Interesting, to say the least. Personally I do not per se believe in the christian God. For one simple reason, why would the christian God be any more real then any other God in either monotheistic or polytheistic religions? Don't get me wrong here, it's not that I believe that dead is dead and that there is nothing after this earth-life it's just that I don't know. Science nor religion has so far in my opinion provided any proper evidence in their favor. Yes amazing things happen and yes science debunks one or two things every now and then but still...

I also feel no urge to really choose for one side or the other. I can only hope science and religion will stop arguing for once on the topic they can't agree on. Just life your live to the max, and yes of course the bible provides inspirational guidelines, don't steal, be loyal, have trust in others. But to me, personally it's just that, guidelines. I think one should never take any book ever literally, the chaos that emerges from that is simply not worth the effort plus it greatly depends on ones personal frames and beliefs.

In other words, I don't know but I feel no urge to know either (that does not mean I can not be amazed with life and the beauty of nature around me!).

Warms regards,

Matthias.

Powerful insight Matthias, thanks for sharing. No doubt I will step on some toes, for some reason I feel compelled to share my own POV...

Life is precious, there's no escaping the fact. Once your consciousness is gone, your intentions fall to the floor and the earth continues to spin. If in a hundred or a thousand years time it's the "day of judgement" and your called from the earth, without consciousness there is no aspect of time.

May as well make the most of every situation, and keep in mind the people around you that share the same precious gift.

Does it matter if I'm Christian, Catholic, Muslim or some other religion? Why do we need to "profile" ourselves as one or the other to live an honest, value-adding life?

I have quite a few Christian friends and don't get me wrong - I respect their values along with their honest intentions. The only disagreeance is the fear that the religion (as with many others) place on individuals to live such a life-style (consequential based decisions). Why not just live that way to begin with? Anyway, its just my POV.

Some very interesting points there guys and thanks for sharing.

I certainly have some replies to write but I just don't have the time at the moment because (and I find it quite fitting) I am off to church!

will be back this afternoon

Alrighty I am back,

Once again - some great points and I certainly appreciate you sharing your views.

I will try and make this reply as straight forward to read as possible.



Unfortunately a lot of people hold this view point I.E. that it is God vs science. God is the creator of all, God is behind science! Infact
science actually backs up a biblical world view rather than an evolutionary world view.

I guess the problem is that most of the scientist of the world are what we would call 'old earth' scientists or evolutionary scientists. There are however many Christian scientists ('young earth' scientists). The difference between the two is the presuppositions that each party brings into a debate. We all have exactly the same data to work with but how we interpret that data will be based on our presuppositions.

For instance there could be two people standing at the edge of the grand canyon - one person might say "Wow, what a fantastic example of billions of years of erosion!" the other person might say "Wow what a fantastic example of the power of the world wide flood in Noah's day!"
(same data - different presuppositions)

Evolutionists believe that the universe is (at last check) 13.7 Billion years old. How did they come up with this figure - well to put it simply, they came up with a theory which stemmed from another theory which stemmed from another and so on. Infact, the age of the universe seems to vary quite a bit (and quite often).

Using the Bible we can date the universe as being approximately 6,000 years old.

Two very different figures here.

Evolutionists believe that the universe was in a hot dense state that expanded and cooled to create the universe that we see today. But if matter cannot be created nor destroyed - where did this matter come from in the first place in order to create a big bang? All logic predicts that if you have nothing, nothing will happen. It is against all known logic and all laws of science to believe that the universe is the product of nothing.

The Bible states that on the first day God created the Heavens and the earth. God then went on to create stars, the sun, land, animals, people etc... throughout the following five days. It was a supernatural event caused by a supernatural creator.

Something that I find really interesting is the large hadron collider. This project had a 9 Billion dollar budget, it took over a decade to plan and create and all this to try and find out what the universe was apparently like just billionths of a second after the big bang. I find this project interesting because this piece of equipment is incredibly complex, it took some of the worlds smartest people to come up with the idea and some of the most talented people to construct the thing. All this immense effort to try and replicate something that was an accident.

The universe is far more complex than this hadron collider and yet it is common belief that everything around us came about by accident.

