Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

can you believe whatever you want?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
40 replies to this topic

#1
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,309 posts

I am often curious how people in the young earth creationist camp think that the *vast majority* of scientists in their fields think the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the universe 13.7 billion yrs old but that somehow they've made the discovery it is not. How are these basic facts lost on all these researcher whose expertise should give them the best position to judge such things? At times it seems like some suggest there is a vast conspiracy that keeps the truth from coming out, or that people simply believe what they want and find a model to fit it no matter what facts they encounter. But does history bear this out?

 

I argue no.  Consider, for instance, that for decades there was incredible tension and dissension over this very issue in the scientific community itself. Here is why. Geological and fossil evidence seemed to suggest an old earth, hundreds of millions if not billions of years old. On the other hand, estimates about the maximum age of the sun suggested that the earth could not be older than a couple dozen of millions of years old! The result? In response to these conflicting lines of evidence from separate fields arguments ensued that were quite public. Some argued for a uniformitarian view of nature in which there was slow even progress, others argued that the normal nature of things was punctuated by large violent events, and one of the causes of that was explicitly stated as the possible activity of God. It was the facts on the table that caused this argument. And, it would be the facts that resolved it.

 

This situation was resolved when it quantum mechanics was developed and a way for nuclear interactions to  cause the processes in the sun established through quantum tunneling. When the calculations were carried through it was estimated the sun was 4.5 billion years old, in the realm that the previous geological arguments had suggested! It was then that the consensus formed.

 

In short, though I do think that there is currently an anti religious bias in the sciences and I agree that will affect some outlooks, in particular when dealing with highly speculative issues such as multiverses and such, where there are facts accessible to all there tends to be converge because the basic facts themselves suggest a basic truth about the physical world.



#2
Willa

Willa

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,330 posts
Perhaps if there were not such an anti science bias among the religions, and such an anti religious bias among the sciences, the two might come closer in understanding.

However, everything in the Bible that I have previously doubted has been proven to me to be true. So I tend to believe that a 7-24hr day creation might someday also be validated. One thing is sure. It will all be made clear when we someday ask Him in heaven. Meanwhile, I do respect your knowledge of these things. But I also highly suspect the basis of dating done by paleontologists.

#3
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,516 posts

Scientism Rules

 

For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. 1 Samuel 15:23

 

So Not

 

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:8

 

~

 

Perhaps if there were not such an anti science bias among the religions, and such an anti religious bias among the sciences, the two might come closer in understanding.

However, everything in the Bible that I have previously doubted has been proven to me to be true. So I tend to believe that a 7-24 hr day creation might someday also be validated.

 

One thing is sure. It will all be made clear when we someday ask Him in heaven.

 

Meanwhile, I do respect your knowledge of these things.

 

But I also highly suspect the basis of dating done by paleontologists.

 

:thumbsup:

 

The Stumble For "Great" Men Of Science

 

Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

 

And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 1 Peter 2:7-8

 

And The Straight

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Talk

 

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

 

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. John 12:47-48

 

Beloved

 

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Matthew 12:36

 

See?

 

Remembering mine affliction and my misery, the wormwood and the gall.
My soul hath them still in remembrance, and is humbled in me.
This I recall to my mind, therefore have I hope.

 

It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.
Lamentations 3:19-23

 

Love, Your Brother Joe



#4
Omegaman

Omegaman

    Senior Member

  • Worthy Chat Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,941 posts

So I tend to believe that a 7-24hr day creation might someday also be validated. 

Well, I tend to be a young Earther myself, but I do not take the bible to say things beyond which it actually says. For example, while it is true that the vast majority of the uses of the word "day" in the bible, indicate short periods of time, 24 hours is never expressly stated in the creation account. Genesis defines a day as one cycle of lightness and darkness, before the Sun is ever placed in the heavens. So, strictly speaking, a solar day is not specified. Later, the Sun (apparently - referred to as a great light, is associated with the day:

 

 14Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

 

So, it looks reasonable there to assume that from the fourth day onward, a 24 hour day is indicated, assuming the length of a day and light cycle has not varied since then. Of course, if one assume they have never varied, then before the fourth day would seem to be 24 hour days also.

 

To Alpha's question, I think it just depends on people's personal prejudices. If one's prejudice leads one to trust scientists to be in the best position to determine truths like this, then one will tend to accepts a tremendously old universe. If scientists were always correct, never having to amend their theories or offer new ones, then it would be easy to give them a lot of credibility. In fact, I personally give them great credibility on most things that science legitimately addresses.

 

I find their pronouncements on how electricity behaves, to be very credible. Of course we can directly test and observe how electricity behaves. It is much harder for the average person to observe the past,  thousands or millions or billions of years ago, so we are somewhat more skeptical on that topic, knowing that even scientists cannot directly observe the creation/formation of the earth. As it was expressed in the book of Job:

 

 1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,

      2“Who is this that darkens counsel
            By words without knowledge?

      3“Now gird up your loins like a man,
            And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!

      4“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
            Tell Me, if you have understanding,

      5Who set its measurements? Since you know.
            Or who stretched the line on it?

