Newbie asking a question...

[Zaphod]

Let me begin by greeting everyone here in friendship. I've decided to come into this forum because I wasn't making many friends over in the politics folder!


I am fairly new to the Christian faith. To clarify, I was raised a Catholic, but only this past August 1st did I truly surrender to the Lord, and only since then have I been relying soley on Scripture for guidance in the faith (with abject apologies to my Catholic brethren).

A question that gnaws my mind is this: I believe that God created the universe and everything in it. Not an atom moves without His knowledge. However, I am also an engineer by trade, and as such rely on science to describe the universe and its function.

How does a scientist reconcile the Biblical account of Creation with the scientific data that is collected?

For the record: I believe in evolution, and in the idea that the universe is (cue Sagan) billions and billions of years old. I am also held in complete awe at the wonder of His handiwork. I believe that if He chose to make me from a monkey, so be it. If a day to God is a trillion years to us, so be it.

So, an engineer with an open mind seeks enlightenment. I am willing to consider any theory, provided said theory is backed up by scientific evidence. I will ask that you not quote Scripture, simply because that makes a poor argument against a non-believer who considers the Bible a fantasy.

Thanks. I'll sit here quietly and ask questions as we go!

 

[dctalkexp]

Let me begin by greeting everyone here in friendship. I've decided to come into this forum because I wasn't making many friends over in the politics folder!


I am fairly new to the Christian faith. To clarify, I was raised a Catholic, but only this past August 1st did I truly surrender to the Lord, and only since then have I been relying soley on Scripture for guidance in the faith (with abject apologies to my Catholic brethren).

Congratulations on giving your life to the Lord. It is a wonderful privilege to know Him.

A question that gnaws my mind is this: I believe that God created the universe and everything in it. Not an atom moves without His knowledge. However, I am also an engineer by trade, and as such rely on science to describe the universe and its function.

How does a scientist reconcile the Biblical account of Creation with the scientific data that is collected?

Scientific data is perfectly consistent with the account of creation in the Bible.

For the record: I believe in evolution, and in the idea that the universe is (cue Sagan) billions and billions of years old. I am also held in complete awe at the wonder of His handiwork. I believe that if He chose to make me from a monkey, so be it. If a day to God is a trillion years to us, so be it.

But if you rely soley on Scripture as you claimed to do above, then you have some very fundamental problems in believing in evolution and billions of years along with believing in the Genesis creation. There are many problems when you try to reconcile the evolutionary theory (bad science) with God's word.
Evolutionary theory states that ALL life, including all the lush gardens and forests, all the sea creatures, every mammal, human being etc, etc is derived from a microscopic cell in the ocean billions of years ago. It says that rain forests and human beings have a common ancestor (though very distant).

Evo. theory states that through mistakes (mutations) in the DNA of that microscopic cell, every living creature has developed over billions of years. In order for this to be so, there must have been countless deaths, mistakes, deformities, diseases etc. involved in the creation and forming of all life. That's the nature of mutations, they are inherently a destructive force that produce anomalies, not a creative force for good!

And if you accept this, that all life developed through mutations shaped by natural selection, then you accept that God created every living thing through death, suffering, and disease, and then at the end called it all "Very good!" I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem logical to me, nor does it seem very good.

So, an engineer with an open mind seeks enlightenment. I am willing to consider any theory, provided said theory is backed up by scientific evidence. I will ask that you not quote Scripture, simply because that makes a poor argument against a non-believer who considers the Bible a fantasy.

Thanks. I'll sit here quietly and ask questions as we go!

You can't leave out Scripture when you want to get the truth.

God bless

 

[Zaphod]

Congratulations on giving your life to the Lord. It is a wonderful privilege to know Him.

Indeed!

Scientific data is perfectly consistent with the account of creation in the Bible.

Not if you ask the scientists!

But if you rely soley on Scripture as you claimed to do above, then you have some very fundamental problems in believing in evolution and billions of years along with believing in the Genesis creation.

