why this is important

[ARGOSY]

 

 

 

 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.

 

I don't think its as important as you think. Just keep your faith strong, you believe Jesus did walk the earth, and did die for your sins. This is faith in the word, saving faith. When your life/career is on the line regarding this I'm sure you will choose truth rather than compromise.

 

Regarding the apparent conflict between the bible and science, I believe let your heart rule. If your heart goes with science then so be it, you still believe in the core gospel message and you are keeping your faith secure so these are just peripheral issues. BUT... if your heart starts to doubt the mainstream scientific thought, then if that new thinking becomes definite truth to you, then you should not compromise the truth in favor of your career.  And often the heart has a greater take on truth than our stubborn and finite minds which are full of bias and preconceived ideas.  

 

So in essence let the science speak to your heart. When you read a creationist comment, or an evolutionist comment, let your unbiased sense of what is real truth speak to you.

 

(the Holy Spirit communicates in this way, giving you a deep sense of truth when you read something, confirming it or denying it.)

 

That all very well may be so Argosy. I can see wisdom in trying to let it go for a while. It all seems so impossible to me on the intellectual level it may be pointless to proceed that way at the time (at least this is what I get from this haha).

 

 

 

 

 

 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.

 

I don't think its as important as you think. Just keep your faith strong, you believe Jesus did walk the earth, and did die for your sins. This is faith in the word, saving faith. When your life/career is on the line regarding this I'm sure you will choose truth rather than compromise.

 

Regarding the apparent conflict between the bible and science, I believe let your heart rule. If your heart goes with science then so be it, you still believe in the core gospel message and you are keeping your faith secure so these are just peripheral issues. BUT... if your heart starts to doubt the mainstream scientific thought, then if that new thinking becomes definite truth to you, then you should not compromise the truth in favor of your career.  And often the heart has a greater take on truth than our stubborn and finite minds which are full of bias and preconceived ideas.  

 

So in essence let the science speak to your heart. When you read a creationist comment, or an evolutionist comment, let your unbiased sense of what is real truth speak to you.

 

(the Holy Spirit communicates in this way, giving you a deep sense of truth when you read something, confirming it or denying it.)

 

That all very well may be so Argosy. I can see wisdom in trying to let it go for a while. It all seems so impossible to me on the intellectual level it may be pointless to proceed that way at the time (at least this is what I get from this haha).

 

 

I respect that, but then who is going to prove evolution through ERV's on my DNA thread?   

 

If timeout is what you need that's a good thing. Rather concentrate on what brings peace to the heart.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 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.

 

I don't think its as important as you think. Just keep your faith strong, you believe Jesus did walk the earth, and did die for your sins. This is faith in the word, saving faith. When your life/career is on the line regarding this I'm sure you will choose truth rather than compromise.

 

Regarding the apparent conflict between the bible and science, I believe let your heart rule. If your heart goes with science then so be it, you still believe in the core gospel message and you are keeping your faith secure so these are just peripheral issues. BUT... if your heart starts to doubt the mainstream scientific thought, then if that new thinking becomes definite truth to you, then you should not compromise the truth in favor of your career.  And often the heart has a greater take on truth than our stubborn and finite minds which are full of bias and preconceived ideas.  

 

So in essence let the science speak to your heart. When you read a creationist comment, or an evolutionist comment, let your unbiased sense of what is real truth speak to you.

 

(the Holy Spirit communicates in this way, giving you a deep sense of truth when you read something, confirming it or denying it.)

 

That all very well may be so Argosy. I can see wisdom in trying to let it go for a while. It all seems so impossible to me on the intellectual level it may be pointless to proceed that way at the time (at least this is what I get from this haha).

 

 

 

 

 

 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.

 

I don't think its as important as you think. Just keep your faith strong, you believe Jesus did walk the earth, and did die for your sins. This is faith in the word, saving faith. When your life/career is on the line regarding this I'm sure you will choose truth rather than compromise.

