How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[Foxfyre]

What I am arguing and the context in which Einstein was arguing had nothing whatsoever to do with mathematical assumptions.

You clearly tied these beliefs to their work, did you not? If not , then you are merely agreeing with me that there is no overlap, and one doea not inform the other
If you ARE claiming that this belief informed Einstein's work, then I will once again have to point out that it did so to the detriment of his work.

No. I didn't even mention their work, much less considered it, in relating their personal views about the wonder of the harmony of the universe and unwillingness to discount it all as pure chance. I took that as their personal heartfelt views and did not connect it in any way with their work. And I'm not agreeing with you on much, if anything, I'm afraid. That isn't intended to be a criticism but I don't want to leave the impression I am agreeing with something that I am not.

You are correct. It isn't pure chance. We live in a universe governed by laws. Everything has unfolded according to the laws of nature. Laws which existed before the creation of space and time. Laws which governed the creation of space and time.

While I don't have any problem with your view of law as it relates to Creation, I am maybe a bit less convinced? Perhaps in Einstein's and Spinoza's theory of some kind of cosmic intelligence, perhaps one consisting of the sum of all of its parts in the entire universe, the laws of nature and science would be unbending and unchanging. But I think prayer can and does change things, that the promises of the Bible are not in vain though we likely misconstrue some of the meanings, that miracles happen. So I guess while I respect the laws of math, of nature, of science, I suspect things could likely be a bit more fluid than we think?

Is the Bible passage in II Chronicles real?: "If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

I like to think so.

 

[ding]

What I am arguing and the context in which Einstein was arguing had nothing whatsoever to do with mathematical assumptions.

You clearly tied these beliefs to their work, did you not? If not , then you are merely agreeing with me that there is no overlap, and one doea not inform the other
If you ARE claiming that this belief informed Einstein's work, then I will once again have to point out that it did so to the detriment of his work.

No. I didn't even mention their work, much less considered it, in relating their personal views about the wonder of the harmony of the universe and unwillingness to discount it all as pure chance. I took that as their personal heartfelt views and did not connect it in any way with their work. And I'm not agreeing with you on much, if anything, I'm afraid. That isn't intended to be a criticism but I don't want to leave the impression I am agreeing with something that I am not.

You are correct. It isn't pure chance. We live in a universe governed by laws. Everything has unfolded according to the laws of nature. Laws which existed before the creation of space and time. Laws which governed the creation of space and time.

While I don't have any problem with your view of law as it relates to Creation, I am maybe a bit less convinced? Perhaps in Einstein's and Spinoza's theory of some kind of cosmic intelligence, perhaps one consisting of the sum of all of its parts in the entire universe, the laws of nature and science would be unbending and unchanging. But I think prayer can and does change things, that the promises of the Bible are not in vain though we likely misconstrue some of the meanings, that miracles happen. So I guess while I respect the laws of math, of nature, of science, I suspect things could likely be a bit more fluid than we think?

Was the Bible in the passage in II Chronicles real?: "If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

I like to think so.

I believe in a personal God who for the most part leaves us to our own designs. Just because I believe there are moral laws which naturally lead to success and a self compensating feature that provides feedback when we don't, that doesn't mean I believe His Spirit is not active here. It is. His Spirit is within each of us. Some don't realize it and will only realize what they lost when they are granted their wish to be left alone.

 

[james bond]

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

Absolutely right, they can both be true. And evolution is not meant to disprove creation. Just remember that creationism explains nothing, provides no useful predictions, and needs to stay out of the way of science. Keep these things in mind, and there will be no conflict.

Will gently disagree that creationism explains nothing or provides no useful predictions. Spinoza and Einstein who admired his theories both embraced a concept of some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the process that could explain so much that evolution/natural selection cannot. He did not believe in a personal God as the theist believes. He said: “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” and went on to explain that as not a God who concerns himself with humankind but rather a lawful harmony of all that exists. He said: “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”

I like to think of Einstein's amazement and delight to find out that how much of his theories were right and how close he got to God's truth before he was face to face with God and got the rest of the story.

The Creation stories are not useful to teach science as they cannot be taken literally and also be squared with the science that we are pretty sure we know. But if they are taken symbolically or metaphorically they fill in the blanks that evolution cannot. What exists that we know exists, as well as that we have not yet discovered, is because God made it happen. Many things are the way they are because they fit into a divine plan and/or because of sin that spoiled God's perfect creation. And because there is some great purpose to it all, then prayer makes a difference, obedience to God (i.e. fitting into his greater purpose) makes things better, and we can enjoy confidence that there is a brighter future/existence for us.

It's good that you can empathize, if that's the correct word, with Einstein's amazement and delight and how close he got to God's truth.

