Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God made the laws of science - God made the process/creation of person.
Even Jesus was a baby, with a mother, a father (the Holy Spirit), and a stepfather in Saint Joseph.
Why do you think God would contradict or disregard His universe?
Do you think God is that fickle? Do you think God is willy nilly and changes the physical structure of His creation?
There's a line of argument that some Christians make that science is merely "thinking God's thoughts after him". In fact, an argument is even advanced by some that Christianity enabled or at least assisted the birth of the scientific method by countering the alleged "fatalism" in other religions. In other words arguing that Christianity is uniquely open to learning, and that by advancing the notion that God created the world according to certain natural laws, it is orderly and discoverable and not some ineffable mystery that to look into it would constitute some sort of impertinent affront to God.
I think a lot of this is just post hoc attempts to reconcile science with Christianity, despite that there are some Christian groups (the Jesuits come to mind) who are intellectually oriented and pro-inquiry by default. I don't see anything in Christianity writ large, though, that is uniquely supportive of science and at its epistemological core I see it as utterly opposed to the scientific method. However, I think it's reasonable for, say, liberal Christians to understand science as simply figuring out how God created or organized the world. It is a way for them to reconcile their faith with their day job as a scientist or technologist, and to let go of trying to literalize everything the Bible says.
Science isn't deceptive. Scientific conclusions simply show the best answers we have with the information, tools, and techniques we have to work with.
To a literalist / inerrantist, science HAS to be deceptive, because it's at odds with their literal interpretations of the Bible.
It could merely be wrong, but in most cases science has everything on its side -- the evidence, the success of technology (applied science) as proof of concept, the fact that science keeps producing innovations that even fundamentalists do not want to reject as tools of the devil (with the partial exception of groups like the Amish), whereas religion produces exactly nothing of that sort -- this means that they HAVE to claim science is somehow sneaky or deceptive. There must, for instance, be some vast conspiracy to discredit a young earth, and all the evidence for same has to be some sort of artifice.
They could claim that science is unreliable, but that's manifestly not so (cell phones for example don't work half of the time, or every 18th day, or when the wind blows a certain way, or when you correctly sacrifice a chicken; they work every time you use them when properly maintained and used). The closest that detractors can come is to deliberately misconstrue science adjusting course when new information becomes available as a bug rather than the feature that it is (as you point out, it's the best answer we have with what we know at any point in time). For the inerrantist, if science doesn't get it 100% correct the first time and for all time, it is "unreliable" or "can't make up its mind" or "keeps changing the story". If the basic science is to the level of a scientific theory (thoroughly vetted explanatory framework), none of which have EVER been overturned, but there's some little refinement around the edges -- the whole thing is a joke, the work of clowns. There's even a tendency, because they don't or won't understand the difference between association and cause, to claim that science changes tack on a whim. Eggs are good for you. No, bad! No, good! -- these are not changes in science, but in tentative hypotheses, misreported often by the media as "discoveries". Or they may just be observations or results that conflict and haven't been reconciled (yet).
No, for the True Believer, the slogan is: "Let God be true, and every man a liar". Because God provides one thing science can't: certitude, for the things you want or need to be true, regardless of the evidence.
When we take a look at Genesis, many debate whether we should take it as history or simply as a story teaching a specific lesson. As one who sees it as history, I agree there is a lesson there to be learned. That lesson is trusting God's command. Trusting Him and what He has told us. This is something we all can agree with. So when we dive into the story of Adam and Eve, we see the serpent come in and tell Eve something counter to what God told them. What is often missed in this story is what is written in Genesis 3: 6 stating......... So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate............
There it is. The serpent introduced a word counter to God true enough, but Eve didn't immediately disobey at the suggestion. It was when she saw the tree with her eyes and began contemplating with her mind, that she reasoned within herself it was good to eat the fruit. This deception was one of the eyes, and doing what seemed good to her, and Adam followed suit.
All throughout the Bible we see this from Patriarch to Patriarch. There was victories and there was failure. No one was perfect in keeping God's commands. This was true right up until we get to Jesus. Jesus Himself was tempted by the rebel. The satan tried to get Jesus to doubt God's word that He was the Son of God, by getting Him to look at things. (food, self-preservation, and power) Jesus pushed the satan to the side and told him where he can go. Jesus was the first to fully follow and trust God with His whole heart! That is why He is the Master!!! This is the lesson I find that reverberates throughout Scripture.
So what does this have to do with observable science? That's just it, the lesson we learn is that Eve was deceived because she saw the fruit was good for food, and she probably asked within herself what was wrong with eating it? What is God hiding? Observable science is entirely derived from sight. Good science is about following the evidence where it leads. Because of this fact, I would say it is very likely we can be deceived with it. Let me know your thoughts on this. Do you agree, disagree?
