Young Earth v. Old Earth

[jcrichton]

The billions and billions we spend on science has nothing to do with whether there is life in the universe or not. If we didn’t spend a dime in all the time of mankind, it would make no difference. You miss the whole point.

If we find life or even evidence of life on Mars or Anywhere other than earth, it means that the universe is probably Teeming with Life. With the Billions of “milky ways” out there why would God only make a living creator that was sentient on earth? Therefore “Aliens” probably would exist. Probably in thousands or even millions of different varieties (species). Where does mankind stand among them. Did God only make US Special? Only We were given a soul? Only We were picked for Salvation? The thought is alarming. It is mind boggling.

On the other hand, regardless whether we spend billions looking for it or not a red cent, if we never find any evidence of life in the universe; not even microbes, with billions and billions of probable life-supporting planets; why did God Waste all that? 13.2 billion light-years of potential life-supporting materials. Why would He pick one tiny grain of sand on the whole beach and put life only it? How terrifying lonely mankind really is- to be the only sentient life (or any kind of life) in the entire cosmos. That would sound more like we were only an accident (just as non-believers propose) than if the universe was teeming with life.

It isn’t a matter of money at all. Its a matter of immense philosophical and theological importance.

I asked the question because I did not see your point. But you have missed mine.

I do not mean to dismiss your argument… but similar thoughts were explored in several movies and programs from the 80’s and early 90’s–it even became some sort of UFO rallying call (“We are not alone.”) Mulder continues to think that “The truth is out there…” Yet, while some consider me uneducated and even backwards for believing that man alone occupies the vastness of the universe, till Yahweh God reveals it otherwise, I have no concern with why we are alone (yeah all six billions of us). Now, have you considered that to prove your theory correct it would mean that the Bible wrong?

…about the money… billions of dollars have been spent to prove that Mars and other planets may have had some microscopic or plankton life forms (what we will gain from either knowledge escapes me) while we continue to pollute our bodies and our planet and employ less and less time and money to resolve these concrete problems.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

(Barbarian notes that scientists are now learning to predict how future strains of antibiotic resistance might evolve)

Bacteria have extremely short generation times, and so evolve rapidly. Worse, they can do lateral gene transfer between species, which increases the problem.

Hall’s work is now leveling the playing field a bit as scientists begin to predict the directions resistance might take in the future.

…did I hear it correctly or is it my imagination… they can they not also stay dormant for an unspecified amount of time?

…my point is that as able as scientists are they cannot create life and even a seemingly insignificant being can thwart their genius!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

(Barbarian notes that acceptance of evolution is slowly increasing among Americans)

Not likely. First, more people are reporting that God is important in their lives. Second, evolutionary theory does not deny God’s existence. Popes Pius XII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI would not have acknowledged it, if it were so.

It’s mostly an effect of better education. The more you know about science, the more you understand evolution.

…I must have an “vexing” effect on atheists and evolutionists because, for the most part, when we share any exchange they believe that science has proven that Yahweh God does not exist (evolution being their most cited “proof”).

You are correct that the theory does not deny the existence of God, but my experience has been that those who embrace it do so for the hope that it does.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Quote:
…but could there not be a different cause-effect issue? …say, "the more people ignore Yahweh God the more they are willing to accept all theories that deny God’s existence?

Science is a human discipline in learning how the universe is put together. Science is based on observation, on cause and effect, on discovery, each of its principals building one upon another. There should not be a chasm between one’s Faith and science. There should be ethical concerns on certain ways science does things, and perhaps laws passed to curb them, such as with regard to human-animal hybrids, or embryonic stem-cell research, eeuthanasia, etc. One’s Faith should enlighten and give guidance to scientific discoveries, not prohibit them.

…I am not suggesting differently–however, some subscribe to the idea that the more “intellectually advanced” man becomes the less dependent of that myth he is–their presumption is that ignorance causes humans to believe in an Omnipotent Being while intelligence brings them enlightenment.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Perhaps more like Beck’s? A cold Beck’s can be really nice.

…yeah, but their selling point was that “…weekends were made for M…”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[hecd2]

…my point is that as able as scientists are they cannot create life

Don’t be so sure - it’s called synthetic biology and it’s just round the corner.