However, I disagree with your closing paragraph in that creation stories are not useful to teach science. They are to be taken literally. I hope one day we can teach Genesis, but not as religion. As I stated, the order has been reversed since the 1850s with Charles Lyell and his pupil Charles Darwin, with geology and uniformitarianism coming in to question creation geology and catastrophism. Today, people believe what these atheists laid down as science. Thus, the onset of evolution led people astray just like someone who hikes or backpacks and takes the wrong path early on his journey. The truth remains with the Bible. I studied evolution and when I had questions it could not answer, I finally looked at what creation scientists were saying and started to agree with them. They answered more of my questions than evolution, Lyell or Darwin. So, the Bible is to be taken literally and I am a young earth creationist. I'm a computer scientist or engineer by trade so there isn't much conflict at work. If I were a geologist, paleontologist, zoologist or a biologist, then I would have more difficulties. I would probably have to hide my creation science and views if I were to continue working in those fields. Have you heard of William Lane Craig? I subscribe to most of his arguments, but I cannot see his side of evolution and old earth creation. That's not the way God intended his word to be used. How can it when there was no evolution back then?

If someone wanted to shake up my faith, then let them find alien life on another planet. Let them colonize Mars or the moon. Let them create gold, the divine element. Let them create a blade of grass. Even that guy Francis Crick, who co-founded the double helix and A-T and C-G models of DNA and said this proves there is no God, thought later in life that panspermia originated life on earth. (Crick was roundly criticized for his beliefs as it was shown to be pseudoscience.) Show me panspermia or anything else for the origin of life. You see, I know one can't find an alien, colonize another planet or our own moon, create gold, i.e. create an atom, a blade of grass or show panspermia. I know there are no multiverses, a way to travel back in time (I can show you how to travel forward in time though and we can do it today via Space-X), no egg before the chicken and more. These are what I have come to think from the Bible and creation science. There are just some things God would not allow such as we'll never know the beginning nor the end. These things God said he'll keep to himself. Is it any wonder that even a smart guy like Stephen Hawking, as smart as Einstein, ends up saying he wants to know the origin of the universe and why something is greater than nothing?

I'm sorry, but while I have complete faith that God was the creator of all that was, is, or will ever be, I simply cannot take the creation stories literally, nor would colonization of the moon or Mars or any other extraterrestrial place shake my faith in any way. I simply can't logically square the creation of light on the first day, vegetation on the third day, and the sun and moon on the fourth day or that there was morning and evening before there was a sun.

I do not say this to shake your faith and have no problem with you or anybody else personally if you take the text literally and would never attempt to talk you out of it. I say this as my own witness for those who cannot believe as you do that the Bible and science as we know it is not at all in conflict and one can know that and still be a devout Christian or person of faith. But if you take the creation stories literally, I believe God blesses your faith. I would hope he also blesses mine. As Jesus taught, it is not the purity of our theology and/or keeping our rules/laws that God cares about so much, but it is the content of our heart and character and our relationship with and obedience to God.

Having said that:

I believe the first chapter of Genesis, most likely one of the most recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament, was a theological statement to illustrate that God is the author/creator of all that exists and reigns supreme over everything. I believe the second creation story beginning in Genesis 2, probably one of the oldest manuscripts included in the Old Testament, is an anthropological explanation of why things are the way they are; i.e. why humankind does not enjoy a perfect existence as sin spoiled God's perfect creation, why humans must work for what they have, why there is pain in child birth, how sin spread from the 'first couple' into the family, into the community, and into the whole world.

IMO, the entirety of the Bible is an affirmation of continuing cycles of creation, sin, judgment, redemption that is expressed in parable, allegory, metaphor, symbolism, poetry, wisdom sayings, history, prophecy, all. The creation stories were written by men of faith, not men of science and if, from their limited perspective, they got details of the science wrong, they were spot on that science (among other things) is from and of God, and what God wrought, is good.

And as I have said more than once, I suspect when we meet Him face to face, we are going to be surprised at how much we got wrong here and how minuscule our understanding of anything is compared with all there is to know..

Fair enough, I'll take what you said to heart and it's fine with me that you believe what you do from your interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is not a science book, but it's important that science backs up the Bible. The first chapter of Genesis is key for me. For the longest time, the universe was eternal and the Steady State Theory ruled our worldview. That went out the window and the Big Bang Theory replaced it as the best theory. That backs Genesis.

To practice science, I think that one has to keep the Bible. It's a source in such a way to guide us as to what happened, but we have to use science and take it where it leads us in search of truth and knowledge. Thus, we are descendants of Adam and Eve. We came from adult creatures and not creation like they were. What creation scientists can say God is my inspiration and the Bible is my guide. God won't reveal the beginning nor the end. That said, the Bible doesn't provide all the details and is open to interpretation. I think God wanted it that way. He didn't want robots as he gave us free will. He accepted the consequences and gave us a second chance through his son, Jesus Christ.

