alphaparticle

I am not oversating it all. The Bible makes the direct connection. I am simply reflecting how the Bible connects the fall and salvation and the fact is that the claims of Evolution fly directly in the face of what the Bible says. You are simply not theologically equipped or you are simply unwilling to see the connection. Constantly impugning my motives or accusing me of ignorance doesn't really further the discussion. You've said this before. No, you can't and the Bible makes that clear. Only in your imagination is such a thing possible. You are so committed to Evolution that the Bible's claims are pretty much expendable and unecessary whenever you need them to be, as you are illustrating in the above comment. According to you, we don't need the Bible's explanation for the origin of sin. You are proving a point that I made on another thread about how Darwinism erodes the Bible's authority. The bottom line is that for you science is the authority and the Bible is useful until it and science collide. Without Genesis you cannot: 1. Explain the origin of sin 2 You cannot explain why man is a sinner 3. You cannot explain why Jesus is the last Adam 4. You cannot explain the need for Jesus to die for sin that doesn't exist. 1. separation from God 2. why? again, it's a fact we observe, we are clearly separated from God and all of us have sin 3. insofar as Adam stands for, as a literal person or not, the fall of humanity, yes I can. (and I am not committing myself to the notion there is no historical Adam here, by the way). 4. What? it's clear we are sinners separated from God, whatever else you want to argue. That this is so is one of the empirically verifiable aspects of Christianity. Which is not what I said, but I understand the need to paint my responses that way in the absence of the ability to respond to me without misrepresenting what I said. Any misrepresentation is completely unintentional. I'm not even sure what you are disagreeing with here. I have found a lot of religionists who are evolutionists. I have not found that a lot of "belevers" who claim evolution also tend to question the Bible's authority in other areas. They tend to support gay marriage, abortion, and deny the inerrancy and accuracy of Scripture. None of that is surprising since they have already established the low estimation they have for the Bible in the first place. Alright sure. But there are religionists the other way aren't there? those who claim to believe the Bible in every matter but turn the gospel into heavy handed legalism, as an example. That people can abuse positions doesn't make the positions themselves intrinsically bad. My concern isn't with the ultra liberal Christian who sees Jesus as nothing but an enlightened moral teacher. Yes that type will be embracing evolution along with many other things. My concern is with the genuine believer in the gospel, or the sincere seeker, for whom YEC is an impenetrable stumbling block.

There is a difference between talking about what pertains to salvation and what is essential to salvation. Genesis does pertain to salvation. The need for salvation is establsihed in Genesis because of the fall of man in the Garden The first Messianic Prophecy about Jesus and salvation is made in Genesis. Genesis 1-3 establishes Jesus as the sovereign Creator, Righteous Redeemer and Eternal Judge of mankind. Genesis is where the Abrahamic Covenant is first cut which is a type of the New Covenent cut in Jesus blood through which we get salvation. The problem is that when you around trying to claim that Genesis can't be taken literally, you do immeasurable harm to the Scriptures pertaining to salvation in Genesis. I am not saying that if you don't believe in YEC that you are not a Christian. I am saying that the whole earth age debate isn't about the age of the earth. It is about indoctrination into the myth of Evolution, which usually ends up producing theologically and spritually immature and inept Christians, or it ends up enabling some people's embrace of atheism. Thanks for clearing up this distinction. I think you overestimate the linkage conceptually between evolution, the fall, and the need for salvation. I can see it is all very tightly linked in your mind, very well. I don't think any of that has to follow. Evolution could be true and the fall be a historical fact, specifically involving a specific man and woman named Adam and Eve. The fall could be non historical and still be true insofar as humans are fallen and separated from God. That we are fallen and separated from God is a fact that we could ascertain even apart from knowing anything about Genesis at all. Granting that you are right, that YEC is the only legitimate way to interpret Genesis and is true about the world, it still seems possible to me for believers to grow in faith and so on without granting that. Moreover, if you are right, I would expect that in the lives of individual believers the Spirit might very well lead people to your conclusion. I can see why you or others would argue it, insofar as you think it is true and I agree that truth is important, but I think you underestimate the harm that is done by your rhetoric going the other way- that people get the impression that the only way to really be a Christian is to embrace YEC, which just seems utterly impossible to many. Given that it is not necessary to salvation, I question the usefulness in such heavy-handed rhetoric. I think it is *essential* that seekers, Christians in the sciences etc., realize that there are believers out there who think the the universe is old, that the earth is old and there are plenty of believers out there who think that evolution is the case (though divinely guided).

