Why is one religion so devided?

[Job 33:6]

Old Earth Geology =Part 1

Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon) = Part 2

 

[NobleMouse]

Plate tectonics is not a computer program. Physics is not a computer program either.

You just cant...assume that physics was completely different in the past. Not without some form of justification.

Yes you can, just as much as you assume they have always been constant. Also, I believe scientists use computer programs to measure, develop and support their models involving physical laws so don't be too quick to shoot holes. You seem to be illustrating that the laws of physics trump everything, including the law of God (His word). The Bible is a good form of justification for considering that physical laws may not have been the same. Where do you think physical laws came from? Answer: God created them. If He created them, this means at one time they didn't exist. I understand you hold science almighty and physics in high regard but also you must admit you cannot prove your position to be true that physical laws have remained constant through all time, it is an assumption scientists make. I assume it is possible physical laws were not always the same, but not because I wish that to be so. We have a book from God that shows they very well may not have been. What books do you have that say they were always constant all the way back to time=zero, who are the authors?

For example...

Young earthers often propose that pangea existed at the onset of the flood, and with the fountains of the deep, blasting out of the center of pangea, the continents were split.

Ok, and so what is proposed is an expedited continental drift. On an order of magnitude that is over ~100,000 times faster than anything experienced today.

Now imagine, India, moving north, into Asia, 100,000 times the rate it is today. 100,000 times the pressure, 100,000 times the heat.

Naturalism, uniformitarinism, God not present... all assumptions you are making. Bible says God was sorry he created man and would blot him out from the face of the earth; God did it, not a natural event... but there can be natural consequences to supernatural causes - all mankind except Noah and his family were in fact blotted out.

Thats continental drift at perhaps a 4 miles per year. a mile every 3 months. Which is 60 feet every day.

And, you might think well, 60 feet isnt that far. But when its one continent moving into another, this is pretty radical. And in this, rocks would, easily metamorphose. There would be no...sedimentary rocks. There would be no 30 degree angle compressional fault systems spanning hundreds of miles, it would all be annihilated.

So yes, young earthers do defy physics, they defy plate tectonics.

Why would the speed be constant? If a meteor splashes down in the ocean at thousands of miles/hr, does the radial blast continue to spread out at the same rate of speed as it spreads out? No, it is absorbed by the surrounding water and terrain and slows down.

And this cant be misjudged. Unless literally everything we know about physics is wrong. Even something as simple as just light coming from the stars, and travelling at the speed of light. They believe that God sped light up so it would reach us, but then slowed it down so we wouldnt realize that it was once sped up.

Sure it can be misjudged, you just misjudged by using incorrect arguments assuming a constant rate of continental speed when in fact the speed would have very likely been rapid when the fountains of the deep first burst forth and the continents would have slowed down as the impact was absorbed. I'm not a physicist, but am pretty sure the continents would not have remained at a constant rate of speed. Also, it doesn't mean that everything we know about physics is wrong, everything we know as it operates today may be perfectly right, today, now. You have no

And when we watch light travel in space, we can see how fast it used to travel. But God still allegedly sped it up and slowed it down and made it look as if it never changed.

It just doesnt make any sense.

You have no support whatsoever that can authoritatively insist all physical laws can only have been constant through all time. In contrast, the Bible shows us that God created the laws and He created everything in His timing, in His way - not in the way scientists would otherwise insist it be done. Now I'm not saying I know exactly what God did or how He did it (nobody knows), but He certainly could have and in order to create everything in 6 days would seem to require some 'bending of the rules'. God knows what He did, how He did it, when He did it, and why He did it and without getting into the details of the what & how, He loves us as His children enough to tell us the general when (6 days) and the why (because He loves us and for His glory). And right, it won't make sense if you assume God is confined to only accomplish things through slow/natural, post-creation, means.

 

[NobleMouse]

@NobleMouse

I would recommend reading about that supernova, in which light was viewed during the initial explosion, as well as when it interacted with particles further away from the original source of light.

Im not sure if you know what I am referring to, but even in space at great distances, and millions of years ago, we can view events transpiring with physics just as they occur here and now.

These ideas...just arent biblical either. This idea of creating stars, speeding up light, then slowing it down. Or creating continents, speeding them up, then slowing them down. Or even...here is another one,

predictions made in the fossil record based on genetic relatedness. So, now God is also speeding up descent with modification, but slowing it down as soon as we turn to look at it.

Like a trick. The continents are sped up in their motion, but are slowed down and their fractures and chemistry give the appearance that they were never fast. Why wouldnt a rock metamorphose when speeding at 60 feet a day into another continent? All of physics must have just been different.

But theres more, there are rocks that form under extraordinarily high temperatures and pressures, and we have some of them, but they are far older than 99% of rocks we have here on earth. So its not like we wouldnt know if such a thing existed. The oldest rocks on earth, played by the same rules as they do now, and they show us this with their chemistry.

But again, YECs just throw everything, all physics and reality, out of the window.

Saw it coming as well:
New Stars, New Planets? | The Institute for Creation Research
So the YEC view is that no NEW planets/stars are being 'created' as 'creation' already happened. Again, scientists have put a spin on articles of stars being seen 'born' and evidence of planets forming, but again making assumptions using an already established framework of old ages. Light arriving to earth does not mean a star was just born, it just means the light just arrived. Seeing stars that are smaller, a different color, a different temperature doesn't mean they are younger/older either. I'd stick to rocks as those are more concrete (pun intended), astrology is largely theoretical. YECs do throw the reality you're describing out the window for two reasons: 1 It goes against the word of God, and 2 it's just not supported. You never saw it! We have forensic scientists that make can make errors when reviewing a crime scene from just hours before, with a good deal of evidence available, but scientists seem to think they've nailed down the creation of the universe and life from billions of years ago, and were just one-time events, and have much less tangible evidence.

If the framework of mainstream (secular) science is so set on showing the supposed 'real' truth of God's creation, why don't I see mention of him in major publications? In fact, the only places I really ever hear about Him is Biologos and here in this forum. The framework you ascribe to is largely an anti-God framework, no wiggling around that fact. Pew Research has even confirmed that the majority of scientists who without proof accept the same truths you do, do not even believe in God. If we go back to the 17th and 18th century where many of the current day theories and views began to take traction, we find that the majority of these men and women were either Atheists or had a low view of God and the historical accuracy of His word. So, it is of little surprise to see that those taught under this framework also follow the same views of scripture where it is a thought of as another textbook, written by men, and is subject to being updated by whatever the current prevailing view is.

 

[Job 33:6]

@NobleMouse

When meteors hit, they annihilate rock, their energy doesn't just dissipate and disappear. They melt and smear and sheer and annihilate rock. Thats why there is shocked quartz.Shocked quartz - Wikipedia

But this isnt seen from these hypothetical fast moving continents.

Your words are unsupported. And they do defy physics, whether you are willing to recognize that or not.

I just have to leave you with my old earth posts. Ya know, i can sit here and repeat myself, and you could repeat yourself, but my posts go uncontested, by a long shot, meanwhile youre speaking without justification.

If you really think that YEC doesnt defy physics, take a stab at explaining my posts.

Old Earth Geology =Part 1

Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon) = Part 2

If you would like, pick a region on earth and ill make a part 3 if you cant respond to either of these.

 

[Job 33:6]

One more note too, superpositionally, over half of the better understood post precambrian geology (500-200 million years), pre dates the mid atlantic rift basin (200 million years to present), and rests below rocks formed from the rift. So even if the rift were somehow a product of the flood, you would still have 66% of post precambrian rock to explain prior to the flood. Which makes up 99% of the rocks discussed in my old earth geology part 1 and part 2 posts.

Numerically, there are simply too many operations presented in the earth for them to have occurred due to a global flood or in any short period of time.

This is the basis of my argument for part 1 and part 2.

 

[NobleMouse]

One more note too, superpositionally, over half of the better understood post precambrian geology (500-200 million years), pre dates the mid atlantic rift basin (200 million years to present), and rests below rocks formed from the rift. So even if the rift were somehow a product of the flood, you would still have 66% of post precambrian rock to explain prior to the flood. Which makes up 99% of the rocks discussed in my old earth geology part 1 and part 2 posts.

Numerically, there are simply too many operations presented in the earth for them to have occurred due to a global flood or in any short period of time.

This is the basis of my argument for part 1 and part 2.

Not to derail the topic... but if we might take a brief detour

So physical laws of nature reign supreme. Question: Was Jesus born of a virgin as the prophesies foretold? If you believe so, then know that this violates physical laws (albeit not plate tectonics, but physical laws none the less). If you believe not, then this violates the prophesy that He would be born of a virgin and therefore is not the son of God.

 

[GBTG]

You do realize this discussion has no conclusion? By all means continue, lol!

GBTG

 

[Job 33:6]

Not to derail the topic... but if we might take a brief detour

So physical laws of nature reign supreme. Question: Was Jesus born of a virgin as the prophesies foretold? If you believe so, then know that this violates physical laws (albeit not plate tectonics, but physical laws none the less). If you believe not, then this violates the prophesy that He would be born of a virgin and therefore is not the son of God.

Physical laws, i would say, do reign supreme, when there is observation of features that conclude that they have operated.

If there was no subsurface geology. If the earth were all just one blob of...granite, and there were no layers or moving continents or anything, by all means, I'd probably agree that the earth was young. But because we can observe features that indicate the occurrence of events that operate through those laws, it is therefore justified to believe they occurred.

Another example, you brought up meteors. There is typically shocked quartz at meteorite impact sites. Because physics demonstrates through testing, how shocked quartz forms, it is feasible to believe that a meteorite creates it if it is in an impact zone. As opposed to believing that God just made it look that way, without actually having it impacted by a meteorite.

And this is the case, regardless of anything else. This is the case regardless of what religion we are, regardless of what miracles we believe in. Because it is foundational to...understanding our existence. How could existence ever be understood, if we could not recognize that shocked quartz in an impact zone was the result of heat and pressure from the meteorize that made the crater? Ask yourself what kind of world we would live in, if this logic could not be accepted?

We would be unable to understand anything at all. And, no offense to you mouse, but I think thats where a lot of young earthers are. They cannot make sense of the earth or anything in it, because their way of deriving solutions, is...compromised. Which is why nobody has taken on the challenges of my old earth posts. They arent able because they cant logically put the pieces together. But old earthers can, and when you do, it makes sense and allows for a massive amount of predictive power and explanation. Just like physicists who fly robots to mars, we've gained such a great understanding of the earth, we geologists can fly to pluto (in geologic terms).

-------------------------------------------------------------
So, this should be recognized. Then when it is recognized, and only after it is recognized, do we then examine...the next question. And that is...ok, we understand that the earth is old, now what does that mean about scripture.

But we cannot dwelve into faith based subjection, without first establishing our foundation of knowledge before hand.

And what we derive in our search for faith based answers, is the next challenge for Christians. Some might still believe that Jesus and the virgin birth is a miracle, despite the earth being old (such ash Christians of biologos BioLogos). Some might reject that, and may come up with some sort of...allegorical meaning behind it, some might have other beliefs. But regardless of what path you choose, it is important to have a foundation of knowledge to help you derive that answer beforehand. Otherwise, you will miss out on seeing Gods original creation, earth, as it truly is.

 

[NobleMouse]

You do realize this discussion has no conclusion? By all means continue, lol!

GBTG

Yes, iron sharpening iron has no end - it is a continual process. Thank you!

 

[Tayla]

It is difficult for me as a Christian to understand why there are so many different theories about how we came to be.

The Bible is not a book of science. Plus, it was written long before the scientific revolution. The scientific method provides a way to determine truth and knowledge about such things. Science agrees the earth is old. The only disagreement is with Christians who reject science, and who think they can discover scientific truth in an unscientific book.

 

[Tayla]

How and where can we possibly find the true answer and how can we as a religion rally behind that single viewpoint.

Christianity does not require doctrinal unity in anything except the non-essentials, such things as the Nicene Creed and the Trinity. Christian unity occurs in the spiritual realm by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in those who are redeemed.

 

[Ancient of Days]

"If you don't think that YEC defies physics, then i would just say, check out my old earth geology posts, and see if you can answer them without defying physics."

The laws of physics DO NOT apply to God. He allowed them to come into existence.

 

[NobleMouse]

Physical laws, i would say, do reign supreme, when there is observation of features that conclude that they have operated.

If there was no subsurface geology. If the earth were all just one blob of...granite, and there were no layers or moving continents or anything, by all means, I'd probably agree that the earth was young. But because we can observe features that indicate the occurrence of events that operate through those laws, it is therefore justified to believe they occurred.

I agree that when there is direct observation of natural events occurring (like a meteor striking the earth), we'll see physical laws in action. Going back to the forecast model analogy, God designed physical laws, so we will see them in action as this is how the physical universe was intended to function. I also agree that the earth is not a solid chunk of rock - as God said, He laid down the foundations of the earth. Observation and scripture line up.

I'll just go ahead and say it since you dodged it a bit: "Jesus was born of a virgin, and so yes, there are examples when physical laws do not reign supreme." You did bring up a point that I wanted to touch on more here:"...i would say, do reign supreme, when there is observation of features that conclude that they have operated."

The Bible tells us in Isaiah 53:2 that Jesus probably had a kind of ordinary/common appearance and we know He was fully man just as He was fully God. So, observation of his features and appearance would conclude that he was a very normal human, born to Mary and Joseph the same way every other baby is born unto their parents. This observational conclusion would be wrong.

Another example, you brought up meteors. There is typically shocked quartz at meteorite impact sites. Because physics demonstrates through testing, how shocked quartz forms, it is feasible to believe that a meteorite creates it if it is in an impact zone. As opposed to believing that God just made it look that way, without actually having it impacted by a meteorite.

And this is the case, regardless of anything else. This is the case regardless of what religion we are, regardless of what miracles we believe in. Because it is foundational to...understanding our existence. How could existence ever be understood, if we could not recognize that shocked quartz in an impact zone was the result of heat and pressure from the meteorize that made the crater? Ask yourself what kind of world we would live in, if this logic could not be accepted?

We would be unable to understand anything at all. And, no offense to you mouse, but I think thats where a lot of young earthers are. They cannot make sense of the earth or anything in it, because their way of deriving solutions, is...compromised. Which is why nobody has taken on the challenges of my old earth posts. They arent able because they cant logically put the pieces together. But old earthers can, and when you do, it makes sense and allows for a massive amount of predictive power and explanation. Just like physicists who fly robots to mars, we've gained such a great understanding of the earth, we geologists can fly to pluto (in geologic terms).
[\QUOTE]
No need to go to the opposite extreme where you say you cannot trust physical laws at all. They do exist and are reliable. As I've already demonstrated; however, a wrong conclusion can be drawn when assuming only natural laws are in place. Like the earth, Jesus was made up of physical matter and looked completely normal and human, but Joseph was in fact not his biological father - Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Every miracle ever documented is a demonstration of physical laws not reigning supreme. I get the sense that you do not believe the physical universe and the earth were created in the same miraculous fashion as when Jesus spoke and raised Lazarus from the dead.

So, this should be recognized. Then when it is recognized, and only after it is recognized, do we then examine...the next question. And that is...ok, we understand that the earth is old, now what does that mean about scripture.

But we cannot dwelve into faith based subjection, without first establishing our foundation of knowledge before hand.

And what we derive in our search for faith based answers, is the next challenge for Christians. Some might still believe that Jesus and the virgin birth is a miracle, despite the earth being old (such ash Christians of biologos BioLogos). Some might reject that, and may come up with some sort of...allegorical meaning behind it, some might have other beliefs. But regardless of what path you choose, it is important to have a foundation of knowledge to help you derive that answer beforehand. Otherwise, you will miss out on seeing Gods original creation, earth, as it truly is.

Scripture does not change in what it says or what it means just because you or I change what we believe about the physical universe (the truth of God's existence is not negated because the Atheist does not believe), but I understand scripture is reinterpreted so that the two can reconcile in a logical fashion. I am familiar with BioLogos and their views on scripture. I'm not sure whether any there directly reject scripture, but think they probably redefine what it means to allow scripture and conclusions drawn from research to agree. While logic and fact-based reasoning may be among the hallmarks of science, it does seem somewhat illogical (IMO) to then find those who assume physical laws are not supreme when it comes to things like Jesus' birth from a virgin (i.e. it was supernatural), but then turn around and say supernatural causes don't and cannot happen elsewhere, though we're told so in the creation account.

That said, I want to pause to agree and concede that we can be equally convicted to believe in what we believe - without having all the facts perfectly known and sorted out mentally. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. As I'll happily continue to repeat over and over: you, nor your professors, nor their professors, etc... ever saw the beginning of the world, never saw the alleged millions/billions of years of rock layers, never saw the Grand Canyon form from beginning to end - but you are convicted this is all true none the less, with a degree of faith added too - yes, just as observing a physical Jesus would wrongly conclude natural conception, knowing your observation of rocks cannot definitively be asserted as only a natural causality (because there are also supernatural cases at work in the universe), there is an element of faith that bridges the gap to accept that it is only by slow natural means that the Earth has arrived at its state today. That is a fair enough position, for it is by grace through faith we both have accepted Jesus as our Lord and Savior, and likewise it also requires a degree of faith for me to accept my position as well. I can go on and on supporting my position with scripture and likewise can point out geological/biological/astrological evidence for support in this position, but knowing you'll disagree with all of the conclusions that support this position I'll forego doing so knowing you are quite capable of looking them up just as I can look up mainstream scientific theory.

Thank you brother and enjoy the weekend!

 

[Job 33:6]

If you want to ignore scientific finds, then that is your prerogative. But I'll have to leave you on your own with that^.

 

[Archie Dupont]

The Bible is not a book of science. Plus, it was written long before the scientific revolution. The scientific method provides a way to determine truth and knowledge about such things. Science agrees the earth is old. The only disagreement is with Christians who reject science, and who think they can discover scientific truth in an unscientific book.

You are absolutely right

Science and religion are in two different worlds. It is comparing apples with oranges. Science tries to explain things that have no explanation (yet), through testing, experimenting and using evidence. Religion creates a fixed viewpoint of something people don't understand. The moment that viewpoint is created it cannot be altered and is considered the truth. Paradoxically, we religious people believe in this 'truth' by having faith. And everyone (including us Christians, who pride ourselves on it) agrees that faith is believing in something that is no evidence for.

Science is trying to explain things, and change your viewpoints according to new evidence that comes to light.

Religion is fixing your viewpoint to something and having faith that you are believing in the truth in the face of lacking evidence.

If a scientist says that X=1, supports that with evidence and he writes a book about it, people believe that. If another scientist states that X=2 and he uses new and better evidence, The new viewpoint is believed and old book is considered a contribution to finding the truth, but is no longer the truth. It's a very dynamic way of thinking and most scientists support this system. There is in principle no pride and only want for knowledge.

The Bible is man's viewpoint on a worlds system that is fixed and cannot be altered or debated about. It is the truth no matter how many faults and inconsistencies you find in it. Later versions are not accepted and there is no dynamic alterations that adhere to the current societal developments. We have abolished slavery and executions of blasphemers, but we believe in a book that tells us that these things are ok. They were back then when it was written, but not anymore.

Where we find the problem is that people say the Bible is the truth. We have just established that religion is a principle of faith (believing without evidence), so it per definition cannot be the truth. Not objectively at least. Just the same as scientific books are never the truth. Not the objective final truth. New evidence can always change that viewpoint. Religion can only put itself on the same level as sience if it uses the same standard of truth finding that science does.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Archie Dupont

Not that I disagree with your statement, i think it is significant. But, i just want to say that, typically, it isnt that science is completely proven wrong by new evidence. Typically, you just have an upgrade of understanding through it. As if 2 were an upgrade over 1, but 1 typically isnt completely incorrect.

For example, a commonly known upgrade was newtonian physics vs einstens general relativity. Newtons physics were never really, proven wrong. Rather, einsteins relativity was just an upgrade to newtonian physics in that it was more expansive and could apply to large bodied entities. And even einsteins physics could further be upgraded to include subatomic bodies, but this has yet to happen. But the point is that, even if physics were further upgraded, einsteins physics wouldnt necessarily be proven wrong, rather theyd be upgraded to a more expansive form.

When it comes to the age of the earth, realistically, we have reached a point over the past 300 years that, there isnt any going backwards in that the world could be 6000 years old.

People say, well next year a new edition of geology text book will come out that will prove the last one wrong. But thats not how it works. The principals that define an old earth have been in every edition of geology text book dating back to the 1700s since geology as we know it, has existed.

I just wanted to point that out. For readers, and @NobleMouse as well.

 

[Tayla]

Where we find the problem is that people say the Bible is the truth. We have just established that religion is a principle of faith (believing without evidence), so it per definition cannot be the truth. Not objectively at least. Just the same as scientific books are never the truth. Not the objective final truth. New evidence can always change that viewpoint. Religion can only put itself on the same level as sience if it uses the same standard of truth finding that science does.

Thank you for your insightful comments.

I'm using the philosophical definition of truth, as a branch of metaphysics. Using induction and abduction can, at best, lead to highly probably knowledge and truth. And I should mention; science isn't continually changing its truth claims but, rather, adding on new with more detail as observations get more accurate.

The scientific method doesn't work in the spiritual realm so, naturally, you can't derive spiritual truth using it. And Bible interpretation isn't trustworthy either as demonstrated by the myriads of contradictory interpretations. We have to trust our own assessment of the data: the Bible texts, their correspondence with science and archaeology, writings of early church fathers and other writers of the time, of course the Nicene Creed, observing how the ideas worked out in history, and etc. Christians are too eager to insist the Bible says such and such, and then to argue incessantly with those who say, "no it doesn't".

 

[Job 33:6]

Also @NobleMouse

Belief in one miracle shouldnt be used as justification for...disregarding science en masse. Which is essentially what is happening here. YEC disregards plate tectonics, it disregards all of geology, and in that, disregards things like discoveries in biogeography and even fundamentals of biology (it throws out biogeographic distributions and processes contributing to common descent), and physics (it defys things like thermodynamics, kinematics and a number of laws related to electromagnetism and fundamental physics as a whole). YEC literally throws countless scientific finds across multiple fields, out the window.

And not only does it deny all of these, it denies them all, after they have already collectively discovered the age of the earth, and have cross referenced and confirmed one another to produce that discovery. Its one thing to propose its all false before discoveries were made, but we have this down now, and YEC is like going backwards. Its like trying to go back to newtonian physics after you already have discovered relativity.

I think that...if people are willing to believe the earth is 6000 years old, then they are really able to believe just about anything, so long as it is written in scripture. Which sounds fine at first, until you realize that people of other religions are in the same position where they will literally believe anything, so long as they believe it is clearly written in their respective book of faith.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also @NobleMouse

Belief in one miracle shouldnt be used as justification for...disregarding science en masse. Which is essentially what is happening here. YEC disregards plate tectonics, it disregards all of geology, and in that, disregards things like discoveries in biogeography and even fundamentals of biology (it throws out biogeographic distributions and processes contributing to common descent), and physics (it defys things like thermodynamics, kinematics and a number of laws related to electromagnetism and fundamental physics as a whole). YEC literally throws countless scientific finds across multiple fields, out the window.

And not only does it deny all of these, it denies them all, after they have already collectively discovered the age of the earth, and have cross referenced and confirmed one another to produce that discovery. Its one thing to propose its all false before discoveries were made, but we have this down now, and YEC is like going backwards. Its like trying to go back to newtonian physics after you already have discovered relativity.

I think that...if people are willing to believe the earth is 6000 years old, then they are really able to believe just about anything, so long as it is written in scripture. Which sounds fine at first, until you realize that people of other religions are in the same position where they will literally believe anything, so long as they believe it is clearly written in their respective book of faith.

And this is also why i recommend people read through and take a stab at responding to my old earth geology posts.

Because, the more they take time to understand geology established in these posts, the more they will come to realize that there really isn't any room for a 6000 year old earth in any science. But as of yet, only 1 YEC has actually responded to these posts and his hand has folded (am I surpised?).

And actually YEC and catostrophism was proposed scientifically back 200 some odd years ago, but since then has been thrown out due to the overwhealming evidence to the contrary.

 

[Archie Dupont]

Thank you for your insightful comments.

I'm using the philosophical definition of truth, as a branch of metaphysics. Using induction and abduction can, at best, lead to highly probably knowledge and truth. And I should mention; science isn't continually changing its truth claims but, rather, adding on new with more detail as observations get more accurate.

The scientific method doesn't work in the spiritual realm so, naturally, you can't derive spiritual truth using it. And Bible interpretation isn't trustworthy either as demonstrated by the myriads of contradictory interpretations. We have to trust our own assessment of the data: the Bible texts, their correspondence with science and archaeology, writings of early church fathers and other writers of the time, of course the Nicene Creed, observing how the ideas worked out in history, and etc. Christians are too eager to insist the Bible says such and such, and then to argue incessantly with those who say, "no it doesn't".

I understand what you are trying to say, but the problem I have is that science and religion should in all instances be kept apart.

If science says that Darwinian evolution is probable due to the amount of evidence in favor, religion will often state that the science must be wrong because it contradicts scripture or some other religious standard. But the other way around science is not allowed to contradict religious belief that are contradictory to scientific insights. In that case often religion will claim that science cannot debunk religious claims as they are in the 'spiritual' realm and have nothing to do with science and that the scientist is trespassing on 'their turf'.

My point: if science is not allowed to argue reasonably against a religious way of thinking because the science should not tread on the spritiual, religion the other way around should not try to debunk scientific findings just because they contradict scripture. How often you see religious people using scientific arguments to prove the age of the earth or rationalize contradictory information in the gospel or scripture, but when the argument gets out of their control they abandon the scientific rhetoric and claim some moral high ground that cannot be debunked by 'reasonable scientific thinking', as that is always trumped by the spiritual.