 

Regarding the apparent conflict between the bible and science, I believe let your heart rule. If your heart goes with science then so be it, you still believe in the core gospel message and you are keeping your faith secure so these are just peripheral issues. BUT... if your heart starts to doubt the mainstream scientific thought, then if that new thinking becomes definite truth to you, then you should not compromise the truth in favor of your career.  And often the heart has a greater take on truth than our stubborn and finite minds which are full of bias and preconceived ideas.  

 

So in essence let the science speak to your heart. When you read a creationist comment, or an evolutionist comment, let your unbiased sense of what is real truth speak to you.

 

(the Holy Spirit communicates in this way, giving you a deep sense of truth when you read something, confirming it or denying it.)

 

That all very well may be so Argosy. I can see wisdom in trying to let it go for a while. It all seems so impossible to me on the intellectual level it may be pointless to proceed that way at the time (at least this is what I get from this haha).

 

 

I respect that, but then who is going to prove evolution through ERV's on my DNA thread?   

 

If timeout is what you need that's a good thing. Rather concentrate on what brings peace to the heart.

 

ah, I don't know. In truth I had forgotten I posted about that.Yes, I am being incredibly flaky I will admit that straight up. There are many things I am struggling with with this currently.

[Guest]

There are many things I am struggling with.... currently....

 

 

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, Luke 4:18

[Enoch2021]

 

How is the Oort Cloud fact?  It hasn't been seen!

If you believe in God, He was there.  He started it all, so I think I will trust His word on events more than the scientists who *think* they know with no observational evidence for their theory whatsoever.

If an atheist were to ask you, "How is God fact? He hasn't been seen!" how would you respond?

 

Point being, you need to be careful how you approach your challenges.

 

 

In any event, I did a search on "is oort cloud fact" and found many references describing the Oort Cloud as "hypothesized" and "disputed." So in essence, even the science community isn't considering it a "fact". If I had the time, that would make for an interesting study, why the Oort Cloud model is the most accepted explanation for where the far reaching comets come from, what other models have been proposed, and why were they not accepted?

 

That's one thing I like about science. It's kind of fun trying to figure out mysteries. It's even fun having preconceived notions turned on their heads. I remember how wow'ed I felt at the discovery that black holes are in the centers of galaxies, including our own. I remember the fascination I felt when I first learned the contention that Pluto fits more in line with the icy dirt-balls orbiting within and beyond Neptune's orbit than it does the other 8 planets of our solar system, and later watching the whole process of the Astronomical Society voting on whether or not Pluto should be re-classified. It was cool!

 

 

Hey Neb,

 

"If an atheist were to ask you, "How is God fact? He hasn't been seen!" how would you respond?"

 

Well knowing there are only 2 possible choices for HOW we are here:  Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD),  I would go about it this way.....

 

You're walking down a country road nobody around for miles and you come across a BMW. "MOST" intuitively know that nature didn't create the car there had to be an Engineer (Designer). Even though you will most likely never see the (Designer)....you know HE'S out there!

 

"science" or the "Scientific Method" isn't he only tool we have to ascertain "TRUTH".  We have Intellect (Inductive/Deductive Reasoning, Logic, Critical Thinking Skills, and good ole fashioned Common Sense)  combine these with SOUND Scientific Principles and you have a pretty powerful combination.

 

In this Specific Case......."Specific Complexity" is the overriding factor in the matter.

[Tristen]

 

 

Tristen,

 

I am fairly sure you missed the point of my OP. The questions that begun it were rhetorical, the sorts of questions I've heard from some believers in response to people engaging into the 'creation debate'.

 

In the body of my post, I was not attempting to make any kind of argument. I was trying to describe my own personal struggle.

 

 

You said “In the body of my post, I was not attempting to make any kind of argument. I was trying to describe my own personal struggle”

 

I assume when people post that they do so to provoke discussion. Even in the body of your post, the bias I described is evident; describing a tension between what you label “'the science'” (presumably meaning secular scientific interpretations) and life in God. I’m trying to encourage you that the tension only exists due to indoctrinated secular bias. If you strip down the secular position to its fundamental logic, the supreme levels of confidence in secular scientific models simply isn’t justified by the application of the scientific method. Creationist models are equally valid and reconcile the tensions you have described.

