Coming Full Circle: Christianity to Atheism

[Xru]

The major problem with Genesis in figuring it out is that we do not have much of that background material that exist today for the NT. We have tons of written material outside the Bible that gives us the culture and as you pointed out, we have living people that help us understand the NT from the 1st century. When it comes to much of the OT, we do not have nearly as much background material to help us out and thus I find that is where much of our confusion about it comes from.

Right . . . I have some to read books on it but ya. . .

[Cerebrum123]

Oh you are quite correct there, just because Augustine took a less literal view of Genesis doesn't make it correct. Augustine is a huge writer that wrote tons of stuff. Many of his most popular works are on newadvent, if you're interested. Anyway, why do we need a 6,000 year old earth in order for Christianity to be true? The physical evidence against such a view can not be denied. Geology, physics, biology, astronomy, etc all keep giving us evidence for a much older universe and earth. Likewise, I find the evidence for the resurrection too strong to ignore, so what do I do? I ensure that the truth is upheld because God is not afraid of truth and my faith nor your faith should be based off the age of the earth. It should be based upon Christ first and foremost because it easily creates a stumbling block when we begin to base our faith off from such non-essential details.

I never said that we need a 6,000 year old earth in order for Christianity to be true. I agree with most of what you said this time. I'm not very trusting of the scientific "consensus", and I know that the things we think we know in science can be turned upside down pretty easily. I'm primarily seeing this as an authority of Scripture matter, and not one of salvation. I also think that the OT lays the groundwork for the Gospel message, and without this foundation, then things are going to start to collapse. I'll give one simple example here. If Noah's flood was local, but still historical in the other details, then God made a promise that He didn't keep. He promised not to destroy the earth by flooding again, if it's local, and the word erets only focusing on the nearby land, then any local flood would be a breaking of this promise. If God can't be trusted to keep His promises, then why should we trust Him when it comes to salvation? Also Jesus said "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe, how then are you going to believe me if I speak of heavenly things?". I feel that in Genesis we are told a few "earthly things", and many people are outright rejecting these things, and this makes them more likely to reject "heavenly things" like the Resurrection. Luke 16:31: ‘He (Abraham) said to him (the rich man in Hell), “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”
Wouldn't Genesis fit under things that Moses wrote? Have you heard of Creation Ministries International? My views line up with theirs pretty well, so if you're interested more in what I see of this topic, then their site creation.com, would be a good place to go. In fact J.P. Holding's site is often mentioned there, and I believe I have seen links from his site to theirs(I'm pretty sure I saw a link on his site that led there, I could be wrong, my short term memory isn't what it used to be). They are all about trying to figure out what is actually intended to be understood from what is written in Genesis. They also have articles that discuss the science for many age of the earth issues.

[lilpixieofterror]

I never said that we need a 6,000 year old earth in order for Christianity to be true.

So we are in agreement here.

I agree with most of what you said this time. I'm not very trusting of the scientific "consensus", and I know that the things we think we know in science can be turned upside down pretty easily.

Actually, that is quite rare. The biggest example I can think of is when the Heliocentric system finally became accepted over the Geocentric system. However;, that is quite rare most are supplemented and I'll explain below:

1. Despite popular belief, Newton's theories are still used to this day, General Relativity simply built onto the theories Newton brought forth. Even today, Newton's calculations are still used because they are easier to use then the much more complex General Relativity ones in cases where it really doesn't matter.
2. Genetics has done quite a bit to explain more about the specific mechanisms that evolutionary theory has stated for nearly 150 years. Genetics didn't replace evolutionary theory, it supplemented it with better information and a better mechanism about how mutations are passed from parent to child and how they are created to start with.
3. Despite popular belief, alchemy didn't just disappear into historical bliss, but modern chemistry is what it became for you see. The experiments that alchemist performed started to show it was impossible to turn lead into gold so thus they moved to something else and formed the foundation of modern chemistry. Without their help, modern chemistry and medicine might not be what it is today.

