johnc5055

The speed of light does not only apply only to light, it applies to all forms of radiation. If all radiation were "moving" faster then it is natural to assume that the process of radioactive decay (unstable atom losing energy and assuming a lower energy state) would also "move" faster, since all of the subatomic movement is happening at a faster rate. Radioactive decay happens a few different ways but to the best of my knowledge, each way would be affected by accelerated movement of subatomic particles. The original article I posted mentions this but only briefly. https://www.icr.org/article/200/ This article (see II, D) suggests that changes in speed of light are connected with the permittivity of free space. It is a different twist with regards to cause and effect because it suggests an outside cause rather than an internal "winding down" of radioactive energy (my first assumption when I read Barry Setterfield's analysis). I have not thought about whether this cause would have the same effect on half-lives but at first glance it seems that the net result would be the same - more subatomic movement/cycles would mean the unstable atom would release energy and reach its lower energy state more quickly.

I once heard a pastor refer to him as "ready, fire, aim Peter". I thought that was hilarious. I am grateful that God uses flawed people; I fit right in!

I have known several Messianic Jews; some even attend my church. I do not know of any defined doctrine that is held by Jews who accept Christ. In my experience they are just Christian. There are a few Messianic congregations but I have never attended a service there. I will say that many aspects of Judaism in America are more cultural than spiritual. I know several Reform Jews that do not even believe in God, but they call themselves Jews and they honor their Jewish traditions. Depending on the person and how they were raised, some people continue to follow the Jewish traditions after becoming Christian. They observe the holy days and have Seder every week. I actually enjoy attending Passover Seder and some of the other traditional Jewish celebrations. It is very informative and its part of our heritage as Christians.

This really isn't that hard! Radioactive decay is what is being measured in radiometric dating. The rate at which an unstable atom loses energy through radiation is naturally going to be a function of the speed of radiation. Light is one form of radiation; all radiation moves at the same speed. The loss of energy through radiation would be faster if radiation moved faster.

I don't know of anyone who has run the numbers. The theory posited by Barry Setterfild and later adopted by a few others is that light is slowing down based on measured speeds over the past few hundred years. Setterfield was the first and he is also Christian, he said that the concept came to him in prayer. He went further to suggest that it is slowing along a cosecant-square curve. If light is slowing down then radiometric dating is skewed and things are not as old as they appear. If he is correct about the rate of slowing then things are younger by a significant amount, enough to suggest the age of the universe is measured in thousands of years instead of billions. Furthermore, light from a star that is 3-billion light-years away would have traversed that distance much faster. I am not hook-line and sinker for this theory, I am undecided when it comes to the age of the earth. I find it interesting because it answer two of the largest scientific objections to a young earth. Scripture is inerrant and it does not point out any gaps in time specifically. It is not scientific literature that includes every past event so that doesn't mean there was no gap but in my mind, adding a gap is dangerously close to torturing the text to get the result we want to get. Light speed slowing would be a reasonable and scientifically palatable explanation.

That's backwards. If light/radiation was faster in the past then half-lives would also be faster. If light were twice its present speed then the decay of 40AR/39ar would happen twice as fast. It would also mean that distant starlight got here in a shorter time period.

The point to the original post was supportive of young earth. If light is slowing then one of the implications is that radiometric dating, which assumes a steady half-life for isotopes over time, would be skewed. If it follows a cosecant-square curve then radiometric dating would be skewed wildly. I have never been comfortable with young earth but I also have doubts about the gap theory. The slowing of light speed may amount to nothing in the next decade but if true, the new earth theory gets a huge boost. Can you please explain your statement about old earth predating Christ by 400 years? I don't follow.

This is a central point to consider in the article (although only mentioned in a short paragraph). Basically the radiometric dating that has been used assume that "c" is constant. "c" is not just the speed of light but the speed of radiation. We simply refer to it as light-speed but light is actually electromagnetic radiation. If the speed of light is changing then results of radiometric dating are changing at the same rate. If it were found that, as Satterfield suggests, "c" is slowing along a cosecant-square curve then old objects would have "aged" much faster a few thousand years ago, leading them to appear tremendously old when radiometric dating is used.

