>>21882 Is Genesis 1 true, yes or no?

>>2178 >Mathew Solomon 11:1 Barbatos Primeval is canon when Jesus summons it to keep resurrecting his army so he can monologue with John about our heavenly father while they watch dudes kill each other and give Jesus's dudes server hax,

>>21888 Sure, it's divine revelation. But it's not a scientific thesis explaining every minute detail of the physics of creation and later, evolution. It's a summary for intellects that are insufficient to understand. The Lord tells us to come to him as children, innocent and believing. But there are those who won't do that; their faith is weak and they insist on having every detail explained. That God exists is easy, the supernatural creation of all things. Now it's a matter of which religion is true; I accept the Bible, all of it. Genesis says God created the world in 7 days... I accept that I don't understand what a day means to God Almighty. I barely have it figured out in Special Relativity.

>>21895 Genesis wasn't written to God, it was written to men. Do you know what a day is? It's fine if you don't, because the text defines it >and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. So it's a period of time from sunrise-to-sunrise, light and darkness. Also, it says there was plant life on earth before there were stars, the sun or the moon. Do you believe that? >And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

>>21897 Not even sure what you're on about. The Bible was divinely inspired by God. It's true. But it's not a scientific paper, there no F=dP/dt in there, nor is there any mention of DNA. If your faith is so weak and your understanding of God's creation is so weak that you lose faith and deny science because the Bible isn't literally science.... well. Not my problem.

>>21904 What science? Evolution? The big bang? Skimming through this conversation I think I see where you're coming from. But if your goal is to say that atheists do not deny God then you're wrong. Just because they believe in a spontaneous creation of the universe by the collision of two objects which had no means of existing isn't the same as them believing in God. If I interpret this conversation wrong then my apologies

>>21905 > But if your goal is to say that atheists do not deny God then you're wrong. Shark. Has. Been. Jumped. Christianity is the Belief that Jesus Christ is God, it's not belief that science has to comply with a 7000 year old earth and the exact Biblical explanation of Creation. Father Lemaître's big bang doesn't have two objects to collide, or any object for that matter. Anyone who has a problem with Genesis needs to read the part in the Bible where they can't interpret it by themselves. I'm giving up now.

>>21906 >it's not belief that science has to comply with a 7000 year old earth and the exact Biblical explanation of Creation. We finally have our answer: no, you don't believe it. Proper science is thinking God's thoughts after Him, it starts with God has revealed and seeks to fill in any gaps which remain. The strange god of Science, which is men exercising their futility in an effort to be as gods, autonomously deciding their own truth, is not any which I worship.

>>21906 If God is the primordial intelligence as we assume then i think it is safe to say that He probably knew that it wouldnt just be bronze age cave men that would be reading the Bible. Thats without getting into the scientific problems of evolution, many of which are pointed out in this thread.

aswell, bronze age people are equally as capable of understanding things as modern man. the only difference is the knowledge we've aquired over the millenias we've existed. Why couldnt God have explained things in more detail if creation was truly more complex than we believe? The only reason i could think of would be if God didnt want us to know, which is possible. Perhaps the creationist v evolutionist debate is a modernized test of faith. If that were the case then i guess its been rather successful since nobody has 110% proof of anything surrounding this issue really. i will say that we didn't come from apes tho, i feel the Bible gives way too detail an emphasis for that to be too much up for debate. I also find it kinda strange that God would want His, for lack of a better word, self portrait to have come from a monkey. Although then again all animals are beautiful in God's sight. I would just think He'd want to hand craft it, seeing how important we are to Him and all,

>>21915 I have no idea what you're on about, but science is not a god. You clearly don't need me to have your discussions, those voices in your head and yourself are having quite an interesting go. >>21916 What the heck is a "primordial intelligence"? God is omnipotent. Truth Is, God did write an elaborate thesis on the standard theory explaining the big bang, but the ancient Israelites lost it when crossing the Dead Sea. To them, it was gibberish. >The only reason i could think of would be if God didnt want us to know, which is possible. They didn't even have a way to write down the math. The whole idea is absurd. Pretty sure you atheists are just being silly now.

