# Foundations Bible Conference - Creation



## wstrain87

Very much off topic, but just thought Id take the opportunity to advertise an event in my church:

FOUNDATIONS BIBLE CONFERENCE

CREATION

In the 200th anniversary of Darwin we ask if he was right or wrong?

Speakers: Rev. Ian Brown
Philip Bell (Creation Ministries International)

March 15th to March 20th
Sunday at 7.00 pm and
weeknights at 8.00 pm

Crossgar Free Presbyterian Church,
Killyleagh Street,
Crossgar,
DOWNPATRICK

If anyone wants any more information on it, just let me know.


William


----------



## The Detail Doctor

Thanks.

IMO the whole creationism theory is totally bonkers. He was obviously right.


----------



## green-blood

yikers, I'm not sure you really understand what slant the debate is likely to take!!


----------



## wstrain87

The Detail Doctor said:


> Thanks.
> 
> IMO the whole creationism theory is totally bonkers. He was obviously right.


I appreciate that everyone is entitled to their own view, and Im not here to start any arguments, but as Green_Blood says, we will actually be coming at it from the Biblical, Creationist viewpoint, which I personally would believe.


----------



## The Detail Doctor

wstrain87 said:


> I appreciate that everyone is entitled to their own view, and Im not here to start any arguments, but as Green_Blood says, we will actually be coming at it from the Biblical, Creationist viewpoint, which I personally would believe.


OK, I'm genuinley interested in your viewpoint on a few things.

Where do fossils come from??????

When was earth "created" (e.g. how many years ago)?


----------



## wstrain87

The Detail Doctor said:


> OK, I'm genuinley interested in your viewpoint on a few things.
> 
> Where do fossils come from??????
> 
> When was earth "created" (e.g. how many years ago)?


TBH I dont really know enough about the subject to give convincing answers, but hopefully after the conference Ill have a few better answers for you. If you genuinely want to know I would certainly recommend Answers in Genesis http://www.answersingenesis.org/

What I do believe is that the flood (as in Noah and the Ark) had a lot to do with the creation of fossils, etc. I dont exactly know how, but I have heard people speak on that before.

Based on the Bible, I believe that the World is thousands of years old, as opposed to millions - it is possible to trace right through the Bible, to work out approximately when the World began. It requires alot of study of verses such as X begat Y and he had two sons A and B. A begat Z, etc.

I actually have a timeline at home - I think it was possibly 3500BC it worked out the start of the Earth, cant quite remember though.

Answers in Genesis is very good though, as is Creation Ministry.


----------



## Troon

OK people, let's stop this right now. I've been on both sides of the debate, and I know that neither side is going to convince the other of anything. The only way this will end is with personal insults and a general spread of misinformation from both sides of the camp.

Mods - can we get this thread locked?


----------



## wstrain87

Troon said:


> OK people, let's stop this right now. I've been on both sides of the debate, and I know that neither side is going to convince the other of anything. The only way this will end is with personal insults and a general spread of misinformation from both sides of the camp.
> 
> Mods - can we get this thread locked?


Troon, as it is clear to see, me and the Detail Doctor are having a perfectly civil discussion. I wouldnt even say its a debate. I have not put this up with the intention of creating a debate on the forum, it is simply to advertise the event to anyone who may be interested to come along.


----------



## Deanoecosse

wstrain87 said:


> Based on the Bible, I believe that the World is thousands of years old, as opposed to millions - it is possible to trace right through the Bible, to work out approximately when the World began. It requires alot of study of verses such as X begat Y and he had two sons A and B. A begat Z, etc.
> 
> I actually have a timeline at home - I think it was possibly 3500BC it worked out the start of the Earth, cant quite remember though.
> 
> Answers in Genesis is very good though, as is Creation Ministry.


Ehh, I think you'll find that carbon dating completely blows your theory that the world is just a few thousand years old, right out of the water!


----------



## wstrain87

Deanoecosse said:


> Ehh, I think you'll find that carbon dating completely blows your theory that the world is just a few thousand years old, right out of the water!


