forrestcupp
Active Member
- Feb 10, 2013
- 271
- 150
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I think Christians are as close-minded to science as most scientists are to creation, and it makes them look pretty silly to the rest of the world. How are we going to win people to Christ that way? I believe science and biblical creation can be reconciled.
Personally, I don't believe in evolution, but I believe in the hard evidence of every scientific finding. It's silly to just reject things that are right before our eyes because we have to hang onto an interpretation of the bible. The scientific findings are all true. What is not true is when they start forming theories on how it happened.
First off, the Bible was never meant to be a textbook on creation science. There are 1189 chapters in the Bible, and one of them is dedicated to the creation account. Think about this: the gospel accounts of the temptation of Christ list three different temptations that He experienced. But then in Hebrews, it says that Jesus was tempted in all ways like unto us, yet without sin. My point is that the account that lists three temptations isn't an exhaustive account of all of the temptations He experienced. In the same way, that one chapter in the beginning of Genesis isn't meant to be an exhaustive account of all of the science behind exactly how God went about creating everything. It just says that He created everything.
If you look at the account in Genesis with an open mind, you'll see that it basically happened in the same order that scientific findings say that things happened. First day, let there be light, and there was a big explosion of light. Life began in the water, then later on life came upon the shores on dry land. Last, but not least in the list, man was created. It's the same pattern you see in scientific findings. The problem with science is that they then put their Godless theories onto their findings and ridicule anyone for not believing their theories that go beyond the hard evidence of real findings.
All of this didn't happen through evolution; it happened because God created things in that order. Then there is the argument of genetic or DNA patterns that are similar between species. Anyone who is a computer programmer can testify that it makes sense to reuse code base that is similar because there's no point in "recreating the wheel." So why wouldn't God reuse DNA patterns that He had already used? Then you have the arguments about the flaws in the DNA, but who's to say an all-knowing God wouldn't have had a purpose for those things that we finite-minded people don't understand. Until recently, we thought that the appendix had no purpose, but now we know it harbors good digestive bacteria to recharge our system when intestinal bacteria are killed off. But at one time, our finite minds thought it was just a worthless, leftover flaw of evolution.
The other problem between science and the popular interpretation of biblical creation is timing. A lot of people are stuck to the 6000 year old earth, when that seems ridiculous to the rest of the world. So the question is: did God really do all of that in a literal 6 days, or was it actually 6 eras that took place before our concept of a timeline, so it was really an undefined length of time? My answer to that is: I don't know, and neither does anyone else. I would like to think that it was a literal 6 days, which can be explained by the scientifically proven fact that time is relative. All you have to do is study the two Theories of Relativity, which have both pretty much been proven with testing. So one possibility is that since time is relative according to gravity or speed, God was able to accomplish 4.5 billion years worth of activity in what is relatively 6 days when you're taken out of the situation, and you view it from a different vantage point.
I think if people on both sides would be more open-minded about things, they might come to the conclusion that scientific findings are indeed real, and they actually prove God and the Bible, rather than disprove them.
Personally, I don't believe in evolution, but I believe in the hard evidence of every scientific finding. It's silly to just reject things that are right before our eyes because we have to hang onto an interpretation of the bible. The scientific findings are all true. What is not true is when they start forming theories on how it happened.
First off, the Bible was never meant to be a textbook on creation science. There are 1189 chapters in the Bible, and one of them is dedicated to the creation account. Think about this: the gospel accounts of the temptation of Christ list three different temptations that He experienced. But then in Hebrews, it says that Jesus was tempted in all ways like unto us, yet without sin. My point is that the account that lists three temptations isn't an exhaustive account of all of the temptations He experienced. In the same way, that one chapter in the beginning of Genesis isn't meant to be an exhaustive account of all of the science behind exactly how God went about creating everything. It just says that He created everything.
If you look at the account in Genesis with an open mind, you'll see that it basically happened in the same order that scientific findings say that things happened. First day, let there be light, and there was a big explosion of light. Life began in the water, then later on life came upon the shores on dry land. Last, but not least in the list, man was created. It's the same pattern you see in scientific findings. The problem with science is that they then put their Godless theories onto their findings and ridicule anyone for not believing their theories that go beyond the hard evidence of real findings.
All of this didn't happen through evolution; it happened because God created things in that order. Then there is the argument of genetic or DNA patterns that are similar between species. Anyone who is a computer programmer can testify that it makes sense to reuse code base that is similar because there's no point in "recreating the wheel." So why wouldn't God reuse DNA patterns that He had already used? Then you have the arguments about the flaws in the DNA, but who's to say an all-knowing God wouldn't have had a purpose for those things that we finite-minded people don't understand. Until recently, we thought that the appendix had no purpose, but now we know it harbors good digestive bacteria to recharge our system when intestinal bacteria are killed off. But at one time, our finite minds thought it was just a worthless, leftover flaw of evolution.
The other problem between science and the popular interpretation of biblical creation is timing. A lot of people are stuck to the 6000 year old earth, when that seems ridiculous to the rest of the world. So the question is: did God really do all of that in a literal 6 days, or was it actually 6 eras that took place before our concept of a timeline, so it was really an undefined length of time? My answer to that is: I don't know, and neither does anyone else. I would like to think that it was a literal 6 days, which can be explained by the scientifically proven fact that time is relative. All you have to do is study the two Theories of Relativity, which have both pretty much been proven with testing. So one possibility is that since time is relative according to gravity or speed, God was able to accomplish 4.5 billion years worth of activity in what is relatively 6 days when you're taken out of the situation, and you view it from a different vantage point.
I think if people on both sides would be more open-minded about things, they might come to the conclusion that scientific findings are indeed real, and they actually prove God and the Bible, rather than disprove them.