>>21920 >What the heck is a "primordial intelligence"? God, Yahweh, Whatever you want to call Him. >Truth Is, God did write an elaborate thesis on the standard theory explaining the big bang, but the ancient Israelites lost it when crossing the Dead Sea. To them, it was gibberish. do you have proof of this or did you just make it up because ive never heard this claim before. >They didn't even have a way to write down the math. hebrew has numbers and it has letters and the ideas could be explained all the same. All God would really need to do is explain in more detail what actually occurred instead of giving us what you suggest is a allegory. >The whole idea is absurd. Pretty sure you atheists are just being silly now. im not an atheist.

>>21921 >God, Yahweh, Whatever you want to call Him. "primordial intelligence" doesn't come close to "omnipotent" God. >do you have proof of this or did you just make it up because ive never heard this claim before. I was addressing the absurd idea that God had to describe the physics of the creation to a bronze age people. They won't understand it, nor would they preserve it, so saying that because God didn't provide a scientific paper on proves "no God" or "no science" is a very poorly thought out fallacy. It doesn't follow. >hebrew has numbers and it has letters and the ideas could be explained all the same. All God would really need to do is explain in more detail what actually occurred instead of giving us what you suggest is a allegory. Absurd. They didn't even have real numbers, much less tensor calculus and complex numbers. Again, it doesn't follow that it could be explained. It didn't even require explaining. God didn't put us here for that.

What the heck, people were posting in MY PERSONAL THREAD that I've been bumping for 900 years!!!!!!!? Without my permission too!? i sense a flogging in the synagogue. I don't think there's anything left to say. Someone here said that it's not a scientific debate. YES, it is. That's all it is. I agree the bible says clearly the truth of what creationist say. But at the same time the Bible really doesn't address these things. This is much more a scientific debate. Although you can argue people do reject the Bible when they claim things like Noah's flood not being global but they say it's just allegorical or i don't know what nonsense they come up with for whatever reason. The only reason for billion year old Earth nonsense is what? for evolution? Because with enough birth defects a single cell can eventually turn into a sea sponge then a fish then a glowworm. No one has ever explained WHY they believe in evolution? What's the point, it is not in the bible and it has no part of any field of science it is simply not true and all evidence says it's not true. Or maybe the reason is to conform to paganism. The Babylonians went on about tens of thousands of years, then the Egyptians had their millions and now the evolutionist have their billions. And now with the James Webb dismantling the current age of the big bang are we going to just move to trillions? Why not. "Modern humans originated in Africa within the past 200,000 years " I would like EVERYONE to take this honestly to themselves and ask if they really believe this is true. Do you really realise how long that is and do you think that human civilisation only began strangely about 4-5 thousand years ago conveniently after the flood is said to happen and it began on the nearest river to where the Ark landed conveniently. And when you start getting into excuses for the missing 200,000 years it's just not biblical. These 200,000 years of people are not brought up. Neanderthals had bigger brains and better teeth and bones because they were better than us, everything is running down since the fall, all the stars are dying, they aren't forming. Entropy is killing everything. Humans today live among each other and have slightly different bone features, that's always been the case and many of our ancestors are buried underground. You can use different dating method techniques to support different timelines, but ask yourself if you really believe human beans have been on the Earth for 200,000 years and ask yourself why you even think that and look at the other side.

Trey Smith has made a new video finally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3CQtIWnx7c New crev.info: https://crev.info/2022/12/can-dna-last-2-million-years/ This article is always funny to me https://www.icr.org/article/paddlefish-american/

>>22471 >MY PERSONAL THREAD Pretty sure that the internet is not an echo chamber. Personal threads belong on Notepad on your computer or phone. Put it here and it's a public thread with the implied invitation to agree or disagree. >Someone here said that it's not a scientific debate. YES, it is. That's all it is. God creates, science is the study of God's creation. God is sure and knows everything. The first rule of science is to know that you don't know. >I would like EVERYONE to take this honestly to themselves and ask if they really believe this is true. personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.