As for the colonization and other stuff, I just want to state it's the FAILURE to colonize the moon, Mars or any other planet. We're not going to be multi-planetary inhabitants. We're not going to find alien life. This may not be mainstream YEC, but it's what I come to think. Thus, I won't be going to moon, Mars, asteroids or any other planetary objects. I'm happy right here. Maybe the most I'll do is go visit a space station in the near future .

I think you're right in that we'll be surprised. Everything will be re-created again from scratch. There are a lot of questions we have and I hope we get to experience all that is his kingdom, his glory, his power forever. Amen.

 

[Foxfyre]

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

Absolutely right, they can both be true. And evolution is not meant to disprove creation. Just remember that creationism explains nothing, provides no useful predictions, and needs to stay out of the way of science. Keep these things in mind, and there will be no conflict.

Will gently disagree that creationism explains nothing or provides no useful predictions. Spinoza and Einstein who admired his theories both embraced a concept of some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the process that could explain so much that evolution/natural selection cannot. He did not believe in a personal God as the theist believes. He said: “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” and went on to explain that as not a God who concerns himself with humankind but rather a lawful harmony of all that exists. He said: “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”

I like to think of Einstein's amazement and delight to find out that how much of his theories were right and how close he got to God's truth before he was face to face with God and got the rest of the story.

The Creation stories are not useful to teach science as they cannot be taken literally and also be squared with the science that we are pretty sure we know. But if they are taken symbolically or metaphorically they fill in the blanks that evolution cannot. What exists that we know exists, as well as that we have not yet discovered, is because God made it happen. Many things are the way they are because they fit into a divine plan and/or because of sin that spoiled God's perfect creation. And because there is some great purpose to it all, then prayer makes a difference, obedience to God (i.e. fitting into his greater purpose) makes things better, and we can enjoy confidence that there is a brighter future/existence for us.

It's good that you can empathize, if that's the correct word, with Einstein's amazement and delight and how close he got to God's truth.

However, I disagree with your closing paragraph in that creation stories are not useful to teach science. They are to be taken literally. I hope one day we can teach Genesis, but not as religion. As I stated, the order has been reversed since the 1850s with Charles Lyell and his pupil Charles Darwin, with geology and uniformitarianism coming in to question creation geology and catastrophism. Today, people believe what these atheists laid down as science. Thus, the onset of evolution led people astray just like someone who hikes or backpacks and takes the wrong path early on his journey. The truth remains with the Bible. I studied evolution and when I had questions it could not answer, I finally looked at what creation scientists were saying and started to agree with them. They answered more of my questions than evolution, Lyell or Darwin. So, the Bible is to be taken literally and I am a young earth creationist. I'm a computer scientist or engineer by trade so there isn't much conflict at work. If I were a geologist, paleontologist, zoologist or a biologist, then I would have more difficulties. I would probably have to hide my creation science and views if I were to continue working in those fields. Have you heard of William Lane Craig? I subscribe to most of his arguments, but I cannot see his side of evolution and old earth creation. That's not the way God intended his word to be used. How can it when there was no evolution back then?

If someone wanted to shake up my faith, then let them find alien life on another planet. Let them colonize Mars or the moon. Let them create gold, the divine element. Let them create a blade of grass. Even that guy Francis Crick, who co-founded the double helix and A-T and C-G models of DNA and said this proves there is no God, thought later in life that panspermia originated life on earth. (Crick was roundly criticized for his beliefs as it was shown to be pseudoscience.) Show me panspermia or anything else for the origin of life. You see, I know one can't find an alien, colonize another planet or our own moon, create gold, i.e. create an atom, a blade of grass or show panspermia. I know there are no multiverses, a way to travel back in time (I can show you how to travel forward in time though and we can do it today via Space-X), no egg before the chicken and more. These are what I have come to think from the Bible and creation science. There are just some things God would not allow such as we'll never know the beginning nor the end. These things God said he'll keep to himself. Is it any wonder that even a smart guy like Stephen Hawking, as smart as Einstein, ends up saying he wants to know the origin of the universe and why something is greater than nothing?

I'm sorry, but while I have complete faith that God was the creator of all that was, is, or will ever be, I simply cannot take the creation stories literally, nor would colonization of the moon or Mars or any other extraterrestrial place shake my faith in any way. I simply can't logically square the creation of light on the first day, vegetation on the third day, and the sun and moon on the fourth day or that there was morning and evening before there was a sun.