Now getting back on context with what Matthias was saying. The bible tells us that we were created in God's image basically to worship Him and to have relationship with Him. The God of the Bible is the one and only God, there are many other false gods and religions and interpretations and this has come about by a number of things. One would be that (and the Bible states) we all have a desire to worship something. It has been placed on our hearts from birth. That 'something' was intended to be God but we humans have found this 'something' in all sorts of places - money, relationships, our jobs, sports teams, other religions - the list can go on and on.

It's sort of like when you have a puzzle and it is all finished bar one piece. We can try and fill that missing spot with all sorts of pieces from different puzzles, but the only one that will fit and complete the puzzle is the actual piece designed to go in there.

Worshiping other 'gods' is like Mitchy designing, building and programming the most amazing electronic project you have ever seen and then have people come and look at it and say "Wow! this project that Matthias has made is fantastic!" Mitchy would no doubt feel a little cheated since it was he that was behind it all!

One thing I would like to say is - be sure within yourself about where you came from and where you are going when you die.

And that is possibly the longest post I have ever submitted!

You don't really think the universe is 6000 years old do you Brad ?

Yes indeed I do. This is because science supports a young earth rather than an old earth.

You may well ask "Why then does it seem that science supports an old earth?" The answer lies in presuppositions.

Basically, most scientists start out with the presupposition that the universe and the earth started out with no divine presence whatsoever. I.E. the big bang and then 'molecules to man' evolution.
These 'old earth' scientists try and mold the evidence that is all around us to fit their presuppositions. The problem with this is that if any one of their theories falls by the wayside - everything falls to pieces - all their theories, all their conclusions etc...

Have you ever really thought about how we came to be though? I like to relate creation to my projects. I.E. A project that I have built didn't come about by chance, but instead, it was the result of careful planning, designing, building and programming. So to did the universe and all that we see come to be. It was a result of careful planning, designing and implementation by a wonderful creator - God.

Further more - if I told you that I had 900 LED's, a bunch of chips, resistors, wire, wood, screws, solder and a microcontroller lying around in my garage, and then I came back to it a few days later and found that it had turned into a fully working super pong table, you would no doubt laugh at me. Of course you know that the super pong table came about by me working with all these parts to make a completed project. So why then do most people believe that we came about by chance? how much more complex are we than an electronic circuit? Wouldn't it make more sense that we are the result of careful planning?

So what about the age of the universe?

Good question!

Some things that we can look to are a number of 'clocks' - A clock in this sense is any process that changes at a constant rate.

1. The moon moves away from the earth at around 4cm per year. If the earth was billions of years old, the moon could not be as close to the earth as it is.
2. Oil deposits in the earth are under extreme pressure. If the earth was billions of years old this pressure would have caused the oil to have seeped through the rock layers and eventually the pressure would all be gone - I.E. there would be no oil under pressure today.
3. The sun is shrinking at a rate of five feet per hour. this means that the sun would have been touching the earth a mere 11million years ago (let alone billions of years ago)
4. Helium is added to the atmosphere everyday. Basically there is not enough helium in the atmosphere to support billions of years.
5. Comets lose mass over time, there would be no comets left if the universe was billions of years old. (because comets were apparently a by product of the big bang)
6. The earths magnetic field decays by approximately 5% every century, this means that a mere 10,000 years ago, the earths magnetic field would have been so strong that the heat it would have produced would have made life on earth impossible.
7. fossilized dinosaur bones - these bones have been found and it is impossible for them to have lasted for millions of years.
8. Salt is added everyday to the dead sea by inflows. Since it has no outlet - the salt content continues to grow. The amount of salt contained within it is not enough to support billions of years.
9. The earths population doubles every 50 years (approx) it would take around about 4,000 years to reach the number of people that are on earth today (Lines up nicely with the world wide flood of Noah's day) if we use this figure for millions of years - the earth could not contain the amount of people.
10. Spiral galaxies appear this way due to their 'rotation' this rotation would eventually cause them to straighten out I.E. lose their spiral. There should be no spiral galaxies if the universe was actually billions of years old.

These are just a mere few examples of evidences to support a young earth.

The earth, the universe and everything in it was brought about in creation week. It was a divine event brought about by a supernatural creator.

It takes a great deal more faith to believe in theories that are forever changing as new evidences are discovered compared to the steadfastness of God's word who's writings hold true no matter what new evidences arise.

