God of Wonders (Creation vs. Evolution)

The Ignorant Fishermen Blog ^ | 7/25/09

[The Ignorant Fisherman]

The God of Wonders is an absolutely amazing DVD which gives great insight into the multi faceted and complex design of the world in which we live in. The greatest scoffers and doubters will have to conclude after watching this DVD that evolution is the greatest con and fraud of our time. A must see for all! You will come away in absolute amazement! To Almighty God be the glory! (Psalm 19:1)

God of Wonders

God’s wonders surround us, and these marvels reveal much about our Creator. Learn about the incredible complexity of DNA and the miraculous workings of the tiny seed. Examine the elegant water molecule essential to all life. Discover how God combines these molecules to form beautiful and symmetrical snow crystals.

The Creator of All

Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

[The Ignorant Fisherman]

I could write about it but this DVD will blow you away. I could not do 1/32 of the job trying to convey to you the wonders of Almighty God’s creation. You can rent it at Netflix if you so desire. Well worth your time.

[Mr_Moonlight]

great insight into the multi faceted and complex design of the world in which we live in. The greatest scoffers and doubters will have to conclude after watching this DVD that evolution is the greatest con and fraud of our time

At the risk of needing to don a flame-proof suit in this always contentious issue, lets just say that I find very little incompatibility with God's overall creation and the evolutionary process which He set into motion. To make it into an *adversary* as in "Creation vs Evolution" or "scoffers and doubters" is to belittle both God and the science of which He gifted to us in order to try to understand His creation.

God invented evolution. Can't we just leave it at that and be happy?

[Nosterrex]

I don’t believe that the real division is between Creationism and Theistic Evolution. Perhaps God worked through both ways. The basic division is between Atheism and Theism.

[BereanBrain]

Simple question:

Which is harder to believe?

1) There is recoverable blood and tissue still left in >100M year old known dinosaur fossil

2) Maybe, just maybe the fossil is not millions of years old?

Heh. But the science text SAYS the the species died out millions of years ago.

[LeGrande]

The basic division is between Atheism and Theism.

Nah, except for belief in one god (generally) all theists agree with Atheists 100% of the time : )

[Nosterrex]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have very little in common with Atheists.

[LeGrande]

1) There is recoverable blood and tissue still left in >100M year old known dinosaur fossil

Someone is claiming actual blood and tissue from a 100m year old fossil? Do you know the definition of a fossil? Do you have a source?

[LeGrande]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have very little in common with Atheists.

Do you believe in Zeus? Didn't think so. Do you believe in Ra? Didn't think so. Do you believe in Allah? Didn't think so. Do you believe in Vishnu? Didn't think so. Despator? The flying Spaghetti Monster? I can go on and on. I think except for some obscure goat herders god you will find that we agree on all of the Gods.

[Nosterrex]

This topic had to do with Creation vs Evolution. I stated that God could have used both methods. What this has to do with why I believe in the God revealed in Scripture as opposed to other religions is beyond me. Once someone believes in more than naturalism, even if it isn’t the God that I worship, they have nothing in common with Atheism.

[antiRepublicrat]

Harder to believe: A creationist actually correctly referring to a scientific discovery and not twisting it around.

For example, it’s estimated at 80 million years, not 100+. Another is estimated at 60-odd million years.

In the words of the scientist who discovered this, “They [creationists] twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

The real question your #1 brings up is how well we understand decay. Until this researcher no one thought to look for such tissues and just assumed they can’t last that long.

[LeGrande]

This topic had to do with Creation vs Evolution. I stated that God could have used both methods. What this has to do with why I believe in the God revealed in Scripture as opposed to other religions is beyond me.

You were the one that changed the subject.

I don’t believe that the real division is between Creationism and Theistic Evolution. Perhaps God worked through both ways. The basic division is between Atheism and Theism.

Once someone believes in more than naturalism, even if it isn’t the God that I worship, they have nothing in common with Atheism.

So you are lumping yourself in agreement with Witch Doctors and Aztec Priests? Good luck : )

[Nosterrex]

I did not change the subject. The issue has to do with Creationism vs theistic Evolution. My view is that it is a both/and, not either/or. The commonality of this argument is HOW God created all that exist. A poster replied that this was not the big division, since they both agreed that God is the Creator. I agreed with him. I believe that the metaphysical disagreement is between Atheism and Theism. They are by definition antithetical positions. You have nothing to add to this conversation, and your arguments are nonsensical and illogical. You don't like people that believe in God. I get it. You think that because someone believes in God that he has to accept all religious beliefs. That would be like me saying to you that I know pedophiles that don't believe in God, therefore you support pedophiles. I suggest that you start studying logic and stop making fallacious arguments.

[The Ignorant Fisherman]

To all Freepers in the house,
Check this DVD out and you will see it clearly! God said it and it was. It did not take millions of years. The Chicken came before the egg. Science is just the outworking of the natural laws that Almighty created to make it all work out. Creation does not throw out science. The science shows forth and displays the wonders of the intelligence of Almighty God.

“Christian's” who believe in Evolution are wrong. The Bible says God did it all in 6 Days..Beleive it or not. It is by faith we believe it. Evolution take exceedingly more faith then just believing God and His infallible Word. Were will you put your faith; in Almighty God's Word or junk theories that we all are just over grown monkeys and leafs.

It's your choice. As for me.. I will believe Almighty God and His Word. Before I became a Bible believing Christian I was a practicing Intelligent design evolutuionist. I saw that God's Word made simple sence and I choose to believe it. May you all also.