I do not say this to shake your faith and have no problem with you or anybody else personally if you take the text literally and would never attempt to talk you out of it. I say this as my own witness for those who cannot believe as you do that the Bible and science as we know it is not at all in conflict and one can know that and still be a devout Christian or person of faith. But if you take the creation stories literally, I believe God blesses your faith. I would hope he also blesses mine. As Jesus taught, it is not the purity of our theology and/or keeping our rules/laws that God cares about so much, but it is the content of our heart and character and our relationship with and obedience to God.

Having said that:

I believe the first chapter of Genesis, most likely one of the most recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament, was a theological statement to illustrate that God is the author/creator of all that exists and reigns supreme over everything. I believe the second creation story beginning in Genesis 2, probably one of the oldest manuscripts included in the Old Testament, is an anthropological explanation of why things are the way they are; i.e. why humankind does not enjoy a perfect existence as sin spoiled God's perfect creation, why humans must work for what they have, why there is pain in child birth, how sin spread from the 'first couple' into the family, into the community, and into the whole world.

IMO, the entirety of the Bible is an affirmation of continuing cycles of creation, sin, judgment, redemption that is expressed in parable, allegory, metaphor, symbolism, poetry, wisdom sayings, history, prophecy, all. The creation stories were written by men of faith, not men of science and if, from their limited perspective, they got details of the science wrong, they were spot on that science (among other things) is from and of God, and what God wrought, is good.

And as I have said more than once, I suspect when we meet Him face to face, we are going to be surprised at how much we got wrong here and how minuscule our understanding of anything is compared with all there is to know..

Fair enough, I'll take what you said to heart and it's fine with me that you believe what you do from your interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is not a science book, but it's important that science backs up the Bible. The first chapter of Genesis is key for me. For the longest time, the universe was eternal and the Steady State Theory ruled our worldview. That went out the window and the Big Bang Theory replaced it as the best theory. That backs Genesis.

To practice science, I think that one has to keep the Bible. It's a source in such a way to guide us as to what happened, but we have to use science and take it where it leads us in search of truth and knowledge. Thus, we are descendants of Adam and Eve. We came from adult creatures and not creation like they were. What creation scientists can say God is my inspiration and the Bible is my guide. God won't reveal the beginning nor the end. That said, the Bible doesn't provide all the details and is open to interpretation. I think God wanted it that way. He didn't want robots as he gave us free will. He accepted the consequences and gave us a second chance.

As for the colonization and other stuff, I just want to state it's the FAILURE to colonize the moon, Mars or any other planet. We're not going to be multi-planetary inhabitants. We're not going to find alien life. This may not be mainstream YEC, but it's what I come to think. Thus, I won't be going to moon, Mars, asteroids or any other planetary objects. I'm happy right here. Maybe the most I'll do is go visit a space station in the near future .

I think you're right in that we'll be surprised. Everything will be re-created again from scratch. There are a lot of questions we have and I hope we get to experience all that is his kingdom, his glory, his power forever. Amen.

I'm enjoying this philosophical discussion with you and some others who are contributing in a thoughtful and intelligent manner.

We once had occasion to have a young man for dinner who was a very pleasant fellow who was also a confirmed Atheist. His theory was that the universe is eternal--the stuff has always been here--how it got here who knows or cares?--but it has been jostling around in space for all eternity and at this particular time in eternity is jostled itself into the Earth and structures of the universe that we know. In an infinite amount of time it will all come apart and eventually be jostled into something else. He equated it with putting all the different parts in a vacuum cleaner in a sack and shaking the sack. If one has an infinite amount of time--gazillions and gazillions of years--those vacuum cleaner parts at some point would come together as a vacuum cleaner.

But from the Christian perspective, even if the young man's 'vacuum cleaner' theory was correct, something had to make the parts and something had to shake the sack.

And if we go with the big bang theory, there still had to be something to go boom. And something to light the fuse.

As the people of the Bible had no way to know or calculate or understand either, and had little understanding of what the sun, moon, stars, and other observable heavenly bodies were, their understanding that all that exists and all that is possible is from God was sufficient for them in their time. And ours for that matter.

As for the fact that we have not yet colonized the moon or Mars, it has only been a little over 40 years that we have figured out how to even get there. That isn't even an eyelash blink in the history of humankind, let alone the universe.

And if I was young and had no official responsibility to anyone other than myself, I would jump at a chance to go and be a part of whatever we humans choose to do in those places so long as the purpose was to do good and not evil. And I do believe we will go to the moon again and to Mars when we figure out how to accomplish that.

 

[ding]

Absolutely right, they can both be true. And evolution is not meant to disprove creation. Just remember that creationism explains nothing, provides no useful predictions, and needs to stay out of the way of science. Keep these things in mind, and there will be no conflict.