Thanks other one. I didn't realize there were any rules regarding cutting and pasting information. I have seen it done here before so I assumed it would be okay as long as I did not misrepresent the authorship. It was not my intent to stray from the rules. I stopped short of posting the bibliography and the website because I did not think it was relevant to the point and the article is quite long by itself.

Thanks, I kinda thought it was already long winded. I guess the content and its implication about the age of the universe will have to wait.

No I do not write for them. The article was clearly written by Chuck Missler and Hugh Ross. My intent was to discuss the content of the article, not the authorship.

The authors names are shown prominently at the beginning of the article. Please read the first few lines at least before stating that I may have taken someone's article as my own. I even put it in large font!!!

I think they can both be right. The speed of light (the "C" in E=mc2) seems to correlate nicely with energy (the "E"), regardless of whether the number is constant or changing. Einstein also said he would be surprised if there were actually any "constants" in the universe.

The term Plagiarism is meant to be taken lightly. In science there is very little original thought - most of it is comparing theories developed by others. The article that followed was just that. Using the theories of others is how people dialogue, not the same as saying that I am the author of Huckleberry Finn. I posted this because I think it settles a lot of the young earth/old earth arguments in a very tidy way. It is a support for young earth - something I had previously not felt strongly in favor of.

I read this a while back and I have considered it over time and I think it presents the theory of a young earth from a different angle than previous arguments. I have never tried to engage in the debate because I see very solid arguments on both sides. The problems with light/temperature travel over vast distances are powerful arguments that cut both ways. People generally insert theories to overcome these arguments in their own favor but arguing with conjectures is like a pillow fight; no one can really land a clean blow against the other. The idea that light itself is slowing down is not terribly new but it is seems that it is being taken seriously by more scientists. If true, the implications about much of the things that we accept as true in the universe are staggering. Let the copy and paste begin! Is Light Slowing Down? (Point -- Counterpoint) Part 1 by Chuck Missler (from Personal UPDATE) Part 2 by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. (from his Book Creation and Time) Part 1: by Chuck Missler (from Personal UPDATE) We now know that time is a physical property and varies with respect to mass, acceleration, and gravity. Time is tied to our concepts of the curvature of space-time, and the velocity of light. The velocity of light is, in fact, a parameter which appears to affect almost every aspect of both cosmological physics on the large scale, as well as quantum physics in the particle scale. It is, of course, considered to be the fundamental constant of physics. Historical Perspective The early Greek philosophers generally followed Aristotle's belief that the speed of light was infinite. As late as 1600 a.d., Johannes Kepler, one of the fathers of modern astronomy, maintained the majority view that light was instantaneous in its travels. Rene Descartes, the highly influential scientist, mathematician and philosopher (who died in 1650), also strongly held to the belief in the instantaneous propagation of light. He strongly influenced the scientists of that period and those who followed. Speed of Light Measured In 1677 Olaf Roemer, the Danish astronomer, noted that the time elapsed between eclipses of Jupiter with its moons became shorter as the Earth moved closer to Jupiter and became longer as the Earth and Jupiter drew farther apart. This anomalous behavior could be accounted for by a finite speed of light. Initially, Roemer's suggestion was hooted at. It took another half century for the notion to be accepted. In 1729 the British astronomer James Bradley's independent confirmation of Roemer's measurements finally ended the opposition to a finite value for the speed of light. Roemer's work, which had split the scientific community for 53 years, was finally vindicated. Over the past 300 years, the velocity of light has been measured 163 times by 16 different methods. (As a Naval Academy graduate, I must point out that Albert Michelson, Class of 1873, measured the speed of light at the Academy. In 1881 he measured it as 299,853 km/sec. In 1907 he was the first American to receive the Nobel Prize in the sciences. In 1923 he measured it as 299,798 km/sec. In 1933, at Irvine, CA, as 299,774 km/sec.) Recent Discovery Australian physicist Barry Setterfield and mathematician Trevor Norman examined all of the available experimental measurements to date and have announced a discovery: the speed of light appears to have been slowing down over the years! [Roemer, 1657 (Io eclipse): 307,600 +/- 5400 km/sec; Harvard, 1875 (same method): 299,921 +/- 13 km/sec; NBS, 1983 (laser method): 299,792.4586 +/- 