>>22478 >The first rule of science is to know that you don't know. I know that God exists and the bible is His word, if you start your scientific inquiry without that it is sinful rebellion, plain and simple.

>>22478 >The first rule of science is to know that you don't know. Wrong. Within the scientific endeavor, you build on what you do know, not on what you don't know. Cf. Isaac Newton's famous end-of-life quote. And the first two steps of the scientific method is to "establish the initial conditions" "establish the point of view (or perspective)". This is why so many skeptics of Genesis 1 & 2 -- Christians and non-Christians alike -- get their critical analyses so wrong. >"Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."[1] Those were the initial conditions of the Earth. Formless, void, dark. The point-of-view is directly above (hovering over) the surface of a water-covered planet Earth. This is both scientifically-accurate as well as obviously Biblically truthful. Once you establish these two items in their proper order (initial conditions & point of view) then all the creation events described in Genesis 1 are both correct, and they are also in the exact scientific order. Quite an absolutely impossible accomplishment for just a archaic shepherd man, I'd say? No, any honest science endeavor will always attest to the truth of scripture. Given the book of Scripture and the 'book' of nature has the same Author, and given His immutable and truthful character, it simply cannot be otherwise, logically-speaking. 1. https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-2.htm (BSB)

>>22553 >Failure to do [t]his is why so many skeptics*

>>21906 >Christianity is the Belief that Jesus Christ is God, it's not belief that science has to comply with a 7000 year old earth and the exact Biblical explanation of Creation. Claiming death brought man into the world is a clear heresy. Big bang, abiogenesis, evolutionism are all heresies. -God created "And God said...", not nothing magically exploding into everything for no reason by purely physical processes. -God created life and God created man in His image, not life magically coming into being on its own and man does not share common ancestry with maggots and earth worms and fish and banana trees. -God finished his work on the 7th day, it was done--finish, he didn't need to have creation "evolve" for gorillions of years. Also, the earth being roughly 6000-7000 years old going by genealogy records in the scripture all the way back to Adam, who Christ referred to as the beginning when Christ talked about God making them male and female, isn't something that science has to "comply with" it's just a fact of reality and any "scientist" who rejects this plain truth proven by the rocks (geology), the animals, the stars, the comets, basically all of it; they're rejecting knowledge just because they don't like the source of that knowledge, i.e. being the Bible because then they'd have to recognize God in some capacity. Modern science is a bunch of godless heathen religious nuts, with their godless religion of millions of years being a magic wand that makes miracles happen despite being scientifically impossible and their godless religion of evolutionism which they force on kids in tax funded schools and which is the ONLY reason that idiotic fairy tale of evolutionistic transformationism is still alive.

>>22644 >Claiming death brought man into the world is a clear heresy. Again, the brozen age people didn't know much about the earth, and God gave them what they needed knowing they couldn't understand it all. I believe God created this entire universe. Not believing that is the true heresy. Denying bits of evidence of the creation is heresy.

a video about geocentrism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8RXMpk7ml4

>>22657 Two hours? And for what? if it's saying the earth is at the center of the universe then... the math gets really difficult and the physics is really bad. If it's say the earth orbits the sun, the sun orbits the galactic core, and the galaxy moves then nothing new. Back at the end of the 19th century, the US was considering stopping immigration of Jews as their IQ scores were dismal. They needed a propaganda campaign to show "Jews are smarter than goyim". And Einstein was a Jewish poster boy who stole SR from Lorentz and Fitzgerald, GR from Hilbert (and it's not even especially right) and Brownian motion from Thiel. He didn't discover the photo-electric effect and the physics is a plug and chug from the old quantum theory. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics and his EPR paradox shows he didn't understand either quantum mechanics or SR. Einstein's personal life is one of a degenerate.

