Does it matter if evolution is compatible with Christianity or not?

[Mark]

OK, I have a couple of questions...

1) If I understand this correctly, do the waters form the rock layers? If I heard this correctly from various videos I've watched and publications I've read, they've said how the rock layers formed rather quickly during Noah's flood. Compared to the evolution theory, where they spin how they formed slowly.

Take a big jar, fill it with dirt, sand, rocks, grass, whatever you can find. Add water and shake it up. As the dirt rocks and sand settle they will form layers. This happens very fast in a flood. Proven at Mt. St. Helens in 1980. Evolutionist say it takes millions of years for the dirt and dust to accumulate and create a layer. Not testable, and not proven by actual testing.

I don't understand why the rock layers form quickly when they get rain and floods? Is it b/c of the earth's crust?

Add water and mix... 

2) I still don't understand the fossil records - if I understand this correctly, when mammal's and plant life die off, their fossil records stay around? B/c they keep uncovering the skeletons and bones of dinosaurs, mammals, etc since Noah's flood.

This is a misconception, unless the bones are dried as in a dessert, you have to have moving water to create a fossil. Usually running water as it displaces the bone material with minerals from the water. Any way, if a normal rat fell in the water it would never fossilize as it would be eaten by the fish. In Noahs flood you had a lot of water and mud that covered the bones and them was turned in fossils. Also there was nothing to eat them as just about everything was dead.

Like I said, I still don't understand this aspect - what do the evolutionists try to do to spin the fossil records? How do fossils prove a Young Earth?

They do this by saying it takes a long time to make a fossil. Which isnt true at all. 20 to 50 years n the right condition, sometimes even quicker. But if a fish dies and floats  to the bottom, it gets eaten. Not covered up. WHY? Because when a fish dies it float to the TOP of the water..

[Psalm 51:17]

I just talked to someone(who's about 20 years older than I) 30 minutes ago about the rock layers thing - I told him how they form quickly(for the very reasons we talked about here). However, he responded to me that the rock layers are very hard b/c they form slowly over time.

I'm not trying to condemn this guy, but nonetheless you see how evolutionary ideas have really crept into the average person(whether they're Christian or not) in our present day(and I was guilty of this too for much of my life). And ultimately, Creation Science IS the backbone AND bodyguard of Christianity. It's sad to see that the average person just doesn't have decent knowledge about Young Earth Creation.

So honestly, I'm not surprised that even a good number of faithful ministers have fallen prey to doctrinal heresies like the gap theory, day age theory, theistic evolution, progressive evolution, etc.

[Mark]

coal is hard and it forms very quickly.  his response has no basis in science.

[Psalm 51:17]

[Psalm 51:17]

[Psalm 51:17]

[Psalm 51:17]

I don't endorse everything this article says(ie-it makes positive references to Francis Bacon, for example) - however, it makes some very good points.

http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science
The biblical roots of modern science
A Christian world view, and in particular a plain understanding of Scripture and Adam’s Fall, was essential for the rise of modern science.
9/9/09

Many atheopaths1 and their compromising churchian allies claim that biblical belief and science are mortal enemies. Yet historians of science, even non-Christians, have pointed out that modern science first flourished under a Christian world view while it was stillborn in other cultures such as ancient Greece, China and Arabia. The historical basis of modern science depended on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational Creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:33). For example, evolutionary anthropologist and science writer Loren Eiseley stated:

‘The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.’2

But if atheism or polytheism is true, then there is no way to deduce from these belief systems that the universe is (or should be) orderly.

Furthermore, Genesis 1:28 gives us permission to investigate creation, unlike say animism or pantheism which teach that the creation itself is divine. And since God is sovereign, He was free to create as He pleased. So where the Bible is silent, the only way to find out how His creation works is to experiment, rather than to rely on man-made philosophies, as did the ancient Greeks. So no wonder that sociologist and author Rodney Stark affirmed:

“Science was not the work of western secularists or even deists; it was entirely the work of devout believers in an active, conscious, creator God.”3 Furthermore, science requires that we can think rationally, and that results should be reported honestly, more teachings found in the Bible but do not follow from evolutionism.4

Science in the Middle Ages

While this period used to be called the “Dark Ages”, responsible historians recognize that it was far from dark. Rather, it was a period of great scientific advances, stemming from the logical thought patterns of the medieval Scholastic philosophers of the Church, and the extensive inventiveness and mechanical ingenuity developed in the monasteries. Small wonder that this period saw the development of water and wind power, spectacles, magnificent architecture, the blast furnace, and the stirrup.5

