The decline of Christianity in the West

[Butch5]

They can't answer because it's not a theological or spiritual question.


No, the teacher is not talking in circles. The teacher is doing what a science teacher is paid to do...answer in terms of what the world's scientific community has concluded.

The problem is actually the reverse of what you and Ken Ham describe. The problem is, too many kids are taught in church that science is untrustworthy, scientists are anti-God, and you have to choose between science and God. So what do a lot of these kids....kids who are inundated with technology....do? They go with science. If you look at the survey I posted, the anti-science attitude of Christianity is one of the reasons young people are leaving. Ken Ham and his group are only furthering that problem with their "it's either the Bible or science" rhetoric.

I mean, look at how AiG frames the issue....

According to them, it's extremely black/white where it's either young-earth creationism and God, or millions of years and watching gay porn while you get an abortion! And they wonder why kids are running, not walking, away from this nonsense? Come on...

I think you're missing an important point. Observational science is legitimate, If I go into a lab and perform an experiment under controlled conditions I expect to get the same results every time. Yes, I agree that is science and it is logical and true. However, origins science is not science. Saying the earth is 4.5 billion years old is not science it's faith. No one was here to see this time frame. The methodology that is used to date the earth cannot be verified because no one was here to verify that the conditions haven't changed, not to mention the decay rates.

"Scientists" talk about decay rates of elements in determining age. Well, if you have a rock that is two million years old, how does anyone know that the decay rate was unchanged in that rock for two million years? They don't, they have to assume. Assumptions aren't science.

If you go into the world I don't think you'll find any Christian scientists arguing against observational science. It's the Pseudo science of origins that they are arguing against.

 

[River Jordan]

I think you're missing an important point. Observational science is legitimate, If I go into a lab and perform an experiment under controlled conditions I expect to get the same results every time. Yes, I agree that is science and it is logical and true. However, origins science is not science. Saying the earth is 4.5 billion years old is not science it's faith. No one was here to see this time frame. The methodology that is used to date the earth cannot be verified because no one was here to verify that the conditions haven't changed, not to mention the decay rates.

So according to you, science only involves things that happen right in front of us. Therefore we must release all criminals who were convicted of crimes based on forensic science rather than an actual eye witness, right?

"Scientists" talk about decay rates of elements in determining age. Well, if you have a rock that is two million years old, how does anyone know that the decay rate was unchanged in that rock for two million years? They don't, they have to assume. Assumptions aren't science.

Sorry, but that just shows how you really don't know the subject very well. Scientists have tried, tried, and tried to change radioactive decay rates for almost a century. They've tried extreme heat, cold, pressure, magnetic force, electricity, you name it, and the rates don't budge. But hey, if you know a way to speed up decay you should let us know, because it would solve the world's energy problems forever.

If you go into the world I don't think you'll find any Christian scientists arguing against observational science. It's the Pseudo science of origins that they are arguing against.

Obviously you've bought into Ken Ham's nonsense. That's too bad, especially when it's a factor in the west's trend away from Christianity.

 

[Butch5]

So according to you, science only involves things that happen right in front of us. Therefore we must release all criminals who were convicted of crimes based on forensic science rather than an actual eye witness, right?


Sorry, but that just shows how you really don't know the subject very well. Scientists have tried, tried, and tried to change radioactive decay rates for almost a century. They've tried extreme heat, cold, pressure, magnetic force, electricity, you name it, and the rates don't budge. But hey, if you know a way to speed up decay you should let us know, because it would solve the world's energy problems forever.

Obviously you've bought into Ken Ham's nonsense. That's too bad, especially when it's a factor in the west's trend away from Christianity.

Did you read what I posted. I said observational science is true and correct. If I take a fiber and test it for DNA and it comes back positive, I can go do it again. show me a rock forming over two million years.

Sorry, but that just shows how you really don't know the subject very well. Scientists have tried, tried, and tried to change radioactive decay rates for almost a century. They've tried extreme heat, cold, pressure, magnetic force, electricity, you name it, and the rates don't budge. But hey, if you know a way to speed up decay you should let us know, because it would solve the world's energy problems forever.

