Posted on 01/30/2009 10:54:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Since the Big Bang story of the origin of the universe has been refuted by a host of external observations and internal contradictions,1 secular science has been forced to postulate additional, exceedingly improbable events to keep it afloat. One of these is “inflation,” which attempts to explain the apparent uniformity of the universe.2 But new observations by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe are forcing cosmologists to revamp inflation, at the cost of inventing yet another miraculous event to prop it up...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
It is really easy to spot the YEC adherents with the worst cases of self-imposed ignorance: they don't know the difference between cosmology and biology (they refer [sneeringly] to both as "evolution"). And the really stupid ones confuse honest scientific endeavor with politics...
==It is really easy to spot the YEC adherents with the worst cases of self-imposed ignorance: they don’t know the difference between cosmology and biology (they refer [sneeringly] to both as “evolution”). And the really stupid ones confuse honest scientific endeavor with politics...
First, the Big Bang is based on ideology and politics. If you doubt me, bring it on.
Having said that, let me help you understand how the materialist-colored lense of evolution distorts science across many disciplines. If the Evos would just be honest and admit that their world view dictates their historical interpretations, then all would be fine. But they don’t do that. They pretend that their historical interpretations are the same thing as the observable, repeatable results of operational (as opposed to historical) science.
I can’t remember where I got this from, but it certainly speaks my mind:
Atheistic worldview
...A-theism, by definition, states foundationally that there is ‘no God’. All worldviews provide answers to the big questions in life like ‘Where do we come from?’ How do atheists explain our origins without God? Their answer is evolution. This gives them an explanation for our existence without God—naturalistically. Briefly stated the grand theory of evolution embraces the following.
Cosmic evolution
Billions of years ago time, matter and energy came into existence as the result of the ‘big bang’. Over billions of years the galaxies, stars and planets formed-—all by themselves.
Geological evolution
The earth started as a hot molten orb, eventually cooling down enough for water to condense and fill the oceans.
Chemical evolution
After some time the first self-replicating life form spontaneously generated from non-living chemicals.
Biological evolution
This simple organism became more complex over millions of years via genetic mutation and natural selection, ultimately producing all of the life forms that have ever existed on our planet.
Human evolution
Eventually ape-like creatures developed higher brain functions and humans evolved, forming societies and cultures that developed laws, religions and institutions like marriage. Evolutionists point to the geologic column and the fossils it contains as ‘scientific proof’ of these processes.
Heat death
Because the entire universe is subject to the laws of entropy, the future ultimately is ‘heat death’, where there will be no more available energy. No life will exist, and perhaps everything will collapse and begin all over again.
No ultimate hope
The atheistic worldview, based on this supposed history, says that we had an accidental beginning; we developed through random processes and that there is no ultimate hope for the future. It says that there are no absolutes, no basis for morality or ethics outside of what each person decides is right for themselves.
Atheism vs. theism is sometimes misrepresented as ‘science’ vs. ‘faith’. This is untrue because evolution is a worldview that is also based on faith. In fact, evolutionists and creationists have the exact same scientific facts to examine. There isn’t a scientific observation that a creationist would disagree with an evolutionist about. Creationists disagree with evolutionists conclusions because we do not agree with their starting presuppositions.
The real difference is that of the world history that each group believes in, by faith. Why by faith? Because we cannot travel back in time to see the first life form evolve or observe God create the universe. So our understanding of what happened in the past is ultimately accepted by faith. We can use scientific methods to observe evidence in the present, and then make an assessment of which history is best supported by that evidence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
DallasMike, If you will read my
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2172630/posts?page=393#393
I believe you will find that we share similar viewpoints (I'm a Christian -- and a physical chemist).
I, too am appalled that the self-imposed ignorance (shamming as "clinging to the Word") flaunted by the likes of GGG damages the witness of Christians like us who are trying to bear credible witness to fellow scientists.