Well, my belief in Sola Scriptura is limited (at least for now) on the relationships between man and God, and between men. I believe that to be far more important than any "scientific" data that it may contain.

That said, I simply maintain that a "day" in Genesis doesn't necessarily have to be a 24-hour day as defined by us. Sneaky, but it works.

Evolutionary theory states that ALL life, including all the lush gardens and forests, all the sea creatures, every mammal, human being etc, etc is derived from a microscopic cell in the ocean billions of years ago. It says that rain forests and human beings have a common ancestor (though very distant).

If this were true, would there not be a common DNA section, strand, etc.? (I regret that my knowledge of genetics is beyond rusty!).

Evo. theory states that through mistakes (mutations) in the DNA of that microscopic cell, every living creature has developed over billions of years. In order for this to be so, there must have been countless deaths, mistakes, deformities, diseases etc. involved in the creation and forming of all life. That's the nature of mutations, they are inherently a destructive force that produce anomalies, not a creative force for good!

I would have to agree. A random series of events will result in chaos, not order. Entropy and all that. However, I've heard that there is a counterargument that I've not heard.

And if you accept this, that all life developed through mutations shaped by natural selection, then you accept that God created every living thing through death, suffering, and disease, and then at the end called it all "Very good!" I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem logical to me, nor does it seem very good.

Doesn't sound like God would have to follow a trial-and-error method, either.

You can't leave out Scripture when you want to get the truth.

God bless

Here goes....

I agree as far as ethics, morality, etc. However, in order for Creationism (as described in Genesis) to be acceptable to non-believers, you CAN'T use Scripture, because they don't believe it anyway. If, however, I can give them data that supports Creation or debunks evolution, THEN they may see that Scripture isn't such a "fable" as they think. Capiche?

 

[dctalkexp]

Not if you ask the scientists!

Actually, there are a lot of scientists which agree that the Genesis creation is compatible with all available evidence. Here are some of them:
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html

http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/s_austin.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/a_snelling.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/j_baumgardner.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/329.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/e_silvestru.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/t_mortenson.asp

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/index.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0818icc_update.asp

You can also obtain mounds of creation research and information by clicking the following URL:

http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp

Well, my belief in Sola Scriptura is limited (at least for now) on the relationships between man and God, and between men. I believe that to be far more important than any "scientific" data that it may contain.

That said, I simply maintain that a "day" in Genesis doesn't necessarily have to be a 24-hour day as defined by us. Sneaky, but it works.

It works only if you have prior evolutionary assumptions. Thus, you are not really using sola Scripture. You are using man's fallible ideas first, and Scripture second.

If this were true, would there not be a common DNA section, strand, etc.? (I regret that my knowledge of genetics is beyond rusty!).

There are many problems with man and forest having a common ancestor. Just read some of the material in the link that I listed above. There is a plethora of information regarding this. Many evolutionists love to act like Creationists don't know science, but indeed there are many highly skilled and trained scientists who believe in the Bible's account of Creation.

I would have to agree. A random series of events will result in chaos, not order. Entropy and all that. However, I've heard that there is a counterargument that I've not heard.

All the counter arguments are bad. They end up being just-so stories and imaginative scientific theories.

Doesn't sound like God would have to follow a trial-and-error method, either.

Very true.

Here goes....

I agree as far as ethics, morality, etc. However, in order for Creationism (as described in Genesis) to be acceptable to non-believers, you CAN'T use Scripture, because they don't believe it anyway. If, however, I can give them data that supports Creation or debunks evolution, THEN they may see that Scripture isn't such a "fable" as they think. Capiche?

Well then I guess when teaching morality to non-believers you can't use the Bible, because they don't believe it anyway. They think it's false because they hate God. There is no reasoning with them when they are so bent on not believing. All we can do is pray, witness, and preach the Gospel, by using solely Scripture. If they don't want to and refuse to hear, we "wipe the dust from our feet" as Jesus says.

