I asking if you could please explain the existence of laws of nature and uniformity in your worldview?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Are you asking for proof that these laws exist? Are you asking how these laws would come to exist in the first place? I'm guessing you mean the second, in which case, they're simply properties of the universe. Another universe may have occurred with vastly different laws and mechanics, but we happen to live in a universe that has these laws. I'm not sure why you need a "why", it's a "just is" type thing.
Also so I can better understand your statement, please explain God making things appear counter to how they actually happened.
All the evidence we have points to evolution. All the evidence we have points to an old earth and a vastly older universe. All the evidence we have points to no supernatural meddling in the universe. All the evidence we have points to an indifferent universe that operates according to physical laws and doesn't care one whit if you live, die, succeed, or suffer. If you disbelieve any of these things and argue that there is a God who affects things in the universe, that the earth is young, that life was created as is...then God made up evidence for us to find so as to deceive us.
quote:I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Are you asking for proof that these laws exist? Are you asking how these laws would come to exist in the first place? I'm guessing you mean the second, in which case, they're simply properties of the universe.
I assume you realize that this is a philosophical position, not a scientific one? The founders of modern science had a very different philosophical position, of course. They believed that the regularity of nature was due to the consistency of God. They coined the phrase "natural law" as an analogy to God's moral law; natural law was God's decree as to how He would normally run His creation. Both philosophical positions are consistent with modern science.
To relate this to the thread topic: From a biblical perspective, if evolution is a law of nature, then an evolved universe is no less the work of God and is no less glorifying to Him than a fiat creation.
quote:I agree. Apologetics, however, seemed to be saying that natural laws couldn't happen without God, meaning the natural laws were themselves inconsistent with science.
Perhaps I misunderstood him? I though he was simply speaking from a biblical worldview where natural law is not a "property of the universe" (your words) but is simply our description of God's normal activity in His creation. In a biblical worldview, the universe and its natural laws cannot function and cannot even continue to exist without God. Natural laws cause nothing; they are merely descriptive of God's normal activity.
quote:I was curious and starting reading here and I see no one thinking about how God could have made an ever changing universe; that would seem far more impressive and interesting in my view.
God did make an ever changing universe, just not one controlled by a process of an impersonal biological evolution. Have you never heard of rapid adaptation? It is a process where by species adapt to environmental changes from generation to generation depending on the ecological stresses brought on by an ever changing planet. What is key though is that they never evolve into a different species nor do these adaptations take the millions of years that evolutions suggests they do.
quote:Church teachings have changed over time as the Magesterium have reinterpreted the Bible and as such I feel it would be possible that the Bible is the Truth written in a manner suited for the people it was intended to be read by: not the scientific Man of today but the spiritual Man of the past. It seems a stretch to take the Bibles word as complete scientific fact if you then reject other scientific fact and evidence.
This is gibberish and makes no rational sense at all. If this so called magisterium has reinterpreted the bible to serve its purposes over time, then the bible itself would not represent any lasting truth. The reality is that no matter how many men from however many man made churches corrupt and pervert Gods word to serve their own selfish ends, the bible itself remains the absolute unvarnished and untarnished truth as He intended it to be. It is an absolute truth that no amount of misinterpreting can succeed in truly corrupting.
Its like when people deny that Jesus is the Messiah/Savior of Humanity; all of the arguments and insistences against His eternal position by FINITE MEN does nothing at all to actually diminish His place as the Son of God and the Messiah. All that remains for the scoffer is the ultimate shock that awaits them seconds after they shed this flesh and finally learn the absolute and eternal truth that evaded them for their complete lifetimes. So shall it be for the evolutionist.
quote:From the point of view of early man, created by God in His image if you will, the world began around 6000 years ago, a time they could understand, and creatures were described as they were at his time. God created plenty of mysteries for people to explore, His very nature being the greatest example, and it seems a bit much to assume that He decided to reveal Creation in complete crystal detail.
You speak of early Man as if he were a simpleton, but of course that is what your evolution teaches you. You see them as stone age barbarian cave dwellers who were illiterate and ignorant. You fail to appreciate the advanced nature of the pre-flood world which this Age has forgotten.
Have you forgotten that God had Adam name each of the animals on Earth as He brought them to him one by one? And just think, that was shortly after being created in Gods image. So Adam was created with wisdom and perfect knowledge that we can only imagine in this Age. Also, consider this, Noah either knew Adam personally or learned from men like Methuselah, Enoch and Job who did know him personally.
You all think that the knowledge in the OT was fictional rantings of simple men who sought power over ignorant people, yet given the longevity of Adams immediate pre-flood descendants, the knowledge of Genesis was as widely disseminated as your family history is going back the last hundred years via oral tradition.
And how about this site estimated to be 17,000 years old.
