Hello

[Kathi]

Who do you think created the Earth?
I think there are two assumptions in this question that I am skeptical of. First, that it was a "who" and that the earth was "created". To use the word created I think implies strongly there is a "creator". Ray Comfort is someone who plays on this implicitness. Although I'm not totally opposed to using this word I think it's not neutral enough. I think the more appropriate term is "formed". It's more nuetral in that it can be modified either way. You could say "formed by God" or "formed by natural processes". I accept that the earth was formed by natural processes along with the rest of the solar system over millions of years (interestingly this is an area where a Theory of Solar Formation is still under development). It's a good parallel to the discussion regarding theories. There's a great page at the University of Colorado Boulder laying out what facts a Theory of Solar Formation should explain. Since we do not describe natural processes as a "who" but more of a "what" let's rephrase the question: "what formed the earth" or "how did the earth form". This is an edit due to Obadiah's criticism that I didn't answer the question. The answer would be "no one created the earth".

How do you think the moon,sun and stars appeared in our heavens?
Explanation here would be simliar to the prior question. I want to point out though that using the word "appear" I think suggests that there was a very short period of time from when these objects weren't there and now they are. In the sense that they "just appeared". But my explanation is that they formed over millions to billions of years.

With these questions there will be a regression to the limit of our scientific understanding. So next, for the sake of argument, you may say "fine, they formed over millions of years.... but where did the stuff they formed out of come from?". Ok, so eventually the end game is "where did the singularity (big bang) come from", or "why is there something and not nothing?" (more philosophical). Well, so now we get into the more speculative side of science. The limits of our understanding. But there are discussions regarding Super String Hypothesis (I don't use theory here although many do) and "what was before the big bang". It's pretty cool stuff.

Then you think it just happened by nobody

 

[ExChristian]

This illustrates one of the problems I have when secular people insist that things such as the theory of evolution or the big bang theory must be true and ideas such as the Biblical creation story must be false and certainly are so foolish we just can't even appear to give them any credit at all.

In general I've tried to stay away from placing value judgements on people because of their beliefs like saying someone is foolish. Sometimes insults can come across implicitly, just in context. It's definately not easy to keep from making discussions about fundabmental beliefs from becoming just an insult fest. Just the other day I was reading a Christian pro-life blog (I'm actually an anti-abortion atheist, a bit in the minority with secular people) and I was disapointed by how the pro-life writer was trading insults with pro-abortion individuals. I often am disapointed in alot of secular people when they resort to making fun of religious beliefs.

So back to theories. A theory is going to be an explanation of facts. You observe, make hypotheses and then you test them. Over years, decades, as the evidence and testing piles up, you can move on to a theory. This is why there is insistance. Behind that insistance is a long process with a foundation in observation, testing, and facts. In addition theories can be used to make predictions. For example, Einstein predicted in his Theory of General Relativity that light could be bent by gravity. 3 years later during a solar eclipse his theory was confirmed (different than proven).

It's true that Christians can't prove the story of creation in Genesis to be literally true.

Theories aren't really meant to be "proven". Theories are meant to be falsifiable.This just means that it is within the realm of possiblities to come up with evidence or observation that will prove false the explanation. So we have an explanation of facts and after a theory is formed testing and observation still continue. In that continued research it can be proved false at any time.

So with the story of creation in Genesis is there a way to prove it false? Is there some facts or observations someone could show or point to where you would genuinly say "oh, ok yeah that does disprove the creation explanation"? I ask this sincerely. I do believe that from the creation story we can infer things - make predictions. For example, if God created humans and animals as layed out in Genesis, the inference would lead us to a much different fossil record than is found.

We just don't know HOW God did it.

Ok. So knowing the how is important for me. Scientific explanations are about the how and this is where the confidence comes from. Less how, less confidence. More how, more confidence. And if the how is not know it should at least be desired/pursued. So relating this to creation, if we don't know the how, we should not have confidence in the explanation. I think it is at such an intersection where faith comes in.

But yet in your answer above you spent a lot of effort to discuss the semantics of words like "who" or "created", etc, but still you haven't any answer to the original question. And that's OK because just like the scriptural story of creation, science really doesn't have an answer. Only theories.

Semantics are everything when we delve into articular explanations/discussions. Meanings of words have to be clear. I did edit my post to answer the question in the way I think you are looking for: "no one created the earth". The next sentence you write kind of puzzles me as that's precisely what science does have. Answers. I don't understand this aversion to theories. Theories are powerful. They are not something that's "only". How is it that Enstein makes a prediction about powerful natural forces and that's exactly what they do? Is that an "only"?

