[__ Science __ ] Is Historical Science Useful?

[AIG.com]

The differences between empirical and historical science, how predictions can be helpful in the sciences, and how worldview affects our perspective about the past.

Continue reading...

 

[crossnote]

The differences between empirical and historical science, how predictions can be helpful in the sciences, and how worldview affects our perspective about the past.

Continue reading...

The Theory of Evolution or God's Revelation.
I don't see evolution as science, but at least we have eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection of the One who put His stamp of approval on Genesis, whereas that so called science (called evolution) had no eyewitnesses of a Big Bang, neither did it repeat itself.

 

[Barbarian]

Since evolution is observed directly, it's empirical science. Indeed, predictions of evolutionary theory can be tested by the way populations evolve over time today. AIG has confused evolution (a change in allele frequency in a population over time) with a consequence of evolution (common descent).

Genesis is, as most Christians acknowledge, consistent with the fact of evolution.

 

[Quantrill]

Since evolution is observed directly, it's empirical science. Indeed, predictions of evolutionary theory can be tested by the way populations evolve over time today. AIG has confused evolution (a change in allele frequency in a population over time) with a consequence of evolution (common descent).

Genesis is, as most Christians acknowledge, consistent with the fact of evolution.

Genesis is not consistent with evolution. Evolution played no role in Gods creation.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

Genesis is not consistent with evolution. Evolution played no role in Gods creation.

Genesis says nothing contrary to evolutionary theory, nor does it assert evolution. It merely notes that God uses the nature He created to make new kinds of life.

Which is consistent with special creation and evolution. So we have no direction on this from God's word.

 

[crossnote]

Genesis says nothing contrary to evolutionary theory, nor does it assert evolution. It merely notes that God uses the nature He created to make new kinds of life.

Which is consistent with special creation and evolution. So we have no direction on this from God's word.

How did the cycles of evolution come to pass without death in the world, and how came death without sin, and how sin without Adam and Eve sinning?

Romans 5:12 (KJV) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

1 Corinthians 15:56 (KJV) The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

Romans 8:20 (KJV) For the creature (creation) was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

Scripture as a whole is incompatible with the theory of evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

How did the cycles of evolution come to pass without death in the world, and how came death without sin, and how sin without Adam and Eve sinning?

Death was always present since life began. Humans and other animals can only survive by eating other organisms. The "death" that Adam brought into the world was a spiritual death, not a physical one.

We know this because God said that Adam would die the day he ate from the tree. But when Adam does this, he lives on physically for many years thereafter. If the death was physical, Adam would have died that day.

Scripture is entirely consistent with evolution. How could it be otherwise? It's God's creation, after all.

 

[crossnote]

Death was always present since life began. Humans and other animals can only survive by eating other organisms. The "death" that Adam brought into the world was a spiritual death, not a physical one.

We know this because God said that Adam would die the day he ate from the tree. But when Adam does this, he lives on physically for many years thereafter. If the death was physical, Adam would have died that day.

Scripture is entirely consistent with evolution. How could it be otherwise? It's God's creation, after all.

So are you saying the creation also died 'spiritually'?

For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
(Rom 8:19-22)

Then vs 23 goes on to speak of the redemption of our bodies (not just spirits)...

And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
(Rom 8:23)

 

[Barbarian]

So are you saying the creation also died 'spiritually'?

Creation never died. It's still here.

For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

So it didn't die at all, and then after the Resurrection it no longer groaned and travailed in pain?

Another reason we know the "death" wasn't physical.

And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Yes. Remember, God says in Genesis that Adam was not immortal. In fact, God expresses concern that Adam might become so, and takes action to make sure that he does not.

 

[crossnote]

Creation never died. It's still here.

Are you playing word games? Death and entropy run rampant through creation but it is not dying 'spiritually' only physically as the creation (Except man) hasn't a spirit.

So it didn't die at all, and then after the Resurrection it no longer groaned and travailed in pain?

Another reason we know the "death" wasn't physical.

Creation continues in bondage to death, even after Christ's resurrection. A new heaven and new earth will be required to see the absence of death in creation.

Yes. Remember, God says in Genesis that Adam was not immortal. In fact, God expresses concern that Adam might become so, and takes action to make sure that he does not.

God never said Adam was immortal. Two trees were offered, that of Life and that of the knowledge of good and evil which God promised death if he partook, but there still was the tree of life that he could have partaken of.

Genesis 2:9 (KJV) And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil,...

BTW, do you even take Genesis chaps 1 thru 3 literally or symbolically?

 

[Quantrill]

Genesis says nothing contrary to evolutionary theory, nor does it assert evolution. It merely notes that God uses the nature He created to make new kinds of life.

Which is consistent with special creation and evolution. So we have no direction on this from God's word.

Everything God created is contrary to evolution. We have plenty of direction from God's Word on this.

(Gen. 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".