Does Q still have superpowers? because, I don't see how Kirk could defeat him in that scenario.

Yes you can. Not at all. I believe that we are sinful and need of a Savior. I also believe evolution happened, under God's guidance. Whether you think this is a coherent view or not, it's a possible one. Insisting that people deny the mainstream scientific picture in totality is an unnecessary barrier. Sorry but Evolution and the Bible don't mix. You can't be a true evolutionist and a Bible believer, any more than you can be an agnostic or an atheist and still be a Christian. The Bible doesn't make room for evolution. Maybe they can be mixed in your theologically unsophisticated imagination, but they don't mix in reality. The claims of Scripture are not compatible with Evolution and only someone who is willing to be honest about the text of the Bible can understand that. Evidently, you are not willing to be. Which claims of scripture are essential for salvation? Even if you want to say that you cannot have believe in Genesis and evolution (which I think I do, but putting that aside from the moment), why couldn't you believe that Jesus died for your sins and have faith in Him? You're adding a lot of extra stuff to salvation here.

Beloved I'm Using You As A Sounding Board For I Think "Science With Praise" Just May Become A First And A Well Of Love For The Weary Seeking Joy And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; Colossians 3:23 ~ ~ It's Just An Old Beef With A Few Young PhD University Bullies Who I Pray The Holy Spirit Finally Showes Them The Living Power Of The Universe Jesus Of Nazareth For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17 ~ So Yes Beloved I Agree This Science With Glory Idea Is Great It Beats The Devil Out Of The Old "Scientific" Anti-Christ For We Know All That Old False "Knowledge" Will Soon Go Up In A Roar For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. Malachi 4:1-2 And The LORD Will Get The Glory Glory 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 ~ And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40 Love, Your Brother Joe This sort of thing, Col 1:16-7 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ....takes on new meaning for me when viewed through the lens of something like Hubble Deep Space images, or even look at the amazing coincidence of theoretical prediction and experimental findings. "origins" questions aside, the universe is pretty amazing. It's unfortunate to allow the investigation of the natural world to proceed through pro-atheistic viewpoints by fiat. I think on that we are in agreement. That people here would be concerned that atheistic messages might get through is something I understand, but a risk in my view worth taking at least once.

Yes you can. Not at all. I believe that we are sinful and need of a Savior. I also believe evolution happened, under God's guidance. Whether you think this is a coherent view or not, it's a possible one. Insisting that people deny the mainstream scientific picture in totality is an unnecessary barrier.

You're just not getting it. I've already posted the reasons about 4 times now. Can't explain it more concisely or clearer. Maybe someone else can explain it better. You also failed to put this into the "Scientific Method" ? Hmm well. I don't know how to make my point any clearer either. I am taking into account that we assume things about the original populations of daughter and parent nuclei in a sample. That is in fact what my entire post was about. I don't think that will help any young earth case for the reasons I outlined above.

The comment is, you still haven't explained why all these tests just happen to have ratios of daughter and parent nuclei that gives a coherent picture of the world as 4.5 billions years old. Why is it that if you test two different samples thought to be at the same strata, they give you the same range of date? Why is it that if you are able to test a completely different isotope, you get similar age ranges? Why is this true in all the strata we are able to test? Just saying that we can't be sure that a seemingly reasonable supposition about the ratios of daughter and parent nuclei is always going to be true doesn't really throw a monkey wrench into the entire system I outlined above. You have to argue that daughter nuclei are added into some sample, at just the right amounts, in each of the thousands done, *individually* to mask a 10k age from us. It's just not reasonable. To illustrate what I mean maybe I could lay out a mini case of this. Suppose we are testing the age of something with 3 strata layers we think may be from different ages. Suppose we do 9 tests, 3 on each strata layer. Suppose further we have two isotopes, X and Y that we can test the ratio of daughter and parent nuclei of, and which we think we know the decay rates of due to careful testing in the lab. The numbers etc are just to illustrate what I have in mind and shouldn't be taken too literally. Strata one we do 3 tests, 2 with X and 1 with Y. We get an age range of 1 million years, +/- 10,000 yrs. Strata two we do 3 tests, 2 with Y 1 with X, we get an age range of 10 million years, +/- 100,000 yrs (say there is a greater uncertainty because one sample yielded less isotope to measure or some such). Strata three we do 3 tests, but all isotope Y as X doesn't have a sufficient half life for this one. We get 1 billion years, +/- 1 million yrs. Now someone comes along and says, look, we can't be sure that there aren't more daughter nuclei present in the initial samples. That would skew the data! Alright. We should account for that with our error bars. But now he says, there are daughter nuclei present in each 9 sample *just exactly so* that it gives us the mistaken impression of these strata layers, each older than the last, but actually skewed *just so* that the thing we are testing is only 10k years old total. Now I have to ask, why would I thing that the daughter nuclei are overrepresented in each 9 sample, just precisely so? It's almost beyond belief. Now extend this to thousands of tests, a dozen isotopes, and things really get bizarre.