But to go back to your comments about "core beliefs", how God created the heavens and the earth and created people isn't a core belief that affects salvation.

Ok. So that makes sense since there are Christians that accept the Theory of Evolution and even the Big Bang Theory and still are seen as Christians. They simply believe that these are just the "tools" of God.

 

[ExChristian]

Then you think it just happened by nobody

I tried to articulate why that is. Is it still not clear?

 

[Kathi]

I tried to articulate why that is. Is it still not clear?

I got your point.Have a nice life Ex

 

[Obadiah]

...I don't understand this aversion to theories. Theories are powerful. They are not something that's "only". How is it that Enstein makes a prediction about powerful natural forces and that's exactly what they do? Is that an "only"?..

Sorry for not making that more clear. I don't have an aversion to theories. I meant they are "only" theories as opposed to being scientific "law". I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but I seem to remember from school that a scientific "theory" was less proven than a scientific "law". That's all I meant by using the word "only".

...Ok. So that makes sense since there are Christians that accept the Theory of Evolution and even the Big Bang Theory and still are seen as Christians. They simply believe that these are just the "tools" of God.

That's one viewpoint. There are several ways different Christians look at it. We have to remember that if God had explained how He created things in detailed scientific terms the people at the time scripture was being written wouldn't have even had the words to put the concepts down on paper, much less have any comprehension at all of what it meant. Even today I doubt even our brightest intellectuals could make much sense of all the details since they all freely admit there is still a tremendous amount none of us know. The Genesis story of creation was never intended to give us the details or the proof of how God did it. But it does say that God DID do it, somehow. This part I would consider a core belief, that God did do it somehow. How he did it? Well, you are right. That is more a matter of faith, not of science.

 

[ExChristian]

I got your point.Have a nice life Ex

Well it could be nicer but I have my health and a place to lay my head so can I really complain?

 

[ExChristian]

Sorry for not making that more clear. I don't have an aversion to theories. I meant they are "only" theories as opposed to being scientific "law". I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but I seem to remember from school that a scientific "theory" was less proven than a scientific "law". That's all I meant by using the word "only".

Ok. Laws are the next step up from theories. So if the Theory of Evolution became a law would it give you pause to reconsider its validity in explaining the diversity of life? Also, don't sell yourself short. You and I may not be "scientists" as a social label but anyone who uses the scientific method to understand and explain the world is a scientist in my view. Could be a 7 year old doing a science project in school. If he uses the scientific method properly he is a scientist.

 

[Obadiah]

...So if the Theory of Evolution became a law would it give you pause to reconsider its validity in explaining the diversity of life?...

It's hard for me to speculate on how something like that would affect my views on it, mainly because I find it hard to believe it would be possible in my lifetime to find enough proof of evolution to make it a scientific law. By that I mean the type of proof that would make it a law governing the creation of all things. Seems the type of experiments needed would take generations (many generations) to conduct. But please understand, I never rejected evolution completely. I just don't know if that was a tool that God used in creation or not. Maybe it was, maybe not. I'll let the theologians worry about that. It doesn't affect my relationship with God. You see, I have personally seen and been involved in incidents that proved to me in all the ways that I need that God is real and is who He says He is. Because of the dramatic proof I've seen more than once in my Christian life, I can't imagine a situation that will change that for me. But it's nothing that would fit into the human idea of the scientific method, so I don't beat my head against the brick wall of science to try to argue it's validity in light of that way of thinking.

I don't accept the idea that everything has to have scientific proof to be valid. You want to prove God's existence through science before you will believe in Him, but you will never be able to do that. Proof through the scientific method isn't the only reason to believe in something. The scientific method may be good by human standards, but it's not perfect in every situation. There are many actual scientists who understand this too, and have no problem believing in God through faith. But they many times don't like to admit that when speaking as scientists because the secular scientific world will discredit them for it. So if you want to believe in God and be saved through the sacrifice of Jesus, then you will probably have to abandon science in that area of your beliefs and allow yourself to have faith. If you do not do that, I doubt you will ever find a belief in God or salvation through Jesus.

 

[ExChristian]

You see, I have personally seen and been involved in incidents that proved to me in all the ways that I need that God is real and is who He says He is. Because of the dramatic proof I've seen more than once in my Christian life, I can't imagine a situation that will change that for me.