God bless.

 

[Zaphod]

Well then I guess when teaching morality to non-believers you can't use the Bible, because they don't believe it anyway. They think it's false because they hate God. There is no reasoning with them when they are so bent on not believing. All we can do is pray, witness, and preach the Gospel, by using solely Scripture. If they don't want to and refuse to hear, we "wipe the dust from our feet" as Jesus says.


God bless.

Yep. That's about the size of it...

Thanks for the links! Guess I better start reading!

 

[rwl]

I'm reading a good book right now that has been talking exclusively about this stuff ( well, for the parts I’ve read thus far) and it actually shows how science proves creation. It goes step by steps through the law of thermodynamics, fossils, astrologers, dna... all the sciences and shows how the more they uncover the more it points to creationism. I'll get the name and ISBN for you. I think you'd enjoy it.

 

[rwl]

O, just found it . Its called Reasons for Believing and the ISBN is 0-89221-422-8

 

[Jeffery]

"I been relying soley on Scripture for guidance in the faith"

That's great! You will be blessed.

 

[Bushido216]

Zaphod, I understand your conflict. However, have you ever considered that perhaps Genesis is not a literal account of the creation of the universe, but rather a spiritual guide meant to point out our sinfulness?

Anyway, now on to the business of debunking some claims made here...

dctalkexp, science doesn't agree with the BIble. For instance, if the earth was young, why would we see light from stars millions of lightyears away? Why has radiometric dating found rocks millions of years old? Fossils?

As well, not all mutations are harmful. Most of them are neutral. Infact, they are ALL neutral, in the respect that they just are. It depends on whether or not they help the species survive in the HERE and NOW. Ever hear of Sickle Cell Anemia? It's a real ***** up here in the U.S., but in other countries, it's a live saver because it helps combat E. coli. Interesting? It is.

Your arguement about entropy is... silly to say the best. It only works if earth is a closed system, which it is not, it always gains energy from the sun, which is losing energy constantly, yes. As well, entropy obviously doesn't apply to the extent you're suggesting, or else human embryo's would not be able to develop, and tornadoes would never be able to develop. Order springs from disorder all the time.

 

[rwl]

However, have you ever considered that perhaps Genesis is not a literal account of the creation of the universe...

Then you'd have to disregard the rest of the bible as a story also, no?

science doesn't agree with the BIble. For instance, if the earth was young, why would we see light from stars millions of lightyears away? Why has radiometric dating found rocks millions of years old? Fossils?

Science does agree with the bible and constantly proves it. Light from stars... its just reaching us now... has nothing to do with the age of the earth. Rocks X amount of years old... age is relational.

I’m not a scientist nor will I play one on the internet, however I have to say the more I research this kind of stuff(from a non biblical standpoint) the stronger my faith gets.

 

[Bushido216]

Then you'd have to disregard the rest of the bible as a story also, no?
Science does agree with the bible and constantly proves it. Light from stars... its just reaching us now... has nothing to do with the age of the earth. Rocks X amount of years old... age is relational.

I’m not a scientist nor will I play one on the internet, however I have to say the more I research this kind of stuff(from a non biblical standpoint) the stronger my faith gets.

No no no, you're assuming that because I no longer considere Genesis a literal historical record that I'd do the same with everything else, I don't. I should note, that this is not a scientific arguement.

Of course light reaching us now has lots to do with an old earth. Think, a million light-years means that light needs a million-years to cross the distance. If the earth is only 6000 years old, well, you get the picture. Same things with rocks.

 

[dctalkexp]

Hi Bushido216,

Zaphod, I understand your conflict. However, have you ever considered that perhaps Genesis is not a literal account of the creation of the universe, but rather a spiritual guide meant to point out our sinfulness?

'For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?' (John 5:46,47).