I'd love to know about your thought's / convictions. What do you believe?

They are some really interesting concepts Brad, and from what I understand, the evolutionist vs creationist debate is a hot topic with a lot of interpreted information being thrown around. The evidence supports several faiths which are all equally "right" in their own way (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism). And I say that with respect to others and their own beliefs, I am not trying to dig out any heated debates!

Can I put another theory in the mix?

Is it plausible that at some stage technology will be advanced enough to simulate life (everything from molecules to consciousness)? Yes, without doubt we will eventually have the capability.

In that case, there are three possible scenarios:
1) We are in the real world, working toward such capability.
2) We are a simulation made by the real world.
3) We are a recursive simulation within a simulation.

Even if it took a month to process the data required for one second of the simulation, it would appear real time to those within.

Soooo.. what's not to say that we are in a simulation to see what happens if the earth's magnetic decay was accelerated? Or any strange phenomena for that reason - the possible gains from such research could save billions of real lives at the expense of some hard number crunching!

I found this topic by chance one day - researching about the movie "Tron". It is called simulated reality. And no, I do not "believe" in it, although it is plausible.

Hi Brad,


'Old Earth Scientists'... I've never heard that before ... You aren't suggesting that there are 'new earth scientists' are you ?

As far as Science is concerned the big bang occured between approx 14 - 18 billion years ago.. and our solar system has been around for approx 4.5 billion years ( not in a constant state but expanding as is the rest of the solar system ) thats not a theory formed by 'old earth scientists' that is calculated using every method we have at our disposal ,measuring the expansion rate of the universe, measuring light from distant stars etc..there are too many to mention. There is no argument whatsoever at all that the earth is 6000 years old ... it simply isn't. I think every mainstream religion also agrees with this 'fact' ... The answer they have 'evolved' is that the days spoken of in Genesis are not literal but figurative ... as in 'The Day of Noah' .... or 'The Days of Pearly Spencer' if your a Marc Almond fan

1. The moon moves away from the earth at around 4cm per year. If the earth was billions of years old, the moon could not be as close to the earth as it is.

That suggests that the moon has always been in orbit around the earth for the 4.5 billion years...it hasn't

2. Oil deposits in the earth are under extreme pressure. If the earth was billions of years old this pressure would have caused the oil to have seeped through the rock layers and eventually the pressure would all be gone - I.E. there would be no oil under pressure today

The oil deposits aren't 4.5 billion years old either... they are from rotting animal/vegetable sources from much later .. millions of years not billions

3. The sun is shrinking at a rate of five feet per hour. this means that the sun would have been touching the earth a mere 11million years ago (let alone billions of years ago)

No, that asssumes a constant state universe...the universe is very far from constant...its expanding and has been since the beginning. Nobody has ever suggested that the earth - moon - sun position has been in existance let alone constant since the big bang.

4. Helium is added to the atmosphere everyday. Basically there is not enough helium in the atmosphere to support billions of years.

Helium hasn't been added for 4.5 billion years ... again the earth wouldn't have had an atmosphere until recently ( recent related to its 4.5 billion age )

5. Comets lose mass over time, there would be no comets left if the universe was billions of years old. (because comets were apparently a by product of the big bang)

Thats misleading. The origin and time of origin of comets is not claimed to be the big bang. Thats a straw man.

6. The earths magnetic field decays by approximately 5% every century, this means that a mere 10,000 years ago, the earths magnetic field would have been so strong that the heat it would have produced would have made life on earth impossible.

No doubt taken from Barnes's magnetic field argument 1973. The decay rate he stated has been debunked and stated as flawed.

7. fossilized dinosaur bones - these bones have been found and it is impossible for them to have lasted for millions of years.

Why not ? They have

The evidence available suggests an asteroid hit the earth approx 65 million years ago leading to a catastrpohic global event. There is a layer of iridium in the earths stratography that supports this theory.

8. Salt is added everyday to the dead sea by inflows. Since it has no outlet - the salt content continues to grow. The amount of salt contained within it is not enough to support billions of years.