Will gently disagree that creationism explains nothing or provides no useful predictions. Spinoza and Einstein who admired his theories both embraced a concept of some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the process that could explain so much that evolution/natural selection cannot. He did not believe in a personal God as the theist believes. He said: “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” and went on to explain that as not a God who concerns himself with humankind but rather a lawful harmony of all that exists. He said: “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”

I like to think of Einstein's amazement and delight to find out that how much of his theories were right and how close he got to God's truth before he was face to face with God and got the rest of the story.

The Creation stories are not useful to teach science as they cannot be taken literally and also be squared with the science that we are pretty sure we know. But if they are taken symbolically or metaphorically they fill in the blanks that evolution cannot. What exists that we know exists, as well as that we have not yet discovered, is because God made it happen. Many things are the way they are because they fit into a divine plan and/or because of sin that spoiled God's perfect creation. And because there is some great purpose to it all, then prayer makes a difference, obedience to God (i.e. fitting into his greater purpose) makes things better, and we can enjoy confidence that there is a brighter future/existence for us.

It's good that you can empathize, if that's the correct word, with Einstein's amazement and delight and how close he got to God's truth.

However, I disagree with your closing paragraph in that creation stories are not useful to teach science. They are to be taken literally. I hope one day we can teach Genesis, but not as religion. As I stated, the order has been reversed since the 1850s with Charles Lyell and his pupil Charles Darwin, with geology and uniformitarianism coming in to question creation geology and catastrophism. Today, people believe what these atheists laid down as science. Thus, the onset of evolution led people astray just like someone who hikes or backpacks and takes the wrong path early on his journey. The truth remains with the Bible. I studied evolution and when I had questions it could not answer, I finally looked at what creation scientists were saying and started to agree with them. They answered more of my questions than evolution, Lyell or Darwin. So, the Bible is to be taken literally and I am a young earth creationist. I'm a computer scientist or engineer by trade so there isn't much conflict at work. If I were a geologist, paleontologist, zoologist or a biologist, then I would have more difficulties. I would probably have to hide my creation science and views if I were to continue working in those fields. Have you heard of William Lane Craig? I subscribe to most of his arguments, but I cannot see his side of evolution and old earth creation. That's not the way God intended his word to be used. How can it when there was no evolution back then?

If someone wanted to shake up my faith, then let them find alien life on another planet. Let them colonize Mars or the moon. Let them create gold, the divine element. Let them create a blade of grass. Even that guy Francis Crick, who co-founded the double helix and A-T and C-G models of DNA and said this proves there is no God, thought later in life that panspermia originated life on earth. (Crick was roundly criticized for his beliefs as it was shown to be pseudoscience.) Show me panspermia or anything else for the origin of life. You see, I know one can't find an alien, colonize another planet or our own moon, create gold, i.e. create an atom, a blade of grass or show panspermia. I know there are no multiverses, a way to travel back in time (I can show you how to travel forward in time though and we can do it today via Space-X), no egg before the chicken and more. These are what I have come to think from the Bible and creation science. There are just some things God would not allow such as we'll never know the beginning nor the end. These things God said he'll keep to himself. Is it any wonder that even a smart guy like Stephen Hawking, as smart as Einstein, ends up saying he wants to know the origin of the universe and why something is greater than nothing?

I'm sorry, but while I have complete faith that God was the creator of all that was, is, or will ever be, I simply cannot take the creation stories literally, nor would colonization of the moon or Mars or any other extraterrestrial place shake my faith in any way. I simply can't logically square the creation of light on the first day, vegetation on the third day, and the sun and moon on the fourth day or that there was morning and evening before there was a sun.

I do not say this to shake your faith and have no problem with you or anybody else personally if you take the text literally and would never attempt to talk you out of it. I say this as my own witness for those who cannot believe as you do that the Bible and science as we know it is not at all in conflict and one can know that and still be a devout Christian or person of faith. But if you take the creation stories literally, I believe God blesses your faith. I would hope he also blesses mine. As Jesus taught, it is not the purity of our theology and/or keeping our rules/laws that God cares about so much, but it is the content of our heart and character and our relationship with and obedience to God.

Having said that:

I believe the first chapter of Genesis, most likely one of the most recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament, was a theological statement to illustrate that God is the author/creator of all that exists and reigns supreme over everything. I believe the second creation story beginning in Genesis 2, probably one of the oldest manuscripts included in the Old Testament, is an anthropological explanation of why things are the way they are; i.e. why humankind does not enjoy a perfect existence as sin spoiled God's perfect creation, why humans must work for what they have, why there is pain in child birth, how sin spread from the 'first couple' into the family, into the community, and into the whole world.

