first i just wanted to say thank you very much for inviting me here. i hadn't really known of this guild before and it's nice to be able to have christian opinions on things. so thanks very much!
hi everyone, i have a question. i went to the creation apologetics forum and viewed some of the topics there, and i viewed some more topics around this guild as well. i have to ask, especially when it comes to creation and science-type things, why is it so important to focus on the things that we are not sure of (whether in the bible or in science)? why do christians allow these ideas to divide them from other christians and from the non-christian community? is not personally knowing jesus christ as your saviour the single most important thing? why do we care to argue about how old the world might be or might not be, and whether reptiles came before birds or not? i mean... i don't think it's important, it doesn't mean that god loves you any less...at least i would hope not. i'm a science student, i study geology. if i accepted creationism fully, i wouldn't be able to do something i really love (geology). if i accepted science fully, i wouldn't be able to love or desire god. i've had to compromise to be able to have both and it's led to fewer conflicts with other christians and other scientists too, as well as fewer internal conflicts within myself. well, i don't go to church it's true, but it's more because i have other conflicting personal (family) issues that i'm trying to get over and i think i will be able to take steps in the right direction soon. anyway, just wanted to know your opinions. thank you y que dios te bendiga.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2014 1:23 pm
Athelius
hi everyone, i have a question. i went to the creation apologetics forum and viewed some of the topics there, and i viewed some more topics around this guild as well. i have to ask, especially when it comes to creation and science-type things, why is it so important to focus on the things that we are not sure of (whether in the bible or in science)? why do christians allow these ideas to divide them from other christians and from the non-christian community? is not personally knowing jesus christ as your saviour the single most important thing? why do we care to argue about how old the world might be or might not be, and whether reptiles came before birds or not? i mean... i don't think it's important, it doesn't mean that god loves you any less...at least i would hope not. i'm a science student, i study geology. if i accepted creationism fully, i wouldn't be able to do something i really love (geology). if i accepted science fully, i wouldn't be able to love or desire god. i've had to compromise to be able to have both and it's led to fewer conflicts with other christians and other scientists too, as well as fewer internal conflicts within myself. well, i don't go to church it's true, but it's more because i have other conflicting personal (family) issues that i'm trying to get over and i think i will be able to take steps in the right direction soon. anyway, just wanted to know your opinions. thank you y que dios te bendiga.
It's important to focus on those areas because if the version of events presented in Genesis can't be trusted, then why should the rest of scripture be trusted: the Gospels? law? prophecy? are those accounts trustworthy? If the bible lied to you about the origin of the universe, then why trust the rest as having been information from a divine and truthful origin? especially when the rest of the scrolls/books continue relying on Genesis as the foundation for everything else?
I think pitting those two terms against one another, "science vs. creation", is very simplistic and misleading; doing so conveys that creationism isn't science or that creationism denies all forms of evolution, yet that's not the case: creationism is science (it observes, measures, experiments) and it does accept evolution, depending on what type: macroevolution? or microevolution? It accepts microevolution (speciation and mutation; like the different varieties of finches that develop); it does not accept macroevolution (one kind of animal turning into another i.e. a fish turning into a human).
The problem is this: people use the term "uniformitarianism" to imply millions of years and call that "science" when in reality, it's just an assumption, nothing observable. An assumption is a belief. At least creationists are honest and upfront about their beliefs: we weren't around to witness the origin, but we trust God's testimony about it since He created it. But those who subscribe to uniformitarianism, and read millions of years into that, are calling it a "fact" when the truth is: it too is a belief. You too weren't around to observe that; and to prove uniformitarianism right, so that it's no longer an assumption (a belief), but truth, someone would have to be around at the beginning to suggest "yes, it happened this way". We don't live that long; it can't be observed, so why are people calling it "scientific theory"? more so because they're reading millions of years into that assumption and eliminating all possibility that catastrophic events wouldn't change a thing. Why can't they just admit that it's a belief?
Quote:
Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism
Quote:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
At the end of the day, it all comes down to a choice: which set of beliefs/assumptions do I accept. If you accept uniformitarianism and millions of years, you'll go down the flavor of "evolutionary theory" taught in public schools; if you accept "catastrophism" you'll go down the evolutionary (and geologic) theories that are in line with the bible. Both use science and both have beliefs/assumptions (even if one isn't willing to admit it).