0.0003 km/sec.] They all are approximately 186,000 miles/second; or about one foot/nanosecond.) While the margin of error improved over the years, the mean value has noticeably decreased. In fact, the bands of uncertainty hardly overlap. As you would expect, these findings are highly controversial, especially to the more traditional physicists. However, many who scoffed at the idea initially have subsequently begun to take a closer look at the possibilities. Alan Montgomery, the Canadian mathematician, has also analyzed the data statistically and has concluded that the decay of c, the velocity of light, has followed a cosecant-squared curve with a correlation coefficient of better than 99%. A New Perspective This curve would imply that the speed of light may have been 10-30% faster in the time of Christ; twice as fast in the days of Solomon; and four times as fast in the days of Abraham. It would imply that the velocity of light was more than 10 million times faster prior to 3000 b.c. This possibility would also totally alter our concepts of time and the age of the universe. The universe might actually be less than 10,000 years old! Other Implications The key properties of the vacuum of free space include electrical permittivity, magnetic permeability, zero-point energy, and intrinsic impedance. If any of these properties change isotopically, then both atomic behavior and the speed of light would vary throughout the universe. The product of magnetic permeability and electrical permittivity is the reciprocal of c-squared. The permittivity of free space has not changed, but permeability has. It is related to the "stretching out" of free space at the time of creation. The "stretching" of the heavens is mentioned many times in the Bible. Setterfield has analyzed 164 measurements of c, the velocity of light, gathered over the past 320 years, which reveal a statistically significant decay in c. When coupled with associated c-dependent "constants," the data includes some 639 values measured by 25 different methods. A comparison of dates in orbital time from history, archaeology, tree rings, etc., with atomic dates from a variety of radioactive isotopes has provided some 1228 data points over 4550 years. Relaxation, or release, has set in, perhaps after the fall in Genesis 3. The shrinkage of free space could be the cause for the observed slowing down of the velocity of light. The "Redshift" may be caused by a decay of c. In fact, the universe may be contracting, not expanding. A Tiff about Tifft William Tifft, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, has been collecting data for about 20 years on redshifts, and it now appears that the universe might not be expanding. In the 1970's, Tifft noted that the redshift seemed to depend upon the type of galaxy that was emitting the light. Spiral galaxies tended to have higher redshifts than elliptical galaxies in the same cluster. Dimmer galaxies, higher redshifts than brighter ones. Even more disturbing, Tifft has discovered that some clusters and pairs of galaxies exhibit only certain discrete values, rather than the more random distribution one would expect if the shifts were distance related. These redshifts appear in discrete quantum levels, similar to the energy states of subatomic particles in quantum physics. These findings are not popular with astronomers or cosmologists, and emotions, even in physics, run deep. If the redshift is not a simple measure of velocity, then the conjectures about the Big Bang, and its derivative issues such as "dark" matter, etc., tend to fall apart. The elaborate theoretical models of the Big Bang traditions may be headed for the scrap heap. There is also the disturbing evidence that the redshifts change over time. There seems be some basic physics involved that has yet to be understood. These changes could be due to basic life cycles of galaxies, the nature of space or light itself, or other possibilities. There have been a number of attempts to refute Tifft's observations. One recent one by Bruce Guthrie and William Napier, at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, measured the redshifts of 89 spiral galaxies. The results surprised the skeptics by uncovering data that supports the case for quantized redshifts. If Setterfield proves correct, then this might also explain the quantization of the redshifts. Specific values of c govern the quantization of the emitted wave lengths, and quantized redshifts could result. Radioactive Dating Radioactive decay rates have changed. The decay of c affects the speed of nucleons in the atom, and the alpha particle escape frequency. Thus, all radioactive decay rates have decreased in proportion to c throughout the recent history of the universe. For many other reasons, the radio dating methods, carbon-14, potassium-argon, or any other atomic-clock method, are unreliable for very large ages. Entropy The Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates that in a closed system, as time flows forward, energy in the universe is becoming less and less available. "Entropy" is the measure of the state of "energy unavailability" in an energy-containing system. Entropy always increases. Orderly systems of molecules represent low entropy systems. Orderly systems tend, on