WHEW that was long. Since the post was directed to me responding is the right thing to do. The video info on Gentry's creationist theory young earth in 1977 have been refuted. There are several web sites to Google I chose this one, it's long but informative. https://ncse.com/cej/8/1/gentrys-tiny-mystery-unsupported-by-geology Since 1977 science has moved from looking thru a microscope to more sophisticated equipment. For anyone interested this web site contains a wealth of articles about our planet. http://www.sci-news.com/news/geology Or the different methods http://www.dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/TAD/education/BGBB/1/rad_measuring.html http://www.dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/TAD/education/BGBB/1/strat_measuring.html http://www.dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/TAD/education/BGBB/1/fos_measuring.html Or if really curious visit the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in DC. Seeing fossil remains that were not present or described anywhere in the bible should have creationists wondering how that could be.
Yvonne, thank you for your earlier compliment. I'm confused though by your faith declarations since you seem to have some Biblical doctrines right while conceding loss in belief of others. I'll be interested to find out in time what makes you call yourself a fringe Christian. I know, from listening to 20+ years of conspiracy theory radio talk shows, that the subject matter you pursue now is huge and addictive. The book you show looks interesting and one that I'd probably enjoy reading. But, my free time is consumed now by Christian apologetics material, and as I've grown older, I realize that that's where my priorities in life should be. I will however keep a lookout for your postings and likely jump in on any matters relating to religion. Perhaps I'll persuade you in the future to reconsider your compromised Christian doctrines. I think there's room in your mind and heart for science, conspiracy theories, and true religion. I just watched your video. It's an old, marginal quality, dry presentation that few skeptics would bare to sit through. I however, thoroughly enjoyed it. Besides being a previous Federal mine inspector and quite familiar with Dr. Brown's famous book on the flood, I recognized all of the evidence examples discussed in the film. It's great material and I truly compliment you on finding, watching, and believing it. There are newer, better videos out now that I also have, covering these valid science issues and even more. So, your young earth belief is validated perhaps even more than you know. Don, thanks for the welcome and respect. You sound like a religious intellectual offering good insight and discussions. I hope in the future to discuss your multi religious theology, which I find perplexing. It appears that you're interested enough in religion to let it into your mind, but not convinced enough to let it into your heart. I expect to learn those reasons in time through other thread discussions. By the way, real or not, I like your name. I enjoyed 2 details working up there and hope to return some day. Bob, thanks for the final cordial response. I'm glad we can disagree on issues and still enjoy a talk - as it should be. I can't say why we both, you in your 30's and me in my 40's, went different directions with our religious studies and beliefs. Maybe I gravitated towards evidence that confirmed my Christian beliefs while you sought out material that affirmed your challenging beliefs. There's certainly a lot of evidence on both sides for one to study. On the internet and in books, there are hundreds of Bible verse challenges - and just as many explanations being provided by Christian apologists. But, the amount of teaching, printed material, and cultural influence flooding the country (and world) today with evolutionary theory has had the largest impact on discrediting the Bible. It's causing many to abandon their Christian faith because, like you, they had no one countering the teaching with alternative answers. I too was taught evolution in the schools, but never really learned it's truth. Like textbooks still teach today, I accepted the conclusions based upon the limited, inaccurate scientific evidence presented. And like most Christians, I reconciled my faith and belief in Genesis by accepting the concept of theistic evolution - accepting the whole Darwinian theory and old earth ages, but believing that God had a hand in directing the processes. It wasn't until my early 40's that I got exposed to Christian apologetics and fortunately I had access by then to several good books and a lot of internet material. Finally, I learned the details and science of both sides of the evolution/creation issue, along with some biblical scriptures that I'd so carelessly disregarded. I see the scientific evidence now of Divine creationism over evolution as overwhelming, and the popular notion of theistic evolution as a belief clearly contradicting the Bible. As for the many other Bible scripture difficulties not relating to creationism, I've only just begun to study them. But I already know that for all of the Atheistic challenges, there are reasonable answers to be found. Be it evolution vs creationism, specific Bible difficulties, or objections about God, I've learned that examining the evidence fairly tends to be a willful choice of the heart rather than the amount or validity of the evidence. Thus, I try not to argue with people who are firm in their opposing beliefs, since I find such discussions ineffective. I want to influence those who are unsure in their beliefs, who sincerely want to know the truth, and who aren't defiant of any religious implications. I don't know yet which camp you fall into Bob, but it does seem that you use evolutionary secular material sources for all of your creationism or Biblical challenges. So, you should recognize that such sources are naturally going to refute any interpretation of evidence that doesn't support evolutionary theory. The world's largest museums, including the Natural History Museum in D.C., are a good example of this, being strong promoters of evolution. I have an interesting video of my own showing how they cover up and misrepresent creation/evolution evidence. That brings me back to the previous point. Examining the evidence and drawing conclusions is usually based upon one's presuppositions, or world view. I'm glad though to be siding with the evidence that agrees with God's word. That's really a safer place to be if you think about it.
