why I believe in Christ and evolution

[Enoch2021]

 

I do not believe God intended Genesis to be a complete statement on the origins of the universe like some do here.

 

 

Spock, Spock.

 

The majority of Secular "Scientists" (and I would say more like the power behind them) are the ones trying they're best to explain away GOD with their  "CLAIMS" of this and that.  Then their 13th Century Alchemy graces the Elementary-College TextBooks and are portrayed as Scientific FACT.  Then the media grabs hold of these Modern Day Fairytales and pushes the Half-Baked Propaganda (LIES) Over and Over and Over again.

 

By the time the Average Kid gets to college (if the get that chance), they are so overwhelmingly indoctrinated by the Culture/Education/PEERS any semblance of the WORD of GOD, even if they've been brought up with it, fades away into oblivion. Even if they question it, they're are ridiculed endlessly (or worse) with the usual: "Dumb/Ignorant Creationists", "You believe Primitive Stupid Goatherders??"....that's what can be printed!!! 

 

How do they do it and what's the first target??  They surreptitiously and in some cases overtly attack GENESIS.  THEY KNOW, If they can somehow create DOUBT in the PILLARED FOUNDATION of the CLEAR TEACHINGS in Genesis....then the whole COLLAPSES, basically uncontested.

 

WHO WAS THE FIRST TO CREATE DOUBT THEN OUTRIGHT DENIAL OF THE WORD IN GENESIS???

 

I'm sick of the LIES and I won't stand for it!!!  I will expose it EVERY TIME I SEE IT....The LORD has put it on my Heart.   What's my Authority?......

 

(Ephesians 5:11) "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."

 

Am I direct?  Yes.  Is that directness misconstrued as rude and insulting?  Yes.  Do I need work with meekness and gentleness?  Yes.  Am I fallible (stupid question) Yes, just ask my wife.

 

But I will not stand for the Lies!!!  Period, End of Story!!

 

ps. not solely directed @ you 

[jerryR34]

 

 

 I am not in the young earth brigade

 

 

Now that is a good one LOL.  Now I'm a YEB 

 

I'm curious why your not a YEB?

 

No compelling evidence.  Can you offer evidence?  Keep in mind, attacking current science is not evidence.  Please, if you have something novel I'd love to see it - no attacking.  Thanks

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 I am not in the young earth brigade

 

 

Now that is a good one LOL.  Now I'm a YEB 

 

I'm curious why your not a YEB?

 

No compelling evidence.  Can you offer evidence?  Keep in mind, attacking current science is not evidence.  Please, if you have something novel I'd love to see it - no attacking.  Thanks

 

 

No problem.

 

"Keep in mind, attacking current science is not evidence."

 

Define what you mean by science?

 

Evidence:

 

1.  Genesis

 

2.  Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years.  A Lump of C14 the size of the Earth would have all decayed in a million years.

Question:  Why do Diamonds, Oil, Coal, and Fossil Wood still contain Carbon 14 if the ages are of Millions or Billions of years?

 

3.  Helium in Zircons.  http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics

 

4.  Jupiter gives off twice as much heat as it receives from the sun...if it were Billions of years old it would be an Icicle!!

 

5.  Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them.

http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-and-the-age-of-the-earth

 

6.  Recession of the Moon...it would have been touching the Earth @ 1.4-1.5 Billion Years ago

 

7.  The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Hydrogen/ Helium Ratio and Luminosity.  The average Temp of the Earth today is 15C (59 degrees F) so the average temperature 3.5 billion years ago would have been -2C (28 degrees F).  The Planet would've been engulfed with ICE!!!!

 

8.  Dinosaur Soft Tissue

 

9.  Young('allegedly') Spiral Galaxy's

 

10. Recorded History

 

Here's 101 reasons:  http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth  if you got some time.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

You said “I am not impressed by creationist attempts, no.”

 

Your being “impressed” is irrelevant to whether or not our arguments are rationally justifiable – especially as you have demonstrated bias in your perspective.

 

 

“If you are going into it with the sole goal of 'reinterpreting' evidence to make it work with Creationism, you can do that.”