While I respect your beliefs, I dont believe the theory of carbon dating, as I have heard arguments as to how carbon dating is flawed. For example, Im assuming that you dont believe in the Great Flood, but if you were to consider that the flood did take place, then the effects this would have had on the earth would have been far from uniform, i.e. certain processes would have been sped up/slow down.


----------



## The Detail Doctor

Personally I'm an atheist, but that's purley as I have never met a creationist that can scientifically explain away such things as Fossils, carbon dating, geological rock formations that are billions & not thousands of years old.

That's not to say however, that if somebody could covince me otherwise I wouldn't listen, it's just that the scientific facts are currently too strong to ignore.

And besides, he "the big man upstairs" created the entire universe & everything contained within it, he's need a lot more than a day off at the end of a "buisy week":thumb:


----------



## wstrain87

Unfortunately that person wouldnt be me, as I dont really understand the science aspect of it. I believe what I read in the Bible, because Im a born-again Christian, and have faith that what the Bible says is true.

You seem like an open-minded kinda guy. If Answers in Genesis are doing any meetings near you, you should definitely try to get along. They can explain all the science behind it.


----------



## The Detail Doctor

wstrain87 said:


> Unfortunately that person wouldnt be me, as I dont really understand the science aspect of it. I believe what I read in the Bible, because Im a born-again Christian, and have faith that what the Bible says is true.
> 
> You seem like an open-minded kinda guy. If Answers in Genesis are doing any meetings near you, you should definitely try to get along. They can explain all the science behind it.


I may well do that, would be interesting to see the science behind the claims.


----------



## Deanoecosse

wstrain87 said:


> If Answers in Genesis are doing any meetings near you, you should definitely try to get along. They can explain all the science behind it.


WOW and I thought Phil Collins was just a drummer!


----------



## Ronnie

I have to admit I cant get my head around this whole Christian thing. none of my family are and alot of my wife's family are "born again" I think both sides are wrong and infact the two go hand in hand evolotion does exist and has been well documented but so has biblical events in the bible so why cant they be mutually exclusive. instead of Christians and evolutionists both saying the other is wrong without actually listening to each other. Everything is flawed in life even the bible has several blatent conflicting stories but then its down to mans interpratation of thing. 

I have to admit I had a chat with a Christian once but his views were so blind and he had no interest in answering my questions only I need to be saved, so I turned off. hope u have a good night but also I think I would melt if I entered a free church! lol

Personally I would love to have a good chat with a knowledgable Christian as this to is something that interests me but I dont think I could be born again.


----------



## Deadlock

HI all

I haven't been on here for a long while....but thought as I was slacking in my skills of detailing I thought I should get I'd get back on board.

Ronnie et al a good website: http://www.gotquestions.org

I find this site very good at explain such questions as those mentioned above (and this is important): from both sides off the argument!

Try it.


----------



## Gruffs

Ronnie said:


> I have to admit I cant get my head around this whole Christian thing. none of my family are and alot of my wife's family are "born again" I think both sides are wrong and infact the two go hand in hand evolotion does exist and has been well documented but so has biblical events in the bible so why cant they be mutually exclusive. instead of Christians and evolutionists both saying the other is wrong without actually listening to each other. Everything is flawed in life even the bible has several blatent conflicting stories but then its down to mans interpratation of thing.
> 
> I have to admit I had a chat with a Christian once but his views were so blind and he had no interest in answering my questions only I need to be saved, so I turned off. hope u have a good night but also I think I would melt if I entered a free church! lol
> 
> Personally I would love to have a good chat with a knowledgable Christian as this to is something that interests me but I dont think I could be born again.


Both science and Religeon are a creation of man and so are subject to interpretation. It is very rare to have a scientific study that is completely conclusive as the variables are so difficult to control. Hence the ambiguous results *Evidence *Suggests* that X *may* lead to Y etc*.

At the same time, the bible (and other texts) is contradictory and itself open to human interpretation. Hence all the factions of Christianity (and Islam for that matter). 
Science can no more prove there isn't a god than the Church can prove there is one.