 

I think it would be interesting for you to self-analyse why you “have personally been convicted of having less faith while engaging in research”. My experience has always been the opposite; studying science and engaging in research tends to reinforce my faith.

 

Sure, and you are of course welcome to see as you see fit. I can't control how people interpret what I post, what they think is relevant and so on. That being said, i am also attempting to give due credit to your arguments. I admit I have not been able to unravel them for the most part. If you mean that given the evidence the case for a 6000 yr old universe is just as good, I don't think I can agree with this. It is true I suppose, in that I am assuming things in making that judgement such as, the uniformity of nature and so forth. Is that where your objection is?

 

 

 

You said “I can't control how people interpret what I post, what they think is relevant and so on”

 

I apologise if I am still missing the point of your post. I’ve offered responses to the preamble and body of your original post.

 

 

“i am also attempting to give due credit to your arguments. I admit I have not been able to unravel them for the most part”

 

I’m not sure what the difficulty is. Basically, my position is that those of us with any kind of secular upbringing have been, by and large, exclusively conditioned to think that the secular scientific models (Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry) are overwhelmingly supported by science – to the exclusion of all other ideas about the origins of the universe and the diversity of life. This conditioning is to the point where we are initially astonished that any rational person could seriously give any credence to the account of history as taught in the Bible.

 

However, once we arrive at sincere faith in Christ, we soon learn that the Bible is the highest authoritative resource of the Christian faith. We soon thereafter realise that some of the claims in the Bible are inconsistent with what we have been taught our entire lives to be true science. We have a number of choices; many reject the Bible and subsequently their faith, many try to offer imaginative reinterpretations of the Bible in an attempt to conform it to their confidence in the secular models, and some choose to re-evaluate their secular educations; subjecting the secular claims to closer scrutiny – rather than continuing to subscribe to the secular rhetoric regarding their models.

 

As someone who re-evaluated what I had been taught, I soon discovered that there is no valid reason whatsoever, to prefer confidence in secular models over confidence in the Bible; no reason in logic or science to have such a strong preference for one over the other. There are certainly lots of vague claims about how well secular models are supported by “libraries/volumes/mountains” of evidence, and how they have survived so much scientific scrutiny, and how predictably powerful they are, and how elegant they are etc. And lots of rhetoric about how creationists ignore these mountains of evidence and are unscientific etc. But when properly and thoroughly examined, I could find no logically-valid reason to justify considering secular models as superior to the Bible-based models. So I can trust the Bible – all of the Bible – without any legitimate, objective compromise to my scientific integrity.

 

 

“If you mean that given the evidence the case for a 6000 yr old universe is just as good, I don't think I can agree with this”

 

For starters – we all have the same evidence. And if we creationists can interpret all this very same evidence to be consistent with the Bible-based model, then what is the basis of your disagreement. Have you found some superlative evidential support rendering the secular models beyond scientific question, or are you merely continuing to succumb to the rhetorical backstory pertaining to their ‘overwhelming and exclusive scientific support’?

 

 

“It is true I suppose, in that I am assuming things in making that judgement such as, the uniformity of nature and so forth. Is that where your objection is?”

 

No. We all necessarily make assumptions. And I don’t technically have an objection. I merely consider trust in the Bible to be of paramount importance to the success of Christian life. I think you need to be aware that a rational argument exists in defence of Biblical creationism that, in every logical respect, has equal scientific validity to the secular models. Your impression of the abject superiority of the secular models is causing you to question the clear teaching of the Bible. But the existence of a rationally defensible creationist position means that you can trust the Bible – all of the Bible – even when it disagrees with popular scientific dogma.

[Enoch2021]

I find it sad how few people want to discuss what they learn about God and His relationship to us as revealed through the Creation account [how silent the "Creation Theology" thread is]. Why is that?

 

 

In any event, here's how I perceive the problem.

