Stu, Now to me there basically are only two options. You can either believe what Genesis says or not. And that is not oversimplifying. Frankly, believing in a supernatural creative God who made everything is the only possible rational explanation for the universe, for life, for purpose and for destiny. Now the divine equation given in the Bible in contrast to nobody times nothing equals everything, the divine equation is found in Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I don't know how it could be said any more simply or more straightforwardly than that. Either you believe God did create the heavens and the earth or you believe He did not. Really those are the only two valid options you have. And if you believe that God did create the heavens and the earth, then you are left with the only record of that creation and that's Genesis 1 and you are bound to accept the text of Genesis 1 as the only appropriate and accurate description of that creative act. So again I say, you're left really with two choices. You either believe Genesis or you don't. You either believe the Genesis account that God created the heavens and the earth, or you believe they somehow evolved out of random chance. Looking at the account of Genesis 1:1 for just a brief moment, the words in that first verse are quite remarkable. They are indicative of the incredible mind of God. God says in that first verse everything that could have been said about creation and He says it in such few terms. The statement is precise and concise almost beyond human composition. A well-known scientist, a very decorated scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. In his scientific career he had become noted for one great discovery, it was a categorical contribution that he made. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Nothing exists outside of those categories. That was a very astute discovery and didn't come until the nineteenth century. Now think about that. Spencer even listed them in that order ...time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning, "that'stime ... "God, "that'sforce, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn't catalog until the nineteenth century. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse. Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence. rc
Stu, Most of what I've been posting can be found under John MacAuthur's teachings if you have ever heard of him. You probably can do a search on him and find his material. rc
Am I to understand you are suggesting the equation should be somebody (God) x something = everything Neither way sounds believable to me. The second appears credible and rational as it brings with it vast amounts of essential fact and substantive reasoning to support it therfore sounds more likely. The first sounds irrational, as it has no substantial evidence to support itself rationally. For instance, Supernatural, is not rational. It exists, then it is natural. A Higher Power sounds imaginary with an embedded infinite regress problem. If the heavens and earth needed to be created, how come God didn't. Had God somehow evolved out of random chance? Was God always there, then why not the heavens and earth always there? But Earth evolved , so why not an evolved God. In that regard God is just a pseudonym for nature, but with added imaginative human addons like the making of money and power over others.
Really? Ok, Let's see. Are you sure rc? Surely time, space, force, action matter would make more sense. Aren't you going to need some space early on in time to fit force, action and matter into. No time no space - no matter The order is a problem. Genesis is confounded. Apparently the ' incredible mind of God ' is a little confused.
rcn: >LOL... O.K. Maybe I should have said that "it is >obvious in my opinion." Ok, quite fair enough. I have no problem with opinion. I would be interested to know however, what makes it obvious to you that there is malicious *intent* in the theory of evolution -- intent to destroy/kill some other theory. JB PS: I don't claim evolution as the origin of the species btw - I just don't see where your assigned *intent* comes from.
Both of the Genesis creation stories are contradicted by overwhelming scientific evidence. A literal interpretation of those first chapters is indefensible; however, other interpretations (non-literal) can and should be considered by people of faith.
Well, since you are the cosmologist, why don't you present a coherent, airtight explanation of the origin of all things? You can start with the 11-dimensional, multiverse currently held to by the majority of physicists. Please don't forget to include superstrings.
As opposed to the fact that even scientists now are arguing against each other with the multiverses theory, where the models and the reality seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum? Nobody has a clear idea of what happened then. Science extrapolates from the origin, it does not scientifically overwhelm. Follow the analysis of the planetary probes over the last 20 years. Every time a voyager, pioneer, or other passes near a planet or satellite, the most common thing you hear is "we will have to rewrite our books, based on new findings" And starting 30 years ago, science discovered first "dark matter'' and then "dark energy." The result? We were not aware of about 95% of the mass of the universe. Only about 4-5% - the baryonic or visible - universe.
Wtf has that to do with anything, your point being what exactly? rc proposed "a logical sequence" and I put forward my reason for why it does not appear at all logical. Where's your beef with that?