In the Beginning....

[Tom Bryant]

Not you; I don't know you. But your post was snotty. You accused me and those like me of letting scientists dictate to us what we believe. That was baseless and insulting.

Luke,

Sorry, you found me snotty. It's a new one on my list of flaws.

Let me ask this question then. If science were to tell you that the earth is young. Would you still believe that the earth was old solely on the basis of your language study?

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

Science is not evil.Never said such a thing. Science absent people has no agenda. However, science mixed with people who want to prove the unprovable (evolution) is evil. That which denies God is always evil.

The "Big Bang" does nothing to support scripture. To believe that is mental gymnastics. One cell creatures crawling out of the primordial slime does nothing to support scripture and is in fact contrary to it. It is contrary to the Genesis account of creation, it is contrary to all of scripture.

Valiant put up sophomoric attempts to support the unsupportable. And quite honestly you continue to do the same thing by making the ridiculous argument that the church's credibility is shot because we do not by into their anti-God agenda.

What you and valiant both ignore is that evolution and old earth science is not settled. Reminds me of the same garbage coming out of the global warming scare mongers. It say it is is dishonest. The age of the earth is not settled. The big bang theory is not settled. All of it is just a theory and has not been proven beyond doubt.

To suggest that it is is either ignorance or dishonesty. Your little diatribe about credibility further ignores the many Christian scientists that do not support the old earth theory. Here are a few:

* Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
* Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology

 

[Revmitchell]

* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

 

[Revmitchell]

Now go tell all these scientists that their view is uninformed, unintelligent and narrow.

 

[Robert Snow]

The Big Bang not only doesn't support Evolution, it doesn't even have anything to do with it.

 

[HankD]

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.

Look, all I'm saying is that there are "difficulties" no matter what position one takes concerning creation.

I have no problem with believers who adopt a theistic-evolutionary old-earth point of view. I have taken modern physics and my education has included the world view of origins which I formerly held even as a believer and called myself a "creative evolutionist" (after the order of Henri Bergson).

However, I no longer hold that view but adhere to the young-earth 6 day creation taught in the Scriptures.

Yes there are difficulties but I have chosen the more literal approach to Genesis.

In addition, I am not saying that I am more spiritual than you, just that you are compromising creation with the unproven theory of evolution.

I have my own repetoire of flaws, you have yours. In that we are the same.

If by God's grace you have faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life in His name then we are brothers in Christ regardless of our differing view of origins, not "you guys".

HankD

 

[HankD]

The Big Bang not only doesn't support Evolution, it doesn't even have anything to do with it.

It has to do with whole secular humanist world view of the origins of matter (the stuff our bodies are made of) and life both of which humanist views are opposed to the Scripture.

HankD

 

[Jedi Knight]

If you start with the Genesis account not being literal then where do you stop? If the Genesis account is in question then so is the rest of the Bible. After all, if one cannot believe in a literal seven day creation based on current scientific observation then how can one believe in a man, dead for three days, being raised from the dead?

Exactly....one thing leads to another.

 

[Jedi Knight]

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.

The Bible shows clearly 6-24 hr days. Do you believe that man was living with Dinosaurs? Secular scientists say No! Noah and the Ark? Secular scientists say No! At lease their consistant in rejection of the truth.

 

[Robert Snow]

It has to do with whole secular humanist world view of the origins of matter (the stuff our bodies are made of) and life both of which humanist views are opposed to the Scripture.

HankD

It would seem to be your argument that anything that is "humanistic" is opposed to scripture. I don't see it that way.

 

[Jedi Knight]

It would seem to be your argument that anything that is "humanistic" is opposed to scripture. I don't see it that way.

Do you believe God spoke everything into being?

 

[Robert Snow]

Do you believe God spoke everything into being?

Certainly! If not, where did matter come from?

 

[nodak]

I believe several views are possible and could be Biblically correct.

I understand the Biblical reasons for a day age theory, and no, it doesn't necessarily entail evolution although it could allow for it. I don't hold this view.

