Leaderboard

I get the sense from some people , who are not scientifically inclined, they think that while science is fine and all what's the point in dragging it into faith matters? Isn't the gospel simple? Why does it matter if evolution is true or not, why worry about it? Why does it matter if the universe is 14.5 billion years old or 10k yrs old? What does that affect anyway? There's a point there sure. But, my opponents (the YEC who debate in this subforum) have a point also, and it's this, as I understand it. Science informs what we think is *really* true about the world. If there is a lot of scientific evidence that being exposed to plutonium causes cancer, I will avoid it. If there is a lot of scientific evidence that t he earth is round, that it goes around the sun, and that the sun is a star in the Milky Way, I will see the world that way now. That is, science is such a powerful tool for informing us about how the physical world works, it can inform the worldviews we have powerfully. Ignoring that is perhaps naive. More than that, for people who are more scientifically inclined this effect is more powerful. This, ultimately, is about what we think is true about the world, and perhaps what the default 'truth' is. When I want to know what is 'really real' where do I turn? If I had to put my future income on the line? my family? At the risk of exposing myself, I admit, I have struggled with this sort of thing. I instinctually believe 'the science'. I am challenged to have faith and see the 'greater' reality, the real reality, as being in God. For many of us, there is a tension there. I doesn't have to be that way, but it is. I have personally been convicted of having less faith while engaging in research. There are things happening that way I don't even really understand yet, which is for me a reason I engage in these discussions at all. This isn't just about being curious about the world, or enjoying science as some hobby or career choice. At issue is a fundamental approach to the world. And insofar as I am correct in understanding the YEC crowd, I think they are correct about that.

Defending creationism is important not because people need proof. Because they need to know creationism is an intelligent view. Humanist have been zooming in on our youth, elementary thru collage. God speaks to the world thru his creation. The heavens declare the glory of God. The skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out to all the earth, their words to the ends of the world... Psalms 19:1-4

Selectively enforcing or ignoring the law is illegal, which this President has done time and time again. He doesn't get to choose what laws this nation has and does not have, that's Congress's job. They make the laws, the decide which laws they want to make and the President has to execute them, he doesn't get to use his discretion at what laws will and will not be enforced.

Well, having been and still am, in an area which is heavily shepherding movement, I have experienced many so called pastors who are more interested in position and control. Over the past 10 years or so, some of these same pastors have claimed a 'promotion' for worthy service and are now bishops or apostles. The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), in action, can be very very similar to shepherding movement. The Shepherding movement basically was the sheep must submit to their pastors, in extremes. If a 'Sheep' failed to submit, they were manipulated, told they were rebellious, had a Jezebel spirit, were damaging Gods work and Gods annointed. Ultimately, if the 'sheep' failed to submit, they were ostracized and said to have back slidden, or worse. The pastors who fell into the shepherding movement tended to like an elevated position and power. The 'sheep' who were in that movement were essentially manipulated and crippled Christians, who were made to be entirely reliant on 'daddy pastor'. In my view, the movement damaged an entire generation of Christians, making few mature and effective believers. Now with the New Apostolic Reformation, the teaching is, to become a fully functional church, the church must submit to an apostle. There are men who claim to be apostles, going around and attempting to be an apostle of a given area. They are working to convince the pastors to come under the apostle. (Apostles in scripture shared the gospel and established churches, but these apostles gather established churches under them, and from there, might share the gospel from a church pulpit). These apostles are one higher then the pastor, ruling over multiple churches, and teaching a form of shepherding. So which is worse. A pastor might directly hurt many Christians, but an apostle might teach pastors who hurt many Christians.

