Satan And Science

[Franktalk]

You could have stopped with "It is hard for someone to believe that God created the universe in six days".

If you want to be a last Thursdayist your welcome to it. You could have saved a lot of time by stating that up front.

But it is not that simple. I allow for myself to be wrong. So I allow myself to think that it could have happened in six days or I am reading it wrong and there are gaps or some other interpretation. Just because I allow for the possibility does not mean I bury my head in the sand. I still look for interpretations of nature and examine ideas of man. I just don't hold to the idea that man has it right unless it is absolutely clear. This is actually a safe position to be in because man has been wrong on just about everything he has ever studied.

[thesometimesaint]

Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that the creation of the universe occurred 6000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

[Franktalk]

The Bible is all about the supernatural not the natural. Why people try and make it into a book of nature is beyond me. Maybe they know nature so they can relate to it, who knows. Because it is a book of supernatural events then when we believe the message we must not look to nature (trace evidence of the past) to answer our questions. We must keep an open mind to greater possibilities. But when someone takes natural processes and then tries to force the Bible to conform to a natural interpretation of the past we then they place the created thing over the Creator. Many do this but they refuse to see it this way. But they need to ask why they change the Bible and not change their view of the past with supernatural events. To me it is simple, either I believe in supernatural events or I do not. And if I do then the past must be viewed without a natural process only bent.

How many of you who have posted here believe in supernatural events yet argue against them all of the time. Can you not see the problem you cause in your belief system? I am sure that some don't want the label that is given me. But I wear it with honor since I am a fool for Christ. So for those who say they are born again just what does that mean? Does that mean you believe in the Word of God? Do you confess a witness of the Holy Ghost? When I became a Christian I started over with my world view and rebuilt it with my new beliefs. I am not so sure many do this. It does seem to me that many hold onto their worldview and then do the compromise game. I don't think this effects their salvation at all but I do think it leads to confusion and an opportunity for a stumbling block to be erected. This of course is the devils playground.

When Jesus was on the earth He performed many miracles yet the eyewitnesses to those miracles did not change their beliefs. They stayed grounded in the world.

John 6:26

King James Version (KJV)

26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

In a similar fashion the modern man does the same thing. We fill our self with the Holy Spirit yet we reject the miracles of God. We allow nature to define what we shall believe and what we shall reject. I am not so sure that many people have actually taken the time to examine their belief system to see what it actually looks like.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Anytime someone tries to explain the natural in supernatural terms. They are no longer using science, but misusing religion. By the same token anytime someone tries to explain the supernatural in natural terms. They are no longer using religion, but misusing science. While I believe that some day in the future it will all be reconciled. That day is not today.

[shalamabobbi]

Because it is a book of supernatural events then when we believe the message we must not look to nature (trace evidence of the past) to answer our questions. We must keep an open mind to greater possibilities.

The problem as I see it is the consistent story(natural) that is spelled out by numerous and distinct observed facts about the age of the earth and the way the universe came to be. If indeed the 6 day creation is literal why the detail planted to lead to a very different conclusion? (Why is the only question to be asked here since there is no means to make any kind of progress with this paradigm, nor is there anything to learn or think about.)

If this is all indeed a Star Trek holodeck experience why do we have a need to obtain *fake* bodies?

[cinepro]

For me I find it very hard to believe that God confused 16.5 billion years with six days, but I find it very easy to believe that man has confused 16.5 billion years with six days.

Just so I'm clear, are you saying you believe God created the Earth (or the universe?) in six 24-hour time periods? In other words, you believe the theories commonly referred to as "Young Earth Creationism"?

[Franktalk]

Just so I'm clear, are you saying you believe God created the Earth (or the universe?) in six 24-hour time periods? In other words, you believe the theories commonly referred to as "Young Earth Creationism"?

