God, and science

I have maintained for sometime that where science is truly scientific and relying on the empiracle evidence, that there is no dispute with God.

I.E. Molecules to man/macro evolution is not scientific as it not only lacks empiracle evidence but is in direct contradiction to the 2nd law of thermo dynamics.

Not to upset anyone as far as the days of creation goes,,,,but in order to reconcile that to myself I had to look at how a day is defined, which is by the rotation of the earth. So the first day described in Genesis could have been much longer than 24 hours if the Earth was not actually rotating. To back this up, there is strong archeological/historical evidence that a year is longer today than it was in the time of Joshua. Just some food for thought.

I personally believe that the creation took 7 days, just not days as we know them today. I also believe that the universe started from one central point in line with the Big Bang idea. I took an astro physics course in college thinking it was going to be an easy elective (they called it stellar astronomy) it was hard but it got me hooked. I figure even if the calculations of distance to the stars are off by as much as 90% we need to take a hard look at the definition of 7 days and the definition of what was being created in Genesis as it relates to the age of the universe.

Good Thread....more stimulating talk internet

Peace

Mikel

I know it may seem right but an ordered system ie. DNA does not go against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.. Actually it is a favored condition.

Stick with me here:

Basically the 2nd law says atoms, molucules, nature in general prefer or tend to move in the direction of disorder (entropy).

DNA is a very ordered system, right? Absolutely but what is being forgotten is the solution that the DNA is in. There are forces that hold or attract other molecules together. (hydrogen bond, general electrostatic interactions) These forces order the solution around them, this order goes against entropy. SO, if if you have a BALL of DNA the solution will not be able to interact with some of the molecules the form the DNA (the ones in the middle of the ball), where if the DNA where broken up into even the amino acids the make it up the solution will be free to interact with all the DNA molucules actually making more order .

I hope my explanition is understood, if not let me know and I will take the time to explain this in more detail. Pictures actually help alot in understanding this concept.

Sure I understand the concept. But it begs the question. How did DNA come about.

The problem that I have with spontaneous generation of life is the same problem I have with spontaneous generation (maggots from garbage)

There is no empiracle evidence to suggest this. It is simply an explanation for something that is not understood and fails to follow scientific method. I think the issue with DNA is the same as the Christian explanation of the distance to the stars problem with time. Some circles say that light is slowing down,not a constant, and at some point moved a lot faster explaining the great distance to stars and the short time period apparently given by the Bible for creation's existence.

My issues in both cases are with the science involved. Neither can be conclusively demonstrated and I would tend to believe that the conclusions are based more on our increasing ability to examine more specifically and not due to a circumstance that exists outside of known proven laws/science.

I think trying to demonstrate that DNA moves towards a more ordered existence is much like saying the universe is perpetual with out begining or end but pendulems back and forth in expansion and contraction.

Entrophy states that left to their own devices everything moves towards disorder rather than order. The human body would appear to be a contradiction to this as it grows and becomes stronger (the unexplained miracle of life force) but eventually every life ends whether plant or animal, demonstrating that in spite of appearances we are moving towards disorder suffering entrophy from the moment of conception.

I am not disinterested in your ideas Randy, I just think that they beg the question. Evolution (in the macro form) is still always talked of as a theory because it lacks the proper scientific evidence to be considered a law. Were it a law I would adjust my theology accordingly I reject the idea of macro evolution on the basis of lack of any conclusive evidence. Circumstantial evidence such as the maggot example and when people used to think that the sun revolved around the Earth.

I am not suggesting that your thought is as simplistic as those examples only putting out my "theory" that given time it will prove to be in the same catagory of things not being as they appear.

All the Best!!

Mikel

Wow, okay guys. I like what Oldraven said. I am completely sure that microevolution has occured. Adaptation has occured in Giraffes too, so it is very possible. I figure most can agree on this. Now I'm adding a new factor to my original post.

Disclaimer: Im not good with terminology so if I used the wrong scientific wording I understand, I just don't know what it is called.

God created the earth....."The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground" Try to follow me. Here goes: scientists have an additional theory that evolution took place from the very first atom. Some kind of molecule ate a mitochondrian, for example, and the mitochondrian did not digest. So it became part of the creature that ate it and from then on things started to evolve continually. The Bible says that man was made from dust not other organisms, but I choose to not take the Bible literally to the extent that God meant what he said but he may have simplified it some.