That said, we're supposed to guard God's testimony; and if God says one thing, but certain individuals say, "let's not tell people that this is in the bible" or say, "let's change the order of something here, even though the bible says otherwise", then it's no longer God's message, what He wanted communicated to mankind. Thus, division happens in the church. It's a matter of conscience and truth: we can't, out of a clean conscience, hide what God asserts to be true. It's not an area unknown to Him: He's revealing the information to us, through His prophets, telling us what the origin of the earth and the heavens/skies was like—since He was there and we weren't: He created it. We can't compromise with the world and think we're loyally keeping God's message. It's either all of God's message or none at all.
You don't have to subscribe to millions of years to be a geologist. You will be hated and ridiculed for not subscribing to the popular opinion, I'm sure, but if we truly trust God and His Word, that's the sacrifice we make. Even if it's a lifetime of ridicule, our lives really are just a breath in the grand scheme of things. So that "moment" of a life on earth, having to endure insults, people belittling and thinking less of your intelligence just because you trust the Creator of the universe and the revelation He gave us, it's not all that bad.
Hebrews 11:25 (NIV)
25 He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin.
"Sin" includes transgressing what God says is the truth: that includes going against what He said is the actual order of things, not just the proper attitudes and ways to behave. I'm not a geologist so I don't know what obstacles you'll meet if you choose that career path, but there are geologists who subscribe to catastrophism (instead of uniformitarianism). As long as you're observing and measuring, why can't you be a geologist? You don't have to believe in "millions of years" to do that. Studying uniformitarianism doesn't make you a sinner though, in case you're worried about that? It's worldly wisdom. What matters is whose wisdom you place your trust in to be your ultimate definer of truth: God's or man's? The world's wisdom will never lead to God.
1 Corinthians 1:20-21 (NIV)
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
I am a medical science student and I also understand the conflict with university teaching of evolution.
real eyes realize pointed it rightly regarding why do we need to know about the origin and about micro vs macro evolution.
I would support you in prayer and please always ask for His wisdom. I believe that you will be able to know which is best and also hopefully bringing your geology friends closer to God.
Proverbs 1:7 ESV The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge
Proverb 4:23 NIV Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:25 pm
Athelius
hi everyone, i have a question. i went to the creation apologetics forum and viewed some of the topics there, and i viewed some more topics around this guild as well.
I'm going to give this what I call the gold ol' M&R try and break up the posts. If I don't, I lose my train of thought and ramble. Well I still ramble but it won't be too jumbled up
Quote:
.i have to ask, especially when it comes to creation and science-type things, why is it so important to focus on the things that we are not sure of (whether in the bible or in science)?
I think it has to do with the human need of being right and knowing things. The problem is that a lot of people are afraid of what we don't know. And we're also too scared to admit we can be wrong, and sometimes it leads to being afraid to question.
Quote:
why do christians allow these ideas to divide them from other christians and from the non-christian community?
Another human trait is trying to fit into a group. It's that kind of messed up mob mentality or pack mentality. If you don't think like them then you're wrong or at worst evil.
Quote:
is not personally knowing jesus christ as your saviour the single most important thing?
This is a bit UPG-ish or maybe CPG I suppose. Everyone has a different way or notion to knowing Jesus. I think just accepting him as your savior is more important than anything.
Quote:
why do we care to argue about how old the world might be or might not be, and whether reptiles came before birds or not?
Because some people take the Bible to literally and confine them to their time so to speak. They forget that God in all aspects is a limitless being outside the normal bounds of time. 24 hours for us is not the same as it is for him. 24 hours could be 12,000 years if not more. (I'm assuming however I don't see time speeding up but rather slowing down.)i mean...
Quote:
i don't think it's important, it doesn't mean that god loves you any less...at least i would hope not.
It doesn't matter. It's a secondary issue and no God's not going to love you less.
Quote:
i'm a science student, i study geology. if i accepted creationism fully, i wouldn't be able to do something i really love (geology). if i accepted science fully, i wouldn't be able to love or desire god.
No, you'd still love God. There are actually many Christian people in the past...100 years if not more that have been dedicated followers of Christianity and have contributed to the science community. From the Big Bang Theory to the Pundit Square.
Quote:
i've had to compromise to be able to have both and it's led to fewer conflicts with other christians and other scientists too, as well as fewer internal conflicts within myself.
Personally, you don't need to comprimise. The way I see it, God is the creator of all things, no matter how horrible he is. Personally I see him as a scientist himself a lot of the time or a gifted chess player.
Quote:
well, i don't go to church it's true, but it's more because i have other conflicting personal (family) issues that i'm trying to get over and i think i will be able to take steps in the right direction soon. anyway, just wanted to know your opinions. thank you y que dios te bendiga.