Can you give a quick example of one or two of these incidents?

 

[Obadiah]

It's being suggested that this thread has gone way beyond just saying "hello" in the New Members forum, and looking back at it, I agree! In fact, I sorta forgot what forum this was! ExChristian, maybe it would be a good idea for you to start a new thread in another forum? Perhaps the Christianity and Other Religions forum?

 

[evenifigoalone]

No, you didn't explicitly say it but I took it as implicit. I'm not clear on if you hold science (aka scientific method) in high or low regard. Yes, science modfies theories as additional info becomes known. Even if we say the simlarity is that both are speculation, a theory would be tested speculation. Are these words now more similar than they are different because one is tested and the other not? Couldn't we say that the testing creates such a difference that they are more different than similar?

If I wanted to take a trip into space on the Virgin Galactic as a space tourist and asked Richard Branson how can I be confident in the trip and he says "don't worry, my engineers speculate that everything will go great" - that won't give me the confidence I need. But if he says "my engineers have utilized scientific theory in our calculations and tested all our speculations" they yes, that increases confidence. Now I'll ask for the evidence of testing. This is about the value/weight we place on explantions that then lead us to make choices.

I find many religious people (in words) devalue scientific explanations but if we were to examine their lives and watch their choices - the vast majority lead their lives as if they are confident in scientific explanations. When Pope John Paul II was shot did everyone just pray over him and believe that faith will heal him? No, they got his butt to the hospital so that science and the skill of humans could save him. I use PJP2 as an example only because of all people that might be healed/saved through prayer/faith/divine intervention it seams plausible since he would have millions praying for him.

When religious people make these types of choices, for me, it implicity means that they value science vastly over prayer/faith. In the end, it is someone's choice that exposes what they value.

I'm no scientist (horrible at math), but I've always loved learning about science. Some of my favorite videos on YouTube and books have been about science.
I feel that science is a way to study the world God created, and that it can hold parallels to truths about God. (One of my favorite devotionals was by a doctor who kept relating human biology to Biblical doctrine. "Fearfully and Wonderfully Made" by Paul Brand.)

Many Christians feel that medical science is a way God provided for humans to help other humans. Although some are against it. A couple of years back there was someone on here who believed going to the hospital was unscriptural and claimed to be part of a church that healed people entirely by prayer, anointing with oil, and laying of hands.
I've seen churches where I live practice this, but without the aversion to doctors and hospitals.

 

[ExChristian]

Obadiah - Understood. This will be my last post in this thread.
Questdriven - Thanks for your contribution.

 

[Obadiah]

ExChristian, it's still OK to post. The moderators have moved the thread to a new forum now so it's OK.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I thought I should mention why I wanted to post in the "evolution is a lie" thread. The op posted a video with a pastor misusing the word "theory". Many of you probably are aware but it has opposite meanings depending on context. Layman's = a guess, hunch. Scientific = an explanation for facts observed and/or infered.

Many of us here actually embrace Evolution as true and factual, and have several times sought to correct ideas about how we understand the word theory. It probably doesn't need to be stated ultimately.

Welcome to CF!

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I do have a question for you guys though. Say this simple conversation occurs:
Person A: Hi, I believe in God.
Person B: Hi, I do too but ...
Person A: But what?
Person B: But I don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that he even existed. And certianly not Mary or a virgin birth. I don't believe in heaven or hell, sin, saints, Adam and Eve, Holy Spirit, the Ten Commandments, or that the bible is written or inspired by God.
Person A: Ummm...
Person B: But, I believe in God.

So what would you make of such "belief"? Would you feel affinity with this individual because they also believe? Would you at some point ask what God they believe in exactly? Could Person B legitimately claim they "believe in God"?

This seems to be an issue tied up in a whole lot of semantics.

1) It is easy to substantiate that both of them are theists, in that they embrace the existence of a divine being. One might be a Deist and the other a Christian Theist.
2) Christians have a bit more content behind the term "belief in God," where it is not just a mental assent to the existence of a being, but an active trusting in a specific being, Jesus Christ. This is lost a bit in translation, but is made clear in the original languages.
3) Ultimately, we Christians are commanded to love everyone, so I think the person regardless of their belief should be treated with love and respect, and not some disingenuous surface level kindness. So it isn't simply because we are "commanded" to, but it should be an outpouring of who we are, and who we have become.

Hope this helps,
DI