Unsure what is correct?

[Crotalus71]

So here I am a relatively new christian who was born a Catholic I guess. I have read Darwin and have read Genesis as well as other biblical scripture. However, I am still unsure about what is the truth. Obviously, we were not bron out of a primordial ooze that just said "Today, I will be alive! But on the other hand, did if God did create us with an "intelligent design" how do we explain new species? I don't mean that interbreeding is creating new species but actual new species of things. According to what I have read from the Institute for Creation Research they believe that Evolutionists say that animals can not cross breed but they bring up that Corn snakes and Kingsnakes can produce viable offspring. This therefore says that evolution is impossible? I am just trying to understand what is intelligent design versus evolution. I mean the general argument that we did not come from apes to me anyway is not an argument if we look at the relationship between us within genetics. Maybe I am completely lost I don't know but I would like someone to explain to what I am as far as belief goes.
I believe that it is possible we evolved from apes. But also that God had something to with it. Anyone up to this would be greatly appreciated. I just want to decide one way or the other. If I have askd this in the wrong place I am sorry but it seemed like the best spot to get an answer.

 

[Mallon]

You've started down what will no doubt prove to be a long, hard road, Crotalus. Welcome to the club.
There are many views when it comes to origins and its relation to theology, and I would encourage you to read them all. Most of what you will read, though, will only promote an unfortunate dichotomy between science and Christianity. Some, like "creation science" institutions, will tell you that if scientific findings disagree agree with a particular, simplistic reading of the Bible, you should disregard them as "lies". Others, like Richard Dawkins, will tell you that the gospel is a lie because the Bible obviously does not contain good science. Notably, both these camps take the position (called scientific concordism) that the Bible is validated only by how well it speaks to issues pertaining to science.
Fortunately, there's a way out of this false dichotomy. In taking the form of Christ, God accomodated Himself to the limitations and understanding of mortal humans. In the same way, many Christians, called evolutionary creationists (or theistic evolutionists -- I prefer the former) see the Bible as having been accomodated to the limitations and understanding of the human mind. That is, the Bible reveals to us all of the spiritual things about God and our relationship with Him and with one another that He wanted us to know, all within the cultural, scientific, and historical context of the early Hebrew people. So to read the Bible as though it is meant to speak to matters of science is to misunderstand why it was written. The corollary, of course, is that you are free to accept the findings of science, since science, which is tied to the physical world, cannot possibly inform us either way about the spiritual world.
You can read more here:

http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/evolution-and-faith-from-evangelical.html

http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/evangelicals-and-evolution-selected.html

I especially recommend Denis Lamoureux's Evolutionary Creation book.

 

[juvenissun]

Welcome.

Just quote a few verses in the Scripture (Ecclesiastes). I found them very very good to this issue:

Eccl 3:17 I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work. 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

 

[Crotalus71]

Welcome.

Just quote a few verses in the Scripture (Ecclesiastes). I found them very very good to this issue:

But in Genesis, God Gives Man (Adam) control over all beasts of the earth. So according to that Man would definitely have preeminence above the beasts would he not? Mallon, I can completely appreciate the outlook of God through the bible relating all that is spiritual to us while science can not explain the spiritual. However, I have other questions not realted to this forum I think that may endure a greater discussion. Such as when Cain slew Able he was banished from Eden and yet he met and knew his wife. And it would appear in later Genesis chapters that there was incidents of (I hate to type it nor think it) but it would seem that Incest occured.Genesis 4:26 Seth also had a son, and he named Enosh. Where is the woman who slept with/knew Seth? Eve had no daughters up to this point so is his citing incest?

 

[Mallon]

However, I have other questions not realted to this forum I think that may endure a greater discussion. Such as when Cain slew Able he was banished from Eden and yet he met and knew his wife. And it would appear in later Genesis chapters that there was incidents of (I hate to type it nor think it) but it would seem that Incest occured.Genesis 4:26 Seth also had a son, and he named Enosh. Where is the woman who slept with/knew Seth? Eve had no daughters up to this point so is his citing incest?