Likewise, Louis Pasteur's experiments and Hubble's observations about the expanding universe are still valid to this day, even though those were done a century ago. I highly doubt that there is going to be some grand overturning of science to a YEC view of the cosmos because that has no historical evidence to back up. Most scientific understandings are supplemented or expanded, not totally shot down. If you would like to know more about this though, I would advice asking rogue or Jim on the Natural Science forums. They have been quite helpful to me in discovering why this argument isn't as strong as it first appears.

I'm primarily seeing this as an authority of Scripture matter, and not one of salvation.

Yet the scriptures tell us that the creation speaks of the majesty of God and the wonders he brings about. I know in many of my endeavors, I have been amazed at how often they do that. Some like to claim there is a war of science vs religion, but science hasn't been too kind to the philosophy of atheist either. You see, many skeptics used to believe that the universe was static and always existed in the state it is in. The past century of scientific understanding has driven the death nail though this theory and there is no denial that the universe as we know it, begin to exist at a point in time and will end, at a point in time. Interestingly, this is quite in line with the philosophy of the Christian, since we believe that in the beginning God created all we know, but we have a higher hope for we know that the universe as we know it will end, but in it's place will be something far greater. See, that is a pretty wide open door for us to share the hope of Christ with others for as we find, everything is meaningless, without a knowledge of God.

I also think that the OT lays the groundwork for the Gospel message, and without this foundation, then things are going to start to collapse. I'll give one simple example here. If Noah's flood was local, but still historical in the other details, then God made a promise that He didn't keep. He promised not to destroy the earth by flooding again, if it's local, and the word erets only focusing on the nearby land, then any local flood would be a breaking of this promise.

Not really since we haven't seen flooding of the scale in thousands of years, plus we are also far better prepared and in a far better state of preparation then they were back in that era. We have weather satellites to watch flood zones with, we have warning systems in place, and we do not have rapidly rising waters that often times flooded and destroyed so much in that era. If you're interested in this, there's actually been discoveries of human settlements under what is the modern day black sea. In this area, it was dry until until the ending of the ice ages and the rising waters started to reclaim what it once lost (for the Mediterranean and Black sea were largely dry before they were re filled). Many cases, it ended in massive, fast floods, that destroyed everything in their path. Floods of that strength haven't happened on that kind of scale, since that time. So you could argue that God kept his promise. Plus, it said God wouldn't actively seek to flood us out by water, it doesn't say no floods would never happen again (in fact, it would be a disaster if there were no longer any floods since earth would eventually became a barren waste land).

If God can't be trusted to keep His promises, then why should we trust Him when it comes to salvation?

Has their been floods on that scale since that time? No. Does it say that no floods would ever happen again? No. I don't think you really get the scale that the flooding is talking about. Thousands of square miles found themselves under water in a pretty short amount of time (and just imagine those that were camped near these sites at).

Also Jesus said "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe, how then are you going to believe me if I speak of heavenly things?". I feel that in Genesis we are told a few "earthly things", and many people are outright rejecting these things, and this makes them more likely to reject "heavenly things" like the Resurrection. Luke 16:31: ‘He (Abraham) said to him (the rich man in Hell), “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”

Funny, I reject a literal creation account and a literal flood, but still believe, so perhaps Jesus was talking about something else? I tend to believe Jesus was talking about the easier parts of his Gospel to get or the miracles he performed and if these people do not understand those plain messages in front of them, they will never understand the deeper parts of the Gospel. Also, I accept the 10 commandments my friend, I enjoy the prophets of old and love reading what they have to say, so I don't think Jesus was saying you have to accept a literal flood, literal creation, literal tower of babel, etc. He was talking about the words and spiritual things they have to teach us. In other words, it has nothing to do with the all or nothing view of the text, it simply has to do with if you can't even understand the basics, you will never understand what is beneath.

Wouldn't Genesis fit under things that Moses wrote?

Yes, but why does it automatically mean it must all have to be taken literal? Just because a story is not literal, doesn't mean it can't teach us a thing for I find Jeremiah one of my favorite prophets of the OT and he was among the most metaphorical of them all. I am not saying to throw the stories out the window, I am saying they are good for teaching us and instruction.

