In the Beginning....

In no way does that relate to, much less confirm his accusation.

Why don't you take a Valium, put away your tar and feathers and relax?:thumbs:

 

There is nothing I have said that can be construed as tar and feathers. But your need to refer to science discredits your claim.

 

That's absurd. Do you not refer to scientific discoveries when they fall in favor of the Scriptures? Do you not use the third law of thermodynamics to argue for intelligent design?

Are you forbidding the use of science at all in any Christian dialogue?

That's utterly preposterous.

Why don't you stop highjacking the thread to hunt me down and get back to the subject of the thread?

 

Why don't you defend your claim with your own research rather than pointing to others who support your ideology and make sure you hold yourself to the same posting standards you seem to hold others to.

 

It seems to me through observing all of these posts that there are those people who are just not investigating the issues thouroughly enough. This is a good and healthy discussion but it isnt asking or answering the basic questions.

1. Is truth relative? No. All truth comes from a single source, God. Truth, by nature, cannot be contradictory. If those assumption are accurate then both scientific truth and scriptural truth come from God and can not contradict each other.

2. Is faith unreasonable, that is, apart from all reason? No. The laws of logic and reason (because they come from God) when properly applied will point back to God.

3. Is it philosophically and logicically untenable to dismiss "science" as a tool in testing the claims of scripture? Yes! Truth will stand under the greatest scrutiny. Science has helped us generation after generation KNOW MORE about the universe and the created order that gives us more reasons to have a stronger faith in our Creator. Think of Galileo and Kepplar. We understand what it means now that "He sits upon the CIRCLE of the earth." Astrophysics has observed a BEGINNING of all time, matter, space, and energy thus disproving all materialistic and atheistic claims of eternal matter. Again, pointing to a Creator. The list goes on and on...

It is my contention that we are being unreasonable to insist a narrow reading on the word "Day" when the text, context, and observable and tested science do not support or demand such a view. I fear we will be guilty as were those theologians in Columbus' day who demanded that there was nothing in the Bible to support the idea of an Earth that wasn't flat.

One final note in closing, there are several things that we know about the Created order that aren't mentioned in the "clear and plain reading" of Genesis 1 that we readily accept and demand acceptance of. There is no mention of gravity, or black holes, or thermodynamics, etc. We are not looking just for an answer they may appear obvious but the true meaning. The true meaning will be logical and not contradictory to actual science. A belief that can't be tested can't be trusted.

 

True science would support the view that each day was 24 hours. Plant life was created before the Sun was created. Would science support that plant life could survive for long ages without sunlight?

Plant life and birds were both created before insects in the Genesis account. Would science support that plants and birds could survive for long ages without insects?

If each day were a long age, then each evening and morning would be a long age. Would science support this? One half of the world would be frozen, the other half fried. Is that scientific?

Science does support that plants and birds could live one day without insects, or that plants could survive one day without sunlight.

Science cannot support long ages for each day.

 

Your mistake is trusting the science and that the scientists have no alterior motives. Science changes and is largely unreliable.

 

It seems that a lot of the debate on this subject has to do with interpreting the words in the text differently. Like, day=ages, or variations. But what's wrong with an allegorical interpretation, which allows allows days to mean days, but in the sense that that stands for something different? And similar the rest of the passage.

This would be questionable if other Scripture stated that this was wrong for this passage, or if there was no other symbolism in the Bible. But a LOT of the Bible is figurative writing.

 

RevMitchell.

Thank you for your reply. I DO believe that a great many scientists have a dark motive at the heart of their endeavors. This is precisely why I enjoy hearing their conclusions. Each time they seek to dismiss or dismantle the claims of the Bible they end up making our case stronger. I do not dismiss their findings simply because they went about finding them the wrong way. That seems counterproductive to me.

Your contention is that science can't be trusted because it is not static, that is, it changes. I would argue that modern science "progresses" more than changes. We are making new discoveries that shed light on things that we previously only had a limited knowledge of. Think of the cell. It was discovered then by progression, we have DNA and genetic structure...each of these prove that a more precise and intricate Designer was involved more than we previously could have observed naturally.

This concept is not isolated to the science alone. Biblical revelation was progressive. You do not get the full scope of redemption in Genesis 3.

A few questions should be helpful. Do you believe that the earth rotates on its axis? If so, then why? Do you believe it revolves around the sun? If so, then why? Do you believe that the heart pumps blood rather than the pancreas? If so, why? Do you believe that light travels at 186,000 miles per second? If so, why? These questions are answered by science and scientists not explicitly in the Bible. Why should you trust those scientific findings and not any others?

The reasoning simply does not logically follow.

P.S. In my original post I used the word "day" referring to the age of Columbus and no one thought that I meant a literal, 24 hour period in that particular usage. Did they miss the clear and plain meaning of the sentence? I think not.

 

I do

The reason for this is not obvious.

I disagree.

Let's stick to science as it relates to creation. I assumed that would be obvious.

And yet the fact that redemption is needed was clear.

Again let's stick to science as it relates to creation.

It does when you do not work to compare apples and refrigerators.

I run short on patience with poor attempts at debate such as this. Please do not think you have come along and showed me that day can be used in different contexts. Doing so appears dishonest. And it fails to further your argument. Conceding that it is used in different contexts in no way changes the plain and literal meaning of the word.

