Biology amd astronomy and geology are as well established and supported sciences as chemistry and physics. If there is a conflict it is because we may not fully understands God's revelation to us. But it is a logical fallacy of the false dilemma to suggest that the only choice is that these two issues are contradictions. And
You said:
If there is a conflict it is because we may not fully understands God's revelation to us.
Allow me to rephrase that in a more truthful manner:If there is a conflict it
MAY be because we have misunderstood God's revelation to us.
What exactly is your reasoning for firmly believing it is a false interpretation of the Bible to believe that God meant he created the heavens and the earth in six literal days, divided by morning and evening, when he said he created the heavens and the earth in six days divided by morning and evening?
What is the proper interpretation of this in your opinion? Why, in the face of scientific study do you believe it improbable, but do not question the rising of Christ in the face of scientific study that makes it, also, an improbability?
How can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will take and face value and which parts you will not?
since there is no way to explain our observations of creation in a young earth paradigm, it is most logical to assume that those who insist on YE are promoting a false interpretation.
The Bible and nature present us with facts. There is a way to explain our observations of creation and based on what the Bible says it is most logical for a believer to assume that our analysis of our observations are being interpreted falsely. It is logical to start a study with what we know. The Bible is just that.
What exactly ARE YE's promoting? How can much of anything be promoted when NEPS (non-evolution persuasion studiers, or perhaps FDR's...funding deprived researchers resulting in subsequent FDR's to science...fundie deprived revelations, pronounce that fudder fudder) are all but shunned from access to research centers, the ability to publish information and findings, etc.? (I half expect creation science to be re-named the bootleg theory, with secret meetings and writings passed onto other researchers in code) What is the reasoning for this, especially when it involves fellow Christians? It seems only reasonable that such would deeply desire to find compatability between the Bible and science, yet those calling themselves Christian evolutionists appear to resist that attempt with everything in their power.
Why?
Second, I think your statement hinges on which groups that claim to be Christian do you actually accept as Christian. There are many Christians individually who not only accept the old earth sciences but who also directly work in them. There are also many demoninations which do not collectively see a contradiction. Maybe if you define "Christian" to only be those who agree with you...
A basic definition and expectation of those who call themselves Christian are those that believe in the Word of God as truth and in turn have dedicated their lives to the attempt to tell others of Christ, both through their words and through their everyday lives manifesting the love of Christ that others may see it and desire it.
I don't find it strange that one would question interpretations and meaning of scriptures, neither do I believe that all evolutionists are unsaved. However, I seriously question their intentions as I have yet to meet an evolutionist who attempts to prove himself wrong despite Biblical evidences contrary to the evolutionist beliefs. Many admit that they believe the scriptures aren't interpreted correctly, none have given a logical and reasonable explanation of the correct interpretation.
I honestly cannot understand believing in one scientific impossibility and discarding the next when both have equal contraindications!
On evolution in schools you stated:
It is in most textbooks but the attention paid to it is scant. It is not taught in the same vein as chemistry or physics. How much time do you think is devoted to it? A few days in most schools? A week or two at most? It should get several weeks! Maybe even a whole quarter. It is THE theory that is the basis for evrything in biology! A biology course that glosses over the subject is not doing its students a favor. And you see the intimidation factor at work. Most teachers and school boards put as little spotlight as possible on the subject. Most states do not even have mandated teaching of human evolution as part of their curriculum.
The HORROR!
Does it need to be taught so outright when it is so embedded in everything else? Where it is not outright announced it is implied. Young children grow up with storybooks, television shows, magazines, and books that confidently teach the evolution of man, of animals, of formations that occurred millions of years ago. They go to school and it is reinforced in their history, science, biology, and even math books. They follow up at universities where any other theory is treated as childhood whimsy or country bumpkin amusements.
Public schools should not be teaching religious concepts. Period! They should stick to the science.
I'm stunned to hear this from a fellow believer. How can you separate our "religion" from fact? It is not only spiritual, the belief system of the Christian assumes...no,
requires application also to the physical. It permeates every part of our lives, unable to be separated from any aspect of it. Evolution itself is most often associated with atheism. I could just as justifiably say that it is a "religious" belief that has no place in our public schools.
Having said that, I think if you look around you will find that there are a number of teachers who have taken it upon themselves to teach YE anyhow. And if you go to a private school, you should be able to pick out whatever curriculum of which you approve.
There is a grain of truth to that. Much of it depends on what part of the country you are in, and is often not without it's consequences and is rarely taught with anymore specifics and certainly most often with more vagueness than is evolution.
That is a supernatural event that we all, as Christians, take on faith. We would not expect nor want to find any sort of support for this. It is better to have faith in things unseen.
