Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Scientific faith versus CEC Faith

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    Laurie Appleton: LA Perhaps I have misunderstood what you had in mind when you wrote your message. Nothing in the Bible however, provides any grounds for any
    Message 1 of 49 , Aug 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Laurie Appleton: LA> Perhaps I have misunderstood what you had in mind when
      you wrote your message. Nothing in the Bible however, provides any grounds
      for any reasonable doubt that the creation of all life occurred about
      approximately 6,000 years ago! It is all provided in the records that it
      provides.

      Charles P: Which interpretation really fits the evidence?
      1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite The earliest stromatolite of
      confirmed microbial origin dates to 2.724 billion years ago.
      2 The creation of all life occurred approximately 6,000 years ago.

      Charles P: What is the evidence for each interpretation?
      1 There is a consensus among scientists that radiometric dating is both
      "precise" and "accurate".
      2 There are some very intelligent, respectable Bible students who have
      carefully studied the Hebrew and Greek scriptures and they told me that it
      is obvious to true believers.
      http://www.watchtower.org/e/200609a/article_01.htm This article tells me
      very clearly that "the Bible does not support such a conclusion. If it did,
      then many scientific discoveries over the past hundred years would indeed
      discredit the Bible. A careful study of the Bible text reveals no conflict
      with established scientific facts".

      Charles P: What can I do to understand the methods used to determine the
      age of the earth?
      1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating I can study the science
      and then find the data used to calculate the ages. If I use the same data
      and the same methods, I should get the same results.
      2. http://unbound.biola.edu/ I can study many different versions of the
      Bible and then quote the chapters and verses that give me the same results
      of 6,000 years old for the age of the earth.

      Charles P: What happened to me when I investigated the question "How old is
      the earth?"
      1. I understand radiometric dating. When I use the data and methods
      provided, I get the same results as do the scientists. I have several
      reasons to believe that radiometric dating is "precise", but "not accurate".
      However, accuracy must be measured by making a comparison to a known
      "accurate" standard. I do not know the accurate values, so I must
      "tentatively" accept the dates used by scientists. Those dates are still
      useful in discussions about the description of the diversity of life because
      they are "precise". Whether or not the dates are scientifically "accurate"
      or not does not change what I have written in our discussions of the
      diversity of life.
      2 I understand where "It is written" in the Bible. I have several reasons
      to believe that "It is NOT WRITTEN" in the Bible and there are no specific
      chapters and verses that a consensus of Bible scholars would conclude is the
      accurate value for the age of the earth. It is OK to believe whatever you
      wish, but it is unscientific to use 6,000 years as the age of the earth in
      discussions about the description of the diversity of life until there is
      evidence to support that conclusion. On the question of "How old is the
      earth?", the Bible is "not precise" and, therefore, must be considered "not
      accurate" as a source for answering this one question. And that is OK. The
      information in the Bible is still useful in answering many other questions.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • D R Lindberg
      I find that a note I posted a few days back didn t get through, so I ll try again. ... . . . . . ... scientific first principle. How could seafloor much denser
      Message 49 of 49 , Aug 23, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I find that a note I posted a few days back didn't get through, so I'll
        try again.

        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "VictorM" <ptolemy1022@...> wrote:
        >
        . . . . .
        > C. The theory of subduction is clearly a myth invented to protect the
        scientific first principle. How could seafloor much denser than granite
        dive into the Earth without disturbing the layered sediments at the
        "subduction trenches". There is not a shred of visible evidence for
        subduction and lots of visible evidence against it.

        You might not have heard, but there was an earthquake in Japan last
        March caused by subduction, which resulted in Japan ending up a few
        metres closer to North America. It seemed to be pretty visible to quite
        a few people at the time, even if not to you.

        Cheers!






        The Awful Consequences of the Evangelical War on Evolution

        From my perspective, it is not actually the theory of biological
        evolution that is significant, but Evangelicalism's misguided
        response to it. Not understanding how God created life is one thing;
        insisting that God could not have achieved his purpose through
        biological evolution is quite another. Adding anti-evolution beliefs and
        an anti-science attitude to the gospel is no addition at all, but a
        corruption at least on par with the early Jerusalem church's
        insistence on continuing the observance of Jewish law. I believe there
        are four specific dangers to this antagonism to evolution: First, it
        discourages Evangelicals from participating in science and celebrating
        the wonders of God's creation. Second, it is instrumental in causing
        many to abandon faith in Christ. Third, it promotes and
        "end-justifies-the-means" attitude to science and encourages
        Christians to compromise their integrity. Fourth, it prevents many from
        coming to faith in Christ. God is the creator of all things, the
        creator of nature, the creator of science.

        God is not afraid of the data and we should not be either. A dishonest
        portrayal of the evidence neither honours nor defends God.
        Steve Martin
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/14157160/An-Evangelical-Dialogue-on-Evolution
        <http://www.scribd.com/doc/14157160/An-Evangelical-Dialogue-on-Evolution\
        >






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.