The dead Sea didn't spring into existance billions of years ago. Its a result of millions of years of constant change on the earth by volcanic, tectonic, atmospheric activity. The dead sea is a baby compared the age of the earth

9. The earths population doubles every 50 years (approx) it would take around about 4,000 years to reach the number of people that are on earth today (Lines up nicely with the world wide flood of Noah's day) if we use this figure for millions of years - the earth could not contain the amount of people.

Also that matches for the evolution model. The expansion in the earths population is also linked to the expansion of civilisation .. .not just the existance of humans and their descendants.

10. Spiral galaxies appear this way due to their 'rotation' this rotation would eventually cause them to straighten out I.E. lose their spiral. There should be no spiral galaxies if the universe was actually billions of years old.

That again is a straw man. The big bang theory doesn't suggest spiral galaxies popping into existance at the moment of the big bang. They are formed over many millions of years


The earth, the universe and everything in it was brought about in creation week. It was a divine event brought about by a supernatural creator.

No it wasn't ( that which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence )

And faith .....

Would you build an electronic project based on faith ? would you cross the road by faith ?

No, you would research and find out what fitted and didn't fit, you look both ways before crossing the road.

If I am sick I see a Doctor, If I have trouble seeing I go to an optician etc etc. Faith would not heal me or make me see. Rather countless selfless individuals who over thousands of years have devoted their lives to bettering mankind.

Finally to address your first point:

Further more - if I told you that I had 900 LED's, a bunch of chips, resistors, wire, wood, screws, solder and a microcontroller lying around in my garage, and then I came back to it a few days later and found that it had turned into a fully working super pong table, you would no doubt laugh at me. Of course you know that the super pong table came about by me working with all these parts to make a completed project. So why then do most people believe that we came about by chance? how much more complex are we than an electronic circuit? Wouldn't it make more sense that we are the result of careful planning?

Thats a rework of the 747 arguement which states that the theory of evolution is akin to whirlwind rushing through a junkyard and assembling a fully working 747.

Its just not the case at all. For a start evolution doesn't need a set of ready to be assembled parts lying around. Its a process beginning with the smallest building blocks at chemical level and taking millions and millions of years to progress.

Also a 747 ( or an LED pong table ) isn't carrying about obselete parts of earlier less successful aircraft in its frame like we are.

As for my own beliefs and thoughts... I would place myself as an agnostic with a leaning toward atheisism. I respect others beliefs and am always open to fresh ideas either scientific or religious. As I said earlier though, any faith I have is in my fellow humans

I find that almost all people who have strong religious beliefs welcome science with open arms when it appears to support something that can be used to support their belief structure and then openly condemn it if it doesn't.

And Mitchy,

Thats something I've also been reading about, very interesting theory.. especially when you think about how we 'create' ( irony noted ) virtual worlds with ever more increasing reality on pc's

Good to chew the fat Brad

Jay

'Old Earth Scientists'... I've never heard that before ... You aren't suggesting that there are 'new earth scientists' are you ?

Well sort of, there are commonly two types of scientists - old earth (who believe that the earth is billions of years old) and then young earth who believe that the earth is around 6,000 years old.

As far as Science is concerned the big bang occured between approx 14 - 18 billion years ago

As stated above, there are both old earth scientists and young earth scientists. Old earth scientists believe in the big bang theory and that the age of the earth is in the order of billions of years. Having said that perhaps the above statement should read "As far as old earth scientists believe, the big bang occurred between approx 14 - 18 billion years ago." Furthermore, when you say "concerned" it makes the assumption that the big bang actually did happen. The big bang is a theory and unless scientists can replicate it, it will forever remain a theory.

thats not a theory formed by 'old earth scientists' that is calculated using every method we have at our disposal

Unfortunately your statement falls short from the beginning - remember, the big bang theory is just that, a theory.

measuring the expansion rate of the universe, measuring light from distant stars etc..there are too many to mention.

The Bible also confirms that the universe is expanding. Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” This verse was written thousands of years before secular scientists accepted an expanding universe. It was until more recently that scientists changed their mind from the universe being constant to actually expanding.

There are a few theories floating around with respect to the apparent red shift of stellar objects. old earth scientists believe it to be a result of bodies moving away from earth. As such, they have suggested that there should be no fully formed stellar bodies further away than about 8 billion light years. Astronomers have pointed telescopes into supposed redshift deserts (I.E. locations in space where there should be no fully formed bodies) and they found a sky full of fully formed galaxies.