Already addressed, but as for faith in things unseen, there is just as much observed and studied in the medical field, with much more accurate and provable theories, than is seen for evidences of evolution. If one must start with science, as you have implied, then one must admit that there is even less evidence and possibility of the resurrection than there is (in your opinion) of a six day creation.
What made you choose to have faith in one and doubt for the other?
God has given us His own Creation to examine. That makes it a different situation. How God created is written into the creation itself. There are certain things that would be expected if the earth were young and other things that would be expected if the earth were old. It tells us that He used long periods to create. We see nothing that would be expected solely in a young earth. A young earth interpretation is completely at odds with creation iteself and cannot be true. Those that disagree should produce a coherent theory to explain the observations we see. They have not. And cannot.
We also have humans and death to examine. How does it make it a different situation?
How God created is written into the Bible, what God created is seen in nature. We have yet to figure out the details, but research, despite attempts of evolutionists to curtail it, has and is being done. I'm sure you are more than aware of the work that is being done, as you have been involved in discussions with those attempting to defend creation over evolution, even on this board.
You are again seeking to compare two incomparible items and set up a dilemma that does not exist.
Explain why it isn't a dilemma. If I have a problem reconciling your take on things and am in need of an explanation, it is indeed a dilemma.
On the trustworthiness of the Bible being questioned you stated:
Another fallacy. Saying that I disagree with you is completely different that asserting that the Bible itself is not trustworthy.
How can it be trustworthy if it makes a plain and simple statement about creation that is not true or able to be interpreted? How do we know what else is being interpreted wrong or what we should question? Illogical and unexplainable events happen throughout it, yet we accept them mostly without question.
tachyons
I am really not sure what you are talking about here.
Inflation theory predicted many of the details that we see in the cosmic microwave background. So it handles it quite well.
Since you deny inflation, on what basis do you explain the observations of the CMB? What kinds of predictions can you make about what else will be found? Inflation makes some specific predictions about what effect we should see in the CMB due to gravitational waves when our ability to measure the CMB becomes good enough. What does your theory predict we should find with relation to gravitational waves and the CMB?
What "flat world?"
And the tachyon thing, what is that? Is this supposed to be an alternate explanation for the CMB? I am not sure what you are driving at?
I had meant to link the word to a page and then reference it with another which I ended up not being able to find at that moment, must have forgotten to delete the word when I erased the end of the post. Sorry.
Inflation is an assumption based on assumptions that make the CMB fit into the theory of evolution. CMB and the stretching of the heavens go hand in hand, while inflation will have the universe eventually collapsing. As far as predictions I have none but simply watch with interest as it all unfolds.
Flat/o=1
[/quote]A final question. Or set of questions. You avoided accounting for the geological and biological items I alluded to. Do you think that these observations are accurate?
If they are not, what is wrong with the observations?
If they are accurate, do you have an alternative theory as to why these observations are as we see them that best fits a young earth? [/quote]
The problems with radiometric dating and geological explanations in light of Bible age catastrophes have been discussed on here ad nauseum to no avail.
If there is no such theory that accounts for these observations, do you then suppose that God made the earth recently, but made it look exactly like evolution had happened, and that the earth was subject to billions of years of geological processes and that inflation ws the dominant force in the appearance of the universe?
How do you know what evolution looks like verses an instant creation? Forgive me if you got together with Linde and tested this out in your lab and now know, but I'm assuming you haven't. What do you compare data to for accuracy in dating procedures?
Do you think that all of the scientists that research these issues are so incompetent in their own fields that non-experts are able to easily point out the flaws yet they do not see them themselves?
By no means do I find them incompetent, although I do believe they may be persuaded to some degree by such issues as non-belief, the direction of funding, and a reluctance to think outside the box of evolution and be ridiculed, and possibly have their life's work reduced to a joke once they come out of the box.
Or do you think that all these guys know that what they do is not true but we have a great conspiracy going on, including many Christians that are scientists?
What is the goal of all these scientists, including the Christians, if you think they are part of some grand conspiracy?
I do not believe it is a secret conspiracy. What we are seeing is the result of man's attempt to elevate himself, to gain knowledge that comes from the mind instead of the Word. Even the best of Christians can fall victim to this temptation.
Also, you need to explain your interpretation of what defines a Christian. I'm beginning to think we may have a bit of disagreement on that issue.
If they are just wrong, why do you think that non-experts are better at figuring this out than the people who have actually collected the data and looked at the data and that have the background to understand it?
Define expert.
IMO anyone who starts and ends their study with the evidences and statements given to us in the Bible will be better at figuring out most anything. I do not see evolutionists doing that. Please do explain how evolution is compatible with the Bible.
PS: Apologies for my terribly off sense of humor.
