The Modern Era Scientist don't help me, but I still have my faith in God

[Estrid]

I don't care a whit about scientific thinking. I posted solely for the OP who has doubts.

Again would be helpful if you had quoted the post being talked about. But I went back anyway.



Their false accusation is that they think, that I think I am inerrant, which couldn't be further from the truth. If I thought I was inerrant that would indeed be the highest of vanity. No, it is God alone who is inerrant, so as the inerrant one it is HIS words that are the truth. HIS words should be placed above and beyond anything man has ever come up with. Nothing a man says is inerrant.

Now you may want to debate if scripture is God's word or not but that is a separate debate. I believe it is and anyone who believes that scripture is literally God's breathed word to them would be a fool to ignore it.
2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Hebrew 4
12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

If God says he created in 6 days, who am I to argue with him?
Romans 9:20
But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”

The theory of evolution does not come from God it comes directly from the mind of man.
Tests on the world are based on man made assumptions. No fossil is dug up with a label put on by God claiming to be 3 million years old.
Radiocarbon Dating assumptions include:
1) the initial amount of the daughter isotope is known.
(What if the amount is in fact vastly different?)

2) neither parent or daughter product has migrated into, or out of, the closed rock system. (And if it actually did?)

3) decay has occurred at a constant rate over time.
(What if this changed drastically due to God changing the world at the fall and the flood)

What is all the assumptions are so incorrect as to be utter foolishness? Would different assumptions not create different outcomes? Of course they would. Man made tests are just that, assumptions without proof based on the current world, which God says is not the world he created, that world has gone. The world we have now is groaning and corrupt and no real scientist uses a contaminated specimen.

assumption
noun: assumption; plural noun: assumptions; noun: Assumption
1.a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

So you are just assuming that it is "God" whose "Wotd" is involved.
Or is this a fact that you can yourself speak with inerrant truthfulness?

Now to the meaning of what is in the bible. There are about as
many interpretations as there are readers.
Is your interpretation of what you assume comes from a god you assume exists always 100% correct? Occasionally? Never?
Some of it is absolutely true? Which parts? If you are claiming to know it's
absutely true then of course you are claiming to be infallible.
Not infallible in all things, sure, but even a little infallibility is
pretty impressive.


Thinking you know more than any scientist on earth is kinda vain too.

Weird you can ovelook such vanity and even deny it.

No wonder it's Satan's fav vice.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thinking you know more than any scientist on earth is kinda vain too.

A couple of things here:

Number One: Every Christian who ever lived, alive today, and will be alive tomorrow believes IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

That makes it 100% agreement.

But not all scientists believe IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

So does that constitute "thinking they know more than any scientist on earth"?

Number Two: You seem to think that, because we don't have agreement on issues of doctrine (like speaking in tongues, or pre-trib rapture, or whatever), that that is some kind of selling point for challenging our belief in God.

Where do you get that idea?

Do you expect me to have cognitive dissonance about God's existence, if I think the Flood was global, and someone else thinks it was local?

Whether it was global or local, the fact of the matter is: we believe God did it.

So what excuse does the scientific community (as a whole) have for not believing in God, if they want to use "lack of consensus of opinion" against us?

If they can't see Him in a telescope, do they expect us not to see Him in our hearts?

Number Three: Do scientists think they know more than we commoners do?

 

[BPPLEE]

If radiometric dating was the only method of determining age, then you'd have a very weak argument. Nothing more. But it isn't the only method. Astronomy, geography, physics, oceanography, archaeology...the list goes on.

If you want to believe that the first chapter of the bible is to be taken literally then you obviously can. But a few chapters of Genesis doesn't deny the whole of science. Which it would if it were true. You can't reject bits and pieces of all scientific disciplines. The whole edifice would collapse. Picking and choosing what you think is right and what you think is wrong just because it doesn't tie in with your biblical view is not remotely possible.

How you deal with that problem is up to you.

Speaking of astronomy, how can a star be older than the universe?

Stellar evolution is the process by which a star changes over the course of time. Depending on the mass of the star, its lifetime can range from a few million years for the most massive to trillions of years for the least massive, which is considerably longer than the age of the universe.
Stellar evolution - Wikipedia

 

[SelfSim]

Our fundamental independent Baptist church.
..
{Hutson, Curtis reference}

Thanks for the clarification .. (gives us something beyond your opinion to go from).

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for the clarification .. (gives us something beyond your opinion to go from).

I like points one and two: Jesus' virgin birth, and His deity.

Had Jesus not been born of a virgin, then He couldn't save us as He would have inherited the sin nature from His human father, and He too would be in need of a saviour.

And as far as His deity is concerned:

Mark 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

 

[SelfSim]

So what excuse does the scientific community (as a whole) have for not believing in God, if they want to use "lack of consensus of opinion" against us?

Not all scientists are atheists and all beliefs are optional for all mentally healthy humans.

The scientific method uses testing/observation as the basis for distinguishing between beliefs and objectivity.

Scientists acknowedge variations amongst various interpretations as the basis for yet more testing.

Religions historically tend to 'cancel', or exclude, the clear variations across interpretations (often annihilating/excommunicating/etc those who don't accept fundamental beliefs).

If they can't see Him in a telescope, do they expect us not to see Him in our hearts?

No .. that's what science would refer to as being a belief (or emotion) .. for quite sound objective reasons.

 

[SelfSim]

I like points one and two: Jesus' virgin birth, and His deity.

