-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
I don't have to agree with everything Lewis said to hold him in high-regard. I know he wrestled with the theory of evolution and also with a biblical creation. Like you said, he was neither for or against either belief. I've heard all of the arguments before and I'm not convinced. I've read much, thought this through and come to my own conclusions. As such, the biblical creation model suits what I read in the Bible. We must start in the Bible and work from there, not see what humanistic scientists say and then try and line it up with what we read in the Bible.
I believe in the beginning that there were a sphere of water that was suspended in an dark emptiness; and then a great ball of energy that has appeared in the center of this sphere of water. And then from this source of energy, energy from this source had branched out in streams until it has reached the surface of the sphere of water and surrounded the surface of the water and then it hardened, and even the trails of energy has also hardened that made it look as if the were columns or pillars that were holding the surfaced earth crust that was on top of the water. And then from there, everything has branched from the earth, and even geysers that look like mist coming from the ground that created the great lakes and rivers at the time. When the time of the deluge, the columns has broken and causing the earth crust to have fell in the depth of the water. And then the earth's core has cracked open, pushing out lava, pushing some of the earth's crust to resurface to the top above the water.
Here is someone's Ideal of what may have happened.
The hydroplate theory, summarized on pages 111–146, shows how a global flood, corresponding in every detail to the Genesis flood, easily explains 25 otherwise mysterious features of the earth and solar system. Initially, this theory requires a horizontal layer of water under the earth’s crust. Naturally, the ceiling of this subterranean water chamber would sag and touch the chamber’s floor at thousands of places.[SUP]2[/SUP] Those contacts will be called pillars. The Bible speaks in several places of considerable subterranean water (see page 456), but how and when did the pillars form?
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What Triggered the Flood?
2 Peter 3:5
But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
Judges 16:29
Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other,
Job 9:6
He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.
Psalm 75:3
When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.
Amos 9:1
I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said: “Strike the tops of the pillars so that the thresholds shake. Bring them down on the heads of all the people; those who are left I will kill with the sword. Not one will get away, none will escape.
Here is someone's Ideal of what may have happened.
The hydroplate theory, summarized on pages 111–146, shows how a global flood, corresponding in every detail to the Genesis flood, easily explains 25 otherwise mysterious features of the earth and solar system. Initially, this theory requires a horizontal layer of water under the earth’s crust. Naturally, the ceiling of this subterranean water chamber would sag and touch the chamber’s floor at thousands of places.[SUP]2[/SUP] Those contacts will be called pillars. The Bible speaks in several places of considerable subterranean water (see page 456), but how and when did the pillars form?
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What Triggered the Flood?
2 Peter 3:5
But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
Judges 16:29
Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other,
Job 9:6
He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.
Psalm 75:3
When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.
Amos 9:1
I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said: “Strike the tops of the pillars so that the thresholds shake. Bring them down on the heads of all the people; those who are left I will kill with the sword. Not one will get away, none will escape.
I think it has something to do with the way our brains are wired as studies have shown that when we read we will read a few letters of what is written and our brain automatically will finish the word for us...sometimes it interjects the wrong word and or we will miss something that is written because we have been programmed (if you will) to scan stuff and or like Jamie said below.
dang it got erased
Anyway - radiometric dating is crap, so is carbon dating
If you take known ages of rock and send it for radiometric dating, and it comes back saying 2 million years old - there might be a problem - how would we believe it works for unknown ages?
Carbon dating - maybe good for a few thousand years, that's it, if not less - especially when you can date a living snail to be 600 years old
Using ice cores rings to date "one year" highly unlikely since in 250 feet of snow they found a WWII plane - ice core had 1,000's of rings - ice rings represent warming and cooling periods - that's how hail forms layers, duh - you can have 10 or more warming periods in a year.
