Posted on 05/01/2009 8:25:18 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Absolutely, my dear, beloved brother in Christ!
I'm reminded of what Jesus considered the greatest commandment:
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).Any other controversies, from the timing of creation to the various beliefs about what happens before Christ returns, are insignificant in comparison with what Jesus Christ has done for us.
I've got to go now. My wife and I are going to a Christian marriage conference this weekend. It's hosted by Tom Dooley, who is based in Dallas but syndicated nationally.
Many blessings on you my dear brother! It would be nice if we could meet here on earth. But if we don't, I look forward to meeting you in heaven.
Thanks for the kind words. I see no conflict between good science and the Bible. God invented science. Studying God through his creation is only slightly less important to me than studying God's word.The entire universe speaks enormously about God's greatness and glory!
As is your reply... and your user name.
Thanks. It was given me by a creationist on another web site who was ecstatically swooning over yet another discovery of "Noah's Ark". He described how it even still had cages in it for the animals and "unruly humans like D1", my old user name.
I just, for the life of me cannot see how what is written is not plainly obvious to be six days...
...And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. Gen 1:5
...And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. Gen 1:8
...And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. Gen 1:13
...And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. Gen 1:19
...And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. Gen 1:23
...And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. Gen 1:31
I have not seen anywhere in the Bible where “ages”, “years”, “months”, “seasons” described as having an evening and a morning! Only days are described that way. It is almost as if God is making sure at some later day, someone doesn't come along and try to call the days anything other than...well...days!
In the Bible, if the normal sense makes the most sense then it is the most probable sense.
And in this case...the most probable sense is that each period of time is...a day.
This interpretation is in full agreement with the whole of scripture.
Ask any child to read those verses and ask how long of a period of time is being described and they will tell plainly that they are days. And if something so plainly and simply laid out as this is not believable by someone, how can they believe anything the Bible says. To me that is a real wonder.
Next, I am compelled ask what other plain facts in the Bible has that same man spiritualized so much that it renders God so weak and ineffectual. For if a man cannot believe that God created as He said he did, in such simple and obvious language, then how can that same man possibly believe that God loves him unconditionally? Or even more gripping how can that man possibly believe what was told to Nicodemus in John 3, or any matters of total forgivenss of sin? Or any other number of things in God's word?
How can a man have such weak faith in God as the creator of eveything, yet claim to believe that same God has the power to raise that man from the grave?
If a man cannot accept the plainly simple truths of God, then logic dictates that he cannot possibly accept the complex truths of God.
In other words...
can't accept the six day thing...God isn't THAT big
but...
can accept the salvation thing
can accept the raise me from the dead thing
can accept he fulfilled prophecies thing.
can accept the new heavens and new earth thing. Oh..this makes me ask...will it take him anohter 6,000,000,000,000 years to create the those too?
can accept the judgement of the dead
can accept the eternity thing
can accept the glorified body on order
but that God created the heavens and earth out of nothing in six literal days as his word clearly teaches?
NOPE...that simply can't be!
simply cannot have any of that!
look at the fossil evidence!
must have been billions and billions of years after a big bang of supercompressed matter.
Sorry, but that is just not consistent thinking.
...that, or that man's faith is double-minded, with one foot in the worldliness of the lie of evolution and one foot in God's economy.
I do not intended to sit in the seat of judgement of the a man with weaker faith. That is not my heart in this matter. May God the faith in each of us, for He tells us plainly that it is the faith He gives us that leads us to salvation.
Oh well...gotta go!
Again, have a great yom!
=D
SDG
Key point which makes the entire debate rather academic.
I just read this in the paper this morning, what a wonderful day for science. The old earth EVO’s have to be crapping themselves. The funny part of the article I read said that blood was found in an 80 million year old fossil stating as if it was a fact the fossil was 80 million years old. That is the power these religious nuts hold over the media and higher education. Simply amazing that educated people would be so blind that they cannot see the young earth evidence right in front of their eyes. Or even question their own (now seemingly false) belief that maybe the earth isn’t so old after all. I won’t hold my breath on those zealot nut cases to ever relent on their false religion lies and phony dating techniques. 80 million years, keep dreaming Evolutionist, the facts and evidence are starting to mount against you.
“Evolution will always be a theory.”
Why? If evolution were true then it would eventually be proved out by itself. Not only that, but there would be true and recognizable fossil evidence with a supposed 80 million + years of strata to sift through. I will not enter into a debate about something for which there is no proof... the same is true about my faith in God. Creation itself speaks to the existence of God and that is something tangible I can see, feel, hear and taste. Unlike the various hypothesis scientists continue to grasp at to try and prove their textbook conclusions. I have faith in God... you have faith in evolution. If you choose to worship at the altar of Darwin that’s your prerogative. I won’t try to sway you from it except for this one thing; I wish that you would accept Jesus because I do care for your soul as much as I can care for someone that I do not know and have not met.
I cannot leave this conversation without reiterating this point: If evolution were true it would by its very nature have to eventually prove itself.
P.S. There are many dictionary definitions of theory several of which I have posted below. You can choose whichever you like if you wish to simply call someone elses ideas silly. It’s a free country... for now.
Theory:
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
contemplation or speculation.
guess or conjecture.