Have you heard of Creation Ministries International?

Yes and I have written things against their views and so has many others. Some things they get right, but when I read many of their stuff on science, I cringe and feel almost sorry for them having to defend a literal view of Genesis that simply can't be backed.

My views line up with theirs pretty well, so if you're interested more in what I see of this topic, then their site creation.com, would be a good place to go. In fact J.P. Holding's site is often mentioned there, and I believe I have seen links from his site to theirs(I'm pretty sure I saw a link on his site that led there, I could be wrong, my short term memory isn't what it used to be). They are all about trying to figure out what is actually intended to be understood from what is written in Genesis. They also have articles that discuss the science for many age of the earth issues.

JPH is more interested in the historical and the anthropology side of the Bible then he is in the scientific side of the debate. Plus he specifically said it doesn't matter to him if YEC, OEC, ID, TE, etc was true or not. He doesn't find the issue that important. Also I didn't arrive at this position because I was unaware of the views present. I am quite aware of what creationism says and I also am quite aware of how inconsistent their method often is. I pointed out two examples of their inconsistencies within the Bible itself. I am aware of no modern creationist that supports a geocentric system, but back 600 years ago that was one of the arguments given against a heliocentric model. It was only when the geocentric model was render undefendable that interpretations begin to go more figurative and less literal. The same thing we find with the fixed dome that is suppose to be above our heads. Christians and Jews

[Cerebrum123]

So we are in agreement here.



Actually, that is quite rare. The biggest example I can think of is when the Heliocentric system finally became accepted over the Geocentric system. However;, that is quite rare most are supplemented and I'll explain below:

1. Despite popular belief, Newton's theories are still used to this day, General Relativity simply built onto the theories Newton brought forth. Even today, Newton's calculations are still used because they are easier to use then the much more complex General Relativity ones in cases where it really doesn't matter.
2. Genetics has done quite a bit to explain more about the specific mechanisms that evolutionary theory has stated for nearly 150 years. Genetics didn't replace evolutionary theory, it supplemented it with better information and a better mechanism about how mutations are passed from parent to child and how they are created to start with.
3. Despite popular belief, alchemy didn't just disappear into historical bliss, but modern chemistry is what it became for you see. The experiments that alchemist performed started to show it was impossible to turn lead into gold so thus they moved to something else and formed the foundation of modern chemistry. Without their help, modern chemistry and medicine might not be what it is today.

Likewise, Louis Pasteur's experiments and Hubble's observations about the expanding universe are still valid to this day, even though those were done a century ago. I highly doubt that there is going to be some grand overturning of science to a YEC view of the cosmos because that has no historical evidence to back up. Most scientific understandings are supplemented or expanded, not totally shot down. If you would like to know more about this though, I would advice asking rogue or Jim on the Natural Science forums. They have been quite helpful to me in discovering why this argument isn't as strong as it first appears.



Yet the scriptures tell us that the creation speaks of the majesty of God and the wonders he brings about. I know in many of my endeavors, I have been amazed at how often they do that. Some like to claim there is a war of science vs religion, but science hasn't been too kind to the philosophy of atheist either. You see, many skeptics used to believe that the universe was static and always existed in the state it is in. The past century of scientific understanding has driven the death nail though this theory and there is no denial that the universe as we know it, begin to exist at a point in time and will end, at a point in time. Interestingly, this is quite in line with the philosophy of the Christian, since we believe that in the beginning God created all we know, but we have a higher hope for we know that the universe as we know it will end, but in it's place will be something far greater. See, that is a pretty wide open door for us to share the hope of Christ with others for as we find, everything is meaningless, without a knowledge of God.