their own, to become disorderly and chaotic through the processes of decay and disintegration. With passage of time the normal tendency of things is for such systems to become disorderly, chaotic, and randomized. Their "entropy" increases. We experience this in our daily routine: we spend effort to organize our desktop, our garage, our school locker. Soon, however, as "random" events take their toll, everything tends toward randomness--the entropy increases. To bring order out of chaos, we must put in outside energy or information: instructions, codes, blueprints, and effort. Order comes from chaos only if someone makes it happen. Time plus chance always leads toward chaos--not order--without the intervention of outside intelligence. Genesis In the beginning, there apparently was a close connection between the spiritual and physical realms, until the fall of man in Genesis 3. The universe was pronounced "good"--free of defects--by the Creator. A high degree of order originally existed; that is, there was very low entropy. But then Adam fell and the curse of sin began. Disorder and entropy began to increase. Could the slowing down of the speed of light have begun with the increase of entropy and, thus, both be a result of the curse brought about by sin? The subsequent death, dying, decaying, and destroying processes affected not only man, but nature as well (Romans 8:19-23). Caveat The possibility that the speed of light is not a "constant" after all and has been slowing down is highly controversial and conjectural. Yet, some of the most dramatic changes in scientific perspective come only after much debate, vigorous opposition, and the like. The entire field of physics is presently in a state of upheaval. The particle physicists have decided there is no causality, and that the universe has at least 10 dimensions. The redshift has been discovered to be quantized and that may shatter previous conceptions of our universe. Particle physics has totally altered our concepts of reality. Many of today's scientific orthodoxies, however, originated from yesterday's unpopular heresies. The apparent decay in the velocity of light may be another of these controversial "heresies" looming on the horizon of modern physics. Only time will tell. Part 2; by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. (from his Book "Creation and Time") The work of two Austrailian creationists has been widely publicized among proponents of a young universe. Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman teamed up to propose the reason the universe appears old is that light used to travel much faster than it does today.1 Given decay in light's velocity, the present value of the velocity of light would yield an inaccurate measure of the size and age for the universe. The basis for this claim is a misinterpretation of data from the speed-of-light measurements made over the many years. What the data actually shows is the increasing refinement of measurements, not change in velocity. The first calculation of the speed of light was attempted in 1675 by Olaus Romer, a Danish astronomer. His figure was about 3 percent higher than modern measurements show. But the uncertainty in his measurement exceeded 3 percent. Recently, three American physicists reworked Romer's calculations. They found that if Romer had had more precise data for one part of his calculation, his speed-of-light figure would have agreed with the modern measurements to within 0.5 percent.2 Apparently the article describing this research was misunderstood by the Australians. They took the 1675 speed figure as evidence for the speed of light decreasing by 0.5 percent since 1675.3,4 Actually, more than fifty measurements of the velocity of light have been made since Romer's, and when the uncertainties for each of the measurements are taken into account, the velocity shows itself constant through the more than 300 years since ground-based measurements began. Using other types of measurements, the speed of light proves constant over many more years. Studies on a particular spectral line of hydrogen from nearby galaxies shows its constancy over the last 18 million years. New measurements on that spectral line in very distant galaxies extend that confirmation to 14 billion years.5,6 Let me add a practical consideration. The existence of life in the universe requires the constancy of the speed of light. A significant change in the velocity of light would so radically disturb such things as the luminosities of the stars and the relative abundance of the elements as to ruin the possibility for life anywhere, anytime in the universe. Since the c in Einstein's equation, E = mc2, stands for the speed of light, a change in that figure would necessarily mean changes in the m (matter) or E (energy) or both, an alteration contradicted by abundant observations. If Setterfield and Norman were right, either Adam or Eve would have been incinerated by the sun's heat or the elements essential for building their bodies would not exist. Calling Einstein's equation into question will not help Setterfield and Norman's case either. A recent experiment has confirmed the accuracy of Einstein's equation to at least twenty-one places of the decimal (within 0.0000000000000000001 percent!).7