Had Jesus not been born of a virgin, then He couldn't save us as He would have inherited the sin nature from His human father, and He too would be in need of a saviour.

And yet he didn't inherit 'the sin nature' of his mother?
I thought Mary was a human?

 

[sjastro]

I wasn't saying that Carbon-14 dates things to 3 million years, that was just a random figure I pulled out. My point is to show the assumptions that dating methods are based around. Carbon-14 dating is used to date fossils from 500 to 50,000 years old. I could pull out anything and find the assumptions used.
How about Uranium-Lead instead.
Without a closed system, uranium-lead dating, like all other radiometric dating methods, falls apart. So a closed system is a large assumption used there.

I am here to answer from a Biblical perspective and that includes showing doubting Christians who have shaky faith that just because someone bases everything they say in science does not mean their argument is nearly as water tight as they would like to claim.

Probably the Pyramids were built 5,000 years ago, we have no issue with that. Younger dates have far more likelihood of being accurate because the world state is the same or very similar. They built them using stone from the corrupt world, which is what we also have. Also as you said there are historical records and eye witnesses for the pyramids. That is completely different to statements about dinosaurs turning into birds.

If by a closed system you mean not being exposed to an external environment, dating using optically simulated luminescence and thermoluminescence by definition requires external radiation to kickstart the physical process in order to be dated.
As I have mentioned in previous posts various dating methods overlap allowing direct comparisons to be made.
Radiometric dating is not some voodoo science based on blind assumptions.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet he didn't inherit 'the sin nature' of his mother?

No -- it is passed on from the seed of the man, not the woman.

Here is the first reference to Jesus in the Bible --

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

[Christie insb]

List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia

I don't think this even lists my personal favorite, Gerald Schroeder

Gerald Schroeder - Wikipedia
(but that's because he's Jewish, not Christian - still, loves his Torah like a Pentacostal loves their New Testament, and being Jewish, knows his Torah about 10x better)

Seek and ye shall find

I am married to a Jewish man and I think I knew more about the Bible at the age of 8 than any of my husband's relatives.

 

[SelfSim]

No -- it is passed on from the seed of the man, not the woman.

Here is the first reference to Jesus in the Bible --

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Ahh .. the flawed, antiquated 'seed' model eh?
Now superseded in modern times by the modern science of Embryology.

 

[sjastro]

Speaking of astronomy, how can a star be older than the universe?

Stellar evolution is the process by which a star changes over the course of time. Depending on the mass of the star, its lifetime can range from a few million years for the most massive to trillions of years for the least massive, which is considerably longer than the age of the universe.
Stellar evolution - Wikipedia

Cherry picking are we?
Reading further into the wiki link.

What happens after a low-mass star ceases to produce energy through fusion has not been directly observed; the universe is around 13.8 billion years old, which is less time (by several orders of magnitude, in some cases) than it takes for fusion to cease in such stars.

Recent astrophysical models suggest that red dwarfs of 0.1 M☉ may stay on the main sequence for some six to twelve trillion years, gradually increasing in both temperature and luminosity, and take several hundred billion years more to collapse, slowly, into a white dwarf.[9][10] Such stars will not become red giants as the whole star is a convection zone and it will not develop a degenerate helium core with a shell burning hydrogen. Instead, hydrogen fusion will proceed until almost the whole star is helium.

Here is the red dwarf model in graph form.

The link does not suggest red dwarfs are older than the universe but the uses the age of the universe as a scope for comparison for the model.

 

[BPPLEE]

Cherry picking are we?
Reading further into the wiki link.

Here is the red dwarf model in graph form.

The link does not suggest red dwarfs are older than the universe but the uses the age of the universe as a scope for comparison for the model.

What about the Methuselah star?

 

[Bradskii]

Speaking of astronomy, how can a star be older than the universe?

It can't. You misread what was said. It just told you that a trillion years (which is how long a star might eventually live) is longer than a few billion years (which is how long the universe has currently existed).

It's like saying my son's lifetime could range from 80 to 120 which is considerably older than I am.

 

[SelfSim]

What about the Methuselah star?

Why not link to the Wiki page on this star, where it explains that its within the measurement uncertainties of the Planck based universe age, and also models involving possible material reusage from prior nucleosynthesis?

 

[sjastro]

What about the Methuselah star?

What about the Methuselah star?
The latest data (2021) gives gives
M = 0.81 ± 0.05 → t = 12 ± 0.5 Gyr
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/ac01ca

Age of universe (2021) → t = 13.77 ± 0.04 Gyr
Astronomers reevaluate the age of the universe

 

[BPPLEE]

What about the Methuselah star?
The latest data (2021) gives gives
M = 0.81 ± 0.05 → t = 12 ± 0.5 Gyr
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/ac01ca

Age of universe (2021) → t = 13.77 ± 0.04 Gyr
Astronomers reevaluate the age of the universe

Okay thanks

 

[BPPLEE]

It can't. You misread what was said. It just told you that a trillion years (which is how long a star might eventually live) is longer than a few billion years (which is how long the universe has currently existed).

It's like saying my son's lifetime could range from 80 to 120 which is considerably older than I am.

Okay

 

[BPPLEE]

Why not link to the Wiki page on this star, where it explains that its within the measurement uncertainties of the Planck based universe age, and also models involving possible material reusage from prior nucleosynthesis?

Okay thanks

 

[AV1611VET]

Ahh .. the flawed, antiquated 'seed' model eh?
Now superseded in modern times by the modern science of Embryology.

Embryology can take a hike.