If you have not yet "met" our "sisters", Alamo-Girl and Betty Boop, here on FR, I suggest you take the effort to become acquainted with them. They know my frustration with the above subject, and I find their fellowship and witness to be the uplifting highlights of my FR experience.
No blushing, now, ladies; that's no flattery -- just fact! ;-)
Nice "meeting" you, Mike! May our fellowship grow in His grace!
The difference between Betty Boop and Alamo-Girl is that they allow for different viewpoints amongst Christians, rather than damning those who disagree over interpretational issues. I have interacted with both many, many times, and I have never once been treated by either like I’m the enemy. You and DallasMike are a whole different breed of “Christian.” And until you tone down your condemnatory rhetoric, you can bet I will be ready to great you with ALL the respect you deserve.
Evening and morning. The meaning of both words is broad enough that since a literal 24 hr. consists of more than the night, dusk to dawn, evening and morning refer to the beginning and end of a time period, “day”.
Using this thought of evening to morning as a time period where something developes or forms is also found at Ps.30:5.
That this evening to morn was not thougtht of as a 24 hr. is the fact that the Jewish weekly day began and ended, in the evening or near sundown.
That period between evening and morning is not given a length.
I see “In the Beginning..” as a statement of the origins of the heavens and earth, period. And what follows as a description of God’s creative acts toward the earth.
The heavens and the earth are created (and) then the earth is prepared. Question is how is the “and”.
Thank you for pointing out the speck (”mote”) in my eye...
Whenever we Christians find ourselves in disputes - whether about theology, science, philosophy, history or whatever - I am reminded that John was not like Peter who was not like Paul who was not like doubting Thomas and so on. But Christ chose every single individual one of them.
In the end, we must declare the Truth as we have received it and trust Him to work everything together for the good according to His own will.
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose. - Romans 8:28
I think the main purpose of Young Earth Creationism is to validate the Premillennialist view of the Last Things. Most premillennialists believe that God will create a new earth after 7000 years (premillennialism makes heavy use of numerology and 7 is supposed to signify perfection or completion - hence, God will destroy the old earth after 7000 years). Premills believe that Christ will rule 1000 years before the end of the world, and that Christ will set up his kingdom any day now. Therefore, they believe the earth "must" be right around 6000 years old. Naturally, people who believe in premillennialism also tend to believe in YEC. So, YEC is really all about religion.
Most Christians throughout history, while expecting Christ to return soon, had no belief in an exact timeline. That is why Christians from many of the older traditions do not see the age of the earth as having anything important to do with their faith. And that is why other Christians see the young earth idea as being central to their faith. This is unfortunate as some Christians anxiously read the news, basing their salvation on their correct reading of the "signs of the times" rather than trusting in the finished work of Christ.
In an odd way, premillennialism shares much with the old Gnosticism - one can have "secret knowledge" about some very esoteric things and this knowledge is an important factor in one's salvation.
I agree that this makes it hard to be a Christian witness. In American popular culture, many people are only familiar with the cheap grace of liberal Protestantism or the legalism of Fundamentalism (often including premillennialism). If people see you reading a Bible, they assume you must believe that Moses walked with the dinosaurs and somehow your life is centered on this belief! No wonder that many are turned off by Christianity if all they see is liberalism on one hand (if nothing matters, why bother?) and legalism over obscure, minor things on the other hand.
Horton writes from a conservative Reformed perspective but non-Calvinists will find much to agree with. Horton describes how Gnosticism has crept in (almost taken over, really) much of evangelicalism (including Fundamentalism). Whether you call yourself a Bible-believing fundamentalist, a conservative evangelical, high-church, a liberal or a skeptic you will get much out of this book if you have an open mind (Roman Catholics and Orthodox will probably read this book and say, with some justification, "I told you so").
Much of what Horton says is relevant to the culture wars (including the war over science, although that isn't really a theme of the book). This is one of the most important books I have read in five years. I think sometimes we talk past each other because nowadays things are so confused.