It's alright. I've got the same issue with my family. Hence why I'm in Texas :p
great question and great answers in this thread. thank you (:
Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2014 7:29 am
hi guys, thank you so much for your replies. @real eyes realize; i fully understand now why it would be important to know that genesis in the bible is correct, it's so that you can have the reassurance that everything else is correct too. i don't think the bible has lied about the origin of the universe though, i just think that there are things that haven't been fit together as yet..either in interpreting the bible or that the appropriate scientific discoveries that would corroborate the bible haven't been found as yet. i think that if i don't know all the facts on either side (and i probably never will) then i also shouldn't try to force things to fit together that might not fit together just yet..this is just how i view it since both sides require some amount of faith. i know what you mean about uniformitarianism too, actually one of the first things that i was told when i started my classes was that geology is a science unlike any other. you can't directly test any theories that you might have, because everything has already happened. and then i did ask my professor how does he get paid to do something he can't prove (hahah, can't believe i did that xD) thank you for the verses they have definitely helped. i especially like the one where it says: "has god not made foolish the wisdom of the world?" it is definitely something important to think about.
@meily; thanks for the support, it's really nice to hear that someone else has also faced this (i mean, i'm not glad that you faced it but i'm glad that you were able to figure it out)
@astra green; thanks a lot, your insight was great and it does help a lot that you've broken it down into smaller posts. i do agree more with the view that god is outside of time.. and i like that you say you see him as the ultimate scientist. that helps a lot, thanks a ton!
@pickled; i'm glad you found the answers useful! they've helped me a lot.
Athelius
Offline
Lady Vizsla
Offline
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:59 am
It's not that Jesus Christ isn't most important. But ideas about science that conflict with God's Word are what is the main issue. I mean if one is to believe what Moses wrote in Genesis as inspired by God. Because if the Bible isn't correct about the creation issue, there is no logical reason to believe anything else is true. I personally believe a person should either accept the Bible entirely or reject it entirely.
Another main issue as a Biomed student is the hypocrisy within the scientific community about certain things. Like one example is the belief that dinosaurs existed only millions of years ago. Yet paleontologists continually find fresh bones and tissues that haven't decayed. And to believe that it lasted 65,000,000 years, exposed to the elements and decomposers, is kind of ridiculous to me.
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:37 pm
Lady Kariel
It's not that Jesus Christ isn't most important. But ideas about science that conflict with God's Word are what is the main issue. I mean if one is to believe what Moses wrote in Genesis as inspired by God. Because if the Bible isn't correct about the creation issue, there is no logical reason to believe anything else is true. I personally believe a person should either accept the Bible entirely or reject it entirely.
Another main issue as a Biomed student is the hypocrisy within the scientific community about certain things. Like one example is the belief that dinosaurs existed only millions of years ago. Yet paleontologists continually find fresh bones and tissues that haven't decayed. And to believe that it lasted 65,000,000 years, exposed to the elements and decomposers, is kind of ridiculous to me.
it;s not that i disbelieve the creation issue but i guess i don't take it as literally..? and i think that the bible should also be taken in context of the time it was written and in the language it was written. i was working with a friend on a foreign language piece where i would read the story out loud and he'd tell me if i got it correct. there were so many words that, when i translated into english, he would say: ok, but in what context do you mean? and as part of the exercise i would clarify. an example i remember specifically was that i had translated a word to mean struggle or fight. the context of the situation was that it was a peaceful/political fight, not any other kind, though it could have been unclear because it was an article also talking about physical violence. anyway i say this because i don;t think when it comes to the bible it should be "all or nothing" i think that a lot of it could just be taken out of context of what the original writers had intended. hence i don't see why people would want to disagree so much about this thing and let it divide them because i'm sure there is no one alive today who can say that they completely understand what the entire bible is about, these are just my thoughts .
explanation of bones/tissue/fossilisation in the spoiler;
you make a really good point! it's actually very difficult to preserve a fossil because of exactly what you've said, elements and decomposers. if a carcass is exposed at the surface it likely won't be turned into a fossil. you need rapid burial under something such as lake sediments/ash/in ice/bogs/swamps/or even amber preservation. what happens with fossils is that often the original structure (whatever it might be) is replaced by another mineral that won't decay, they're definitely not fresh! for example we know that quartz (sand) is one of the most stable minerals on the earth's surface, and many times an animal's biological parts decay the structure gets filled in with another mineral like quartz or calcite which don't decay, so then we can have fossils. it's just one way but usually when you hold a fossil (unless it's teeth or shells, which are made of minerals anyway) you won't be holding an actual biological part of the animal (more info here).