When the Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce (Mark 10), He replied:

'But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female' (Mark 10:6).

He then quoted Genesis 2:24. He did not say 'But many billions of years after the beginning of creation, God gradually changed primates into humans'. In Luke 11:50,51, Jesus speaks of 'the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world . . . from the blood of Abel'. Abel was the son of Adam and Eve at the foundation of the world! Since the Lord Jesus Christ accepted the early chapters of Genesis as literal, the Christian who is an evolutionist finds himself in disagreement with his Creator/Saviour. Is the servant wiser than his Lord?http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1152.asp

dctalkexp, science doesn't agree with the BIble. For instance, if the earth was young, why would we see light from stars millions of lightyears away? Why has radiometric dating found rocks millions of years old? Fossils?

Distant Stars in a Young Universe:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

Radiometric dating:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

Fossils:
I would like to talk about fossils with you. If you'd like, just bring up an aspect of the fossils/fossil record that you think disagrees with the Word. In my view, the fossil record verifies that God has created many different "kinds" of animals. Many organsims appear abruptly in the fossil record with no evolutionary evidence. But we can get into that later if you'd like.

As well, not all mutations are harmful. Most of them are neutral. Infact, they are ALL neutral, in the respect that they just are. It depends on whether or not they help the species survive in the HERE and NOW. Ever hear of Sickle Cell Anemia? It's a real ***** up here in the U.S., but in other countries, it's a live saver because it helps combat E. coli. Interesting? It is.

Not all mutations are harmful, correct. Most of them are neutral, correct. However, mutations by any sane defintion are errors in the DNA copying process. They are anomalies, something didn't do what it was suppose to do as it was copying. By this, it is hard to imagine how a single cell could sprout all life, including all plants, forests, fishes, humans, etc. Indeed we have no evidence of mutations forming a new anatomical structure on an organism. Such a discovery would be nice evidence for evolutionary theory, in my view.
Yes, I have heard of sickle cell anemia. Despite the fact that sickle cell anemia sufferers are more resistant to malaria, they are also subject to growth impairment, susceptibility to infection, and chronic organ damage due to repeated vaso-occlusive episodes.

Your arguement about entropy is... silly to say the best. It only works if earth is a closed system, which it is not, it always gains energy from the sun, which is losing energy constantly, yes. As well, entropy obviously doesn't apply to the extent you're suggesting, or else human embryo's would not be able to develop, and tornadoes would never be able to develop. Order springs from disorder all the time.

"We are taught from childhood to notice how the perfect oak grows from the acorn and to forget that the acorn itself was dropped by a perfect oak. We are reminded constantly that the adult human being was an embryo, never that the life of the embryo came from two adult human beings. We love to notice that the express engine of today is the descendant of the 'Rocket'; we do not equally remember that the 'Rocket' springs not from some even more rudimentary engine, but from something much more perfect and complicated than itself -- namely, a man of genius." - C.S. Lewis

Evolution is far different than an embryo forming into a human being, because, as C.S. Lewis has so eloquently pointed out in the above quote, the embryo is forming from something much more perfect and complex than itself. This is not order coming from disorder, as you seemed to imply.

God bless.

 

[Ark Guy]

That said, I simply maintain that a "day" in Genesis doesn't necessarily have to be a 24-hour day as defined by us. Sneaky, but it works

Actually this is quite a problem...the days mentiuoned in the bible are out of order for your concept to be correct.

 

[rwl]

No no no, you're assuming that because I no longer considere Genesis a literal historical record that I'd do the same with everything else, I don't. I should note, that this is not a scientific arguement.

Of course light reaching us now has lots to do with an old earth. Think, a million light-years means that light needs a million-years to cross the distance. If the earth is only 6000 years old, well, you get the picture. Same things with rocks.

In order for you to belive in the rest of the Bible then you'd have to belive in Genisis considering it's not a parable.