Think about the people that lived when the Bible was written...Do you honestly think they would have understood if God had told them that they were created from all these infinite microrganisms. Of course not, so God gave it a term that was something they could see. They knew what dust was, but it took time and humanity to give what God used a name.

That is my theory. One more thing God is not bound by time he is the Almighty! Also thank you for all the discussion very nice.

Questions:

God created man in his image, right?
God took a rib from Adam to make Eve, right?
Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden, right?



1st question:

If there were a garden and it had a name it had to exist before Adam and Eve, who or where was Eden?

2nd question, this involves the other 2 questions above:

Does this not sound to you like cloning?

An advanced being would explain to its creations in simple terms where they came from...

Did I just open a can of worms?

first off, no eden today-destroyed in the flood ( if not by some other means before hand)

Then why didn't God tell his people, "you know this dog over here- well I took it and changed it around a little bit and got a fox"

Actually I do believe that ancient people would understand what God told them. Why do we assume that adam and eve (or their decendants) were stupid?

They were created in the image (reflection) of God. I don't believe that just meant physical but mentally. The only thing the bible says that adam and eve did not know is the knowledge of Good and Evil. The Bible said that God walked with Adam in the garden. This probably meant that they had conversations. now I doubt God wanted to have conversations with a mental 2 year old. The whole idea of the people being less advanced in anciet times is an evolutionary idea. The whole development over time idea. Modern engineers cannot duplicate many of the building projects of the Egyptians, Mayans or even Celts (stonehenge) with the tools that archeologists know they had during those time periods. The only people left after the Great flood were Noah and his family. Do you think that they new everything about biology, physics, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, and all other things in the world. Some of that was naturally erased from human society by the flood. They could very well have been more advanced than we are today. I am not saying this is definatly true, but just a possibility.

by the way, nitpicky point , cloning would have resulted in another Adam. If god used genetic engineering He would still need the genetic material there to insert into the cells. You need a miraculous god to change the cells around to create a geneticaly new being.

By the way evolution is not a new idea, just made popular in 1850's. It dates back all the way to ancient greece.

Most people agree that a completely straight forward reading of Genesis tells the story of a powerful God at work creating in six literal days. The only reason people try to fit evolution into the bible is because they believe evolution is true, either in part or in whole, even though it is a theory and NO conclusive evidence has been found to support it. Not because the Bible itself indicates any evolutionary process.
so why try to fit the 2 when special creation works as well as any other theory about the beginning of the universe and still fits into the Bible?
Why would an all powerful God use such a sloppy process as evolution to create what he wanted when all He had to do was speak it into existence?

And why would God have his messengers write in Genesis that morning and the evening were second day, then the third day, then the fourth day, and so on? Critics of the literal six day creation will haughtily use the biblical reference of God/man time and say that each day was a thousand years, so therefore the creation took 6000 years. Does this mean that God has morning and evening? Was this a planetary day, with one revolution lasting 1000 years? If so, how did the animal and plant life survive on the dark side of the planet without sunlight (heat) for 1000 years at a time? No, an all powerful God that can create doesn't need to operate under the constraints of human imagination. If He merely said "let there be light" and there was light, then that tells me he can do whatever he wants at will.

Shamrock

I don't know that the people who say that each day was 1000 years would necessarilly be critics. The Bible says that 1000 years is as a day and a day is as 1000 years to God. Indicating that time is meaningless to God (or at least not the same to Him as us)

As far as how could plants and animals survive with a 1000 year Earth rotation? The same way that people could live to be 1000 years old before the flood. Look into the Canopy theory it offers a lot of possible explanation.

I don't think a 6000 year creation covers it for Evolutionists anyway. They need a lot more time. From the Astro physical standpoint (i.e. distance to stars, speed of light etc...) There needs to be a bit more time at least as far as the age of the universe goes, not necesarilly life on Earth.

I am in no way a proponent of Macro Evolution, life from no life, molecules to man theory. I do believe that the age of the universe fits into the Biblical account. It is one of those things that is interesting to talk about but we will probably end up with no conclusive answers to until we are in Eternity.

I am a proponent of good science and I think that where the science is good and conclusive that it always points to God.

