Jump to content

Menu

Was I born under a rock?(CC)(Young earth vs. old earth)


Recommended Posts

OP, i am going to check out your science text recommendation. i agree with you & also believe creation should be taught alongside evolution to students. it bothers me how people are so quick to call it religion only, when there are clearly arguments for it outside of that scope. why should the denial of theism be considered science, while the affirmation of it is considered “religion?” it is no less scientific to conclude intelligent design from the given data than to try and reason an unintelligent origin. ykwim? imho, creationism is just as scientific (and just as religious for that matter), as neo-darwinism is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 397
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OP, i am going to check out your science text recommendation. i agree with you & also believe creation should be taught alongside evolution to students. it bothers me how people are so quick to call it religion only, when there are clearly arguments for it outside of that scope. why should the denial of theism be considered science, while the affirmation of it is considered “religion?†it is no less scientific to conclude intelligent design from the given data than to try and reason an unintelligent origin. ykwim? imho, creationism is just as scientific (and just as religious for that matter), as neo-darwinism is.

 

Eh... I told myself I wouldn't do this.

 

Because the definitions are different. And definitions are made to define things from one another (head spinning, nasty logic text stuff).

 

In science, "theory" is defined as:

 

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. {eg: of all the experiments that have been done, the theory has, thus far, not been proven wrong; this is not to say it won't be in the future, but it hasn't been as of the current time}

 

In all things NOT science, "theory" is defined as:

 

1. a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result

2. abstract knowledge or reasoning

3. a speculative or conjectural view or idea: I have a theory about that

4. an ideal or hypothetical situation

 

"Theory" in science has a very narrow set of parameters which necessitate experimentation. There is simply no way to experiment upon God/faith/religion. And if someone says they have discovered a way, well - let's just say that should be an interesting read.

 

Faith is faith. As in "leap of". I may be WAY off track here, but I seem to remember something in Genesis about god breathing a soul into Adam and thus making him human? How does one purport to scientifically replicate that situation as an experiment?

 

And while I'm on this train-o-rant: why must faith BE a science? Why can't science just be science and faith just be faith? I've yet to meet a scientist who is so insecure in their work that they doubt their faith, yet I am constantly meeting people who are insecure in their faith to such a degree that they attempt to justify it by labeling it "scientific". What is that bumpersticker? Let go and let god? Maybe some people ought.

 

 

a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh... I told myself I wouldn't do this.

 

Because the definitions are different. And definitions are made to define things from one another (head spinning, nasty logic text stuff).

 

In science, "theory" is defined as:

 

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. {eg: of all the experiments that have been done, the theory has, thus far, not been proven wrong; this is not to say it won't be in the future, but it hasn't been as of the current time}

 

In all things NOT science, "theory" is defined as:

 

1. a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result

2. abstract knowledge or reasoning

3. a speculative or conjectural view or idea: I have a theory about that

4. an ideal or hypothetical situation

 

"Theory" in science has a very narrow set of parameters which necessitate experimentation. There is simply no way to experiment upon God/faith/religion. And if someone says they have discovered a way, well - let's just say that should be an interesting read.

 

Faith is faith. As in "leap of". I may be WAY off track here, but I seem to remember something in Genesis about god breathing a soul into Adam and thus making him human? How does one purport to scientifically replicate that situation as an experiment?

 

And while I'm on this train-o-rant: why must faith BE a science? Why can't science just be science and faith just be faith? I've yet to meet a scientist who is so insecure in their work that they doubt their faith, yet I am constantly meeting people who are insecure in their faith to such a degree that they attempt to justify it by labeling it "scientific". What is that bumpersticker? Let go and let god? Maybe some people ought.

 

 

a

 

yes, i understand that, and i'm not disagreeing with you necessarily. but intelligent design primarily interprets data (rather than accumulating it), and imho, that doesn’t make it unscientific. i'm not even referencing old earth/young earth here....just the *idea* that intelligent design could have had its hand involved here (i.e. we have a creator). it seems people complain that ID is not science because it is not based on observation and experiment, but imo, this charge is false because intelligent design scientists rely on research already done by others (and some writers like behe have indepently done & published significant research). but the main contribution of ID is very logical... which is to evaluate what is necessary to verify evolutionary theory, to judge whether the evidence establishes it, and if not, what changes must be made to evolutionary theory to make it credible.

 

anyway, i don't want to debate at all. i totally recognize that we all fall into different belief systems here, and i'm okay with that.

 

honestly, i just was trying to support the OP. that's all.

 

hugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't death equated with sickness and violence and tragedies and accidents and sorrow and crying and "yucky and bad"...to quote my 6 yo. How could God create that and call it good? I don't know if my brain could wrap around a paradigm shift of that magnitude.

 

Really, LIFE is equated with sickness/accident/yuckiness/etc. Death is not, because death is not the end, but returning home to the presence of God. It may not be pleasant for the last bit here, but our suffering shall be but a moment compared to the eternities to come in God's presence. No death & we'd be stuck here. :ack2: I'm a "the punishment was spiritual death/separation from God" girl though--life here would be much more like heaven if we were in Their presence here already.

