[_ Old Earth _] A question about creation for christians who trust the science

[poetofparables]

My christian friends, for those of you who trust science what scientific theories have you found that fits in with the bibles account of creation and (maybe) the bible itself.

 

[Gary]

 

[poetofparables]

Ok I just watched that, thanks.

 

[Gary]

Ok I just watched that, thanks.

Thoughts.

 

[poetofparables]

Thoughts.

Umm, no thoughts so far other than im needing more research.

 

[Barbarian]

God says that life was not created from nothing, but was brought forth from the earth. Abiogenesis is far from settled science, but the evidence so far supports His word on that.

 

[Malachi]

My christian friends, for those of you who trust science what scientific theories have you found that fits in with the bibles account of creation and (maybe) the bible itself.

Christians who believe God and believe that His written Word is truth, "trust" science only to the degree that science knows its proper place in the scheme of things.

All natural laws are under the purview of science, but when science intrudes into things outside its scope, one has to call it "pseudo-science". Evolutionism is pseudo-science, but it is also a "faith" -- a religion that believes that God can be excluded from the realm of nature, and creation can be explained on naturalistic and rationalistic grounds.

We know from daily experience that absolutely nothing can come into existence by itself. Yet these "scientists" would have us believe that the universe came into existence just by itself. That is so absurd, that if this were not a "faith" these "scientists" would be laughed out of existence. The more sinister aspect of this is that this "faith" can be traced back to Satanic deception. And of course if you are a pseudo-scientist, Satan does not exist, and neither does God.

Even the outstanding scientist Isaac Newton (who did not hold to conservative Christian beliefs) could not reject the Creator as seen in this quote:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.

 

[Barbarian]

Christians who believe God and believe that His written Word is truth, "trust" science only to the degree that science knows its proper place in the scheme of things.

As St. Augustine noted, we can be as wrong about our interpretation of religion, as we can be about science.

All natural laws are under the purview of science, but when science intrudes into things outside its scope, one has to call it "pseudo-science". Evolutionism is pseudo-science, but it is also a "faith" -

Evolution is a natural phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the theory that best explains it. "Evolutionism" apparently is a creationist invention.

a religion that believes that God can be excluded from the realm of nature,

Darwin obviously didn't accept "evolutionism."
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species

We know from daily experience that absolutely nothing can come into existence by itself. Yet these "scientists" would have us believe that the universe came into existence just by itself.

Sorry, not part of evolutionary theory. You're talking about physics, and I'm pretty sure you got this wrong.

 

[ReginaForbes]

I agree with Malachi's post. Especially with regards to evolution being a "religion" of sorts for the anti-theists.
As for myself, all I can say is that I'm a young earth-creationist. That says it all.

 

[Barbarian]

It's always weird about people confusing science with religion. But then I see cartoons like that, and I realize that it's because for some, science looks like a religion. Why is the cartoon funny to a scientist? Because evolution happens to populations, not individuals, and because orthogenesis was thoroughly discredited by Darwinists a long time ago.

It's kinda the way so many of us put up Far Side cartoons on the office door, showing cave men and dinosaurs living at the same time. Stupid, yes, but intentionally so, for a humorous effect.

 

[Pizza]

Darwin obviously didn't accept "evolutionism."
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species

It sure is funny, how a man who believed in a creator-God ended up the defacto quoted authority on a "Godless Creation".
I've heard ignorant people say that Darwin was in hell for "doing the devil's work by deceiving the masses".

Funny, even Darwin believed that God was behind it all.

 

[Barbarian]

Late in life, Darwin drifted off into agnosticism, after the death of a beloved child. When he wrote his book on evolution, he was an orthodox Anglican.

 

[john darling]

I'm not quite sure what my position is on creation. I'm fairly open to either a literal 7 day creation or a billions of years creation, though I kinda like the longer theistic evolution scenario because I imagine God the creator kinda playing around with all this matter, shaping here, destroying there and then when he's got it worked out the way he wants, he creates his masterpiece; the Earth.

Then he gets more specific by creating life and again repeats the process of tinkering with matter, changing bits here and there, experimenting with millions of life forms and then another masterpiece; Humanity, with his free will and all his potential for good and bad.

People say God is all knowing so the concept of "experimenting" would be inaccurate. However, I'm not so sure about that. God, the son, and the Holy spirit are all one and yet separate at the same time. I don't know how it works or how it's possible, but I believe God can do such a thing. I think there could be something like that with God's knowledge as well, where he knows everything and yet still learns something new at the same time, and he was doing that with the creation of our universe, with earth, and most especially with humanity.

In John 3 Nicodemus was having a difficult time with Jesus' teaching about being born again. In what I interpret as a bit of frustration Jesus said, "if you don't believe me about earthly things, how will you believe me if I tell you about heavenly things"?

It must have been frustrating to know so much about God, yet live amongst such stubborn people. There must be so many wonderful things that God would like to reveal to us about himself, if only we'd be open to hearing it.

 

[Edward]

I agree with Malachi also. I do have some confidence in science. I do believe that they can figure things out given time and so forth, but it's not always presented to the masses truthfully (there is an agenda by some to suppress truth and God).

I'm a young earth creationist also and have had the thought that maybe God did create the earth and man and so forth in 7 days (but we have to ask ourself...by who's clock, ours or Gods?!) Maybe while God was up there creating everything, the 'universe was in fast forward so to speak. We do know that the further one gets away from the earth (or a gravitational pull) that it affects time. So it was probably something along these lines which confuses us, but in reality would make the whole thing fit together with science.