I understand the Biblical reasons to accept the gap theory. Personally, I tend to this with some leanings also to the following theory.

I understand also why it is possible to accept Genesis literally and yet not accept a young earth theory. You can have a literal 6/24 creation without it being last Tuesday. In other words, you can be literal and still have a billions and billions of years old universe.

And I understand the young earth point of view. I don't agree with it, but must concede it is possible.

 

[Jedi Knight]

you can be literal and still have a billions and billions of years old universe.

Where would you find this in scripture?

 

[HankD]

It would seem to be your argument that anything that is "humanistic" is opposed to scripture. I don't see it that way.

For the most part Robert, you would be correct, that is why I qualify "Humanism" with "Secular".

Secular Humanism is a secular philosophy that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects supernatural and religious dogma as the basis of morality and decision-making. Secular Humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives.

Found in the Public Domain at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

I could agree with the underlined part where the "life stance" is the Scripture and common sense but not the emboldened where the Scripture would be disallowed as a guiding principle in one's life stance.

HankD

 

[annsni]

Where would you find this in scripture?

Yeah, that???

 

[jimc06]

What in Scripture states that the creation account is to be taken literally?

There are many statements in the Bible that, when taken out of Biblical context, are wrong. Eating Jesus' flesh, the permanence of the Law (including stoning for working on the Sabbath), etc. However, when these things are taken in the context of the whole Bible's teachings, they take on meaning different than the clear teaching.

So if we look at the creation account, what other Scripture guides us to interpret it any specific way? (The other non-Genesis mentions of creation are mainly talking about something else, so the creation comment is incidental.)

 

[annsni]

What in Scripture states that the creation account is to be taken literally?

There are many statements in the Bible that, when taken out of Biblical context, are wrong. Eating Jesus' flesh, the permanence of the Law (including stoning for working on the Sabbath), etc. However, when these things are taken in the context of the whole Bible's teachings, they take on meaning different than the clear teaching.

So if we look at the creation account, what other Scripture guides us to interpret it any specific way? (The other non-Genesis mentions of creation are mainly talking about something else, so the creation comment is incidental.)

Let's see, where in the entire book of Genesis do we see an allegory? Only in the first 3 chapters? That's nonsense. In the context of the Scriptures, in the teaching of the whole of Scriptures, we see that it is historical narrative, not allegory.

 

[Darrenss1]

That doesn't mean we ought to add to it's offense unnecessarily by making it look dumb.

Astronomers can observe light through telescopes and calculate the age of the universe. Google Hugh Ross- a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian astrophysicist and study up.

I thought like you once. I know where you are coming from. You're trying to defend the Word of God but you are actually doing so by making it say things it does not say which in turn hurts it. It does not teach that the earth is only several thousand years old.

I have been a listener to Reasons to Believe for some time. The bible can support either view. Those that are young earth creationists are used to steamrolling the old earthers because they claim the bible cannot support such teachings, that is not the case. I am neither old or new earther because I know the bible can support both views. I have seen the evidence and presentation of biblical support from the old earth model and have no fear to look through the material and agree they have a good case.

Darren

 

[jimc06]

All through Scripture, when God reveals something (especially something profound) through direct revelation, He does so with great symbolism. Think about Daniel's prophecies of future historical events, the end times in Revelations, etc. This is consistent with God's statement in Num 12:6 than when He speaks through His prophets, he does so in "dark sayings". At least generally.

The creation account had to have been given to humans through revelation. Reading the rest of prophecy in the Bible, especially of cosmic events, doesn't one have to make an exception to take the creation account literally?

6 He said,
“Hear now My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.
I shall speak with him in a dream.
7 “Not so, with My servant Moses,
He is faithful in all My household;
8 With him I speak mouth to mouth,
Even openly, and not in dark sayings,
And he beholds the form of the LORD.
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against My servant, against Moses?”
Numbers 12:6–8 (NAS)