When you get to Heaven, and God tells you that He created the Universe and everything in it just as it is described in Genesis, how do you suppose you will feel knowing you spent your entire adult life arguing against it?
I don't accept your premise. I'm not arguing against Genesis, only your interpretation of it. In general, IIRC, your scriptural theology is too close to scriptural idolatry from my view.
Anyway, if He told me your interpretation of Genesis were correct, I'd likely feel the same as you would if He told you your interpretation is wrong. I think in both cases, factors other than our interpreted result of science from Genesis will over-weigh. I.e., I believe that we will be concerned about much more important things.
My question was to look at whether your faith could be lost (or gained) due to a scientific finding. To have a faith or a scriptural interpretation subject to science would be an obvious category error.
We may be able to agree on this part anyway.
Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.
I didn't call your ideas silly, I called your argument on a specific point silly.
Words mean things. Theory, as used in science does NOT mean "guess or conjecture". "Theory" has different meanings in different scientific fields, but it is not indicative of a guess, conjecture, contemplation or any other conversational use of the word. I suspect that you know that after searching the internet for a definition that fits your misuse of the term.
A theory can not be "proved out". A theory cannot be proven true, nor does it claim to be "true". It can be proven false, if what it describes in proven false, but then it changes to describe the new facts that are known or discarded. A theory describes what is known, as the facts change, the theory changes.
Unlike some people.
“A theory describes what is known, as the facts change, the theory changes.
Unlike some people.” Number one, thank you for informing me of the importance of words. Definitions mean things as well. You are doing just what any good, unchangeable scientific-minded individual does... when you’re wrong you just redefine the parameters until you can call your findings “correct”. What you’ve said below describes exactly that and what you’ve accused me of...
“A theory can not be “proved out”. A theory cannot be proven true, nor does it claim to be “true”. It can be proven false, if what it describes in proven false, but then it changes to describe the new facts that are known or discarded.” This, my friend is a perfect definition of conjecture.
Although you won’t admit it, what you’ve explained is no different than what I presented. A theory is simply conjecture based on facts or it could not be disproven. And you still did not bother to answer the charge that with all the millions of years of data available why the proof of evolution is nowhere to be found.
I’m theorizing there is a good reason for that. Of course I have no proof.
Ping
I’ll have to read Pitmann’s page top to bottom. I skimmed the first few hundred words or so and want to finish it.
Fascinating stuff.
Dr. Pitman’s website is nothing short of amazing. Be sure to thank him for all his hard work! To think, he did all of that for you and me—for free!!!
The ordering of scientific notions is:
Conjecture, hypothesis, theory, and law.
A conjecture is an incomplete model.
A hypothesis is a model based on all data in its specified domain, and incorporating a novel prediction yet to be validated by facts.
A theory is a hypothesis with nontrivial validating datum.
A theory is a hypothesis based on facts, not a conjecture based on facts.
And you still did not bother to answer the charge that with all the millions of years of data available why the proof of evolution is nowhere to be found.
Swine Flu.
Have a nice day.
Me:
“And you still did not bother to answer the charge that with all the millions of years of data available why the proof of evolution is nowhere to be found.”
UH:
“Swine Flu.
Have a nice day.”
Me again:
And as usual you have given me an amazing factoid to prove the entire of the theory of evolution. Are you in on the study of the swine flu? If so maybe you should enlighten the rest of us so that we might be saved from it.
I cannot understand what has invaded your mind to the point that sounded like a zinger of an answer to you... As if!
Still me:
Swine flu... (walks away muttering under his breath).
You're right. The pigs on Noah's Ark must have been carrying it and God decided to punish us with it only now.
Alright.. I’ll bite.
For the most part, Creationists do realize there are changes in not only viruses, bacteria and the like, but certain species change as well. Otherwise the animal kingdom would not be so diverse. Everything from the environment to intermarriage and birth defects have had thousands of years to mutate varying species. There is, however no evidence of one species evolving into another.
Now when the swine flu evolves into say an airplane, a block of cheddar cheese or a tuba I’ll concede the argument.
So did Jesus. Not free to Him or God but free to anyone that asks. I need to thank Him more too. I'm working on that.
I think DM mainly has a problem with 6 literal days because he’s so sure of the science of radio-isotope dating methods. But now tell me is it creation science or evolution science that is too close-minded when considering radio-isotope dating:
a.) what is the beginning ratio of father / daughter elements?
b.) what conditions might account for increasing the decay rates?
Both are assumed by evolutionary thinking but has mankind not seen discrepancies aplenty? IIRC Mt. St. Helens showed some rather large radio-isotope dates immediately thereafter. Has science been able to duplicate the conditions of heat and pressure associated w/ volcanic eruptions?
I too enjoyed your post. It may truly be possible that some of the soft tissue remains after long periods of time b/c of near perfect fossilization conditions.
But surely you must know it adds much more credibility to YEC. It’s been several years now, but I was here when Dr. Schwietzer’s work was 1st posted. That was truly the height of the creation evolution debates - well over a thousand response posts - not long after I joined FR (but I’d also been lurking all the years since the inception of FR) - definitively the most heated and debated crevo post I’d ever seen here.
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.