You're statement is fallacious. Even if it is true that doesn't mean tomorrow they won't find something that does. Also, no one was here to know what the conditions were. It's possible that conditions existed that they cannot replicate. No matter how they spin it they simply cannot know. This is why it's bogus, just because they can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done.

Obviously you've bought into Ken Ham's nonsense. That's too bad, especially when it's a factor in the west's trend away from Christianity.

I haven't bought into anything. The book I posted is not about science. It's book about why young people are leaving the Church. However, I do buy into logic and common sense, I don't drink the cool aid. Scientists are just like everyone else, they're not super beings. Just like all humans they have their biases, presumptions and preconceptions. In addition to that they are trying to make money and a name for themselves so I don't think Honesty is always at the top of their priority list. A perfect example of this is the global warming stuff. All of these scientists screaming about global warming and the planet is heating up and now we find that the the Global Warming Policy Foundation has hired top scientists to do a full inquiry Of NOAA's numbers because the two other official methods don't show this warming trend that NOAA's do. So, no, scientists are not always on the up and up. All the stink and all the money that has been thrown at this issue and now it may be that the numbers were fudged, really?

Sorry, I don't by the pseudo science of origins. Observational science is sound and valid, they rest is faith.

 

[River Jordan]

Did you read what I posted. I said observational science is true and correct. If I take a fiber and test it for DNA and it comes back positive, I can go do it again. show me a rock forming over two million years.

You come to a crime scene and find footprints, blood splatters, and a corpse. How do you establish 1) whether a crime was committed, 2) how the crime was committed, 3) when the crime was committed, and 4) who did it?

You're statement is fallacious. Even if it is true that doesn't mean tomorrow they won't find something that does. Also, no one was here to know what the conditions were. It's possible that conditions existed that they cannot replicate. No matter how they spin it they simply cannot know. This is why it's bogus, just because they can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done.

Again, you're just showing that you don't really know this subject. To be clear, that's understandable; geochemistry is a very specialized and technical subject. The problem though is, you don't know much at all about it yet here you are acting like you're such an authority in it, you are qualified to declare it completely invalid. Do you do that with other subjects?

I haven't bought into anything. The book I posted is not about science. It's book about why young people are leaving the Church.

And one of the reasons kids are citing for leaving the church is the sort of anti-science stuff you're posting.

However, I do buy into logic and common sense, I don't drink the cool aid. Scientists are just like everyone else, they're not super beings. Just like all humans they have their biases, presumptions and preconceptions. In addition to that they are trying to make money and a name for themselves so I don't think Honesty is always at the top of their priority list.

There ya' go, exactly what I described earlier....tying Christianity to "you can't trust scientists".

A perfect example of this is the global warming stuff. All of these scientists screaming about global warming and the planet is heating up and now we find that the the Global Warming Policy Foundation has hired top scientists to do a full inquiry Of NOAA's numbers because the two other official methods don't show this warming trend that NOAA's do. So, no, scientists are not always on the up and up. All the stink and all the money that has been thrown at this issue and now it may be that the numbers were fudged, really?

You mean some denialist partisan think tank is trying to gin up something on climatologists? That's what you're hitching your wagon to?

Sorry, I don't by the pseudo science of origins. Observational science is sound and valid, they rest is faith.

I'm sure that's what you and Ken Ham believe, and unfortunately that backwards attitude is driving kids away from the faith.

 

[DogLady19]

No, the teacher is not talking in circles. The teacher is doing what a science teacher is paid to do...answer in terms of what the world's scientific community has concluded.

The problem is actually the reverse of what you and Ken Ham describe. The problem is, too many kids are taught in church that science is untrustworthy, scientists are anti-God, ...

1) Concluded? Can you cite a white paper that shows a consensus about the age of the earth? I'm not so sure any conclusions can be made... Science does not make conclusions. It can only support or contradict a hypothesis.

