Bible Vs Scientism

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
May 22, 2020
2,382
358
83
I agree that macro-evolution is speculative, but it remains a possible method that God could have used to create.h so that even...

If we have multiple possible interpretations, we can agree that it is a mystery. And from a mystery we can either leave it as it is or speculate to see how the pieces fit together.

We can make a case for why a certain interpretation feels more compelling than another.

It might be the case that one person feels that macroevolution is compelling and another feels the opposite. We can have good points from either side that make their case but at the end of the day because both interpretations are consistent with scripture neither can exclusively speak from the authority of scripture to rule out the other... only by a purported authority or clout of their interpretation of scripture.

I think there is a good amount of room in the conversation to explore different interpretations and I think there is great value in comparing contrasting views. I just don't find it to be a valid argument to claim that scripture necessarily excludes the possibility of macroevolution/transmutation as some users have proposed.

I'm interested in what you mean by the Cambrian explosion and no evolution. I'm not familiar with the premise.
Cambrian explosion is ......."
  1. Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
    The Cambrian explosion, Cambrian radiation, Cambrian diversification, or the Biological Big Bang refers to an interval of time approximately in the Cambrian Period when practically all major animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record.

Not in 2 leg appearance then 3 leg appearance then 4 leg appearance...etc.
God created and they appeared in fossil layers all at once ......as we know them today.

Search and study...very interesting and clearly convincing against evolution...so much even Darwin would again rescind his conclusion of adaptive behavior .................which is what he saw.

start here...https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-cambrian-explosion/

ignore the time lines ...they are not accurate...another subject to discuss...another time.
 

MichaelBoll

Active member
May 1, 2022
168
48
28
I can see that the bait is attached to a hook, and I'm not going to bite.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not going to defend statements I haven't made.

More silly baiting.

Maybe you should stop treating me as though I'm ignorant.
It seems to me that you are so afraid of somehow being "trapped" in your beliefs that you are unable to answer simple questions about the Bible. Notice that all four of your replies above aren't actually replies to things I've asked or claimed, but are instead what I'd call "rescue devices" - seemingly designed to protect you FROM actually answering simple questions.

Here was one of those simple questions:
Do you believe that God has a throne in heaven that is surrounded by the thrones of 24 elders and four living creatures with a bunch of eyes? (Rev 4:4)
It's not a secret that the Bible does say this, right? I was just asking whether or not you believed it. If you think your honest answer to that question is somehow going to trap you, then I feel sad for you.

My answer to it is yes. It is taught in the Bible, and I have no reason to think the 24 elders are metaphors for something else, so yes, I believe that God has a throne in heaven, and His throne is surrounded by the thrones of 24 elders.

Anyway, get back to me if you ever choose to have an actual discussion instead of constantly running away from simple questions and observations I have asked/made. Cheers
 

MichaelBoll

Active member
May 1, 2022
168
48
28
Both are metaphorical and completely impossible in reality.
Both are impossible on a ball. On a flat earth, it is certainly possible for a tree or a mountain to be sufficiently tall that it can be seen from everywhere.

It'd be the same if the earth was a cube. God wouldn't give a dream about a tree being so tall that everyone living on all sides of the cube could see it, right? And Jesus wouldn't say he went to a mountain tall enough to see all of the kingdoms on all sides of the cube, right? Because they'd know that this would be impossible - no matter how tall the tree or mountain was.

But if we lived on a square, then both would be technically possible.

The point is that even if they were boldly exaggerating to make their point, the events would be theoretically possible on a square or a disk - but completely impossible on a cube or a ball. So why even say these things if they were a complete impossibility - even with all the exaggeration one could muster?

Interesting to say the least. Very telling to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
 

MichaelBoll

Active member
May 1, 2022
168
48
28
Genesis 1 does not state "and these things were created spontaneously out of thin air", the creation account only states "these things were made on that day". The Genesis 1 account tells us a chronology of creation but not methodology.

Your interpretation that it was necessarily spontaneous creation is wishful thinking and an example of people like you injecting something into scripture that wasn't there to begin with. Your interpretation that creation was spontaneous is possible but not necessary.
I think the words, "God said let there be... and there was" are pretty straightforward. Of course there are other scriptures outside of Genesis too, such as...

Psalm 33:6-9... By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of His mouth... He spoke, and it was...

Besides, what's the other option, Jocund? If you say God formed our world from already-existing molecules, then what did He form the molecules from? Atoms? From what did God form them? Quarks? What did He form them from? And so on and so on. At some point, you either have to accept that something was formed from nothing - or believe that physical things which are not of God's making have existed from eternity along with God.

So if your only viable option is that something was at some point formed from nothing, then why not just accept the only logical and most straightforward understanding of, "He spoke, and it was"?

And more to the point of this thread, it's abundantly clear that the only reason you have to question the only logical and most straightforward understanding is that you have heard stories from flawed men (most of them godless) about a big bang, billions of years, and common descent evolution, etc.