What I am saying is that I believe God could have created the entire universe in six days using supernatural means. How that would be done I don't have a clue. Or God could have created the universe and let the laws that He established makes all of the future life. I doubt that as an answer but since I don't know I have to allow for that possibility as well. I see it as completing theories in science. Some group of people think the evidence points one way and another completing group thinks the evidence points some other way. If there is not enough evidence to sort them out then both are valid as a belief but can't be considered fact. In dealing with events that include God the range of possible sequences is much greater therefore the range of possible explanations is greater. I have said many times I don't know how it all was done. I just allow for a greater range of possible methods compared to science. Science has some theories but when we add God we should extend the range of possible methods to include supernatural events. This is not tough to understand. Why is it when I talk about God creating the universe the comments I get make fantastic leaps to where I have not been. This is not rocket science, I add a variable and the options increase. What is so hard to understand.

And by the way I do not support most of what is described by young earth creationist because they use the same methods as science. I include supernatural events which they don't. I used to study all of the latest YEC theories until it dawned on me that it was just another science theory. I think they are interesting but I am not bound by a natural system of thinking.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Franktalk

[shalamabobbi]

Why is it when I talk about God creating the universe the comments I get make fantastic leaps to where I have not been. This is not rocker science, I add a variable and the options increase. What is so hard to understand.

Well there are enough facts, that the constraints upon the possibilities eliminates them all except what is generally advanced by science and the idea of *God creating the universe with the appearance of age*.

I guess you could argue that God created a portion of the earth/universe with the appearance of age but not everything. But that really doesn't address the issue. It is a side step to skirt the issue.

Those who engage in putting forward the idea that the universe is created with the appearance of age have no motivation to do so other than making a literal interpretation of Genesis tenable.

Those who follow the facts at their face value do so and hence conclude that Genesis is not a literal account of creation.

What other variant do you have?

[Franktalk]

...I guess you could argue that God created a portion of the earth/universe with the appearance of age but not everything. But that really doesn't address the issue. It is a side step to skirt the issue....

What you describe as age is an interpretation of evidence. Age is not directly measured. Therefore it is subjective and lends itself to issues with interpretation. And of course in many circles people feel that the evidence of age as defined by some people is fact and anyone who disagrees must be some kind of nut job. You are welcome to your opinions and I have my own.

I have never said that I believe God made the universe with the appearance of age. It is man who makes that connection which I do not think exist. Imagine the intellect required to design the universe and everything in it. Now look at man. And with a straight face you imply that God may be a liar? You of course use the conclusions of science as fact to make that statement. I will tell you that when the pot tells the potter how to make pots the potter reforms the lump. Maybe not today but time is not on the side of the pot.

[Franktalk]

I am a fool in the eyes of many. But am I a fool? Is it foolish to be open to more possibilities? Is it foolish to suffer the scorn of people of the world? Should I just decide to get along and go with the flow? I think I rather enjoy this place that people have put me. I have placed myself out here for all to take a shot at. In times gone by or in different places on this earth I am sure I would be stoned or beaten. Just who would place them self in such a crazy situation. But let me tell you that history describes people more foolish than I.

2 Corinthians 11:16-27

King James Version (KJV)

16I say again, let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little.

17That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.

18Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.

19For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise.

20For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.

21I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also.

22Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.

23Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.

24Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.

25Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;

26In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;

27In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.

Those of us that are fools can only hope to be this foolish.

[shalamabobbi]

I have never said that I believe God made the universe with the appearance of age.

This seems to be a continuing theme. Why can't/won't you explain what it is that you do believe and why? Please stop with all the self perceived ridicule.

If you do not wish to share or discuss it why are you posting?