Great questions, but they're only problems if you subscribe to a concordist view of Scriptures. Otherwise, we understand these inconsistencies as being incidental to the message God delivered in the creation story.

 

[Crotalus71]

So incindental is something I can handle. I must apologize I have not taken the time to read the Phillip Johnson thing but is on the top of of my pile of things to do. Mallon, I really appreciate your information and the time you have taken to guide me. Hopefully we can type in the future as I get more in depth with the bible I have many questions that I will discuss with my pastor as well but I wanted to get another view as well. So while I hesitate to define myself as a evolutionary creationist I think I am leaning that way. It just flat out makes sense to me. So again I will study further and post more questions as I have them and hopefully you'll be able to find me to give such eloquent answers as you have already done. Gods glory definitley shines upon you my friend. Many thanks.

 

[Mallon]

My pleasure, Crotalus. There's a great essay on evolutionary creation here, if you're interested:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm
Compare and contrast that position with the YEC position held by Henry Morris, for example, who insists that the validity of the Bible hinges on its scientfic accuracy.

 

[mindlight]

So here I am a relatively new christian who was born a Catholic I guess. I have read Darwin and have read Genesis as well as other biblical scripture. However, I am still unsure about what is the truth. Obviously, we were not bron out of a primordial ooze that just said "Today, I will be alive! But on the other hand, did if God did create us with an "intelligent design" how do we explain new species? I don't mean that interbreeding is creating new species but actual new species of things. According to what I have read from the Institute for Creation Research they believe that Evolutionists say that animals can not cross breed but they bring up that Corn snakes and Kingsnakes can produce viable offspring. This therefore says that evolution is impossible? I am just trying to understand what is intelligent design versus evolution. I mean the general argument that we did not come from apes to me anyway is not an argument if we look at the relationship between us within genetics. Maybe I am completely lost I don't know but I would like someone to explain to what I am as far as belief goes.
I believe that it is possible we evolved from apes. But also that God had something to with it. Anyone up to this would be greatly appreciated. I just want to decide one way or the other. If I have askd this in the wrong place I am sorry but it seemed like the best spot to get an answer.

Hello , you ask really good questions and as Mallon has said I hope that you will read up on all the different views before making up your mind about what the Bible is actually saying about our origins.

I have debated this matter for years and used to be what is often described as a Theistic evolutionist - that is someone who broadly sees no contradiction between scripture and mainstream science. Such a view holds that creation is very old and the process by which life developed is that of macro-evolution.

I currently hold what is called a Young Earth Creationist viewpoint which I believe is in continuity with the mainstream of Judeao -Christian tradition over the bulk of Christian history. This is the view that the earth is young and that while micro-evolutionary changes can be observed to happen macro-evolution does not and more cannot be proven.

My advice in this search would be as follows:

1) Respect but do not be overawed by the scientists. They have gotten som pretty big things very wrong many times. There are somethings that can be said for sure e.g. the earth is spherical and goes round the sun and there are other things which remain broadly speculation (albeit of the highly intelligent sort). What can be said about our dim and distant origins and what can be said about phenmomena outside our solar system are limited by a considerable degree of ignorance about these things and an enormous distance in space and time which can only degrade the evidence on which deductions are made to the point of worthlessness in man cases. The recent realisation that much of the substance of the universe is unseen, unobservable and largely unknown (e.g. dark matter) is a case in point. Too many scientists put too much certainty to their theories when to prove them is actually next to impossible. What we have instead is a level of plausibility. Even the most plausible theories may in the end be wrong.