I highly recommend Financial Peace - Dave Ramsey. I learned a great deal about how to handle God's money that he has entrusted to me in the FP seminar.

Interesting idea about gravity. As soon as I read it I thought of Gen. 1:1-3, the "face of the deep" and "waters". I have never completely understood these terms but understood them to be more than just H2O. It also evokes some wonder about "light" emerging. Gravity waves were just observed for the first time late last year (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory). Maybe that fits too. Regarding atoms and space, that too is pretty remarkable. 99.99999999% empty space in a hydrogen atom. There is more nothing than something in an atom. I heard someone use the analogy that, if the nucleus were the size of a basketball, the electron would be the size of a tennis ball and it's orbit would be around 10 miles away. That's a whole lot of nothing in between! What could possible cause a tennis ball to remain connected with a basketball that is 10 miles away? Colossians 1:16-20 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. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Philippians 1:6 - being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (favorite this month ) Reminds me that it is not by my work that I grow in Christ but by his work.

His son also passed away since his wife's death. I listen to him on his K-Rations podcasts. You can hear the difference in his voice since such a great loss. William Welty has joined Koinonia House, his depth of knowledge is remarkable. He is a key person in the ISV translation (the only bible other than the KJV that Chuck will use!). I have a feeling Welty will take the torch from Dr. Missler one day.

I recently heard of this book and I plant to get it - I just wanted to share it because it sounds like it fits this topic well. I have read a lot of things from Chuck Missler and I know a little bit about William Welty. I like them both very much. Both have a very conservative hermeneutical perspective. Lets start at the beginning! John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being that has come into being. I love this verse because it reminds me just how big my Lord is. There is a lot to feel good about in the first sections of John but this verse sets the context by first placing Christ in is rightful role as eternal creator. Looking forward to the comments!

Romans 8:26 - And the Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness. For example, we don't know what God wants us to pray for. But the Holy Spirit prays for us with groanings that cannot be expressed in words. First of all, your doing fine. there are a lot of verses on prayer - you could Google it but I expect you will get some helpful replies here. God hears you heart, not your words. When you care for and respect someone the natural thing that comes from that is concern that he will accept you; you try to get things right so as not to offend. You question is loving towards God and that speaks volumes. Here are a few places to start. John 15:7 - “If you abide in me and my words abide in you, you can ask for anything you want, and you’ll receive it. John 15:16 - You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. I have appointed you to go and produce fruit that will last, so that whatever you ask the Father in my (Jesus) name, he will give it to you. Jeremiah 33:3 - Call to me and I’ll answer you, and will tell you about great and hidden things that you don’t know. Matthew 6:7-8 - When you are praying, don’t say meaningless things like the unbelievers do, because they think they will be heard by being so wordy. Don’t be like them, because your Father knows what you need before you ask him. I ask that God will bless and grow you through His word, may His truth be revealed to you as you search for Him. I ask these things in Jesus name, amen!