God’s Universe on Display: Telescope to Microscope [Podcast] "We find evidence for the Creator’s grand design everywhere in the universe, from enormous galaxies to microscopic DNA. ICR zoologist and researcher Frank Sherwin explores evidence in astronomy, biology, and zoology to reveal the mysteries of God’s created universe."
Ever curious when I listened to the presentations I thought I'll look up DNA & genome study. Imagine my surprise when DNA analysis revealed an entirely new group of archaic humans, now dubbed the Denisovans. Can't be because mankind began from one set of human life Adam & Eve. That one source continued thru Noah & his family. We are taught Bible mankind at 6000 years, science puts the time line a tad longer. This from a lengthy article Unexpected dalliances Here were two clearly distinct species, separated by up to 700,000 years of evolution, yet the remnants of their sexual proclivities are captured in the DNA of the majority of people alive today. What’s more, it soon emerged that our ancestors weren’t only getting it on with Neanderthals. Just as Pääbo was finishing sequencing the Neanderthal genome, a parcel landed on his desk. It contained a tiny fragment of a finger bone from the Altai mountains in Siberia. The piece was 30,000 to 50,000 years old and was thought to be from another Neanderthal. His team was in for a big surprise. The DNA analysis revealed an entirely new group of archaic humans, now dubbed the Denisovans, which split from a common ancestor with Neanderthals some 500,000 years ago. Once again, comparisons with modern human genomes showed that the two interbred. Genetic studies reveal this to have happened in Eurasia. They also show that Denisovans ranged from Siberia to South-East Asia, and that at least one of their genes helps modern Tibetans to live at high altitude. The idea that our ancestors hybridised with other hominins was once dismissed. Now it was starting to look as though they would mate with anything vaguely human. https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-ancient-humans-found-lurking-in-our-genomes/ Our earliest Homo ancestors most likely descended from Australopithecus afarensis, best known for the 3.2-million-year-old “Lucy” fossil found in Ethiopia’s Afar region. https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/where-did-we-come-from-a-primer-on-early-human-evolution Notice that doesn't say definitively "most likely? were the weasel words used. But again 3.2 million years is a long time to evolve. VANCOUVER — Traces of long-lost human cousins may be hiding in modern people’s DNA, a new computer analysis suggests. People from Melanesia, a region in the South Pacific encompassing Papua New Guinea and surrounding islands, may carry genetic evidence of a previously unknown extinct hominid species, Ryan Bohlender reported October 20 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics. That species is probably not Neandertal or Denisovan, but a different, related hominid group, said Bohlender, a statistical geneticist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “We’re missing a population or we’re misunderstanding something about the relationships,” he said. This mysterious relative was probably from a third branch of the hominid family tree that produced Neandertals and Denisovans, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/dna-data-offer-evidence-unknown-extinct-human-relative DNA a facinating way to think about the origin of mankind. Different sources, amazing that there is more than one kind from a single source. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA Then there is this. Madagascar is home to some of the unique and unusual species of wildlife in the whole world. The island of Madagascar is home to almost 25,000 species of wild animals with a good number being endangered species. Some of these species of wildlife have been immortalized by cartoon films, but the real animals are far more beautiful and wonderful than what is seen in any of these movies. Most of these species found in Madagascar are endemic, meaning they cannot be found anywhere else in the world. The Madagascar fody, tomato frog, satanic leaf-tailed gecko, panther chameleon, comet moth, fossa, and the lemurs of Madagascar are some of the unique animals in Madagascar. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-unique-animals-live-in-madagascar.html Wow that is a lot of species. Must be a quirk in the creators sense of humor or just wanted a private collection of animals that cannot be found anywhere else in the world.