The debate hasn't happened yet. It's on Feb. 4th Well, all the more reason I haven't seen it.

Ultimately, it is not about the age of the earth. It is about providing a path toward an evolutionary mindset. The old earth theory is just a weigh station on the way to becoming an evolutionist for many young impressionable minds. It is where this is going. The evolutionists know this and so they are not trying push Evolution completely. They are cleverly setting the stage for evolution to be accepted by simply changing minds and getting them to accept certain premises that need to be in place before they can be convinced of evolution. All the more reason, in my mind, to talk about openly and honestly what the gospel is, in the bare sense, before deciding to attach all these extra requirements to it. It seems that you are coming from the mindset of protecting young Christian minds, whereas I can't help but thing about this in terms of not having seekers walk away over details which don't actually pertain to salvation. I don't think that YEC science has a chance. The doctrine itself I see as something distinct from that, at least I do now, but it has taken me a while to see that distinction. When someone comes looking at the faith and someone is pounding YEC on them suddenly there are images of Ray Comfort promoting the shape of bananas as proof of creation, and the entire thing looks too ridiculous to take seriously. I don't think this is a good distraction at all. The gospel is belief, faith, in Jesus as the resurrected savior. Through Him we have eternal life. Seekers, young impressionable Christian minds, etc., should know that wherever they fall on the evolutionary question this is the case.

Furthermore: "In my mind, it seems nearly inconceivable that dating from multiple different isotopes, thousands of these tests done on many different kinds of samples, all happen to converge on this single coherent picture of the earth as billions of years old..." They don't ALL happen to converge. The Literature is ripe with examples of conflicting data. There are also examples of dates of Millions of Years assigned to KNOWN ages of rocks that were only decades of years old. Question: If the method fails when we know the ages of rocks then how in the world do you expect accurate results when we don't know the ages?? (Yes, I am aware of the issues with K-Ar and young rocks and false positives.... which opens up another can of worms) Notwithstanding, you are correct in many instances they do converge....what could be causing that?? Well, how about they are ALL based on the same Faulty Assumption! That's what you would expect if the decay rates are known and are accurate because they are all testing against the same benchmark.... But the Benchmark is the ASSUMPTION. So...of course, they should all come back in the same neighborhood. Moreover, they claim that this is "Scientific". Say it ain't so? To be a Scientific Claim, as opposed to a Claim that Scientists make, they would need to show "Scientific Evidence", correct? Well.... 'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence Please show me, Here it is..... Step 1: OBSERVATION....not an ASSUMPTION. Step 2: Do Literature Review/Background research Step 3: Construct Hypothesis (Tentative Assumption/Question/Statement) Step 4: TEST/Experiment Step 5: Analyze DATA/Results Step 6: Draw Conclusions..... Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis Step 7: Report Results If invalidated....Back to the drawing board or STEP 3 I predict it can't get by Step 1. You have to Directly OBSERVE the Phenomenon. What are they Observing......a Rock. So actually it's not a Scientific Claim or Evidence....it's a "Claim" that Scientists make. Very subtle but MASSIVE difference! Alright. A couple tests that were obviously wrong doesn't mean the entire thing should be eliminated. and that's literally what it is, a couple that YEC cling onto. One test being out of the range of the other by a million years even doesn't make for a *4.5 billion* year shortfall that the YECs propose. The mass of the data presents an incredibly coherent picture, specific and consistent. There's nothing there that allows for the gigantic shortfall of time needed to make the YEC picture work. Are you still denying that astronomy is a proper science? If so, I think you have a rotten definition of science.

The debate is moot. If you do not believe in Christ, you go to hell. What's to debate? ?

