Posted on 11/05/2015 7:28:52 PM PST by springwater13
He continued, “Darwin said his whole theory depended on the fossil remains. He said we should be able to line up from a single-cell organism to man, several miles long and just walk right down the fossil trail and see how everything evolved.â€
“He [Darwin] said the only reason they didn’t have the fossils was because they were not geologically sophisticated enough, but that we would be in 50 to 100 years,†said Dr. Carson. Well, that was 150 years ago. We still haven’t found them. Where are they? Where are the fossil remains?â€
Carson continued, “When you ask the evolutionists about that, they say, ‘Uh, I don’t know where they are, they’re somewhere, they are, we just haven’t found them yet.’ That’s a pretty lame excuse, to be honest with you.â€
Earlier in his remarks, Dr. Carson said, “Many people don’t know this but Charles Darwin actually started out in the seminary to become a man of the cloth. He had some experiences with God that didn’t go his way, like his 10-year-old daughter who died of pneumonia despite his pleas.â€
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
In fact, as I've explained, the Bible says nothing about "science" as we understand that term today.
The word Paul used, "gnosis", refers not to today's natural-science, but rather to secret heretical spiritual "knowledge" of his time -- the polar opposite of science.
The truth is, you have declared war on science, and are throwing every weapon you can grasp, however inappropriate, at it.
Your use of the Bible as such a weapon is just shameful, and you should be ashamed.
Carson is correct, but obviously there is some mechanism that creates more complex life for simpler life. Now what that mechanism is no one knows.
As I've said, you can invent whatever terms and definitions suit your fancy, just don't call them "science".
In actual scientific terms, a confirmed observation is a "fact", but even facts are not considered "proved" or "true", since it sometimes happens that new & improved observations will falsify previously confirmed "facts".
Likewise explanations -- hypotheses and theories -- are never considered "proved" or "true", only confirmed or falsified.
Again, you can call your own ideas whatever wish, just not "science", sir.
So let's see what the Bible says about it:
Genesis 1: "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
Sounds to me like the Hand of a Potter, hovering over a lump of raw material (Earth) before giving it form, and filling it with life.
Genesis 2: "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
"Dust of the ground" sounds like raw material to me.
John 1: "In the beginning was the Word (Logos = Plan)... and the word was made flesh..."
In this case, we are told the raw material for the Word was a human being -- Mary.
And the raw material for human beings was "dust of the ground."
And the raw material for dust of the ground was "formless and empty" Earth.
So, clearly, God uses raw materials for His most important works.
But, what about raw material for the Universe itself?
We are not told, and can't know, but one highly suspects that Light had something to do with it, since as Einstein discovered, light (energy) and matter are ultimately the same thing: E=MC2.
And God said, "Let there be Light" sounds to me like "let there be Energy", a pretty fair description, wouldn't you agree, of the very first instant of what science calls, "The Big Bang".
Bottom line on raw material: God is not ashamed to use it, when that fits His great Plan.
The Word is the Lord Jesus Christ, the 2nd Person of the Trinity, not 'the plan'.
The Word became flesh, but He as God always existed.
So, God CREATES the raw material first and then uses it.
Genesis 1:1 tells us that!
When God said let there be light, he created light out of nothing!
Before God there was NOTHING.
Raw material (the Universe) cannot co-exist with God, it would be eternal.
You need to back to do some Bible study.
You first claimed that God did not use "raw materials", so I demonstrated from biblical verses that He certainly did.
Your response simply confirms my point.
What "raw material", if any, may have been present with God before Creation, we have no way to know.
John 1 tells us that Logos was not only present, but was God, so cannot be considered "raw material".
That God created the Universe out of nothing is confirmed by scientific ideas such as the "Big Bang".
Still, scientists cannot help but speculate on what came "before", hence "multi-verse".
But nobody pretends that such ideas are "true", "proved", or even "confirmed" -- indeed, they are not even testable hypotheses, just scientific day dreams, more or less.
God used materials He CREATED.
That was what the discussion was about, could matter exist with God
Of course the Logos can't be considered 'raw material' he is the 2nd member of the Trinity, God himself.
The 'Big Bang' has nothing to do with God.
The Bible doesn't say a word about any 'big bang'.
The Big Bang is simply science trying to explain how the Universe came into being without God.
Of course they have to assume some type of matter existing, which didn't since that would make it eternal.
Before the Universe there is no 'before', because there was no time and matter, both were created with the Universe.
So, again, you speak nonsense.
Science has nothing to say about God, creation, or the beginning of life.
It is out of their area of testing.
fortheDeclaration post #187: "God used materials He CREATED.
That was what the discussion was about, could matter exist with God."
FRiend, as always when I demonstrate that you have no clue what you're talking about, you change the subject and throw out insults to hide your falsehood.
The issue you raised is whether God uses raw material in creating the Earth, or life, or human beings.
When I demonstrated that He did, you changed the subject to claim you were only talking about Creating the Universe, ex nihilo.
Well, that's fine, and I don't discount your arguments about that at all.
But I did note that according to Einstein's E=MC2, the raw material for all matter is energy, i.e. light.
Indeed, according to science, it was the "Big Bang" which began to convert energy into matter, and it's the explosions of stars which convert hydrogen into heavier materials like carbon, iron, gold, etc.
fortheDeclaration: "The Big Bang is simply science trying to explain how the Universe came into being without God.
Of course they have to assume some type of matter existing, which didn't since that would make it eternal."
No, it's not "matter" which could pre-exist the Universe, only energy -- which was first converted into matter by the Big Bang, E=MC2.
So, we might ask if God created all that energy -- i.e., "let there be light", or was it pre-existing?
And before you jump to some conclusion, consider that according to classical theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas, energy is part of the essence of God's being.
And that's as far as I can go, since I'm not willing to say that God poured his own energy into creating the Universe -- the Bible never says that.
fortheDeclaration: "Before the Universe there is no 'before', because there was no time and matter, both were created with the Universe.
So, again, you speak nonsense."
But apparently, there was energy.
fortheDeclaration: "Science has nothing to say about God, creation, or the beginning of life.
It is out of their area of testing."
Yes, certainly science can say nothing about God, but since creation and life are still somewhat in progress, science is very curious about them.
Finally, "testable hypotheses" do not necessarily require a scientific laboratory.
Predictions later confirmed by observations qualify as valid tests in science.
John's Greek word, "Logos", is translated variously as "logic", "generative principle" and sometimes "plan". "The Plan made flesh" to me makes huge sense, and would have also to John's Greek listeners.
Read John 1:1, The Word is God.
The point was that Science had nothing to say about the origin of the Universe or of life.
So, the fact that God used HIS raw materials to create life has nothing to do with what science can say about God and creation.
So, if you don't disagree that God created everything from nothing and that science has nothing to say about that, then we are in agreement.
The Big Bang is an unprovable hypothesis.
Nothing could precede the Universe but God.
What would be the source of this energy?
Of course energy is part of God's being, since He is light and life, but that would mean that science is referring to God's energy, not energy by itself.
Energy must have a source!
There was God before the Universe, and God has energy.
Energy didn't exist by itself.
Science can be curious about what it likes, but it cannot test the origins of the Universe and life, since they go back to God and one can only know God by faith.
Smokin’ in the tar pits!
I tell ya, I was smokin’ in the tar pits!
Now, T-Rex won’t you tell me, what do you say, uh?
‘Cause everybody knows that smokin’ ain’t allowed in La Brea!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.