Hot answers tagged

44

The laws of physics are certainly quite different from moral laws. In fact, the Bible never refers to the laws of physics as "laws". We see them as laws, because we are bound by them and are unable to break them. We don't obey them based on our own volition. Moral laws define what we ought to do, but we are under no compulsion to obey them. We have a ...


31

No. The Bible says nothing about global warming either way. Any attempt to twist any scripture to support or deny global warming is pure speculation. Global warming is something that is squarely within the realm of science to support or disprove. We have facts, evidence, and trustworthy (if contradictory) data. It's a matter for scientific inquiry not ...


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, ...


18

The bible has very little to say on the topic. The closest would be Genesis 9:11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth. Even that passage has little relevance to the Global Warming issue today, as no one I know would suggest that Global ...


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 ...


10

That would be one definition of miracles - that they are a suspension of the normal rules of physics and the universe. Otherwise they would be "coincidences" or " explainable anomolies" Miracles are supernatural by nature, and by definition, not explainable by the normal laws of physics. All three of the bullet points you listed are possible explanations, ...


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 don't think many individual denominations have come to a consensus on this question, much less is there a consensus that is representative of collective Christianity. But based on my experience as a scientist and as a life-long Christian, I would suggest that miracles do in fact obey laws of physics that we simply do not yet understand. Consider this. Our ...


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

Your title and question are very different, so I will respond based on the title. You may find this article very interesting: http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d040402.htm Basically, there is no hygienic reason for these dietary rules, as, if a clean animal died on its own and you ate it, then you must wash your clothing and be unclean until evening. (...


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

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

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

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

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 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

I have heard a couple of "biblical" arguments against Global Warming. One is an appeal to God's promise that never again would a global flood destroy all life: Genesis 9:11 (NIV) 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.” Genesis 9:...


5

From Tim Keller: “We modern people think of miracles as the suspension of the natural order, but Jesus meant them to be the restoration of the natural order. The Bible tells us that God did not originally make the world to have disease, hunger, and death in it. Jesus has come to redeem where it is wrong and heal the world where it is broken. His miracles ...


5

It's an attempt to show that the universe, and all it contains, is too orderly to have originated by chance with no intelligent guiding force. It simply implies an intelligent Creator, not necessarily the God of the Bible. In short, it's an argument for creationism, without naming the Creator explicitly, which is what Intelligent Design is. It's not so ...


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 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

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, ...


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