 

Science looks to nature to explain nature. While those of us who believe in a Creator interpret nature through that lens, "science" will not because there is no substantial evidence by scientific analysis that a Creator exists. Without such verifiable evidence, it cannot be added to the equation. While we can argue until we are blue in the face that science should allow such to be in consideration for their interpretation, they won't do it. So even though data can be interpreted differently when one accounts for a Creator, until such a being can be verified, it won't happen.

 

Now I can admit a certain pro to this, even though their is the humongous con in yours and mine perceptions that they are missing the boat. The first Pro is is that without positively identifying the nature of the Creator, it would be impossible to nail down, by scientific standards, what He did and how extent a role He played. What I mean is that while we believe in the God of the Bible, other religions believe in other gods; how do we "prove" that our God is more "right" than their gods? Do scientists allow every religion to develop their own interpretation of the data and consider it valid science? Now I'm all for everyone having the right to believe what they want to believe, but could you imagine the confusion it would create for a group of biologists trying to work together on a subject relevant to the issue if they were allowed to apply whatever belief suited their fancy?

 

Now I am not saying this to justify the negating of God and the spiritual realm; but until you can appreciate the can of worms such an approach would open up, you cannot truly figure out a way to work out a resolution.

 

The second Pro I can appreciate is the tendency for those who believe in a Creator to stop investigating. What I mean is, science advances by asking such things as, "Why? How?" and seeking those answers. The unfortunate tendency with most believers is when confronted with the questions of why and how to respond, "God did it," and then move on. If Gregory Mendel had answered the question of, "Why do peas produce different color flowers?" with, "God did it that way," who know when the study of genetics would have opened up to us? (FYI, genetics has become a valuable tool for beneficial studies such as inherited diseases.) And yes, I've had many discussions with non-scientific-minded Creationists of such things as how the sun came to be, and they would respond, "God made it, and that's good enough for me!" Well, it's not good enough for me, nor is it good enough for science. That would be like seeking to know how a painting was made or how a ship was built and being told, "So-and-so made it, and that's all you need to know." No, I want to know what paints were used, did they utilize models or was it all from their head, what part was painted first, etc., or with the ship, what materials, what blue prints, what technology was implemented, why a certain design over another, and the like. Needless to say, scientists would rather not deal with the hands that built it, so to speak, but just focus on the building processes. (Even though for you an I, leaving "the hands that built it" out misses everything.)

 

 

Anyway, that's what I've pieced together from debating and discussing such things.

 

Hey again Neb,

 

"Science looks to nature to explain nature."

 

Science is the Pursuit of Knowledge @ its most basic.  Then that pursuit was corrupted in a sense to only allow that pursuit via "Naturalistic" Processes or a "Naturalistic" explanation.  I can understand it to a point, the "Scientific Method" by it's very nature puts a dagger in Fables/Myths/Stories due to the requirement of TESTING.   Therefore "Science" by it's current pursuit of Knowledge through Naturalistic Processes only, is self-limited.

 

Also, and I have mentioned this previously...There's a self Inflicted Conundrum:

 

Knowledge, Information, Truth are SUPER-Natural by definition.  So in effect, they're trying to ascertain Knowledge (SUPER-natural) by only Naturalistic Processes.

 

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!!

 

Do you see it?

 

 

"science advances by asking such things as, "Why? How?" and seeking those answers."

 

 

 

"how do we "prove" that our God is more "right" than their gods?"

 

If we are Correct and 1LOT is Correct (Which it is ) Then Whoever "CREATED" is outside of Time.  I could then predict that this "CREATOR" can see the End from the Beginning (our Time) or can tell us things that happen before they happen........................PROPHECY!!

 

This particular ONE (MY GOD) put a stipulation that all of these "Prophecies" had to be 100% accurate without failure.  Can we verify this?  Historical Records/Historical Science.

 

Do we know of such?? 

 

 

Also, there can be only one "CREATOR", more than one is logical absurdity and incoherent

[anthonyjmcgirr]

 

How is the Oort Cloud fact?  It hasn't been seen!

