Which do you trust, God or science?

"According to Hawking I should have used the term "infinite density" rather than "infinite mass". However, who made Linde the ultimate authority on the "Big Bang"? And the mass of the universe is only 0.00001 grams? Amazing?"

But you were not quoting Hawking, you were quoting Morris and Morris. And they got it wrong!

I believe Linde's peers made him quite the authority on the Big Bang when he and Guth developed inflation. Since inflation is the bedrock of modern cosmology and has made detailed predections about the universe which have subsequently been born out by observation and is capable of explaining the universe we see in great detail and has survived decades of review, I think it is safe to accept tha recognition of his peers.

Read carefully, the mass of the observable universe before the inflationary epoch was 0.0001 grams. This is for Linde's chaotic inflation. Other variations of inflation exist with masses of up to a few kilograms. I went with Linde's numbers since he is the leader in all this. But even a few kilos is less the infinity. After the inflationary epoch the rest of the mass of the universe came from the decay of the inflaton field which drove the inflation.

 

The Apostle John tells us [John 4:2 that God is a Spirit.

The Apostle Paul tells us that [Philippians 2:7] God the Son Made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. This God-Man we know as Jesus Christ. There were also numerous preincarnate appearances of God the Son in the Old Testament, always in the masculine gender.

 

UTEOTW: I have admitted that I should have used the term "infinite density" rather than "infinite mass".

I am glad you are well read. Unfortunately people often read material which they are unable to understand. You are speaking of a fairly recent scientific theory as if it were the Gospel truth, [and Linde is a long way from being God].

Who was around to measure the mass of the universe before the "inflationary epoch" of which you speak?

As has been noted previously on this thread some scientists of their day thought the earth was supported on the back of a giant turtle [which according to the Egyptians floated on a giant sea]. As I have noted on this thread some scientists today believe that the universe is simply the spontaneous creation from the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory! Of course they don't tell us how that mathematics got there.

I believe, on the basis of Scripture, that the universe and all it contains were the direct creation of God. Furthermore, I believe that true scientific observations support creation more than evolution. You can believe any mythical concept you choose.

 

I was not criticizing you exactly but your sources. It is my opinion that they are constantly getting such things wrong and honest people like yourself believe them both because you trust them and because you want to believe them.

Now we can quibble over the details. Obviously no human was around to measure, but the much of the validity of theories comes from their abilities to predict what else you will find. In the case of inflation, it has been wildly successful in predicting the details of later observations.

 

Sovereignty of man or of God?

Is the real dilema. As long as we try to match the depraved will/intellect of man with the Sovereign will of God, there will be unresolvable differences. It is like trying to get concensus between that which is relative and that which is absolute--there is none, nor can there be any--they are in completely different realms--one of them being false.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Hogwash! Hogwash! Hogwash! I have personally witnessed several genuinely miraculous answers to prayer. They did not happen to be a part of a controlled study, but had they been, there would have been an abundance of proof that God does hear and answer prayer. God is NOT an Orphan Annie rag doll.

</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks Craig. I am glad we find agreement on this most critical, non-theoretical issue.

 

Funny. That is exactly my opinion of you.

I think you trust people who have bought into a philosophical premise. Often the lines between what is assumed and what as actually supported by concrete evidence are blurred beyond distinction by those who assume macroevolution.

 

Scientific process is constant. Scientific fact changes frequently in fact almost daily. Evolution is a theory period,which has many devotees. These devotees as a general rule only accept thier authorites as valid and tend to reject those who disagree with them.

The Bible is God's Word. God is constant and unchangeable. Let God be true and all men liars.

 

Theological progress is constant. Theological [theory] changes frequently in fact almost daily. YEC is a theory period, which has many devotees. These devotees as a general rule only accept thier authorites as valid and tend to reject those who disagree with them.

[Still] the Bible is God's Word. God is constant and unchangeable. Let God be true and all men liars.

(Just to put things in a proper perspective!)

Rob

 

Malachi 3:5 And I will come near you for judgment; I will be a swift witness Against sorcerers, Against adulterers, Against perjurers, Against those who exploit wage earners and widows and orphans, And against those who turn away an alien-- Because they do not fear Me," Says the Lord of hosts. 6 "For I am the Lord, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.