 

(I just woke up so I hope that made any sense at all, or even related to your question :lol:.)

Edited by LittleIzumi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unfortunately, its 7am here, and a little early for wine....

 

fwiw, if you haven't watched "Judgement Day", its free on line to stream... and covers many of the topics posters have been raising.

 

maybe i could put something in the orange juice....

 

sigh...

ann

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there has been talk over young earth vs. old earth. And to be honest, since I didn't know a ton of facts, and just was going by what I gathered over the years, I had a really hard time justifying the millions of years things with God and the Bible. I have faith, so I just pushed it aside as something that was beyond my understanding (and it probably still is).

 

However, wow, I have been gobsmacked this week by my 5th grade son's science program. I LOVE IT!! (The Fossil Book from the Wonders of Creation Series by Gary and Mary Parker).

 

I finally had the Geologic Column Diagram explained to me in such a way that it makes tons of sense. Tons. It doesn't have to fight with my view of God's timeline. And it makes logical sense!! I can't tell you how happy I am, spiritually, just thinking about it. So, I guess I'm officially on the young earth side, now.

 

What I can't understand is why if all the world believed in flood science until 1800, why did Darwin have such an impact? Darwin's theory is, of course, arguable, but it just seems that there is so much evidence to support flood theory. Why is this information not being taught alongside evolutionism? Why is it not being presented clearly. Why, at age 44 am I just finding out about this? I think there would be more of a turning back to God if this was widely taught (if it were taught seriously.).

 

Interesting week!

 

I just took this book out of the church library. Ds is reading it now for science and I will be going through it.

 

So far he has read Oceans, Astronomy, & Weather from Wonders of Creation.

 

He has enjoyed all of them.

 

I really want to get myself moving and make some notebook pages/lapbook booklets for these. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've yet to meet a scientist who is so insecure in their work that they doubt their faith, yet I am constantly meeting people who are insecure in their faith to such a degree that they attempt to justify it by labeling it "scientific". What is that bumpersticker? Let go and let god? Maybe some people ought.

 

 

a

 

Oh, yeah.

 

I was thinking later last night how perhaps when we discover something new that doesn't fit within our doctrine we ought to let go of that-we out to enlarge our Doctrine to fit God within the new knowledge, but many people are so afraid of that-that God is somehow not able to BE that big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe God started it all in 6 days, zip, poof, pow then your God is zip, poof, pow. I get why people want the magic show--haven't we always wanted it? I mean, don't we just all love the shine and wonder of it all? Every age has a Pardoner, you know, and we want to buy it all? We want all of that and creation in 6 days feeds that. That is how you expect God to communicate with you. Flash bang, zip, poof, pow. A laser light show.

 

If you believe God pulled the big bang together with natural forces billions of years ago, that he used the process of natural selection to build this most amazing world, that he is so patient that millions of years of volcanoes, drips of water, mud, can come together to build this moment---then you know God's plan isn't over yet. It's taken billions of years to get here, to this moment, and I'm sure he's not done. You can walk, day by day, with faith that His work is slow and beautiful. That He takes the worst heavings of this world and works them into beauty and that he has years yet to work on us and this earth. You have an organic view of God. He speaks to you organically. It's a slow thing, as opposed to a drive through.

 

:iagree: Awesome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that how we believe the earth came into being has a lot to do with our understanding of faith and more importantly, our view of God. Each theory sets out your symbolic beginning of who you expect God to be.

 

If you believe God started it all in 6 days, zip, poof, pow then your God is zip, poof, pow. I get why people want the magic show--haven't we always wanted it? I mean, don't we just all love the shine and wonder of it all? Every age has a Pardoner, you know, and we want to buy it all? We want all of that and creation in 6 days feeds that. That is how you expect God to communicate with you. Flash bang, zip, poof, pow. A laser light show.

 

If you believe God pulled the big bang together with natural forces billions of years ago, that he used the process of natural selection to build this most amazing world, that he is so patient that millions of years of volcanoes, drips of water, mud, can come together to build this moment---then you know God's plan isn't over yet. It's taken billions of years to get here, to this moment, and I'm sure he's not done. You can walk, day by day, with faith that His work is slow and beautiful. That He takes the worst heavings of this world and works them into beauty and that he has years yet to work on us and this earth. You have an organic view of God. He speaks to you organically. It's a slow thing, as opposed to a drive through.

 

What I do know of God is that he never does things the way we expect. I love that show, The Naked Archeologist and how he delves into those bible stories and tries to work out how they might have happened with science and research. The things he finds seem natural-these natural occurrences that *were* miracles. And in hindsight, I see that God used the small natural occurrences to work the biggest miracles in MY life. Pushing me and pulling me here and there-backing me into places and making me turn over stones I wouldn't have previously-but it's all God and it's all organic. I think it's actually a more accessible view of God, and one that *for me* is even more miraculous.

 

OK, sorry for the sermon.