Also, many scientists take the word of other scientists who have not taken the time to test an established theory... so very often, scientific data is wrong, and other theories are built upon them. Scientists used to think that a flying machine would defy the laws of physics, therefore will never exist. In the 1950's, an entire consortium of world scientists declared space travel to be junk science. What we know now about the planets in our solar system is quite different than what I learned in my school science books.

2) I don't know many churches these days that teach kids to not trust their science teachers... And I doubt many existed back in the day either considering how many great scientists we have today who grew up in schools and churches.

 

[Butch5]

River Jordan,

You come to a crime scene and find footprints, blood splatters, and a corpse. How do you establish 1) whether a crime was committed, 2) how the crime was committed, 3) when the crime was committed, and 4) who did it?

I’ve already stated that observational science is valid.

Again, you're just showing that you don't really know this subject. To be clear, that's understandable; geochemistry is a very specialized and technical subject. The problem though is, you don't know much at all about it yet here you are acting like you're such an authority in it, you are qualified to declare it completely invalid. Do you do that with other subjects?

I didn’t claim to be an authority, however, I’m not stupid either.

And one of the reasons kids are citing for leaving the church is the sort of anti-science stuff you're posting.

I’m not posting anti-science stuff. I’m posting against the religion of Evolution. It’s not rocket science to know that if no one was there no one knows what happened.

There ya' go, exactly what I described earlier....tying Christianity to "you can't trust scientists".

Not at all. I said, “Scientists are just like everyone else, they're not super beings. Just like all humans they have their biases, presumptions and preconceptions.”
I didn’t mention Christians or Christianity. I said, “like all humans they have their biases.”

You mean some conservative politicians have hired a partisan think tank to try and gin up something on climatologists? That's what you're hitching your wagon to?

The point is that they all have biases and things that motivate them apart from honesty. And, when I say them, I mean people. It’s not just scientists. It’s politicians, professors, colleges, and so on and so on. It includes preachers and those we see on TV. Just send me your faith pledge and lots of money will come your way. It’s people.

For some reason people seem to think scientists are above this, like they are in a tier of honesty which no mere human can attain. They’re not, they’re just like everyone. If they can cook the books for a few bucks there are going to be those who do. The problem is that they are so interconnected. Just like the point about global warming. Even if the scientists were on the up an up and being honest with the data, it doesn’t amount to hill of beans if the data they got is corrupted. Did all of these scientists check and verify the data for accuracy before they went ahead and made their claim? It sure doesn’t look like it.

When I was in high school scientists were telling us we were heading into the next ice age, 20 years later it was global warming. Well, that had to be the shortest ice age in all of history. It didn’t even last 20 years. Of course the only other option is... the scientists were wrong.

I'm sure that's what you and Ken Ham believe, and unfortunately that backwards attitude is driving kids away from the faith.

Well, I can’t speak for Ken Ham as I don’t know exactly what he believes. I can speak for myself and as I said, I buy into logic and reason. When I listen to the stuff that comes out of these guys it doesn’t make sense.

 

[River Jordan]

I’ve already stated that observational science is valid.

I'm trying to figure out what you think observational science is. So again: You come to a crime scene and find footprints, blood splatters, and a corpse. How do you establish 1) whether a crime was committed, 2) how the crime was committed, 3) when the crime was committed, and 4) who did it?

I didn’t claim to be an authority, however, I’m not stupid either.

So how much time have you spend studying the methods of geochemistry?

I’m not posting anti-science stuff. I’m posting against the religion of Evolution. It’s not rocket science to know that if no one was there no one knows what happened.

Whether you like it or not, evolutionary biology is a field of science. It's foundational to much of the work that's going on in biology today, including things like figuring out what specific genes do and developing new treatments for diseases. So when you say "I'm not anti-science, I'm just against evolution" you're contradicting yourself (and furthering the stereotype of the backwards, science-hating Christian).

Not at all. I said, “Scientists are just like everyone else, they're not super beings. Just like all humans they have their biases, presumptions and preconceptions.”
I didn’t mention Christians or Christianity. I said, “like all humans they have their biases.”