Measuring light from distant stars relies on the assumption that light has always moved at a constant rate, which unfortunately has not been proven.

1. The moon moves away from the earth at around 4cm per year. If the earth was billions of years old, the moon could not be as close to the earth as it is.

That suggests that the moon has always been in orbit around the earth for the 4.5 billion years...it hasn't

Unfortunately this is not what old earth scientists believe. They believe that the earth and moon have been around for over 4 billion years.

2. Oil deposits in the earth are under extreme pressure. If the earth was billions of years old this pressure would have caused the oil to have seeped through the rock layers and eventually the pressure would all be gone - I.E. there would be no oil under pressure today

The oil deposits aren't 4.5 billion years old either... they are from rotting animal/vegetable sources from much later .. millions of years not billions

I should have written this statement differently I.E. millions of years. The problem still stands however that if oil has was around millions of years ago, then it could not be under pressure today.

3. The sun is shrinking at a rate of five feet per hour. this means that the sun would have been touching the earth a mere 11million years ago (let alone billions of years ago)

No, that asssumes a constant state universe...the universe is very far from constant...its expanding and has been since the beginning. Nobody has ever suggested that the earth - moon - sun position has been in existance let alone constant since the big bang.

Don't old earth scientists make assumptions also? If you look above, old earth scientists make the assumption that the speed of light is constant. Furthermore they still hold to the assumption that the earth, moon and sun have been around for over 4 billion years.

4. Helium is added to the atmosphere everyday. Basically there is not enough helium in the atmosphere to support billions of years.

Helium hasn't been added for 4.5 billion years ... again the earth wouldn't have had an atmosphere until recently ( recent related to its 4.5 billion age )

According to old earth scientists. The oxygen enriched atmosphere (basically as we know it today) was formed around 2.7 billion years ago. The amount of helium contained within our atmosphere today is only enough to support thousands of years, certainly not billions.

5. Comets lose mass over time, there would be no comets left if the universe was billions of years old. (because comets were apparently a by product of the big bang)

Thats misleading. The origin and time of origin of comets is not claimed to be the big bang. Thats a straw man.

(I am guessing that a straw is another way of saying clutching at straws?)

Again with this one I should not have just skimmed over it but should have elaborated. Comets have long been a good evidence due to their fragile nature and life expectancy. Comets are commonly huge chunks of ice traveling at tremendous speeds through space, when they come close to a star, they begin to melt and so form a trail of moisture. This can't last forever and it will eventually disintegrate. Here in-lies a problem for old earth scientists because there should be no comets left - they should all have been disintegrated by now (giving the billions of years). And if we are talking about clutching at straws - here's a good one for you.

Old earth scientists have come up with another theory to try and explain why we still have comets today. So in comes the Oort Cloud. The Oort Cloud is a hypothetical spherical cloud of comets which may lie roughly 1 light year away from our sun. Apparently, these comets become dislodged from the Oort Cloud by the gravitational pull of passing stars and the milky way itself (due to it apparently being at the outer edges of our milky way) These comets are then free to move about and disintegrate (which is how we see comets today) Now this Oort Cloud has not been detected or seen it is another theory - it is just a hypothetical cloud to try and fit in with the mold of an old universe.

6. The earths magnetic field decays by approximately 5% every century, this means that a mere 10,000 years ago, the earths magnetic field would have been so strong that the heat it would have produced would have made life on earth impossible.

No doubt taken from Barnes's magnetic field argument 1973. The decay rate he stated has been debunked and stated as flawed.

How has it been debunked?

7. fossilized dinosaur bones - these bones have been found and it is impossible for them to have lasted for millions of years.

Why not ? They have

The evidence available suggests an asteroid hit the earth approx 65 million years ago leading to a catastrpohic global event. There is a layer of iridium in the earths stratography that supports this theory.

Speaking of clutching at straws - "Why not? they have" This goes against what old earth scientists have been telling us for years! Blood cells decay at a much faster rate than the rate at which bones can fossilize. How then can you have a fossilized dinosaur bone which contain blood cells?