[keith_brian]

What I am saying is that I believe God could have created the entire universe in six days using supernatural means. How that would be done I don't have a clue. Or God could have created the universe and let the laws that He established makes all of the future life. I doubt that as an answer but since I don't know I have to allow for that possibility as well. I see it as completing theories in science. Some group of people think the evidence points one way and another completing group thinks the evidence points some other way. If there is not enough evidence to sort them out then both are valid as a belief but can't be considered fact. In dealing with events that include God the range of possible sequences is much greater therefore the range of possible explanations is greater. I have said many times I don't know how it all was done. I just allow for a greater range of possible methods compared to science. Science has some theories but when we add God we should extend the range of possible methods to include supernatural events. This is not tough to understand. Why is it when I talk about God creating the universe the comments I get make fantastic leaps to where I have not been. This is not rocket science, I add a variable and the options increase. What is so hard to understand.

And by the way I do not support most of what is described by young earth creationist because they use the same methods as science. I include supernatural events which they don't. I used to study all of the latest YEC theories until it dawned on me that it was just another science theory. I think they are interesting but I am not bound by a natural system of thinking.

Well, if you're willing to reject science a priori, I am not sure what the point of this discussion is then. The whole thread should have gone something like this:

KB; I accept current scientific theories about the origins of the universe and the origins of life, including the Big Bang theory, the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the theory of quantum mechanics, etc.

FT; I do not. I believe that God created the universe in six days through an as yet undiscovered supernatural means and only made it appear that the earth was created through the physical processes listed above. Because of my subjective spiritual experiences, you will never convince me to change my world view.

And, that's it. That's the end of the discussion. That's all she wrote.

*However, I would add that I could make the same claim about the Goddess Athena, the God Thor, or the magical elves that live on the moon: that each, all, or any of them created the earth and universe instead of the Jewish/Christian God Yahwey. The claims are impossible to differentiate, other than through other subjective spiritual experiences, of which I may or may not have had many in support of my Athena theory.

After all, without science, ANYTHING is possible.

[keith_brian]

What you describe as age is an interpretation of evidence. Age is not directly measured. Therefore it is subjective and lends itself to issues with interpretation. And of course in many circles people feel that the evidence of age as defined by some people is fact and anyone who disagrees must be some kind of nut job. You are welcome to your opinions and I have my own.

I have never said that I believe God made the universe with the appearance of age. It is man who makes that connection which I do not think exist. Imagine the intellect required to design the universe and everything in it. Now look at man. And with a straight face you imply that God may be a liar? You of course use the conclusions of science as fact to make that statement. I will tell you that when the pot tells the potter how to make pots the potter reforms the lump. Maybe not today but time is not on the side of the pot.

As another general comment on your posts, FT, I think that you are abusing the definition of two different standards of proof to your advantage in this discussion. These are the difference between Reasonable Doubt and No Doubt. From the legal dictionary:

Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

I would say that the standard of proof for most scientific theories has been met to beyond a reasonable doubt. By this, I mean that if you were to take all of the evidence on your side of the argument into a courtroom and have the scientists argue the other side, you would lose.

If you don't believe that this is true, give me one reasonable reason to doubt the theory of evolution.

[Franktalk]

This thread is about Satan and science so a discussion of supernatural beings and events is quite appropriate. Those who wish to live in a world in which spirits don't exist can form that world in their head but this world in which I live has those spirits. There is a vast war going on all around us pulling and pushing us towards the light or darkness. In the not too distant future the powers of Satan and his followers will be allowed to manifest on the earth. The days of Noah will return to the earth and those who reject the powers of darkness will see evil as a god. Those who believe in the powers of good and the powers of evil will not be swayed by Satan. Their sights will be set on the Kingdom of God and the trials and tribulations of this world will not change their course. This is why I posted the verses about Paul and his trials. The world hated Paul because he was a light in a dark world. Evil hates light and the light of truth. But what is truth?

John 18:38

King James Version (KJV)

38Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

Truth was standing in front of Pilate yet he could not see truth. Or maybe he did and that is why he washed his hands of the responsibility.

Those who follow Jesus seek not this world. For Jesus and His Kingdom are not of this world. One day He will change the earth and He will rule here but until that day if we follow Jesus we seek that other place and not this one.