Yeah. I think the issue is, you are assuming naturalism, if even for a moment, to do it. Then, you see how well it all works out, how powerful the predictions are, how well we can control the world thinking like that. For me, at any rate, it's hard not to exist in tension between this implicit 'success' of science, associate that with naturalism, vs the more 'unpredictable' nature of spiritual encounters with God. "Why does it matter if evolution is true or not, why worry about it? Why does it matter if the universe is 14.5 billion years old or 10k yrs old? What does that affect anyway?" As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is God’s highest authoritative communication to humanity. The primary purpose of the Bible is to reveal God to humanity, as well as His plan for our salvation. The Bible provides the fundamental premise of all Christian doctrine, ethics and philosophy including the nature of God and reason that salvation is necessary. Opponents of Christianity have long understood that the most effective attacks against the Christian faith are those which undermine the reliability and authority of the Bible. Some non-Christian faiths have constructed their own scriptures through which they judge the Bible (e.g. Islam), others formulate new “scriptures”; permitting them to reinterpret the Bible (e.g. the Book of Mormon, Gnostic gospels etc.). Others simply change parts of scripture to suit what they believe (e.g. the Jehovah’s Witness Bible). There have been many recorded historical attempts to change the Bible; especially the New Testament (e.g. the Alexandrian manuscripts, Constantine’s attempt to standardise the Bible etc.). Non-religious faiths (i.e. atheism, agnosticism) tend to prefer attacking the reliability of the Bible in other ways. For example, vast lists of alleged Bible contradictions have been formulated in an attempt to undermine the Bible; based on the implied accusation of logical inconsistency. In some cases they simply utilize the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Ridicule by mocking the supernatural claims made in the Bible (e.g. talking animals, “magical sky Daddy” & “zombie Jesus” etc.) – thinking themselves to be ever so clever. But by far the most aggressive and successful attacks against the authority of scripture are those claiming the Bible to be scientifically untenable. Science (as we understand it) requires the assumption of a rationally ordered universe. That is, in order for us to be able to attribute scientific confidence to a claim, we have to assume that the laws which govern our universe are constant through time and space, and that identical experiments will thus yield identical results. Scientific advancement stalled in several ancient cultures because they lacked any justification for assuming a rationally ordered universe. However, science prospered under the Christian paradigm which justifies this fundamental assumption (by invoking a rational Creator). This is why Christianity has been the foremost sponsor of scientific advancement for the best part of the last 2000 years; and why the founding scientists of almost all scientific disciplines were explicitly Christian; and why the oldest science universities (e.g. Oxford) were built by the church. Science was originally conducted to glorify the Biblical God through investigation of His creation. However, roughly 300 years ago, a new paradigm was suggested for science which we now call naturalism. Naturalism is a paradigm whereby only natural explanations can be considered to qualify as truth – and therefore is a faith-based paradigm that unjustifiably prohibits the possibility of any supernatural interaction with the physical universe). This new paradigm has been so thoroughly adopted by the broader scientific community that it has become the only type of science that most people are exposed to. This creates the false impression that naturalistic science is logically superior to science performed from other faith-based perspectives. This secular indoctrination of the naturalistic perspective makes it easy for its proponents to make unjustified, Innuendo-based claims that with their position; “you see how well it all works out, how powerful the predictions are, how well we can control the world thinking like that”; and to simply equate their own position as “science” with its “implicit 'success'” – with the obvious implication that opposing positions are not “science”. They furthermore demonstrate no knowledge of the predictive power and consistency of models formulated around alternative faith perspectives; and again appealing to logical fallacy (Innuendo and Strawman Misrepresentations) proceeding to falsely characterise opposing views as unscientific (i.e. “the more 'unpredictable' nature of spiritual encounters with God”) in contrast against their own preferred, allegedly “scientific” perspective. The defence of Biblical authority is of paramount importance to the success of Christian conversion and life. I have encountered many who outright reject Christianity because they think is it scientifically unsustainable based on what is taught in the Bible. And others who fall away from Christianity because they cannot reconcile their faith in naturalistic science with their faith in the reliability of the Bible. Yet as someone who is formally educated in science, I have never encountered an argument or evidence that would warrant a wholesale rejection of the Biblical model of reality (including the creation account). I have searched, and I have found no objective scientific reason that would necessarily, logically bind anyone to the naturalistic models. In other words, as much as our culture and the secular scientific community would like you to believe that theirs is the only rational argument, their expressed levels of confidence in their own position is neither scientifically, or logically, justified. And there is therefore no legitimate reason for a Christian to believe they are obligated to distrust the account of history presented in the Bible. Any such adherence to secular models is based on faith in the naturalistic paradigm, not any objective consideration of the science itself.

Hey Alpha, Don't know if I am the official Spokesperson for YEC (yet LOL), but I'll give it a shot. "they think that while science is fine and all what's the point in dragging it into faith matters?" Ironically, the "Founding Fathers" of science were Creationists attempting to explain/discover the Awesomeness of GOD'S Creation. Don't know when science separated from it's original tenet; Science = Knowledge..... to...... Science = Naturalistic Explanations of Knowledge only. The Irony turns into a Full Blown Contradiction, How? Well "Naturalistic" explanations are Material....and Knowledge is SUPERNATURAL. You can't put Information >>>>> Knowledge >>>>>> or TRUTH in a Jar and Paint it RED. ....... It's tantamount to trying to discover what we breathe...... but, a priori excluding AIR from the choices....and breathing it all while attempting to rule it out !!!!! "Why does it matter if the universe is 14.5 billion years old or 10k yrs old?" Ask OEC'ers. "Isn't the gospel simple?" Well it's all ONE BOOK. The Gospel isn't separate from the OLD Testament. "Why does it matter if evolution is true or not, why worry about it?" Because it's a Clear assault, contradiction, and undermines the WORD of GOD. Why does it matter? Did Jesus just let the Pharisees "go" or exclaim; "why does it matter" when they undermined GOD's Word? "Science informs what we think is *really* true about the world." Personally, I Love "Science"....what I take issue with is a priori fairytales masqueraded under the guise of "science", (to impart some conjured pseudo-legitimacy through equivocation), that are merely Extrapolations from Assumptions. "That is, science is such a powerful tool for informing us about how the physical world works, it can inform the worldviews we have powerfully." You betcha, and they better follow Protocol or I will EXPOSE them..... Systematically. My assigned Goal In Life!!! "When I want to know what is 'really real' where do I turn? If I had to put my future income on the line? my family? At the risk of exposing myself, I admit, I have struggled with this sort of thing. I instinctually believe 'the science'." This is where we differ (well one place ): Science is man's word....(Romans 3:10-13) "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: {11} There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. {12} They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. {13} Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:" or GOD's WORD. I don't know about you but for me it's a MegaTsunamic Landslide in a Planck Time!!! This is the Hierarchy for me personally: Assumptions/Conjecture/Stories >>> "Scientific Evidence" (via The Scientific Method) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scripture (not to scale or Scripture would be past the "Crab Nebula" to the Right) and, I never look @ any issue in a Vacuum. 1st is the WORD then (if applicable) I look @ what Science has to say. I never look @ science and then attempt to reconcile the WORD through it. "I have personally been convicted of having less faith while engaging in research." And as a result of this personal conundrum....... I see BIG THINGS for You ALPHA!!!!! thanks for the feedback. I may have more to say later, I'm short on time, but I laughed here... Planck time eh? lol "I don't know about you but for me it's a MegaTsunamic Landslide in a Planck Time!!!"