If God shows himself to each man in his own way then he is Allah to the Muslim, Abraham to the Jew, Christ to the Christian, Science to the Scientists.... I could go on.

Ultimately, what you believe in (or not) is up to you, you may share it with others or not. The main texts also support this. It is human interpretation of those texts that divides so many.

Your interpretation of faith is as individual as your finger print.

All this is of course my opinion. I love a good debate about pretty much anything. But on this particular subject, the opinions and views are so personal that there can never be an outcome.

It is what it is.


----------



## wstrain87

Ronnie said:


> I have to admit I cant get my head around this whole Christian thing. none of my family are and alot of my wife's family are "born again" I think both sides are wrong and infact the two go hand in hand evolotion does exist and has been well documented but so has biblical events in the bible so why cant they be mutually exclusive. instead of Christians and evolutionists both saying the other is wrong without actually listening to each other. Everything is flawed in life even the bible has several blatent conflicting stories but then its down to mans interpratation of thing.
> 
> I have to admit I had a chat with a Christian once but his views were so blind and he had no interest in answering my questions only I need to be saved, so I turned off. hope u have a good night but also I think I would melt if I entered a free church! lol
> 
> Personally I would love to have a good chat with a knowledgable Christian as this to is something that interests me but I dont think I could be born again.


Ronnie, I see you live in Armagh. My girlfriend's dad is actually the minister in Tandragee Free - just up the road from you. You would be made very welcome there any Sunday and if you wnated a chat with a knowledgable Christian I think he would be your man. He's not a "shove it down your throat" sort of minister like. And TBH Ive only been going to a Free church for almost three years - I was put off at first, but dont believe all the hype you hear.

As to your point about creation v. evolution - thats where the likes of Answers in Genesis comes in - they can explain Biblical events with science, and vice-versa.

I can see what you mean about talking to a knowledgable Christian by the way. I feel I dont know enough to answer peoples questions effectively and it makes me very nervous when people ask me questions about my faith, because I feel I'm still learning my own faith.


----------



## wstrain87

Deadlock said:


> HI all
> 
> I haven't been on here for a long while....but thought as I was slacking in my skills of detailing I thought I should get I'd get back on board.
> 
> Ronnie et al a good website: http://www.gotquestions.org
> 
> I find this site very good at explain such questions as those mentioned above (and this is important): from both sides off the argument!
> 
> Try it.


Looks a good site there.


----------



## stupidmonkfish

Love this subject but dont have time to put up a decent post right now, will come back to it a bit later tonight.

Although i do believe in a supreme being and i do not believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, im sure even some christian scientists have stated this.


----------



## Deadlock

stupidmonkfish said:


> Love this subject but dont have time to put up a decent post right now, will come back to it a bit later tonight.
> 
> Although i do believe in a supreme being and i do not believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, im sure even some christian scientists have stated this.


Yes. They have and a view on that site i posted above will provide that and many...should I say answers?? No Opinions or suggested directions / perceptions.


----------



## Ronnie

wstrain87 said:


> Ronnie, I see you live in Armagh. My girlfriend's dad is actually the minister in Tandragee Free - just up the road from you. You would be made very welcome there any Sunday and if you wnated a chat with a knowledgable Christian I think he would be your man. He's not a "shove it down your throat" sort of minister like. And TBH Ive only been going to a Free church for almost three years - I was put off at first, but dont believe all the hype you hear.
> 
> As to your point about creation v. evolution - thats where the likes of Answers in Genesis comes in - they can explain Biblical events with science, and vice-versa.
> 
> I can see what you mean about talking to a knowledgable Christian by the way. I feel I dont know enough to answer peoples questions effectively and it makes me very nervous when people ask me questions about my faith, because I feel I'm still learning my own faith.


I am 2 miles outside Tandragee and know your girlfriends dad. small world thanks for the invite. TBH Im a Weddings Christenings and Funerals person but will keep it in mind. :thumb: I am not interested in christianity as I tried it once and it wasn't for me personally but this subject does interest me.


----------



## matt strike

I've been raised in a church family and am a baptist. I've always questioned everything and looked into it using my own intelligence and reasoning to decide what I believe.