      6“On what were its bases sunk?
            Or who laid its cornerstone,

      7When the morning stars sang together
            And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

      8“Or who enclosed the sea with doors
            When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;

      9When I made a cloud its garment
            And thick darkness its swaddling band,

      10And I placed boundaries on it
            And set a bolt and doors,

      11And I said, ‘Thus far you shall come, but no farther;
            And here shall your proud waves stop’?

 

Etc., etc.  God's point; "Since you think you are so smart, and know how it all happened, let me ask you plainly, "Were you there?"

 

God was there, God was the eye witness, God knows how it happened. So, the questions are really: "Did God inspire the Bible to be written? Did the writers express God's thoughts accurately? Is Genesis intended to be taken literally?

For myself, I answer those questions in the affirmative, but it is just an opinion, which I cannot prove. Still, it is what guides me, it is where my faith is placed.

 

Not everyone has that sort of faith, I consider it a gift. If I happen to be incorrect, then perhaps it is more of a curse and I am doomed to erroneous conclusions. I have a concern, that if people believe that Genesis should be taken symbolically, poetically etc, then I see no reason why that option is not available to any area of the Bible to which one chooses to apply it. For example, we might imagine that the New Testament narratives are not literally accurate, and Jesus did not really, literally die and rise again from the dead. If we can do that, then of course we should note what the apostle Paul said (1 Cor 15):

 

14 . . .and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."

 

Now, I do not at all, envy people like Alpha, who seem to be stuck in a position of a mix of faith and doubt, or a blend of faith is contradictory things, or at least things that are not easily complimentary. I enjoy a certain type of freedom in the sort of faith given me . . . a freedom from concern over what people know about what I believe. In the lines of work which I have engaged in, I can express my belief in a young earth, or a literal rising from the dead of Jesus, and that He is God, the Creator Himself, in human flesh.

 

If I say such things, people can ponder: "How can someone this seemingly intelligent, believe in such superstitious nonsense?" What they cannot rationally conclude is: "That Omegaman believes such incredulous things, that he cannot possibly be a competent machinist. I am not sure that Alpha, in his field, can expect his peers to assume that his thinking has the clarity to really allow him to be as good a scientist as he could be.

 

So, I probably drifted way off topic, my mind tends to wander a lot. However, I will circle back to where I began, that of conforming one's own beliefs to conform to ones prejudices, aligning them to the ideas and people in whom one has the most faith. Am I more rational to believe that scientists are the class of people who are the most qualified to answer complex questions about the origins of the universe, or is it possible, that I can be just as rational, thinking that theologians, who have spent lifetimes of study in their field also, might have those answers?

 

More to the point, is rationality itself, the source of truth, or is that also something in which we must have faith? In the final analysis, for me, I neither place faith in scientists nor theologians, neither has enough credibility for me, to instruct me how I must think, what I must believe. Both groups make grievous errors.

 

Whether by choice, or something outside of my willing control, I believe in a personal and intelligent God, who has inspired certain individuals of His choosing, to create a collection of writings now collected in what we call the Bible. I then must use what gifts, talents, skills, intelligence, and other resources at my disposal to arrive at the best conclusions I know how to make, and then to the best of my abilities (God given of of self will) try to live my life in compliance with my beliefs.



#5
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,309 posts

Perhaps if there were not such an anti science bias among the religions, and such an anti religious bias among the sciences, the two might come closer in understanding.
 

 

I couldn't agree more about this. The fact that there is such low religiosity among practicing scientists I am sure does not help to cultivate a sense of trust among the public. After all, why should there be such a mismatch between the scientific community and the general public in terms of belief in God, afterlife, etc? It is suggestive of a bias in the scientific culture and I agree there is one. Likewise that feeds into a pre-existing bias in the conservative Christian (here I just mean more conservative theologically) community against science. None of this is necessary. This disconnect didn't exist in the 19th C, and somehow developed in the 20th C, for historical reasons. And while I think that young earth creationism cannot be accommodated into prevalent scientific models, that shouldn't stop somebody from believing in God, or more specifically accepting the gospel as true either.

 

The situation is pretty polarized right now and it's unfortunate. While I think at this point both sides are at fault, and with the new atheist thing in the last decade perhaps it is worse from the scientific community due to that influence, I think it makes sense for the Christian community to figure out a way to bridge it. It does mean the gospel is not really being communicated to a profession of people, at least not nearly as effectively as it could be.



#6
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,309 posts

 

So I tend to believe that a 7-24hr day creation might someday also be validated. 

Well, I tend to be a young Earther myself, but I do not take the bible to say things beyond which it actually says. For example, while it is true that the vast majority of the uses of the word "day" in the bible, indicate short periods of time, 24 hours is never expressly stated in the creation account. Genesis, deifine a day, as one cycle of lightness and darkness, before the Sun is ever placed in the heavens. So, strictly speaking, a solar day is not specified. Later, the Sun (apparently - referred to as a great light:

 

 14Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

 

So, it looks reasonable there to assume that from the fourth day onward, a 24 hour day is indicated, assuming the length of a day and light cycle has not varied since then. Of course, if one assume they have never varied, then before the fourth day would seem to be 24 hour days also.