Not really since we haven't seen flooding of the scale in thousands of years, plus we are also far better prepared and in a far better state of preparation then they were back in that era. We have weather satellites to watch flood zones with, we have warning systems in place, and we do not have rapidly rising waters that often times flooded and destroyed so much in that era. If you're interested in this, there's actually been discoveries of human settlements under what is the modern day black sea. In this area, it was dry until until the ending of the ice ages and the rising waters started to reclaim what it once lost (for the Mediterranean and Black sea were largely dry before they were re filled). Many cases, it ended in massive, fast floods, that destroyed everything in their path. Floods of that strength haven't happened on that kind of scale, since that time. So you could argue that God kept his promise. Plus, it said God wouldn't actively seek to flood us out by water, it doesn't say no floods would never happen again (in fact, it would be a disaster if there were no longer any floods since earth would eventually became a barren waste land).



Has their been floods on that scale since that time? No. Does it say that no floods would ever happen again? No. I don't think you really get the scale that the flooding is talking about. Thousands of square miles found themselves under water in a pretty short amount of time (and just imagine those that were camped near these sites at).



Funny, I reject a literal creation account and a literal flood, but still believe, so perhaps Jesus was talking about something else? I tend to believe Jesus was talking about the easier parts of his Gospel to get or the miracles he performed and if these people do not understand those plain messages in front of them, they will never understand the deeper parts of the Gospel. Also, I accept the 10 commandments my friend, I enjoy the prophets of old and love reading what they have to say, so I don't think Jesus was saying you have to accept a literal flood, literal creation, literal tower of babel, etc. He was talking about the words and spiritual things they have to teach us. In other words, it has nothing to do with the all or nothing view of the text, it simply has to do with if you can't even understand the basics, you will never understand what is beneath.



Yes, but why does it automatically mean it must all have to be taken literal? Just because a story is not literal, doesn't mean it can't teach us a thing for I find Jeremiah one of my favorite prophets of the OT and he was among the most metaphorical of them all. I am not saying to throw the stories out the window, I am saying they are good for teaching us and instruction.



Yes and I have written things against their views and so has many others. Some things they get right, but when I read many of their stuff on science, I cringe and feel almost sorry for them having to defend a literal view of Genesis that simply can't be backed.



JPH is more interested in the historical and the anthropology side of the Bible then he is in the scientific side of the debate. Plus he specifically said it doesn't matter to him if YEC, OEC, ID, TE, etc was true or not. He doesn't find the issue that important. Also I didn't arrive at this position because I was unaware of the views present. I am quite aware of what creationism says and I also am quite aware of how inconsistent their method often is. I pointed out two examples of their inconsistencies within the Bible itself. I am aware of no modern creationist that supports a geocentric system, but back 600 years ago that was one of the arguments given against a heliocentric model. It was only when the geocentric model was render undefendable that interpretations begin to go more figurative and less literal. The same thing we find with the fixed dome that is suppose to be above our heads. Christians and Jews

I didn't say any specific things in science that have been turned upside down. You extended what I am guessing you thought I was referring to and tried to refute it. Do you know exactly when Noah's flood occurred? If you don't then how can you know that one of equal size hasn't happened since then? Also is there even any evidence that a local flood that lasted a year happened? Scientists and therefore the science they perform are fallible, and I will give a specific example of this. Due to evolutionary teaching it was once taught that the human spine was ill equipped to handle bipedal motion, and that the best treatment for back pain was to try and reduce the lordotic curve. It turns out that this is pretty much the opposite of what should be done in back treatment. I believe the Bible isn't fallible, and that a more literal interpretation does more justice to the texts. You see YEC being inconsistent with the Bible, and well they think the same when it comes to both OEC and TE, so maybe there is more to it than we realize. At CMI, they are at least trying to be entirely consistent with the way they approach the Bible. Also using the earth as a reference frame, such as sunrise and sunset, is completely ok in todays world without implying that the sun revolves around the earth. You're comparing apples and oranges here. Also allowing for human limits, isn't the same as allowing for error.
I didn't say that someone could reject a literal interpretation of Genesis, and would not be able to believe in Jesus because of this. I am very glad that you have accepted Christ, but I still think that TE isn't very consistent with the Bible. I believe that the Bible is it's own best interpreter, and when you look at it as a whole, it certainly seems to support a more literal view of Genesis. Now I don't have the qualifications or the knowledge to debate the science, but I am doing what I can to increase my knowledge. So far whenever I have been given a resource by someone who believes evolution, it has been full of lies, strawmen, and vitriol. This isn't exactly the best way to try and win someone over to your view. Also I have seen you say many times that Jorge is putting his interpretation of the Bible first, and that maybe his interpretation is wrong. I would say that maybe the interpretation of science has been wrong, and when you start with a view that was originally intended to shut God out, then I believe you are more likely to make faulty interpretations of what God has made.