Personally I believe in creation, but I don't believe that rules out evolution. Much of it is in your interpretation as well as knowledge, for example many biblical years are believed by some to be lunar cycles or seasons, making Noah etc much younger than 900+ years. So way take the days of creation so literally? I believe the bible but when it says one day I don't take that literally. If earth was created on day one and light not until day 2 or whatever it is what's to separate them? We class a day as a revolution of earth, giving day then night then day again. Without light how would you know when one starts and one ends? Day one could be 1 million years, day 2 1 hour, day 3 a few thousand years or whatever, to me they are just stages not exact days. Not all cultures use(d) a seven day week, so where did that come from anyway?

When people mention dinosaurs not being in the bible as a reason for creationism to be wrong neither are crocodiles to the best of my knowledge, or sharks, or jellyfish etc etc. It's not an encyclopedia. 

Anyway, my point is I think the two can sit together but people tend to have an attitiude of there is only one right theory and all others must be completely wrong. Which is [email protected]@cks.


----------



## wstrain87

Ronnie said:


> I am 2 miles outside Tandragee and know your girlfriends dad. small world thanks for the invite. TBH Im a Weddings Christenings and Funerals person but will keep it in mind. :thumb: I am not interested in christianity as I tried it once and it wasn't for me personally but this subject does interest me.


You know Samuel? We probably know alot of the same people - I have quite a few friends up round there now. It sure is a small world. You should pop over some time to see the new church building if nothing else.


----------



## wstrain87

matt strike said:


> I've been raised in a church family and am a baptist. I've always questioned everything and looked into it using my own intelligence and reasoning to decide what I believe.
> 
> Personally I believe in creation, but I don't believe that rules out evolution. Much of it is in your interpretation as well as knowledge, for example many biblical years are believed by some to be lunar cycles or seasons, making Noah etc much younger than 900+ years. So way take the days of creation so literally? I believe the bible but when it says one day I don't take that literally. If earth was created on day one and light not until day 2 or whatever it is what's to separate them? We class a day as a revolution of earth, giving day then night then day again. Without light how would you know when one starts and one ends? Day one could be 1 million years, day 2 1 hour, day 3 a few thousand years or whatever, to me they are just stages not exact days. Not all cultures use(d) a seven day week, so where did that come from anyway?
> 
> When people mention dinosaurs not being in the bible as a reason for creationism to be wrong neither are crocodiles to the best of my knowledge, or sharks, or jellyfish etc etc. It's not an encyclopedia.
> 
> Anyway, my point is I think the two can sit together but people tend to have an attitiude of there is only one right theory and all others must be completely wrong. Which is [email protected]@cks.


I share alot of your views, and have alot of respect for you for forming your own opinions. Im actually trying to study Revelation at the minute. Your view that a day in creation may not be a day - I used to share that same belief, until someone gave me a very convincing answer as to why it wasnt. Unfortunately I cant remember what it was, but it could have been to do with the original Hebrew words used.

I believe that the people living before the flood literally did live for hundreds of years. If you study Genesis, you will see that up until the flood, the Earth was a very different place. There was no rain until he Flood - before that there was a 'firmament' - basically a mist. There were other differences as well, and basically the World was a much healthier place. Also, if you look carefully at the ages of people born around the flood, people before the flood lived for hundreds of years and outlived many generations of people born after the flood, who only lived maybe a couple of hundred years. Its all in a timeline I have at home - Ill try to scan it on - it makes it very easy to understand.

Also, I believe that there were dinosaurs, etc, in the bible - it talks of dragons, which many people believe were basically dinosaurs, however there is no mention of them after the flood (other than in Revelation).

Im not writing this to try to say your wrong, or to change your opinion, but more just for anyone else who may be viewing this thread, just to show my opinion on these matters.


----------



## Ronnie

wstrain87 said:


> You know Samuel? We probably know alot of the same people - I have quite a few friends up round there now. It sure is a small world. You should pop over some time to see the new church building if nothing else.


I know him but he would not know me. I was introduced to him at a function a few years ago through a mutual acquantance. it is some building how did they get the planning through for that.. government is great lol!