Dave

[MyTwoCopperCoins]

So, are you saying that you don’t believe luminous bodies out in space exist, millions of light-years away?

[LeGrande]

You think that because someone believes in God that he has to accept all religious beliefs.

No. I was making exactly the opposite point. Religious people believe in one set of religious beliefs and reject all other religious beliefs. Atheist simply agree with religious people when they reject other religious beliefs. Like I said, we agree that none of the gods exist, except that you will squabble over the existence of one of them.

So what do you say? Do you reject the existence of Ra, Zeus, Allah, Elohim, etc. and side with the atheists? Or do you believe that they are Gods too?

I do agree with you about Evolution and Creation. There is only a disagreement if the Bible has to be interpreted literally. My interpretation of the Bible is that it is a record of Mans struggle to understand the world around them, a nascent science in other words.

[Phantom4]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

[Nosterrex]

To say that I don't believe in a particular religious belief does not mean that I agree with Atheism. I might believe, for instance, that all religions are equally valid,and that all worship the same God. Atheism by definition rejects the belief in a supernatural supreme being. The fact that Atheists and Theists might have something in common, such as all Atheists and Theists are Homo sapiens, does not change the fact that Atheism and Theism are antithetical beliefs. This issue is NOT whether an Atheist or I believe in worshiping Oak Trees, but whether God exists. The whole assertion that Atheists and Theists might agree that there is no Monkey King and therefore there is some substantial agreement is silly. It proves nothing. The foundational preposition is not whether or not a person has a specific belief about God, but the belief in the existence of a God/god. It is that belief that affects every aspect of person's absolute ideology.

The topic is about Creationism vs Evolution. Again, the metaphysical division is not how God created, but whether one believes in God or not.

[bdeaner]

From St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430), De Genesi ad Litteram (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, ):

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although ‘they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion’ (1 Timonty 1:7)."

[Nosterrex]

Thanks for the quotation from St. Augustine, but I’m not certain what point you are trying to make.

[bdeaner]

I recommend Stephen Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, which demonstrates the awe-inspiring harmony between the Created world and Catholic dogma on Creation. With regard to the point of the Augustine quote I posted...

If we examine Jewish and Christian teaching since biblical times, we find that it has been very little concerned with attempts to give religious explanations of religious phenomena. If one looks at authoritative statements of doctrine from the time of the early church fathers down through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, one does not find pronouncements about botany, or zoology, or astronomy, or geology. For example, the most comprehensive statement of Catholic doctrine until just recently was the Roman Catechism, sometimes also called the Catechism of the Council of Trent, published in 1566, not long after the Galileo affair. There is nothing in the Roman Catechism pertaining to natural phenomena at all. The same is true of the doctrines of the other branches of Christianity, and of Judaism as well.

One place where theologians concern themselves with the natural world was in interpreting the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, the Hexahemeron, meaning "the six days." Even here, however, the central doctrinal concern was not the details of how the world originated, but the fact that it was created. St. Thomas Aquinas summarized the mediaeval church's attitude toward the Book of Genesis as follows:

"With respect to the origin of the world, there is one point that is of the substance of the faith, viz. to know that it began by creation, on which all the authors in question are in agreement. But the manner and the order according to which creation took place concerns the faith only incidently, in so far as it has been recorded in Scripture, and of these things the aforementioned authors, safeguarding the truth by their various interpretations, have reported different things."

The authors to whom St. Thomas was referring were the fathers and theologians of the ancient church, and, indeed, their interpretations of the Hexahemeron varied widely. In the East, the theologians of Alexandria tended toward very allegorical and symbolic interpretations, while those of Antioch and Capadocia tended toward strict literalism. In the West, the greatest of the fathers, St. Augustine (354-430), adopted a very non-literal approach. To take an important example, St. Augustine held that the "six days" of creation were not to be taken literally as a period of time or a temporal succession. He held, rather, that all things were produced simultaneously by God in a single instant and subsequently underwent some natural process of development. Much earlier, St. Clement (ca. 150-ca. 216), Origen (ca. 185-ca. 354), and other Alexandrians had held the same view.

In commenting on this issue, St. Thomas Aquinas said that the idea of successive creation was "more common, and seems superficially to be more in accord with the letter [of Scripture]," but that St. Augustine's idea of simultaneous creation was "more conformed to reason," and therefore had his (St. Thomas's) preference.

This statement of St. Thomas perfectly illustrates another important point, which is that the church has always sought to give empirical reason its due. Never, even in the Galileo case, has the church instisted upon interpretations of the Bible that conflicted with what could be demonstrated from reason and experience. In his Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas cites the teaching of St. Augustine on the principles which should be observed in interpreting Scripture: "Augustine teaches that two points should be kept in mind when resolving such questions. First, the truth of Scripture must be held inviolably. Second, when there are different ways of explaining a Scriptural text, no participat explanation should be held so rigidly that, if convincing arguments show it to be false, anyone dare to insist that it is still the definitive sense of the text."

Indeed, St. Augustine was sometimes quite vehement on this subject, obviously provoked by statements of some of the less learned Christians of his day. And here is where the quote I posted comes in to the story: he felt it was damaging to Christianity for theological and bible scholars to extrapolate scientific conclusions from Scripture. He understood theology to be of a different kind of thinking than natural sciences, and that confusing the two, especially when one is ignorant of one and.or the other, would cause the Church embarrassment.