IMO, the entirety of the Bible is an affirmation of continuing cycles of creation, sin, judgment, redemption that is expressed in parable, allegory, metaphor, symbolism, poetry, wisdom sayings, history, prophecy, all. The creation stories were written by men of faith, not men of science and if, from their limited perspective, they got details of the science wrong, they were spot on that science (among other things) is from and of God, and what God wrought, is good.

And as I have said more than once, I suspect when we meet Him face to face, we are going to be surprised at how much we got wrong here and how minuscule our understanding of anything is compared with all there is to know..

Fair enough, I'll take what you said to heart and it's fine with me that you believe what you do from your interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is not a science book, but it's important that science backs up the Bible. The first chapter of Genesis is key for me. For the longest time, the universe was eternal and the Steady State Theory ruled our worldview. That went out the window and the Big Bang Theory replaced it as the best theory. That backs Genesis.

To practice science, I think that one has to keep the Bible. It's a source in such a way to guide us as to what happened, but we have to use science and take it where it leads us in search of truth and knowledge. Thus, we are descendants of Adam and Eve. We came from adult creatures and not creation like they were. What creation scientists can say God is my inspiration and the Bible is my guide. God won't reveal the beginning nor the end. That said, the Bible doesn't provide all the details and is open to interpretation. I think God wanted it that way. He didn't want robots as he gave us free will. He accepted the consequences and gave us a second chance.

As for the colonization and other stuff, I just want to state it's the FAILURE to colonize the moon, Mars or any other planet. We're not going to be multi-planetary inhabitants. We're not going to find alien life. This may not be mainstream YEC, but it's what I come to think. Thus, I won't be going to moon, Mars, asteroids or any other planetary objects. I'm happy right here. Maybe the most I'll do is go visit a space station in the near future .

I think you're right in that we'll be surprised. Everything will be re-created again from scratch. There are a lot of questions we have and I hope we get to experience all that is his kingdom, his glory, his power forever. Amen.

I'm enjoying this philosophical discussion with you and some others who are contributing in a thoughtful and intelligent manner.

We once had occasion to have a young man for dinner who was a very pleasant fellow who was also a confirmed Atheist. His theory was that the universe is eternal--the stuff has always been here--how it got here who knows or cares?--but it has been jostling around in space for all eternity and at this particular time in eternity is jostled itself into the Earth and structures of the universe that we know. In an infinite amount of time it will all come apart and eventually be jostled into something else. He equated it with putting all the different parts in a vacuum cleaner in a sack and shaking the sack. If one has an infinite amount of time--gazillions and gazillions of years--those vacuum cleaner parts at some point would come together as a vacuum cleaner.

But from the Christian perspective, even if the young man's 'vacuum cleaner' theory was correct, something had to make the parts and something had to shake the sack.

And if we go with the big bang theory, there still had to be something to go boom. And something to light the fuse.

As the people of the Bible had no way to know or calculate or understand either, and had little understanding of what the sun, moon, stars, and other observable heavenly bodies were, their understanding that all that exists and all that is possible is from God was sufficient for them in their time. And ours for that matter.

As for the fact that we have not yet colonized the moon or Mars, it has only been a little over 40 years that we have figured out how to even get there. That isn't even an eyelash blink in the history of humankind, let alone the universe.

And if I was young and had no official responsibility to anyone other than myself, I would jump at a chance to go and be a part of whatever we humans choose to do in those places so long as the purpose was to do good and not evil. And I do believe we will go to the moon again and to Mars when we figure out how to accomplish that.

The Bible gets all the main points right. I envision someone being shown how He did it and putting it into his own words the best he could.

The Bible tells us Creation had a beginning. That Creation was created in steps. It has the correct order of the steps. It tells us that we came from dust and will return to dust and that each of our hairs are numbered. All things which science proves.

I love science, and so does God, He created it and told us to use it to know Him.

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator

Changing the subject, you may be interested in this.

The first five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Bible records the history that all nations have in common. Which explains how the account of Genesis was recorded as symbols in the Chinese language 1500 years before Moses penned Genesis. In fact, Genesis itself tells us how this was possible in the account of the Tower of Babel which was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization and is also captured as symbols in the written Chinese language.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

... and it's fine with me that you believe what you do from your interpretation of the Bible.

The Bible gets all the main points right.

As the people of the Bible ... their understanding that all that exists and all that is possible is from God was sufficient for them in their time. And ours for that matter.

.

.

As the people of the bible ...


the truth of the desert religions is indelibly written in the fabric of social injustice perpetrated by them throughout history and in the present time reflected through their errant religious dogma and associated political affiliations.

