[__ Science __ ] SCIENCE HATES CHRISTIANITY?

[Barbarian]

BTW, do you have any articles on the eyes being formed before mammels?

Yes. It's pretty technical, but here's one that's frequently cited:

Abstract​

Eye evolution is driven by the evolution of visually guided behavior. Accumulation of gradually more demanding behaviors have continuously increased the performance requirements on the photoreceptor organs. Starting with nondirectional photoreception, I argue for an evolutionary sequence continuing with directional photoreception, low-resolution vision, and finally, high-resolution vision. Calculations of the physical requirements for these four sensory tasks show that they correlate with major innovations in eye evolution and thus work as a relevant classification for a functional analysis of eye evolution. Together with existing molecular and morphological data, the functional analysis suggests that urbilateria had a simple set of rhabdomeric and ciliary receptors used for directional photoreception, and that organ duplications, positional shifts and functional shifts account for the diverse patterns of eyes and photoreceptors seen in extant animals. The analysis also suggests that directional photoreception evolved independently at least twice before the last common ancestor of bilateria and proceeded several times independently to true vision in different bilaterian and cnidarian groups. This scenario is compatible with Pax-gene expression in eye development in the different animal groups. The whole process from the first opsin to high-resolution vision took about 170 million years and was largely completed by the onset of the Cambrian, about 530 million years ago. Evolution from shadow detectors to multiple directional photoreceptors has further led to secondary cases of eye evolution in bivalves, fan worms, and chitons.

Eye evolution and its functional basis

Eye evolution is driven by the evolution of visually guided behavior. Accumulation of gradually more demanding behaviors have continuously increased the performance requirements on the photoreceptor organs. Starting with nondirectional photoreception, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And this:

Abstract ​

Theoretical considerations of eye design allow us to find routes along which the optical structures of eyes may have evolved. If selection constantly favours an increase in the amount of detectable spatial information, a light-sensitive patch will gradually turn into a focused lens eye through continuous small improvements of design. An upper limit for the number of generations required for the complete transformation can be calculated with a minimum of assumptions. Even with a consistently pessimistic approach the time required becomes amazingly short: only a few hundred thousand years.

A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve - PubMed

Theoretical considerations of eye design allow us to find routes along which the optical structures of eyes may have evolved. If selection constantly favours an increase in the amount of detectable spatial information, a light-sensitive patch will gradually turn into a focused lens eye through...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Barbarian]

The interesting thing is, eyes seem to have evolved separately in several groups, but the same Pax genes were involved each time.

 

[Barbarian]

This is the part I have trouble accepting.
Can we even imagine how long that would take?
Millions of years?

It can happen in one generation. A new species of plant was observed to evolve in a single generation by a polyploidy mutation. Normally, it seems to happen in a few thousand years. Most often, a small population gets isolated in a challenging environment, and in those conditions, natural selection works quickly. This "allopatric" speciation seems to be the norm, something Eldridge and Gould pointed out, in their theory of punctuated equilibrium. Speciation seems to usually (but not always; Gould points out a number of exceptions) happen in a relatively short time, followed by a long period of stasis.

The apple maggot fly evolved within about 200 years, but it's not quite completely unfertile with hawthorn maggot flies yet. Still, pretty fast.

 

[Barbarian]

This is the part I have trouble accepting.
Can we even imagine how long that would take?
Millions of years?
And why is this not seen in the earth's crust?

It is. Even many YE creationists admit that it is:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27(between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals,and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series— has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series,etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.
Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

 

[miamited]

There have been many great scientists and thinkers who believe in God, are Christians, etc.

Hi JT4444

I would agree with that, but I think the one's that are making the claims that the OP is making... aren't'.

God bless,
Ted

 

[GodsGrace]

Barbarian
Uncle J


I'd like to agree with Barbarian when he says that evolution and the belief or the denial of thereof, has nothing to do with one's belief in God. After all, God can create and do whatever He wishes to do.

In fact, the CC teaches this....on the matter of evolution there is no church doctrine/teaching.

But we were discussing evolution and, needless to say, I'm no scholar and find it difficult to express what is in my thoughts.

The following is a great YouTube video I found that describes my feelings toward evolution.
Again....I just don't understand how it could be possible.

One of the scientists in the video, I believe Behe, is a biologist.
Meyers states what I was trying to say.

Start at about 3:00-------> They also discuss the mathematical problem and the biological info.