 

eta, and I'm tired of vilifying the scientists. God is the God of science and maybe they are showing us His glory. Just because it doesn't fit with our little box of doctrine doesn't mean it's not Him. Doctrine isn't God. He's bigger than that man made device.

 

Amen:001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there has been talk over young earth vs. old earth. And to be honest, since I didn't know a ton of facts, and just was going by what I gathered over the years, I had a really hard time justifying the millions of years things with God and the Bible. I have faith, so I just pushed it aside as something that was beyond my understanding (and it probably still is).

 

However, wow, I have been gobsmacked this week by my 5th grade son's science program. I LOVE IT!! (The Fossil Book from the Wonders of Creation Series by Gary and Mary Parker).

 

I finally had the Geologic Column Diagram explained to me in such a way that it makes tons of sense. Tons. It doesn't have to fight with my view of God's timeline. And it makes logical sense!! I can't tell you how happy I am, spiritually, just thinking about it. So, I guess I'm officially on the young earth side, now.

 

What I can't understand is why if all the world believed in flood science until 1800, why did Darwin have such an impact? Darwin's theory is, of course, arguable, but it just seems that there is so much evidence to support flood theory. Why is this information not being taught alongside evolutionism? Why is it not being presented clearly. Why, at age 44 am I just finding out about this? I think there would be more of a turning back to God if this was widely taught (if it were taught seriously.).

 

Interesting week!

 

OP, I have nothing to add except to say that I, too, am a young earth creationist. :D Believe it or not, there are MANY of us out here!!

 

It seems that everytime this subject is brought up it almost always turns into a "How could ANYONE possibly believe in a young earth (old earth)" debate. With someone then recommending a book, or FIVE, to enlighten you to why you are seriously in error. :lol: It's like you're not actually allowed to believe what you believe, and voice that belief, without being shut down by...well...someone. I usually stay out of these conversations...they make me mad! :glare::001_smile:

 

Frankly, when it comes down to it, all are theories based on some form of faith as no one was actually here to OBSERVE how the earth came into being. :001_huh:

Edited by Melissa in CA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, when it comes down to it, all are theories based on some form of faith as no one was actually here to OBSERVE how the earth came into being. :001_huh:

 

True dat. If it turns out I was wrong, I want all the details on how it really went down though. I have lots of questions for the next life :lol:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, yeah.

 

I was thinking later last night how perhaps when we discover something new that doesn't fit within our doctrine we ought to let go of that-we out to enlarge our Doctrine to fit God within the new knowledge, but many people are so afraid of that-that God is somehow not able to BE that big.

 

The opposite is also true. Aren't there scientific theories out there that explain some xyz phenomena but for the theory to work there has to have been a cataclysmic event. Are there scientists who will refuse to accept that scientific theory because in their minds cataclysmic event = worldwide flood = Noah = Bible = God. And they just.can't.entertain.that.idea. Even if the cataclysmic type theory does a better job explaining the evidence than the other.

 

I just read about one such theory regarding why the earth has a magnetic field and how that works...from Jay Wile of course...just to cite my source :001_smile:

 

I just think that ascribing narrow-mindedness to one sub-set of people while seeming to elevate another set as open-minded is well...wrong. :001_smile: We all have our biases and a pre-set way that we view the world and most everyone is inclined to give credence to that which supports their preconceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The opposite is also true. Aren't there scientific theories out there that explain some xyz phenomena but for the theory to work there has to have been a cataclysmic event. Are there scientists who will refuse to accept that scientific theory because in their minds cataclysmic event = worldwide flood = Noah = Bible = God. And they just.can't.entertain.that.idea. Even if the cataclysmic type theory does a better job explaining the evidence than the other.

 

I just read about one such theory regarding why the earth has a magnetic field and how that works...from Jay Wile of course...just to cite my source :001_smile:

 

I just think that ascribing narrow-mindedness to one sub-set of people while seeming to elevate another set as open-minded is well...wrong. :001_smile: We all have our biases and a pre-set way that we view the world and most everyone is inclined to give credence to that which supports their preconceptions.

 

Well said. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The opposite is also true. Aren't there scientific theories out there that explain some xyz phenomena but for the theory to work there has to have been a cataclysmic event. Are there scientists who will refuse to accept that scientific theory because in their minds cataclysmic event = worldwide flood = Noah = Bible = God. And they just.can't.entertain.that.idea. Even if the cataclysmic type theory does a better job explaining the evidence than the other.

 

I just read about one such theory regarding why the earth has a magnetic field and how that works...from Jay Wile of course...just to cite my source :001_smile:

 

I just think that ascribing narrow-mindedness to one sub-set of people while seeming to elevate another set as open-minded is well...wrong. :001_smile: We all have our biases and a pre-set way that we view the world and most everyone is inclined to give credence to that which supports their preconceptions.

 

yes, very well said!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, yeah.

 

I was thinking later last night how perhaps when we discover something new that doesn't fit within our doctrine we ought to let go of that-we out to enlarge our Doctrine to fit God within the new knowledge, but many people are so afraid of that-that God is somehow not able to BE that big.