You've posted something to this effect previously and I will respond again. It's not unlikely.... IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. I'm not asking you to show Life from Non-Life, which is Exponentially Preposterous by any Natural Process, to prove your postulate; show, JUST ONE: DNA/RNA/Functional Protein form by a "Natural Process" from nucleotides and aminos. If what you say is true, then this is a cakewalk. Sorry to intrude on this discussion (if it's still ongoing) but I just had to comment. There are many examples of possible reactions that are thermodynamically feasible but do not happen for kinetic reasons, i.e. there is no feasible mechanism for the reaction under normal conditions. Thermodynamic feasibility (compliance with the 2nd Law ) is a NECESSARY but not SUFFICIENT condition for a chemical reaction to proceed. Actually the fact that functional proteins can be formed from amino acids under 'unnatural' conditions demonstrates that the same is thermodynamically possible under 'natural' ones, even without the presence of a living organism. Thermodynamic state functions such as entropy and free energy are path independent. In living cells and laboratories enzymes catalyse the formation of proteins from amino acids. But the catalyst (enzyme) makes no thermodynamic difference to the reaction; thermodynamic feasibility depends only on the difference in free energy between the reactants and products. If a reaction proceeds with a catalyst it is by definition thermodynamically possible, with or without the catalyst. If it does not happen without a catalyst that is due to kinetic and mechanistic factors, not thermodynamics. But it is of course still possible there are other conditions that will allow the reaction to occur even in the absence of the normal catalyst Yes. Thanks. I bolded the essential point that at least I have been trying to communicate to Enoch. Saying that some reaction is unlikely is not equivalent to it violating a law of thermodynamics.

Yeah I agree, public debates are not typically a way I'd want to learn about whether a position is good or not. They typically just cause each side to retrench. It's a performance piece. By the way, I haven't seen the debate in question so I don't know who came off looking better to the public.

The problem is,unless you change the body of facts setting up a young earth scenario as a part of the Christian faith is going to make it much harder for anyone to actually hear the *gospel*. I know for myself, it's just not possible to up and decide that the earth is 10k years old. Unless all the facts change tomorrow, or God literally changes my mind, it's not a live option. Pushing that dilemma on young people does not seem like a good solution to anything except the promotion of an unstable cognitive dissonance.

~ Well There I Agree, Science Is Too Precious To Drop Into The Witch's Caldron Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(c ) Just To Get Folded And Blended Into The Hate Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. John 15:20 Some Have For The Christ But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8 Although I Suspect It Could Take Twenty Four Hour Moderation To Mop Up The Wolf Spit But Then Again I've Been Wrong And I Do Know The Holy Ghost Is Far Far Greater Than Those Spirits Whom Appose Jesus Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 1 John 4:4 And As If Today's Moderation Team Isn't Overloaded Enough Perhaps All The "Science" Posts Could Be Previewed Before Posting In The "Clean Clear Pure Science And Math To The Creator's Glory" Forum Kinda Like The Seekers Forum Is? ~ PS: Who Said Entropy And Thermodynamics Just Don't Apply Off Earth Why Just About Every Pagan Physicist I've Question And Who Says Otherwise Why Every Godly Physicist I've Questioned Including My First Post Navy Much Beloved Collage Professor Yeah well, I have the luxury of suggesting many things as I don't have to moderate anything.Maybe if it's horrific it could be shut down again. I'd suspect it might be kind of slow for a while honestly. I'm not sure who claims that thermodynamics doesn't apply across the board. They are just statistical rules that apply to any ensemble with certain properties. I know you have something in mind there but I'm not sure.

So, we are mistaken about the number of daughter particles, in each sample for each isotope, in the *exact amount* to cause us to converge on a coherent picture that just happens to date the earth to billions of years old? That doesn't really answer my challenge. There are thousands of these tests done now, using multiple different radioactive isotopes. What you suggest is that there is a massive coincidence. Maybe God put just the right amount of daughter nuclei in with every parent so that it would look like some strata is 60 million years old, and that it will look like that for every test you do on a sample in that strata, but really it's only 10k after all? And then that is true for all the various strata that are tested. Hopefully you'll see why I don't take such a suggestion as feasible.

lol Even Dear Max Did Not Disrespect His Creator Or Logical Conclusions The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Psalms 19:1 Even The Most Insipid Of Believers In The TOS Will No Doubt See Max's Conclusion As Intrinsically At Odds With Their Mythologies Yes, I think there is plenty of reason to see scientific inquiry as not intrinsically anti Bible or anti God. I think it's really possible to discuss science in a way that doesn't always end up being about 'origins' in some way. As far as 'science only' section, I'd see it more akin to the news or hobby type stuff people like to discuss. For myself, I'd really like to connect with other believers with my interests, which I think some others mutually share. I think there's enough people who might be interested for it to not be completely stupid. Maybe it could be 'math and science' interests? or news? It would be extra nice because the truth is there just aren't that many believers in scientific fields, so being there doing what I do among who as far as I can tell are all unbelievers, then come here and have it be all confrontational the other way is lame. As far as chalk talk, why not? it floats some boats, same as talking politics or recipes or music.