 

To Alpha's question, I think it just depends on people's personal prejudices. If one's prejudice leads on to trus scientists to be in the best position to determine truths like this, then one will tend to accepts a tremendously old universe. If scientists were always correct, never having to amend their theories or offer new ones, then it would be easy to give them a lot of credibility. In fact, I personally give them great credibility on most things that science legitimately addresses.

 

I find their pronouncements on how electricity behaves, to be very credible. Of course we can directly test and observe how electricity behaves. It is much harder for the average to observe the past thousands or millions or billions of years ago, so we are somewhat more skeptical on that topic, knowing that even scientists cannot directly observe the creation/formation of the earth. As it was expressed in the book of Job:

 

 1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,

      2“Who is this that darkens counsel
            By words without knowledge?

      3“Now gird up your loins like a man,
            And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!

      4“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
            Tell Me, if you have understanding,

      5Who set its measurements? Since you know.
            Or who stretched the line on it?

      6“On what were its bases sunk?
            Or who laid its cornerstone,

      7When the morning stars sang together
            And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

      8“Or who enclosed the sea with doors
            When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;

      9When I made a cloud its garment
            And thick darkness its swaddling band,

      10And I placed boundaries on it
            And set a bolt and doors,

      11And I said, ‘Thus far you shall come, but no farther;
            And here shall your proud waves stop’?

 

Etc., etc.  God's point; "Since you think you are so smart, and know how it all happened, let me ask you plainly, "Were you there?"

 

God was there, God was the eye witness, God knows how it happened. So, the questions are really: "Did God inspire the Bible to be written? Did the writers express God's thoughts accurately? Is Genesis intended to be taken literally?

For myself, I answer those questions in the affirmative, but it is just an opinion, which I cannot prove. Still, it is what guides me, it is where my faith is placed.

 

Not everyone has that sort of faith, I consider it a gift. If I happen to be incorrect, then perhaps it is more of a curse and I am doomed to erroneous conclusions. I have a concern, that if people believe that Genesis should be taken symbolically, poetically etc, then I see no reason why that option is not available to any area of the Bible to which one chooses to apply it. For example, we might imagine that the New Testament narratives are not literally accurate, and Jesus did not really, literally die and rise again from the dead. If we can do that, then of course we should note what the apostle Pauls said (1 Cor 15):

 

14 . . .and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."

 

Now, I do not at all, envy people like Alpha, who seem to be stuck in a position of a mix of faith and doubt, or a blend of faith is contradictory things, or at least things that are not easily complimentary. In enjoy a certain type of freedom in the sort of faith given me . . . a freedom of concern over what people know about what I believe. In the lines of work whcih I have engages in, I can express my belief in a young earth, or a literal rising from the dead of Jesus, and that He is God, the Creator Himself, in human flesh.

 

If I say such things, people can ponder: "How can someone this seemingly intelligent, believe in such superstitious nonsense?" What they cannot rationally conclude is: "That Omegaman believes such incredulous things, that he cannot possibly be a competent machinist. I am not sure that Alpha, in his field, can expect his peers to assume that his thinking has the clarity to really allow him to be as good a scientist as he could be.

 

So, I probably drifted way off topic, my mind tends to wander a lot. However, I will circle back to where I began, that of conforming one's own beliefs to conform to ones prejudices, aligning them to the ideas and people in whom one has the most faith. Am I more rational to believe that scientists are the class of people who are the most qualified to answer complex questions about the origins of the universe, or is it possible, that I can be just as rational, that theolgians, who have spent lifetimes of study in their field also, might have those answers?

 

More to the point, is rationality itself, the source of truth, or is that also something in which we must have faith? In the final analysis, for me, I neither place faith in scientists nor theologians, neither has enough credibility for me, to instruct me how I must think, what I must believe. Both groups make grievous errors.

 

Whether by choice, or something outside of my willing control, I believe in a personal and intelligent God, who has inspired certain individuals of His choosing, to create a collection of writings now collected in what we call the Bible. I then must use what gifts, talents, skills, intelligence, and other resources at my disposal to arrive at the best conclusions I know how to make, and then to the best of my abilities (God given of of self will) try to live my life in compliance with my beliefs.

 

I enjoyed reading your thoughts about this omega. I have long respected your thoughts and insights, and I don't say t hat to butter you up but I think it is relevant to the post. There are people who are intelligent, and I acknowledge this, who believe in a young earth. I have difficulty wrapping my mind around it, but I don't question that they are smart and I understand, and gain more understanding into some of the reasons for their position. I will never forget the sense of startle when discussing this topic with someone who will remain unnamed, who told me his young earth views. Based on how similarly I think to this person on many topics, it wasn't possible after then to assume that only stupid people would believe this young earth position, as frankly I had previously implicitly assumed.