 

Yes I can – meaning that the available evidence is consistent with the creationist model (based on the Biblical account of history), and that the model is therefore scientifically valid (or at least as valid as the secular models which employ the logically identical methodology).

 

If facts spoke for themselves, scientists would always agree on the conclusions. Scientific consensus is rare because in reality, facts don’t speak for themselves – they have to be interpreted. No interpretation occurs in a vacuum. Interpretation is a subjective process – highly dependent upon the faith presupposition of the interpreter (as all humans have a preferred faith version of reality). You prefer the secular models which were formulated within the logical framework of the naturalistic faith paradigm. I prefer the creationist model which is formulated within the logical framework of the Biblical-theistic faith paradigm. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that science conducted from one unverifiable faith perspective is more valid than science conducted in the other.

 

I understand that position. I was brought up in a secular household and didn’t even know that such a thing as creationists existed until after I converted to Christianity and was forced to consider the inconsistencies between my secular education and the clear teaching of scripture. I understand what it’s like to think that only the ignorant religious crazies would deny what I considered scientists to have “proven”. But on subsequent investigation, I discovered that the confidence commonly attributed to secular models is vastly exaggerated; beyond what is scientifically justified (or even scientifically possible). The worlds confidence in secular models is therefore based as much on faith as the creationist model. I found that there is no logical or scientific reason to obligate myself to the secular models. Most people do obligate themselves to the secular models because they are the only models most people have ever had the opportunity to consider. But the preference is based on faith rather than science.

 

The point is – because science requires scientists to interpret the evidence, and because scientists are humans with preferred faith presuppositions, all science is necessarily conducted within the framework of one faith perspective or another. And therefore all evidence is interpreted to be consistent with the preferred paradigm of the interpreter. That is, all scientists have to “first assume” something about “what is going on”. All interpretation requires context.

 

 

“I think this becomes necessary at some point as the way you need to interpret evidence to fit it into a 10k universe is stretched at best."

 

Now all you need to do is support that claim with rational argument. Otherwise it's just innuendo.

 

 

"I think the distant starlight problem thread is a good example of this.”

 

I previously provided an answer to this question in which I demonstrated the highly speculative nature of all models dealing with the unobserved past (including the secular Standard Cosmology model). But that’s not the impression given by the secular scientific community. Nevertheless, the scientific method explicitly permits us to think for ourselves.

 

 

 

“There's nothing special about the evidence. It's the standard stuff you could find in any somewhat thorough book about evolution. Combine that with astronomy, some stuff about geology, cover radiometric dating etc.”

 

There is a lot of unjustified innuendo (i.e. logically fallacious arguments) in this statement. Given that the creationist claim is that all of the evidence can be, both individually and collectively, interpreted to be consistent with Biblical creationism, the claim is meaningless until you can demonstrate that a particular fact can only/exclusively be interpreted to support secular models over the creationist model.

 

Throughout my degree I studied many biology textbooks, all of which went to (often unnecessary) lengths to emphasise the secular models. I have no issue with the evidence, or even that it can be interpreted to be consistent with secular models. I consider all (secular and creationist models) to be scientifically valid. The secular community unsurprisingly, overwhelmingly and exclusively prefers the secular models. But that preference is not based on any demonstrated logical or scientific superiority.

 

 

“I didn't say anything about metaphors”

 

The default implication of your position is that the Genesis text should not be regarded as historical. If you don’t take a passage to be historical, then you are taking it in some sense symbolically. The same arguments apply whether metaphor, analogy or lyrical prose.

 

 

“Jesus used Genesis to illustrate His teachings. I don't think we can blithely assume He was using it as straightforward history, in the way we do when talking about history in history classes.”

 

Why not? Besides a predetermined adherence to secular science, how do you justify departing from the obvious message contained in the text itself? Jesus used Genesis as the historical antecedent for His message (e.g. for marriage). If it’s not based on historical reality, then the message itself becomes meaningless (i.e. if based on something considered not to have happened).

 

 

“The integrity of the Bible is unnecessary to being a believer.”