----------



## wstrain87

Ronnie said:


> I know him but he would not know me. I was introduced to him at a function a few years ago through a mutual acquantance. it is some building how did they get the planning through for that.. government is great lol!


I have no idea - it was really quick getting the planning and everything. The whole process, from conception to opening, only took around 18months.


----------



## green-blood

how many days did it take to create the world?


----------



## Ronnie

wstrain87 said:


> I have no idea - it was really quick getting the planning and everything. The whole process, from conception to opening, only took around 18months.


:tumbleweed:who you know I think TBH! lol


----------



## slimjim

Ian Brown worth seeing :thumb:

http://www.ianbrown.co.uk/


----------



## Troon

OK, further to my previous post, I'm actually impressed that this hasn't descended into name-calling arguments. It would in most other forums.

My problem with the young-earth belief is that it requires that much directly-observed evidence (mostly astronomical) needs to be ignored, and a lot of other evidence (palaentology, geology, plate tectonics, taxonomy of life) needs to be heavily distorted to align it with the young earth interpretation of the book of Genesis.

This information is presented in a way that convinces those without a strong scientific background, who then go on to try to spread it to others - making young-earth creationism seem like a prerequisite to being a Christian.

In reality, there are a number of ways to interpret Genesis. My personal view is that it is an allegorical story explaining the creation to an earlier civilization, and that the ages of the earth and the universe are as they appear: at our best guess, 4.5 and 13.7 billion years respectively.

However, if non-believers (agnostics, not atheists) get the idea that young-earth creationism *is* Christianity - when they find out that the majority of the scientific community reject the idea, it ends up having the effect of putting people off Christianity.

The key tenet of Christianity is that Jesus - God's only son - died to pay the price of our sin and we can accept that as a free gift just by believing. That's salvation and grace. All the arguments of the age of the universe and evolution are *harmful*. All that's required is a belief that God created everything - never mind exactly how.

An earlier post put Christians and evolutionists as opposites - they're not. It's possible to be both. Depicting them as opposites forces people to choose one or the other.

Personally, I've had all the AiG material presented to me. My old pastor was very keen on it to the extreme, and some of his theories were cringeworthy as they were so clearly wrong. I've heard the six-day creation (as in 6x24 hours) argument at the Stoneleigh Bible Week. It doesn't match up with what I see. I know faith is being sure of what we do not see (look in Hebrews somewhere), but it's not contradicting what we do see.

If anyone reading this takes anything from my post, please take this: *rejecting young earth creationism is not the same as rejecting Christianity*. I don't want anyone missing out on the greatest free gift in history because they're uncomfortable with the earth being created in 4004BC.


----------



## matt strike

I could be wrong but I'm sure I've read that Darwin was a Christian and grew quite unhappy with people using evolution as an argument against creation.


----------



## wstrain87

green-blood said:


> how many days did it take to create the world?


6 days


----------



## wstrain87

slimjim said:


> Ian Brown worth seeing :thumb:
> 
> http://www.ianbrown.co.uk/


Just in case someone doesnt realise - it will be a different Ian Brown - but he is definitely worth seeing.


----------



## wstrain87

Troon said:


> OK, further to my previous post, I'm actually impressed that this hasn't descended into name-calling arguments. It would in most other forums.
> 
> My problem with the young-earth belief is that it requires that much directly-observed evidence (mostly astronomical) needs to be ignored, and a lot of other evidence (palaentology, geology, plate tectonics, taxonomy of life) needs to be heavily distorted to align it with the young earth interpretation of the book of Genesis.
> 
> This information is presented in a way that convinces those without a strong scientific background, who then go on to try to spread it to others - making young-earth creationism seem like a prerequisite to being a Christian.
> 
> In reality, there are a number of ways to interpret Genesis. My personal view is that it is an allegorical story explaining the creation to an earlier civilization, and that the ages of the earth and the universe are as they appear: at our best guess, 4.5 and 13.7 billion years respectively.
> 
> However, if non-believers (agnostics, not atheists) get the idea that young-earth creationism *is* Christianity - when they find out that the majority of the scientific community reject the idea, it ends up having the effect of putting people off Christianity.
> 
> The key tenet of Christianity is that Jesus - God's only son - died to pay the price of our sin and we can accept that as a free gift just by believing. That's salvation and grace. All the arguments of the age of the universe and evolution are *harmful*. All that's required is a belief that God created everything - never mind exactly how.
> 
> An earlier post put Christians and evolutionists as opposites - they're not. It's possible to be both. Depicting them as opposites forces people to choose one or the other.
> 
> Personally, I've had all the AiG material presented to me. My old pastor was very keen on it to the extreme, and some of his theories were cringeworthy as they were so clearly wrong. I've heard the six-day creation (as in 6x24 hours) argument at the Stoneleigh Bible Week. It doesn't match up with what I see. I know faith is being sure of what we do not see (look in Hebrews somewhere), but it's not contradicting what we do see.
> 
> If anyone reading this takes anything from my post, please take this: *rejecting young earth creationism is not the same as rejecting Christianity*. I don't want anyone missing out on the greatest free gift in history because they're uncomfortable with the earth being created in 4004BC.


See where your coming from here, in that the Christain religion allows us to draw our own conclusions on certain subjects. This obviously is made more confusing when we have to decide whether a passage is to be taken literally or not, as obviously some parables, etc, were not meant to be taken literally. However, I personally see no reason why Genesis should not be taken literally, as most of the Old Testament should be taken literally. I think it's also important to remember the infinte power of God, and bear in mind that there are things that God can do, which the human mind cannot comprehend.


----------



## wstrain87

matt strike said:


> I could be wrong but I'm sure I've read that Darwin was a Christian and grew quite unhappy with people using evolution as an argument against creation.


TBH I dont know anything about Charles Darwin. But what I have learnt is that the Bible warns off false prophets, etc. and for that reason I would be very wary of any views that, in my mind, do not agree with the Word of God. However, I do appreciate that there are different interpretations of the Bible. I also believe that this is not helped by the number of different versions of the Bible available today, which is why I now only use the Authorised King James Version. I was brought up using the NIV (New International Version) but a few years ago I learnt that there are several inaccuracies in the NIV and that some verses have been left out of it. This has made me very sceptical of what I read, etc. and therefore find that I have to try to ask myself what each passage is actually getting at.


----------



## green-blood

wstrain87 said:


> which is why I now only use the Authorised King James Version


ok can we please leave it here, thanks.


----------



## mikerd4

Good to see this hasnt descended into name calling and is civil. To be honest these debates can never be won or lost.

The bible may warn of false prophets but Darwin was never cast aside by the church in fact the vatican is holding a series of debates on his work. Unlike Galileo who was excommunicated for his work

Darwins theory is just that a theory it has some holes in it as does christianity


----------



## wstrain87

mikerd4 said:


> Good to see this hasnt descended into name calling and is civil. To be honest these debates can never be won or lost.
> 
> The bible may warn of false prophets but Darwin was never cast aside by the church in fact the vatican is holding a series of debates on his work. Unlike Galileo who was excommunicated for his work
> 
> Darwins theory is just that a theory it has some holes in it as does christianity


Im not going to go into my views on the Vatican, as I can see that causing offense and that's not what Im trying to do here, but anyone who knows anything about the Free Presbyterian Church will pretty much know where I stand. Suffice to say that whether or not the Vatican agrees with anyone does little to alter my opinion.

TBH I know very little of Darwin's background, but after this thread it is something I might look into more.

I think its important to remember that Christianity in itself is not flawed, but the churches, etc. are. The flaws are man-made. A saying I have heard many times is:

"There is no such thing as the perfect church. But if you ever find it, don't join it, as you will then make it imperfect."


----------



## eddymx3

Fossils are Gods joke on PALEATOLOGISTS!! Its just a joke they havent got yet


----------



## Troon

mikerd4 said:


> To be honest these debates can never be won or lost.