For me it is, and has been, simply what seems to be true. This is a 'is the sky red or blue' type of situation insofar as, if the Bible said the sky is red, I'd have to assume it is somehow metaphorical or should not be taken at face value, because I know for a fact the sky is blue. I don't think that downgrades my view of the Bible as an authority, but it does appear to me to be at times a difficult to comprehend and complicated mixture of stuff. I could be wrong about how I am attempting to understand the Bible as much as I could also be wrong about how I interpret the physical facts about the world. So many facts about the world fit together so neatly with the universe being billions of years old I don't find it possible to downgrade that to 6k years. It's not impossible for me to change my mind, but it seems for that to happen there would have to be an extraordinary change in understanding of physical rules and such.

 

As to your other points, it happens that when I first became a believer I had no idea what to do with the Bible. I believed only a few parts of it, really. I believed them in a very narrow way also, but it was enough to convince me that Jesus had risen from the dead. It was only later with reading, and with experience with the Spirit, that I began to take it in a different way. So for me I work from the opposite scenario you have worried about. I have gone from believing very very little of the Bible and only in a very narrow way, to accepting it as on the whole authoritative. So, I lack the concern that if I fail to take Genesis as a factual historical account I will come to doubt Jesus, in fact I have never taken Genesis that way but have believed in the core gospel. I grant, though, that I am not an exemplar of faith. I waiver, I doubt, a lot, and I am very fortunate God has chosen to be merciful with me. I don't think that is because of my view of the Bible though, the causation there if anything is reversed. It may be that if I had a solid continuous faith I would have a deeper belief in the Bible, apply it more widely more easily- so faith in the basics I think would spill over into these other areas, not the other away around so much.



#7
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,988 posts

I am often curious how people in the young earth creationist camp think that the *vast majority* of scientists in their fields think the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the universe 13.7 billion yrs old but that somehow they've made the discovery it is not. How are these basic facts lost on all these researcher whose expertise should give them the best position to judge such things? At times it seems like some suggest there is a vast conspiracy that keeps the truth from coming out, or that people simply believe what they want and find a model to fit it no matter what facts they encounter. But does history bear this out?

 

I argue no.  Consider, for instance, that for decades there was incredible tension and dissension over this very issue in the scientific community itself. Here is why. Geological and fossil evidence seemed to suggest an old earth, hundreds of millions if not billions of years old. On the other hand, estimates about the maximum age of the sun suggested that the earth could not be older than a couple dozen of millions of years old! The result? In response to these conflicting lines of evidence from separate fields arguments ensued that were quite public. Some argued for a uniformitarian view of nature in which there was slow even progress, others argued that the normal nature of things was punctuated by large violent events, and one of the causes of that was explicitly stated as the possible activity of God. It was the facts on the table that caused this argument. And, it would be the facts that resolved it.

 

This situation was resolved when it quantum mechanics was developed and a way for nuclear interactions to  cause the processes in the sun established through quantum tunneling. When the calculations were carried through it was estimated the sun was 4.5 billion years old, in the realm that the previous geological arguments had suggested! It was then that the consensus formed.

 

In short, though I do think that there is currently an anti religious bias in the sciences and I agree that will affect some outlooks, in particular when dealing with highly speculative issues such as multiverses and such, where there are facts accessible to all there tends to be converge because the basic facts themselves suggest a basic truth about the physical world.

 

 

 

====================================================================================

 

Hey Alpha,

 

I am often curious how people in the young earth creationist camp think that the *vast majority* of scientists in their fields       "think"       the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the universe 13.7 billion yrs old but that somehow they've made the discovery it is not.

 

 

Reason......See:  "think"

 

 

How are these basic facts

 

I beg to differ on the "facts" part.

 

 

there is a vast conspiracy

 

Doesn't have to be vast....just @ the Top, kind of a Trickle Down via our favorite "Peer Review".  Let's paint by the numbers....What organization/institution on the planet (Bar None) attempts to cast the most doubt and then outright denial of GOD?

 

Who in Scripture displays these same attributes?

 

 

Geological and fossil evidence seemed to suggest an old earth, hundreds of millions if not billions of years old.

 

Radiometric Dating has been falsified by the Hundreds of Documented "False Positives": For Example, Rocks of known ages (42 years old) dated by a State of The Art Radiometric Lab @ 3.5 Million Years Old.

That's a direct result of Three Major Assumptions for ALL Radiometric Dating Techniques.

 

Geologic Column: Falsified.....

 

Polystrate7_zps6a5db13b.jpg   Polystrate8_zps4774c462.jpg

 

Polystrate9_zps1aaee356.jpg    Polystrate Fossils (Trees) penetrating Millions of years of Strata.  See also: Guy Berthault: http://www.sedimentology.fr/

 

 

the maximum age of the sun

 

Is the Sun a Solid, Liquid, or Gas?

 

 

This situation was resolved when it quantum mechanics was developed and a way for nuclear interactions to  cause the processes in the sun established through quantum tunneling. When the calculations were carried through it was estimated the sun was 4.5 billion years old

 

It turned out right in the neighborhood of the other falsified measures, eh?  What are the chances?