[Xru]

I'm not very trusting of the scientific "consensus", and I know that the things we think we know in science can be turned upside down pretty easily

Very wise move!

[pancreasman]

I never said that we need a 6,000 year old earth in order for Christianity to be true. I agree with most of what you said this time. I'm not very trusting of the scientific "consensus", and I know that the things we think we know in science can be turned upside down pretty easily.

I have to agree with LPOT here. Paradigm shift in science is really quite rare, especially since we nailed down rigorous methodology in the 20th century. Most often what happens is that ideas may change on specific phenomena but the large scale theories of science tend to be very robust.

[lilpixieofterror]

I didn't say any specific things in science that have been turned upside down. You extended what I am guessing you thought I was referring to and tried to refute it.

So what specifically do you not trust about the natural sciences and what specifically do you think they got wrong on this issue and why?

Do you know exactly when Noah's flood occurred? If you don't then how can you know that one of equal size hasn't happened since then?

I have not a clue Cere, but I know that a global flood does not show up in any geological record and there is nothing to show there was a global flood in the past billion years because we know what flood zones look like. We have not found one geologically speaking and trust me, people tried to find it. The earliest geologist went out to seek it, but could not find it and nobody has found it to date. What do you suppose is a way to account for this lack of physical evidence and still account for a global flood? This isn't even getting into the issue of how Moses was able to get such a massive amount of species into the Ark or how species were able to spread so fast and turn into so many different species in a short order if you believe there was a limited amount of species before the flood. The point is that a global flood can not be shown to align with a single piece of physical evidence and runs into many problems that have not been solved by anybody that believes it. Plus, it means we Christians have to spend our time defending it instead of defending the gospel.

Also is there even any evidence that a local flood that lasted a year happened?

I don't believe all the elements are literal truth, but there is no real way to prove that the waters were around for a year and left, in these flood zones. Geology isn't that accurate. It can tell us though that every since humans have been on earth, there is nothing to indicate a global flood has ever occurred and it puts the Christian that believes it in the position to have to defend it instead of defending the gospel.

Scientists and therefore the science they perform are fallible, and I will give a specific example of this. Due to evolutionary teaching it was once taught that the human spine was ill equipped to handle bipedal motion, and that the best treatment for back pain was to try and reduce the lordotic curve. It turns out that this is pretty much the opposite of what should be done in back treatment.

And yet, is there any evidence at all to suggest there was ever was a global flood? Any at all? There is none that has yet to be found and it puts the Christian that defends it into the position of having to defend a global flood. Plus, in your example, better evidence was found and an old theory was supplemented by a better one. That is how science works, but is there anything at all that should make an unbeliever believe a global flood happened? Our God is God of truth and one that has told us to love him with all of our being. I can not find a single piece of physical evidence to defend the idea the earth was covered in water for a year time frame with, beyond what 'the bible plainly states'. That leaves us with a serious problem, how can we answer everybody and give them the hope of our faith with such a serious lack of evidence? Do you see what the problem here is? It is creating a huge stumbling block and a huge problem that takes away from the Gospel of Christ and makes us have to defend it being word for word literal. Yet, why does it need to be literal?

I believe the Bible isn't fallible, and that a more literal interpretation does more justice to the texts.