“As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists”—Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology, University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada

An enormous advance in physical understanding was 14th-century logician John Buridan’s development of the concept of impetus, essentially the same as the modern concept of momentum. Previously, Aristotle’s followers argued that a moving object required a force to keep it moving, but Buridan proposed:

“…after leaving the arm of the thrower, the projectile would be moved by an impetus given to it by the thrower and would continue to be moved as long as the impetus remained stronger than the resistance, and would be of infinite duration were it not diminished and corrupted by a contrary force resisting it or by something inclining it to a contrary motion.”

This is a forerunner of Isaac Newton’s First Law of Motion.

So it’s not surprising that James Hannam, who recently earned a Ph.D. on the History of Science from the University of Cambridge, UK, pointed out:

“During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church actively supported a great deal of science, which it also kept control of when speculation could impinge on theology. Furthermore and contrary to popular belief, the Church never supported the idea that the earth was flat, never banned human dissection, never banned zero and certainly never burnt anyone at the stake for scientific ideas.”

“Popular opinion, journalistic cliché and misinformed historians notwithstanding, recent research has shown that the Middle Ages were a period of enormous advances in science, technology and culture. The compass, paper, printing, stirrups and gunpowder all appeared in Western Europe between AD 500 and AD 1500.”6

Scientific jump after the Reformation

While Europe in the Middle Ages had a Judeo-Christian world view, it took the Reformation to recover specific biblical authority. With this came the recovery of a plain or historical grammatical understanding of the Bible, recovering the understanding of the New Testament authors and most of the early Church Fathers. This turned out to have a huge positive impact on the development of modern science. This is so counter to common (mis)understanding, yet it is well documented by Peter Harrison, then a professor of history and philosophy at Bond University in Queensland, Australia (and one-time Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford):

“It is commonly supposed that when in the early modern period individuals began to look at the world in a different way, they could no longer believe what they read in the Bible. In this book I shall suggest that the reverse is the case: that when in the sixteenth century people began to read the Bible in a different way, they found themselves forced to jettison traditional conceptions of the world.”7

As Prof. Harrison explained:

“Strange as it may seem, the Bible played a positive role in the development of science. …

Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”8

Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology, University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada, writes in a similar vein, and also explains the somewhat misleading term “literal interpretation”:

“Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed.”9
And Prof. Snobelen explains the reason why: scientists started to study nature in the same way they studied the Bible. I.e. just as they studied what the Bible really said, rather than imposed outside philosophies and traditions upon it, they likewise studied how nature really did work, rather than accept philosophical ideas about how it should work (extending their allegorizing readings of Scripture to the natural world8).

“It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists.”9

Belief in the Fall of Adam: how it inspired science

Prof. Harrison has researched another commonly overlooked factor in the development of science: belief in a literal Fall of a literal first man Adam. These founding modern scientists, including Francis Bacon, reasoned that the Fall not only destroyed man’s innocence, but also greatly impaired his knowledge. The first problem was remedied by the innocent Last Adam, Jesus Christ—His sacrifice enabled our sin to be imputed (credited) to Him (Isaiah 53:6), and His perfect life enabled His righteousness to be imputed to believers in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). But as for recovering what they believed to be Adam’s encyclopedic knowledge, they looked to science. Harrison explains:

“New [sic] literal readings of the creation narratives in Genesis provided 17th century thinkers with powerful motivating images for pursuing the natural sciences.

“Adam was thought to have possessed a perfect knowledge of all sciences, a knowledge lost to posterity when he fell from grace and was expelled from the Garden of Eden. The goal of 17th century scientists such as Francis Bacon and his successors in the Royal Society of London was to regain the scientific knowledge of the first man. Indeed, for these individuals, the whole scientific enterprise was an integral part of a redemptive enterprise that, along with the Christian religion, was to help restore the original race to its original perfection. The biblical account of the creation thus provided these scientists with an important source of motivation, and in an age still thoroughly committed to traditional Christianity, the new science was to gain social legitimacy on account of these religious associations.”8

“For many champions of the new learning in the seventeenth century, the encyclopaedic knowledge of Adam was the benchmark against which their own aspirations were gauged. …

“The experimental approach, I shall argue, was deeply indebted to Augustinian views about the limitations of human knowledge in the wake of the Fall, and thus inductive experimentalism can also lay claim to a filial relationship with the tradition of Augustinianism.”10

Objection

Some atheopaths admit that science was in effect a child of Christianity, but now claim that it’s time science grew up and cut the apron strings. However, none other than former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher answered that type of claim:

“I think back to many discussions in my early life when we all agreed that if you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither. And they will not come again unless you nurture the roots.