This is why God made blue haired whale feminists. They will dismantle evolutionXD. Everyone serves God, whether they want it or not.

I don't know if I made this point yet in this thread, but while evidences are of great value in discrediting the myth of evolution, since evolutionism represents an unbelieving worldview and all attempts at a theistic conception of evolution are an effort to syncretize with naturalism, the strongest attack to be made against it would be to perform an internal critique to expose that it is built on a lie and to feed into the wider point that anti-theism presupposes theism. For example, we may ask the evolutionist if he believes evolution is true, why should he have any confidence that evolution is true? Since he believes he has arrived at this belief in some way by the application of his mental faculties, and evolutionism states that the mental faculties of a man are nothing more than highly evolved bacteria, why should have any confidence in them whatsoever? Perhaps the pond scum really evolved very poorly, and in such a way that the thing thinks its thinking makes a great deal of sense and cannot see it any other way, but is actually quite stupid and unavoidably far off the mark. We may further wonder why they would be trying to convince us that evolution or anything else is true, since persuasion presupposes some commonality in the mind so that I naturally reason in the same way that you naturally reason, but this seems very far fetched if everyone is a randomized primordial soup. Finally we can ask if his mind is simply this physical object subject to the laws of physics and not an immaterial soul, why he would think he believes anything because it is so rational and empirically sound, and not simply because that is what the laws of physics operating on the chemicals in his head compelled him to believe? Why is he trying to change our minds about anything, when all our beliefs are likewise reducible to the physical manipulation of electrified chemicals? >>22651 It says a lot you see scripture as nothing more than the mythology of bronze age primitives. Genesis is an iron age text, by the way.

>>22959 >That Musk quote Heh. Evolution is bankrupt out of the gate, and always was. It doesn't need voluminous, rolly-polly land masses to discredit it -- it discredits itself. A better model needs to be found to explicate life's appearance on Earth. Oh wait...

>>23501 Your expositing what I believe is termed The Argument from Reason, one of a train of arguments based on human-exceptionalism. It's a good one Anon. IMO the current best one is simply that Moses' writing Genesis thousands of years before modern cosmology, and he got the so-called 'Big Bang' model correct. It's literally Christianity's strongest objective apologetic argument. Why these skeptics (rightly) accuse us all of being a cult despite this profound evidence, is b/c of the widespread indoctrination of so-called 'Young Earth Creationism'. To wit; ''The Earth and indeed the entire universe is no older than 10'000 years.' Obviously ludricrous, both Biblically, and scientifically.

>>23510 Lol. BTW regarding that pic, I might point out that there are only two objects in the picture that is a star (eg at lower right). Everything else is a galaxy or a cluster of them. >tl;dr This is an unimaginably large volume just in this little wedge of the universe. It's literally billions of lightyears in depth.

>>23510 >Your expositing what I believe is termed The Argument from Reason, one of a train of arguments based on human-exceptionalism I'm not familiar with this argument, but I think I was making a transcendental argument. The argument is that the atheist must presuppose the reliability and reality of his mind in order to make a case for his worldview, but he has absolutely no basis for that presupposition in his worldview. In order to argue against God, he has to presuppose God. This is why the bible says the unbeliever is "without excuse" for his rejection of God, the underlying Greek word literally means "no defense", because any defense they could make to excuse their unbelief betrays their guilt. >Moses' writing Genesis thousands of years before modern cosmology, and he got the so-called 'Big Bang' model correct. Many Christians mistakenly believe that big bang cosmology reflects a creatio ex nihilo, however it is a naturalistic attempt to explain the existence of the cosmos like evolutionism is a naturalistic attempt to explain the existence of life. Big bang cosmology claims all the energy in the universe originally existed in a singularity which exploded outwards for no reason and condensed the energy into matter. It directly contradicts the Genesis 1 cosmology as it posits that amorphus energy became stardust became stars and then planets, whereas Genesis 1 states that such things were created from nothing, with the earth explicitly being created before the sun and stars. Big bang cosmology generates a prediction of the universe's age as over a dozen billion years old by looking at the positions of the cosmos, the rate of their acceleration and rolls them back until they converge in a single point, and then calculates how much time that would take. On the other hand the bible predicts an age of the universe of a few thousand years, in spite of exegetically indefensible attempts to shove the godless conclusions of secularists into the text.