My own belief is that the age of the earth (and of it's preparation) is of consequence only in so far as it involves what the Bible says about God's relationship with man and what creation can tell us about God.
I think therein is the difference between Gnosticism, having secret knowledge not available to others, and the attitude of the Gospels, which was to tell everyone what was unknown in prior times but now is evident.
Obviously time and dates and how they are calculated is of great importance in the Bible as it looks both backward and forward, what has God said or done in the past and when, that would inform us as to what He will do in the future
And time periods are marked off as the Bible concerns its self with human history in the stream of time so that we can find our place in that stream. Christians have always, like everyone, asked what is in their future and sought a means of discovery.
For those reasons I think looking at cosmological models is important if we're going to use them to enhance our understanding of creation and Creator, not just debate over what we can never really know with certainty.
No, the truth of the matter is too many people are onto you too!
I suggest finding some way to deal with that.
It’s not conservatives who are somehow responsible for liberal trolls sticking out like a sore thumb on this website.
“I’m amazed at the arrogance of some scientists who actually are convinced that they can understand the Universe! I don’t, and they certainly don’t!”
Another “I don’t understand science, so let’s look in the Bible” thread.....
“I honestly can’t tell—is this satire?”
No, sadly, this isn’t satire, but it certainly would be funny were it so.
“Creation Scientists have far more credibility than the materialist religionists who currently control the ideology of science.”
Look, God violates the laws of thermodynamics, so you have to be wrong.
Still incapable of answering a question without asking one I see...
You were the one that, by dancing around my first question, (and now this one) asserted that any agreement with ANTI-religious belief equals “honest, sincere, objective”...
that’s still your bag not mine.
Try to focus, can science only be science and only be honest or sincere when it’s obviously anti-religious, or only done by secular humanists?
If you’re going to go on demanding Christians and their ideas be be kept out of science class, or any public enterprise for that matter, the least you could do is explain why your position is more beneficial to science, or is somehow the right path to take, etc.
After reading several AGW papers of those who have been labeled skeptics I have personally come to the conclusion that AGW is bunk. I came to that conclusion from what I term “sincere” science presented to me from various sources whose data disagrees significantly with the propaganda that Mr. Hansen has been spewing.
“You were the one that, by dancing around my first question, (and now this one) asserted that any agreement with ANTI-religious belief equals “honest, sincere, objective”...”
Your chop-logic is limp and pointless.
If you have nothing better to do than make asinine assumptions such as:
“If you’re going to go on demanding Christians and their ideas be be kept out of science class, or any public enterprise for that matter, the least you could do is explain why your position is more beneficial to science, or is somehow the right path to take, etc.”
I will no longer feel a need to respond to your posts.
lol
Also, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for not posting my position in the age of the universe debate in my reply last night. If any are interested, it is posted here.
I am not exactly a scientist, although I work with some scientists and I have written software routines that some scientists use in their work. I see a place for faith and science but they are two different things with different "missions" and one should not be confused with the other. Why is that so hard for people to accept? Just because the Pioneer probes have a slightly different trajectory than predicted does not invalidate modern cosmology and it does not prove YEC! It does not prove any thing at this point.
Anyway, one of my main gripes is that those who want to use their reading of the Bible to invalidate modern science are doing something that has serious consequences. For example, most Christians believe that life begins at conception. And this idea makes good sense even if you leave religion out of it (I am not saying that religion should be remov ed from moral arguments). Now, suppose some conservative is being questioned about abortion and he says, "I believe life begins at conception because the Bible says so." Then he is asked what else he believes and he answers, "The Bible clearly says that the earth is 6000 years old, humans and dinosaurs co-existed until about the time of the Roman Empire, the sun is at the center of the universe and other stars are some sort of optical illusion, the speed of light is something modern secular humanists made up to confuse people and you might be a monkey but I ain't! The Bible teaches all the science I need to know!" Guess what? Any legitimate argument the speaker may have had against abortion is obscured by all of the irrelevant, ignorant baggage the speaker brought to the table.
As expected. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.