If we are talking about debunking theories or practices - radio carbon dating techniques have terrible flaws and rely on many assumptions. Therefor how can you be sure that your 65 million years is accurate?

8. Salt is added everyday to the dead sea by inflows. Since it has no outlet - the salt content continues to grow. The amount of salt contained within it is not enough to support billions of years.

The dead Sea didn't spring into existance billions of years ago. Its a result of millions of years of constant change on the earth by volcanic, tectonic, atmospheric activity. The dead sea is a baby compared the age of the earth

I would have thought that you would line up the forming of the seas as we know them now with the catastrophic global event that wiped out the dinosaurs. If not that, then what are you basing your idea that the dead sea is a baby compared to the age of the earth? are we talking thousands of years, hundreds of thousands, millions or perhaps billions?

9. The earths population doubles every 50 years (approx) it would take around about 4,000 years to reach the number of people that are on earth today (Lines up nicely with the world wide flood of Noah's day) if we use this figure for millions of years - the earth could not contain the amount of people.

Also that matches for the evolution model. The expansion in the earths population is also linked to the expansion of civilisation .. .not just the existance of humans and their descendants.

Could you expand on which evolution model you're referring to?

10. Spiral galaxies appear this way due to their 'rotation' this rotation would eventually cause them to straighten out I.E. lose their spiral. There should be no spiral galaxies if the universe was actually billions of years old.

That again is a straw man. The big bang theory doesn't suggest spiral galaxies popping into existance at the moment of the big bang. They are formed over many millions of years

Why not? The big bang suggests that everything else popped into existence at the moment of the big bang. If this is not the case - then how did they form?

The earth, the universe and everything in it was brought about in creation week. It was a divine event brought about by a supernatural creator.

No it wasn't ( that which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence )

We have just been discussing a page full of evidences!

And faith .....

Would you build an electronic project based on faith ? would you cross the road by faith ?

But you yourself are obviously a man of great faith. You believe that the universe and all it contains was brought about by a supposed big bang. To put it lightly - 'Nothing became something and the something exploded' Where did this matter come from in the first place? doesn't the big bang go against the law of conservation of mass and energy?

If you are dismissing faith, then you must have proof of the big bang. You obviously weren't there when the supposed big bang took place so therefor it would stand to reason that you can replicate the big bang - after all, we are dismissing faith here.

If I am sick I see a Doctor, If I have trouble seeing I go to an optician etc etc. Faith would not heal me or make me see. Rather countless selfless individuals who over thousands of years have devoted their lives to bettering mankind.

Yes indeed! Isn't it interesting how even though we apparently all stemmed from a common singularity we are all unique and have our own special gifts and talents? If we look to God's word though, we find that we all have been given these unique gifts and talents - some to be doctors, some to be opticians, some to make super pong tables and some to be astronauts!

But back on topic, isn't there an underlying reason that you go to a doctor? You go specifically to a doctor because you have faith in him. If you didn't have faith in him and all his years of training then you would just go to anyone wouldn't you?

Its just not the case at all. For a start evolution doesn't need a set of ready to be assembled parts lying around. Its a process beginning with the smallest building blocks at chemical level and taking millions and millions of years to progress.

Fair enough, Let's walk though this one step at a time starting from the beginning - how did the very first building block get here?


Also a 747 ( or an LED pong table ) isn't carrying about obselete parts of earlier less successful aircraft in its frame like we are.

Could you list these supposed obsolete parts and explain why they are not required (I think you'll find that every part of our body plays it's own important role)

You say that you have faith in fellow humans. Why is that? If we are just a result of random chemical reactions then why do you trust in them?

On that note, why does anyone have morals? why do we have laws and rules? if we are the by product of natural selection in that it is survival of the fittest, who is to say that I can't go out and kill someone - after all this is how we supposedly came to be!

Do you feel sorrow when a family member or close friend dies? I am guessing that you would, but hold on a second - why on earth would you get sad if this is simply what you are arguing for in motion? To expand, If we are brought about by the strongest cells living on and the weaker ones dying off, isn't it good that your family member or friend has died because it means that the strong have survived and the weak are now dead? you should be sitting there giving hi five's to everyone shouting "Way to go natural selection!"

