What's Your View On Creation?

[General Mung Beans]

What's your view on Creation?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Young earth.

 

[CalledOutOne]

Definitely young earth.

If I can't trust the Bible on creationism, why should I trust it on anything else?

 

[Eddie L]

YEC for me.

 

[ThatWhichIsnt]

Leaning old earth.

 

[Thaeoles]

I lean towards Old Earth creation; however, I've not yet fully landed there either.

 

[CalledOutOne]

I'm not sure why anyone would compromise the Bible with science.
I'm sorry if this is offensive to some of you, but anything other than YEC is just compromise.

I believed that the earth was a flat rectangle until someone showed me a reason from the Bible to believe otherwise (Isaiah 40:22).

I hate compromising the truth of Scripture for the dishonest world of science.

 

[Thaeoles]

True science does not contradict Scripture, more than anything it has further supported it. Where science supposedly contradicts Scripture is when scientists stop asking questions, and try to explain away rather than investigate.

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

Literal 6 day creationist, but I believe the earth is older then 6000 years.

 

[ThatWhichIsnt]

I'm not sure why anyone would compromise the Bible with science.
I'm sorry if this is offensive to some of you, but anything other than YEC is just compromise.

I believed that the earth was a flat rectangle until someone showed me a reason from the Bible to believe otherwise (Isaiah 40:22).

I hate compromising the truth of Scripture for the dishonest world of science.

Why do you put Scripture and science against each other? Christ is preeminent in all things, and everything was created for Him. Therefore, using logic, everything points to Him. He is the origin of all. Now science can be twisted and perverted, but what can't? As a Christian, when I study things like biology, astronomy, physics, and such I get overwhelmed by the grand design of Him.

Back on subject, I believe the creation in Genesis sounds more like a re-creation story. I believe the earth is over 6,000 years old. Exact date, who knows. However, I do not believe the devil is hiding fossils to fool people.

 

[CalledOutOne]

Why do you put Scripture and science against each other? Christ is preeminent in all things, and everything was created for Him. Therefore, using logic, everything points to Him. He is the origin of all. Now science can be twisted and perverted, but what can't? As a Christian, when I study things like biology, astronomy, physics, and such I get overwhelmed by the grand design of Him.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. When I put science and Scripture against each other I only meant the dishonesty of the scientific world today. Science is very dishonest.


All:
Have you ever heard of Helium-Argon dating? According to Christian scientists, it indicates a young earth (6,000-7,000 yrs). It's a very interesting study. You can find more information on it here at The Institute for Creation Research.

 

[ALoveDivine]

I believe that God is the author of both the bible and creation, and I believe that God cannot lie. So the bible and the record of nature cannot in fact contradict each other. If one looks at the evidence objectively, the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the Earth is very old, and the universe itself is even older. And on top of that, the vast majority of young-earth claims have been thoroughly refuted. God would not create the earth to appear old in an effort to deceive us. Given all of this, I would fall into the OEC category.

Now I am not saying I completely rule out a YEC point of view, but I think the OEC point of view is more well supported by the evidence and in no way contradicts scripture. Reasons to believe has done a great job of harmonizing the scientific record with the truths of the bible, I suggest you all check it out.

Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge

 

[Philonephius]

Theistic evolutionist. This is something I have given a great deal of thought, study, and prayer over the years. I have a difficult time taking YEC seriously; I believe that if YEC's were to objectively look at the evidence, they would realize that we live in a very old universe on a very old planet, and that God chose to bring about life on earth through evolution. In my mind, the only alternative is that God created a lot of fake evidence in order to trick everyone. My 2 cents.

I think it's important to realize that the Bible is a theological document written in such a way that people could understand at the time. It is not a scientific book.

 

[Philonephius]

I'm not sure why anyone would compromise the Bible with science.
I'm sorry if this is offensive to some of you, but anything other than YEC is just compromise.