 

There is a fascinating book called How Big is Your God that addresses that very issue.

 

My mom just sent it to me - it is fascinating. (there is a bunch of stuff online other than that link)

 

 

a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well scientists' study of time itself, and the relative ages of things (such as fossils and dinosaur bones) are themselves dependent on assumptions about those things, and how they can be measured, and whether those measurement have been consistent and will remain so.

 

I think there's a lot science hasn't figured out yet.

 

:lurk5:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Theory" in science has a very narrow set of parameters which necessitate experimentation. There is simply no way to experiment upon God/faith/religion. And if someone says they have discovered a way, well - let's just say that should be an interesting read.

 

 

Not to mention that it's hard to take seriously a "theory" and a group of people that dismiss any conflicting evidence as the Devil's trickery or as "just the way God made things." Scientists are constantly trying to disprove their theories. YECs are constantly trying to twist evidence in order to fit it into a conclusion they aren't allowed to change, no matter what the facts show. That's just not science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think that ascribing narrow-mindedness to one sub-set of people while seeming to elevate another set as open-minded is well...wrong. :001_smile: We all have our biases and a pre-set way that we view the world and most everyone is inclined to give credence to that which supports their preconceptions.

 

I was born and raised a YEC, and spent the last 30 years of my life believing it and defending it.

 

I changed my mind and am much happier for it.

 

There is a fascinating book called How Big is Your God that addresses that very issue.

 

My mom just sent it to me - it is fascinating. (there is a bunch of stuff online other than that link)

 

 

a

 

that's one I have to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there has been talk over young earth vs. old earth. And to be honest, since I didn't know a ton of facts, and just was going by what I gathered over the years, I had a really hard time justifying the millions of years things with God and the Bible. I have faith, so I just pushed it aside as something that was beyond my understanding (and it probably still is).

 

However, wow, I have been gobsmacked this week by my 5th grade son's science program. I LOVE IT!! (The Fossil Book from the Wonders of Creation Series by Gary and Mary Parker).

 

I finally had the Geologic Column Diagram explained to me in such a way that it makes tons of sense. Tons. It doesn't have to fight with my view of God's timeline. And it makes logical sense!! I can't tell you how happy I am, spiritually, just thinking about it. So, I guess I'm officially on the young earth side, now.

 

What I can't understand is why if all the world believed in flood science until 1800, why did Darwin have such an impact? Darwin's theory is, of course, arguable, but it just seems that there is so much evidence to support flood theory. Why is this information not being taught alongside evolutionism? Why is it not being presented clearly. Why, at age 44 am I just finding out about this? I think there would be more of a turning back to God if this was widely taught (if it were taught seriously.).

 

Interesting week!

 

I'm sorry you got some snarky replies to your post. You'd think that some people could just move along to another post that fits with them better rather than participating in one only to make a reply that clearly shows how they think you are an idiot (at least that's how it appears/feels to me).

Maybe they didn't like the last line:

I think there would be more of a turning back to God if this was widely taught (if it were taught seriously.).

That probably makes some people who are not Christians feel judged...so I can understand the feelings, but not some of the replies.

Anyway...

 

It was exciting for me too, to find out the things you are currently discovering. :)

 

I wanted to chime in so that you know you aren't the only one who believes as you do. I also wondered why I hadn't been taught any of those things in school - but hey, that's why I love homeschooling my kids!

I get to teach them things I never was (and learn right along with them).

I've enjoyed the opportunity to fully learn about evolution AND young earth creationism and we've made our choice as a family what to believe in.

 

Enjoy the journey as you make your decisions too! I'm very happy that you are now at peace with some things that didn't make sense to you before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry you got some snarky replies to your post. You'd think that some people could just move along to another post that fits with them better rather than participating in one only to make a reply that clearly shows how they think you are an idiot (at least that's how it appears/feels to me).

 

If people only participated in posts they already completely agree with, it would make for a very dull board. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people only participated in posts they already completely agree with, it would make for a very dull board. ;)

 

Well, that's true! :D It's one reason I really like this board. I've learned a lot about different beliefs and I think most everyone here is really sharp, even when they don't believe what I believe! I really am enjoying all the discussion...

I just felt a few responses in this thread weren't discussions, if that makes sense, and that is what I was trying to reference. :)

Edited by jenn&charles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention that it's hard to take seriously a "theory" and a group of people that dismiss any conflicting evidence as the Devil's trickery or as "just the way God made things." Scientists are constantly trying to disprove their theories. YECs are constantly trying to twist evidence in order to fit it into a conclusion they aren't allowed to change, no matter what the facts show. That's just not science.

 

Kind of reminds me of scientists who dismiss anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions, whether it be the "Warmers" or the "Big Bangers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of reminds me of scientists who dismiss anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions, whether it be the "Warmers" or the "Big Bangers."