As for the light. The light is comming from a seperate star, so it has no bearing on the age of the earth. Just because the light emmited from a star is X years old does not mean that where it ends up needs to be the same age. Am I following you?

 

[ThePhoenix]

Ok, then where is the Technitium? Half life ~ 2 million years. Could not have decayed in a 6000 year old earth. Could have easily in a 4.5 billion year old earth

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Certainly, whilst the creationists will put forward many supposed evidences of a young earth, a full reading around the topic will reveal that these arguments are not as watertight as Answers in Genesis would have you belief.

Can I expose a little "sleight of hand"? It was claimed earlier in the thread that "many scientists" support a literally interpreted creation account. Of course, one can define "many" howsoever one wants, but the reality is that this "many" actually constitutes less than 1% of working scientists. Again, whilst numbers are no proof of truth, this proportion is indicative of the balance of the strength of the evidence. Ask yourself whether there are any such scientists who are not religiously motivated to take the line they do.

I would present in particular two lines of evidence that I am inclined to say make taking an anti-evolutionary line scientifically perverse:


1) Human chromosome 2 -http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
2) Retro-viral insertions - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

To answer your original question, Zaphod, I would suggest the following reading:

My site - http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/origins.htm

"Finding Darwin's God" - Kenneth Miller

As a starter. I can see, Zaphod, that you're an intelligent bloke (with good taste in reading material, Beeblebrox!). You do not want nor need to go down the literalist creationist line; it's an extremist fringe position as far as world Christianity is concerned, long since discredited; over here in the UK it doesn't pass the laugh test for most Christians.

 

[dctalkexp]

Certainly, whilst the creationists will put forward many supposed evidences of a young earth, a full reading around the topic will reveal that these arguments are not as watertight as Answers in Genesis would have you belief.

Hi Karl, I would say the same for a lot of the evolutionary arguments.

Can I expose a little "sleight of hand"? It was claimed earlier in the thread that "many scientists" support a literally interpreted creation account. Of course, one can define "many" howsoever one wants, but the reality is that this "many" actually constitutes less than 1% of working scientists. Again, whilst numbers are no proof of truth, this proportion is indicative of the balance of the strength of the evidence. Ask yourself whether there are any such scientists who are not religiously motivated to take the line they do.

The Bible should motivate our thinking in all aspects of our life, including scientifically. If you do not have the Bible as a foundation for your thinking, you will be forced to presuppose a history other than the Bible, and this will in turn produce results that are not in sync with history (ie, Biblical history).
Many scientists feel that it is a grave sin to presuppose a "religious" view of history, so they exclude the Bible. Instead, they rely on their, and others' hunches and speculative conjecture about past events, and in turn interpret data to fit with these speculations, which will of course be different than the Bible's account of history, i.e., the real account.
They assume that everything which is happening now, must have been the same way in the past. This is philosophical naturalism, and the Bible is clearly against it.
It doesn't matter what percentage of scientists believe what, because ultimately, the Bible is true, and "man is a liar" (Romans 3:4).

I would present in particular two lines of evidence that I am inclined to say make taking an anti-evolutionary line scientifically perverse:


1) Human chromosome 2 -http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
2) Retro-viral insertions - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

I would recommend a lot of studying with regards to the above two examples. I have not the capacity to answer either of those claims, however, I will definitely read more about them, and I hope to have a concrete comment soon, and very soon.

As a starter. I can see, Zaphod, that you're an intelligent bloke (with good taste in reading material, Beeblebrox!). You do not want nor need to go down the literalist creationist line; it's an extremist fringe position as far as world Christianity is concerned, long since discredited; over here in the UK it doesn't pass the laugh test for most Christians.

Most people thought Jesus was a fringe extremist, and many laughed at Him. He says that His followers will go through much of the same treatment (John 15:20), so this type of reaction to God's truth of Creation doesn't surprise me one bit. I maintain that we adhere to God's truth in the Bible, because if you don't even believe in the words written by Moses, then how can you believe in Him? "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46, 47)

God bless.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Hi Karl, I would say the same for a lot of the evolutionary arguments.