You shouldn't do that in a forum where everything is there for everyone to read. You said about scientists, "I don't think Honesty is always at the top of their priority list". Now are you really expecting me to take that as anything except anti-scientist? Really?

The point is that they all have biases and things that motivate them apart from honesty. And, when I say them, I mean people. It’s not just scientists. It’s politicians, professors, colleges, and so on and so on. It includes preachers and those we see on TV. Just send me your faith pledge and lots of money will come your way. It’s people.

IOW, scientists are just as trustworthy as anyone else. Funny how your original statement didn't come across that way.

Did all of these scientists check and verify the data for accuracy before they went ahead and made their claim? It sure doesn’t look like it.

And I'd bet my last dollar you say this even though you've not actually looked at the data.

When I was in high school scientists were telling us we were heading into the next ice age, 20 years later it was global warming. Well, that had to be the shortest ice age in all of history. It didn’t even last 20 years. Of course the only other option is... the scientists were wrong.

What scientists told you that?

Well, I can’t speak for Ken Ham as I don’t know exactly what he believes. I can speak for myself and as I said, I buy into logic and reason. When I listen to the stuff that comes out of these guys it doesn’t make sense.

Like what?

 

[aspen]

Here is the crazy part - it seems like people only trust science or scientists who have been discredited! Restoral sales are booming - supplement sales are booming along with climate deniers. If you want to make money and garner the respect of conservatives, break one of the rules of the scientific community.....than you must be a victim and a robin hood. So backwards....hey I know let's open a meseum... Lol
Here is the crazy part - it seems like people only trust science or scientists who have been discredited! Restoral sales are booming - supplement sales are booming along with climate deniers. If you want to make money and garner the respect of conservatives, break one of the rules of the scientific community.....than you must be a victim and a robin hood. So backwards....hey I know let's open a meseum... Lol

 

[River Jordan]

1) Concluded? Can you cite a white paper that shows a consensus about the age of the earth? I'm not so sure any conclusions can be made... Science does not make conclusions. It can only support or contradict a hypothesis.

I don't know of any such paper, just like I don't know of one showing a consensus about the shape of the earth either. However, I've not seen a single paper in the published literature that suggests a significantly different age, a relevant scientific organization that advocates a non-ancient earth, a major university that teaches anything other than an ancient earth, or any other signs of dissent within the scientific community about the age of the earth. If you have something along those lines, I'd love to see it.

Also, many scientists take the word of other scientists who have not taken the time to test an established theory... so very often, scientific data is wrong, and other theories are built upon them. Scientists used to think that a flying machine would defy the laws of physics, therefore will never exist. In the 1950's, an entire consortium of world scientists declared space travel to be junk science. What we know now about the planets in our solar system is quite different than what I learned in my school science books.

Not sure what your point is here. Scientists aren't infallible, therefore........?

2) I don't know many churches these days that teach kids to not trust their science teachers... And I doubt many existed back in the day either considering how many great scientists we have today who grew up in schools and churches.

I work in a youth ministry, and almost every week I encounter kids who've been told by their church (not ours) that the work of "secular scientists" can't be trusted and that there's an anti-God agenda within the scientific community. If you're curious, I suggest you browse around a few young-earth creationist websites and see what they have to say about scientists.

 

[Butch5]

River Jordan,

I'm trying to figure out what you think observational science is. So again: You come to a crime scene and find footprints, blood splatters, and a corpse. How do you establish 1) whether a crime was committed, 2) how the crime was committed, 3) when the crime was committed, and 4) who did it?

I already explained it. Observational science is science you can observe. I’m not sure why you keep presenting this crime scene scenario. If one can reproduce results in a lab that is observational science.

So how much time have you spend studying the methods of geochemistry?

How many degrees do I need in Electrical engineering to know that if the lamp isn’t plugged in it’s not gonna work?
It doesn’t take degrees to be able to see logical fallacies and lapses in reasoning.

Whether you like it or not, evolutionary biology is a field of science. It's foundational to much of the work that's going on in biology today, including things like figuring out what specific genes do and developing new treatments for diseases. So when you say "I'm not anti-science, I'm just against evolution" you're contradicting yourself (and furthering the stereotype of the backwards, science-hating Christian).