However, If It Contradicts The Bible, It Is Not Knowledge (Science) And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9 And A Challenge Should Be Issued, Returning Us Right Back To Where We Fled From 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 him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3 Or It Must Be Booted From The Sub-Forum In An Attempt To Keep The Science That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. John 1:9-10 Science And Not Philosophy Or Conjecture And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Jeremiah 18:12 As I See It Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. John 1:49-51 ~ Science Are you trying to butter me up talking about blackbody radiation and a key relation which helped lead to, my favorite of all time,quantum mechanics? If so, it may work. I mean statistical distributions.. lol.. okay... that could be epic. Well, I think it speaks to my point though. It would be nice to discuss scientific stuff that isn't always about fighting about stuff that people dispute here.Even the most ardent of YEC I assume wouldn't take a thread about Planck's law and quanta as at intrinsic odds with the Bible.

So I went ahead and read the first reference there. Here is a question for you Argosy, have you looked at the actual numbers involved? The variations in frequency of events are in terms of per year units (a hertz is oscillation per second). That means these are tiny, tiny fluctuations. Have you sat down, maybe put in the maximum oscillation, added them up for 4 or 5 billion years, to see if that would make up for a *4.5 billion year* shortfall? I say this in the spirit of non jerkiness, but it does not work. What I think YEC sometimes don't see is the enormous chasm between 10,000 years and 4,500,000,000 years, 6 orders of magnitude. If you want to turn to scientific discovery to come up with an explanation for a difference in 6 orders of magnitude it needs to be very striking. Otherwise, things such as this do not present your position in the best light. Hey alpha, You have a keen interest in physics. Would you mind reading the article I cited above and tell me the strengths and weaknesses of the article, especially the part discussing the radioactive isotopes with a half life over 68,000,000. Thanks. From what I am seeing it seems to present solid points. I think people on the thread would benefit from going through this article. In my mind, it seems nearly inconceivable that dating from multiple different isotopes, thousands of these tests done on many different kinds of samples, all happen to converge on this single coherent picture of the earth as billions of years old, yet somehow everyone is grossly mistaken and the earth is really only a few thousand years old. I'm trying to figure out, in principle, what sort of mistake could lead to that and truly I cannot think of what that would be aside from God wanting us to all be wrong.

I agree that the solar cycle has a negligible effect on decay, I included that article just to strengthen my argument that the dips in decay are caused by any type of increase in solar radiation. Whether its the July effect, the midnight effect, solar flares or solar cycles; decay rates always react to changes in solar radiation. The bigger the changes the more the effect. The effect is difficult to quantify, because the cause is unknown. Remember the formula of the half-life is based on randomness and now there's evidence that decay is not random. This affects rates of decay in an exponential manner. Change to radioactive decay is 0.1 percent during the solar cycle, it would be interesting to know what percentage the following changes during this same 33 day cycle: 1) High speed protons 2) Muons on earth's surface 3) Ionizing background 4) The sun's energy output http://phys.org/news202456660.html " Jenkins and Fischbach collaborated with Peter Sturrock, a professor emeritus of applied physics at Stanford University and an expert on the inner workings of the sun, to examine data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on the rate of decay of the radioactive isotopes silicon-32 and chlorine-36. The team reported in the journal Astroparticle Physics that the decay rate for both isotopes varies in a 33-day recurring pattern, which they attribute to the rotation rate of the sun's core. In general, the fluctuations that Jenkins and Fischbach have found are around a tenth of a percent from what is expected, as they've examined available published data and taken some measurements themselves." I can't find enough information on the maths behind the cause/effect, could you kindly supply more evidence if you feel the effect under stronger magnetic fields would be negligible. The issue is, we know what the earth's magnetic field has been doing as lookingforanswers has pointed out. So I suppose my question is, what is it that you want me to look up? Rates in a 5 Tesla field? I am not sure what that gains you insofar as earth's magnetic field was never that strong. If there were external fields that strong, we would have seen that also. You need some phenomenon which affects the decay rates of all the radioactive isotopes used for radiometric dating in the exact same way, and that can account for a 6 orders of magnitude shortfall of time. What is it you want to propose?

