Why did God take so long to create everything?

[Kat]

Well Bob, I guess it goes with everything, God has to grant us the understanding of any of the things that we learn.... that has been the case all along. When you think about back through history as far as we can see, there knowledge of even this very earth was filled with conjecture and much of it wrong. So what happened to change what we understand? God has a plan and He had determined from the beginning when it was time for technology. Now not only do we have microscopes that can look into the tiny details of a cell, but also telescopes that search into the far reaches of outer space.

That has made a big difference, now it's not just conjecture, but study of real things as they are happening and seeing things we didn't know about before. Now we only have a very narrow view of these things, and a person is limited on how much they can learn, by the actual length of their life. It's a slow process of gathering information, but this is information of actual real things or events that is being gathered and built on from one generation to the next. Over time this information has began to produce results. Now with the internet and information is shared pretty much instantly, this makes it possible to share and learn even more. That makes me think of what God said about those people building the tower of Babel...

Gen 11:6  And the LORD said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.

We no longer believe the earth is flat, that's something that was learned... and those telescopes are picking up real images of other planets. Having so many planets to view and what does take a very long time to unfold as they develop, but now with telescopes they can actual evaluate to different stages in different planets and learn how they develop through the stages that can take millions of years.

Sure there is many problems with the way things are done in this world, corruption is everywhere, so no we cannot just latch onto everything as true that we hear. But if we become so jaded that we cannot believe anything at, well isn't that like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. Scientist require big money to operate, that's true, but if it is so corrupted that it disrupts the real honest work of science to the degree that it is not productive at all and there is no truth in it, won't that defeat the purpose of it?  We have to believe that some of the information is true and that is bared out over time and observation and lots of trial and error.

I really think we are living in unprecedented times, growth of knowledge in every direction is incredible.

Dan 12:4  "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[Dennis Vogel]

I just assume you have watched all of Ray's videos Bob. He has an entire series about the age of the earth, etc. which includes a short talk about a Christian museum that falsely shows dinosaur bones embedded in the Grand Canyon walls.

If there is strong scientific proof that the earth is about 5 billion years old then I don't have a problem with it. If that's how long it took to get to modern man, no problem. And the bible certainly does not contradict the earth being billions of years old.

And I do not believe scientist go out of their way to lie. They are more honest than most Christian leaders.

Ray did not say it took God billions of years to birth the wisdom it took to create the universe. We don't know how long it took. We don't even know if time existed when God planned the universe.

Num 23:19  God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

2Pe 3:8  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

God is not a man. The passing of time for Him is not the same as it is for us.

Just because we cannot see or understand things does not prove anything. All it proves is we don't know.

[rick]

And I do not believe scientist go out of their way to lie. They are more honest than most Christian leaders.

This statement is true unless they are supported through government grants of course. 

[lurquer]

So very true, Rick.  Scientists do lie.  Many have been caught in the act of course.  Many more work their "craft" on a very self-serving agenda, and often incorporate their preferred biases into their 'deductions'.  I've seen it with my own eyes a-plenty.

But Kat's points are still valid...God did give his creatures senses and a mind to interpret the data they sense.  Knowledge has indeed increased, a thousand-fold, since Daniel's time; his prediction is true.  But the priests of knowledge--the 'scientists'--do lord it over the rest of humanity.  Like the lawyers of Jesus' time, they "have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.".

By that I mean, just as the christian leaders of today do not merely present their followers with the raw data and allow them to interpret it for themselves (anathema!) , they must insist on also interpreting it for us.

Don't think so?  Ask one of them to define a "fact". 

[Dave in Tenn]

The "big bang theory" is just that, a theory that has recently come into disrepute due to further examination over time. From one perspective it states that God lit the fuse and stood back and let the concentrated energy/matter expand to fill the previously created infinite space.

Disrepute?  Bad choice of words, Bob.  To find argument in science is as easy as finding sand on beaches.  That's what science is all about. 

[Dave in Tenn]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.