But prove me wrong. Give me a valid SCRIPTURAL reason why the words, "God spoke, and it was" could reasonably include billions of years of evolution as a possibility.
 

MichaelBoll

Active member
May 1, 2022
168
48
28
This thread should have been called Religious Cults vs Scientism.
You opted out of this discussion of your own free will, right? I can only assume by your comment that you have decided to join back into the discussion. Great!

I have only been parroting what the Bible actually says. Since you have clearly implied that this means I'm of some "Religious Cult", I challenge you to stand and defend that implication by quoting any of my words in this thread that contradict what the Bible actually teaches.

Thanks
 

MichaelBoll

Active member
May 1, 2022
168
48
28
Yes, nothing is impossible for God.

It is NOT "consistent with the evidence to theorize billions of years".
Make up your mind.

Is it possible? Or impossible?
What do you mean? You act as if the two statements I made contradict each other. They don't.
1. "Nothing is impossible for God" is a true statement.
2. "It is NOT consistent with any evidence in the entire realm of science to theorize billions of years" is also a true statement.


Unless there is a passage which clearly indicates spontaneous creation (or something else mutually exclusive to evolution), it remains possible that God used evolution/natural processes in order to create.
There are many scriptures that do just that. But again - we wouldn't even be having this discussion at all if it wasn't for you trying your best to leave open the possibility that the Bible and Scientism can somehow align. They can't and they certainly don't.

Pretend that it was 1000 years ago. Would you and I be having this discussion about the possibility of inserting billions of years or common descent evolution into the words of the Bible? Not a chance.

So again I challenge you to offer any SCRIPTURAL support for billions of years or evolution. Can you do that?
 

MichaelBoll

Active member
May 1, 2022
168
48
28
Nowhere in the Bible does it state these these "day" timeframes were 24 standard hours each.
Of course it does. Let me show you...
1. The very concept and word "day" (Hebrew yowm) was created by God. It refers to a single light/dark cycle on earth - an ongoing 24-hour cycle that God established on the very first day.
2. Any time the word "day" is accompanied by a number or by evening/morning, it always refers to a literal day.
3. Any time the plural word "days" is used, it always refers to literal days.
4. God explicitly equated the six days in which He created our world with the six days the Israelites were to work before taking a day of rest.
 

MichaelBoll

Active member
May 1, 2022
168
48
28
Does your 'Sad' reaction reflect your disappointment at being proven wrong? If not, what was the point?
I didn't put any reaction on your post. And I can only assume that the "Disagree" and the "Sad" were put there by people who know you're wrong. Having or owing 10,000 talents is not a physical impossibility. Some commentators assume from the large debt that the servant in Jesus' parable was a king, prince or governor of a nation that was under the control of the king to whom the money was owed. Here's Barnes' Notes...

"If these were silver talents, as is probable, then the sum owed by the servant...
proves that he was not a domestic, but some tributary prince."
If it were a sum that was physically impossible, then the servant begging for more time to pay it off would be nonsensical - since it would have been impossible for him to do so.

Do you have any examples that actually are physically impossible, like the tall tree and high mountain on a ball earth?
 

Eli1

Well-known member
Apr 5, 2022
3,496
1,220
113
46
This thread should have been called David Koresh vs Richard Dawkings.
 
Jan 14, 2021
1,599
526
113
I think the words, "God said let there be... and there was" are pretty straightforward.
You are approaching this from what you deem to be intuitively the case rather than what is logically necessary or logically possible. You may have a vivid idea in your mind, visualizing how God created things, but that feeling you have is not a good measure of what is logically necessary or logically possible.


Psalm 33:6-9... By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of His mouth... He spoke, and it was...
This is again a description of cause and effect but it does not indicate method. You could assume this is talking about spontaneous creation, you could also assume that there is an unmentioned process that ties the start and finish together. You could leave assumptions behind and accept that both interpretations are possible.

At some point, you either have to accept that something was formed from nothing - or believe that physical things which are not of God's making have existed from eternity along with God.
Creatio ex nihilo isn't an issue for theistic evolution models. Even models like the 'Big Bang' are only able to project backward in time to a certain point. The 'Big Bang' model only points to the beginning of the Universe as it is thought to exist from its current cosmological makeup. If there is an atheist evolution proponent trying to convince you that the Big Bang is necessarily the beginning and nothing came before it, they aren't being true to what the Big Bang model is actually expressing (they are adding assumptions).

If we look at model quantum physics models, matter is thought to be an emergent property basically from an omnipresent formless 'thing' or a 'nothing' that is described in different ways.

We could speculate that the 'thing' that everything emerged from was the breath of God which if it is considered part of God, always existed.

There's different ways to take the creatio ex nihilo and prime mover conversation, but I don't personally see a problem with seeing it either way (creation from nothing or creation from something that always existed). The point of the conversation about evolution isn't even necessarily about the starting conditions, it's about the method between "God commanded" and "it was done" in the case of life and the physical world.