 

[Uncle J]

The following is a great YouTube video I found that describes my feelings toward evolution.
Again....I just don't understand how it could be possible.

I showed you earlier how evolution of new traits, genetic sequences, and species are all things we've directly observed and studied many, many times. So it's simply a fact.

One of the scientists in the video, I believe Behe, is a biologist.
Meyers states what I was trying to say.

Start at about 3:00-------> They also discuss the mathematical problem and the biological info.

Sorry, I'm not going to watch an hour+ long creationist video. I'm betting it's just a rehash of very old creationist arguments that have been done to death.

These days, I usually tell creationists to go to this page: https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

If you see the argument you're about to make in that index, unless you've got a new spin on it or something else significant, don't bother. Notice that the date on the index is 2006, which means all those creationist arguments were stale and old 18 years ago. They didn't go anywhere or accomplish anything then, so it's extremely unlikely repeating them now will change that.

 

[Barbarian]

Meyer seems to be completely unaware of the Edicaran fauna that preceded the Cambrian, including many forms that look like primitive versions of Cambrian forms. He's completely wrong about mammals, which have a long, long trail of mammal-like reptiles preceding true mammals, and showing gradual change from therapids to mammals.

Even Gould, who emphasized punctuated equilibrium and sudden appearance of many forms, cited horses, ammonites, and forams as having long histories of gradual evolution in the fossil record. YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise readily admits that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to
accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

And since bacteriologist Barry Hall directly observed the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex system, Behe's claim falls apart by a counter-example. We can talk about that, if you like.

BTW, a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex. The bait platform, for example can be removed and it will still work and catch mice.

Meyers makes the astonishing claim that new mutations can't produce new information. In fact, every mutation increases information in a population. Would you like to see the math for a simple hypothetical example? I can only surmise that Meyers does not know how information is calculated for systems. He also makes the claim that things can't evolve, and when challenged, declares that he can't prove a negative. So, apparently, he wants us to just accept it as a given.

Not an auspicious beginning for their You Tube show. I'd be pleased to show evidence for anything I left out here.

 

[miamited]

This is the point where I would direct you to read psalm1. The very first instructions that the psalmist gives us is about carrying on with the wicked. Now, I'm not saying that Uncle J is wicked by human standards, but God's word says that all those who don't believe are a part of the wicked, when He speaks of us living on the earth.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Uncle J]

Meyer seems to be completely unaware of the Edicaran fauna that preceded the Cambrian, including many forms that look like primitive versions of Cambrian forms. He's completely wrong about mammals, which have a long, long trail of mammal-like reptiles preceding true mammals, and showing gradual change from therapids to mammals.

Even Gould, who emphasized punctuated equilibrium and sudden appearance of many forms, cited horses, ammonites, and forams as having long histories of gradual evolution in the fossil record. YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise readily admits that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to
accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

And since bacteriologist Barry Hall directly observed the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex system, Behe's claim falls apart by a counter-example. We can talk about that, if you like.

BTW, a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex. The bait platform, for example can be removed and it will still work and catch mice.

Meyers makes the astonishing claim that new mutations can't produce new information. In fact, every mutation increases information in a population. Would you like to see the math for a simple hypothetical example? I can only surmise that Meyers does not know how information is calculated for systems. He also makes the claim that things can't evolve, and when challenged, declares that he can't prove a negative. So, apparently, he wants us to just accept it as a given.

Not an auspicious beginning for their You Tube show. I'd be pleased to show evidence for anything I left out here.

Just as I suspected.....the same old tropes they were trotting out decades ago.

 

[Uncle J]

This is the point where I would direct you to read psalm1. The very first instructions that the psalmist gives us is about carrying on with the wicked. Now, I'm not saying that Uncle J is wicked by human standards, but God's word says that all those who don't believe are a part of the wicked, when He speaks of us living on the earth.

God bless,
Ted

Plus, it's probably not a good idea to take on Barbarian in a debate over evolution.

 

[miamited]

Hi Uncle J

Plus, it's probably not a good idea to take on Barbarian in a debate over evolution.

I don't usually do a lot of debating, but I'll speak the truth to anyone who asks. I don't actually see it as taking on. I just know that the theory of evolution is based on formulary givens that we don't know if they really were given at the moment of creation.

As an example. One of the greatest arguments for a long earth history is the light cast by stars. Science has proven that light travels at a certain speed. Based on that 'given' we understand that the universe must be x number of years old because we can see that star out there that we know to be thousands, millions of lightyears away. But we don't have any way of scientifically testing how things operated when God was doing the setting up of this realm of creation.