“But we must not profess the Christian faith and go to Church simply because we want social reforms and benefits or a better standard of behaviour; but because we accept the sanctity of life, the responsibility that comes with freedom and the supreme sacrifice of Christ expressed so well in the hymn:

“‘When I survey the wondrous Cross, On which the Prince of glory died, My richest gain I count but loss, And pour contempt on all my pride.’”11

Summary

Atheopaths often disparage the Bible, especially its account of creation. Yet …

Science requires certain presuppositions to work at all, and these are found in the Bible.

Europe in the Middle Ages, with its general Christian world view, advanced greatly in science and technology.

The Reformation, with its emphasis on the authority of Scripture and a historical-grammatical understanding, led to a great leap forward in science as such methods were carried over into the study of nature.

Belief in a literal first man Adam and his Fall inspired science as a means to rediscover knowledge Adam had before the Fall.

It is futile to expect continued fruits of the scientific enterprise while undermining the roots in biblical Christianity.

[Psalm 51:17]

[Psalm 51:17]

[Psalm 51:17]

[Psalm 51:17]

[Mark]

‘Science Supports Genesis’: Geneticist Says Evidence Confirms Biblical Adam and Eve

A respected molecular geneticist explores the historicity of Adam and Eve in a newly-released documentary, explaining that modern findings in the field of genetics confirm the Bible’s teachings that all humans descended from an original couple created by God.

Dr. Georgia Purdom earned a Ph.D. in molecular genetics from Ohio State University and has published papers in a number of scientific journals, including the Journal of Neuroscience and the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. Formerly a biology professor, Purdom is now a researcher and speaker for the Christian apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis (AiG).

Since joining AiG, Purdom has written numerous articles and been featured in several DVDs and presentations. Her latest work, titled “The Genetics of Adam & Eve,” examines the Genesis account of mankind’s origins from the perspective of genetics.
Georgia Purdom profile

Purdom

“One of the biggest debates in Christianity today concerns the first two people: were Adam and Eve real or are they the product of myths?” Purdom wrote in an article for AiG. “Those who claim we have evolved over millions of years believe that Adam and Eve, as the Bible teaches about them, have no place in human history. They argue that the science of genetics proves we cannot be descended from only two people. Many Christians have accepted this position and propose that their historical existence is irrelevant to Christianity and the gospel.”

In an interview with Christian News Network, Purdom proposed that the historical existence of Adam and Eve is imperative for a proper understanding of the gospel.

“A historical Adam and Eve and original sin are the foundation of the gospel,” she said. “The bad news, sin and death, begins in Genesis 3 when Adam and Eve sinned.”

Appreciating that Adam and Eve were real people helps people realize the need for a savior, Purdom explained.

“We need the good news, grace and life, which is found in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,” she said. “Jesus is the solution to the problem of evil that began in Genesis 3. Paul made this connection very clear in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.”

Purdom then detailed some recent genetic findings that support the Bible’s creation account.

“One of the most compelling genetic evidences for an original human couple created by God is mitochondrial DNA research done by creation geneticist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson,” she advised. “He clearly shows that the common human female ancestor of us all (biblical Eve) lived within the biblical timeframe of several thousand years ago.”

These findings, along with other evidence presented in “The Genetics of Adam & Eve,” directly contradict the claims of evolutionists, said Purdom.

“This female ancestor could not have lived 100,000 or more years ago as the evolutionists claim,” she continued. “In addition, genetics clearly shows that human and chimps do not share a common ancestor. There are many, many differences in their DNA that completely undermine the possibility of shared ancestry only a few million years ago.”

Purdom told Christian News Network that Christians should equip themselves with this scientific information, so that they can defend the reliability of the Bible, starting in Genesis.

“Christians should be aware of the scientific proof for creation because Genesis is the most hotly debated book among evangelical Christians,” she asserted. “We need to show people that science supports and confirms the history presented in Genesis.”

http://christiannews.net/2015/07/27/science-supports-genesis-geneticist-says-evidence-confirms-historical-adam-and-eve/

[Psalm 51:17]

“Christians should be aware of the scientific proof for creation because Genesis is the most hotly debated book among evangelical Christians,” she asserted. “We need to show people that science supports and confirms the history presented in Genesis.”