>>23510 His argument is actually the evolutionary argument against naturalism: >The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) is a philosophical argument asserting a problem with believing both evolution and philosophical naturalism simultaneously. The argument was first proposed by Alvin Plantinga in 1993 and "raises issues of interest to epistemologists, philosophers of mind, evolutionary biologists, and philosophers of religion".[1] The EAAN argues that the combined belief in both evolutionary theory and naturalism is epistemically self-defeating. The argument for this is that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then the probability of having reliable cognitive faculties is low. This argument comes as an expansion of the argument from reason, although the two are separate philosophical arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism >>23514 >whereas Genesis 1 states that such things were created from nothing, with the earth explicitly being created before the sun and stars. Genesis 1:2 also states that there were waters upon the plane of existence before the earth was created. >Big bang cosmology generates a prediction of the universe's age as over a dozen billion years old by looking at the positions of the cosmos, the rate of their acceleration and rolls them back until they converge in a single point, and then calculates how much time that would take. Curiously scientific models don't even posit a fixed rate of time progression because time and spatial physical laws operate relativistically. Given that God has authority over all the laws of nature and that time perception can be distorted in an observer's frame of reference, it doesn't contradict empirical data at all that God's mighty hand can craft the entire universe in six days. I never see this tendency of the faithless to place arbitrary constraints upon God's power to justify their worldview pointed out, while their theoretical models but further enhance its viability.

https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/distant-starlight-in-a-young-universe/ If I am understanding him correctly, Dr. Lisle is saying that it is true both that such and such galaxy is so and so billions of years old, and that it is 6,000 years old, because the sole difference between these propositions is the meaning of the word "year" at a distance? So that, from the perspective of the earth, it is really and fully true that the galaxies did not exist prior to the 4th day of creation, and from the perspective of the galaxies it is fully and really true that they existed billions of years before it, because there is no absolute time? It especially sounds like that's what he's saying when he says >So, what does all this mean?  What is its significance for the distant starlight issue?  For one, the conventionality thesis implies that the ancient visual synchrony convention is just as legitimate as the modern Einstein synchrony convention.  So, when we look at Alpha Centauri in a telescope, are we seeing it as it is now, or as it was 4.3 years ago?  If you have tracked the above discussion, then you know the answer is: both.  By the Einstein synchrony convention, we see it as it was 4.3 years ago, and by the visual synchrony convention, we see it as it is right now.  People are tempted to ask, “yes but which one is right?  When did the light really leave the star?”  But such questions are meaningless because they assume the false concepts of absolute time and a universal standard of simultaneity.

>>23901 Remember God literally also created the light. Imagine that you can use physical light as a chronological standard with an almighty God.

Why can we see starlight from more than 10k light years away?

>>23978 Cause it was put there.

>>23981 smells like God of the gaps

>>23989 It's only God of the gaps if you someone presume God doesn't operate the natural world as a priori sovereign. That doesn't mean the physical sciences aren't useful, but they are insufficient in their ability to explain existence.

>>23978 Because space is a vacuum. Once the distances reach millions of LY, intervening dust causes a shift of the light during it's travel through into the red spectrum. Just like the Sun/Moon shift into red during risings/settings. At cosmic scales, (~2Bn LY+), there's also an effect where the spacetime itself is stretching out which also causes a reddening Doppler shift of the galaxy light. The face we can see the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (which is from literally about 340K years after the creation event) if actually pretty amazing. It's red-shifted all the way into radio waves only. Hope that helps Anon.