You're exactly right. To try to hold a valid debate on the subject requires a wide and deep knowledge of many fields of science, as well as a good working knowledge of the original ancient Hebrew text of the source of the book of Genesis.

wstrain87: this is my key issue with debates like this. You're unlikely to convince or even interest anyone in views which are at great odds with modern mainstream understanding, particularly when you freely admit you know nothing about Charles Darwin, his theories or other scientific evidence; and when you insist on using a 1611 translation of the Bible which does not benefit from the last 400 years of archaeo-linguistic research, and whose translators typically didn't even refer to the first-hand Hebrew sources but instead relied on intermediate Latin translations.

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to form your own views, but as I said above, my fear is that when you try to vocalize them, you'll end up putting non-Christians off Christianity altogether with your inability to back up your claims without circular references to the Bible itself. I can't find the reference here at work, but somewhere Paul exhorts his followers to be well-educated and able to argue for the Gospel.

Picture this (using you personally as an example, but this applies to all vocal young-earth advocates):

wstrain87: "the universe was created in six days, a few thousand years ago"
sceptic: "but what about the light reaching us from stars that are millions of light years away? Did God set it up that way to trick us?"
wstrain87: "er... dunno. I've heard the speed of light may have changed?"
sceptic: "and what about the cosmic background radiation, which was discovered by accident but which ties up exactly with predictions from the Big Bang theory, supporting an age for the universe of 13.7 billion years?"
wstrain87: "but the Bible says that's wrong"
sceptic: "and the ratios of isotopes of uranium in bedrock, suggesting that the Earth solidified around 4.5 billion years ago?"
wstrain87: "pass"

The sceptic then goes away believing the Bible (all of it) must therefore be wrong, *rejecting salvation based on your decision that the creation story in Genesis is to be literally interpreted* and his inferrence that any other view is incompatible with Christianity.

Not trying to sound superior in any way, but I do have a strong background in the science of the arguments from both sides, and I certainly wouldn't try to broach the subject as a way to evangelize to a non-Christian.

Don't get me wrong - it's an interesting subject to talk about, but I very strongly believe the debate should be confined to already-strong Christians interested in the evidence for and against the literal interpretation of the creation story. The only view that I believe should be publically expressed is that we believe God created the Universe (Heb 11:3, "worlds were framed by the word of God" in the KJV, IIRC).

I guess my message to the non-Christians reading this is: the young-earth creationist view is not a prerequisite to Christianity.


----------



## stupidmonkfish

Now thats what i call a sunday service.


----------



## Throbbe

matt strike said:


> I could be wrong but I'm sure I've read that Darwin was a Christian and grew quite unhappy with people using evolution as an argument against creation.


Darwin was a christian, and indeed was a minister, or certainly intending to be one, but died an athiest. Whether that was as a result of his studies into natural selection I couldn't say.

Evolution certainly isn't an argument against Christianity (or any other belief). Who's to say [insert diety of choice] didn't always intend their creation to evolve and provided a mechanism for it to occur.

I'm a non-believer personally, but just because there is no conclusive evidence to prove that God exists doesn't mean He doesn't.


----------



## wstrain87

Troon said:


> You're exactly right. To try to hold a valid debate on the subject requires a wide and deep knowledge of many fields of science, as well as a good working knowledge of the original ancient Hebrew text of the source of the book of Genesis.
> 
> wstrain87: this is my key issue with debates like this. You're unlikely to convince or even interest anyone in views which are at great odds with modern mainstream understanding, particularly when you freely admit you know nothing about Charles Darwin, his theories or other scientific evidence; and when you insist on using a 1611 translation of the Bible which does not benefit from the last 400 years of archaeo-linguistic research, and whose translators typically didn't even refer to the first-hand Hebrew sources but instead relied on intermediate Latin translations.
> 
> You are, of course, perfectly entitled to form your own views, but as I said above, my fear is that when you try to vocalize them, you'll end up putting non-Christians off Christianity altogether with your inability to back up your claims without circular references to the Bible itself. I can't find the reference here at work, but somewhere Paul exhorts his followers to be well-educated and able to argue for the Gospel.
> 
> Picture this (using you personally as an example, but this applies to all vocal young-earth advocates):
> 
> wstrain87: "the universe was created in six days, a few thousand years ago"
> sceptic: "but what about the light reaching us from stars that are millions of light years away? Did God set it up that way to trick us?"
> wstrain87: "er... dunno. I've heard the speed of light may have changed?"
> sceptic: "and what about the cosmic background radiation, which was discovered by accident but which ties up exactly with predictions from the Big Bang theory, supporting an age for the universe of 13.7 billion years?"
> wstrain87: "but the Bible says that's wrong"
> sceptic: "and the ratios of isotopes of uranium in bedrock, suggesting that the Earth solidified around 4.5 billion years ago?"
> wstrain87: "pass"
> 
> The sceptic then goes away believing the Bible (all of it) must therefore be wrong, *rejecting salvation based on your decision that the creation story in Genesis is to be literally interpreted* and his inferrence that any other view is incompatible with Christianity.
> 
> Not trying to sound superior in any way, but I do have a strong background in the science of the arguments from both sides, and I certainly wouldn't try to broach the subject as a way to evangelize to a non-Christian.
> 
> Don't get me wrong - it's an interesting subject to talk about, but I very strongly believe the debate should be confined to already-strong Christians interested in the evidence for and against the literal interpretation of the creation story. The only view that I believe should be publically expressed is that we believe God created the Universe (Heb 11:3, "worlds were framed by the word of God" in the KJV, IIRC).
> 
> I guess my message to the non-Christians reading this is: the young-earth creationist view is not a prerequisite to Christianity.


I agree with what your saying, but I didnt start this thread as a debate - I know I dont have the answers - I only started it to advertise the evnt, as I know many people have an interest in the subject.

However, I personally dont agree with what you say with regard to the Bible. The NIV (and other modern translations) come from an Alexandrian text. When you read through many themes of the Bible, you will see that Egypt was seen as an unclean and evil place, and for that reason I find it hard to believe that the inspired word of God would come from Egypt. Also, my own Minister is a Professor of Greek and Hebrew and often refers back to the original wording during sermons - this is quite typical of most ministers in the Free Presbyterian Church, as they have to have a firm grounding in the subject before ordination. In our own Bible Study at Youth Fellowship we also use a program (I think it's called Bible Works) to refer to original language. I wouldnt agree that the Translators of the KJV did not refer to original Hebrew, unless you are referring to Alexandrian works, or other texts which have been discounted.

While you may have a thorough grounding in the science of the subject, you must also be careful not to take passages out of context. Hebrews Chapter 11 is know as the 'Hall of Faith' and the key theme is faith. The entire verse reads:

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Therefore I think it is important not to rely on the science, but to read the Word:

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17 KJV

People wont be converted to the Creationist way of thinking through science, but by believing the word of God.

Romans Chapter 10 in general would be a good verse for you to read actually.


----------



## wstrain87

Throbbe said:


> Darwin was a christian, and indeed was a minister, or certainly intending to be one, but died an athiest. Whether that was as a result of his studies into natural selection I couldn't say.
> 
> Evolution certainly isn't an argument against Christianity (or any other belief). Who's to say [insert diety of choice] didn't always intend their creation to evolve and provided a mechanism for it to occur.
> 
> I'm a non-believer personally, but just because there is no conclusive evidence to prove that God exists doesn't mean He doesn't.


While Darwin may have been a 'Christian' in the broadest sense of the word, and was baptised as an Anglican, he was a Unitarian. Unitarians do not believe in the Trinity and do not subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith. They do not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ, or in Creation.

Darwin was not intending to be a Minister per se. His father, who was an Anglican, forced him to study to become a parson in the Anglican Church, after dropping out of medical school. I am not an expert in the Anglican church, but from what I can understand, a parson is not a spiritual leader in a church, but rather is more like a glorified caretaker, looking after the business side of the church, but not administering sacraments, etc.

He most likely died as an agnostic. He believed there was a God - but didnt belive in intelligent design. He felt God was just a law-giver. However, there are people who say he turned to Christianity on his deathbed - this is largely discounted by historians however.


----------