2) Scripture speaks to us on many levels - do not surrender the historical dimension just because a few smart **** atheists think that what is said is simply impossible in their "superior" view ;-). Examine the motivations of those Christians who have bought into their theories. Are they God focused or world focused in their ambitions to understand. The universe is a miraculous place in which Jesus walked on water and fed 5000 people with a few loaves and fishes. If we can accept miracles like that why do we find it so hard to believe that God is perfectly capable of creating a universe in a few days a few thousand years ago.

3) Do not condemn people who fall in the alternate camp on this debate. It has the potential to be divisive but that is counter productive to all concerned. The doctrine of creation is not on a par with the doctrines of Incarnation, Trinity and redemption and a great many people who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour hold different views on this. We need to keep this discussion in a sense of perspective and not major too heavily on what is effectively minors. Discussions with people in all the different camps can be fruitful and I have been blessed time and time again by hearing truthes from those who oppose my views.

 

[pastorkevin73]

So here I am a relatively new christian who was born a Catholic I guess. I have read Darwin and have read Genesis as well as other biblical scripture. However, I am still unsure about what is the truth. Obviously, we were not bron out of a primordial ooze that just said "Today, I will be alive! But on the other hand, did if God did create us with an "intelligent design" how do we explain new species? I don't mean that interbreeding is creating new species but actual new species of things. According to what I have read from the Institute for Creation Research they believe that Evolutionists say that animals can not cross breed but they bring up that Corn snakes and Kingsnakes can produce viable offspring. This therefore says that evolution is impossible? I am just trying to understand what is intelligent design versus evolution. I mean the general argument that we did not come from apes to me anyway is not an argument if we look at the relationship between us within genetics. Maybe I am completely lost I don't know but I would like someone to explain to what I am as far as belief goes.
I believe that it is possible we evolved from apes. But also that God had something to with it. Anyone up to this would be greatly appreciated. I just want to decide one way or the other. If I have askd this in the wrong place I am sorry but it seemed like the best spot to get an answer.

Crotalus71, My suggestion to you would be to not concern yourself with these topics and debates as of yet. Spend time reading and studying teh Bible and find a good church that holds a high value of Scripture and teach it. By being a part of these types of forums will only confuse things until you are firmly rooted in God's word. Blessings Brother.

 

[Crotalus71]

Hello , you ask really good questions and as Mallon has said I hope that you will read up on all the different views before making up your mind about what the Bible is actually saying about our origins.

I have debated this matter for years and used to be what is often described as a Theistic evolutionist - that is someone who broadly sees no contradiction between scripture and mainstream science. Such a view holds that creation is very old and the process by which life developed is that of macro-evolution.

I currently hold what is called a Young Earth Creationist viewpoint which I believe is in continuity with the mainstream of Judeao -Christian tradition over the bulk of Christian history. This is the view that the earth is young and that while micro-evolutionary changes can be observed to happen macro-evolution does not and more cannot be proven.

My advice in this search would be as follows:

1) Respect but do not be overawed by the scientists. They have gotten som pretty big things very wrong many times. There are somethings that can be said for sure e.g. the earth is spherical and goes round the sun and there are other things which remain broadly speculation (albeit of the highly intelligent sort). What can be said about our dim and distant origins and what can be said about phenmomena outside our solar system are limited by a considerable degree of ignorance about these things and an enormous distance in space and time which can only degrade the evidence on which deductions are made to the point of worthlessness in man cases. The recent realisation that much of the substance of the universe is unseen, unobservable and largely unknown (e.g. dark matter) is a case in point. Too many scientists put too much certainty to their theories when to prove them is actually next to impossible. What we have instead is a level of plausibility. Even the most plausible theories may in the end be wrong.

2) Scripture speaks to us on many levels - do not surrender the historical dimension just because a few smart **** atheists think that what is said is simply impossible in their "superior" view ;-). Examine the motivations of those Christians who have bought into their theories. Are they God focused or world focused in their ambitions to understand. The universe is a miraculous place in which Jesus walked on water and fed 5000 people with a few loaves and fishes. If we can accept miracles like that why do we find it so hard to believe that God is perfectly capable of creating a universe in a few days a few thousand years ago.