 

You'll forgive me, If I call Baloney.  I sure hope these "calculations" aren't based on Planck's Law of Thermal Emission (which has it's basis in Kirchhoff's Law) or Boltzmann's Equations.



#8
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,516 posts

Polarized

 

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34

 

And Fault

 

But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Proverbs 8:36

 

And When Has Modern Western Science Had Anything To Do With The Truth Anyway

 

Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. John 18:38

 

I Ask

 

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

 

Hum....

 

For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. Luke 9:26

 

~

 

The situation is pretty polarized right now and it's unfortunate.

 

While I think at this point both sides are at fault,

 

and with the new atheist thing in the last decade perhaps it is worse from the scientific community due to that influence,

 

I think it makes sense for the Christian community to figure out a way to bridge it.

 

It does mean the gospel is not really being communicated to a profession of people,

 

at least not nearly as effectively as it could be.

 

 

:thumbsup:

 

The

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

The same was in the beginning with God.

 

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

 

Great Light

 

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

 

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:4-5

 

Again Shines Over A Bright New Earth

 

And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. Revelation 22:5

 

And It Seems To Me

 

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

 

That I Am So

 

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6

 

Blessed

 

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17



#9
Tristen

Tristen

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts

Hi Alpha, You said, “I am often curious how people in the young earth creationist camp think that the *vast majority* of scientists in their fields think the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the universe 13.7 billion yrs old but that somehow they've made the discovery it is not”

 

Your wording is a bit awkward here. No one has ever ‘discovered’ that “the earth is 4.5 billion years old” or that “the universe 13.7 billion yrs old”. These are claims about unobserved history, not observed facts themselves. They are interpretations of facts which are broadly accepted because they conform to the secular faith paradigm – the default faith perspective of most modern scientists. Creationists interpret the very same facts to conform to the Biblical faith paradigm.

 

And the scientific method explicitly permits the questioning of any scientific claim. So, any suggestion that we are somehow obligated to merely accept a scientific claim stems from faith, not science.

 

 

“How are these basic facts lost on all these researcher whose expertise should give them the best position to judge such things?”

 

What “basic facts” are you referring to?

 

As much as scientists love the idea that only they have the right to tell you what to think - that position is not rationally justified; or in any sense scientific. The scientific method does not prohibit anyone from thinking for themselves – regardless of scientific credentials. The logical fallacy employed here is called an Appeal to Authority.

 

 

“At times it seems like some suggest there is a vast conspiracy that keeps the truth from coming out”

 

This is an understandable misunderstanding. From its introduction towards the end of the 1700s, the naturalistic faith paradigm has become all-but ubiquitous in our society; with most people only ever being exposed to science interpreted within this paradigm (i.e. in schools, universities, science docos and text books etc.) – giving the false impression that this is the only valid scientific paradigm. As such, it has become the default faith paradigm of most scientists. Faith paradigms influence how the facts are interpreted. So it’s not an organised conspiracy – secular scientists are simply interpreting the facts to be consistent with the most popular naturalistic faith perspective. It’s only a problem when they (those of secular faith) imply that they are the only ones permitted to do use this methodology. Such a position lacks logical objectivity.  Creationists are simply interpreting the very same facts to be consistent with a different faith perspective. It’s a different starting position, but an identical logical methodology.

 

 

“or that people simply believe what they want and find a model to fit it no matter what facts they encounter”

 

Not at all. The facts can be interpreted to be consistent with both models of reality. So the facts are neutral. Neither position has any legitimate right to disregard facts. But we have every rational right to question how the particular facts are interpreted. Interpretation is subjective – highly influenced by the starting faith perspective of the interpreter. This effect is amplified when it comes to unobserved historical claims.

 

 

“…It was then that the consensus formed”

 

But “consensus” has never been a legitimate source of scientific confidence. Therefore those approaching the evidence from a different perspective have every scientific right to question such “consensus

 

 

“where there are facts accessible to all there tends to be converge because the basic facts themselves suggest a basic truth about the physical world”

 

Facts don’t “suggest” anything beyond their own existence. Only after the facts have been interpreted can they “suggest” anything about the “physical world”. But we are not talking about the “physical world” - we are talking about unobserved history. The logical method dealing with history deviates from the operational scientific method that deals with the current “physical world”.

 

 

Post #5

“that feeds into a pre-existing bias in the conservative Christian (here I just mean more conservative theologically) community against science”

 

I am a “theologically” conservative, creationist Christian with a secular science degree. I think the implication of Christians being anti-science is a mischaracterisation of our position (as well as historically uninformed).

 

The main point of difference is that creationists readily acknowledge the influence of our faith perspective on how we interpret the facts. Recognition of this “bias” enables us to study and objectively consider the secular perspective – without having to surrender our own position. But secular science doesn’t recognise its own “bias”, and therefore tends to ridicule, attack and arbitrarily disregard any perspective contradicting its own faith paradigm.

 

 

“This disconnect didn't exist in the 19th C, and somehow developed in the 20th C, for historical reasons”

 

Since the introduction of the naturalistic faith paradigm, there was certainly widespread and aggressive debate throughout the 18th & 19th centuries. But by the early 20th century, the naturalistic faith paradigm had replaced the Biblical faith paradigm as the starting assumption of science – And that is all most people have been exposed to who are alive today.