Do faith in God and science contradict? Question: "Do faith in God and science contradict?" Answer:" Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Science is a method that mankind can use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. It is a search for knowledge through observation. Advances in science demonstrate the reach of human logic and imagination. However, a Christian’s belief in science should never be like our belief in God. A Christian can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not." "Our belief in God is a belief of faith. We have faith in His Son for salvation, faith in His Word for instruction, and faith in His Holy Spirit for guidance. Our faith in God should be absolute, since when we put our faith in God, we depend on a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient Creator. Our belief in science should be intellectual and nothing more. We can count on science to do many great things, but we can also count on science to make mistakes. If we put faith in science, we depend on imperfect, sinful, limited, mortal men. Science throughout history has been wrong about many things, such as the shape of the earth, powered flight, vaccines, blood transfusions, and even reproduction. God is never wrong." "Truth is nothing to fear, so there is no reason for a Christian to fear good science. Learning more about the way God constructed our universe helps all of mankind appreciate the wonder of creation. Expanding our knowledge helps us to combat disease, ignorance, and misunderstanding. However, there is danger when scientists hold their faith in human logic above faith in our Creator. These persons are no different from anyone devoted to a religion; they have chosen faith in man and will find facts to defend that faith." "Still, the most rational scientists, even those who refuse to believe in God, admit to a lack of completeness in our understanding of the universe. They will admit that neither God nor the Bible can be proved or disproved by science, just as many of their favorite theories ultimately cannot be proved or disproved. Science is meant to be a truly neutral discipline, seeking only the truth, not furtherance of an agenda." "Much of science supports the existence and work of God. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” As modern science discovers more about the universe, we find more evidence of creation. The amazing complexity and replication of DNA, the intricate and interlocking laws of physics, and the absolute harmony of conditions and chemistry here on earth all serve to support the message of the Bible. A Christian should embrace science that seeks the truth, but reject the “priests of science” who put human knowledge above God."
I have a few minutes this morning to think about your post. But to copy your entire post then separate the parts I want to respond to would take up to much space & time, so i'll pull it apart and post about the opening about science & faith. "Science is a method that mankind can use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. It is a search for knowledge through observation." Knowledge like the various stages of earths progression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth prehistoric mankind https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-what-we-know-and-still-dont-know-about-them/ ******************************************************** ""Our belief in God is a belief of faith." Faith that earth is 6000 years old & no prehistoric life existed. Unlike science relying on the bible to explain how mankind came to be this is about the best that I could find that explaining how mankind came to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve Made in his bible image and intelligence don't seem to match what science has shown to be. How do you explain the difference?
Has science discovered God? If I may, we have to just ask the question instead of Has science discovered God, namely: Have I scientifically concluded to the existence of God? And I say, Certainly, scientifically I have concluded to the existence of God. Here is my very own way by which I have personally reasoned out scientifically as to have concluded to the existence of God: 1. Definition of God: God is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning. 2. I see everything in the world of science to have a cause. 3. But this chain of causation cannot go on backward in space and in time on and on and on. 4. It has got to end at a first and ultimate cause. 5. And that first and ultimate cause is God, in definition as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning. There, dear colleagues here, what do you say about my very own scientific conclusion to the existence of God?
Well, that is easy to say but it does not carry any substance at all indicative of scientific thinking in re God exists or not, on grounds of scientific reasoning, okay? What about you tell me that there is the flaw of circular reasoning with my scientific exposition of how I conclude scientifically on the existence of God? Otherwise I can't see at all any kind of thinking except the non-thinking of 'ipse dixit' - because you can exercise the right of oral or written delivery of empty words.
I do not have any problem at all with your thinking @Jess Santorio for indeed if your methodology helps to edify your belief in God then I say Amen.. What I have found in any scientific or layman mentations (per this thread) is a lack of the understanding of what eternity is. Since we are a people of boundaries and time we cannot possibly fathom anything that cannot meet with our own sense of logic which is based on those same boundaries we are limited to. As an example: we cannot understand nor diagram thought let alone the causation of thought yet science allows that we do indeed have thought but science still has yet to define what it actually is. Now, if we say that at the very pinnacle of everything that is, was and will be is the causation of the same then whilst recognizing that the principle requirement for doing that has to be eternal but without a definition suited to mortal thinking we are missing the 5th ingredient for scientific study. .The proof, or rather, a proof that can be accepted by all mankind. Sadly.............. Condemnant quo non intellegunt.
Man longs for immortality who doesn't know what to do with himself on a rainy Saturday afternoon. …. Mark Twain
I wonder if we look for answers that are immaterial. Evolution has given the ability or burden to think, so inevitably we want to know if there is a purpose for our being and of course, with just a fleeting moment of life we would love more. It makes sense to pursue methods of keeping us healthy during the journey but why bother about the possibility of life somewhere else in the Universe? It's no good quoting scientists who believe in God, they die and fear death like the rest of us. What would benefit everybody is if medical science could remove the greed section from our brain and replace it with universal compassion. Wouldn't all the various Gods we believe in be pleased.
Ne quid nimis. Just tell me one thing that is wrong with my exposition, okay? And just do it in less than 75 words.