 

The Divine Inspiration of Scripture is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. I agree that it is not necessary for salvation; however as the source of the gospel itself, trust in the Bible speaks to the logical consistency of an individual’s faith confession.

 

 

“My belief in the Bible as a theological authority developed later.”

 

Which is the reason you posted this topic: – because you perceive that there are inconsistencies between your scientific education, and the most obvious rendering of Genesis. Rather than question the basis of secular science, you have preferred to perform mental gymnastics in an attempt to make the Bible conform to the secular scientific paradigm. My position is that you have done so unnecessarily. The Bible is eminently more trustworthy than any human pursuit.

 

 

Right, so I could pick  my favorite 'paradigm', creatively 'interpret' all the evidence to fit the paradigm, and see how long I am employed. If you are clever enough, yeah I agree, you can interpret it how you want. But, some facts force themselves on you, and some models allow for you to have such incredible predictive power it becomes altogether compelling to think there is something to it.

 

I suppose I'm having trouble responding to your post because I'm not seeing much specifically to respond to here. Your message seems to be, 'you interpret evidence based on the paradigm you currently accept'. But if that were always and only the case, I don't see how discoveries, particularly of the mold-breaking type, are ever made.

It will always be 'speculative' to look at events in the past, but in this case, it's even always inference. Sometimes we are actually observing events as they are actually unfolding in the past. That is one of the amazing and humbling things about looking carefully into the night sky.

[alphaparticle]

 

I see this issue as a real stumbling block for some people, and I suppose that's why I felt a need to post this thread. It would be a bummer if people looking at this subforum come away thinking it's impossible to believe in Jesus and accept the prevalent scientific models. If communicating about that means I expose myself to unpopularity here, that's fine.

 

Yeah, I can appreciate that.

 

One of the best quotes I heard, though I can't remember the exact words, points out how the "truth" (translation: the religious dogma we are certain in) keeps us from the Truth (Jesus). Truth is not a thing, nor a belief, nor a conviction; Truth is a Person. And that is what we need to see, and that is what we need to preach.

 

Yes, I think part of my concern with this subforum, being in the apologetics section, which on this forum means witnessing to seekers about the gospel (on other forums if it means actual debate and defense I'd have less concern), is promoting all these extra beliefs as a part of accepting the gospel. Really, some promote to the point as being a *necessary condition* of accepting the gospel. Considering how difficult it is, if not literally impossible for an individual, to deny something like an 'old' universe, I find this sad.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Yes, I think part of my concern with this subforum, being in the apologetics section, which on this forum means witnessing to seekers about the gospel (on other forums if it means actual debate and defense I'd have less concern), is promoting all these extra beliefs as a part of accepting the gospel. Really, some promote to the point as being a *necessary condition* of accepting the gospel. Considering how difficult it is, if not literally impossible for an individual, to deny something like an 'old' universe, I find this sad.

 

No one has said that these "extra beliefs" are a necessar condition to accepting  the Gospel.  That is the same old false canard you keep repeating because it is easier to respond to the values you assign to others than to have the integrity to correctly frame their position and respond to that. 

 

It's not impossible to deny an old universe. 

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 I am not in the young earth brigade

 

 

Now that is a good one LOL.  Now I'm a YEB 

 

I'm curious why your not a YEB?

 

No compelling evidence.  Can you offer evidence?  Keep in mind, attacking current science is not evidence.  Please, if you have something novel I'd love to see it - no attacking.  Thanks

 

 

No problem.

 

"Keep in mind, attacking current science is not evidence."

 

Define what you mean by science?

 

Evidence:

 

1.  Genesis

 

2.  Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years.  A Lump of C14 the size of the Earth would have all decayed in a million years.

Question:  Why do Diamonds, Oil, Coal, and Fossil Wood still contain Carbon 14 if the ages are of Millions or Billions of years?

 

3.  Helium in Zircons.  http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics

 

4.  Jupiter gives off twice as much heat as it receives from the sun...if it were Billions of years old it would be an Icicle!!

