Science and God

External Since: Apr 29, 2006 Posts: 10

On 25 Jul 2006 19:40:23 GMT, Dan Drake wrote:
/snip/

> To be sure, the YEC people believe that you MUST believe the Genesis
> account in some essentially literal way or abandon any pretended
> affiliation to Christianity; but before believing that to be true,
> consider: Would you take their word for anything else? If not, why believe
> them on this?

Well, I wouldn't expect Jehovah to strike them with lightning for being
wrong about non-religious stuff. Or even meet them on the Road to Damascus
and gently explain the error of their ways.

Which of course is an argument against ... Jehovah.

Bree

External Since: Aug 22, 2006 Posts: 5

"James" <bireda.RemoveThis@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:k0fje25gknq9s8fdmk224g0vacfh8rtmit@4ax.com...
> >Tim Bruening <tsbrueni.RemoveThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>
>>Re: Science and God
>
>>
>>
>>James wrote:
>>
>>> > Tim Bruening <tsbrueni.RemoveThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>
>>> >Re: Science and God
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >AJA wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I've said this before here, but again, I see nothing in science which
>>> >> would
>>> >> preclude belief in God. I'm not a strict Biblical literalist, but
>>> >> believe
>>> >> that Scripture is inspired by God. But that science and faith inform
>>> >> each
>>> >> other. (Say it's all in Plato- or Aristotle)
>>> >> A couple of points, which btw some of my scientist acquaintances
>>> >> agree with.
>>> >> Science is the observation (ours) of the workings of a remarkable
>>> >> creation.
>>> >> It is difficult to maintain that the existing highly complicated
>>> >> conditions
>>> >> allowing for our existence has no purpose.
>>> >> If science intends to postulate a purpose for the cosmos and the
>>> >> existence
>>> >> of life in that cosmos, and sentience/consciousness, then science has
>>> >> to
>>> >> think out of the box somehow.
>>> >> There is that pesky beginning point. Why begin at all, and all those
>>> >> other
>>> >> questions about the beginning. Why can we observe it at all?
>>> >> Why do all organisms have a 'use'?
>>> >> 'Faith' is an important part of the scientific process.
>>> >> Faith that can't consider science and science that negates/ignores
>>> >> faith is
>>> >> half baked. Science is not mere experimentation as the observation
>>> >> part
>>> >> requires a thought process with elements closely akin to faith.
>>> >> Matthew's Aristotle sig quote is accurate.
>>> >
>>> >How do you reconcile the Creation timeline (several thousand years)
>>> >with the
>>> >timeline established by geologists and paleontologists (4.5 billion
>>> >years)?
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> How do you define the "Creation timeline"? Do you mean how old the
>>> earth and universe is?
>>
>>Yes.
>
> Hello,
>
> Then the Bible has no problem with the earth and universe being
> billions of years old. The actual "Creation timeline" does not
> contradict true science. You can see this for yourself.

"gawddidit" doesn't contradict "true scince" either - but it is just as
empty and meaningless as what you offer.

>
> If you have a Bible, find Genesis 1:1. This is the first mention of
> the creation of the universe. (which includes the earth) It should
> read something like:
>
> "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)
>
> Notice it doesn't say when the earth was created, nor how long it took
> God to make it. It simply acknowledges that God made it. (and the rest
> of the universe)

So if you admit nothing, nothing can be held against you.
Why is it sdo many other "christians" disagree with your edited
initerpretation? Is everyone else wrong?

>
> Starting with verse 2, this already created earth of verse 1 is being
> prepared for eventual human habitation. The writer of Genesis divides
> those time periods up into unspecified periods of time called a "day",
> and gives a total of 6 creative 'days' to complete the project.
>
> Thus if science says that the earth and universe are billions of years
> old, then the Bible would have no problem with those figures, since it
> doesn't say one way or the other. And based on the sciences that God
> gave us, the evidence overwhelmingly points to an 'old earth'.

Where is any evidence that your imaginary gawd "gave" us anything?
or was that in the evening and the morning of the 34th day?

>
> Where some people become confused, is when they try to put verse 1
> with verses 2 and 3, and thus make verse 1 part of the "first day".
> (Ge 2:3) They then do computations and come up with the concept that
> the earth's age is in thousands of years, instead of billions of
> years. But the error is to put verse 1 with the "first day" verses.

IOW they erred by not contorting it to your way of thinking (?).

>
> So in conclusion, based on verse one, God did not inform us of when,
> or how long, He took to create the earth (or the stellar universe),
> thus the Bible does not contradict true science there.

Whooppeeeee .... a fairy tale book does not contradict reality based
science!