3) Do not condemn people who fall in the alternate camp on this debate. It has the potential to be divisive but that is counter productive to all concerned. The doctrine of creation is not on a par with the doctrines of Incarnation, Trinity and redemption and a great many people who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour hold different views on this. We need to keep this discussion in a sense of perspective and not major too heavily on what is effectively minors. Discussions with people in all the different camps can be fruitful and I have been blessed time and time again by hearing truthes from those who oppose my views.

Well I should state for the record that I am albeit Amatuer somewhat of a herpetologist. Hence, the snake referal. Anyway, I really appreciate the attitude and insights you have given here. I am not easily bowled over by any new theories and I am also not easily impressed by anyone unless they really have done something extraordinary.

On the other hand I have no judgement as to who is right or wrong but do have opinions that I will share when asked and agree to listen to anyones who I happen to be discussing the topic with. While I can not honestly say that I hold no one in judgement I can say I do my best which is what I think God wants us to do. Everyone judges each other whether we admit it or not is between them and God.

Anyway, I am going to read the resources relayed by Mallon and hopefully gain a deeper insight and discover what I think to be correct. As I have said already I have read a lot of the academia on Evolution and just can not seem to get past the fact that we sprang from some primordial ooze. Is it possible we evolved from something that was developed by God originally sure. But then after that I need more data and so forth. Thanks and blessings to you to take the time to respond and share your own insight. Whether it is my nature or the way I was raised I look at the everything in the world with a somewhat critical eye. Animals and nature in general happen to be just one of those which are most interesting to me as a whole.

 

[Crotalus71]

Crotalus71, My suggestion to you would be to not concern yourself with these topics and debates as of yet. Spend time reading and studying teh Bible and find a good church that holds a high value of Scripture and teach it. By being a part of these types of forums will only confuse things until you are firmly rooted in God's word. Blessings Brother.

At first when I read this I was angry because it would appear that you had judged me as ignorant from my original post. After several reading over the past hour I have come to the conclusion that you could only know me by the words I used so where my Church comes into the equation is unbeknownst to me. But just for future reference I attend what is known as New Heights Community Church with Pastor Brian as Lead Pastor and I find it very appealing because he does not address the Bible as some higher power which only certain chosen ones can read. But literally reads from it to deliver his sermons and is quite open to explaining anything to a "lay person" So I would consider this church to hold the Scripture in the highest regard and they do teach it as such.

It is also of interest to note that you had no reply to the questions I asked but did say that it would be confusing if I wasn't firmly rooted in Gods word. Again, where does the confusion lie? I personally think it a good thing to seek more knowledge for if we stop seeking knowledge then I believe we have ceased to exist. Is this not why the Bible was written was to educate such an ignorant species on the intricate ways of life as we should live it? :o
Blessings to you,

 

[Mallon]

1) Respect but do not be overawed by the scientists. They have gotten som pretty big things very wrong many times. There are somethings that can be said for sure e.g. the earth is spherical and goes round the sun and there are other things which remain broadly speculation (albeit of the highly intelligent sort).

Recognize also that much of what we know to be true today thanks to science (e.g., orbit of Earth) is in direct contradiction to what the church once dogmatically held to be true based on Scripture, Crotalus. Science is often wrong; so is church tradition.

 

[Crotalus71]

True I think if I am not Mistaken Galileo was jailed several times among others!

 

[mindlight]

Recognize also that much of what we know to be true today thanks to science (e.g., orbit of Earth) is in direct contradiction to what the church once dogmatically held to be true based on Scripture, Crotalus. Science is often wrong; so is church tradition.

So also were some church traditions - agreed. It took some brave and honest men to overthrow false prejudices that the church had misnamed doctrines.