 

 

“And while I think that young earth creationism cannot be accommodated into prevalent scientific models, that shouldn't stop somebody from believing in God, or more specifically accepting the gospel as true either”

 

What you call “prevalent scientific models” are formulated in the logical context of a purely naturalistic reality. We (creationists) have our own models formulated in the context of a Biblical-Theistic reality. Arguments are only logically obligated to be consistent within their own context. To judge an argument by an opposing premise would be irrational.

 

There are many fundamental contradictions between Biblical claims and secular models which render adherence to both logically tenuous. For example, “the gospel” is God’s offer of salvation to humanity from the just consequences brought about by humanity introducing sin and death into the universe. If sin and death existed before humanity, then humans aren’t responsible – therefore it would be unjust to hold humanity accountable for sin and death - and therefore unjust to prerequisite human salvation on faith in a perfect Saviour.

 

 

“I think it makes sense for the Christian community to figure out a way to bridge it”

 

I can’t read your mind – but when most people say things like this, what they really mean is Christians should compromise their faith to accommodate the speculations of secular historical science. My solution is to bring objectivity back to science. Let both parties present evidence and argument, let both parties analyse and acknowledge the assumptive basis of all historical modelling, teach people to separate the empirical from the theoretical, teach people to recognise an avoid arguments based on logical fallacies, and give everyone the right and opportunity to consider arguments from all perspectives – so they can formulate a fully-informed opinion.

 

 

“It does mean the gospel is not really being communicated to a profession of people, at least not nearly as effectively as it could be”

 

When we remain faithful to the Bible we are accused of ignorance. When some compromise their faith they are accused of hypocrisy. The secular world knows all-too-well that compromise undermines our position. So until someone can provide me with an objective scientific reason to compromise – I’m going to stick with the Bible.

 

 

Post #6

“This is a 'is the sky red or blue' type of situation insofar as, if the Bible said the sky is red, I'd have to assume it is somehow metaphorical or should not be taken at face value, because I know for a fact the sky is blue”

 

Respectfully, I think this is a false analogy. The colour of the sky is currently available for direct observation. Therefore, any hypothesis about the colour of the sky falls under the purview of operational science. But when we talk about hypotheses regarding the age of the earth and universe, we are making unobserved historical claims. You cannot legitimately “know for a fact” that these claims are true without a time machine; enabling you to go and make the necessary observations required for such confidence.

 

 

“I could be wrong about how I am attempting to understand the Bible as much as I could also be wrong about how I interpret the physical facts about the world. So many facts about the world fit together so neatly with the universe being billions of years old I don't find it possible to downgrade that to 6k years. It's not impossible for me to change my mind, but it seems for that to happen there would have to be an extraordinary change in understanding of physical rules and such”

 

Not really – just an understanding of the logic employed in the formulation of secular scientific claims. View the facts through the lens of a different paradigm, and you may understand why creationists like myself could just as legitimately claim that that “So many facts about the world fit together so neatly with the universe being” created in the time frame described in Biblical manuscript.

 

Once we learn to separate the empirical (facts) from the theoretical (assumptions, explanations, interpretations, hypotheses etc.) – i.e. to think critically – we enable ourselves to engage the issue objectively. Once we understand that interpretation is influenced by faith paradigms, then we can realise that this is true for all interpretations supporting that paradigm. You are then free to consider the interpretations supporting other paradigms; understanding that if the presented arguments and facts are consistent with their premise, then they hold a rational position - even if you ultimately disagree with that position.



#10
Cletus

Cletus

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts
I think the earth is older than 6000 some-odd years old based on genesis 1:2 it says and the earth was without form and void(so something was there) and darkness was upon the face of the deep(deep what?) And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the (deep)waters.
Where does it say God created the water? I can not find it.
And what was the water covering? To me it sounds like a formless mass of something.
I have also read in the earths crust there are two floods recorded. Global floods. Genesis 1:2 and noah are two floods.

I am not going to speculate how old anything is though because I dont see any tech man has thats reliable or accurate. I do believe the period of "day" in genesis is actually 24 hours based on gen 1:5, and the evening and the morning were the first day. Also I have listened to rabbis teach on days and feast days all the way back to and thru the OT and even up to Christs crucifiction and it adds up perfectly.

Also if we look at the word created in gen 1:1 its the word bara' many people say it means to create from nothing, but if we look at Josh 17:18 the word bara' is used in verb form referring to "cutting" down trees. This sugests the verb is kind of like sculpting, which is also similar to God forming adam out of soil.

#11
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts

Yes Alpha, I would agree that there really isn't a conspiracy going on.  There may be a bias, but a scientist who is a believer can be published as long as it's sound science without supernatural elements.  Consider Jason Lisle's case (director of research at Institute for Creation Research).  A young earther can do good science as well as a Philistine! :D



#12
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,988 posts

Yes Alpha, I would agree that there really isn't a conspiracy going on.  There may be a bias, but a scientist who is a believer can be published as long as it's sound science without supernatural elements.  Consider Jason Lisle's case (director of research at Institute for Creation Research).  A young earther can do good science as well as a Philistine! :D

 

==================================================================

 

 

Yes Alpha, I would agree that there really isn't a conspiracy going on.