If you believe in God, He was there.  He started it all, so I think I will trust His word on events more than the scientists who *think* they know with no observational evidence for their theory whatsoever.

If an atheist were to ask you, "How is God fact? He hasn't been seen!" how would you respond?

 

Point being, you need to be careful how you approach your challenges.

 

 

In any event, I did a search on "is oort cloud fact" and found many references describing the Oort Cloud as "hypothesized" and "disputed." So in essence, even the science community isn't considering it a "fact". If I had the time, that would make for an interesting study, why the Oort Cloud model is the most accepted explanation for where the far reaching comets come from, what other models have been proposed, and why were they not accepted?

 

That's one thing I like about science. It's kind of fun trying to figure out mysteries. It's even fun having preconceived notions turned on their heads. I remember how wow'ed I felt at the discovery that black holes are in the centers of galaxies, including our own. I remember the fascination I felt when I first learned the contention that Pluto fits more in line with the icy dirt-balls orbiting within and beyond Neptune's orbit than it does the other 8 planets of our solar system, and later watching the whole process of the Astronomical Society voting on whether or not Pluto should be re-classified. It was cool!

 

 

Well, my response would be that God walked the earth.  He was the most written about historical figure in the world.  The book that contains His words is the best-selling book in all of history.  There were over 300 prophecies written about Him thousands of years before He was born and He fulfilled all of them.  This Man said He was there in the beginning, spoke of Adam, spoke of the flood and confirmed it all.  I would also share that there was a supernatural event connected to Christ that was confirmed to happen by the Pagans in that area...the three hour darkness that took over right at Christ's death in the middle of the day.  It wasn't an eclipse since Christ died during the Passover, which is a full moon.  Eclipses can't happen during full moons.  Many people in that area not even connected to Christ wrote about and confirmed this darkness...though they called it an eclipse of the sun, not knowing back then what actually causes them. 

 

I also say that everything that is created needs to have a Creator and it takes MORE faith to believe everything just happened or formed than to believe it was created by God.

[other one]

 

 

Also, there can be only one "CREATOR", more than one is logical absurdity and incoherent

 

actually I think it was the dynamic trio....

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

Also, there can be only one "CREATOR", more than one is logical absurdity and incoherent

 

actually I think it was the dynamic trio....

 

 

Yes but they are ONE.

[Fez]

 

 

How is the Oort Cloud fact?  It hasn't been seen!

If you believe in God, He was there.  He started it all, so I think I will trust His word on events more than the scientists who *think* they know with no observational evidence for their theory whatsoever.

If an atheist were to ask you, "How is God fact? He hasn't been seen!" how would you respond?

 

Point being, you need to be careful how you approach your challenges.

 

 

In any event, I did a search on "is oort cloud fact" and found many references describing the Oort Cloud as "hypothesized" and "disputed." So in essence, even the science community isn't considering it a "fact". If I had the time, that would make for an interesting study, why the Oort Cloud model is the most accepted explanation for where the far reaching comets come from, what other models have been proposed, and why were they not accepted?

 

That's one thing I like about science. It's kind of fun trying to figure out mysteries. It's even fun having preconceived notions turned on their heads. I remember how wow'ed I felt at the discovery that black holes are in the centers of galaxies, including our own. I remember the fascination I felt when I first learned the contention that Pluto fits more in line with the icy dirt-balls orbiting within and beyond Neptune's orbit than it does the other 8 planets of our solar system, and later watching the whole process of the Astronomical Society voting on whether or not Pluto should be re-classified. It was cool!

 

 

Hey Neb,

 

"If an atheist were to ask you, "How is God fact? He hasn't been seen!" how would you respond?"

 

Well knowing there are only 2 possible choices for HOW we are here:  Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD),  I would go about it this way.....

 

You're walking down a country road nobody around for miles and you come across a BMW. "MOST" intuitively know that nature didn't create the car there had to be an Engineer (Designer). Even though you will most likely never see the (Designer)....you know HE'S out there!

 

Even considering that a BMW kind of "evolved" from the VW?