So I went ahead and read the first reference there. Here is a question for you Argosy, have you looked at the actual numbers involved? The variations in frequency of events are in terms of per year units (a hertz is oscillation per second). That means these are tiny, tiny fluctuations. Have you sat down, maybe put in the maximum oscillation, added them up for 4 or 5 billion years, to see if that would make up for a *4.5 billion year* shortfall? I say this in the spirit of non jerkiness, but it does not work. What I think YEC sometimes don't see is the enormous chasm between 10,000 years and 4,500,000,000 years, 6 orders of magnitude. If you want to turn to scientific discovery to come up with an explanation for a difference in 6 orders of magnitude it needs to be very striking. Otherwise, things such as this do not present your position in the best light.

I wouldn't mind such a change myself. In addition, it would be really cool to have just a science subforum somewhere, under interests or news or something. Somewhere that science issues could be discussed that don't have to do with evolution vs the bible or cosmology vs the bible. I think there's enough people around here interested in science to warrant that and it would help from giving the impression that Christianity and science are implicitly at odds.

I don't always have the right feelings in place. Maybe most of the time I don't. And I'd say, I have the sense of not really fitting into the body of believers very often. My approach is different, my way of speaking is even different. It can be hard to relate. I think there is a difference between 'Christian culture' in which you know the right key phrases, throw your arms up in the air at the right times, love group singing lol... and being a genuine believer. My concern is that those lines get blurred so readily it makes it difficult on some. Do you pray? Do you think you are changing and becoming more Christlike with time? Do you see the Spirit doing stuff in your life?

I have been thinking about this topic a lot lately, and I'm grateful nebula started this thread. As far as the original dialog goes, I can think of ways it might progress. Say we have a scientist (a 'conventional one' who here is going to accept the current standard scientific views) believer and a young earth creationist believer. I want to return to the original dilemma. C: if you believe the Bible is God's word there is really only one legitimate way to understand the Genesis creationist account, and that is to take it as a factual account S: I don't see that that is necessarily the case, perhaps God was communicating to ancient communities using terminology and concepts they would understand C: God could have put the Big Bang model in there, evolution in there, long ages in there, in terms they would understand without the details S: that may be so but maybe the intended point of the account isn't what went down in a step-wise type way skipping ahead to theological consequences... C: not only is that a forced, ad hoc reading of what is most simply seen as a factual account of matters, but there are dire theological consequences to your reading also. If you are not taking the creation account factually, are you also not taking the fall as a historical happening? S: maybe not C: if that's the case, then what about the need for Jesus' sacrifice? S: if it's the case that my reading of the creation account is right, and the precise historical happenings aren't what is most critical that could apply here also. After all, it's empirically verifiable that humans do wrong. Whether or not a literal historical Adam and Eve got kicked out of the garden of Eden or not we are sinful C: there are multiple problems with that. The first is, if you are going to so blithely disregard historical factualness as important, what's to stop you from disregarding Jesus' life, death and resurrection as important historical events? Second, Jesus referred to these people as real. I will let the creationist have the last word here, and move on to a different aspect of this C: considering you'd have an easier time just accepting that the entire Bible, unless genre obviously mitigates against it, ought to be taken in a factual historical way why don't you do that? You seem to be cherry picking here and my view is a lot more obviously coherent. S: in a sense I agree with you but it's not that simple. If I want to believe what is true, and I do, I can't ignore what seems to be the obvious facts about the world. Believing the world is 10k years old is impossible for me. I can't up and choose to believe I have won the lottery and I have millions in the bank based on will alone. It has to actually seem true to me. More than that, the social implications of something like YEC, the ramifications on my career, make it incredibly nontrivial. That view is considered beyond contempt in scientific circles, though I personally respect where you are coming from on this. C: alright but if it comes down to empirical facts and the Bible, shouldn't you choose the Bible? Otherwise you are devaluing it as God's revelation to the world. I shouldn't even have to mention that Jesus did say we'd be hated for His sake as for your latter concern. S: I suppose the truth is I can't give primacy to the biblical account in isolation to what seems to be the facts about the natural world. I think I could make a case from the Bible itself that we ought to expect order in nature, and not expect to be deceived in it... I'll leave it there for now, but there is how it is basically broken up in my mind at this point.