Theistic Evolution

[The Watchman]

I am new to this site but having been a scientist all my life (Materials Science and Chemistry) I can say that the whole concept of evolution is a non-starter. When I was newly converted in 1977 I had to face this issue quite early on in my University days. One of the things that helped me was the work by Whitcomb and Morris - The Genesis Flood. But what really tipped me into accepting 6 day creation some 6000 years ago was the fact that Christ died for me and if that was true why woulkd I not believe Genesis 1 and following, which presents as historical documents?

 

[jwright82]

I am new to this site but having been a scientist all my life (Materials Science and Chemistry) I can say that the whole concept of evolution is a non-starter. When I was newly converted in 1977 I had to face this issue quite early on in my University days. One of the things that helped me was the work by Whitcomb and Morris - The Genesis Flood. But what really tipped me into accepting 6 day creation some 6000 years ago was the fact that Christ died for me and if that was true why woulkd I not believe Genesis 1 and following, which presents as historical documents?

Welcome, glad to have you here.

 

[pgwolv]

Welcome, Mike!

I am also a trained scientist (human genetics). I was a by-default theistic evolutionist before I became reformed in my thinking. Then I started reading the Puritans and then I also read Whitcomb and Morris, and my heart made the switch. I lean young earth, as I believe that the pain and suffering of creation is all a result of the Fall, and the retrospective curse does not make sense to me.

Wonderful to virtually meet you.

 

[No Other Name]

Hello Mike!

I am trained in astrophysics. I was unconvinced of the sad "data" leading to the age of the earth via radiometric dating, but struggled with distant starlight. I went into school looking to be the biggest creation astrophysicist but my faith was revealed to be weak under secular teaching and I wandered into a kind of theistic partially-Biblical evolution viewpoint until I woke up and realized something was wrong (in a lot of ways in my life) and I came back to the Father like the prodigal asking if I could just be accepted even in the smallest way possible. Reading the Bible over and over, I am fully YEC now.

Great to meet you!

 

[ZackF]

Hello Mike!

I am trained in astrophysics. I was unconvinced of the sad "data" leading to the age of the earth via radiometric dating, but struggled with distant starlight. I went into school looking to be the biggest creation astrophysicist but my faith was revealed to be weak under secular teaching and I wandered into a kind of theistic partially-Biblical evolution viewpoint until I woke up and realized something was wrong (in a lot of ways in my life) and I came back to the Father like the prodigal asking if I could just be accepted even in the smallest way possible. Reading the Bible over and over, I am fully YEC now.

Great to meet you!

If you are familiar with it, what do you think of Jason Lisle’s ASC? https://answersresearchjournal.org/anisotropic-synchrony-distant-starlight/

 

[No Other Name]

If you are familiar with it, what do you think of Jason Lisle’s ASC? https://answersresearchjournal.org/anisotropic-synchrony-distant-starlight/

Really short answer: It is intriguing. His ASC model is so scientifically tight, even atheists have been on record saying there is nothing wrong about it per se, but they do wonder (fairly so) what it means to have an infinitely fast one-way speed of light and why anyone should even think to use that in the equations in the first place outside of a pre-conceived idea where one wants it. I think it's a good question, (and so does he). I like him a lot. Very humble; down-to-earth and understands that creation science models are varied and each one may have issues that we don't know about. Spike Psarris has an excellent video on a few other possible solutions to distant starlight on Youtube.

 

[ZackF]

Really short answer: It is intriguing. His ASC model is so scientifically tight, even atheists have been on record saying there is nothing wrong about it per se, but they do wonder (fairly so) what it means to have an infinitely fast one-way speed of light and why anyone should even think to use that in the equations in the first place outside of a pre-conceived idea where one wants it. I think it's a good question, (and so does he). I like him a lot. Very humble; down-to-earth and understands that creation science models are varied and each one may have issues that we don't know about. Spike Psarris has an excellent video on a few other possible solutions to distant starlight on Youtube.

Ill check into Psarris.

I have Lisle’s “Physics of Einstein” but have not began yet as I know it will take a while.

 

[Deleted member 11804]

I am new to this site but having been a scientist all my life (Materials Science and Chemistry) I can say that the whole concept of evolution is a non-starter. When I was newly converted in 1977 I had to face this issue quite early on in my University days. One of the things that helped me was the work by Whitcomb and Morris - The Genesis Flood. But what really tipped me into accepting 6 day creation some 6000 years ago was the fact that Christ died for me and if that was true why woulkd I not believe Genesis 1 and following, which presents as historical documents?

You make a very GOOD point in saying "why wouldn't I believe Genesis 1 and following, which presents historical documents?"

I wouldn't normally bring this up here in these forums because its something that Christians just for the life of them accept, grasp or research, but your point you made, makes me have to say something now. Since you are a scientist, I would hope that you would research what I am about to suggest, that is the creation event of the earth and cosmos.

Science states that the sun is a star, but the Bible says that stars are their own, and the sun is a sun and that it rules the day.
Science states that the moon is some orbital object that reflects the light of the sun, but God says that it gives off "her" own light and rules the night.
Science states that each star in the night is a sun with its own galaxy orbiting it, but God says they are stars and they are luminescent lights placed in the firmament.

With this in mind I would like you to ask yourself who is right? Man (science) or God (creator of the heavens and the earth)

If Jesus is Lord then why wouldn't you believe in his creation?

This is evidence that NASA are a bunch of satanic liars. Now, ask yourself this last question: "If NASA lies about evolutionism VS creationism, and we don't believe them when they say we all came from a 'common ancestor' like the APE, then why should we believe them about creation?"

Both evolution and creation (big bang theory) are ways NASA hides God from us.

Watch these following videos in order. They will free you from the LIES of NASA.

Biblical Cosmology 8 part series:
PT 1 Just getting started
PT 2 Rotation and Revolution
PT 3 Masters of the Universe
PT 4 This Place We Call Home
PT 5 A Lot to Like About the Biblical Model
PT 6 The Firmament
PT 7 Space: The Final Frontier
PT 8 Why Would They Lie and Does it Matter?

 

[No Other Name]

Ill check into Psarris.

I have Lisle’s “Physics of Einstein” but have not began yet as I know it will take a while.

His Physics of Einstein is one of the best plain straightforward popular introductions to relativity that is out there - creationist or not.

That book is a staple in my reading and re-reading as a physics teacher, because it is a masterpiece on how to communicate higher-level physics to the everyman. And that is regardless of whether anyone buys into ASC model or not.