John 18:36

King James Version (KJV)

36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

This world we live in is not the answer to our questions: Why am I here? Do I have a purpose? What happens after this?

Science answers these questions. Why am I here? An accident. Do I have a purpose? No, you are an accident. What happens after this? Nothing, you cease to exist.

Is this the truth that man seeks? Or is it as Jesus says that the Kingdom is not of this world. Why would we seek answers in this world if indeed we are heading somewhere else?

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Again science does not deal in the Supernatural. It only concerns itself with the Natural.

Incorrect. Science does not address the why of your questions merely the how. There is no known mechanism for Resurrection. That does not say that the individual scientist is not free to believe it.

Also. Science can tell you how the interplay of light and color come together to make a picture. It makes no effort to say if that picture is beautiful or not.

[shalamabobbi]

Franktalk,

I would suggest that you not conflate the word "world" with the planet. The earth is not the world. We are to be in the world but not of the world. This refers to the values or lack of values found among the peoples of this earth. All that you said makes some sense in that light. But when you go to the extent of declaring that earth science falls under this injunction you are wandering into an extreme realm of belief where you may find yourself quite alone among believers of any stripe.

[Franktalk]

Franktalk,

I would suggest that you not conflate the word "world" with the planet. The earth is not the world. We are to be in the world but not of the world. This refers to the values or lack of values found among the peoples of this earth. All that you said makes some sense in that light. But when you go to the extent of declaring that earth science falls under this injunction you are wandering into an extreme realm of belief where you may find yourself quite alone among believers of any stripe.

Let us say for a moment that I am right. Just what would that world look like?

Isaiah 11:6-8

King James Version (KJV)

6The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

7And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

8And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

And what of the earth?

Revelation 21

1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

And what of the earth before this one?

Genesis 2:4-6

King James Version (KJV)

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

So there was no rain and plants were watered from a mist.

And the flood?

2 Peter 3:6

King James Version (KJV)

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

You see I read scripture as if it is the Word of God. I accept that the entire universe is made. I accept that each part of the universe can be shaped at will by God. I think this has been going on for some time.

So yes there are worldly men and we can say world and mean the natural man. But there is more if you care to read it.

[shalamabobbi]

King James Version (KJV)

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Here we have an example of the word "day" being used to cover the generation of the heavens and the earth. Apparently it is not one 24 hour day otherwise it would conflict with the rest of the genesis account that says the creation took 6 days.

Where you quote Peter saying that the world that then was perished, you imply it was the entire globe. But we learn from the BOM that Peter was unaware of "the other sheep" that would hear Christ's voice, so Peter didn't have a correct understanding of what he meant by the word "world".

But because you view scripture as inerrant, (since it is the word of God), you cannot accept plain facts that anyone can examine such as lake varves that prove a global flood did not occur.

Enjoy the false dichotomy then, but be aware that because of the internet grade schoolers will put you in your place..

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

I have to wonder about a God that has to decieve his children in order for them to bellieve in him.

[Franktalk]

Enjoy the false dichotomy then, but be aware that because of the internet grade schoolers will put you in your place..

So some kid is going to read somewhere in some book that a bunch of people think they have the past all figured out. Then the kid will assume that the book is correct. Then the kid will proceed to tell me that I have it all wrong. And somehow that gives the kid power to put me in my place. You have to be kidding.

Just because you accept all of the conclusions that have been made by a number of people over the years does not mean I have to. Why does it matter to you? And why the insulting post?

These things you mentioned must be important to you. Somehow they give you confidence in some view of the past. Apparently you think that there is no way it can be interpreted any other way. Therefore the varves and other trace evidence is proof positive of your view of the past. If that is where you wish to place your faith by all means do so. My faith goes in an entirely different direction. And somehow because my faith is different than yours I am so stupid that grade schoolers are much smarter. And exactly what makes that grade schooler more smart? Why it is the absolute acceptance of your view of the past. No need to check out anything. No need to run an experiment or double check the findings. Just trust me that I know everything and anyone who would dare disagree must by definition be an idiot. Are you saying that blind acceptance of current dogma is the way we should run our educational institutions? No need to teach people to think. We just need them to accept what we tell them. Is this your world?

