A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[Starise]

11 minutes ago, teddyv said:

How could it possibly incorporate the supernatural? It is the study of the natural. Among other things, it needs to be make predictions.

It can be supportive of the 'supernatural' or God.

[teddyv]

1 minute ago, Starise said:

It can be supportive of the 'supernatural' or God.

Creation already testifies to God. But we have many that don't like that and demand a legalistic version of their supposed reality imposed on God's. YEC, as preached by Ken Ham et al, is nothing but heresy. They build their gospel message on the wrong foundation insisting that Genesis is the foundation when Christ alone is the foundation of our faith.

[Starise]

4 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Creation already testifies to God. But we have many that don't like that and demand a legalistic version of their supposed reality imposed on God's. YEC, as preached by Ken Ham et al, is nothing but heresy. They build their gospel message on the wrong foundation insisting that Genesis is the foundation when Christ alone is the foundation of our faith.

We seem to be coming at this from opposite ends because I believe evolutionary teaching is destructive to proper thoughts on creation which can lead to other problems. Nothing legalistic in that for me personally. If I were to simply say I believe we are created in the image of God, would you find that offensive? I don't believe you would, which means you also support creation. You believe teachings that support creation are destructive, yet we were in fact, created.

I don't know of everything that Ken Ham teaches but it seems to really dig some people on a deep level.

[teddyv]

2 minutes ago, Starise said:

We seem to be coming at this from opposite ends because I believe evolutionary teaching is destructive to proper thoughts on creation which can lead to other problems. Nothing legalistic in that for me personally. If I were to simply say I believe we are created in the image of God, would you find that offensive? I don't believe you would, which means you also support creation. You believe teachings that support creation are destructive, yet we were in fact, created.

I don't know of everything that Ken Ham teaches but it seems to really dig some people on a deep level.

Yes, I believe that the God created. We differ on the mechanisms, not the agent.

"Evolutionary teaching" needs to be seriously qualified to fully understand what you mean by that term. Something like say "social Darwinism" is a corrupted application of evolutionary ideas outside its proper scope.

 

[RV_Wizard]

30 minutes ago, Starise said:

I don't know of everything that Ken Ham teaches but it seems to really dig some people on a deep level.

Ken Hamm teaches that the Bible is true as written; that creation and the great flood were actual events.  This greatly upsets the old earth believers.

[Starise]

26 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Yes, I believe that the God created. We differ on the mechanisms, not the agent.

We may agree on a few of the mechanisms as observable though science, however I see a huge difference between an Adam who evolved .vs an Adam who was made within a day. 

31 minutes ago, teddyv said:

"Evolutionary teaching" needs to be seriously qualified to fully understand what you mean by that term. Something like say "social Darwinism" is a corrupted application of evolutionary ideas outside its proper scope.

This is part of the problem. It's seen as an all encompassing subject. Even if, say, the evidences for half of it are inadequate.

10 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Ken Hamm teaches that the Bible is true as written; that creation and the great flood were actual events.  This greatly upsets the old earth believers.

I see.

[teddyv]

21 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Ken Hamm teaches that the Bible is true as written; that creation and the great flood were actual events.  This greatly upsets the old earth believers.

He also mistakenly places this as the foundational aspect of the Christian faith. To him, Christ is subordinate to his interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

He is on very sandy ground.

[Starise]

4 minutes ago, teddyv said:

He also mistakenly places this as the foundational aspect of the Christian faith. To him, Christ is subordinate to his interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

He is on very sandy ground.

I'll let him speak for himself on this.

For me, if science seemingly comes up with an alternative to older explanations I'm interested, but only if it all fits.

[Know Jah]

Agree the universe had a beginning. However believe the bible is not a science text book. However whenever it mention a facet of science its correct.

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, teddyv said:

He also mistakenly places this as the foundational aspect of the Christian faith. To him, Christ is subordinate to his interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

He is on very sandy ground.

Misinformation.

"In my lectures, I explain to people that believing in an old earth won’t keep someone out of heaven if they are truly “born again” as the Bible defines “born again.” Then I’m asked, “Then why does AiG make an issue of the age of the earth—particularly a young age?” The answer is that our emphasis is on the authority of Scripture. The idea of millions of years does NOT come from the Bible; it comes from man’s fallible, assumption-based dating methods." Ken Ham