 

Based on/Supported by........?

 

scientist who is a believer can be published as long as it's sound science

 

How about, Halton "Chip" Arp?  I don't know if he was a even a "Believer", just someone who had contrary evidence to the Paradigm.



#13
Bonky

Bonky

    Junior Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPip
  • 135 posts

Doesn't have to be vast....just @ the Top, kind of a Trickle Down via our favorite "Peer Review".  Let's paint by the numbers....What organization/institution on the planet (Bar None) attempts to cast the most doubt and then outright denial of GOD?
 
Who in Scripture displays these same attributes?



For someone who is so quick to worry about fallacies this is such an incredibly lame statement. You make it sounds like the only folks who believe in God are the ones who view God exactly as you do. The head of the human genome project was a devout Christian, he just isn't a young earth Christian. Neither Krauss nor Hawking have been telling anyone to stop believing in God, they merely state that there is no absolute need for a God to explain the Universe.

There are many people who believe in God and have absolutely no issue with evolution, deep time or the big bang etc.

#14
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,988 posts

 

Doesn't have to be vast....just @ the Top, kind of a Trickle Down via our favorite "Peer Review".  Let's paint by the numbers....What organization/institution on the planet (Bar None) attempts to cast the most doubt and then outright denial of GOD?
 
Who in Scripture displays these same attributes?



For someone who is so quick to worry about fallacies this is such an incredibly lame statement. You make it sounds like the only folks who believe in God are the ones who view God exactly as you do. The head of the human genome project was a devout Christian, he just isn't a young earth Christian. Neither Krauss nor Hawking have been telling anyone to stop believing in God, they merely state that there is no absolute need for a God to explain the Universe.

There are many people who believe in God and have absolutely no issue with evolution, deep time or the big bang etc.

 

 

 

======================================================================
 

 

For someone who is so quick to worry about fallacies this is such an incredibly lame statement.

 

How is my statement fallacious or lame?

 

 

You make it sounds like the only folks who believe in God are the ones who view God exactly as you do

 

How so?

 

 

The head of the human genome project was a devout Christian, he just isn't a young earth Christian.

 

That's fine, Please ask him to Validate Scientifically on "Old Earth" view.

 

 

Neither Krauss nor Hawking have been telling anyone to stop believing in God, they merely state that there is no absolute need for a God to explain the Universe.

 

Do you not see the contradiction here?

 

These are "Scientists" to you, eh?

 

Please show "their" Experimental Data supporting "their" postulates?

 

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)

 

On a personal note (opinion with factual support: SEE: Laws of Thermodynamics):  Larry couldn't pass a Junior High Level Physics Class.

 

 

There are many people who believe in God and have absolutely no issue with evolution, deep time or the big bang etc.

 

That's fine; However, I'm really not interested in what they "Believe" only what they can Validate/Support. Since these (evolution, deep time, big bang, ect) are clumsily classified through Equivocation (Fallacy) as "science"....I need to see the Scientific Method employed for support.  Thanks



#15
Bonky

Bonky

    Junior Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPip
  • 135 posts

How is my statement fallacious or lame?


It's fallacious AND lame. You're suggesting that there is some "top down" conspiracy by mainstream science to undermine belief in God. That's absurd and completely unsupported. The fact that there are many individuals that believe in God AND embrace mainstream science shows that your sentiment is false.
 
 

How so?



Aren't you suggesting that mainstream science attempts to "cast doubt" on God? I noticed you didn't bother to support your assertion.
 

That's fine, Please ask him to Validate Scientifically on "Old Earth" view.



You ask him, I couldn't care less what the answer is. My point is that there are Christians who believe in evolution and deep time. You seem to ignore these people.
 
 

Do you not see the contradiction here?
 
These are "Scientists" to you, eh?
 
Please show "their" Experimental Data supporting "their" postulates?


I couldn't care less if their views are right or wrong [for the purposes of this discussion], my point is that they are atheist scientists and their views on God are not dogmatic. They're not telling people to stop believing in God.

 
 

That's fine; However, I'm really not interested in what they "Believe" only what they can Validate/Support. Since these (evolution, deep time, big bang, ect) are clumsily classified through Equivocation (Fallacy) as "science"....I need to see the Scientific Method employed for support.  Thanks


If you know so much, why spend your time on an internet messageboard? File your objections with the scientists you so readily criticize. Stop spreading lies and deceit, that's not the trademark of a Christian.

#16
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,988 posts

 

 

 

================================================================================================

 

It's fallacious AND lame. You're suggesting that there is some "top down" conspiracy by mainstream science to undermine belief in God. That's absurd and completely unsupported. The fact that there are many individuals that believe in God AND embrace mainstream science shows that your sentiment is false.