Today the high priesthood that needs challenging is that of the scientific establishment rather than the church. The segregation of scientific disciplines and the sheer quantity of knowledge has become impossible for one polymath to master - thus science has developed a momentum of its own and the underlying assumptions that underpin that momentum become harder and harder to challenge. The credibility and funding of scientists often comes down to whether they implictly accept these assumptions and are therefore "serious scientists".

Really the only position of authority that a person can challenge the whole colossus of science from today is that of a Christian who says - you guys are saying x but God says y in his scriptures. What God has said or whether he has spoken at all on matters of scientific interest in the Bible is of course what we debate here.

 

[Assyrian]

Really the only position of authority that a person can challenge the whole colossus of science from today is that of a Christian who says - you guys are saying x but God says y in his scriptures.

Isn't that what the geocentrists said about Galileo and Copernicus?

 

[Mallon]

The credibility and funding of scientists often comes down to whether they implictly accept these assumptions and are therefore "serious scientists".

Are you speaking from experience?

I think this is a myth promoted by those holding some grudge against science's success in the face of religion. The fact of the matter is that science can only move forward if we challenge authority and test that which we take for granted. If we simply took people (or religious texts) at their word, there would be no science since there would be no tests. Heck, Nobel prizes are given to those who overturn deeply entrenched scientific paradigms.

Really the only position of authority that a person can challenge the whole colossus of science from today is that of a Christian who says - you guys are saying x but God says y in his scriptures.

Yes, just like Martin Luther said referring to Copernicus (from http://www.leaderu.com/science/kobe.html#copernicus):

"There was mention of a certain astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] "So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12]."

In nearly 500 years, some people still haven't realized that the Bible isn't a source of accurate science. It's a source of accurate theology.

 

[Terral]

Hi Crotalus:

I am happy to provide answers to your Genesis questions, and hopefully God will cause the growth. 1Cor. 3:6-7.

So here I am a relatively new Christian who was born a Catholic I guess. I have read Darwin and have read Genesis as well as other biblical scripture. However, I am still unsure about what is the truth. Obviously, we were not born out of a primordial ooze that just said "Today, I will be alive!

Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy are only two of thousands of manmade denominations to which nobody is born, but people convert to and abandon with every passing day. We agree that nobody here was born out of any primordial ooze. :0)

But on the other hand, did if God did create us with an "intelligent design" how do we explain new species?

God has been using His Evolution Tool within animal and plant species for millions and millions and millions of years allowing earthly host adaption to changing environments. Any animal or plant species without the ability to change with the environment became extinct long ago . . .

I don't mean that interbreeding is creating new species but actual new species of things. According to what I have read from the Institute for Creation Research they believe that Evolutionists say that animals can not cross breed but they bring up that Corn snakes and Kingsnakes can produce viable offspring. This therefore says that evolution is impossible?

Not at all. God has used Creation and Evolution for billions of years. God called all the plants and animals of Genesis 1 into being through evolutionary processes (wiki) that have been ongoing for billions of years, but Adam (Gen. 2:7) was ‘created’ using the breath of life (spirit witness = stuff of angels) and the dust of the ground (water witness = stuff of men) to become an immortal living soul/being without a spirit or physical body. Adam and Eve (the Lord God’s two witnesses = Elijah and Moses) began putting on skins in Genesis 3:21 at the ‘fall’ that took place just 6000 years ago, while Adam (Gen. 2:7) existed for a VERY long time with Eve (water witness) and her seed (blood witness = diagram) IN him; before they were taken out in Genesis 2:20-22. All the animal and plant life died IN Adam (1Cor 15:22) with the great deluge of Genesis 1:2, but the righteous branch ‘gods’ (Ps. 82:6, Jn 10:34) from God’s Infinite Realm (diagram = on far left) died IN Adam in the moment Eve was taken from his side. This means Adam represents all the angels (spirit witnesses) and Eve represents all the living (water witnesses = Gen. 3:20), until eventually everyone puts on immortality (like us in 1Cor. 15:51-53) rejoining exactly one angel and one man (we judge both = diagram) into the one immortal soul. In short: Those baptized into Moses/Eve (1Cor. 10:1-5) to become part of the “Body of Moses” (Jude 1:9) must wait for the “Marriage Supper of the Lamb” (Rev. 19:5-10), that ends every age, to be rejoined to their angelic super-half, while the believers in our Gospel (#2 here) will put on immortality at our Rapture (1Thes. 4:16-17). That is the very reason ‘we’ (believers in our gospel) are called the members of “Christ’s Body” (1Cor. 12:27 = IN Christ between Elijah and Moses = diagram) and the members of “His BODY” Church (Col. 1:24-27) having already been seated in the heavenly places that are IN Christ Jesus. Eph. 2:6.