Alec

 

[hecd2]

You are correct that the theory does not deny the existence of God, but my experience has been that those who embrace it do so for the hope that it does.

You must have a rather odd circle of acquaintance then. My experience of my colleagues is that scientists embrace evolution because of the overwhelming evidence for it. The fact that it explains the diversity of species without the need for numerous miracles *can *form *part *of an intellectually respectable atheism for some, but that is not the *reason *we accept it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[The_Barbarian]

…I must have an “vexing” effect on atheists and evolutionists because, for the most part, when we share any exchange they believe that science has proven that Yahweh God does not exist (evolution being their most cited “proof”).

Sounds more like imagination to me. What scientist says evolutionary theory denies God?

You are correct that the theory does not deny the existence of God, but my experience has been that those who embrace it do so for the hope that it does.

Name me a scientist who has done this. I know of none, not even atheistic scientists.

 

[The_Barbarian]

…did I hear it correctly or is it my imagination… they can they not also stay dormant for an unspecified amount of time?

Yes, but that doesn’t do anything for antibiotic resistance.

.

…my point is that as able as scientists are they cannot create life and even a seemingly insignificant being can thwart their genius!

Irrelevant. Evolution is not about the origin of life. But be careful. What man cannot yet do, is a very unsafe place to hide your faith in God.

Trust in God’s power, not man’s lack of it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

…I may be getting the wrong information… please bear with me… all science text books represent evolution as fact;

It’s directly observed. Hard not to consider that a fact.

scientist have assured us that the sun will go nova or extinguish itself in a few more millions of years;

About 4 billion. A thousand times greater.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t think it’s a fact, since I’ve been told science proves or disproves nothing. So this fact would not stand up in a court of law. The evidence doesn’t prove anything.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

I don’t think it’s a fact, since I’ve been told science proves or disproves nothing. So this fact would not stand up in a court of law. The evidence doesn’t prove anything.

Peace,
Ed

The evidence is the fact, Ed. Is it a fact that the sunrise is in the east and the sunset is in the west?

Science doesn’t have to prove that which is in front of your nose. Science will try to explain evidence, not create evidence. A fact is a fact.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

I recommend you mention that to The Barbarian, he asserts science can prove or disprove nothing. Evolution cannot be proven in real time.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

I recommend you mention that to The Barbarian, he asserts science can prove or disprove nothing. Evolution cannot be proven in real time.

Peace,
Ed

Either you didn’t read what I wrote or you didn’t understand it. Which is it Ed?

Peace

Tim

 

[The_Barbarian]

BTW, the “proof” in legal jargon isn’t proof at all. It’s merely “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Which is also the standard in science. We just know better than to call it “proof.”

 

[edwest2]

Yes, of course, and that total lack of clarity confuses people. I’ve read some business contracts where I was informed that certain words and phrases meant something entirely different than their common, non-legal usage. The same siutation appears to exist here.

I think you would have no success selling evolution door to door when, after explaining the basics, you pulled out your multi-volume legal dictionary set to show the prospective buyer that words like proof and other silly simple words don’t mean what they mean. And even then, I think most people would have questions about man’s alleged ancestors.

Peace,
Ed

 

[peary]

…I am not suggesting differently–however, some subscribe to the idea that the more “intellectually advanced” man becomes the less dependent of that myth he is–their presumption is that ignorance causes humans to believe in an Omnipotent Being while intelligence brings them enlightenment.

Maran atha!

Angel

My opinion of the “intellectually advanced man” is one who can balance his or her Faith with scientific findings. Intelligence by and of itself does not reveal the real Truth about things. An “intellectually advanced man” breeds narcissism if not checked by Faith.

 

[D_M]

Hi, D M!