Psalm 37:4 – Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart. Proverbs 19:14 – House and wealth are inherited from fathers, but a prudent wife is from the Lord. I can only say that God chose the best wife for you before you were born. I don't know your faith so I don't know how that statement sounds to you but, as a Christian, your Father has already worked out more of the details that you can possibly imagine. The way to find His wife for you is to look for Him to lead; do your best not to try to lead God. Try to remember it’s God first and everything else second. If you keep first-things first, then second things will come; if you put second-things first, you may lose them both! Jerimiah 29:11 – For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Thank you for this topic, it has caused me to look deeper into God’s word for clarity (that’s always a good thing). I am divorced for a few years and I had biblical grounds for divorce according to Matthew 19. I told myself that many times as I was going through the pain and guilt that followed my decision to divorce, I can’t say it helped much. I saw this thread and started reading and I was a little surprised at what I found. There are two different Hebrew/Greek words that have become comingled, both are translated “divorce” in many of our translations. Some translations more accurately distinguish between “divorce” and “put away”. Combining the two terms leads to what I think is a convoluted interpretation. I think that by knowing the difference between “divorce” and “put away”, the scripture becomes more clear. kerithuth in Hebrew; kәritut in Greek = divorce or divorcement. This is noun describing a legal action, there is paperwork involved! This word appears in scripture 4 times, all in the old testament (Deut 24:1, Deut 24:3, Isa 50:1, Jer 3:8). In each place this term is speaking of a legal divorce. In Matthew 5:31 The Greek term is apostasion, translates “letter of divorce”. This again is a noun and refers to the actual legal document. Shalach or sallah in Hebrew; apolua in Greek = To put away/separate/send or send forth. This is a verb and it does not necessarily refer to a legal divorce but rather the act of separation. This word is found in several places in the new and old testament. In Genesis it is translated “sent forth”, not really having anything to do with divorce. In Malachi 2:16 it refers to “put away” rather than divorce. The Malachi 2:16 reference is insightful. NIV - The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,”says the Lord Almighty. KJV For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. KJV says that God is the one who hates putting away and NIV says the “man” hates. In any event, the practice of “putting away” (the more correct translation of the Hebrew word “sallah”) is likened with violence and treachery. Why is that? Is God saying that divorce – something that he allowed in Deuteronomy – is violent or treacherous? Perhaps He is but I don’t think that is accurate. This “putting away” of a wife without divorcing her was abusive. Since most women were dependent on their husbands for their basic needs, to leave her without giving a legal divorce meant that she was not only cut off from her husband’s support, she could not legally re-marry so that another man could support her. This put women in a desperate situation. Now consider this context when Jesus spoke of it in Matthew 19:9. If a man chooses to “separate” from or “put away” his legal wife, and then re-marries, he is committing adultery. I think that “adultery” is completely accurate and in context since he is still legally married to his first wife. Furthermore, he causes his legal wife to commit adultery (since she too is still legally married). If that were not the case, why would it be adultery to divorce and re-marry but it’s not adultery if she has been sexually immoral? That seems duplicitous! My Lord is not duplicitous. It just makes more sense that Jesus is talking about putting away rather than divorcing (I make the assumption that a husband would be justified to “put away” his wife if she is unfaithful). If God allows a legally documented divorce – according to His word in Deuteronomy – and the divorced person re-marries, does that person commit adultery? Maybe that is what Jesus is saying in Matthew 19:9 but I don't think so. Maybe I stand alone but I am of the opinion that a spouse that is abused in some way is not pleasing God by “taking it on the chin” in the name of Jesus. I would never suggest downplaying the practice of divorce. I live in the US and our culture has downplayed the significance of divorce and up-played things that are considered abusive; things that would justify the choice to divorce. I would simply say that distinguishing between divorce and putting away in the bible provides more clarity. It also better answers many of the tough questions we see around the world where marriages sometimes include abuse or enslavement. I would never call a woman who was forced to marry against her will an “adulteress” for escaping that situation and someday finding a loving husband. I also would not apply that label to a divorced woman in my own culture that remarries.

I say this while feeling some conviction because I have not been part of a small group bible study in a while. In my experience small groups are where growth happens. For me, it is impossible to have deep fellowship in a large church setting. We are called to fellowship, not just attend church. I believe that where scripture talks about fellowship it is clear that it’s more than just greeting one another in church and attending together. Acts 2:42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 1 Cor 14:26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification. Acts 1:14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. Galatians 6:2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. As I read these many of the instructions for us are very personal. I do not break bread or confess my sins or share what the Spirit is doing in and through me in a Sunday church environment, it’s just not the right place. We bear each other’s burdens by investing in our brothers and sisters one person at a time. A healthy small group is a great way to do in fellowship the things that we are called to do. I would encourage anyone to pray about their participation in a small group bible study. If there isn’t one available, I would encourage you to ask your church about starting one. Matthew 18:20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.

No one is going to have faith because of the evidence, debating evidence is just fun stuff if you like to argue. Faith is much more personal than that. Questions about God are really many different questions so short coherent answers are hard to come by. If you want to have a meaningful discourse it is better to break out the smaller questions; that way you can get more coherent answers. Here are a few places to start (or you could pick your own): If you want to talk about creation, one good starting point is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This is a very old philosophical/logical argument that has its roots in the pre-Islam middle east. There are three parts, it goes like this: 1. Everything that began to exits has a cause 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefor the universe has a cause If you prefer biology you could read "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. Behe is a Biochemistry Professor at Lehigh University; he posits that there really is no such thing as a simple cell and you have to have a minimum number of basic parts, all very carefully assembled together, to make a cell. The individual components that are necessary for a living cell are so varied and complex that the thought of them spontaneously coming into being and then self-assembling to form a living cell is ridiculous. If you believe the bible is fiction there are a number of resources in that area as well. I would be happy to post them and discuss at your request but be careful what you ask for, you can already see how long winded we believers can be! Faith is not an assembly of facts but there are intellectually satisfying answers to your questions if you can confine the discourse those underlying questions. We all have bias whether we like to admit it or not. Smaller more specific questions help to minimize that bias and provide a logical path that is more easily followed. I wish you well you well in your search.