

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.

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 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

 

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.

 

What do you do with scientific facts borne out by history and actual tests?

Cheers,

Jim

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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

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

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

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!

 

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.

We are obviously not communicating. I made a very simple statement:

Now if you do not understand what that means I am sorry. I suggest that you do a little research and find out.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

Would Have to Agree....

....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.

 

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

 

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.

 

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?