And Reformational theology is a field in Christian apologetics but that doesn’t make it true.
Actually, if we get down to it, it’s not Christians rejecting science, it’s science trying to enter into the realm of faith. Evolution is a faith. It cannot be proven so it has to be accepted on faith. So, scientists who push evolution are pushing their faith based system on Christians. As I said before, I don’t know of any Christians who are out there denying observational science.
I’m not contradicting myself because I’ve stated that I acknowledge observational science.

You shouldn't do that in a forum where everything is there for everyone to read. You said about scientists, "I don't think Honesty is always at the top of their priority list". Now are you really expecting me to take that as anything except anti-scientist? Really?

Yes, I do. In the context that it was said it was listed along with all kinds of people. Don’t just take one sentence out of context and as if I only targeted scientists. I made the point that it was all people.

[quoteIOW, scientists are just as trustworthy as anyone else. Funny how your original statement didn't come across that way.[/quote]

It did when it was a coherent whole. Yeah, they’re as trustworthy as everyone else. They’re not on this pedestal that so many put them on .

And I'd bet my last dollar you say this even though you've not actually looked at the data.

It’s not my data. I’m not running around yelling the sky is falling. If I was I be sure of what I was saying before sticking my neck out.

What scientists told you that?

Just Google 1970’s and ice age.

Like what?

Stuff like, it took millions of years for these layers of soil to be deposited. Then later as they dig they find a tree trunk going through those layers that took millions of years to lay down.

 

[DogLady19]

Well, I can’t speak for Ken Ham as I don’t know exactly what he believes. I can speak for myself and as I said, I buy into logic and reason. When I listen to the stuff that comes out of these guys it doesn’t make sense.

One should look into Ken Ham before citing him as a source. He's a media favorite right now (a fad), but it would behoove any of us to research his claims before accepting them.

I don't know of any such paper, just like I don't know of one showing a consensus about the shape of the earth either. However, I've not seen a single paper in the published literature that suggests a significantly different age, a relevant scientific organization that advocates a non-ancient earth, a major university that teaches anything other than an ancient earth, or any other signs of dissent within the scientific community about the age of the earth. If you have something along those lines, I'd love to see it.


Not sure what your point is here. Scientists aren't infallible, therefore........?


I work in a youth ministry, and almost every week I encounter kids who've been told by their church (not ours) that the work of "secular scientists" can't be trusted and that there's an anti-God agenda within the scientific community. If you're curious, I suggest you browse around a few young-earth creationist websites and see what they have to say about scientists.

Yes, I am simply making the point that scientists ARE fallible... A good science teacher doesn't just spew the latest scientific findings at kids. They teach kids how to question them and challenge them.

And if a kid comes to me and says their church is saying not to trust secular scientists, then the church is not doing a good job of communicating what they mean by that. I know there are specific issues that churches will refute some (not all) secular scientists, but they should be able to provide a child a means of investigating that refutation. For instance, when some secular scientists say that a fetus is not a human being. That's even irresponsible for a scientists to say! THAT is a "conclusion"... something real scientists never arrive at.

As for the young earth theories, yes, I know them well and I am appalled... The people on those sites discredit good scientists all the time... but a young earth group or website does not a church make. And shame on a church that presents these websites as sound science.

So, yes, the occasional kid may be attending a church that tells them not to trust scientists... But it seemed to me that you implied that many (or all) churches do this, which is not true... but I will agree with you that one child taught this in church is one child too any...

 

[River Jordan]

I already explained it. Observational science is science you can observe. I’m not sure why you keep presenting this crime scene scenario. If one can reproduce results in a lab that is observational science.

Then by the same measure, evolution is observational science. First, we most definitely observe evolution in the lab. We see populations evolve new traits, abilities, and even species. And with longer-term evolution, just as we don't need to recreate the crime before we can conclude it happened, we don't need to recreate the entire evolutionary history before we can conclude it happened. In both cases we examine the evidence the event left behind.