(Ps. 33:6-9) "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

No evolution here.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

Everything God created is contrary to evolution.

That would be odd, since we see evolution happening everywhere around us. Evolution is not what you seem to think it is. The scientific definition for biological evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time. Or more simply, as Darwin wrote, "descent with modification."

This is just a fact; we see it happening in all populations. Many creationist organizations now accept the fact of new species, genera, and families of organisms, evolving. They limit common descent to the first three levels of taxa.

 

[Barbarian]

Are you playing word games? Death and entropy run rampant through creation but it is not dying 'spiritually' only physically as the creation (Except man) hasn't a spirit.

Only man died spiritually that day. God is not unjust or cruel. He did not punish animals for man's disobedience.

So it didn't die at all, and then after the Resurrection it no longer groaned and travailed in pain?

Another reason we know the "death" wasn't physical.

BTW, do you even take Genesis chaps 1 thru 3 literally or symbolically?

Since it's absurd to have mornings and evenings with no sun to have them, the text itself tells us that it is not a literal account.

 

[crossnote]

Since it's absurd to have mornings and evenings with no sun to have them, the text itself tells us that it is not a literal account.

I'm not sure where you draw the line between literal and non literal parts of the Bible.
As far as I am concerned this whole conversation may be non literal, including sin, death, creation, resurrection, Adam etc.
I guess reason reigns over God's revelation. Poor God, must have gotten confused. No wonder it took Him billions of years to form man.

Oh mornings and evenings without a sun?

Hebrews 11:3 (NASB) By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

 

[Quantrill]

That would be odd, since we see evolution happening everywhere around us. Evolution is not what you seem to think it is. The scientific definition for biological evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time. Or more simply, as Darwin wrote, "descent with modification."

This is just a fact; we see it happening in all populations. Many creationist organizations now accept the fact of new species, genera, and families of organisms, evolving. They limit common descent to the first three levels of taxa.

As I have mentioned before, you use your science to interpret the Bible. Therefore for you, the verses I showed you cannot be true as your science says otherwise.

Yes, science loves to declare 'facts' when it is talking about the theory of evolution. But science sees what it wants to. The fact is science cannot go back to the origin of the universe and man and test its theory. It has come up with a theory which is contrary to the Bible. Which is why science and you reject the Bible.

I know, you will say you don't reject the Bible. But you do. When you reject the literal interpretation of the Creation account given in the Bible, you reject the Bible. And the only reason you would reject it, is because it is at odds with your science.

And, as far as there being no sun till the forth day, what does that matter? The evening and morning of those first days was determined by the 'light', not the sun. (Gen. 1:3) That light was the very light of God. That light would then on the fourth day be replaced by the sun.

The Bible does not support any biological evolution. It does not support any evolution of the universe or heaven.

Quantrill

 

[crossnote]

I won’t even consider evolution as a science.
Also science is heavily reliant on observable (eyes) phenomena, whereas faith is heavily reliant on God’s spoken Word (hearing). The two camps have little in common.
I have respect for both camps but the theory of evolution is not worthy to be called a science.

 

[Barbarian]

As I have mentioned before, you use your science to interpret the Bible.

[/QUOTE]
No. I couldn't do that. That would be as pointless as using the Bible to do science. I merely look at what the text says.

 

[Barbarian]

I won’t even consider evolution as a science.

True. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. There is a theory that explains it. But the phenomenon is not the theory. The theory is science, since it is a well-tested set of ideas, supported by evidence. Would you like to see why?

Also science is heavily reliant on observable (eyes) phenomena, whereas faith is heavily reliant on God’s spoken Word (hearing). The two camps have little in common.

That's sensible. Science depends on facts, which is how we got the theory of evolution. A hypothesis is advanced to explain a physical phenomenon like evolution. (remember what evolution is) When the predictions of a hypothesis are repeatedly confirmed by evidence, it is then considered to be a theory.

I have respect for both camps but the theory of evolution is not worthy to be called a science.

Because it has been repeatedly verified by evidence, it is a scientific theory. Would you like to see some of the predictions of the theory that have been verified?

 

[crossnote]

Science depends on facts, which is how we got the theory of evolution.

The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is also a fact based on over 500 eyewitness accounts, which is how we got the fact of the Christian faith.

 

[Quantrill]

To Barbarian Concerning post #(17)

Not so. You do use your science to interpret the Bible.. By your own words you interpret (Gen. 1-3) symbolically based upon no sun existing the first 3 days. Post #(13) Your science says that can't happen. Instead of believing the Scripture and seeking answers from there, you believe your science.

So, do you now believe and understand that the first three days of morning and evening were governed by the light of God? And so the account of Creation should be taken literally?

What of (Ps. 33:6-9) that I pointed out earlier? Or (Heb. 11:3), as another pointed out? What do you believe those verses are saying, and why?

Quantrill