There is a secular article called [h=1]Reading the entrails of chickens: molecular timescales of evolution and the illusion of precision.[/h] Reading the entrails of chickens: molecular tim... [Trends Genet. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
Basic number crunch they come up with 5.5 or so billion years of "evolution" when they add all the time scales - anyone see a problem that the earth supposedly is 4.5 billion - what the heck happened during that a billion years or so?
Anyway - radiometric dating is crap, so is carbon dating
If you take known ages of rock and send it for radiometric dating, and it comes back saying 2 million years old - there might be a problem - how would we believe it works for unknown ages?
Carbon dating - maybe good for a few thousand years, that's it, if not less - especially when you can date a living snail to be 600 years old
Using ice cores rings to date "one year" highly unlikely since in 250 feet of snow they found a WWII plane - ice core had 1,000's of rings - ice rings represent warming and cooling periods - that's how hail forms layers, duh - you can have 10 or more warming periods in a year.
There is a secular article called [h=1]Reading the entrails of chickens: molecular timescales of evolution and the illusion of precision.[/h] Reading the entrails of chickens: molecular tim... [Trends Genet. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
Basic number crunch they come up with 5.5 or so billion years of "evolution" when they add all the time scales - anyone see a problem that the earth supposedly is 4.5 billion - what the heck happened during that a billion years or so?
The very name itself suggest that we had a beginning. There are many other facets of the original or "orthodox" of the big bang theory that are wrong. However, there are many evolutionist who would like to see the big bang theory disappear, because they can't explain how something was created by nothing and chance.
That's very good to start from the bible...But we can start from the bible and misinterpret it because we don't understand the original language, so we make assumptions of what we think it means. Thus, even when we start with the bible, we can still be wrong about how and what we believe it's saying.
But my original thought and response to you was not about what you believe, but how can you say OEC weakens Christianity and still hold C.S. Lewis in high regard. Surely C.S. Lewis saw the evidences of his day, and from what I can see, he accepted "old Earth" more then "young Earth". Now we have even more evidences of an old earth and the bible clearly does not contradict these findings as we learn more about both. I don't you have really considered what OEC have to say. If the bible clearly contradicted the science and understand of OEC, then I'd agree with you. After all, I was originally an YECist myself, but God clearly said we can know Him by what He has made; which means we are to study what he has made and what he has made does not conflict with what He has said.
IMO, YEC broadens the gap between unbelievers and the bible in today age of scientific enlightenment. And if the YEC are wrong and push their dogma, after being rebuked about, will be held accountable before God.
But my original thought and response to you was not about what you believe, but how can you say OEC weakens Christianity and still hold C.S. Lewis in high regard. Surely C.S. Lewis saw the evidences of his day, and from what I can see, he accepted "old Earth" more then "young Earth". Now we have even more evidences of an old earth and the bible clearly does not contradict these findings as we learn more about both. I don't you have really considered what OEC have to say. If the bible clearly contradicted the science and understand of OEC, then I'd agree with you. After all, I was originally an YECist myself, but God clearly said we can know Him by what He has made; which means we are to study what he has made and what he has made does not conflict with what He has said.
IMO, YEC broadens the gap between unbelievers and the bible in today age of scientific enlightenment. And if the YEC are wrong and push their dogma, after being rebuked about, will be held accountable before God.
What the heck are you talking about? push dogma? People push the dogmatic Science - that evolution is actually scientific, when it's not.
I guess if we get those secular scientists to see that we like evolution too, maybe they will like us too, and if they like us, they might like Jesus too.... this is what your saying basically in a nut shell
History is not science - it's not Testable, It's not repeatable. It's the people who are so willing to compromise the plain reading of Scripture, and the hermeneutics of Jesus Christ
I guess if we get those secular scientists to see that we like evolution too, maybe they will like us too, and if they like us, they might like Jesus too.... this is what your saying basically in a nut shell
History is not science - it's not Testable, It's not repeatable. It's the people who are so willing to compromise the plain reading of Scripture, and the hermeneutics of Jesus Christ