How many degrees do I need in Electrical engineering to know that if the lamp isn’t plugged in it’s not gonna work?
It doesn’t take degrees to be able to see logical fallacies and lapses in reasoning.

So you haven't studied the methods of geochemistry. What do you think it says about a person when they wave away an entire field of science without studying it?

And Reformational theology is a field in Christian apologetics but that doesn’t make it true.
Actually, if we get down to it, it’s not Christians rejecting science, it’s science trying to enter into the realm of faith. Evolution is a faith. It cannot be proven so it has to be accepted on faith. So, scientists who push evolution are pushing their faith based system on Christians. As I said before, I don’t know of any Christians who are out there denying observational science.
I’m not contradicting myself because I’ve stated that I acknowledge observational science.

See, this is the sort of anti-science nonsense that is too often tied to Christianity, which is a factor in pushing young people out the door. If you truly think "scientists are pushing their faith based system of evolution" is what's really going on in biology, then to be honest with you, most educated people are going to laugh at you. And if you say those sorts of things in the context of Christianity, they're going to laugh at Christians and Christianity as well.

And to make it worse, I'd bet you've not studied evolutionary biology either!

Yes, I do. In the context that it was said it was listed along with all kinds of people. Don’t just take one sentence out of context and as if I only targeted scientists. I made the point that it was all people.

It did when it was a coherent whole. Yeah, they’re as trustworthy as everyone else. They’re not on this pedestal that so many put them on .

But just above you stated that biologists are "pushing the faith based system of evolution". Is that really what you believe?

It’s not my data. I’m not running around yelling the sky is falling. If I was I be sure of what I was saying before sticking my neck out.

So we have a pretty clear pattern here, don't we? You're in the habit of criticizing and dismissing entire fields of science that you know almost nothing about (because you've not studied them). Why do you do that?

Just Google 1970’s and ice age.

That's not going to answer my question. But I can see you're in the mold of many other creationists I've met here....you like to make very bold claims, but when asked to back them up suddenly you can't be bothered. Again, this doesn't make you look very good.

Stuff like, it took millions of years for these layers of soil to be deposited. Then later as they dig they find a tree trunk going through those layers that took millions of years to lay down.

You're talking about polystrate fossils, and again, I'd bet that you've not studied that either. Am I right?

Yes, I am simply making the point that scientists ARE fallible... A good science teacher doesn't just spew the latest scientific findings at kids. They teach kids how to question them and challenge them.

Definitely.

So, yes, the occasional kid may be attending a church that tells them not to trust scientists... But it seemed to me that you implied that many (or all) churches do this, which is not true... but I will agree with you that one child taught this in church is one child too any...

Young-earth creationism is fairly popular in the US, especially in the south. It's usually around 40% of people who think humans have only been around for less than 10,000 years. That's a lot of Christians.

 

[DogLady19]

First, we most definitely observe evolution in the lab. We see populations evolve new traits, abilities, and even species.

Young-earth creationism is fairly popular in the US, especially in the south. It's usually around 40% of people who think humans have only been around for less than 10,000 years. That's a lot of Christians.

Two things:

1) Young earthers claim the earth is only 10,000 years old. The Gallup poll shows, and yes many Christians believe, that humans are only about 10,000 years old, but the earth was here before humans. The people who believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old are a very tiny number of Christians.

It's part of the fad, the popular media pundits, to equate young earth theory with theories about how long humans have been around. It's entertainment based on creating baseless controversy.

I don't buy it, and neither do "a lot of" Christians.

2) Can you give me an example of a new species that developed in a scientific lab under observation? I've never heard of such. I think alot of people get confused when talking about evolution. There is macro and micro... one is the scientifically observed and documented cases of a species developing new traits and abilities, then there is the "primordial ooze becomes an elephant" theory.

Are you saying that scientists have observed in a lab one species becoming another???

 

[River Jordan]

1) Young earthers claim the earth is only 10,000 years old. The Gallup poll shows, and yes many Christians believe, that humans are only about 10,000 years old, but the earth was here before humans. The people who believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old are a very tiny number of Christians.