It's more of a reflection that is open to discussion if others have thoughts about it. It has to do with science demanding cognitive loyalty, basically.

lol yeah. That's about it I think.

Yeah. I think the issue is, you are assuming naturalism, if even for a moment, to do it. Then, you see how well it all works out, how powerful the predictions are, how well we can control the world thinking like that. For me, at any rate, it's hard not to exist in tension between this implicit 'success' of science, associate that with naturalism, vs the more 'unpredictable' nature of spiritual encounters with God.

Can't live with them can't live without them.

I'm wondering how they could know that this person was lactose intolerant..... and why it would be considered natural for all people there...

Looking at Genesis 1:2 this way, asking these questions, are the reason I first questioned the validity of the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1, why I eventually turned away from that intepretation, and why I cannot return to it. This is sure a fast moving thread. To be honest Neb, there are some unanswered questions in scripture, and this happens to be one of them. Just questioning a train of thought here, but if science tries to answer questions for God, and if God does not give a clear answer - causing us to turn to science for the answers - where will it end? This is why we are to have faith in Him and His words, especially when scripture is silent, otherwise, the more we lean on science, the less we lean on God. If science is correct because of their proof, then we must accept God does not exist because we lack direct proof to Him, according to science. Personally, I will let my faith in Him be enough to believe His word. I would much rather place my faith in scripture, even if my understanding is wrong and corrected when I see Him, then to not truth scripture and trust science, be wrong and then corrected when I see Him. Just thought I would throw this in the mix because I cannot answer your questions with scripture outside of Proverbs 3:5-6. There is no harm in turning to science for some answers. We know that knowledge is increasing and knowledge is given by G-d. Discovery and proofs in science have often shown the Bible is correct. There are many, many aspects of science in scripture that man, over time, are now discovering. Before man believed the earth was flat, the Bible says "G-d sets above the sphere of the earth". the cycle of weather patterns, the unhealthiness of mold and how to recognize and destroy it, etc. See, faith is not only present in our belief in the Bible, but faith is present in every aspect of our lives. Even science has its aspects of faith. I cannot see the air, but I know it exists. I have proof from science, even though I do not see it. If the scriptures appear silent, they may well not be. It may be through science and knowledge that we are given a greater insight to the invisible or past unknowns. We have to weigh the science in correlation to G-d and His word. What is not fully known, may sometime be more clearly revealed in time. We do not need to compromise our faith in Him by looking further into science. You are correct as long as science does not point one away from scripture. I personally believe that science was created to know God, but has since been used to try and show God does not exist. The latter usage of science is what I refer to.

Looking at Genesis 1:2 this way, asking these questions, are the reason I first questioned the validity of the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1, why I eventually turned away from that intepretation, and why I cannot return to it. This is sure a fast moving thread. To be honest Neb, there are some unanswered questions in scripture, and this happens to be one of them. Just questioning a train of thought here, but if science tries to answer questions for God, and if God does not give a clear answer - causing us to turn to science for the answers - where will it end? This is why we are to have faith in Him and His words, especially when scripture is silent, otherwise, the more we lean on science, the less we lean on God. If science is correct because of their proof, then we must accept God does not exist because we lack direct proof to Him, according to science. Personally, I will let my faith in Him be enough to believe His word. I would much rather place my faith in scripture, even if my understanding is wrong and corrected when I see Him, then to not truth scripture and trust science, be wrong and then corrected when I see Him. Just thought I would throw this in the mix because I cannot answer your questions with scripture outside of Proverbs 3:5-6.