…my understanding of the Creation of the angels is that, as Scriptures tell us, they were created to serve God; they were created as spiritual beings (so there is a similarity to God since God is Spirit); they were created to serve as go between–not to serve man but to facilitate Yahweh God’s Design. St. Peter reveals to us that they were witness of the Word and that they desired to know the full revelation of Christ but understood that they were only assisting man’s understanding (1 P 1:6-12); when the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, attempted to test Jesus (wife of 7 brothers), He clarified that they knew very little about Heaven since man will be as the angels… compare this with the various revelations about His Parusia (which I believe started on the Cross) He came in a changed body which will be inherited by us as we will be changed and we will Know Him as He Knows us (1 Cor 13:12; 15:50-54; 1 Jn 3:2; Jn 1:12); Scriptures do not tell us that we will become angels nor that the angels will inherit the Kingdom as children of God.

…as Scripture tells us the angels are limited in their Knowledge of God… perhaps that is the reason why Lucifer desired to be more… since, as an angel, he could not share in the intimacy that Yahweh God has granted man!

…perhaps my explanation was not as clear as I wanted it to be… I do not suggest that the angels cannot recognize or celebrate the beauty of nature… as cognizant spiritual beings they are able to surpass our understanding of much that exists; their only limitations are that which God has placed on them… but from their perspective, as with the rest of creation, the “awe” effect is something they cannot experience as the intricacies of nature is known to them (the angels) and is mostly obscured to the others (the rest of creation–which can include some humans who are blinded by their ego), as it is pointed out to us by St. Paul in Romans 1:19-21. Where we surpass the angels is in that intimacy with God which they do not share (1 Cor 2:6-12)–this, I believe, was initiated by God when He Created man out of the earth and Breath into him His Spirit!

Faith! It is not that we may understand God or His Image but that we accept His revelations–St. Paul is secure in the knowledge that he will one day Know Christ Jesus as he is Known by Christ Jesus because he will be elevated to that Spiritual level; he understands the implications without requiring to know (human) the mechanism or construct. Jesus put it to St. Thomas this way: “Blessed are they that have not seen and believed.”

Maran atha!

Angel

Hi jcrichton!

Hmm… I’ve looked up every one of the scriptural quotations you mentioned, and I am not sure if I am convinced that it suggests the angels are somehow eternally deprived of a greater relationship with God that it gives to humanity… are there other quotations I should look at?

There are actually scriptural quotations that do appear to name the angels as the children of God, consider:

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them

Job 2:1 Against there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord.

Daniel 3:25 He answered, “But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.” [he is referring to the angel]

Sometimes I feel bad for the angels if they don’t have the image, like they are missing out…something in me hopes they have the image just as we do.

God Bless,

 

[D_M]

Originally Posted by **D M **

I have known people who talk to their pets… and there are people who value animal life over human life…

**Pets are great companions. They accept you as you are. don’t you know the Dog Owner’s Prayer? “Lord, make me into the person my dog thinks I already am.”

Sometimes, pets make for better relationships than people!**

Are we sure that the angels could not have been created in God’s image? Admittedly the bible does not appear to make any specific mention to the creation of the angels, although I’ve heard people make either claim (ie. that some say they have God’s image, and others say that they don’t)…

They have been created in God’s image - they are immortal beings.

No… I can’t say I’ve heard that prayer… although it is quite amusing.

Sometimes though I feel like there is something occult going on in terms of people who will talk to their pets as though they were people… .sort of like reading horoscopes or doing the spiritual yoga… Maybe its just my imagination, but I’ve once seen a pet who is talked to by its owner that seemed at times to be doing things or knowing things that a cat should not have been able to do or know…

Immortality would be a property belonging to God, so maybe you are correct about that being inferred that they are in God’s image

 

[The_Barbarian]

Yes, of course, and that total lack of clarity confuses people. I’ve read some business contracts where I was informed that certain words and phrases meant something entirely different than their common, non-legal usage. The same siutation appears to exist here.

Yes. “Proof” means logical certainty. And you have none of that in the law or in science. Science is just more precise than the law.

I think you would have no success selling evolution door to door when, after explaining the basics, you pulled out your multi-volume legal dictionary set to show the prospective buyer that words like proof and other silly simple words don’t mean what they mean.

We can use the ordinary dictionary; science doesn’t deal in proof. We do inferences from evidence. Most people have no problem understanding that. After all, we live our lives on that kind of knowledge.

And even then, I think most people would have questions about man’s alleged ancestors.

So do we all. Lots more to learn. But we know a lot more than we did even a few years ago.