It's part of the fad, the popular media pundits, to equate young earth theory with theories about how long humans have been around. It's entertainment based on creating baseless controversy.

I don't buy it, and neither do "a lot of" Christians.

It can be difficult to pin down just how many Christians are true young-earthers. For example, THIS SURVEY gives seemingly contradictory results.

39% of Americans answered "true" to the question, "God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, and the first two people within the past 10 000 years." So based on that, you'd conclude that almost 40% of Americans are young-earthers, right? But in the same survey, only 18% of Americans answered "true" to the question, "The earth is less than 10 000 years old." Huh? How do 20% of people agree that God created the earth within the last 10,000 years, but disagree that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

But even if we grant the lower number (18%), that means 72 million Americans who are young-earthers! Hardly insignificant. And not only that, but if we factor in that about 73% of Americans self-identify as Christians, that gives us ~292,000,000 American Christians. Assuming ~1% of young-earthers are non-Christian (e.g., Muslims and conservative Jews), we get ~53 million American Christians who are young-earthers, which is ~18% of all American Christians (53 million/292 million).

So even taking a conservative route, we end up with a full 18% of American Christians who are young-earthers. That's as many Americans who belong to mainline Protestant churches!

2) Can you give me an example of a new species that developed in a scientific lab under observation? I've never heard of such. I think alot of people get confused when talking about evolution. There is macro and micro... one is the scientifically observed and documented cases of a species developing new traits and abilities, then there is the "primordial ooze becomes an elephant" theory.

Are you saying that scientists have observed in a lab one species becoming another???

We've observed the evolution of new species both in the lab and in the wild. I posted some of the examples a while ago: CLICK HERE.

 

[pom2014]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

Here's a link that might help.

 

[StanJ]

Young earthers claim the earth is only 10,000 years old. The Gallup poll shows, and yes many Christians believe, that humans are only about 10,000 years old, but the earth was here before humans. The people who believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old are a very tiny number of Christians.
It's part of the fad, the popular media pundits, to equate young earth theory with theories about how long humans have been around. It's entertainment based on creating baseless controversy.
I don't buy it, and neither do "a lot of" Christians.

I am one of those that believe in YEC, and the reason I am is because God made everything FULLY mature in Gen 1. Now I'm not God, but for sure the egg came second in this regard, so how old was Adam when God made him? Obviously one day old, BUT, how old did he look or how old would observable science have put him at? The same goes with the geological facets of creation? Who knows what it would take to understand that a universe God made on day one, appeared to be much older than one day? Does the creation have to be as God designed it? Of course, so does that mean it could be viewed by any science as one day old, or did God build in age when He created?
IMO, He obviously did, and man just hasn't been able to tell the difference. How sad that some should expect that man and his science would have been able to catch up to our God that is unfathomable, in a mere 10,000 years. Especially by men who don't have a real faith in Him. Do we start with a faith in God or a faith in man's science and understanding? To me, the answer is equally obvious and part of our life of faith.

 

[River Jordan]

So God puts rings in trees for years that never happened, daughter elements in rocks for decay that never happened, and starlight depicting cosmic events that never happened. Other than to fool us, I can't think of any reason God would do those things. :unsure:

 

[pom2014]

Here's one better, God said that incest was sinful.

If every one is from Adam and Eve only and then later only from Noah, then the whole world is a product of incest.

It's clear that if scripture is contextual, then Adam and Eve are the lineage that led to Christ as he's the new Adam. There must have been more people to negate the possibility of incest.

 

[StanJ]

Here's one better, God said that incest was sinful.

If every one is from Adam and Eve only and then later only from Noah, then the whole world is a product of incest.

It's clear that if scripture is contextual, then Adam and Eve are the lineage that led to Christ as he's the new Adam. There must have been more people to negate the possibility of incest.

I think it's important to look at WHEN God made the Levitical laws. It wasn't so from the beginning. The human genome was a lot purer and stronger to enable pro-creation.

 

[pom2014]

Really? Really.

Ok then my question to you is does God have rules he himself must follow?