I am just trying to understand what is intelligent design versus evolution. I mean the general argument that we did not come from apes to me anyway is not an argument if we look at the relationship between us within genetics.

Stop trying to generate a ‘Creation VERSUS Evolution’ explanation and begin to realize ‘both’ are indeed true. :0) God (who raised Christ from the dead) called all of the Genesis 1 life forms to exist through Evolution ‘and’ the Lord God (Christ = Gen. 2:4+) called Adam and his animals (Gen. 2:18-19) to exist through Creation. Adam and those created hosts were ‘heavenly’ immortal beings in the beginning, but you are now looking at their ‘fallen’ water witness host forms that mirror the evolved hosts that incorporate the same DNA configurations through the ‘skins’ (Gen. 3:21) created for their earthly habitation. The Lord God determined those DNA sequences by looking over to the evolved species created/evolved by God over the course of billions of years. There is no evolutionary link between the evolved and created species, because the Lord God created and formed the Adamic ‘skins’ to mirror the physical bodies of the sixth day races of Genesis 1:26-28.

Maybe I am completely lost I don't know but I would like someone to explain to what I am as far as belief goes. I believe that it is possible we evolved from apes. But also that God had something to with it. Anyone up to this would be greatly appreciated. I just want to decide one way or the other. If I have asked this in the wrong place I am sorry but it seemed like the best spot to get an answer.

If you are a son of Noah (another incarnation of your mother Eve), and a member of the bearded races of this earth (sons of Shem, Japheth and Ham), then you are a ‘god’ from God’s Infinite Realm (like Adam/Abraham/Elijah/David/John the Baptist/prophet of Acts 3:22-23) and definitely are NOT evolved from any apes. Examples of ‘evolved’ sixth day men (Gen. 1:26-28) are the Aborigine peoples, Indian peoples and native inhabitants of the land (beardless races) that have been on this earth for thousands and even millions of years. These are the members of Adam’s Body like the whale, shark, albatross, bear, elephant and other evolved birds of the air (spirit witnesses), beasts of the field (blood witnesses) and fishes of the sea (water witnesses). God’s from God’s Infinite Realm (sons of Shem, Japheth and Ham) are victimizing the members of Adam’s body (beardless races) like Europeans victimized the American Indians, because these same incarnate gods (your seed = Gen. 3:15 = sons of disobedience) helped Satan murder Adam in God’s Infinite Realm where the members of his body were actually killed in the first place. These evil gods MUST commit these atrocities ‘again,’ because “desolations are determined” (Dan. 9:26), as everything will make perfect sense at the Final Judgment (Rev. 20:10-15), before we enter the perfect creation of Revelation 21:1+.

The Evolution ‘and’ Creation explanations of Genesis 1 (Evolution) and Genesis 2+ (Creation) are indeed correct, but only if you have eyes from God to see. :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[crawfish]

But in Genesis, God Gives Man (Adam) control over all beasts of the earth. So according to that Man would definitely have preeminence above the beasts would he not?

I don't think the passage in Ecclesiastes conflicts with that. It simply refers to the fact that the physical bodies of man and animals die, and there is no real difference in what we see between the two. It's always important to understand that Ecc. is giving us a wise solution to life, then proof that the solution is only vanity.

