Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ilostabet" data-source="post: 1403987" data-attributes="member: 13181">I didn&#039;t finish it. I am not a big science guy though I kept your advice in mind. I understand the temptation behind trying to fit Genesis into modern hypothesis, whatever they are. No one wants to be considered a rube and compared to some of the evangelical fundamentalists. But I have to admit (being a rube) I am highly skeptical and prejudiced against things like this. The purpose is always to fit Genesis into whatever science currently says, which is always changing. This to me is a bad attitude to have. The scale of value is clear, and it&#039;s not Scripture which comes on top. And if for some reason the scientific consensus turns around, the same people would run hastily to try to fit Genesis into that. There&#039;s a difference between a desire to know and an obsession with &#039;staying with the times&#039;. Meanwhile, the words of Scripture remain the same and so do the writings of the Church Fathers on them.For my part, I know nothing about physics (and I have no capacity, and thus no interest). From the geology/paleontology side the &#039;evidence&#039; for the earth being billions of years old is not very strong at all. In fact, quite the opposite: the evidence is laughably weak and sometimes quite fraudulent. It&#039;s only because modern scientists want to believe in an old earth (mainly to conform with darwinism) that all the flaws and errors and inconsistencies in results in all the testing systems are ignored, and all the required assumptions for those systems to work, are made without a second thought. I understand what the authors of the slides are trying to prove. And they are very careful to thread a non-heretical line. But to me, that&#039;s all the more proof where their heart truly lies (with the scientific consensus, not Scripture). And if they are correct, which they may be, I don&#039;t see how that gives us more edification than simply reading Scripture or understanding them in a traditional way. The only thing it does is proudly elevate man: we are great, we discovered the mysteries of God and the Universe and Everything through our own means, and not by what God gave us. I think nothing good ever came of this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ilostabet, post: 1403987, member: 13181"] I didn't finish it. I am not a big science guy though I kept your advice in mind. I understand the temptation behind trying to fit Genesis into modern hypothesis, whatever they are. No one wants to be considered a rube and compared to some of the evangelical fundamentalists. But I have to admit (being a rube) I am highly skeptical and prejudiced against things like this. The purpose is always to fit Genesis into whatever science currently says, which is always changing. This to me is a bad attitude to have. The scale of value is clear, and it's not Scripture which comes on top. And if for some reason the scientific consensus turns around, the same people would run hastily to try to fit Genesis into that. There's a difference between a desire to know and an obsession with 'staying with the times'. Meanwhile, the words of Scripture remain the same and so do the writings of the Church Fathers on them. For my part, I know nothing about physics (and I have no capacity, and thus no interest). From the geology/paleontology side the 'evidence' for the earth being billions of years old is not very strong at all. In fact, quite the opposite: the evidence is laughably weak and sometimes quite fraudulent. It's only because modern scientists want to believe in an old earth (mainly to conform with darwinism) that all the flaws and errors and inconsistencies in results in all the testing systems are ignored, and all the required assumptions for those systems to work, are made without a second thought. I understand what the authors of the slides are trying to prove. And they are very careful to thread a non-heretical line. But to me, that's all the more proof where their heart truly lies (with the scientific consensus, not Scripture). And if they are correct, which they may be, I don't see how that gives us more edification than simply reading Scripture or understanding them in a traditional way. The only thing it does is proudly elevate man: we are great, we discovered the mysteries of God and the Universe and Everything through our own means, and not by what God gave us. I think nothing good ever came of this. [/QUOTE]

Verification