Science has proven Creation according to Genesis, THEY AGREE!!!

[creedseebas]

so i heard the other day about a book called “the Case for a Creator” and it supposedly gives AWSOME back for our religious views with merely using science. For all the atheists out there, go get this book and i believe there is also another book by th esame author called “A Case for Christ”. This author i believe was aethist, but i could be wrong, but ended up converting so if you are curious go check out the books. if you think it is impossible then go check out the books and tell me why it is impossible. either way go check them out. if you are a christian then check out the books and you will learn a lot on how to explain these things to atheists. i just bought the book and i’m about to start reading it when i finish “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” (another awsome book, thanks Karl!)

God Bless!

 

[PhilVaz]

<< so i heard the other day about a book called “the Case for a Creator” and it supposedly gives AWSOME back for our religious views with merely using science. >>

The book is okay, nothing new really. Its basically an anti-evolution book. Better to read some real science to find out about evolution. In a commercial I’ve heard on Christian radio, author Lee Strobel claims his book shows “science proves God” or some such words. Sorry science can’t “prove” God since science doesn’t measure, test, observe, or give evidence for the supernatural. Science isn’t about proof or absolutes either. Anyway that’s been said a couple times already in other creation-evolution threads.

I don’t have the book yet, I’ll wait for the paperback. I’ve flipped through it. The best chapters are those by William Lane Craig who presents his classic cosmological arguments (The Big Bang, the beginning of the universe, etc), and the one with Mike Behe responding to his critics (Ken Miller and others).

The anti-evolution stuff in the book is answered by a good read of the TalkOrigins articles and rebuttals to creationism and “intelligent design.”

<< For all the atheists out there, go get this book and i believe there is also another book by the same author called “A Case for Christ”. >>

Indeed, The Case For Christ is a much better book, since the historical case for the resurrection is much stronger than the anti-evolution scientific “case” made in The Case For A Creator.

Phil P

 

[Ghosty]

sigh

“Creationism” as described in Genesis is not supported by science if taken literally; even the earliest Christians understood this. There is nothing anti-Creation about evolution or the Big Bang. In fact, it was a Catholic priest who formulated the Big Bang Theory, a fact that many people don’t realize.

 

[GoodME]

I always understood the importance of the creation story in Genesis to be teaching the importance of one day in seven for rest and reverence.

Why does an almighty God need 6 days to do anything? Why does an almighty God have to “rest”?

These teachings are intended to be a model for God’s creation, man, aren’t they?

Therefore, I prefer a “literary” interpretation, rather than a “literal” interpretation. I believe to focus on “creationism” is to miss the point of the Scripture in this case.

 

[Katholikos]

Yes, the Big Bang was the work of Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian priest and mathematics teacher, who was fond of saying “There is no conflict between science and religion.” Father first constructed and then published this theory in the 1920s and 30s and changed the course of cosmology in the twentieth century.

I don’t keep company with Fundamentalist Protestants who insist on taking Genesis literally, and I won’t be reading that book. I’ve read Strobel’s The Case for Faith. Quite mediocre, I thought. C.S. Lewis is much better.

Peace
JMJ Jay

 

[Melchior]

sigh

“Creationism” as described in Genesis is not supported by science if taken literally; even the earliest Christians understood this. There is nothing anti-Creation about evolution or the Big Bang. In fact, it was a Catholic priest who formulated the Big Bang Theory, a fact that many people don’t realize.

sigh

Evolution as described in The Origin of Species is not supported by Scripture or tradition; even the earliest Christians understood this. There is nothing consistent with Biblical creation in evolution or the Big Bang.

Death entered the world through Adam. If death existed prior then the Fall is a myth. Of course the Genesis account of the Creation can and should be taken as literature. But to relegate it to myth is what big bang/evolutionary theory does. Some early fathers believe the six day creation was actually instantaneous. Others believe that the creation account is worded in a way to make it understandable to those whose comprehension it is beyond- -humans. God used a framework for the creation He spoke into existence from nothing. This framework He describes in terms of days. Literal or not this does not even touch on evolutionary theory because theistic evolution gets hairy because the Fall then must become allegory - which is not consistant with Tradition, the Fathers etc. It is a new theory that moderns have constructed to try and justify evolution with revelation. It is similar to those skeptics who try to explain the Christ’s resurrection by way of modern medical knowledge. A miraculous resurrection does not fit their idea of how things are so they construct a novel interpretation of scripture to make it fit.

Religion and Science are compatible. But true religion never need bow it’s knee to pseudo-science with an agenda. If it is true it will stand.

Christians should stick with what they know is true and when there is something conclusive about modern atheistic theories, even if adopted by Christians in the most disjointed and un-cohesive way, before all the eividence is in. And it is not.

