₦airaland Forum

Kay17:
Yet it was explained in details the manner and timing of the creation, this sufficiently conflicts with scientific accounts and scientific assumption of naturalism. The Bible takes creation to be a supernatural activity unlike the scientific theories that claim cosmology is a natural event.

are you aware that the scriptures actually record "morning came evening came, the first day" even before the sun was created?

This simply means that the detailed explanation you see well penned now is mainly a transmission of religious truth not science. There is no morning and evening without a sun, but scriptures record this, this is why christians for centuries (atleast i have read the works of augustine) have believed that while the scriptures do describe true things and events it isn't particularly interested in the science of it or it sequence for that matter.

And yes, creation is anything but natural, i did a little study on the big bang some time ago and i found that the theory itself is self defeating unless the scientist believe that the laws of the universe were suddenly suspended in the earlier times of its existence. I found this interesting amongst other things.

The scientist may assume all he wishes, but i have a feeling that before they finish their arguement about if the bang was true or not, they will still find that their theory lacks something.

Besides, the word "natural" seems very hard to define.

urheme:
A proud and rude antichrist just got missing from romance section,
How the heLl did you find your way into religion section?

*swallows eba*

Niccur haff you chop??

Ubenedictus:
are you aware that the scriptures actually record "morning came evening came, the first day" even before the sun was created?

This simply means that the detailed explanation you see well penned now is mainly a transmission of religious truth not science. There is no morning and evening without a sun, but scriptures record this, this is why christians for centuries (atleast i have read the works of augustine) have believed that while the scriptures do describe true things and events it isn't particularly interested in the science of it or it sequence for that matter.

And yes, creation is anything but natural, i did a little study on the big bang some time ago and i found that the theory itself is self defeating unless the scientist believe that the laws of the universe were suddenly suspended in the earlier times of its existence. I found this interesting amongst other things.

The scientist may assume all he wishes, but i have a feeling that before they finish their arguement about if the bang was true or not, they will still find that their theory lacks something.

Besides, the word "natural" seems very hard to define.

Pls try to be clear. My argument goes together, cosmology is a natural event which is drawn up by the bigban.g and subsequently evolution theories. This goes against the Bible (Conflict 1) because the Bible sees creation as a supernatural event.

Secondly, the Bible explains in details how the Creation took place and in supernatural fashion. Since Genesis 1 talks about cosmology and cosmology is not a religious topic, it is fair to say that Genesis 1 is an attempt at science. If the Bible had restricted itself to moral and ethical tales etc, it would be fair to say it isn't a scientific literature.

The Bible says God created Heaven and Earth (not the Universe) is 7 days which is in stark conflict with our modern scientific theories. The Earth was not formed in 7 days, life on earth did not sprout on just one day.

urheme:
if the evolution theory posit that man evolved from primitive to civilised, I would agree to that.

but that one amoeba changes into an insect and then became some kind of animal, then an ape then a human being. come on,
I no gree at all

Buh u agreed man was made frn dust carved frm d spittle of a so called ''God'' n breath into

Come on Amigo!!

i've been looking for this thread, now i found it.


Pls evolution is not a story, it is a scientific theory.

Kay17:
Pls try to be clear. My argument goes together, cosmology is a natural event which is drawn up by the bigban.g and subsequently evolution theories. This goes against the Bible (Conflict 1) because the Bible sees creation as a supernatural event.

then the big bang itself will be an unsustainable theory. As i said the term natural is pretty hard to define.

Secondly, the Bible explains in details how the Creation took place and in supernatural fashion. Since Genesis 1 talks about cosmology and cosmology is not a religious topic, it is fair to say that Genesis 1 is an attempt at science. If the Bible had restricted itself to moral and ethical tales etc, it would be fair to say it isn't a scientific literature.

i actually disagree, gen1 talks about God ordering creation that is certainly within the realm of religion, science simply study the technique with which the events occur.

As such, i believe that science can only make theories as to how they believe the worls came into existence, science is absolutely incompetent to tell us who brought the world into existence and to attempt to do this will be biting more than it can chew.

The Bible says God created Heaven and Earth (not the Universe) is 7 days which is in stark conflict with our modern scientific theories. The Earth was not formed in 7 days, life on earth did not sprout on just one day.

actually dear "heaven and earth" in that passage means the entire creation, as to when the universe and the term "day" is open to interpretation.

Ubenedictus:
1. then the big bang itself will be an unsustainable theory. As i said the term natural is pretty hard to define.

2. i actually disagree, gen1 talks about God ordering creation that is certainly within the realm of religion, science simply study the technique with which the events occur.
As such, i believe that science can only make theories as to how they believe the worls came into existence, science is absolutely incompetent to tell us who brought the world into existence and to attempt to do this will be biting more than it can chew.

3. actually dear "heaven and earth" in that passage means the entire creation, as to when the universe and the term "day" is open to interpretation.

1. I don't understand you, are you saying because the Big Ban.g is a natural event it can not be a sustainable theory?

2. But both the Bible and Science indulge in cosmology. The fact the bible says God did it and Science has an alternate answer proves a conflict between the Bible and Science.

3. That's your extraneous interpretation.

Kay17:
1. I don't understand you, are you saying because the Big Ban.g is a natural event it can not be a sustainable theory?

have you read up on the big bang?

2. But both the Bible and Science indulge in cosmology. The fact the bible says God did it and Science has an alternate answer proves a conflict between the Bible and Science.

that is the point on what pope francis said, he doesn't see any conflict.

3. That's your extraneous interpretation.

this is your opinion.

Ubenedictus:
have you read up on the big bang?

that is the point on what pope francis said, he doesn't see any conflict.

this is your opinion.

Ubenedictus, I don't understand you, are you questioning the validity of the Big Ban.g theory the Pope endorses or you are saying the Genesis account is not at all in conflict with the Big Ban.g?!

Kay17:
Ubenedictus, I don't understand you, are you questioning the validity of the Big Ban.g theory the Pope endorses or you are saying the Genesis account is not at all in conflict with the Big Ban.g?!

i am saying that the genesis account is compartible with the big bang.

I am also saying that the big bang will be the most ridiculous of hypothesis unless God is factored in.

Ubenedictus:
i am saying that the genesis account is compartible with the big bang.

I am also saying that the big bang will be the most ridiculous of hypothesis unless God is factored in.

So where do you factor God in the Big ban.g?!

Kay17:
So where do you factor God in the Big ban.g?!

as the first cause

urheme:
if the evolution theory posit that man evolved from primitive to civilised, I would agree to that.

but that one amoeba changes into an insect and then became some kind of animal, then an ape then a human being. come on,
I no gree at all

That's why it's called hand waving. Any decent biology professor would always preface that information with a hand waving gesture.

Ubenedictus:
as the first cause

then it makes the Big Ban.g a supernatural event.

Kay17:
then it makes the Big Ban.g a supernatural event.

that is about right

@ubenedictus

The big ban.g theory - the supernatural event - which you canvass for is not the theory endorsed by the cosmologists. God is not in their own theory. Except you mean to make your own addition to their theory.

Kay17:
@ubenedictus

The big ban.g theory - the supernatural event - which you canvass for is not the theory endorsed by the cosmologists. God is not in their own theory. Except you mean to make your own addition to their theory.

actually there are many scientist who have no problem with God in that theory, i am sure a google search will show that much. I am not making an addition, i am accepting that a form of big bang may be correct. Put simply in the the words of pope francis, if the big bang happened then God had a hand in it.

;DLobaton! Lobaton! Lobaton!