The Bible isn't fallible, humanity is though and so is our interpretations and our views of the text. Plus, I trust science enough to save my life within medicine. I trust science enough to produce buildings for me to live in that are not going to fall on my head. I trust science enough to believe that atoms exist, that the sun is a burning ball of gas powered by nuclear fission, etc. If it is good enough in those ares, why isn't it good enough to tell me rather or not a flood happened or to tell me how radioactive isotopes decay and what their half lives are in a given material or to measure out a light year with? Science is a great tool that can create some pretty powerful evidence for us and give us some pretty strong reasons to believe, so why forsake in in favor of a literal view of certain passages that are not really that important in the grand scheme of things? Or as an article I wrote stated:

In any case, I think that we need to realize that both science and theology are fallible human attempts at interpretation, either of what we observe, or what God has specially revealed about himself. As such, both attempts are subject to mistakes that at times may bring them in conflict with one another, and this must always be kept in mind. It is my conviction that whenever such conflicts exist, it is because we have made a mistake somewhere, either in our theology or our science, and that further investigation into both will cause the conflict to resolve itself. And, we have already seen two examples of where that was the case.
http://www.bede.org.uk/boyce.htm

Might want to read the entire article, it is quite a good read.

You see YEC being inconsistent with the Bible, and well they think the same when it comes to both OEC and TE, so maybe there is more to it than we realize. At CMI, they are at least trying to be entirely consistent with the way they approach the Bible.

I am being perfectly consistent and you're welcome to show anything I am being inconsistent about. I base my belief in Jesus on several key elements I have outlined:

1. He is a key figure in the NT, the rest of the NT centers around him, around his physical death, and around his physical resurrection. Without it, it comes crashing down. Now does the OT or NT center around a literal flood, a literal creation, a literal tower of babel, or a literal Jonah being swallowed by a fish? Nope.
2. We find Jesus' teachings, his death, and his physical resurrection being mentioned by the subsequent writers after the apostles. Do we find the same references to the events in question? No we do not.
3. The physical evidence, we have quite a bit surrounding the life of Jesus, the places mentioned do align with what we have archeologically dug up and while we do not have any physical evidence for the miracles of Jesus, the question becomes, should we find any and how would we know? We wouldn't. Likewise, should we find physical evidence for a young earth or for a global flood? Yes we should, but do we?

If the earth had been totally underwater, we should have physical evidence saying that. If the earth was young, we should have physical evidence of this, but do we? No we do not. God is not the author of confusion, but the author of truth, but is any of this creating truth or is it creating confusion?

Also using the earth as a reference frame, such as sunrise and sunset, is completely ok in todays world without implying that the sun revolves around the earth. You're comparing apples and oranges here. Also allowing for human limits, isn't the same as allowing for error.

Not really for if you go back in time to the days of Galileo and his trial, you'll find scripture was used as evidence against him and they condemned him for not taking a literal view of what scripture plainly taught (go read the material if you don't believe me, that was one of the things brought up). Likewise, the church fathers said and believed the same thing. It was only after Newton finally put the death nail into Geocentrism that these passages were rendered into the view we have of them today.

I didn't say that someone could reject a literal interpretation of Genesis, and would not be able to believe in Jesus because of this. I am very glad that you have accepted Christ, but I still think that TE isn't very consistent with the Bible.

Why? I have given a clear method, showed what is most important, and pointed out that the error is not in the Bible or science, it is with our views of one or both of them.

I believe that the Bible is it's own best interpreter, and when you look at it as a whole, it certainly seems to support a more literal view of Genesis.

And I do not believe it does and I based this on going back and finding how many times these stories are mentioned. Over the entire Bible, Adam and Eve and Noah really are not refereed back to much and neither is Noah. Likewise, the problem with that method is that our interpretations of the Bible are overshadowed by our cultural understandings. That is one of the reasons we find so much ignorance about the Bible today, it is because people think it was written to us and not to the people of the time. An example is how Paul tells women to learn in quietness and full submission. Today's culture we find Paul is being 'women hating' for suggesting that. The problem is our cultural understandings are different about how one should learn. Students in their time were to remain quiet and simply listen to whatever their teacher said. Which for Paul's time, was a revolutionary message since the common culturally belief was women should not learn, he said they should learn in the same manner as men. So when we step back into the views of the first century, Paul does not hate women, quite the contrary, he is a revolutionary for women's rights! That is the problem we have with Genesis though, we simply do not know a ton of a lot about how literal or non literal they took it nor do we know what God's intentions were when the text was wrote. It's not as clear as we find later on.