Was that priest defrocked? Of course there have been many priests that have done some other pretty bad things too. I don’t think you want to take this too far. There are plenty of scientifc theories from the 20’ and 30’s that are now debunked. What is so scientific about a single point in space exploding and creating the universe. Even if this is how God chose to create it can never be proven and is really just wild speculation.

Mel

 

[Ghosty]

Of course the priest was not defrocked, as he did nothing to contridict the Church, Scripture, or Tradition. Scripture details the subjects of faith, and human’s relationship with God, not scientific exploration. I believe God could have written the Bible as a brilliant scientific treatise explaining every nuance of the natural world, but how would that have really helped us in Salvation and understanding God’s love for us? Scripture is about finding and hearing God, not measuring the stars or the age of the Earth. God prudently left such questions to our limited senses and studies so as not to overwhelm us with the intricacies and complexities of the miracle of Creation, a miracle that must first be appreciated and THEN understood. How could early humans, with no knowledge of math, physics, or even basic agriculture, appreciate the vastness of God’s Creation by simply knowing the details?

Put it another way: when speaking to our children about where babies come from, we don’t immediately delve into sexual reproduction and the combination of DNA, the passing on of mitochondria, the division of cells, because their understanding is simply too limited to appreciate it. Instead we instill in them first an appreciation of the beauty of life, and the sacredness with which it is conceived, only later to delve into the “dirty” details. I believe God did the same for our ancestors. Would Moses have appreciated DNA and cellular division if God had said that’s how we came about? I highly doubt it. Instead God told us about the necessities, about Adam and Eve, and the sin they passed on to our human blood, as that was more important to our eternal survival than any details about evolution.

A funny example I heard goes something like this: Early humans were speaking with God and asked “How did we come to be?” God, excited with the prospect of finally explaining the beauty of Creation to them, said, “I began with a spark of energy, which I formed into atoms, which I exploded out forming the foundation of the cosmos…” and God notices that the humans’ eyes are glazing over, so he stops and says, “I willed you into being with my Word,” and the humans looked at eachother and said “Aha! I understand words, this makes perfect sense now!” Only now, after thousands of years, have we truly embarked on understanding what, and how (in a material sense) God created this beautiful world.

It’s not a matter of either Creation or Evolution, but both Creation, Evolution, and whatever other glorious things remain hidden to us currently.

I highly recommend Catholic Answers own tract on the subject, catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

 

[Ghosty]

Even if this is how God chose to create it can never be proven and is really just wild speculation.

Speculation, yes, but not as wild as you might think. It’s based on the movement of stellar matter away from eachother in a pattern similar to an expanding balloon. This movement can be measured with our modern equipment and senses. There is of course the chance that such senses and equipment are mistaken, but it’s not wild because it conforms precisely to what all of us can perceive with the right equipment.

Could it be wrong? Certainly, but my point is that it’s not just some random theory thrown out without reason, but rather an attempted explaination of vast amounts of collected data. We know that God created light, and heaven and earth, but the details are very sketchy as to how. Faith-informed science is simply about exploring the hows of what we know to be true through faith.

 

[creedseebas]

someone mentioned something on here about not worrying about the details. i think that person and St. Thomas aquinas would not have gotten along very well. the truth is that by getting to know anything very well to its every little intricate detail we eventually get to know God because everything comes from God at one point or another. This is in no way to undermine the importance of the study of the basics of religion. i agree in that case that those basics are much more important than knowing how to solve a calculus problem five different ways.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Go and read about Geocentrism, there is easy as much evidence for Geocentrism as Heliocentrism. Now I know there are different Gecentric theories but my point is that Science did not like the idea of Geocentrism, not becasue any of it can’t be true but because for one reason or another according to their limited knoweldge geocentrism in any form could not be true, therefor they had to make up scientific theory to account for the heliocentric theory, now like a lot of theories most of them are being debunked or at the very least severely and creditably challenged.

Does all this make Geocentrism right, no, not necessarily but what we must remember is that all these scientific theories start out being modelled on some sort of test, now usually the tests themselves are of a limited nature so therefor any theory developed from them is immedatley hampered by the limitations of the test, thus as happens often, they find something that does not fit with allready accepted theory and they must either add to it or change it completely.

Unless we develop a time machine we can never know the origins of the Universe scientifically speaking becasue who knows what changes occured along the time line that may have completely disapeared.

It is like the evolution theory, Is it possible, yes but only so long as all the ingredients for all evolutionary change are allready within our structure, in other words our evolutionary development would be planned.

To go from a piece of sludge to what we are now, would be impossible without the future changes allready programmed within us. At least according to know science such as law of thermodynamics etc.

It is all interesting but we will never know, from a science perspective.