I really do think the world is mostly nuts. You can think what ever you wish.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/#more-41371

Here is a link that shows a bunch of really smart scientist to be completely wrong. Should we now go back to those grade schoolers and tell them of the new data or should we continue to let them wallow in the absolute acceptance of the scientists. Let me ask you, do you think that we are about to warm up the earth due to carbon emissions? Does the data support your conclusions or are you just going by a vote count of really smart people. Is it possible that really smart people could be wrong? Or are you a "denier" someone who does not agree with out of control global warming due to greenhouse gases. And why are they called "deniers" anyway?

[Franktalk]

It is very likely that people reading these posts may feel that I have overreached in my opinions of science. That would be a fair view in some other time and some other earth. But we are men and we do the dumbest things. Here is an article written by the Wall Street Journal about the credibility of science.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html

Now this article was written in 2009. It has some harsh words about the scientific community. Now look at this article.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/#more-41371

This pretty much says that the liars of 2009 that wrote the predictions of 1990 are completely wrong. But how can this be? I thought this stuff was peer reviewed.

I don't know about you but if a bunch of scientists lied about future projections I wonder if I should trust all of the models that project into the past? Could it be that the models are just as bad but because there will never come a day that their data will be verified that the extent of the overreach will never be exposed?

And where is the outrage from the scientific community that the global warming alarmist are wrong and should be ostracized from the community. Could it be that the money flowing in to do study after study of CO2 is more important than truth? Say it isn't so.

[shalamabobbi]

Franktalk,

Sorry if you find facts to be insulting. Varves are so simple that a grade school kid can understand them. It is someone with a great deal of cognitive dissonance that may have trouble.

Varves are made up of annual layers that go back many tens of thousands of years. We know the layers are annual because things like pollen that are annual in nature divide the layers from one another.

Also C14 dating agrees with dendrochronology. In this data the 11 year solar sunspot cycle shows up.

Are you really arguing that varves have another interpretation? Or are you simply unaware of the facts concerning them?

Weather prediction isn't exactly possible because of its chaotic nature. Small deviations in initial conditions result in huge differences.

Edited June 13, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[Franktalk]

Franktalk,

Sorry if you find facts to be insulting. Varves are so simple that a grade school kid can understand them. It is someone with a great deal of cognitive dissonance that may have trouble.

Varves are made up of annual layers that go back many tens of thousands of years. We know the layers are annual because things like pollen that are annual in nature divide the layers from one another.

Also C14 dating agrees with dendrochronology. In this data the 11 year solar sunspot cycle shows up.

Are you really arguing that varves have another interpretation? Or are you simply unaware of the facts concerning them?

Weather prediction isn't exactly possible because of its chaotic nature. Small deviations in initial conditions result in huge differences.

So you actually sorted out the pollen? So you tested the carbon 14? A simple yes or no.

[shalamabobbi]

So you actually sorted out the pollen? So you tested the carbon 14? A simple yes or no.

Wow, you got me there..

So a conspiracy theory now?

You actually believe that a cover up would not be exposed by other investigators??

[Franktalk]

It is a matter of trust. And since my soul is so valuable I prefer to trust few.

1 John 5:8

King James Version (KJV)

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

You will notice that not even the Word of God is listed as a witness on the earth. So if we are not to trust our own interpretation of scripture but rely on the Holy Ghost for a witness why would I trust the ideas of man in forming a world view which may effect my behavior and ultimately effect my relationship with God?

I see it all as a sequence. Once I start down some paths I reap the fruit of that path. Maybe I don't want to take the risk. You can if you so desire. We still have free will.