 

5.  Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them.

http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-and-the-age-of-the-earth

 

6.  Recession of the Moon...it would have been touching the Earth @ 1.4-1.5 Billion Years ago

 

7.  The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Hydrogen/ Helium Ratio and Luminosity.  The average Temp of the Earth today is 15C (59 degrees F) so the average temperature 3.5 billion years ago would have been -2C (28 degrees F).  The Planet would've been engulfed with ICE!!!!

 

8.  Dinosaur Soft Tissue

 

9.  Young('allegedly') Spiral Galaxy's

 

10. Recorded History

 

Here's 101 reasons:  http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth  if you got some time.

 

2. A half life gives you the amount of time it would take for *half* a sample of N nuclei to decay. It gets halved again in that time. And then halved again. And then halved again. Once you are looking at 10 half lives later, or 100, or 1000, you'd expect to find very very very few parent nuclei left, but because of the statistic nature of the thing, it shouldn't be surprising that there is *some* at all. The question is, what the ratio of the parent nuclei to the daughter nuclei, and that is always the question.

 

It's embarrassing this site shows such a misunderstanding of such a basic concept.

 

4. This is false. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=65

 

5. Not sure why this ought to be. Metallic hydrogen flow is assumed to be the source of magnetic field for these planets.

 

6. The moon is actually thought to have once touched the earth. It's commonly thought that a large impact of the earth caused the moon to form.

 

7. Yes. The solution here is thought to be something related to earth's conditions which were different.

 

Not sure what's wrong with 'young' spiral galaxies. As galaxies get older they are more likely to become elliptical galaxies through collisions etc.

[Enoch2021]

 

It will always be 'speculative' to look at events in the past, but in this case, it's even always inference. Sometimes we are actually observing events as they are actually unfolding in the past. That is one of the amazing and humbling things about looking carefully into the night sky.

 

 

Hey Alpha,

 

Yes, I understand the "Starlight" thing.....it's really the only pillar left standing for the OLD Age.  

 

"actually observing events as they are actually unfolding in the past. That is one of the amazing and humbling things about looking carefully into the night sky."

 

It's strong evidence I grant you; However, You're "begging the question" (Fallacy), Sir.  You're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove. 

 

I'll stick with Genesis Day 4...."and it was so". 

[alphaparticle]

 

 

Yes, I think part of my concern with this subforum, being in the apologetics section, which on this forum means witnessing to seekers about the gospel (on other forums if it means actual debate and defense I'd have less concern), is promoting all these extra beliefs as a part of accepting the gospel. Really, some promote to the point as being a *necessary condition* of accepting the gospel. Considering how difficult it is, if not literally impossible for an individual, to deny something like an 'old' universe, I find this sad.

 

No one has said that these "extra beliefs" are a necessar condition to accepting  the Gospel.  That is the same old false canard you keep repeating because it is easier to respond to the values you assign to others than to have the integrity to correctly frame their position and respond to that. 

 

It's not impossible to deny an old universe. 

 

It's impossible for a lot of people shiloh. And while your position may be more nuanced than claiming that these 'extra beliefs' are a necessary precondition to accepting the gospel, it's possible for someone to naively read them that way along with other threads and posts here. Your position *is* more subtle, and I never accused you of anything. I am sure why you are convinced I'm out to smear you or misrepresent you in particular, that just isn't true.

[alphaparticle]

 

I don't know, I was, for a couple months, really unsure what to do with the Bible. I read it and eventually the Spirit started speaking to me through the words, so I got a sense that yes, aside from some reasons for taking it seriously I had formed I had these experiences also that let me know something was different here. But- that I got after having believed in Jesus. That's my only point here.

 

Exactly, so your faith in Christ and your belief in the core gospel message are unwavering because you have experienced fellowship with God.  So even if you disagree on some minor doctrinal issues, and take scientific conclusions literally and a few bible verses symbolically this does not affect your core belief system.  I really don't see a problem with that.  I do prefer a literal approach to the bible though.

 

I do have a problem with your scientific beliefs though, lol!

 

ha! well, I suppose your last bit is where we could have further discussion if you'd like.