 

[ding]

That was just as interesting as the other 89 times you told me that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I took that as their personal heartfelt views and did not connect it in any way with their work.

Okay.

But You did say that creationism could explain much that evolution cannot...that was absurd. And you misrepresent Einstein's view of god, as a lot of theists are fond of doing.

 

[Foxfyre]

I took that as their personal heartfelt views and did not connect it in any way with their work.

Okay.

But You did say that creationism could explain much that evolution cannot...that was absurd. And you misrepresent Einstein's view of god, as a lot of theists are fond of doing.

I don't think I am misrepresenting Einstein at all. And of course creationism can speak to those things that evolution cannot. Evolution actually covers only a small area of all the science there is to know while creationism in a sense covers it all.

I am also pretty sure Einstein was able to discuss these topics objectively and thoughtfully without being contentious, accusing anybody, or being insulting?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I took that as their personal heartfelt views and did not connect it in any way with their work.

Okay.

But You did say that creationism could explain much that evolution cannot...that was absurd. And you misrepresent Einstein's view of god, as a lot of theists are fond of doing.

I don't think I am misrepresenting Einstein at all. And of course creationism can speak to those things that evolution cannot. Evolution actually covers only a small area of all the science there is to know while creationism in a sense covers it all.

I am also pretty sure Einstein was able to discuss these topics objectively and thoughtfully without being contentious, accusing anybody, or being insulting?

Creationism explains nothing at all. Not sure where you are getting these goofy ideas. When to use magic as an "explanation", you havent actually explained anything. You have merely substituted one mystery for another. Creationism explains nothing and yields no useful predictions at all.

And yes, you misrepresent Einstein. But we'll agree to disagree...you guys lost that argument a million times. No need to rehash.

 

[Foxfyre]

I took that as their personal heartfelt views and did not connect it in any way with their work.

Okay.

But You did say that creationism could explain much that evolution cannot...that was absurd. And you misrepresent Einstein's view of god, as a lot of theists are fond of doing.

I don't think I am misrepresenting Einstein at all. And of course creationism can speak to those things that evolution cannot. Evolution actually covers only a small area of all the science there is to know while creationism in a sense covers it all.

I am also pretty sure Einstein was able to discuss these topics objectively and thoughtfully without being contentious, accusing anybody, or being insulting?

Creationism explains nothing at all. Not sure where you are getting these goofy ideas. When to use magic as an "explanation", you havent actually explained anything. You have merely substituted one mystery for another. Creationism explains nothing and yields no useful predictions at all.

And yes, you misrepresent Einstein. But we'll agree to disagree...you guys lost that argument a million times. No need to rehash.

I will agree to disagree not that you have offered much of any kind of argument on anything to disagree with other than telling me and others that we are wrong. That doesn't get anybody many points in any debate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I took that as their personal heartfelt views and did not connect it in any way with their work.

Okay.

But You did say that creationism could explain much that evolution cannot...that was absurd. And you misrepresent Einstein's view of god, as a lot of theists are fond of doing.

I don't think I am misrepresenting Einstein at all. And of course creationism can speak to those things that evolution cannot. Evolution actually covers only a small area of all the science there is to know while creationism in a sense covers it all.

I am also pretty sure Einstein was able to discuss these topics objectively and thoughtfully without being contentious, accusing anybody, or being insulting?

Creationism explains nothing at all. Not sure where you are getting these goofy ideas. When to use magic as an "explanation", you havent actually explained anything. You have merely substituted one mystery for another. Creationism explains nothing and yields no useful predictions at all.

And yes, you misrepresent Einstein. But we'll agree to disagree...you guys lost that argument a million times. No need to rehash.

I will agree to disagree not that you have offered much of any kind of argument on anything to disagree with other than telling me and others that we are wrong. That doesn't get anybody many points in any debate.

You havent done much but offer a stream of authoritative declarations. All completely faith based, of course.

What does creation explain that evolution does not, as far as the origin/diversity of species? You said it explains MORE than evolution does about this. Do reveal to us these divine revelations.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the same as their 10000 page document, a void from the 4th century for the enlightenment yet still alive from the 1st its content completely misrepresents.

 

[Foxfyre]

I took that as their personal heartfelt views and did not connect it in any way with their work.

Okay.

But You did say that creationism could explain much that evolution cannot...that was absurd. And you misrepresent Einstein's view of god, as a lot of theists are fond of doing.

I don't think I am misrepresenting Einstein at all. And of course creationism can speak to those things that evolution cannot. Evolution actually covers only a small area of all the science there is to know while creationism in a sense covers it all.

I am also pretty sure Einstein was able to discuss these topics objectively and thoughtfully without being contentious, accusing anybody, or being insulting?