 

RevMitchell,

Your "patience level" has not been a factor in any of my previous posts nor will it be. I cannot post with regard to your psychological constitution alone.

I will respond to those areas where you were diligent enough to actually offer a counterargument rather than a dismissal.

The reason that it seems counterproductive to simply dismiss all scientific discovery because the motive of the scientist may have been wrong is because God often brings good from evil. To fail to see this is to fail to see the providential hand of God in history. God can, and does, use evil motives to bring about good results. It is a matter of learning to "eat the meat and spit out the bones." If a godless infidel discovers a cure for cancer then I will praise God and use the cure. I feel certain that you would too.

Your next objection was against me appealling to science that was not "creation science." Frankly, there is no such thing as creation science. It doesn't meet the requirements to be a science proper. The sciences have a tendency to overlap from one discipline to another so keeping them "separate" is quite a task. Take a moment and consider what sciences may have something to say about Genesis 1. Acarology,aerobiology, agrostology, anemology, anthropology, archeaology, astronomy, astroseismology, biology, bionomics, botany, and the list really does go on and on and on. So if you would be so kind as to specify which science disciplines alone can speak to the origin of life on this planet and its created order then please do.

That being true, it is more like comparing apples to apples seeds and apple trees and their relationship with their orchard than refrigerators. But everyone enjoys a wisecrack I suppose.

Your final problem with my post was concerning my usage of the word day that did not mean 24 hour period. I was illustrating a point and made that point. "Day" doesn't have to mean 24 hours...and is not always expected to when being used for an age or era.

 

Jedi,

You are making my point for me. The Bible teaches a long creation period as well...many just do not see it. Just like those stubborn theologians in the 15th century many are holding to an archaic view when the Bible has been teaching something far more sophisticated all along.

 

You are not reasonable on this matter RevMitchel. You seem to think that science is evil. It is that type of backwards thinking that has hurt the church through the ages more than any other.

Valiant put some good, thought provoking questions to you that you dismissed haphazardly to continue to embrace your narrow and uninformed view. This is the kind of thing that has given the Church a black eye many times in history. This is what led the religious leadership of Galileo's day to condemn him as a heretic. This is the kind of thinking that has made the church look backwater and ignorant with such claims as those that the earth is flat and our galaxy is geocentric.

Intelligent people see these black marks on our history and use them to make a sweeping declaration that Christians are not thinking people and therefore their conclusions about Christ are not reliable and to be rejected.

The problem is not that you are defending the bible against science. The problem is that you do not see that once again science is confirming the Bible. While you and others do not see this you are costing all of us the Church's credibility.

 

Particularly when the first three "days" existed before there was a sun to rise and set.

Actually it is far less reasonable to claim that those days were 24 hour periods, even without the science, than it is to claim that they were.

 

I vote yes. If you disagree that's your problem.:smilewinkgrin:

 

It should not be a problem for anyone that God knows evening from morning without the sun radiating.

I voted 6 day creationist.

If that is difficult to believe, look at the alternatives that science offers for our origins:

The Big Bang:

From no XYZ Coordinates (nowhere) the Singularity which had mass but no substance (nothing), supposedly the size of a garden pea at absoluute zero exploded without a force (nobody) acting upon it or from within it generating 10,000's of degrees of heat and became everything we see in terms of matter.

The Primordial Soup: Out a a deadly toxin of methane-ammonia at 1000's of degrees hit by a bolt of lightning came the first life form.

Genesis 1 is very clear concerning 6 24 hour days of creation and then confirmed in the law of the Sabbath given to Israel.

Jesus made wine in an instant which normally would have taken several years to produce.
Normally there is a mature vine, a growing season, a harvest and then the aging of the wine, putting it wineskins, bringing it to market, etc...

Let science go its way in terms of origins. Their theories change every decade. They have already decided that "C" is not a constant and are now propounding the theory of time compression.

Secular minded scientists admit that the laws of "creation" were altogether different than the modern laws of physics.
But that shouldn't matter. They really don't know.

All we as believers need to know is that God said "Let there be..." and it was so and it took 6 sidereal/solar days to do it all.

There is also the issue of death. According to evolution death reigned for millions of years before mankind came into being. A clear departure from Scripture. A clear denial of the origin, results and reality of sin.

Why should we care what the world thinks of us?

Do you think that to compromise creation with evolution will make them think any better of us?

What "incredible" thing will they want us to compromise next? The Virgin Birth? The miracles of Christ? His resurrection. They will ALWAYS have some point of incredulity concerning the Christian faith, just as we did before we passed from death unto life.


HankD

 

So then you will understand when I ignore your absurdities. And half baked arguments.

 

You guys can't seem to understand that those who believe in an old universe do so because the Bible teaches it and science confirms it. Nobody here is a compromiser.
And the Big bang proves that God created the universe. Many scientist had a huge problem with the idea because it did not allow for an eternal universe but for the creation of the universe.

You guys are unable to see any perspective other than your own on this matter as anything less than compromise. this makes you unreasonable and discussion with you basicly pointless. you are not interested in getting down to the bottom of the issue- you are only interested blindly holding to a traditional position just like many in the church held to geocentricity and flat earth IN SPITE of the scientific evidence. Then upon second glance, lo and behold the Bible actually supports the idea of a round earth and heliocentricity.

Hopefully, one day you will wake up like they did.

 

This is, apparently, how you avoid getting defeated in a debate- Hurl insults and run away.