 

The vast majority of scientists don't dismiss data unless the research was flawed. Since you seem to think there is evidence that disproves the "Big Bang" theory, perhaps you could post a link? Everything I've ever seen proves pretty decisively that the universe is expanding. As for global warming, it's such a complex area that we'd have to get a lot more specific to discuss it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by jenn&charles

I'm sorry you got some snarky replies to your post. You'd think that some people could just move along to another post that fits with them better rather than participating in one only to make a reply that clearly shows how they think you are an idiot (at least that's how it appears/feels to me).

 

I am not meaning to judge anyone who has both sides of the argument and chooses freely - then it is choice. However, when there are facts out there that show other ways are possible (and let's face it - the truth will never be known - we didn't have video recording devices back then!), then it really is skewing information to only present one side.

 

My marveling is how I've not been exposed to this way of thinking before in my 44 years. And my comment about this knowledge turning people towards God, I stand by. I have always been a Catholic Christian - but some things were just "issues" that I shoved to the back of my brain, because I didn't want to think about it and shake up my faith. But, evolutionism was always pushed in my science classes. To see evidence (as good as any other that can be called "evidence" since we have no eye witnesses to the time) was extremely exciting and confidence inspiring in what I had been taught to interpret as a story.

 

Will it turn all people to God? Of course not - there will always be free will and choice. But, wouldn't it be nice if everyone had all the information from both sides? Yes, it is available for those who look, but in the course of busy life, there are many important things that need looking at, but just don't get as much attention as they deserve.

 

I don't care if you call me or what I find exciting - stupid, and I am choosing not to see any of you doing that. I'm sure you are just trying to enlighten me to your beliefs. What I am saying is that I have been enlightened to your beliefs - all my life. My excitement is for getting enlightened in my own beliefs - we all need encouragement from time to time and I'm just glad I got it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by jenn&charles

I'm sorry you got some snarky replies to your post. You'd think that some people could just move along to another post that fits with them better rather than participating in one only to make a reply that clearly shows how they think you are an idiot (at least that's how it appears/feels to me).

 

I am not meaning to judge anyone who has both sides of the argument and chooses freely - then it is choice. However, when there are facts out there that show other ways are possible (and let's face it - the truth will never be known - we didn't have video recording devices back then!), then it really is skewing information to only present one side.

 

My marveling is how I've not been exposed to this way of thinking before in my 44 years. And my comment about this knowledge turning people towards God, I stand by. I have always been a Catholic Christian - but some things were just "issues" that I shoved to the back of my brain, because I didn't want to think about it and shake up my faith. But, evolutionism was always pushed in my science classes. To see evidence (as good as any other that can be called "evidence" since we have no eye witnesses to the time) was extremely exciting and confidence inspiring in what I had been taught to interpret as a story.

 

Will it turn all people to God? Of course not - there will always be free will and choice. But, wouldn't it be nice if everyone had all the information from both sides? Yes, it is available for those who look, but in the course of busy life, there are many important things that need looking at, but just don't get as much attention as they deserve.

 

I don't care if you call me or what I find exciting - stupid, and I am choosing not to see any of you doing that. I'm sure you are just trying to enlighten me to your beliefs. What I am saying is that I have been enlightened to your beliefs - all my life. My excitement is for getting enlightened in my own beliefs - we all need encouragement from time to time and I'm just glad I got it!!

 

:thumbup1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.answersincreation.org/death.htm

 

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html

 

Many Christians believe that God created the earth and all things in it (not humankind) to be self-sustaining - a cycle of life and death where the death of organisms (many or all of whom were not considered to have "souls" as humankind) nourished the birth of other organisms. Mankind was created as separate, different, special from any other life forms. His sin affected his immortal soul and the sort of expectation of life that he, as an immortal, could expect. It did not affect the world that had been set up to support him, save perhaps for introducing evil into every aspect of it, as into his own life.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well scientists' study of time itself, and the relative ages of things (such as fossils and dinosaur bones) are themselves dependent on assumptions about those things, and how they can be measured, and whether those measurement have been consistent and will remain so.

 

I think there's a lot science hasn't figured out yet.

 

:lurk5:

 

:iagree: Science makes findings based on the assumption that how things work now is how things have always been. It is a logical assumption and one I think a scientist should make. When you add God into the mix you have people who believe in a supernatural power and they may not necessarily believe that how things are now are how they have always been. In other words, some believe that God is not limited to the natural process - He is supernatural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well scientists' study of time itself, and the relative ages of things (such as fossils and dinosaur bones) are themselves dependent on assumptions about those things, and how they can be measured, and whether those measurement have been consistent and will remain so.

 

I think there's a lot science hasn't figured out yet.

 

:lurk5:

 

I agree. And when God created the earth...which I personally believe He did...how do we know He did not create rocks, stars, the EARTH itself with age. Meaning, just like He created Adam and Eve as, we assume, young adults not as babies with no 'age' to their body. I doubt the trees, plants, birds and animals were a bunch of saplings & infant creatures...I bet they were full grown trees/animals possessing what we would refer to as 'age'...so why not the earth and stars as well? If one believes God created, how does one know at what age to begin dating the earth if we don't really know how 'old' it was when it began?

 

Yeah, I know, not good scientific reasoning on my part :lol::lol:... but I often chew on things like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, one of the recent posts of one of the founders of Boilogos blogged about this on huffpo:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/why-is-middle-ground-so-p_b_779161.html

 

I acknowledged, of course, that there are indeed Christians who hold to ideas from the past, such as the long-disproved notion that the earth is just a few thousand years old. Many of them, in fact, do so with no understanding of why, oblivious to the progress of science on this or any other matter. Scientific illiteracy is no respecter of persons, though, as Chris Mooney has argued eloquently in Unscientific America, and even non-religious people have their own scientific disconnects.

Some of these Christians who prefer their planets young, like the Southern Baptist leader, Al Mohler, however, are not oblivious to the progress of science. Mohler is educated and does not hold this belief because of simple ignorance. He is well-read and informed on such things. But he's inclined, for widely accepted theological reasons, to get his science from the Bible. There are, of course, equally legitimate Christian leaders -- say Tim Keller or Joel Hunter -- who do not feel compelled by their faith to believe that the earth is a few thousand years old.

 

Edited by justamouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the recommendation. I've never seen why evolution and Christianity are seen as opposed. JMHO of course.

 

Have you ever seen the series by John Clayton? He goes into the original language of the Genesis creation account and how the description of creation follows the theory of evolution step by step. I haven't had time to watch all of the videos, but I really got alot out of the ones I've seen. They're free online - http://www.doesgodexist.tv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of reminds me of scientists who dismiss anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions, whether it be the "Warmers" or the "Big Bangers."

 

Life is lived with preconceived notions. Do I debate whether the sun is going to rise today? Do I debate with my son about bathing regularly. We may occasionally skip a bath due to extenuating circumstances, but sometime I do say "we are not discussing it....take a shower now". I have a "preconceived notion" about the level of cleanliness I'd like, because I've thought about it in the past, and came to a conclusion, and don't want to go all through it again.

 

Just because "a scientist" meets Joe X today, who'd love to debate, doesn't mean the scientist cares to. A small minority of life scientists are involved with debating opposing views of mainstream science. The rest want to get on with things. It does not mean they have not considered the evidence in detail in the past, just as I have discovered a soup cooled very quickly lasts longer in the fridge than one allowed to cool on the counter and then put away. I did that as a side-by-side, twice. I don't need to discuss it, nor repeat it, to make my large batches of soup.

 

As for faith trying to prove itself in fact, this is a symptom of the triumph of science. But, given what science has given us, from antibiotics to trips to the moon, I am not surprised much of humanity is all agog about it. I agree with the 20th century scientist (I think it might be Lewis Thomas) who said that now we have reached the time when we have to start considering what science *cannot* do for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there would be more of a turning back to God if this was widely taught (if it were taught seriously.).

 

I think people who hold different viewpoints would have left this post alone had it not been for this line. There are MANY, MANY people who are close to God AND accept evolution. :) There would be no need for these folks to "turn back to God" since they never left, even though they accept evolution as the likeliest explanation for how God created such diversity of life. God and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. ;)

 

That probably makes some people who are not Christians feel judged...so I can understand the feelings, but not some of the replies.

 

And this line is problematic because there are Christians who get upset when they are told that they can accept evolution OR God but not both. I don't feel "judged". :lol: I feel irritated that some people in the YE group paint all evolutionists as atheists or gravely misguided souls (or both). :glare: Lots of us are Christian even though we may not be your particular flavor of Christian. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there are many old earth creationists who believe the Earth is old and the creation week was a literal 6 days about 6000 or so years ago.

 

I don't think there are OLD earth creationists who think the earth is 6000 years old. I think that's the belief of YOUNG earth creationists.

 

OLD earth creationists think the earth is (usually) billions of years old (ala scientific evolutionary theorists - although the creation of the universe isn't really evolutionary theory it's astronomy or something - I forget the correct scientific term), but the actual beginning was Godly (that premise is covered in Genesis) rather than "Big Bang" like secular scientists.

 

** I reread what you said again and I'm wondering if what you're saying is that the physical planet is very old, but that there has only been life on the planet for 6000 years? Would that include every living thing (plants and animals) or just man or what? Disregard me if that's not what you were saying.

Edited by amey311
Clarifying question
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That probably makes some people who are not Christians feel judged...so I can understand the feelings, but not some of the replies.

 

I haven't posted to this thread at all, as I was planning on just reading for entertainment, because I don't want to take away from the OP's excitement. However, reading the above quote, I did feel very much that you have mischaracterized the feelings of many non-Christians, and you've done it in a way that I believe is quite common to Christians. I don't feel judged by what the OP said. The belief that non-Christians are always walking around feeling judged by this or that thing that Christians say or do is probably one of the biggest misconceptions Christians have, IMO. In order to feel judged, one has to feel that there is anything to feel judged about in the first place.

 

While I realize that it is a common Christian belief that we all have something in us that tells us we're supposed to be Christian and believe whatever you believe, I'm going to have to say that this simply isn't true. To say that I feel judged by what the OP says makes about as much sense to me as saying that I feel judged because I'm wearing khaki pants instead of jeans today. Essentially, the thought is, Why on earth would I feel judged about THAT?!? I think this idea that so many Christians carry around - the one that says non-Christians are constantly feeling guilt because some deeper part of them knows they're "wrong" - is one of the biggest things that makes it hard for us all to relate. There is nothing in me telling me I ought to feel guilty for disagreeing with the OP. The very idea of it is strange to me.

 

Anyway, just thought I'd point that out. :)

 

Editing to clarify that when I said I was reading for entertainment, I just meant that as passing the time, not in any way suggesting it was funny or I was laughing at anyone's beliefs. Not that kind of entertainment. :)

Edited by Snowfall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

** I reread what you said again and I'm wondering if what you're saying is that the physical planet is very old, but that there has only been life on the planet for 6000 years? Would that include every living thing (plants and animals) or just man or what? Disregard me if that's not what you were saying.

 

Old earth, young creation. Gap theorists are one example. Gap theorists put some kind of life on Earth before the creation week. But I know of others who believe the foundations of the Earth (such as rocks, water) were around from the beginning and since the rocks are used to date things it meshes because they believe the elements of rock are old and the created things like animals and plants are about 6000 years old. They don't believe the beginning was 6000 years ago. They just believe the creation week expressed in Genesis was 6000 years ago. Hope that made more sense. Both groups are old earth, but believe in the literal interpretation of the Genesis account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but there are many more people who believe in old earth creationism who think that not only in the Universe very old and the earth also very old, but life on earth has existed for longer than 6000 or 10000 years.

 

 

With regards to a pp of why couldn't GOd have created a planet and a universe that looks old but really isn't- my view of God's character does not allow this interpretation. He could do this as he is omnipotent but he wouldn't do this since He is all holy and trying to deceive us just doesn't seem to be an act I could see God doing.

 

ALso, for another poster, what does magnetism have to do with floods? I am confused by this idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently finished reading a wonderful book called The Language of God by Francis S. Collins. I highly recommend it. Dr. Collins is a devout Christian and a staunch evolutionary scientist. He does a beautiful job of explaining why theistic evolution is the best explanation we have for the evidence -- better than Creationism or ID or atheistic evolution. It's a very interesting read if you're at all curious about that perspective.

 

Thank you so much for the book suggestion, GretaLynne! It sounds great!

 

As for faith trying to prove itself in fact, this is a symptom of the triumph of science. But, given what science has given us, from antibiotics to trips to the moon, I am not surprised much of humanity is all agog about it. I agree with the 20th century scientist (I think it might be Lewis Thomas) who said that now we have reached the time when we have to start considering what science *cannot* do for us.

 

Wonderful. Since science has done so much for us, maybe we should start giving it human sacrifices. Oh wait, we already do.

 

You know, when you talk like this it really degrades science. Science is a method of study. It did not "triumph" over religion. It grew up in the bosom of religion, in a wild, ignorant and often violent world. There is not a contest between science and other human behaviors such as art, music, or religion. When people start talking about science like this I lose my faith in it (isn't that ironic). It starts sounding like some people are more interested in science proving God doesn't exist than in making people's lives better or illuminating things for us. It is not something to worship, and this sounds like that.

 

Science lives or dies on honesty. That is the rock that is must stand on. I ask you this. What rock does honesty stand upon? It sure doesn't stand on "survival of the fittest."

Edited by Tea Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's probably the same reason why kids read Shakespeare in Literature class, but they don't ever read the Bible. The Bible is dismissed because it is "religion" even though it changed civilization more than just about anything else in history. On that same note, creationism as a theory to explain origins is also dismissed as "religion" not science. Scientists claim to come to the study of origins without bias but most then go right on to ignore or dismiss all evidence that challenges the theory of evolution and points to the idea that there could be an intelligent force behind the earth's design. Seems to me they are not looking for the best explanation, but rather, they are looking for evidence to support what they already believe about origins. I think people could actually come to believe in God through science and the study of origins, if they were humble and followed the evidence to it's most logical conclusion. But, of course, they think believing in God isn't logical. But, I think that if people want proof of God, his fingerprints are all over the design of life on earth.

 

That'll preach!!!! I wish I would have written this post, you said it so well! I agree with you completely on this.

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people who hold different viewpoints would have left this post alone had it not been for this line. There are MANY, MANY people who are close to God AND accept evolution. :) There would be no need for these folks to "turn back to God" since they never left, even though they accept evolution as the likeliest explanation for how God created such diversity of life. God and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. ;)

 

 

And this line is problematic because there are Christians who get upset when they are told that they can accept evolution OR God but not both. I don't feel "judged". :lol: I feel irritated that some people in the YE group paint all evolutionists as atheists or gravely misguided souls (or both). :glare: Lots of us are Christian even though we may not be your particular flavor of Christian. :)

 

Exactly the point I had tried to make before. I can't believe anyone who ready my post would think I was less of a Christian because I believe in evolution or that I needed to "turn back". *headdesk*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galileo,