You could say it. That wouldn't make it true. Look at the past history of creationist arguments. Back in the sixties it was moon dust and dinosaur/human footprints. When these were shown to be bunk the creationists moved on. And it happened again. And again. Why does AiG maintain a list of arguments creationists shouldn't use? Rest assured that this will continue and AiG's current arguments will be on that list within a few years.

The Bible should motivate our thinking in all aspects of our life, including scientifically. If you do not have the Bible as a foundation for your thinking, you will be forced to presuppose a history other than the Bible, and this will in turn produce results that are not in sync with history (ie, Biblical history).

This assumes that the Bible is trying to teach history. It isn't. If the Bible's history is the "true" history, shouldn't an open investigation through other means provide the same result? If the prosecution points out that the accused's version of events doesn't add up, can the accused turn round and say "well, of course if you don't start from the position that my version events is correct you're bound to get a different one"?

Many scientists feel that it is a grave sin to presuppose a "religious" view of history, so they exclude the Bible. Instead, they rely on their, and others' hunches and speculative conjecture about past events,

I think most scientists would be insulted and offended to hear you describe their work as "hunches" and "speculative conjecture". It is not, and to describe it in that manner only exposes a lack of understanding of the scientific method, and the evidence that underlies current scientific models.

and in turn interpret data to fit with these speculations,

Nope. Hypotheses (speculations to you) are routinely overturned by the data. That's how science progresses. Your caricature paints an accurate position of so-called "creation science" but not of the real thing.

which will of course be different than the Bible's account of history, i.e., the real account.

Why will it be different? If the world was made in c. 4004BC, shouldn't the evidence point that way? Why doesn't it?

They assume that everything which is happening now, must have been the same way in the past.

No. It assumes that the laws of the universe are constant. This is based on the observation that they are whenever they are tested.

This is philosophical naturalism, and the Bible is clearly against it.

No. It's methodological naturalism. The Bible isn't against either, because neither were current worldviews at the time it was written.

It doesn't matter what percentage of scientists believe what, because ultimately, the Bible is true, and "man is a liar" (Romans 3:4).

I agree the Bible is true. Don't make the mistake of conflating "true" with "literally true". It's a common creationist failing and underlies most of their problems with mainstream - non-literalist - Christianity.

I would recommend a lot of studying with regards to the above two examples. I have not the capacity to answer either of those claims, however, I will definitely read more about them, and I hope to have a concrete comment soon, and very soon.

I'll be waiting. These two lines of evidence have been posted umpteen times on CF and the only sound from the creationist side is cricket chirping.

Most people thought Jesus was a fringe extremist, and many laughed at Him. He says that His followers will go through much of the same treatment (John 15:20), so this type of reaction to God's truth of Creation doesn't surprise me one bit. I maintain that we adhere to God's truth in the Bible, because if you don't even believe in the words written by Moses, then how can you believe in Him? "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46, 47)

So, of course, only the fringe extremists are His real followers? Again, you are conflating "God's truth in the Bible" with "a literal interpretation of the Bible". Please stop, because until you do you will continue to falsely accuse your brethren of not believing in the words of the Bible.

 

[dctalkexp]

Thanks for your response, Karl. I have nothing further to say about this issue beyond what has been said. I appreciate your words.

God bless.

 

[Sinai]

A question that gnaws my mind is this: I believe that God created the universe and everything in it. Not an atom moves without His knowledge. However, I am also an engineer by trade, and as such rely on science to describe the universe and its function.

How does a scientist reconcile the Biblical account of Creation with the scientific data that is collected?

I suggest that you begin by reading the OP (original post, or post number 1) at this thread and see where your beliefs fit in. If you have questions about any of the theories presented, I will be happy to suggest additional reading material.

Best wishes,
Sinai