So if your only viable option is that something was at some point formed from nothing, then why not just accept the only logical and most straightforward understanding of, "He spoke, and it was"?
Even if we come to the conclusion that there were necessarily a case of spontaneous creation that does not mean that all other instances of creation would be necessarily spontaneous as well. Even if we establish creatio ex nihilo for the initiation of the universe that would still have no bearing on whether or not evolution was used as a mechanism to create life later on. God's use of supernatural mechanisms does not mean that God could never use natural mechanisms.

it's abundantly clear that the only reason you have to question the only logical and most straightforward understanding is that you have heard stories from flawed men
My point is that spontaneous creation is not the only logical understanding. You may find that interpretation to be the most intuitive or straightforward to you, but that does not speak to what is logically possible or necessary.

If you are familiar with "logos", "pathos", and "ethos", you are presenting a pathos argument whenever you appeal to "straightforwardness" without a deeper context. Your "flawed men" comment is an ethos argument. I am suggesting we approach this from logos... and especially from Logos if you understand what I mean.

You act as if the two statements I made contradict each other. They don't.
Consistency from the context of logic is the absence of contradiction. If something is logically inconsistent, it is not logically possible. If nothing is impossible with God, it follows that He can create things in any logically possible way. That includes spontaneous creation but also includes the use of natural processes such as evolution (unless either method is specifically ruled out).

The concept of evolution is consistent with the evidence (scriptural and empirical) even if we later decided it were uncompelling.

So again I challenge you to offer any SCRIPTURAL support for billions of years or evolution. Can you do that?
So beyond there being no contradiction with evolution, some scriptural concepts that tie into a Christian evolution model are 1) that God decides random events such as lots or dice rolls which ties into a concept of God-guided evolution. And 2) that Job was born from a womb and also created which ties in with creation via natural processes.


The very concept and word "day" (Hebrew yowm) was created by God. It refers to a single light/dark cycle on earth
Except it isn't. There were days before the sun and moon; Gen 2:4's 'day' of creation refers to several of the creation days; Psalm 90:4 also uses day to refer to something other than 24h periods; the length of the day was independent of the sun when the sun stood still in the sky in Joshua 10:13.

"Day" does not necessarily mean 24 hours. And because of passages like Psalm 90:4 it is necessarily the case that "day" does not always refer to 24 hours.
 

stellpony

New member
Jun 7, 2021
12
2
3
I see that science gets more advanced as the years go on, I see that the prof that the earth is much older than 6 to 10,000 years is irrefutable , 150 years ago the belief the earth could be 6000 years old might fly but today it sounds ignorant to even try to say that. There are civilizations easily dated to over 25,000 years, the formation of the great lakes is shown to be 12,000 years ago when north america was covered in ice down to Tennessee. The earth is billions of years old, the universe is billions of year old, I believe there is God and Jesus died for humanity but christian groups need to reevaluate the timeline for the future. Just as things about the bible were discovered and theologies changed I think one day christianity will accept the old earth truth. I wonder about the fosssil record, There is no actual fossil showing evolution from one species to another, so how does the creation story fit into it. There are fossils of dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago, it is a mystery that would be great if the bible could answer it.
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
Which of those is the truth?
Romans
3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
I see that science gets more advanced as the years go on,
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I see that the prof that the earth is much older than 6 to 10,000 years is irrefutable
Really? God's Written Word refutes it. I refute it. Many others here refute it.

today it sounds ignorant to even try to say that.
I say it is ignorant to question God's Word.

There are civilizations easily dated to over 25,000 years
...by a flawed dating system.

theologies changed I think one day christianity will accept the old earth truth.
God's Word has not changed and we will never accept this house-of-cards.

There is no actual fossil showing evolution from one species to another, so how does the creation story fit into it.
This proves that evolution never happened and validates the creation fact.

There are fossils of dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago,
not.

it is a mystery that would be great if the bible could answer it.
The Bible has answered and the truth is crystal clear. Six thousand years ago the universe was created in mature form, chicken before egg.

Romans
3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,439
16,364
113
69
Tennessee
Both are impossible on a ball. On a flat earth, it is certainly possible for a tree or a mountain to be sufficiently tall that it can be seen from everywhere.

It'd be the same if the earth was a cube. God wouldn't give a dream about a tree being so tall that everyone living on all sides of the cube could see it, right? And Jesus wouldn't say he went to a mountain tall enough to see all of the kingdoms on all sides of the cube, right? Because they'd know that this would be impossible - no matter how tall the tree or mountain was.

But if we lived on a square, then both would be technically possible.

The point is that even if they were boldly exaggerating to make their point, the events would be theoretically possible on a square or a disk - but completely impossible on a cube or a ball. So why even say these things if they were a complete impossibility - even with all the exaggeration one could muster?

Interesting to say the least. Very telling to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
New Jerusalem is going to be a cube - 1500 miles width, 1500 miles length, 1500 miles height.