Athelius
Offline
Lady Vizsla
Offline
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:47 pm
Athelius
Lady Kariel
It's not that Jesus Christ isn't most important. But ideas about science that conflict with God's Word are what is the main issue. I mean if one is to believe what Moses wrote in Genesis as inspired by God. Because if the Bible isn't correct about the creation issue, there is no logical reason to believe anything else is true. I personally believe a person should either accept the Bible entirely or reject it entirely.
Another main issue as a Biomed student is the hypocrisy within the scientific community about certain things. Like one example is the belief that dinosaurs existed only millions of years ago. Yet paleontologists continually find fresh bones and tissues that haven't decayed. And to believe that it lasted 65,000,000 years, exposed to the elements and decomposers, is kind of ridiculous to me.
it;s not that i disbelieve the creation issue but i guess i don't take it as literally..? and i think that the bible should also be taken in context of the time it was written and in the language it was written. i was working with a friend on a foreign language piece where i would read the story out loud and he'd tell me if i got it correct. there were so many words that, when i translated into english, he would say: ok, but in what context do you mean? and as part of the exercise i would clarify. an example i remember specifically was that i had translated a word to mean struggle or fight. the context of the situation was that it was a peaceful/political fight, not any other kind, though it could have been unclear because it was an article also talking about physical violence. anyway i say this because i don;t think when it comes to the bible it should be "all or nothing" i think that a lot of it could just be taken out of context of what the original writers had intended. hence i don't see why people would want to disagree so much about this thing and let it divide them because i'm sure there is no one alive today who can say that they completely understand what the entire bible is about, these are just my thoughts .
explanation of bones/tissue/fossilisation in the spoiler;
you make a really good point! it's actually very difficult to preserve a fossil because of exactly what you've said, elements and decomposers. if a carcass is exposed at the surface it likely won't be turned into a fossil. you need rapid burial under something such as lake sediments/ash/in ice/bogs/swamps/or even amber preservation. what happens with fossils is that often the original structure (whatever it might be) is replaced by another mineral that won't decay, they're definitely not fresh! for example we know that quartz (sand) is one of the most stable minerals on the earth's surface, and many times an animal's biological parts decay the structure gets filled in with another mineral like quartz or calcite which don't decay, so then we can have fossils. it's just one way but usually when you hold a fossil (unless it's teeth or shells, which are made of minerals anyway) you won't be holding an actual biological part of the animal (more info here).
I appreciate your viewpoint. But I believe the context that Genesis was written in shouldn't affect its truthfulness. I mean if Moses just sat down and made up everything in there, why then should the rest of the Torah be trusted?
I understand the process of fossilization also since I did learn about the process in university and in my own research. But the bones I mentioned have been found unfossilized and with tissue inside. And this hasn't been found in just one but many different types of dinosaurs and other creatures considered "ancient" which I find particularly interesting. Here is a picture of the bone from a Tyrannosaurus Rex:
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2014 1:15 pm
Lady Kariel
I appreciate your viewpoint. But I believe the context that Genesis was written in shouldn't affect its truthfulness. I mean if Moses just sat down and made up everything in there, why then should the rest of the Torah be trusted?
I understand the process of fossilization also since I did learn about the process in university and in my own research. But the bones I mentioned have been found unfossilized and with tissue inside. And this hasn't been found in just one but many different types of dinosaurs and other creatures considered "ancient" which I find particularly interesting. Here is a picture of the bone from a Tyrannosaurus Rex:
that is astounding!! i did not know of that O: i see an article where they say that iron probably acts as a preservative but then again how likely is that really.. thanks a lot for sharing, i definitely have to look this up!
Athelius
Offline
Lady Vizsla
Offline
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2014 1:32 pm
Athelius
Lady Kariel
I appreciate your viewpoint. But I believe the context that Genesis was written in shouldn't affect its truthfulness. I mean if Moses just sat down and made up everything in there, why then should the rest of the Torah be trusted?
I understand the process of fossilization also since I did learn about the process in university and in my own research. But the bones I mentioned have been found unfossilized and with tissue inside. And this hasn't been found in just one but many different types of dinosaurs and other creatures considered "ancient" which I find particularly interesting. Here is a picture of the bone from a Tyrannosaurus Rex:
that is astounding!! i did not know of that O: i see an article where they say that iron probably acts as a preservative but then again how likely is that really.. thanks a lot for sharing, i definitely have to look this up!
You're welcome smile Yes they've tried using iron as an excuse because they did an experiment with concentrated haemoglobin and preserved it for 2 years but it's not a true representation. Because the bones did not have concentrated blood preserving it and also the bones were preserved 35,000,000 times longer than the experiment which is ridiculous lol.
Here's another example they found in a Triceratops:
They actually fired the scientist who found it because they couldn't accept his findings. At California State University.