It's possible that just like, if one believes the accounts of the Scriptures, that God got that shadow to move backward on that set of stairs in Israel. Something that Barbarian will likely tell you is impossible. But God's word says He did it and I believe it. God's word says that He parted a sea. And we're talking here about a fairly deep body of water. God's word says that there was water standing as a wall on both sides of them. Barbarian will tell me that's impossible because every scientist worth his salt knows that water seeks level and it's impossible for it to just split down the middle. But God's word says that He was able to do it.

So, I don't have a bit of a problem agreeing that, yes, light travels at x speed as we test it today. But the God of creation holds the power of light in His hands. If He wants to fill the heavens with stars and make their light immediately available to Adam who would soon be walking on the earth, I believe that the God who can make shadows go backwards and the God who can make the sun stand still in the sky...It's no problem for Him, in that moment of creation to stretch the light from the star to the earth and then light began traveling at x speed as we observe today.

You see, God's word says that the stars and the sun and moon are there for our benefit. They mark off seasons and by them we are able to navigate the earth. I believe, therefore that He wanted them to be visible to Adam and his generations. So, I'm of a mind that all this extrapolation that we do by taking facts that we know to be true in the natural order of things today, may well have not been in place as God was building this realm of His creating. I believe that God has done all that He says exactly as He says that He has done it. We humans just don't want to believe it because we've proven Him wrong.

The other option for this particular issue is that we don't understand what God is meaning to say. But I think God's testimony to us is written to us that we might know. He knows that we really do understand what a day is when He writes to us about it taking a day to complete a certain task.

But that takes faith. Even more now that science is telling us that the creation account, as given by God can't be true. I choose to stand with God's testimony and I know, yeah, I know that He was the only one there to witness His work in building this realm in which we exist that God has made for us. That's His real overall testimony to us in the creation account. "I did this for you because I created you and I love you and want to have a relationship with you." Why would He lie to me?

But each is free to believe what they will. My task is just to tell them about Jesus. If they believe, baptize them. Then we can talk about all those other issues that are in God's testimony to us as we teach them all that Jesus has commanded us. It's like the old horse truism. You can lead a horse to water. You can take him by the mane and walk him down to the pond and you can try to force his muzzle down into the water. But you can't make him drink. He has to want to do that himself.

Further, for the believer, it becomes the same argument that Satan used with Eve. Did God really say? And so we discuss and debate what a day is, but yes, God really said a day.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Uncle J]

Hi Uncle J



I don't usually do a lot of debating, but I'll speak the truth to anyone who asks. I don't actually see it as taking on. I just know that the theory of evolution is based on formulary givens that we don't know if they really were given at the moment of creation.

As an example. One of the greatest arguments for a long earth history is the light cast by stars. Science has proven that light travels at a certain speed. Based on that 'given' we understand that the universe must be x number of years old because we can see that star out there that we know to be thousands, millions of lightyears away. But we don't have any way of scientifically testing how things operated when God was doing the setting up of this realm of creation.

It's possible that just like, if one believes the accounts of the Scriptures, that God got that shadow to move backward on that set of stairs in Israel. Something that Barbarian will likely tell you is impossible. But God's word says He did it and I believe it. God's word says that He parted a sea. And we're talking here about a fairly deep body of water. God's word says that there was water standing as a wall on both sides of them. Barbarian will tell me that's impossible because every scientist worth his salt knows that water seeks level and it's impossible for it to just split down the middle. But God's word says that He was able to do it.

So, I don't have a bit of a problem agreeing that, yes, light travels at x speed as we test it today. But the God of creation holds the power of light in His hands. If He wants to fill the heavens with stars and make their light immediately available to Adam who would soon be walking on the earth, I believe that the God who can make shadows go backwards and the God who can make the sun stand still in the sky...It's no problem for Him, in that moment of creation to stretch the light from the star to the earth and then light began traveling at x speed as we observe today.

You see, God's word says that the stars and the sun and moon are there for our benefit. They mark off seasons and by them we are able to navigate the earth. I believe, therefore that He wanted them to be visible to Adam and his generations. So, I'm of a mind that all this extrapolation that we do by taking facts that we know to be true in the natural order of things today, may well have not been in place as God was building this realm of His creating. I believe that God has done all that He says exactly as He says that He has done it. We humans just don't want to believe it because we've proven Him wrong.