 

Copernicus,(From Wikipedia) In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine[94] that the Earth moves and the Sun does not was "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture."[95] The same decree also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.On the orders of Pope Paul V, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine gave Galileo prior notice that the decree was about to be issued, and warned him that he could not "hold or defend" the Copernican doctrine.[96] The corrections to De revolutionibus, which omitted or altered nine sentences, were issued four years later, in 1620.[97]

 

In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture,"[98] and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

 

The Catholic Church's 1758 Index of Prohibited Books omitted the general prohibition of works defending heliocentrism,[99] but retained the specific prohibitions of the original uncensored versions of De revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Those prohibitions were finally dropped from the 1835 Index.[100]

 

Giordano Bruno-(From Wikipedia) (1548 – February 17, 1600), born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician and astronomer, who is best known as a proponent of the infinity of the universe. His cosmological theories went beyond the Copernican model in identifying the Sun as just one of an infinite number of independently moving heavenly bodies: he is the first European man to have conceptualized the universe as a continuum where the stars we see at night are identical in nature to the Sun. He was burned at the stake by civil authorities in 1600 after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy and turned him over to the state, which at that time considered heresy illegal.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7134341.ece

 

"Copernicus, who lived from 1473 to 1543, died little-known at the age of 70 and was buried in an unmarked grave beneath the floor of the cathedral at Frombork. DNA tests five years ago identified his bones and skull by comparing them with hair found in his books kept at the University of Uppsala in Sweden.

 

On Saturday the remains were blessed with holy water and ceremonially reburied in the main body of the cathedral under a black granite tombstone describing him as the creator of heliocentrism and decorated with a golden sun encircled by six planets.

 

.....Archbishop Jozef Kowalczyk, the Primate of Poland, said at the ceremony that he deplored the “excesses of zeal†which had led to Copernicus being branded a heretic.

 

Copernicus was not persecuted in his lifetime for his heliocentric views, which only came later to be seen as a danger to the faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old earth, young creation. Gap theorists are one example. Gap theorists put some kind of life on Earth before the creation week.

 

Ahh - thank you for explaining. This is a theory/belief I haven't heard before. I may have to go do a little reading for my own education.

 

I'm still firmly a big bang theory gal, but it's good to know the other ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life is lived with preconceived notions. Do I debate whether the sun is going to rise today? Do I debate with my son about bathing regularly. We may occasionally skip a bath due to extenuating circumstances, but sometime I do say "we are not discussing it....take a shower now". I have a "preconceived notion" about the level of cleanliness I'd like, because I've thought about it in the past, and came to a conclusion, and don't want to go all through it again.

 

Just because "a scientist" meets Joe X today, who'd love to debate, doesn't mean the scientist cares to. A small minority of life scientists are involved with debating opposing views of mainstream science. The rest want to get on with things. It does not mean they have not considered the evidence in detail in the past, just as I have discovered a soup cooled very quickly lasts longer in the fridge than one allowed to cool on the counter and then put away. I did that as a side-by-side, twice. I don't need to discuss it, nor repeat it, to make my large batches of soup.

 

As for faith trying to prove itself in fact, this is a symptom of the triumph of science. But, given what science has given us, from antibiotics to trips to the moon, I am not surprised much of humanity is all agog about it. I agree with the 20th century scientist (I think it might be Lewis Thomas) who said that now we have reached the time when we have to start considering what science *cannot* do for us.

 

Boy was this quote just taken completely out of context. If I hadn't gone back a page to find the original post, I would have thought Kalanamak had said something completely different. :001_huh:

 

 

a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy was this quote just taken completely out of context. If I hadn't gone back a page to find the original post, I would have thought Kalanamak had said something completely different. :001_huh:

 

 

a

 

Asta, I rather agree with you. The first two paragraphs are perfectly reasonable.

 

But the last, in any context at all, goes off into the deep end. I think it is telling of a something disturbing and irrational in the science vs religion debate. Not everyone thinks that debate is even necessary, and not everyone thinks science must "triumph" over religion. I think that line of thought might be a very bad thing if it infiltrates science, and that is what I am responding to.

 

If one is truly a materialist, then it would be good to remember that just because you turn away from religion does not mean that the mechanisms of religion in the mind go away too. It is completely possible, even likely, that they manifest themselves again in different, perhaps illusive and frightening, ways. Thus the concept given from religion that you will worship something truly does have a certain rational and probably realistic underpinning.

 

Instead of a humble, careful discussion of how usurping the actual history of our evolution by dumping instead of respecting the results of that path might empirically effect the course of human destiny, what I usually see instead is something more in keeping with the basic principles of Christianity. Pride. It is a sort of arrogance that seems to indicate that materialist have "evolved out" of the mechanisms that "evolved into" religion over time immeasurable. They are, in effect, the "new elect" who should, by virtue of this genetic improvement, be able to assign the new world order since they are the new "high priests."

 

And that doesn't sound like science at all, it sounds like a new religion. And I think we should be mighty leery of what kind of tithing it might expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...