Replies

My belief is similar to yours. God's time is not our time (and the Bible says so but some people who call themselves literalists cannot seem to accept that) and the multi-verse theories just push the First Cause problem further back (or should one say, it pushes First Cause further out?).

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.

Thank you so very much for sharing your concerns and insights, dear Wilhelm Tell!

One of the veteran crevo posters observed long ago that doubting Thomas should be the patron saint of scientists because he demanded physical evidence.

But, in my view, both extremes in the debate put a lot of weight on physical evidence.

We Christians know that Jesus Christ is God incarnated in the body of a virgin, that He died for our sins, resurrected on the third day – that while in the flesh, He raised the dead, healed the sick, made the blind see, walked on water and so forth.

Since we know all of this is Truth, I see no cause to be alarmed if we don’t yet understand the description of Creation week in Genesis – or how Jonas survived in the belly of a whale - the prophecies in the book of Revelation - and so on.

After all, there is only One Great Commandment - to love God surpassingly above all else.

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. – Matthew 22:37-38

So however one's spiritual understanding might develop in his walk with Christ, the bottom line is simply to love God, believe Him, trust Him.

Physical evidence is just that, physical.

“God's time is not our time” [excerpt]

Incorrect on the basis of a false premise.

God is outside of time and is therefor not subject to it.

When He says to a man, six days, he is talking about six days in the perspective of the man.

If you had said, God's timing is not our timing you would have been correct.