Hot answers tagged

27

God and Stephen Hawking, by John C. Lennox, is a popular direct reply to The Grand Design. Alister McGrath calls it "a brilliant response," and the book won an Award of Merit in Christianity Today's 2012 Book Awards. Whether it "makes sense," as you say, to Hawking, is perhaps debatable. But Lennox is no slouch: he's a Professor at Oxford University, ...


12

Young-Earth Creationists tend to agree that the Ice Age(s*) occurred after the Great Flood, but they have a variety of proposed explanations that seek to reconcile the Biblical record and artifactual evidence. From Answer in Genesis's article When Was the Ice Age in Biblical History?: Editor’s note: Biblical creationists have not reached a consensus on ...


9

The bible is rather emphatic on the point actually. The universe we live in was not only created at God's command but it is sustained constantly through his active will. This sustainer is Jesus Christ: Colossians 1:15-17 (ESV) 15  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16  For by him all things were created, in ...


8

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Many people believe wrongly that Galileo proved the heliocentricity. Galileo could not answer the strongest argument against the heliocentric theory, which was made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: i.e. ...


8

Yes, the term is applicable to theology. Let's break it down to see why. The first word is science. At its root, the word simply means knowledge. Many people forget that and the word has been somewhat hijacked to mean exclusively study about the natural world derived from facts and experiments, or more properly, the scientific method. The scientific method ...


7

I think you are misunderstanding the idea of a scientific theory being "true" until it's disproven. The scientific method progresses by people proposing theories about the universe and how it works. For a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. This means that you can do an experiment that disproves the theory. For example I could have some ideas ...


7

Here's what Ken Ham had to say regarding the news of this discovery: No scientist witnessed the origin of man, and evolutionary scientists only believe there were intermediate evolutionary links between an ape-like ancestor and man because they have disregarded God’s Word and substituted their own fallible opinions in its place ... The ...


7

The only error here that needs resolution is your false premise and incorrect reading of the text. The Bible is not a scientific journal and includes many different literary genres. Your mistake is reading it in a way it was not meant to be read. Even today with our advanced technical and scientific understanding of the universe, it is common to speak of "...


6

I assume you're talking specifically about his conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of Copernican astronomy. If that's the case, there were several verses. 1 Chronicles 16:30 Psalm 93:1 Psalm 96:10 Psalm 104:5 Ecclesiastes 1:5 These are all verses that, taken out of context, seem to indicate that the earth is stationary. However, this ...


6

Summary: The answer boils down to a matter of whether the Catholic Church should retain the power to dictate what is "truth" or not. Longer answer: The Catholic Church was used to have a monopoly on the interpretation of the Bible, and since God was the ultimate authority and truth, in practice the church had the monopoly on all kinds of truths in ...


6

In Genesis 7:11, we read: 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. The implication here is that water came from two directions - springs from the deep (i.e. underground water) and from above (the ...


6

There is the classic question of where Cain's wife came from and who the people he feared would kill him were. One answer to that question is that they were other hominids alive at the time. Some, like Hugh Ross and his ministry Reasons to Believe (RTB), suggest that God used hominids to prepare the way and help other species adapt and that if he had not ...


6

Creationism is built on the assumption that there is a God, and the assumption that this God is the God described in the Bible. If you don't believe either of these things are true, then you cannot logically believe creation science. However, if you believe that both these things are true, then creation science becomes a logical possibility (although not ...


6

I had heard about NASA finding a missing day that proved that the earth stood still, however it does not seem to be true. There does not seem to be any evidence other than the Word of God, and I cannot see how there really would be evidence of this.


6

Catholicism believes in a personal God - a rational being who loves, creates as a voluntary act, and cares for His creation. Einstein found himself unable to believe in such a God: "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously." (letter quoted in Hoffmann, Banesh: Albert Einstein Creator ...


5

I can't find any more specific polling, but from this ongoing Gallop Poll: Only 40% of all Americans believe in a strict Young Earth Creation model (be that Genesis or otherwise) - the majority support some form of theistic evolution or natural evolution. When you look at those with post-graduate education, nearly 50% hold a theistic evolution view, with ...


5

"God is not controlled by laws of science" I don't know whether you can share this idea with me or not. The truth is, science cannot explain everything. Simple things like dreams, thoughts, feelings and emotions cannot be explained by science. Science can only understand the things that human can see, touch, feel and hear. I don't think the law of science as ...


5

I have a Ph.D. in Mathematical Physics, and have thought about these questions for some time. I am going to write down a few of my thoughts as an answer. The basic question is, it seems to me, "How can we reconcile the biblical creation account with its (at least literal) account of a young earth, with scientific evidence for an old earth?" Firstly, I ...


5

The answer to the question, "Does the Bible say the earth is 6000 years old?" is no. The Bible does not directly give the age of the earth explicitly. What the Bible does do is give a chronology in Genesis 5 that, according to some calculations (most famously Bishop Usshar who derived that the earth was created on the evening of October 23, 4004 BC ) ...


5

It's not a matter of theories or facts, it's a matter of personal worldviews. All people (whether scientists or not) interpret facts through their individual worldviews. A person with a creationist worldview will interpret a fact one way, while a person with an evolutionist worldview will interpret the same fact quite differently. For example, in 1963, ...


5

Whether or not you would consider this as scientific evidence, we only have to look at recent history to find an answer. The Dust bowl of the 1930's came about because the land was continuously farmed, and the nutrients of the land were depleted to a point that it could no longer support vegetation. All things need to have their nutrients renewed ...


5

Although I am not comfortable thinking of the account of God's creation of Eve as being in any way allegorical or mythical, I do, however, think of the account as a kind of artistic and symbolic version of what actually transpired when God created another human being--a female human being--in His image who would complement the male of the species whom He had ...


5

The "'non-overlapping magesteria' model for the relationship between science and religion" is not Catholic. In fact, it is condemned as a part of the heresy of Modernism, what Pope St. Pius X called the "synthesis of all heresies" in his 1907 encyclical condemning Modernism, Pascendi Dominici gregis (my emphases):Faith and Science 16. Having reached this ...


4

First, note that the "laws of nature" are not actually laws; they do not cause anything and they are not binding on anything. They are descriptions of the normal order. The "Law of Gravity" has never caused anything to happen -- it merely describes what we observe. We always describe laws in terms of a closed system. If you add a new input, our expected ...


4

Of course when we see a tree we see God holding together, beneath the subatomic level, all the elements necessary for a tree to be. If God ever decided no longer to sustain the tree, a flower, a cloud, the Devil, then it would cease to exist. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his ...


4

It depends on the literalist. A Young Earth Creationist would directly challenge the scientific method used to define the speed of light and therefore the light year. Other literalists might shrug and say who can know the mind of God. (Romans 11:34) Also, when arguing the age of the universe old/young universe proponents often argue that it is a cumulative ...


4

The Star which led the wise men was a new Heavenly body. Matthew chapter 2:KJV 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. 7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. The Star may not have been a Star, but a (...


4

There are at least two possible answers to the question. Some Christians consider the stories in Genesis to be allegorical, describing what God did in language and concepts that the original audience would understand. Since the original audience was neither aware of DNA, or mitochondria, this would have been a detail that obscured the message. Those who ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible