Would you change your opinion

[Micaiah]

Scientific evidence is not the only kind of evidence.

 

[Bushido216]

So, God's creation shouldn't be used to help us interpret God's word?

I don't get it...

 

[Bushido216]

Can you explain a scenario that would falsify the resurrection.

If we could see every event in history and not see the Ressurection.

 

[pmh1nic]

It's a grand leap of faith to think that such a piece of evidence could exist. Science deals in the four dimensions of space time, dimensions we don't fully understand. Some theorize that there may be as many as ten spatial dimensions plus the dimension of time. Scientist don't know if they're on the verge of having a complete knowledge of the universe or just scratching the surface. The earth is flat, the earth is round, the universe is stagnant, the universe is expanding, the fastest anything can travel is the speed of light, the inflation theory of the expansion of the universe.

Evidence for what is real and true comes in other forms besides the scientific method. As far as the Bible is concerned there is a spiritual realm that science totally ignors in its attempts to explain the universe and the origins of life. The most important issue addressed in the Bible is the person of Jesus Christ, is He who He claimed to be, the Creator of the Universe, the Savior of mankind and the soon coming King of Kings and Lord of Lords. That is the most important question you need to answer in this life.

 

[Buttermilk]

Evolutionist: It would depend on the evidence, it would have to be very convincing.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I'm not a The-Evo for the novelty of it - I'm here because I was convinced. If the truth is there, I'm there. Gladly, given sufficient grounds, would I return to the viewpoint that would return me to good standing among my family and Christian friends who think I've gone off the deep end.

 

[lucaspa]

Can you explain a scenario that would falsify the resurrection.

If we would find a book that we could authenticate was written by one or more of the disciples (more than one would be better) saying that they stole the body and then pretended that Jesus Resurrected, that would do it. Now, notice that there are a couple of big "ifs" there. One would be authenticating that the text was actually written by the disciples.

I'm not holding my breath for this evidence.

 

[lucaspa]

An example is that Genesis says that the sun and moon were created after light was created. Creationists who believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis would use fill in the gap theology like "God was the source of that light" They would then claim that inherited diaseases are due to God tweaking people genetic make up to punish children for their ancestors sins and use valid science on genetics to back it up.

OK, that is fill in the gaps for creationism. That last, BTW, is not "filling in the gaps" but making it up out of whole cloth.

Evolutionists also change the meaning of chunks of the bible into fill in the gap theology to support their belief.

That's not very specific. It's only a restatement of the original claim. I asked for specifics. Would you please provide those?

 

[lucaspa]

Scientific evidence is not the only kind of evidence.

No one here claimed it was. As I said, we could use historical evidence of a conspiracy and stealing the body.

This is actually what the Jews accused the disciples of doing. You can see the debate played out in the various gospel accounts. The earliest -- in Mark -- simply has a stone placed in front of the tomb. Later gospels -- Matthew -- has Roman guards placed outside the tomb. This is extremely unlikely. The Romans aren't going to waste the time of a couple of legionaires sitting outside the tomb of a Jewish rebel all night long. Why bother? The guy is dead!

No, this is here to counter the Jewish accusation. With the legionaires there, the disciples can't steal the body.

 

[lucaspa]

The earth is flat, the earth is round, the universe is stagnant, the universe is expanding, the fastest anything can travel is the speed of light, the inflation theory of the expansion of the universe.

What you overlooked is:
The earth is not flat. Absolutely certain.
The universe is not static. Again, absolutely certain.

If you focus only on the positive statements of science, you get a false picture of how science works and what we know. What is most important are the ideas that are proven to be false.

As far as the Bible is concerned there is a spiritual realm that science totally ignors in its attempts to explain the universe and the origins of life.

Science doesn't exactly "ignore" it. Instead, science is incapable of commenting on it.

 

[pmh1nic]

"Science doesn't exactly "ignore" it. Instead, science is incapable of commenting on it."

Science was incapable of intelligently commenting on bacteria a thousand years ago and it maybe a thousand years from now before science is capable of really commenting (and providing concrete experimental evidence) regarding the wrapped up dimensions alluded to in string theory.

My point is that there are other types of "evidence" in addition to scientific evidence, especially with respect to the legal/historical evidence for the Biblical account regarding the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I really am not knowledgable enough to authoritatively comment on what may or may not be conflicts between the scientific and Biblical view of the origin of the universe and life. In fact, having done some reading on the subjects of relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, micro-evolution, macro-evolution, bio-chemistry, theology, the language and history of the Bible, the transmission of the Biblical text, etc. and realizing my lack of understand of some of the critical issues puts me in the position of having to trust the reliability of those that purport to understand these issues on a much deeper level than I do.

That said no one can convince me that the spiritual experiences I've had and the life changing effect the gospel of Jesus Christ has had on my life is a figment of my imagination. On the morning of January 6th, 1972 I woke up in the situation of being a high school dropout, addicted to heroin, dealing drugs and committing other crimes (robbery, armed robbery, among others) on the streets of NYC to support my drug habit. I ended the day free of the drug addiction, filled with a peace that I'd never experienced before and 31 years later the freedom I found that day is still real and alive. I don't fully understand what happened that day but I do know that in a few minutes while on my kness asking God to forgive my sins and help me be the person He created me to be has had a dramatic and long lasting effects.

The same type of experiences (some more or less dramatic) have been repeated millions of times over the last 2,000 years. I can't account for what appear to be discrepancies between science and the Bible. But that does negate the very real experiences of millions of people for all walks of live and the very substantial body of legal/historical evidence regarding the person of Jesus Christ.

Does the Bible teach that the universe is only thousands versus billions of years old? I don't know and there is debate among the folks that know a lot more about the language, history, culture and transmission of the Bible than I do. Does the Bible leave any room for macro-evolution? Same answer.

What I do know is millions of people have had their lives changed for the better (some dramatically so) and they attribute that change to a spiritual experience with God through Jesus Christ.

 

[lucaspa]

"Science doesn't exactly "ignore" it. Instead, science is incapable of commenting on it."

Science was incapable of intelligently commenting on bacteria a thousand years ago and it maybe a thousand years from now before science is capable of really commenting (and providing concrete experimental evidence) regarding the wrapped up dimensions alluded to in string theory.

You misunderstood. This has nothing to do with particular theories or the gathering of particular data. And yes, we can comment on bacteria a thousand years ago because evidence of what they were like in the past is still in their genome.

My point is that there are other types of "evidence" in addition to scientific evidence, especially with respect to the legal/historical evidence for the Biblical account regarding the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I agree. Science is not the only way of knowing. Nor is scientific evidence the only evidence.

What I am saying is that science is incapable of directly testing for the existence of the supernatural. When we do experiments we always compare when an entity is present and when it is absent. The absent is called the "control". The problem is that we can never tell when or if the supernatural is either present or absent. Therefore I have never seen any experiment run where we know the supernatural is absent. The statements "God did it." or "God did not do it." are not scientific statements.

I really am not knowledgable enough to authoritatively comment on what may or may not be conflicts between the scientific and Biblical view of the origin of the universe and life.

It's not "Biblical view" but "literal interpretation of the Bible". Science conflicts with Biblical literalism. But Biblical literalism is a fallible human interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible itself. Do you see the difference?

That said no one can convince me that the spiritual experiences I've had and the life changing effect the gospel of Jesus Christ has had on my life is a figment of my imagination.

Right. No one can convince you. That is your personal experience.

All evidence is personal experience. Science is a subset of personal experience. Personal experience that is available to everyone under approximately the same circumstances. Now, while your experience of drug addiction and crime being reversed and changing your life is valid for you, other drug addicts and criminals have not had such life changing experiences. And people who are not drug addicts or criminals have asked God to forgive them and not had the same experience as you had.

So. Tolerance is needed on both sides. People who have had a different experience than you have to be tolerant that they can't say your experience is wrong. You, in turn, have to be tolerant and not say that their experience of no experience is wrong.

The same type of experiences (some more or less dramatic) have been repeated millions of times over the last 2,000 years.

Right. But we are still faced with the fact that not everyone has had those experiences. Those that have not do what you did: put their experiences first and trust their experiences over those of others. Just as you trust your experience and don't trust the non-experience of others. It's a standoff in terms of evidence. Personal experience vs personal experience.

I can't account for what appear to be discrepancies between science and the Bible.

It's conflict between science and a very particular interpretation of the Bible.

But that does negate the very real experiences of millions of people for all walks of live and the very substantial body of legal/historical evidence regarding the person of Jesus Christ.

No one here says it does. Are you under the impression you are dealing with atheists?

Does the Bible teach that the universe is only thousands versus billions of years old?

Doesn't matter. What you need to remember is that we have another book of God. You forget that God created! This means that the physical universe is a second book of God. One that is read by science.

The Bible tells you the who and why of creation. Science tells you the how. No conflict. The problem is that some people want the Bible to tell them everything and forget about God's second book.

there is debate among the folks that know a lot more about the language, history, culture and transmission of the Bible than I do. Does the Bible leave any room for macro-evolution? Same answer.

God's second book settles the discussion about the age of the universe and evolution ("macroevolution as you are using it is a creationist strawman). The earth is not young and evolution happened.

 

[pmh1nic]

"And yes, we can comment on bacteria a thousand years ago because evidence of what they were like in the past is still in their genome."

You misunderstood . What I said was a thousand years AGO science couldn't comment on bacteria because a thousand years ago science didn't know bacteria exist. This lack of knowledge didn't prevent the formulation of theories regarding the origin of diease, theories that at the time were based in what science at the time believed was sufficient data to postulate those theories.

In the same way science "ignors" the spiritual because it doesn't currently have the means to "test" the spiritual and supernatural.

"It's not "Biblical view" but "literal interpretation of the Bible". Science conflicts with Biblical literalism. But Biblical literalism is a fallible human interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible itself. Do you see the difference?"

When there are disputes regarding the actual language it leaves some room for determining what exactly is the "literal" view. There seems to be debate regarding whether the days in Genesis 1 & 2 are what we would consider literal 24 hour days or some other measure of time that would be a "literal" day at that point in time. We describe the events in spacetime using a much different language with a much different level of precision (especially in scientific circles) in our communicating scientific "truth." Given the differing opinions regard what is the literal interpretation and since the Bible is not fundamental a book of science and not written to communicate scientific truth I hesitate to stretch the words of the Bible to the point of validating or invalidating things confirmed by science through repeated experimentation or theory backed by what appears to be substantial supporting data.

But those experimental results or sound theory also doesn't negate the legal/historical evidence for Jesus Christ being who He claimed to be or the record of lives dramatically changed when the gospel message regarding is life, death and resurrection has been embraced by believers.

I won't expect anyone to accept my thoughts and opinions regarding these matters based on my personal experience. What I would expect is that went millions of people claim a similar supernatural experience, people of every type of cultural, religious, educational and social background, that it would cause others to pause and wonder what bearing the supernatural may have with respect to their lives and existence.

"No one here says it does. Are you under the impression you are dealing with atheists?"

As far as you personally I don't know. But the impression I get from some of the post that I read in these threads is that science negates the Bible (or the the Bible negates science). That, since one interpretation of the Bible appears to conflict with the majority scientific view of the age of the universe, evolution, etc., that the Bible itself is to be totally discounted especially with respect to the person and work of Jesus Christ.

"Doesn't matter. What you need to remember is that we have another book of God."

It does matter if it is perceived that the other "book of God" (the universe) conflicts with and therefore negates the Bible with respect to the central issues addressed in the Bible.

"God's second book settles the discussion about the age of the universe and evolution ("macroevolution as you are using it is a creationist strawman). The earth is not young and evolution happened."

I think you forget the matter of whether or not God's second book is being accurately read and interpreted. The book has been misread in the past and false conclusions have been made based on a misreading or misinterpretation of what was read.

Ultimately I don't have the expertise to judge whether the earth is old or young. I've read some of the very complex arguments on both sides and won't pretend to fully understand either side of the argument. I also don't have the expertise to have more than a superficial discussion of micro versus macro-evolution. My guess is the same is true of 90% of the earths population (this may be generous). What I do know is what has had a significant impact on my life, a relationship with Jesus Christ. The same type of impact a relationship with Him has had on the lives of millions of other people during the last 2,000 years.

My question to you wouldn't be are you an athiest but whether you've investigated the claims of Jesus Christ and whether you believe He is who He claimed to be, the Savior of Mankind.

 

[Konnie]

I am currently a creationist and I would not change my mind.

 

[lucaspa]

You misunderstood . What I said was a thousand years AGO science couldn't comment on bacteria because a thousand years ago science didn't know bacteria exist. This lack of knowledge didn't prevent the formulation of theories regarding the origin of diease, theories that at the time were based in what science at the time believed was sufficient data to postulate those theories.

In the same way science "ignors" the spiritual because it doesn't currently have the means to "test" the spiritual and supernatural.

I stand corrected. The difference is that, 1,000 years ago, there was data. Therefore the theories were there to explain data. Also, the technology wasn't available to view bacteria. As the technology is not available to generate high enough energies to test M Theory. However, the reason science can't comment on the supernatural is not because of data or lack of technology, but because of the methodology used by science prevents us from getting data. It is in how we do experiments and I don't see any way around that.

The way supernatural gets into science now is by the backdoor. Someone proposes a material mechanism that God is supposed to have used and we test the mechanism. But that isn't testing for God. It is testing to see if teh mechanism is working or not. But that is all. If the mechanism doesn't work, then that only says the mechanism doesn't work. Not that God is absent.

A lot of the misunderstanding comes when people at both extremes of the atheism vs theism debate -- fundamentalist creationists and militant atheists -- do mistakenly say that refuting the mechanism refutes the existence of God.

When there are disputes regarding the actual language it leaves some room for determining what exactly is the "literal" view. There seems to be debate regarding whether the days in Genesis 1 & 2 are what we would consider literal 24 hour days or some other measure of time that would be a "literal" day at that point in time.

I know. It's YEC vs OEC. However, that is irrelevant because neither will jive with what you call " things confirmed by science through repeated experimentation or theory backed by what appears to be substantial supporting data."

Given the differing opinions regard what is the literal interpretation and since the Bible is not fundamental a book of science and not written to communicate scientific truth I hesitate to stretch the words of the Bible to the point of validating or invalidating things confirmed by science through repeated experimentation or theory backed by what appears to be substantial supporting data.

TEs go farther and emphasize that "the Bible is not fundamental a book of science and not written to communicate scientific truth "

But those experimental results or sound theory also doesn't negate the legal/historical evidence for Jesus Christ being who He claimed to be or the record of lives dramatically changed when the gospel message regarding is life, death and resurrection has been embraced by believers.

None of the TE's here have ever claimed they do. In fact, if you look carefully, it is the TEs here that have defended Jesus from the mistaken scientific claims of Ark Guy that the Resurrection is "scientifically impossible".

What I would expect is that went millions of people claim a similar supernatural experience, people of every type of cultural, religious, educational and social background, that it would cause others to pause and wonder what bearing the supernatural may have with respect to their lives and existence.

Fair enough. Kitty Ferguson puts it differently. You might want to consider how she puts it:
"Where have we arrived at the end of seven chapters? Joseph Ford has said: 'More than most, [scientists] are content to live with unanswered questions.' (3). One of the questions science hasn't answered and may never be able to answer - let none of us assume otherwise - is whether there is a God. We have not been able to say that it requires double-think or other intellectual dishonesty to have great faith in science as we know it at the end of the twentieth century and also to believe in God - even a personal and intervening God.

But why should anyone think such a combination of faiths might be necessary, or indispensable on a quest for fundamental truth? There are two reasons for thinking it might be. One would be to have first-hand, experiential evidence of God which was personally convincing. The second is because to dismiss belief in God summarily is to pass premature and unwarranted judgement on the sanity, honesty, and intelligence of a vast number of our fellow human beings who claim to have such experiential evidence, many of them the same persons we do trust implicitly when it comes to other matters. It ill becomes any of us to take the attitude that all evidence for God is false evidence, beneath consideration, simply by virtue of its being evidence for God, or even by virtue of its being outside the purview of science. Such attitudes are taken, sometimes in the name of science, but in truth this sort of attitude is intellectual dishonesty. Our most reputable scientists, whatever sins of arrogance that may occasionally commit, do not really declare that what they don't know isn't knowledge or that what they haven't experienced isn't experience."
Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pp. 281-282.

You might want to get that book and read all of it.

But the impression I get from some of the post that I read in these threads is that science negates the Bible (or the the Bible negates science). That, since one interpretation of the Bible appears to conflict with the majority scientific view of the age of the universe, evolution, etc., that the Bible itself is to be totally discounted especially with respect to the person and work of Jesus Christ.

That last is fearmongering coming from some of the YECs. Biblical literalism has invented the doctrine "if any part of the Bible is scientifically, historically, or theologically incorrect, then all of it is incorrect." TEs argue against that based on just what you stated above " the Bible is not fundamental a book of science "

"Doesn't matter. What you need to remember is that we have another book of God."

It does matter if it is perceived that the other "book of God" (the universe) conflicts with and therefore negates the Bible with respect to the central issues addressed in the Bible.

But are those claiming that science does conflict with the central issues correct? Perception and reality are different things. That some people perceive that science negates the central issues of the Bible doesn't mean that science really negates those issues. A lot of the discussion here is YECers claiming that science does negate the central issues and thus we have to discard science and TEs claiming that science does not negate those issues.

"God's second book settles the discussion about the age of the universe and evolution ("macroevolution as you are using it is a creationist strawman). The earth is not young and evolution happened."

I think you forget the matter of whether or not God's second book is being accurately read and interpreted. The book has been misread in the past and false conclusions have been made based on a misreading or misinterpretation of what was read.

You have to remember what are the absolutes of science. Those are the negative statements:
The earth is not flat. We may change the shape of the earth from sphere to oblate spheroid, but the shape is never going to be flat.

The same is true of creationism and young earth. The data shows that the earth is not young and creationism did not happen. We may revise our age of the earth, as happened recently from 4.5 billion to 4.55 billion years, but the earth is never going to be less than 20,000 years old. And species were not specially created no matter what may happen to evolution in the future.

So, in terms of what you mean here, the second book is being read accurately.

Ultimately I don't have the expertise to judge whether the earth is old or young. I've read some of the very complex arguments on both sides and won't pretend to fully understand either side of the argument.

Yes, you do have the expertise. What you need to stop doing is comparing supporting evidence and start looking for the falsifying evidence. The evidence that simply can't be there if a young earth is true. Once you have that, and you can see that for yourself, then it doesn't matter what supporting evidence there is.

I also don't have the expertise to have more than a superficial discussion of micro versus macro-evolution.

Sources are available for you to get the necessary expertise. Would you like them?

My question to you wouldn't be are you an athiest but whether you've investigated the claims of Jesus Christ and whether you believe He is who He claimed to be, the Savior of Mankind.

Did you notice that this is a Christians Only forum?

 

[pmh1nic]

"Yes, you do have the expertise. What you need to stop doing is comparing supporting evidence and start looking for the falsifying evidence. The evidence that simply can't be there if a young earth is true. Once you have that, and you can see that for yourself, then it doesn't matter what supporting evidence there is"

You give me too much credit (intellectually) and too much time . At fifty-one, with a full-time and part-time job, four children, nine grandchildren very active church membership I've go barely enough time and energy to check in on this forum every now and then. I know, that I know that there is a God, that He loves me and the greatest expression of that love was and is the gift of salvation through His Son Jesus Christ. I'm satisfied that I know where I came from, why I'm here and where I'm going. I'm fascinated by science especially cosmology and physics (just read a wonderful book "The Elegant Universe") but for the most part I leave the questions regarding young earth, old earth and such for others to debate.

Jesus preached the gospel message to average, ordinary and in large measure uneducated people who still thought the earth was flat. I'm not advocating ignorance but I understand that the most important questions of life didn't then (in Jesus day) and don't now get answered while peering through a telescope, crashing subatomic particles together or working out the exhaustive mathematics related to string theory. Those answers are found on a different level of our existence.

I really appreciate your patience and the wonderful civil matter in which you've addressed my comments and questions. Although I realize this is a Christian forum given the tone of some threads it gives me pause to wonder .

Sincerely,
Paul

P.S. "The Fire in the Equations" appears (after reading a review) to be an interesting book. I think I'll pick up a copy.

 

[Nathan8906]

OK.

Let's have a little poll.

We know that we have theistic evolutionists and creationists here.

I want each to imagine that they uncover some piece of scientific evidence that shows that the other side is correct, and you are wrong.

Would you shift your position?

I hate hypothetical situations.
I see no point in answering this question because they WILL NOT find solid evidence for theistic evolution. Why? Because the bible says so, and the bible is infallible.

 

[Bushido216]

No TEC ever said otherwise. We simply said that the Bible uses ways other than literal history to present a point.

 

[lucaspa]

"Yes, you do have the expertise. What you need to stop doing is comparing supporting evidence and start looking for the falsifying evidence. The evidence that simply can't be there if a young earth is true. Once you have that, and you can see that for yourself, then it doesn't matter what supporting evidence there is"

You give me too much credit (intellectually) and too much time . At fifty-one, with a full-time and part-time job, four children, nine grandchildren very active church membership I've go barely enough time and energy to check in on this forum every now and then.

I think you give yourself too little credit. It doesn't take that much expertise or time. For instance, a lot of the data to falsify a young earth is in Kenneth Miller's chapter in Science and Creationism edited by Ashley Montagu. You don't have to read the whole book, just that chapter. You can also read The Biblical Flood, A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Knowledge by Davis A. Young. Young is a professional geologist and and an evangelical Christian. He will walk you thru a lot of the data. Or you can go to www.asa.org or http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/ and ask a geologist at the second site. A Christian geologist.

I'm fascinated by science especially cosmology and physics (just read a wonderful book "The Elegant Universe") but for the most part I leave the questions regarding young earth, old earth and such for others to debate.

This isn't about debating. It's about you knowing about God's Universe and how He created it. You don't have to debate anyone on the subject. Just know for yourself.

I'm not advocating ignorance but I understand that the most important questions of life didn't then (in Jesus day) and don't now get answered while peering through a telescope, crashing subatomic particles together or working out the exhaustive mathematics related to string theory. Those answers are found on a different level of our existence.

Very astute of you. Too bad the creationists miss this. The tragedy is that creationism has tied "the most important questions of life" to what is seen "peering through a telescope, crashing subatomic particles together or working out the exhaustive mathematics related to string theory". They have tied these important questions to a particular how that God created. If God didn't create by their literal interpretation of Genesis 1, then they say that God didn't create.

What you can do is sit back in your chair, pop some popcorn, open a coke, and let science tell you how God created. The answers to the important questions work just as well in moder science as they did in the Babylonian science in which the Bible is set.

I really appreciate your patience and the wonderful civil matter in which you've addressed my comments and questions. Although I realize this is a Christian forum given the tone of some threads it gives me pause to wonder .

Thank you. The discussion does get heated sometimes. Even tho I try to turn the other cheek, there are times when I too give into the temptation to reply to a personal attack.

Sincerely,

Paul

It appears we have the same first name.

P.S. "The Fire in the Equations" appears (after reading a review) to be an interesting book. I think I'll pick up a copy.

Good. You won't regret it. Like most scientists, I find that most philosophers are completely incomprehensible. It sometimes appears to me as though Kant, Russell, Lakatos, etc. are deliberately trying to make it so that they cannot be understood. Ferguson is different. She takes philosophical issues and makes them very readable and enjoyable.

I especially think you'll enjoy her section on personal experiences of God. I hope you'll come back and tell us whether those descriptions fit yours. They are on pages 247-252.

 

[pmh1nic]

lucaspa (Paul)

When I say I don't have the time I'm talking about the time to learn enough about biochemistry or physics or cosmology or mathematics to be able to "really" have a sense of which biochemist or physicist or cosmologist or mathematician's presentation of the data and the conclusions they've drawn from the data is most accurate and reliable.

I say debate because I hear experts on one side of the issue claiming that the data says one thing while other experts claiming the data (sometimes the same data) is saying something else. Just understanding some of the raw data can be daunting for a person that does not have some expertise in the particular discipline being discussed.

If I'm having a conversation with a biochemist about macro-evolution and the role of mutations he can run circles around me with jargon, data and the application of that data to the point that I have no way of knowing if he's being accurate, is using the lastest data or applying that data properly. I'm forced to either do some pretty indepth research (is there are quick course in biochemistry) or trust his conclusions that mutations played a vital role in macroevolution. I get another biochemist using the same data and for complex reasons he explains using biochemist jargon comes to the conclusion that mutations are rarely beneficial and could not have played a significant role in macroevolution.

I put some credence in the statement "the vast majority of XXXX experts" hold this view but even then it comes down to putting my "faith" in the majority view.

This basically the situation I find myself in when it comes to discussion of old earth, young earth, evolution versus special creation (man created intact), the flood or fable. The major focus of my study (as far as the validity of the Bible) has been regarding the person of Jesus Christ, the person who claimed to be God, creator of the earth and savior of mankind. My faith in Him rest primarily in my own subjective experience of Him. There also appears to be a tremendous amount of legal/historical evidence for Him being who He claimed to be. Beyond this I read, listen and discuss the other issues but they aren't the focal point or the determining factor with respect to my faith and walk with God.