>>23514 >Many Christians mistakenly believe that big bang cosmology reflects a creatio ex nihilo, That's not a mistake. In fact it's literally Christian's strongest argument for both a transcendetal Creator's existence, and His creation of our universe ex nihilo. These are objective, verifiable arguments that the seen universe began to exist out of that which is unseen -- directly in-line with Biblical claims in the matter.

>>23516 >His argument is actually the evolutionary argument against naturalism: Fair enough, but the idea of Ayy Lmaos is just a Red Herring fallacy. A) There are no exotic spots in the universe -- it's uniform in all directions. B) Where'd the Ayy Lmaos come from? There's a yuge train of both philosophical and scientific investigations into these questions spanning centuries (and more). Occam's Razor suggest that the Christian Bible's account of the creation of both the universe, and of life (particularly homo sapiens sapiens). >tl;dr The Bible gets it right. Everywhere it's claims can be tested (like the universe's origin), it passes with flying colors.

>>23978 Because the light from them has reached us. >>23989 What atheists call "God of the gaps" is in more common parlance known as an argument. >>23994 On the big bang model, the energy of the universe itself *might* be created from nothing. Absolutely nothing else. Not the stars, not the planets, no those all came to be naturally on their own. It is naturalistic. The bible says the stars did not exist, and then God called them into existence. They stand in contradiction. >>23995 Of course the bible is always right, but do I know it is right because I first assumed it to be false and then went out and looked and saw it was right, or did I first know it was right and was then able to see how the puzzle pieces fit together in light of it? Christian belief is not founded on the basis of evidences, but is properly basic and a priori. I don't believe in the bible because God has proven Himself to me after a hard trial, I believe in proof because I believe in the bible. So when we look up at the stars we should not assume a neutral foundation that fails to assume Christian truth and work from there through theories of our own design, but should reason about the creation in light of what God has revealed explicitly in His word. And on this, what He has revealed is that He created all things from nothing in the span of 6 days about 6,000 years ago.

>>24005 >On the big bang model, the energy of the universe itself *might* be created from nothing. Lol. Sure, happens all the time. :^) >They stand in contradiction. What 'they' do you mean? Science and Theology? Most certainly they do not. Who's been filling your head with lies, I wonder? And even were it so, they both are mere contrivances of man. God is not Theology, any more than creation is Science. Mankind is fallible. God is not fallible. >Of course the bible is always right That has yet to be measured, friend (though I doubt not it will prove so). The Bible is trustworthy as the living, breathing, Word of God because of it's fulfilled prophecies, if by no other measure. These are objective. There are plenty of mysteries of the Christian walk that are not observable however, but because we can trust the Bible in the things that can be tested (like the origin of the universe and of mankind), then its bears strong merit as trustworthy also in these deeper matters as well.