I believed that the earth was a flat rectangle until someone showed me a reason from the Bible to believe otherwise (Isaiah 40:22).

I hate compromising the truth of Scripture for the dishonest world of science.

I'm not sure what you mean by "dishonest world of science." Could you elaborate, and provide specific examples? Science makes no claims concerning the supernatural, because it is untestable. God can be neither proven nor disproven. There is a reason >99% of natural scientists accept evolution. But there is also a reason the majority of scientists believe in God - including natural scientists.

As I stated in my previous post, I feel it is important to look at the Bible as a theological book, not a scientific one. It is God breathed but also written by mankind for mankind. If the Bible seems to conflict with what is evident in nature, it is our interpretation that is flawed, not the scriptures.

Biologos.org is a resource that may be of interest. It helped me a great deal in reconciling biology, geology, and astronomy with the Bible. The Bible explains why we are here. Science offers an explanation of how God did it.

 

[Eddie L]

I'm not sure what you mean by "dishonest world of science." Could you elaborate, and provide specific examples? Science makes no claims concerning the supernatural, because it is untestable. God can be neither proven nor disproven. There is a reason >99% of natural scientists accept evolution. But there is also a reason the majority of scientists believe in God - including natural scientists.

As I stated in my previous post, I feel it is important to look at the Bible as a theological book, not a scientific one. It is God breathed but also written by mankind for mankind. If the Bible seems to conflict with what is evident in nature, it is our interpretation that is flawed, not the scriptures.

Biologos.org is a resource that may be of interest. It helped me a great deal in reconciling biology, geology, and astronomy with the Bible. The Bible explains why we are here. Science offers an explanation of how God did it.

history isn't testable, either.

 

[AllForHisGlory]

True science has to be observable, testable, and repeatable. Until this is done, it is not true science, it is only a hypothesis. You cannot say something is scientific until it has passed the test. Only then, can it be called science.

 

[Philonephius]

history isn't testable, either.

Oh, but it is, so long as it leaves behind physical evidence. That is what forensics specialists (for example) and many other lines of work do on a daily basis. It is also what scientists do.

 

[Philonephius]

True science has to be observable, testable, and repeatable. Until this is done, it is not true science, it is only a hypothesis. You cannot say something is scientific until it has passed the test. Only then, can it be called science.

Yes, and that is why evolution is a science. There are dozens of examples of evolution occurring within the last 100 years alone. When the wall lizard was introduced to a small island off Croatia, it took just under 40 years for them to evolve an entirely new structure in their digestive system, thereby allowing them to consume native vegetation.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

There are many more examples with bacteria, since generations are much shorter. But even without such examples, the evidence to support evolution is overwhelming. The fossil record and genetics (e.g. endogenous retroviruses) alone have sufficiently proven evolution beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[CalledOutOne]

I'm not sure what you mean by "dishonest world of science." Could you elaborate, and provide specific examples?

What I mean by this is the dishonesty of the skeletal figures they found in Africa that they believe to be our ancestor. That is ridiculous. That is the skeleton of an extinct ape. I saw their documentary and they even said that the skeleton didn't make any since and that it wouldn't be able to stand upright, but you know what they did? They made a model and reconstructed it to make it work and made claims that this is how it must have been in its life, which is very dishonest. I'm not sure if this was "Lucy" or "Lucy's Baby" (both are just apes).

There is a reason >99% of natural scientists accept evolution.

Really? Even that is a dishonest claim. Most sensible scientist reject evolution. It can be refuted very easily.

On Evolution:
Evolution Refuted: Check This Out - Answers in Genesis

On Carbon Dating:
Is Carbon Dating Reliable? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry



How could I forget this one:
http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability

 

[Eddie L]

Oh, but it is, so long as it leaves behind physical evidence. That is what forensics specialists (for example) and many other lines of work do on a daily basis. It is also what scientists do.

Are you Reformed, Philonephius? I think this poll was posted here to get a sampling of views from Reformed believers.