Now I don't have the qualifications or the knowledge to debate the science, but I am doing what I can to increase my knowledge. So far whenever I have been given a resource by someone who believes evolution, it has been full of lies, strawmen, and vitriol.

Some is sure, but I found Dr Hannam to be excellent because of how much details he goes into (his web site is bede.org.uk, if you're interested). Here on T web, Rogue and Oxi have been quite patient and quite helpful for anybody wanting to dive deeper into this field. For me, I found those things to be quite helpful as well as my own schooling in this field helped too.

This isn't exactly the best way to try and win someone over to your view. Also I have seen you say many times that Jorge is putting his interpretation of the Bible first, and that maybe his interpretation is wrong. I would say that maybe the interpretation of science has been wrong, and when you start with a view that was originally intended to shut God out, then I believe you are more likely to make faulty interpretations of what God has made.

How is God shut out? I believe he still works in our lives, I believe he came in flesh, I believe he died for the sins of the world, I believe he rose again on the third day, and I believe God works though us. Sounds like God isn't shut out at all, but simply didn't create a young earth or created a literal global flood. Next, how is my interpretation of science wrong, why isn't your interpretation of the Bible wrong? Remember, interpretation on either side falls into the same scope. I thought about this issue quite a bit and trust me, it wasn't something i decided overnight, but decided after analysis and reading on both sides of the issue. I can not accept the idea the earth is young, I can not accept the idea the earth was flooded by a massive flood, but I can accept that Jesus died and was resurrected on the third day and I can accept that he is the savior of humanity.

[Cerebrum123]

I'm going to bed soon, so I won't have much to say right now. Darwin was systematically trying to reject God, and evolutionary theory is caught up in this. I wasn't saying that you personally are trying to shut out God, but simply the underlying assumptions for the current scientific paradigm are. People are being taught that evolution does away with the need for God, and I know that you would disagree with this, but that is one of the original purposes of the theory. I would have to disagree with you about the evidence of a global flood. I would say that it is there, but isn't being seen for what it is. I have been studying both sides of this issue for some time myself, and I haven't seen any convincing evidence for an old earth, or for certain aspects of evolution. Namely in the aspect of evolution the idea of common descent(man being simple a highly evolved ape doesn't fit well with man being made in the image of God). Again I am not a scientist, and a lot of this stuff is very hard for me to absorb, but I have been doing my best to learn what is really going on. I'll take a look at your links later, right now I am getting quite tired. As for my interpretation of the Bible being wrong, that could be, I won't rule that out as a possibility.

[Xru]

Evolution for the 21st Century is great.

Also The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is very good to try and learn how these science types think and how they get locked into thought boxes.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm going to bed soon, so I won't have much to say right now.

That's fine, sleep well and God bless!

Darwin was systematically trying to reject God, and evolutionary theory is caught up in this.

First off, that is a genetic fallacy since it really doesn't matter what secondary goals a person(s) had in mind when they came up with their idea. We should look at the merits/demerits of what they brought to the table. Second, not really since I find many more science types have a very poor grasp of philosophy and history, plus they are used to dealing with theist that reject evolutionary theory. Anyway, evolutionary theory in of itself says nothing for or against, it is us that adds in those for or against things into the picture. Plus, Darwin did not come up with the TOE, it comes from the 18th century. He simply was the first to bring forth so much physical evidence to support it.

I wasn't saying that you personally are trying to shut out God, but simply the underlying assumptions for the current scientific paradigm are.

How specifically? The scientific understandings of the universe are heavily based upon the Christian world view of things because we said the world runs in rational ways because or God is the source of rationality and logic and thus we said the universe can be scientifically studied. That is in stark contrast to what you'll find many pagan beliefs said because they tended to put things up to 'the will of the gods'. There is no reason for us to 'fear' science or for us to think science is pushing God out. It isn't, but it actually helps us a good deal since it has done quite a bit of damage to the Book of Mormon and even to the philosophy of atheism (a static universe and spontaneous generation were once positions atheist held to, they are pretty much done for today thanks to modern science). If we reject it though, we'll never be able to use or understand it.