>>24009 >Lol. Sure, happens all the time. :^) I'm sure you are not ignorant of the several theories of atheists intended to account for a big bang. The problem with appealing to apologetic pragmatism is that the big bang does not present an origin but an event horizon. If you will reason on the basis of a false neutrality and pretend like you aren't making any Christian assumptions in dealing with the evidence then you have absolutely no basis to make any claims concerning what was prior to the big bang because you have no data on it nor any conceivable means of getting any. Maybe reality is caught in an infinite cycle of explosion and implosion, who knows. >What 'they' do you mean? Science and Theology? The big bang theory and holy writ. >Who's been filling your head with lies, I wonder? Well, if the big bang theory is true, then the answer is God, because what His word says cannot be reconciled with it. Science is a formalized system of inductive reasoning, it cannot "say" anything and as such nothing can contradict it, scientists say things and they can be contradicted but they cannot hold the weight of science itself. The argument which we are having right now is manifestly not about science since no scientific data has been brought up nor could it conceivably be relevant, the topic we are discussing is philosophy of science. The attempt to equate the issues with theology and science and assert that theologians have their expertise and astronomers have theirs is little more than a brazen attempt to silence the theologians from having any opinion at all, even one which is purely theological. But if theology and science are both held to be at the least means of determining the truth, then they both ought to be heard. In particular the attempt to silence the theologians is an attempt to subjugate sacred scripture itself (which is the sole dataset of theology) to the whims of secular scientists, forbidding it from saying anything which is not in accord with the creatures of the academy. The majority of scientists now say that man is the product of a natural evolution beginning from a single molecule, should we be reinterpreting scripture to fit that theory? Most scientists now assert that homosexuality is part of human nature equal to opposite-sex attraction, perhaps we should be reconsidering our theology in light of that? And of course, most of them will say that God does not exist, so we're going to have to give that belief up too. Where will out subjugation to the wisdom of the world end, and on what basis? >That has yet to be measured, friend (though I doubt not it will prove so). The Bible is trustworthy as the living, breathing, Word of God because of it's fulfilled prophecies, if by no other measure. These are objective. There are plenty of mysteries of the Christian walk that are not observable however, but because we can trust the Bible in the things that can be tested (like the origin of the universe and of mankind), then its bears strong merit as trustworthy also in these deeper matters as well. Scripture warns us against being led with the subtlety with which the serpent deceived Eve away from the purity and simplicity of devotion which is to Christ. The serpent challenged the legitimacy of God's word and presented Eve with a choice, when she made her decision on what basis ought she have made her decision? If she has said no because she was worried about getting fat and losing her figure, she would have sinned even in making the correct decision because she would have acted on the basis of her own concerns and not God's command. Her duty was to reject the serpent's offer on the basis that God had said "Ye shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". While scripture has many proofs by which it shows itself to be the word of God it is to be received not because of the testimony of any man or council but because it is the word of God. I do not presume to sit on the bench and put God in the dock. I know with certainty that everything scripture says is true not on the basis of any proofs but because He who speaks it can make no errors. God is infallible, and the bible is the word of God. Infallible statements are certainly true, not possibly true, not probably true, but absolutely certainly true because by definition it is impossible that they are wrong. Peter said that the house of Israel could be assured with certainty that God had made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Luke said he wrote his gospel so the reader could have certainty concerning the word of truth. Paul said that we are to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. By faith Noah built the ark in preparation for a flood even though he had no evidence. By faith Abraham offered his only son on the altar without evidence that God's promises were true. Yahweh swore by nothing but Himself, and the Lord spoke as one having authority. We do not and ought not believe because God has proven Himself to us in our rational autonomous wisdom, but because we are in submission to our creator like a little child to his father, believing without question and without doubt everything He says. I don't know that what the bible says is true because God has proven Himself to me in this or that area and therefore He is "generally reliable" and what He says over here is "very probably true", I know with absolute certainty that everything the bible says is true because God has spoken it, and I need no evidence to know it. When unbelievers demanded the Lord prove Himself to them He rejected their demand and said "This wicked generation shall be given no sign save the sign of Jonah". I cannot emphasize this enough, God's word is certain, and it is not justified by anything external to itself. The bible has authority on everything of which it speaks, and it speaks about everything. The scientist should take it for granted that Genesis 1-3 is true in the same way he takes it for granted that the earth is round, and interpret the empirical evidence in light of this which is known to be true. Proper science is thinking God's thoughts after Him.

>>24005 >What atheists call "God of the gaps" is in more common parlance known as an argument. It was a concept thought up by a catholic as a response to bad apologetics.