We do know the ' known science ' of today in ways are different is some ways from what science thought in the past.
Eve could have seen animals eating from the forbidden fruit, perhaps even the serpent that Satan was using eating it with no ill effects. After all, the tree's fruit was Not poison.
Satan implied God was withholding something good from Eve.
Eve chose to be her own goddess in choosing for herself what is right or wrong in her own eyes.
However, Adam was Not deceived as Eve was - 1st Timothy 2:14
By deliberately breaking the Law then Adam was taking the Law out of God's hands and putting the Law into man's hands.
Adam set up People Rule as being superior to God Rule. Only the passing of time would show who was right.
MAN's long history now shows that MAN has dominated MAN to MAN's hurt, MAN's injury - Ecclesiastes 8:9
This is begging the question. To one who doesn't see a creator in the picture, it's also a non-sequitur.
Humans happen to be the most advanced species on this planet (and currently known to us) by several important measures, but that doesn't mean we're either the apex species, or specially privileged. Until just yesterday in terms of geological time, even up to about 40,000 years ago, we weren't even the only intelligent hominid walking the earth. Likely, we out-aggressed the competing species. Whether that makes us "better" is questionable, of course. But evolution isn't "concerned" with moral questions, it is only concerned with who survives in greater numbers long enough to bear and raise its young.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
If we were, then natural selection should have ceased. There would be no need for this process of death and change to continue, but according to observable science, we are still evolving. If the human race should continue for millions of years onward, our descendants will be different from us, possibly vastly different depending upon the type of environment they are adapted to.
So? What is your point? Yes natural selection would still continue until such time as humans are advanced enough to alter the environment and/or their biology to suit themselves without unforeseen side effects. I am doubtful that will ever happen. And even then it would probably not be so much that we have stopped evolution, as taken control of it, for good or ill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Then there is this, if observable science says creation's past contains billions of years of activity, it further says the universe will continue trillions of years into the future. Galaxies will continue to spread to the point their light will not reach each other. At that point, all the stars in each galaxy will die out, leaving nothing but black holes. Then eventually black holes will evaporate, as there is nothing for them to swallow to keep them going. At that point we will have what is called a "Heat Death" of the universe, where the energy of the universe reaches an equilibrium, and nothing happens. Basically all of God's creation comes to naught. Is this the wisdom of God at work? That everything becomes fruitless, void, and vain? This is what observable science tells us.
The heat death of the universe is WAY too far in the future to be relevant to meaning and purpose for us today. It's like a 15 year old hiding in a closet because they are going to die some 75 years in the future. Maybe even sooner! What's the point! Well ... the point is to live in the moment, day by day, and leave the world a better place than you found it. Why would anyone ever get married when there's roughly a 50% chance any given marriage will end in divorce? Because such arrangements have so much potential that it's considered worth the effort and risk. You don't argue against marriage because of that ... you shouldn't argue against reality because the universe may not be eternal, or because the universe doesn't give a fig about you personally, and you are not in some privileged relation to it.
I think it takes a great deal of self importance to insist that all time must be ordered in a way that you find pleasing. We are finite, mortal beings with a very limited scope. We have much bigger fish to fry than the heat death of the universe. We have our own mortality to deal with.
Heard a saying once....Science flies men to the moon......religion flies men into buildings.
.... and Science uses the natural laws God created.
False religion is the religion that flies men into buildings.
MANY ignore Jesus' words of Matthew 26:52 to Not live by the sword, or in the case of 911 airplanes.
.... and Science uses the natural laws God created.
False religion is the religion that flies men into buildings.
MANY ignore Jesus' words of Matthew 26:52 to Not live by the sword, or in the case of 911 airplanes.
Isn't it convenient, you just have to claim that religion is false if it does something manifestly evil, or even something you dislike. Unless, of course, it's YOUR religion. Funny, that.
Being a true 'science and math' (and music) type myself,
I find your question (and once mine) already answered in scripture: The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech,
they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Psalm 19:1-3
There is beauty and divine revelation in the natural sciences;
the danger lies in those who try to re-interpret it to serve themselves!
Scripture, from cover to cover also harmonizes in divine melody w/ God's created nature,
for those who have an ear for it!
Just thought the ^ above ^ bears repeating.
Man's findings do confirm how impossible it is for man to measure the starry heavens - Jeremiah 31:37 A
And the stars are all numbered and named by God - Psalm 147:4; Isaiah 40:26
Isn't it convenient, you just have to claim that religion is false if it does something manifestly evil, or even something you dislike. Unless, of course, it's YOUR religion. Funny, that.