 

If it's fallacious, post the Specific Fallacy.....?  What's the % of Atheist Secular Scientists to "Christian" Scientists? 

 

And it shows nothing of the sort...and is apparent as the air we breathe

 

Aren't you suggesting that mainstream science attempts to "cast doubt" on God? I noticed you didn't bother to support your assertion.

 

This is one of those "fog a mirror" types of "readily apparent". 
 

 

My point is that there are Christians who believe in evolution and deep time. You seem to ignore these people.

 

As I've mentioned to you numerous times, I could care less what they believe only what they can Support/Validate.
 

 

my point is that they are atheist scientists and their views on God are not dogmatic. They're not telling people to stop believing in God.

 

Some are directly, Ironically Krauss is one.  I guess you didn't see your contradiction.  There are only 2 Choices "nature" (Randomness/Materialist) and Intelligent Design "GOD"...if your supporting one; then by Proxy, you're eliminating the other.

 

 

If you know so much, why spend your time on an internet messageboard?

 

That's where the LORD has me right now.

 

 

File your objections with the scientists you so readily criticize. Stop spreading lies and deceit, that's not the trademark of a Christian.

 

Yes, I file an Objection to the Proceedings.

 

Lies and deceit, eh?  Unsupported Erroneous Assertion (Fallacy)----show one?

 

Try to dissuade yourself from proffering unsolicited advice/instruction and stick to the subject, please.  Thanks



#17
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts
You have to admire his fervor at least! But I wouldn't venture so far as to say scientists are equivocating.

#18
Bonky

Bonky

    Junior Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPip
  • 135 posts

You have to admire his fervor at least! But I wouldn't venture so far as to say scientists are equivocating.



I admire many things, ignorance isn't one of them.

#19
Bonky

Bonky

    Junior Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPip
  • 135 posts

If it's fallacious, post the Specific Fallacy.....?  What's the % of Atheist Secular Scientists to "Christian" Scientists? 
 
And it shows nothing of the sort...and is apparent as the air we breathe


Strawman and quite possibly ad hominem. You were trying to make a connection with mainstream science and the devil right?
 
 

As I've mentioned to you numerous times, I could care less what they believe only what they can Support/Validate.


You don't need to agree with them, but stop pretending they don't exist. It comes off as extreme hubris that the only valid view of God is your view.
 
 

Some are directly, Ironically Krauss is one.  I guess you didn't see your contradiction.  There are only 2 Choices "nature" (Randomness/Materialist) and Intelligent Design "GOD"...if your supporting one; then by Proxy, you're eliminating the other.


You're making the claim that mainstream science "attempts to cast doubt on God". It's absolutely untrue and completely unsupported. Someone saying "I'm not convinced there is a God" is NOT the same as "I don't believe in God and I don't want you to either".
 
 

That's where the LORD has me right now.


Then the Lord doesn't think much of your skill IMO.
 
 

Yes, I file an Objection to the Proceedings.
 
Lies and deceit, eh?  Unsupported Erroneous Assertion (Fallacy)----show one?


Where's the evidence that you object to anything of substance? I mean something beyond an internet messageboard.
 
 

Try to dissuade yourself from proffering unsolicited advice/instruction and stick to the subject, please.  Thanks


If I see someone such as yourself making a nasty claim against people who don't deserve it, I don't stand by idly. This is why I knew discussion with you was a waste of time. You're not interested in discussion, you want to fire off ridiculous claims hoping to get a pat on the back from the congregation. No more time will be spent will you, it's a complete waste.

Edited by Bonky, 14 August 2014 - 06:10 PM.


#20
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,988 posts

 

 

====================================================

 

 

Strawman and quite possibly ad hominem.

 

It's neither.

 

 

You were trying to make a connection with mainstream science and the devil right?

 

Yes, a real reach. This is like trying to convince someone the sky is blue.

 

 

You don't need to agree with them, but stop pretending they don't exist.

 

Now this is a textbook Strawman (Fallacy)

 

 

You're making the claim that mainstream science "attempts to cast doubt on God". It's absolutely untrue and completely unsupported. Someone saying "I'm not convinced there is a God" is NOT the same as "I don't believe in God and I don't want you to either".

 

See the sky is blue comment above.  Here's just a taste:

 

Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity.
Michael Ruse PhD: Science, March 7 2003 p. 1524

 

 

Richard Lewontin, Geneticist and evolutionary Biologist; Professor of Zoology and Professor of Biology at Harvard University...

 

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’
Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.

 

"I can't prove that God doesn't exist, but I'd much rather live in a universe without one."

Larry Krauss

 

"Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam."

Larry Krauss

 

"The Bible is full of dubious scientific impossibilities, from Jonah living inside a whale, to the sun standing still in the sky for Joshua."
Larry Krauss

 

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.”

Larry Krauss

 

Do I need to go any further there Bonky?

 

 

hoping to get a pat on the back from the congregation

 

Do you have Special Mind Powers or something that you can divine others intent?

 

No more time will be spent will you, it's a complete waste.

Hope you find the TRUTH

 






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network