Not cloning by an alien being (ala ET) but a superior being that we call God who is able to create life from no life (dust) who is Omniscient, Omnipotent and all those other Omni words

Whew

Mikel

Mikel,

You make a good point about the canopy theory. This is something I have never factored in to my thinking as it pertains to the creation, but perhaps I should give it more thought. By the way, a lot of people who do believe in the canopy theory believe that was the way in which God spoke with man, it being somewhat of a transmitter. Personally, I can go either way on that issue because it is so unimportant to me (because I know God doesn't need that device), but I do find the theory itself to be very interesting and quite possibly the way it was. There that whole issue of separating the waters below the firmament from the waters below the firmament that gives me all the reason in the world to accept the canopy concept.

I'm with you Shamrock.

I am sure of one thing and that is that the Genisis account is accurate. (based on evidence for the accuracy of the rest of the Bible) Things that seem impossible are very possible if you have a full and accurate understanding.

Just because I don't fully understand how the universe came into being is in no way evidence that it never came to be

Peace

Mikel

Reddrake I'm not assuming that Adam and Eve were stupid, but they had no schooling. They would have had to have been born knowing everything, which doesn't seem possible. Not possible because after Adam and Eve people still had to figure things out on their own throughout hundreds of years.

I'm talking about the people that lived when the Bible was written. The Greeks had already formulated many complex ideas, but the people around when the Bible was written didn't receive much education. People throughout history never usually got an education. The commoners would not have understood. Same reason Jesus used so many parables, to speak to the common people.

I have to say that I, personally, am a literalist. I do believe that the Earth was created in a literal 6 days. My problem is this... If I cannot put faith in what the Bible says in Genesis, then how can I believe anything else that it says? If I can't beleive "and the evening and the morning were the first DAY", then how can I believe "that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"?

According to everything I've read, Moses wrote Genesis. While I do not know how God inspired him to do so, whether it was a dream, a vision, a dictation or whatever, I do know that Moses was just a man. So if, in a vision, he saw the creation of the earth, I believe that his mortal senses would have known the difference between a day and 1,000 years, or millions of years. And I really don't think that God would have had to be so vague to begin with. I think that if it had taken Him 1,000 years to make it, why would the Bible not just plainly say "And the evening and the morning were the first millenium."

I believe that these theories which try to resolve Creation and Evolution serve no other purpose than to erode people's beliefs in an awesome and almighty God. The problem, reddrake, is not so much that they believe evolution to be true, but that they believe the Bible to be false. Their basic premise is "Okay, obviously the Bible is untrue, so how do we explain the existence of the universe without it?" If one started with the premise, "Okay, we know that the Bible is true, so how do we make these findings fit in to what it says?", I'll be that many questions would be resolved.

Wizard, I do believe the Bible is true, I'm not trying disprove it. I'm trying to make the two fit together so that the two factions can stop fighting. I am content to believe that the Bible is literal, but I was trying to be open minded, see both sides.

Hi Celtic Cat!

I am truly sorry if you thought that by "they" I meant you or anyone else on this thread. I was speaking of the scientific community in general. I apologize if you took it that way. That was not my intention.

I am going to try to find a website that I found once and, if I am successful, I will post a link here. The website does an in-depth study of carbon-dating and attempts to prove that it is a complete fallacy, based on incorrect assumptions and renders false information. I support that belief, though I am not a scientist and could not begin to say whether or not the site provided correct or accurate information.

I am of the opinion that the Bible is correct, and anything that does not support its teachings must be false and inaccurate.

To my mind, it is just that I cannot see any way that the religious and scientific theories could both be correct. Especially if one takes a literal view of the Bible and believes what it says. But, of course, that is just my opinion.

Wizz,

I know many people that think the way you do, and to me its fine. What you demonstrate is faith that is not wavered by human wisdom. Then again, I also know many people that believe science is the only answer, thinking it to be far superior in gaining knowledge than any other device. The two points of view are in contrast to one another, and I think that may be where Cat is having her difficulties. Yet again, there is another type of thinker that I am accustomed to, and it is the one that can accept science for what it is....man's attempt to gather knowledge based on what he already knows. When I read or hear of something that doesn't fit into my understanding of bible scripture, a cornucopia of thought processes begin to take place. I won't consider my understanding of the bible to be perfect, and immediately dismiss the scientific finding, yet I won't haughtily accept the science as being infallible. Science and religion have both brought a lot of positives to the human race, and will likely continue to do so indefinitely. But they have also brought us negative things--disastrous things. The two schools of thought can exist independently, or together, I see no problem. But I do think that it is rather uplifting to find either scientist or theologian that demonstrates a blend of the two.