Seems to me why else would a person belong to a religion if they did Not think it was the right one _____________
What was the religion of Jesus_________ After all Jesus taught that Scripture is religious truth - John 17:17
While still under the 'Constitution of the Mosaic Law for ancient Israel' Jesus did point out something he did dislike.
In Matthew chapter 23 Jesus pronounced many "woes" and his reasons for those "woes" against the corrupted Pharisees.
We don't know. Maybe we are, and maybe there is another creation that is above us.
Unlike the other creatures, the Bible tells us we were made in God's image. Now there is a verse in Psalm 8:5 that states we were made a little lower than angels (or a little lower than God or gods, depending on how this is translated). Yet when it comes to the earth, its clear God made man the crown of His creation. Psalm 8: 6-8 states.........
You made him (humanity) ruler of the works of Your hands; You have placed everything under his feet: all sheep and oxen, and even the beasts of the field, the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas..........
If there is another creature on earth that is "greater" than humanity, it would go against the picture that is painted concerning Yahweh's order of things. And I would argue since we are still evolving, it already vehemently disagrees with what Scripture says of Yahweh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
Why should it stop? Natural selection is an ongoing process.
If all the processes we see is how God created all living creatures, then man should be the final result. There's no need to continue creating. It is said God finished everything and rested on the seventh day. Now whether or not we take Genesis literal or figurative, in all points we are told God stopped creating because He was finished. If all life is still evolving, then God never stopped. He never rested. He still would be creating. Not just us, but He still would be creating new stars, new planets, so on and so on. Nothing about creation would be completed according to observable science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
What makes you think that? Has somebody determined that there is a limit to how far light can reach?
According to our observation, light has a fixed speed. However, the expansion of space exceeds it, and the rate of expansion is steadily increasing. So much so that the distance between galaxies will one day be so far spread, light won't have enough time to travel the gap. One day in the distant future, any creature living in their galaxy will not see the light of distant galaxies. Even with the best of telescopes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
That's almost certainly incorrect. Stars form and stars die all the time. We don't even know if all stars collapse into black holes when their energy dies out.
From my understanding, stars need sufficient gas and gravity to form. Galaxies on their own can't fuel this need forever. Sometimes when galaxies merge with each other, the gasses within each galaxy combine to fuel the birth of new stars. Astronomers believe this will happen when our galaxy merge with the Andromeda galaxy. However, once the expansion of space becomes too great, galaxies will be too far apart to merge anymore. Once all the gas within these systems are used up, no new stars will be able to form. All that would be left are black holes at that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
You've shown your lack of knowledge again. (Maybe astrophysics isn't for you.) Black holes don't need anything to keep them going. They suck everything (including light) in because of their enormous mass. They are not using up energy to exist. Where did you get the idea that black holes evaporate?
Yeah I don't know all the details, but black holes do no need energy/mass to keep them going. This is how they grow. Without the mass (stars and whatever else they swallow up or spin close to the speed of light), they will eventually lose energy by emitting radiation. They call this Hawking radiation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
What is your source for this information? I've never heard of a "Heat Death of the Universe."
It is the theoretical fate of the universe based on what we currently see. From my understanding, heat is energy. And it always wants to move to cooler environments. Take our sun for instance, it is like the battery of our solar system. Its hot! And all that energy powers and sustains the activity of the planets. If the sun goes, the activity on all the planets (whatever that activity is) will eventually cease. So when it comes to the universe, if all stars died out and no new ones take their place (which is what will happen with the continued expansion of space) all activity will cease. The energy of the universe will reach an equilibrium with no cooler environments to go to. All activity will cease.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
What does that even mean? Come to naught?
We believe God created the universe and Earth for a purpose. If all activity in the universe ultimately ceases, then God pretty much wasted His time. He created, and at the end of everything, we return to a void and formless creation. All that work, for what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
Where did you come up with the idea that God's what becomes fruitless, void, and vain? Sounds like something you just made up.
I'm not making this up if observable science is true and it shows God's work. (Of course this is from the standpoint of observable science speaking to how God operates, vs what Scripture says of God.) Observable science says of Yahweh that His handiwork will eventually cease, and nothing will come of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the lesson I find that reverberates throughout Scripture.
And all that energy powers and sustains the activity of the planets. If the sun goes, the activity on all the planets (whatever that activity is) will eventually cease. So when it comes to the universe, if all stars died out and no new ones take their place (which is what will happen with the continued expansion of space) all activity will cease. The energy of the universe will reach an equilibrium with no cooler environments to go to. All activity will cease.