>>24010 >I'm sure you are not ignorant of the several theories of atheists intended to account for a big bang. Certainly of some, sure. They are all fundamentally-flawed and completely irrelevant to either the Scientific or the Theologic endeavors. >The big bang theory and holy writ. So Science and Theology. Again, totally in concordance, Humanists, Atheists, and Young-Earthers notwithstanding. >conflating our God-given minds with Eve's spiritual sins Lol no. I've got one for you, my long-winded friend: >"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to search it out." https://biblehub.com/proverbs/25-2.htm (BSB) >tl;dr God specifically created this universe He made to enable us to uncover it's amazing truths. Every.single.one. point back to Him. His fingerprints are all over it! Cheers. :^)

>>24024 I doubt that and it doesn't matter anyways because atheists use the phrase against any argument for the existence of God, if God is the answer to any question, it's "God of the gaps". Because in spite of what they claim evidence has nothing to do with atheism, they don't believe because they aren't willing to believe and reject any conceivable evidence a priori. >>24026 >So Science No sir you may not equate this theory with science itself. >Again, totally in concordance I agree but we aren't having that conversation right now. If somebody asks me how I reconcile science and religion I answer that I don't reconcile friends. The question is whether scientific evidence should be interpreted according to man's theories or God's revelation. >>conflating our God-given minds with Eve's spiritual sins >Lol no. I've got one for you, my long-winded friend: Our God-given minds are not perfect like they were in the garden, we've got sin in the way messing us up even in our intellect. It is just as possible to sin intellectually as any other way. When Eve fell, why did she fall? Because she had already dared to question the truth of God's word and put it on equal footing with the serpent's imagination. That was the subtlety we were warned about, "Yea, hath God said?" >He made to enable us to uncover it's amazing truths And is there only one way to uncover them? Is what God said about His creation in His word not a way to learn? Genesis 1 says that the sun, moon and stars were created on the 4th day of the earth's existence, is that true? Genesis 3 says death did not exist in the world until a human ate a fruit, is that true? Genesis 7 says a flood covered the entire earth, is that true? I would appreciate yes or no answers to these questions.

>>24031 Thanks for putting words in my mouth I never said, Mr. Strawman-kun. You seem to be literally unable to believe you can be both an honest Scientist, and an honest Christian. This is clearly not the case, nor has it ever been. I can hardly put thing on this general topic better than Professor Ken Samples, so I'll leave you with his views on the topic. https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections/the-historic-alliance-of-christianity-and-science Again, Cheers. :^)

>>24033 >Thanks for putting words in my mouth I never said, Mr. Strawman-kun. You seem to be literally unable to believe you can be both an honest Scientist, and an honest Christian I don't know what words I'm supposed to have put in your mouth or what strawman I'm supposed to have been attacking, but I must once again reject the equation of this secular theory with science itself. Science cannot be either true or false because science is a formalized system of inductive reasoning, it does not contain propositions. It may be a tool to distinguish between truth and falsehood, but science itself is not true or false. The big bang theory is propositional, and it is false. How bout this: young earth creationism is science, you're a science denier and you're pitting science and religion against each other. There, I just made the very same "argument" as the only point you've made in this whole conversation. It's like making a syllogistic argument and then identifying your syllogism as logic itself so anyone who disagrees with you for any reason must be rejecting logic itself, it's argument by declaring oneself to be correct. Dr. Jason Lisle has said before that "deep time is a false god" and I'm starting to appreciate that because you seem totally unwilling to question this belief as if it were an article of faith. Brother, what I am telling you is the emperor has no clothes. I'm not unable to believe one can be both an honest scientist and an honest Christian, but I am unable to believe that you can be both a secular scientist and a consistent Christian, I do believe that. The question at hand is does the bible have authority on astronomy, and is what it says true? If you fear being degraded, persecuted and mocked for standing up for the bible on this point don't worry, the world is going to treat you that way regardless as long as you stand for any part of the truth, so why not stand for all of it?

These days I'm worried less about questions of Creation models and theistic evolution and increasingly more about the absolute disregard for the created order displayed by the scientific community.

>>24040 we shouldn't expect anything good from atheist and pagan scientists

>>24042 No, we really shouldn't.. It's still blackpilling knowing that they'll really manipulate the world and the human and animal body in any way that's physically available to them, no matter what the moral or ethical issues or consequences may be.