Agreed. My only point was that we should not condemn ones opinion over another opinion when neither one can be validated.
Bible Chronology.
- Thread starter davidb
- Start date
Some people seem to be conflating evolution and geology, which creates a problem because evolution is unscientific naturalistic philosophy, which has almost become a religion. On the other hand, geology and cosmology are actual sciences with valid scientific principles, but because of evolution, people are scuttling these along with evolution and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Sometimes one has to decide to trust in Bible or science so called, as evolution would have Man as basically a glorifed evolved Primate, while bible states we are made in image of God
Evolution IS NOT science. It contains no scientific evidence of any kind; it's all conjecture. It's a naturalistic philosophy that's almost become a religion among atheists. Evolution has done more to slander true science among Christians than anything else. Don't confuse evolution with genuine science.
What is the apparent conflict? I hope you understand that I am not advocating Old Earth but simply trying to explain what it is.
It is, If the book of Genesis is interpreted strictly literally, it seems to indicate that the earth and the universe are around 6,000 years old.
In contrast, various scientific dating methods place the age of the earth around 4.5 billion years and the age of the universe around 14.6 billion years.
So then there are three options........
1. the Bible is wrong,
2. the Bible is being interpreted incorrectly,
3. the scientific data is being interpreted incorrectly.
Neither old earth creationism nor young earth creationism teaches that the Bible is wrong. Generally speaking, both old earth and young earth creationists believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of God’s Word.
Young earth creationists interpret Gen.1-2 as a literal, historical account of how God created the universe.
Young earth creationists question why, if the rest of Genesis is historical, should the first two chapters be interpreted differently?
Old earth creationists question why, if the Bible uses symbolism in many other books, can’t metaphor be used in Genesis?
From my point of view, the Bible seems to indicate that the earth is relatively young. However, according to secular scientists and those who accept an old-earth reading of Scripture, the earth is very old.
My focus is and has been that ultimately, one can hold to Old or Young creation, in non-essentials of the faith and still have an accurate understanding of the core doctrines of the Christian faith.
Brother.....Old Earth theology does not accept evolution.
I agree that the teaching of evolution worldwide has caused a lot of problems.
However, all I am saying is that IMHO, It is a false dichotomy to believe that a dating method is either secular, therefore unreliable, or biblical therefore reliable.
A dating technique can be discovered and utilized by unbelieving scientists, and believing scientists and still yield reliable results.
As mans knowledge has grown exponentially over the years, confidence in these methods is rooted in the belief that God has created the universe in such a manner as to reveal His existence. He intended the natural realm to be studied, measured, and understood, thereby offering a glimpse of His power and love.
But Theistic evolution, which is part of older earth does, correct?
The conflict occurs when people conflate evolutionary philosophy with real science and dismiss the findings of the genuine sciences of geology and cosmology because of their dislike of the timetables expressed by these genuine sciences
No Christian believes the lies of evolution. Theistic evolution is a heresy.
We need to understand the term evolution, it literally means to change over time, there are two types of evolution...Micro and Macro.
Micro-evolution has been proven as fact and is small changes within a species. Macroevolution is where one species becomes another species.
There is ZERO evidence that this ever occured. When animals appear in the fossil record they are fully intact and when they disappear from the fossil record they are unchanged. There are no fossils of transitional species (one becoming another). The debate about the age of the Earth does not change the fact that GOD created everything. Whether 6,000 years or 4.5 billion it does nothing to the truth of the Bible. However it does hurt the idea of macroevolution as the universe being only 14.3 billion years old is not enough time to go from goo to you. Couple that with the idea that an asteroid wiped out most life on Earth about 65 million years ago and there is no way that macroevolution could have happened at all.
The "Big bang" proves the Bible that says there was a beginning from nothing. Stephen Hawking proved that space, time, matter and energy all started at the moment of the big bang, in other words there was nothing in existence when the universe began. The book of Job tells us that GOD is stretching out the universe like a blanket...science now knows this to be true that the universe is and has always been expanding from its' beginning. Job also talked about the water cycle long before science "discovered "it. Frank Turek said "Science doesn't say anything, scientists do."
The results of the data change with the bias of the scientist viewing it.
Micro-evolution has been proven as fact and is small changes within a species. Macroevolution is where one species becomes another species.
There is ZERO evidence that this ever occured. When animals appear in the fossil record they are fully intact and when they disappear from the fossil record they are unchanged. There are no fossils of transitional species (one becoming another). The debate about the age of the Earth does not change the fact that GOD created everything. Whether 6,000 years or 4.5 billion it does nothing to the truth of the Bible. However it does hurt the idea of macroevolution as the universe being only 14.3 billion years old is not enough time to go from goo to you. Couple that with the idea that an asteroid wiped out most life on Earth about 65 million years ago and there is no way that macroevolution could have happened at all.
The "Big bang" proves the Bible that says there was a beginning from nothing. Stephen Hawking proved that space, time, matter and energy all started at the moment of the big bang, in other words there was nothing in existence when the universe began. The book of Job tells us that GOD is stretching out the universe like a blanket...science now knows this to be true that the universe is and has always been expanding from its' beginning. Job also talked about the water cycle long before science "discovered "it. Frank Turek said "Science doesn't say anything, scientists do."
The results of the data change with the bias of the scientist viewing it.
There is no such thing as macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is simply selective breeding as practiced by agriculturalists for millennia. The Bible doesn't deal with species. It deals with kinds; the two are not the same.
Okay, so change the word species to the word kind. It still says the same thing, science gives evidence FOR God and creation and offers nothing to the idea of evolution.
Even Darwin knew that his theory ies or falls based upon the transistion fossil record account, an so far nothing has been to support species changing from one to another
What would that something else be?
Even the definition of cosmology differs according to who you ask...
Google.."Cosmology is the study of the universe's origin, evolution, and eventual fate, encompassing its large-scale structure and fundamental properties. It explores the universe's beginnings (like the Big Bang theory), its current state, and its potential future. Essentially, cosmology seeks to understand how the universe came to be, how it has changed over time, and what it might become."
DOE.gov..."Cosmology is the study of the origin, development, structure, history, and future of the entire universe. In modern science, cosmology is divided into two branches. Observational cosmology studies the universe using telescopes and other equipment to examine the direct evidence of the universe’s development and structure. Physical cosmology studies the structures and development of the universe and the physics that created them. It uses a mix of theory and experiments to construct and research cosmological models. These models are sometimes called “cosmologies.” They incorporate theories and the information collected by observational cosmology. Cosmology draws on advances from many scientific disciplines, including astrophysics, plasma physics, nuclear physics, particle physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics."
So, Google appears to be doing its conflating. The problem with DOE.gov's definition is that it relies on observation, and we all know that no one was present at creation, except God. Once again, it is God's word over empirical science or the ear over the eye.
The world pursues through its wondering eyes
the secret that lies beyond the skies;
Those who know their God quite dear
hold to their ears His Word so near.
Until those wandering eyes come home
the soul abides all alone,
Onto the pages of Holy Writ
the eye and ear make a perfect fit.
What is your definition of cosmology?
My definition of cosmology is the study of the universe.
The problem using species rather than kind is that species belong the taxonomy classification listing which puts human beings in the family tree with primates.
Yes, as that would mean that we are primates who shared the same "missing link common ancestor"