Tiahuanacu (also called Tiwanaku) is a mystery because of its age (estimated to be 17,000 years) and the peculiar stone technology. Today there is little doubt that Tiahuanaco was a major sacred ceremonial centre and focal point of a culture that spread across much of the region. The ancient people built a stone pyramid known as the Akapana
Their have been many more remains of civilizations which predate the great flood but are much to sophisticated and massive to have been built by the stone age barbarians that evolutionists assume existed back then. Oh, one more thing; the guestimated age of man since Adam is just that, a guess! Nowhere does the bible actually date the age of humanity at 6000 years.
Their have been many more remains of civilizations which predate the great flood but are much to sophisticated and massive to have been built by the stone age barbarians that evolutionists assume existed back then.
Back in the real world, evolutionists accept the facts of archaeology and its dating methods and YECs reject them.
Their have been many more remains of civilizations which predate the great flood ...
BTW, don't creationists usually pretend that deposition of rock-forming sediments was a consequence of Noah's Flood? Any civilization that predated the flood would therefore have to be at the bottom of all the sedimentary rocks.
Your acceptance of evidence is determined by it agreeing with your biasses.
Why is it that you people are completely incapable of actually dealing with and responding to the evidence and issues I raise rather than just scoffing at and insulting them?
The point of my argument was to say that a complete pre-flood civilization existed which produced massive cities on the scale of what exists today. I believe that rather than the mechanical technology we currently enjoy, they accomplished great feats with brain power that we can't even imagine in this Age.
Rather than even try to respond to the question of who and how these ancient structures came to be, you just scoff at them even though dating methods which you accept as accurate determined their ages. Your acceptance of evidence is totally biassed and dependent upon it agreeing with your world view. If your same accepted dating methods lead to evidence which contradicts your world view, you immediately disregard it and scoff at it.
How convenient it must be for your side to be able to accept and reject evidence depending on whether it fits into your limited world view or not.
Re: Your acceptance of evidence is determined by it agreeing with your biasses.
The point of my argument was to say that a complete pre-flood civilization existed which produced massive cities on the scale of what exists today
I've just returned to this forum after several years away, so maybe you've already done this in another thread, but what is your evidence of this? Surely, if there were cities of the scale of NYC, Mexico City, and Paris thousands of years ago, there must be tons and tons and tons of physical evidence. I mean, where are their garbage dumps?
See the links in my post #126, do you think those cities and monolithic structures were built by stone age cave dwellers as you evolutionists assert WITH ALLEGED EVIDENCE occupied the world between 10 and 20,000 years ago? The whole reason you all universally reject these archeological findings and never discuss them at all is because they don't fit into your world view.
Just look at the detail and size/weight of these stone artifacts in Puma Punku dating back 17,000 years according to your own accepted dating methods. http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_6.htm#Pumapunku How do you explain the existence of these stone age era monoliths? The answer is, you don't even try to. You just scoff and mock the links as if the evidence itself was just made up.
What I marvel at is that some of these links reveal their denial of pre-flood knowledge to build these civilizations by going so far as to attribute the knowledge to build these cities as coming from ALIENS. Remember, this is your so called intellectual and secular humanist side claiming this, not mine.
See the links in my post #126, do you think those cities and monolithic structures were built by stone age cave dwellers as you evolutionists assert WITH ALLEGED EVIDENCE occupied the world between 10 and 20,000 years ago?
We don't assert they were built by cave dwellers between 10 and 20 thousand years ago because they were built after that.
he whole reason you all universally reject these archeological findings and never discuss them at all is because they don't fit into your world view.
All archealogical findings of these structures show they were built after the last ice age.
Just look at the detail and size/weight of these stone artifacts in Puma Punku dating back 17,000 years according to your own accepted dating methods.
It wasn't dated that early it was dated to A.D. 536–600. Link.
How do you explain the existence of these stone age era monoliths?
They aren't stone age era.
The answer is, you don't even try to. You just scoff and mock the links as if the evidence itself was just made up.
No, unlike your date.
What I marvel at is that some of these links reveal their denial of pre-flood knowledge to build these civilizations by going so far as to attribute the knowledge to build these cities as coming from ALIENS.
Yes, some people really do imagine the weirdest things, don't they?
Remember, this is your so called intellectual and secular humanist side claiming this, not mine.
No it isn't. It's the loony secularist (or maybe some theists as well) that claim this.
How do you explain the detailed and highly intricate design and weight of these interlocking stone pieces which made up the wall around the site?
"How were such titanic blocks of stone brought to the top of the mountain from the quarries many miles away? How were they cut and fitted? How were they raised and put in place? Now one knows, no one can even guess. There are archaeologists, scientists, who would have us believe that the dense, hard andesite rock was cut, surfaced and faced by means of stone or bronze tools. Such an explanation is so utterly preposterous that it is not even worthy of serious consideration. No one ever has found anywhere any stone tool or implement that would cut or chip the andesite, and no bronze ever made will make any impression upon it."