Romans 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands, no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one." 13 "Their throat is an open grave, they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." 14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood, 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they do not know." 18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

 

But one that happens to be premised on the supernatural Creator described by the Bible.

Fair enough... considering we look to the Bible, God's Word, as the final authority. Not to humanistic, naturalistic philosophy nor to any theory premised on these as assumptions.

 

I'm just keepin' things honest.

Some of us Old Earth Creationists (OEC) also base our ideas upon the foundation of a supernatural Creator as described by the Bible.

Rob

 

My source, which is the ultimate truth, is Scripture. As I stated earlier, on the basis of Scripture, I believe that the universe and all it contains are the direct creation of God. Furthermore, I believe that true scientific observations support creation more than evolution. Again as I stated earlier you can believe any mythical concept you choose, however, I commend for your reading: Job, Chapters 38-42.

 

BenFranklin, I ask you for the sixth time. Provide me with your beliefs about Jesus, the virgin birth, His miracles, the apostles miracles, etc.

Is this too difficult?

 

Sorry, I was wrong about your position on this.

I can understand OEC even though I think YEC is the most biblically consistent. In the absence of anything definitive from nature, the most literal, normative reading of God's Word seems to be the best course.

 

Generally I'd agree but here there are other sources of revelation that play a part telling us how God created the cosmos. Basing a doctrine on an interpretation of the word, "Day" in Genesis one may be a plain reading but ignores other data to the contrary. In this case, ignoring general revelation can compromise the message and lead to distortions.

I posted this on page four of this thread, I'll bring it up again.

What part of this list do you disagree with?</font>

• God is the author of all truth.</font>

</font>

• There is a harmony of special with general revelation.</font>

</font>

• The Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else.</font>

</font>

• In some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.</font>

</font>

• Extrabiblical views will never disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.</font>

</font>

• There are no genuine scientific facts that are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.</font>

Both OEC and YEC are in the process of trying to incorporate their beliefs with the scientific data available. I personally believe OEC is doing a better job of it.

Rob

 

Rob,

In some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.

Extrabiblical views will never disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.

There are no genuine scientific facts that are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.

Those are very good points!

 

Deacon, Just so that we are on the same page when we debate could you tell me where you stand on these particular issues, please?

1. Do you believe that God used evolution to create man?

2. How do you show the Old Earth theory using Genesis (days) Yom are (ages)? or a gap theory? or something else?

3. Do you believe in a true Adam and Eve who fell due to sin?

Just curious. It will help me understand the direction that you are going.

In general I have less problem with the OEC theory because I used to believe it myself and still believe God created everything. I'm just curious to find out where you believe God left off and naturalism took over. Thanks.

 

I'm reluctant to reveal my personal beliefs about the earths origins because they are merely my opinions. I wasn't there (Job 38:4)!

My beliefs are subject to change as I learn more. I don’t feel the Bible gives us enough information to know how things were created.

Phillip, I'm afraid my answers will not help you much but here goes...

1. Do you believe that God used evolution to create man?
Despite evidences to the contrary, I personally do not believe in the evolutionary development of man.

2. How do you show the Old Earth theory using Genesis (days) Yom are (ages)? or a gap theory? or something else?
The Hebrew word, ‘yom’ (properly translated as ‘day’ in Genesis 1) is frequently used in Scripture for time in general or a long period of time; a whole period of time under consideration.

I don't think the "gap" theory is biblically sound but there are modified gap theories that are interesting (see "Genesis Unbound" by John Sailhamer).

I'd probably best be described as a Progressive Creationist of a type. (see the recent book by Hugh Ross, "A Matter of Days").

3. Do you believe in a true Adam and Eve who fell due to sin?
Absolutely yes!
I believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve.

Rob

 

Actually there IS scientific evidence for a young Earth. In his book CREATION'S TINY MYSTERY author Robert V. Gentry conclusively proves that granite must have formed in under three minutes!! Using primordial granite and finding Polonium halo rings without any parent Uranium or Thorium, and knowing that the half-life Polonium varies from; 218Po-3.05min, 214Po-164microseconds, and 210Po-140days, how could they be in the rock if it was originaly molten and took millions of years to cool? Click link below:

Answers in Genesis

Science is not a bad thing as long as it agrees with the bible:

Da 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science , and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.
1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Real science NEVER contradicts the bible!!!
In Christ service,
David Scott