I couldn't agree more - Genesis is THE backbone of the entire gospel - this book's credibility goes down, the rest of the dominos will fall.

No wonder why Antinomianism Easy Believism has spread like wildfire nowdays(yes, that includes KJB circles, believe it or not).

[Psalm 51:17]

[Psalm 51:17]

This article was posted already in this thread recently - but nonetheless, well worth another post! And an excellent reminder!

“Christians should be aware of the scientific proof for creation because Genesis is the most hotly debated book among evangelical Christians,” she asserted. “We need to show people that science supports and confirms the history presented in Genesis.”

One of the deceptions I hear from gap theory proponents a lot is how it was SATAN who committed the sin that brought judgment into the world(which ultimately resulted in a "previous" earth prior to Genesis 1:2).

I don't know if they are lying, or are just deceived - but they are really doing some mental gymnastics here - b/c scripture clearly says in Genesis 3, Romans 5, and 1 Cor 15 that it was ADAM who FIRST brought SIN into the world.

There's no spinning around this one iota.

[Mark]

This article was posted already in this thread recently - but nonetheless, well worth another post! And an excellent reminder!

lol, i thought i read it before some where. 

[Psalm 51:17]

[Psalm 51:17]

[Mark]

Pope says evolution, Big Bang are real

Pope Francis has waded into the controversial debate over the origins of human life, saying the big bang theory did not contradict the role of a divine creator, but even required it.

The pope was addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered Monday at the Vatican to discuss "Evolving Concepts of Nature."

"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," Francis said.

"He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment."

Francis said the beginning of the world was not "a work of chaos" but created from a principle of love. He said sometimes competing beliefs in creation and evolution could co-exist.

"God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life," the pope said. "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."

Unlike much of evangelical Protestantism in the U.S., Catholic teaching traditionally has not been at odds with evolution. In 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed there was no opposition between evolution and Catholic doctrine. In 1996, St. John Paul II endorsed Pius' statement.

Some wondered if Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wanted to change that when he and some acolytes seemed to endorse the theory of intelligent design, the idea that the world is too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, a close associate of Benedict, penned a widely noticed 2005 op-ed in The New York Times that said "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process … is not."

Giovanni Bignami, a professor and president of Italy's National Institute for Astrophysics, welcomed Francis' comments, saying he had buried the "pseudo theories" of creationists.

"The pope's statement is significant," Bignami told Italian news agency Adnkronos. "We are the direct descendants from the Big Bang that created the universe. Evolution came from creation."

Giulio Giorello, professor of the philosophy of science at Milan's University degli Studi, said he believed Francis was "trying to reduce the emotion of dispute or presumed disputes" with science.

Francis made his speech while unveiling a bust in honor of Benedict, his predecessor, at the Vatican.

"Benedict XVI was a great pope: great for the power and penetration of his intellect, great for his significant contribution to theology, great for his love of the church and of human beings, great for his virtue and piety," he said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/10/28/pope-francis-evolution-big-bang/18053509/

[FervorForFaith]

"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,"

"God is not a divine being..."

Huh?  That makes absolutely no sense. If your god is not divine and can't make the world in six days, your god is not God.

[Christian40]

"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,"

"God is not a divine being..."

Huh?  That makes absolutely no sense. If your god is not divine and can't make the world in six days, your god is not God.

Francis has never believed in God.

[Psalm 51:17]

[Psalm 51:17]

[Mark]

That is truth!!

   Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

[Psalm 51:17]

[Mark]

i like that 

[Psalm 51:17]

Audio Inside Link: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1010151752118
Theistic Evolution & Gap Theory Refuted Part I (Pastor Sam Adams)
Series:  Heliocentrism v. Geocentricity  · 1 of 2
9/27/2015 (SUN)  |  Bible: Genesis 1:1-19; Exodus 20:8-11


Audio Inside Link: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1010151813571
Theistic Evolution & Gap Theory Refuted Part II (Pastor Sam Adams)
Series:  Heliocentrism v. Geocentricity  · 2 of 2
9/27/2015 (SUN)  |  Bible: Genesis 1:1-19; Exodus 20:8-11

[Psalm 51:17]

[Psalm 51:17]

[Psalm 51:17]