 

[pastorkevin73]

At first when I read this I was angry because it would appear that you had judged me as ignorant from my original post. After several reading over the past hour I have come to the conclusion that you could only know me by the words I used so where my Church comes into the equation is unbeknownst to me. But just for future reference I attend what is known as New Heights Community Church with Pastor Brian as Lead Pastor and I find it very appealing because he does not address the Bible as some higher power which only certain chosen ones can read. But literally reads from it to deliver his sermons and is quite open to explaining anything to a "lay person" So I would consider this church to hold the Scripture in the highest regard and they do teach it as such.

It is also of interest to note that you had no reply to the questions I asked but did say that it would be confusing if I wasn't firmly rooted in Gods word. Again, where does the confusion lie? I personally think it a good thing to seek more knowledge for if we stop seeking knowledge then I believe we have ceased to exist. Is this not why the Bible was written was to educate such an ignorant species on the intricate ways of life as we should live it? :o
Blessings to you,

Slow down brother, I am by no means judging you as ignorant, only wanting to help you along with knowing and understanding God. Also, I am not saying that we worship the Bible, but the Bible is God's Word to us. Reading and studying it is how we know God. If your pastor is teaching from the Bible, which it sounds like he is doing, great you are then in a good Bible teaching church. It is important to have a good solid foundation in God's Word, because the world and demonic force confuse things for any believer. What I am telling you I would tell to any Christian of any spiritual maturity and is what I adhear to as well. Please don't feel insulted, that is not my intention.

 

[shernren]

The credibility and funding of scientists often comes down to whether they implicitly accept these assumptions and are therefore "serious scientists".

Right now my spring / summer physics research project involves putting together an alternate proton detector for some folks over at the accelerator who are studying the Hoyle state of C-12. They are trying to determine the rate at which this state decays to the ground state by pair production. This is significant, because when carbon is produced in stars it is produced in the Hoyle State, and thus determining accurate rate constants for this decay will enable us to further pin down the ages of stars.

This project may well force an overhaul of current theories concerning stellar and galactic formation. I bet plenty of people will like it if our data show us that most stars are about half as old as we thought they were (which is within the error bounds of our current data). Will our funding get cut off? I'll let you know.

Your arguments work against themselves. You say that science is now so vast and sprawling that no one person can grasp every field. Granted. That annoys me to no end. At the same time, how could any effective policing of scientific conclusions ever take place in such a world? Take the age of the Earth. It relies on conclusions taken from all over science, which as you say no one person can fully grasp inside and out. Well, who's the boss?

You would need an international consortium of people through which every single research paper ever published by every single scientist flows, and for them to be so attentive that whenever someone spots something that might possibly prove a young earth, that scientist is summarily taken outside and shot. (Or never given a research grant ever again, which is quite a similar fate.) But who can possibly be that efficient? Who, over at my accelerator and among the people my accelerator group talks to, would bother to trace our Hoyle State physics all the way to the ages of stars? Who knows enough about both the nuclear dynamics of a C-12 nucleus and stellar physics to detect when someone might force a young universe conclusion? Who knows enough about both the shape of the nuclear potential determining rates of alpha decay and the geological structure of the Grand Canyon to be able to refuse funding to any potentially young-earth nuclear physicists?

According to you, such people don't exist because science is just too big. But if such people did exist, and if such people were actively blocking young-earth research simply because it was young-earth, I'd be the first to have them dragged out and drawn and quartered (or forced off research funding boards, which hopefully is much the same thing). Who knows, you young-earthers might actually be right. And if you are, I want to make the discovery that proves you right - because there'd be a Nobel in it for me, for sure - and heaven help any research funding board who tries to stand in my way and tell me what to conclude from my data.

And this is coming from someone who accepts that the earth is old. I wonder, is there similar objectivity among your ranks?