And finally, Why on earth would scientists use evidence from the past to predict the future? If the universe came about by disorder and random chemical reactions then how on earth could we use this information to reliably predict the future. Uniformity does not make any sense in a universe created by random chance and disorder.

Of course this is not the case, we find that the universes history is very much ordered because God designed it that way.

Hi brad,

I'm not going to get into this any further.

As you already know you are right. You will be right even if the evidence says you are wrong, it will be the evidence that is wrong because the truth has been told to you from the bible.... which is never wrong as its the word of God.

I would guess you had religious parents who raised you to believe what you believe. Your 'firmware' isn't going to be updated

The 'theory of evolution' is a theory that has stood the test of time, its counter part is the 'Creation Myth'

In science, a theory is not a guess or a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.

If credible evidence was found to debunk evolution or the currently held view on the age of the universe then the scientific communty would accept it but it hasn't.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

I have had long debates with a member of the 'Flat Earth Society' who have firm evidence to support their odd claims too and wasted many hours doing so.

You must realise though that you are a member of a tiny minority of people who actually don't accept the earths true age.

Its a historical fact the church has supressed scientific theories that dont gel with 'accepted' religious 'truths'. I suggest to you your church is doing the same.

If it is even proven that the earth is in fact a 'Young Earth' I will take back all I say and apologise and accept my view was wrong.
A person with strong deeply held religious views would never do that, because they are never wrong. Their beliefs come from The bible and that cannot possibly be wrong as it is written by God and how could God be wrong ... So thats why I will leave it here.

I still bow to your far superior knowledge of electronics though ...

Jay

I understand that you may not reply but I also would like to throw in some closing comments.



That's fair enough, I appreciate the debate thus far though



Aren't you doing the same thing as me though? You believe you are right and are supplying evidence that you believe supports your view. So I could just as soon turn around and say to you:

"As you already know you are right. You will be right even if the evidence says you are wrong, it will be the evidence that is wrong because the truth has been told to you from the ever changing word of man .... which is never wrong as its the word of old earth scientists."



I am the only Christian in my family. I have been a believer since 1999 and have experienced amazing things since being a Christian.



Actually no it hasn't. It in itself is evolving as new evidence is discovered. God's word is what has stood the test of time. It never has to be changed even as new evidences are discovered.



It is programmed into us to want to believe in something. That something was intended to be God. We as humans have looked in all manner of places to fill this void - if we could prove evolution to be true, then of course there would be no God - no creator, unfortunately for these that try and debunk God, they have yet to prove their theories thereby disproving God.



You are absolutely correct, it is unfortunate but it is certainly true. There are more people who live by the ways of the world than those who believe and stand upon the word of God. Even the Bible states that this would be so. It takes me back to the days of VHS vs BETA, BETA was far superior to VHS although VHS had all the marketing behind it and so the world went with the VHS standard. As for evolution vs creation, the world seems to accept evolution because it is very well marketed and advertised. To be honest I can understand why people would sit back and go "Yeah sure - sounds about right to me."

Again, I could just as easily turn around and say to you:

"You must realise though that you are a member of a vast majority of people who actually don't accept the earths true age"

Very much like the vast majority of people that accepted an inferior video standard back in the VHS / BETA days.



You mean like the big bang theory or the Oort Cloud? Sure I agree with your statement then.


Jay, I thankyou very much for taking the time to write what you have it is much appreciated. I myself have been stretched and have certainly learned a lot and have grown in my faith as a result.

and if I may end with,

God Bless!

Aren't you doing the same thing as me though? You believe you are right and are supplying evidence that you believe supports your view. So I could just as soon turn around and say to you:

"As you already know you are right. You will be right even if the evidence says you are wrong, it will be the evidence that is wrong because the truth has been told to you from the ever changing word of man .... which is never wrong as its the word of old earth scientists."

No... Absolutely not, Thats the whole point. The theory of the big bang and the theory of evolution are open to debate and challenges to them are welcomed and encouraged .

Religious views are absolutlely not..Its true .. end of .. no discussion, and in some countries you will be executed for daring to question religiously held 'truthes'

A few hundred years ago you would have been executed for saying the earth revolved around the sun. A fact we now know to be true. Your executioners would have been deeply religious men following Gods truth.