The other option for this particular issue is that we don't understand what God is meaning to say. But I think God's testimony to us is written to us that we might know. He knows that we really do understand what a day is when He writes to us about it taking a day to complete a certain task.

But that takes faith. Even more now that science is telling us that the creation account, as given by God can't be true. I choose to stand with God's testimony and I know, yeah, I know that He was the only one there to witness His work in building this realm in which we exist that God has made for us. That's His real overall testimony to us in the creation account. "I did this for you because I created you and I love you and want to have a relationship with you." Why would He lie to me?

But each is free to believe what they will. My task is just to tell them about Jesus. If they believe, baptize them. Then we can talk about all those other issues that are in God's testimony to us as we teach them all that Jesus has commanded us. It's like the old horse truism. You can lead a horse to water. You can take him by the mane and walk him down to the pond and you can try to force his muzzle down into the water. But you can't make him drink. He has to want to do that himself.

Further, for the believer, it becomes the same argument that Satan used with Eve. Did God really say? And so we discuss and debate what a day is, but yes, God really said a day.

God bless,
Ted

I get where you're coming from, but my view on gods creating things one way, but making them seem like they came about another way is deceptive. For example, some of the things we see in the distant galaxy aren't just "things", they are events like supernovae. Why would a god create starlight depicting a supernova in such a way that it looks like it's really, really far away and took place a very long time ago, when in reality it never actually happened?

It's much more parsimonious to conclude that things simply are they way they appear.

 

[1pet2_9]

Back to the OP, I have been in science my whole career, and I can safely say that no, science does not hate Christianity. Science is agnostic. It all goes back to the scientific method: Hypothesis. Experiment. Make conclusion. God's existence does not neatly fit into that method. In fact, you will hear scientists readily say that religion has its place, and that science has theirs.

In fact, history has proven that some of the people who hate science the most are the "Christian" hypocrites. Look what happened to Copernicus and Galileo. William Tyndale. Covid vaccine deniers.

 

[miamited]

Hi Uncle J

I get where you're coming from, but my view on gods creating things one way, but making them seem like they came about another way is deceptive. For example, some of the things we see in the distant galaxy aren't just "things", they are events like supernovae. Why would a god create starlight depicting a supernova in such a way that it looks like it's really, really far away and took place a very long time ago, when in reality it never actually happened?

I get that. And I was once a believer in the exact same thing!!! I was raised in the 60-70's when all these things were taught. I once also believed that the creation has existed for trillions and trillions and trillions of years. But then I read the Scriptures and began asking why, and what does God say about the answer to such questions.

Like, why would the creation just sit around for all that time without man in it? According to the Scriptures, that was His sole purpose for creating. I mean, and yes, this is for those who believe and you would have to come to grips with that in your life, but there are some pretty substantial 'rewards' for doing that, but it has to be a personal choice about what you want to believe is the answer to the Question: How did we get here? For those who believe God's word, and as we've discussed, my beginning belief in God came when I really studied those prophecies which convinced me that there is a God. That it would seem, based on those fulfilled prophecies, that He does know the end from the beginning. So why would the creation of planets and stars and all of that just sit there for billions of years, as we understand time, before this God was able to, or chose to complete the project, and then turn around and tell us that it didn't take that time.

But yes, one must believe of the Scriptures that they are true.

As to your query about it seeming somehow devious that the account in the Scriptures can be true, and yet the wisdom of man can seemingly prove it wrong? I contend that it isn't God lying to us. It isn't God attempting to deceive us. He merely made things as they are and we look at them and figure out ways that their physical make-up somehow points to the truth... but it doesn't, and certainly not by any intent of God. It's just how God made things. He didn't intend for us to look at everything that He made and try to determine when it was made. Although I'm sure He did know that we would. He made the things that He made for the purposes for which they serve, to provide a place for mankind to live, and how those elemental forces break down and operate is not something that we are wise enough to figure out, and so He has told us.

For the believer, the creation event is a miracle. However, among the believers there is some strong disagreement as to whether that miracle was exactly as God has said, or whether there is some hidden meaning about it that we just don't understand. But that's not on God!!~!!!!! That's on us!!!!!! God has told us the truth, but men have devised ways to deny it. And that has been adopted by many in the church. I'd honestly say a fairly large majority these days. That doesn't make it true, though. It's really terribly simple, when you break it down to its working parts.

God created. Man looks at what God has created and then comes up with a bunch of theories about how he did it. That's not on God, but man then turns around and says, "Well, if God did it like He said He did, then He's a liar because we can't figure that out. The best we can do is say that it's been here for billions of years and here's why we say that..." That's why I say, when scientists can tell me 'how' God did the seemingly much simpler miracles of parting a sea or turning back the shadow of the sun... then I'll look into whether or not they can answer the greatest miracle of creation that we have to date.

And friend, I don't condemn you. But my prayer is that one day you will understand that promise that God has given us. I enjoy sharing with you and as I've said you seem like a perfectly reasonable person. That's one of the reasons that I got into this discussion with you. But yes, I understand that there has to be a desire to seek for God and my prayer is that one day you will have that... again.

BTW, while I'm sure there'll be some disagreement as to what this particular passage says, Paul does warn us of this knowledge. He writes to the Galatian believers:
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ."

Now depending on translation, this verse seems to point to this hollow philosophy (learning/study) that depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces is something that we should be on the watch for. And many accept those forces as being strictly spiritual and not applicable to philosophies of what we learn. But various translations put the onus on rather the elemental properties of the earth.

For example the Holman version:
Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ.

The KJV:
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

So, I believe that Paul is warning us of our being taught things that are merely based on how the world looks in its physical elemental properties rather than understanding that Christ made this!!! He made it all!!!!!

But, as I say, it's a debatable point even among the church.

Why would a god create starlight depicting a supernova in such a way that it looks like it's really, really far away and took place a very long time ago, when in reality it never actually happened?

Who says it never happened? I've never said that. My contention has always been that this idea that our being able to see what's out there is based on merely the speed of light. That supernova is out there! It was out there on the day that God created everything else in the universe. And you see it today for the same reason that Adam saw it. When God created all the heavenly bodies, the purpose was to declare to us, His power and glory. His majesty and wisdom. How much awesomely greater He is than us...but he loves us. So, when He spoke the stars in the universe to exist, I contend that He made them visible to man immediately upon their creation. Now, 'how' He did that will be answered when we know 'how' He parted that sea! God is the God of miracles. And lowly unwise little man, isn't ever going to be able to understand the mechanical workings of how God creates. We just believe, although I hate to relate it in such a human way, that it is akin to a magician pulling a rabbit from his hat. It's pretty instantaneous, although yes, the magician didn't also make the rabbit in that moment. God says He did.

So, that super nova is out there. How you got to see it in the span of the 6,000 years or so of God's account, is all on God. And science can't accept any of that because it's not something you can prove. In our feeble attempts to know God, there's no way that a man can prove the things that He does. But yes, you have to believe in the God of the Scriptures to even begin to think that way.

And please, again. They don't do it with intent to deceive. It's not something, just as pharoah didn't know that at some point God wasn't allowing him to let the people go, that we are aware of in any way within our own mind or spirit is not true. We absolutely believe that it is. But the sad part about deception, before its revealed, is that people don't see it. When a thief deceives you and has you follow him somewhere where he's set to rob you, you don't willingly go with him expecting that purpose. He has told you something. You believe him. And you go. Later finding out that it was all a lie, but it's too late. We're just talking that scenario as it applies on a cosmic scale.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Who Me]

In fact, history has proven that some of the people who hate science the most are the "Christian" hypocrites. Look what happened to Copernicus and Galileo. William Tyndale

Interesting that the actual attacks on Copernicus and Gallieo where from the universities who taught platonic astronomical ideas.
Yes protestant theologians object strongly to what they believed to be false ideas, there is nothing new or unusual in that.
William Tyndale died because he disobeyed rhe rcc' dictate that the Bible be only in Latin.

 

[GodsGrace]

Back to the OP, I have been in science my whole career, and I can safely say that no, science does not hate Christianity. Science is agnostic. It all goes back to the scientific method: Hypothesis. Experiment. Make conclusion. God's existence does not neatly fit into that method. In fact, you will hear scientists readily say that religion has its place, and that science has theirs.

In fact, history has proven that some of the people who hate science the most are the "Christian" hypocrites. Look what happened to Copernicus and Galileo. William Tyndale. Covid vaccine deniers.

I agree.
My problem is with all these famous atheists.
WHY are they so intent on killing religion/God?
It's as if they're afraid of it and not just trying to explain that God has nothing to do with dismantling science.

Why must it be GOD OR SCIENCE?
Why can't it be both?

 

[miamited]

Hi GodsGrace

Why must it be GOD OR SCIENCE?
Why can't it be both?

Uhh, because for many they don't agree. God's word depicts a relatively short time of existence if His explanation of the beginning is true. If it is, then all other accounts trying to explain the actual time it took God to create this realm are wrong. I think that's a pretty simple thing to see. So, if God's word is telling us the truth. That He knows what we understand as a day, and He fully intended to convey to us that period of time as a day, but we don't want to believe that it's defined as the simple day of one evening and one morning that He tells us, then we can't be in agreement.

Science and God are fine for figuring out what's the best way to pop popcorn or develop medicines, or build buildings and bridges with understanding of all the forces that currently apply to those endeavors. But when we get down to the 'how did we get here to be living on the earth in the year we know as 2024', there has to be a truth to that. There must be an answer in the reality of life that does tell us the truth about how we got to this point.

Science says it took trillions of years. God's word seems to tell that it's only been about 6,000 years since Adam lived and, again believing God's testimony, that this created realm only started 6 days before that. Literally twice in the law, some 2,000 years after the creation event, on a mountain top in the land of wilderness just north/east of Egypt, God wrote with His own hand that in 6 days He created the heavens and the earth.

Now, let's get the picture. This is a couple of dozen centuries or so that man has wandered upon the earth. They have a language and God seems to have given them all of His testimony of Himself in their language. Why would God not then say that we should honor the Shabbat because in 6,000 days He had made the heavens and the earth? Or 6 million or 6 trillion? Why would God tell a people in writing with His own hand, some several hundred years after the creation when everyone would know what a day is, that in 6 days He created this realm?

Why would God do that to you? Does He not love you? Does He not care that you know the truth and He's not just making up some Aesop's fable in His testimony of 'how' we got here?

Pray on it, if the truth is what you seek. Ask God in sincere prayer to give you wisdom regarding the matter. To pour into you by His Spirit the truth that His Son said the Spirit would bring to us. Ask the Spirit. I often in my prayers concerning learning the Scriptures make my plea directly to the Holy Spirit himself, because Jesus said that he's the one that would bring to us all truth. So I ask him. And this is where I find myself. Am I deceived because science has proven me wrong? Not according to any wisdom that the Spirit has given me. I haven't yet, since taking on this understanding of this realm in which we live, never had an encouragement in my spirit, by the Spirit, pushing me to feel that I don't understand this matter.

So, I do believe that the word of God is literally true in this matter. Just as I believe that the word of God is literally true in its account of a great flood, and the deaths of thousands in one night in Egypt, and the parting of a sea, and the turning back of the sun and the standing still of the sun. I understand that God is powerful and majestic enough to do these things with the ease of just thinking them to be. And I understand that the very meaning of a miracle is something that happens that we can't explain. If God did create this realm by merely His fiat command... that's a miracle! We can't explain it. But it doesn't stop us from trying to.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Uncle J]

Like, why would the creation just sit around for all that time without man in it?

That's similar to how I saw the Biblical timeline. God lets things be one way for thousands of years, then changes his mind so then it's a different way for thousands of years, only to then (thousands of years later) finally fix it all. Makes no sense.

As to your query about it seeming somehow devious that the account in the Scriptures can be true, and yet the wisdom of man can seemingly prove it wrong?

That's kind of the thing about science....religious beliefs don't enter into the equation, so if scientific conclusions conflict with someone's religious beliefs, oh well, that's their problem. Just as archaeologists don't feel compelled to force N. American history to match Mormon beliefs, other scientists don't feel compelled to force their work to match Christian beliefs.

I contend that it isn't God lying to us. It isn't God attempting to deceive us.

Making things one way, but doing so in a manner that makes it look like they came about another way is inherently deceitful.

He didn't intend for us to look at everything that He made and try to determine when it was made.

That sort of mindset is an instant turnoff for me. Any faith that says "God didn't want us to study that" isn't for me.

Although I'm sure He did know that we would.

So this God knew we would study the universe and, because of the way he made it look, reach inaccurate conclusions? That makes zero sense.

He made the things that He made for the purposes for which they serve, to provide a place for mankind to live, and how those elemental forces break down and operate is not something that we are wise enough to figure out, and so He has told us.

To me, that is decidedly anti-knowledge and again, an instant turnoff.

For the believer, the creation event is a miracle. However, among the believers there is some strong disagreement as to whether that miracle was exactly as God has said, or whether there is some hidden meaning about it that we just don't understand. But that's not on God!!~!!!!! That's on us!!!!!! God has told us the truth, but men have devised ways to deny it. And that has been adopted by many in the church. I'd honestly say a fairly large majority these days. That doesn't make it true, though. It's really terribly simple, when you break it down to its working parts.

God created. Man looks at what God has created and then comes up with a bunch of theories about how he did it. That's not on God, but man then turns around and says, "Well, if God did it like He said He did, then He's a liar because we can't figure that out. The best we can do is say that it's been here for billions of years and here's why we say that..." That's why I say, when scientists can tell me 'how' God did the seemingly much simpler miracles of parting a sea or turning back the shadow of the sun... then I'll look into whether or not they can answer the greatest miracle of creation that we have to date.

That's for y'all to figure out amongst yourselves and is something Barbarian is better at discussing.

BTW, while I'm sure there'll be some disagreement as to what this particular passage says, Paul does warn us of this knowledge. He writes to the Galatian believers:
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ."

Now depending on translation, this verse seems to point to this hollow philosophy (learning/study) that depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces is something that we should be on the watch for. And many accept those forces as being strictly spiritual and not applicable to philosophies of what we learn. But various translations put the onus on rather the elemental properties of the earth.

For example the Holman version:
Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ.

The KJV:
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

So, I believe that Paul is warning us of our being taught things that are merely based on how the world looks in its physical elemental properties rather than understanding that Christ made this!!! He made it all!!!!!

But, as I say, it's a debatable point even among the church.

Again, that's for Bible-believers to figure out.

Who says it never happened? I've never said that.

Many celestial events take very, very long times to occur. Add in the time it takes for the light showing those events to get to earth, and there's no way for it all to happen in a YEC timeframe......unless a deceptive God made it all look like it took extremely long, when he actually did it instantaneously.

My contention has always been that this idea that our being able to see what's out there is based on merely the speed of light. That supernova is out there! It was out there on the day that God created everything else in the universe. And you see it today for the same reason that Adam saw it. When God created all the heavenly bodies, the purpose was to declare to us, His power and glory. His majesty and wisdom. How much awesomely greater He is than us...but he loves us. So, when He spoke the stars in the universe to exist, I contend that He made them visible to man immediately upon their creation. Now, 'how' He did that will be answered when we know 'how' He parted that sea! God is the God of miracles. And lowly unwise little man, isn't ever going to be able to understand the mechanical workings of how God creates. We just believe, although I hate to relate it in such a human way, that it is akin to a magician pulling a rabbit from his hat. It's pretty instantaneous, although yes, the magician didn't also make the rabbit in that moment. God says He did.

And all that is deceptive. A magician is deceiving you as well. He didn't really make a rabbit appear out of thin air, it was just a trick/illusion. A god doing the same with the universe is just as deceptive.

But yes, you have to believe in the God of the Scriptures to even begin to think that way.

That was another issue I had with Christianity. Too many times I was told that I had to believe it first, and then it would make sense to me. Of course my standard answer to that is, why should I only do that with Christianity? Maybe I should believe Mormonism first? Or Hinduism?

I actually asked a pastor once (after he gave me the "believe it first" line) if he'd ever done that with another religion. Had he ever tried believing in Islam first to see if it would start to make sense? He actually got kind of angry with me.

And please, again. They don't do it with intent to deceive. It's not something, just as pharoah didn't know that at some point God wasn't allowing him to let the people go, that we are aware of in any way within our own mind or spirit is not true. We absolutely believe that it is. But the sad part about deception, before its revealed, is that people don't see it. When a thief deceives you and has you follow him somewhere where he's set to rob you, you don't willingly go with him expecting that purpose. He has told you something. You believe him. And you go. Later finding out that it was all a lie, but it's too late. We're just talking that scenario as it applies on a cosmic scale.

And that's what young-earth creationism forces one to do....land on "it's all a lie" approach to science. I don't know if you're aware, but that sort of anti-science approach has been a factor in driving young people away from the faith.

 

[Uncle J]

Interesting that the actual attacks on Copernicus and Gallieo where from the universities who taught platonic astronomical ideas.
Yes protestant theologians object strongly to what they believed to be false ideas, there is nothing new or unusual in that.
William Tyndale died because he disobeyed rhe rcc' dictate that the Bible be only in Latin.

Galileo was charged with heresy by the Catholic Church.