People are being taught that evolution does away with the need for God, and I know that you would disagree with this, but that is one of the original purposes of the theory.

No it isn't a person associated with the idea that thought he did is different then actually being true. Plus, plenty of Christians used TOE too.

I would have to disagree with you about the evidence of a global flood. I would say that it is there, but isn't being seen for what it is.

Like what? We have geological examples of what floods look like on the geological scale and yet, we do not find any of this on the geological record, at all. What do you think it is and why do you think that is? Remember in the 19th century many of the first geologist were Christians, not atheist. They went about expecting to find 'the flood layer', but after searching, they couldn't find it and still hasn't been anything shown that says otherwise yet.

I have been studying both sides of this issue for some time myself, and I haven't seen any convincing evidence for an old earth, or for certain aspects of evolution. Namely in the aspect of evolution the idea of common descent(man being simple a highly evolved ape doesn't fit well with man being made in the image of God). Again I am not a scientist, and a lot of this stuff is very hard for me to absorb, but I have been doing my best to learn what is really going on. I'll take a look at your links later, right now I am getting quite tired. As for my interpretation of the Bible being wrong, that could be, I won't rule that out as a possibility.

That's fine and it takes a long time to study these issues. There is over 200 years worth of material and it takes a long time to figure out. Next, the 'image of God' has to do with our ability, not our looks. Finally It is a pretty good source on these matters, but sadly isn't all that complete or has tons of articles

[Whag]

Very wise move!

Not a wise move. A stupid move. Scientific consensus on gravity, atomic theory, evolution, geology, is quite sound. Theories get modified more commonly than being completely "overturned."

[fm93]

Sorry to intrude here, but I'd like to make a brief comment.

Darwin was systematically trying to reject God, and evolutionary theory is caught up in this.

That simply isn't true. He was still a theist when he visited the Galapagos and observed the finches, and he remained a theist for a while afterwards. Furthermore, he wrote in a letter after he became an agnostic that "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent theist and an evolutionist."

As you can see, Darwin (as well as his fellow scientists of the day) didn't think that theism and evolution were incompatible.

[magellan004]

First off, that [ED That Darwin was trying to reject God] is a genetic fallacy since it really doesn't matter what secondary goals a person(s) had in mind when they came up with their idea. We should look at the merits/demerits of what they brought to the table.

I agree. It would be good if evolutionists remembered that when they talk about Intelligent Design and the Wedge Document and the Dover Trial.

Magellan

[Tassman]

I agree. It would be good if evolutionists remembered that when they talk about Intelligent Design and the Wedge Document and the Dover Trial.

Magellan

This is your response re needing to look at “the merits/demerits of what they brought to the table”.

There are no merits re “Intelligent Design”. Over 90% of the international scientific community sees it as a repackaged form of conservative Christian creationism, not science. It has not conducted any original research, amassed any peer reviewed original data, or published findings in recognized scientific journals. And the Dover verdict stated plainly that Intelligent Design was not science and didn't belong in a science class. The Wedge Document is a cynical attempt to overturn the highly successful and well established scientific method and replace it with ID pseudo-science.

[Xru]

This is your response re needing to look at “the merits/demerits of what they brought to the table”.

There are no merits re “Intelligent Design”. Over 90% of the international scientific community sees it as a repackaged form of conservative Christian creationism, not science. It has not conducted any original research, amassed any peer reviewed original data, or published findings in recognized scientific journals. And the Dover verdict stated plainly that Intelligent Design was not science and didn't belong in a science class. The Wedge Document is a cynical attempt to overturn the highly successful and well established scientific method and replace it with ID pseudo-science.

Tass continues the time honored method of being a brainless tool of the of the fanatic materialistic empiricist conspiracy to preserve the orthodoxy of the current scientific Dogma. Of course 90% of the ISC sees ID that way. It threatens their Dogma your mentally wanting nut-bag.

The above was NOT a compliment.