> General Discussions

Why did God take so long to create everything?

<< < (14/14)

Dave in Tenn:

--- Quote from: indianabob on March 03, 2015, 12:41:52 AM ---Dear Friend Kat,
Very much appreciate your reply.
However, have to disagree slightly.

The "big bang theory" is just that, a theory...There is NO observational evidence that it MUST be true. There is only interesting theories that change every generation and never seem to achieve full success.
--- End quote ---

True enough.  And I'm glad that it is.  "Full success" is a futile endeavor when considering the vastness of both the large and the small.


--- Quote ---So my point then would be that when expounding scripture it is best not to use science theories in our explanation as if they were proven facts & inspired of God as our work in scripture truly is.
--- End quote ---

I agree.  Tell that also to the "scientists" Ray mentioned in the Nashville '08 conference.  I'd only reiterate what I tried to communicate in this long dormant thread before it was resurrected:  The bottom line of what Ray shared was that "scientific truth" does not conflict with "scriptural truth".  IMO, only theology does that, and the assumptions it brings to both scripture and science.

However, I do think it's OK to use current scientific understanding to "illustrate" a Truth of God.  I also think its OK to consider scientific findings in understanding a Truth of God.  God Himself seems to me to be encouraging us to do that very thing.


--- Quote ---Scientist postulate ideas out of an honest curiosity about how things work and that is fine, but after they work on proving a theory for a few years they can get hung up on their favorite paper that got them their doctorate and accompanying fame.

Without credentials in the science publications they don't achieve tenure and get promoted to Department Chair with the increase in salary or hundreds of new students that support the research grants necessary for professional success such as their own efforts to find some new way of viewing the mysterious Universe.
--- End quote ---

And then sometimes there simply IS no 'new way', unless you want to recant your disappointment that "full success" is never reached.  Surely you aren't suggesting that every scientific dispute requires 'us' to start from scratch.


--- Quote ---Professional researchers are not much different than professional churchmen in that regard. It is all about looking good and attracting donors. So if we common folks cannot verify that their theories meet the test of demonstrability then we should handle them with care and reasonable doubt.
--- End quote ---

Perhaps we should.  But it isn't possible to put the universe in a controlled study, nor is it possible to "demonstrate" the creation of the Universe...not in any 'theory' that exists.  I certainly can't demonstrate the creation of a universe.  I'd actually have to create a universe to do it.

But while I'm being "reasonably doubtful" about credentialed scientists who have mastered the foundational knowledge in their fields, I am double-chocolate-dipped doubtful about others wading into arguments by building and knocking down straw-men and making claims based on their own "understanding" and "wisdom".  But perhaps I have a different way of looking at passages that disdain the "wisdom of men", and just what kind of man makes up those 'men'. 

Dennis Vogel:
I don't see how genuine scientist have anything to gain by lying about the age of the universe. Most now agree that the universe is about 14 billion years old.

From: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/Twins

In Einstein's special theory of relativity, there is no such thing as "time" in the singular. Time passes differently for different observers, depending on the observers' motion. The prime example is that of the two hypothetical twins: One of them stays at home, on Earth. The other journeys into space in an ultra-fast rocket, nearly as fast as the speed of light, before returning home:

Afterwards, when the twins are reunited on Earth, the travelling twin is markedly younger, compared to her stay-at-home sibling. The exact age difference depends on the details of the journey. For example, it could be that, aboard the space-ship, two years of flight-time have passed - on-board clocks and calendars show that two years have elapsed, and both spaceship and travelling twin have aged by exactly that amount of time. On Earth, however, a whopping 30 years have passed between the spaceship's departure and its return. Just like all other humans on the planet, the twin on Earth has aged by 30 years during that time.

Time is not the same for God as it is for man.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page