Creationism explains nothing at all. Not sure where you are getting these goofy ideas. When to use magic as an "explanation", you havent actually explained anything. You have merely substituted one mystery for another. Creationism explains nothing and yields no useful predictions at all.

And yes, you misrepresent Einstein. But we'll agree to disagree...you guys lost that argument a million times. No need to rehash.

I will agree to disagree not that you have offered much of any kind of argument on anything to disagree with other than telling me and others that we are wrong. That doesn't get anybody many points in any debate.

You havent done much but offer a stream of authoritative declarations. All completely faith based, of course.

What does creation explain that evolution does not, as far as the origin/diversity of species? You said it explains MORE than evolution does about this. Do reveal to us these divine revelations.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that creationism explains more than evolution does about origin of the species. I said creationism explains things that evolution cannot. And we have been explaining that for some pages now.

 

[BreezeWood]

I said creationism explains things that evolution cannot.

As the people of the Bible had no way to know or calculate or understand either, and had little understanding of what the sun, moon, stars, and other observable heavenly bodies were, their understanding that all that exists and all that is possible is from God was sufficient for them in their time.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that creationism explains more than evolution does about origin of the species. I said creationism explains things that evolution cannot.

from God - was sufficient for them in their time ...


evolution may still remain a philosophical discussion at a modern level per that choice and would then remain at the level of creationism from that period in time to answer similarly the same questions with identical veracity as any other hypothetical conclusion without verifiable results.

neither address the metaphysical axioms that are the predominate determination for the resulant results that occur over time that are deliberately misconstrued by (both) that the desert religions use without clarification for their benefit, purposely at the expense of the true identity and determination for their existence.

 

[Foxfyre]

I said creationism explains things that evolution cannot.

As the people of the Bible had no way to know or calculate or understand either, and had little understanding of what the sun, moon, stars, and other observable heavenly bodies were, their understanding that all that exists and all that is possible is from God was sufficient for them in their time.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that creationism explains more than evolution does about origin of the species. I said creationism explains things that evolution cannot.

from God - was sufficient for them in their time ...


evolution may still remain a philosophical discussion at a modern level per that choice and would then remain at the level of creationism from that period in time to answer similarly the same questions with identical veracity as any other hypothetical conclusion without verifiable results.

neither address the metaphysical axioms that are the predominate determination for the resulant results that occur over time that are deliberately misconstrued by (both) that the desert religions use without clarification for their benefit, purposely at the expense of the true identity and determination for their existence.

I'm sorry but I read that several times and I still have no idea what you mean by that.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

That was just as interesting as the other 89 times you told me that.

their non response is deafening ... but surly they understand their bible's scriptures to the letter.

 

[james bond]

Not only can't BreezeWood keep track of what he said and to who, he can't explain evolutionary origins such as singularity and quantum fluctuations. However, he deserves a chance to explain. What is singularity BW? Does singularity set up the environment for the Big Bang?

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Not only can't BreezeWood keep track of what he said and to who, he can't explain evolutionary origins such as singularity and quantum fluctuations. However, he deserves a chance to explain. What is singularity BW? Does singularity set up the environment for the Big Bang?

you are at best disingenuous ...


BB is cyclical, singularity is the transition moment from energy to mass after recompaction ...

I'm sorry but I read that several times and I still have no idea what you mean by that.

there I saved you from having to type it.

he can't explain evolutionary origins

evolution may still remain a philosophical discussion at a modern level per that choice and would then remain at the level of creationism from that period in time to answer similarly the same questions with identical veracity as any other hypothetical conclusion without verifiable results.

the serial killers can't read.

what it says is creationism does not answer differently than any other illusionary explanation and is no different than evolution - where the veracity of evolution removed.


evolution is driven by the metaphysical axioms translated through the genome of life.

 

[james bond]

you are at best disingenuous ...


BB is cyclical, singularity is the transition moment from energy to mass after recompaction ...

I am at best ingenious, you mean. Anyway, did you invest in bitcoin and held on? You've lost your shirt today. Oh well, easy come, easy go, BW.

Wrong. Singularity is very high temperature and very dense, close to infinite, environment or situation. What you described were quantum fluctuations.

evolution may still remain a philosophical discussion at a modern level per that choice and would then remain at the level of creationism from that period in time to answer similarly the same questions with identical veracity as any other hypothetical conclusion without verifiable results.

the serial killers can't read.

what it says is creationism does not answer differently than any other illusionary explanation and is no different than evolution - where the veracity of evolution removed.


evolution is driven by the metaphysical axioms translated through the genome of life.

Did you just say evolution is philosophy? Ha ha. I thought it was a religion. It may as well be since you have "faith" in it.