I can honestly say I 'believe' that the big bang occured and we evolved. I wouldn't however go as far as to say it is fact, It hasn't been proven and my mind is always open to different ideas.

You on the other hand hold the biblical as fact and say it is, and will never be shifted on that view. your views are based on faith and not fact.

I am the only Christian in my family. I have been a believer since 1999 and have experienced amazing things since being a Christian.

I stand corrected. How/why did you convert ? Don't feel obliged to answer, I'm only curious and it's a personal matter for you.

Actually no it hasn't. It in itself is evolving as new evidence is discovered. God's word is what has stood the test of time. It never has to be changed even as new evidences are discovered.

That simply isn't true. The creation story is almost entirely now accepted as a myth even in mainstream religion. The point about evolution is the whole point. Its a theory that can be expanded on and built on as our understanding progresses. As a theory it has withstood all attacks and still stands and our knowledge of it grows all the time. BUT if a new theory was discovered that better explained our existance it would replace it and be accepted. A religiously held belief system cannot do that.

Science is progressive and able to change and adapt. Science has made some massive blunders and some ridiculous claims all of which were uncovered and disproven. There are far too many to list but I'm sure we are all aware of them. Science is evolving.

You mean like the big bang theory or the Oort Cloud? Sure I agree with your statement then.

No, I was thinking more along the lines of the persecution and execution of anyone challenging the religious authorities at the time with new views on the nature of the universe that are now known to be true. The case of Galileo and the Catholic church is a good one. They also claimed to follow the truthful and never erring word of God. Would you say they were right in their persecution of Galileo and charges of 'Heresy' against him.

I will never state that either Evolution or The Big Bang Theory are undeniable facts, and nor do they in themselves. That would require a level or arrogance normally only found in the Church ( thats not an attack on you, just my view after reading about Religions continuing war on Science )

I too enjoy these debates but am aware of how they can provoke bad feelings .. Religion and Politics..the two biggest taboo's.

I do respect your views even if I don't agree with them

Jay

Yes - we are having a debate. Although the challenges that I have put forth do not seem to be very welcome.



Yep, we as Christians have misinterpreted God's word at times and have done some pretty bad things in the past which are actually not biblical at all.



That doesn't seem to be entirely correct. You say you are open to different ideas about the origin of the universe, but it seems to be very much shut with respect to the evidence that I have been presenting.

I don't think that you can place us on different hands here. You are saying that I am on the other hand because my views are based on faith. But you yourself are a man of faith because you are have placed a belief in something that you yourself have stated is not fact.



I started going to a church who owned a really cool skatepark. The didn't open for business (paying customers) on Sunday but everone was allowed to skate for free after church because there were always people hanging around. After going numerous times I paid attention to the message being presented and basically said "I want in!" I can say that my life has changed dramatically since then (although not immediately).



you do realize that there are multiple millions who accept the Bible as truth - What are you basing this statement on?

Just to re-iterate, you are quite happy to put your faith in an ever changing belief system? We are in the process of building a new home, part of that process is building a solid foundation for that home so that it holds steadfast to withstand the elements. I certainly would not want to build my house on an unstable and unpredictable foundation.

Why do we need a new theory? God's word has been around for thousands of years and still holds true today! There's no need to continue searching for something once it has been found.



I think the above statement must have been edited after I replied because it is quite different to the statement that I first replied to. Nonetheless,

I can't speak much of the catholic church because I disagree with quite a number of their convictions and beliefs. In answer to your question - they were certainly wrong to persecute Galileo for simply speaking what is the truth.



It's unfortunate that we as the church can be arrogant and we shouldn't be. We should hold to our faith and speak out of love - sometimes tough love but not out of arrogance.

The majority of the worlds population views science and religion as two separate entities, which is unfortunate because God who is the creator of all is the reason that science works. God and science go hand in hand. The Bible and science support one another.

Debates help us grow - they're great!

Ok,

Seeing as it's Easter and all, I'll take a leap of faith and ask you ...

What is Gods purpose for me and what happens after we die?

Jay

If we're in a simulation, then your purpose is aggregate data to serve the interests of the the real people.

Also, after you die your data and experiences might be analysed. I say might as there is a huge chance that the end outcome of the simulation might not be relevant to the purpose in which is was performed - and someone may just right click, delete.

Happy Easter!