Christian Forums

Jaime, T.C.,
What statement by God can you ever call illogical? You can refuse to believe any or all of what God said.  You can even refuse to believe in God.  But the Bible is one long logical presentation of God's interface with His creation, particularly His human being creation.

Quote from: Rella on Mon Apr 24, 2023 - 11:27:45



Oh, where to begin?

Science is a systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. The earliest written records of identifiable predecessors to modern science come from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia from around 3000 to 1200 BCE

Defined as (from: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition)
science
sī′əns
noun
1.The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

2.Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

3. A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area.

How would you apply any of those definitions to the study of God or anything spiritual.  One can employ science, archeology for example, in a theological study.  But theology is not itself a scientific study.  A study of the spiritual is not a scientific study. What experimentation and analysis of results could you ever apply to the spiritual?

4WD many people think God's statements SEEM illogical. It SEEMING to be illogical doesn't make it illogical. I don't take anything God says as illogical, but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't. Should I repeat this in all caps? I have heard professing Christians ask why did Jesus have to die? God needing Him to die seems illogical to some. IS it illogical? NO!!!!!!!! But it doesn't keep people from misunderstanding. Once again, the gospel is NOT foolishness just because it SEEMS to be so to some people. Seeming isn't BEING. If everyone uderstood the gospel is NOT illogical or foolishness, would anyone fail to obey once they hear? The Gospel IS foolishness or illogical to those who are perishing, according to scripture. Why? BECAUSE IT SEEMS foolish or illogical to those who are perishing. (Not that it actually is) why would God include this scripture in the Bible. I will go out on a limb and say because some people actually consider the gospel foolishness or illogical. If not it was a waste of ink and papyrus.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Apr 24, 2023 - 14:30:36
Jaime, T.C.,
What statement by God can you ever call illogical? You can refuse to believe any or all of what God said.  You can even refuse to believe in God.  But the Bible is one long logical presentation of God's interface with His creation, particularly His human being creation.

Who said any statement by God is illogical?

I said man's logic doesn't necessarily agree with God.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Apr 24, 2023 - 14:18:50
Rella, 
The big bang is evidence of creation.  That is why some major scientists initially rejected Einstein's theory of relativity and the Hubble data of an expanding universe.  It implied a beginning for the universe which in turn supported the biblical idea of creation.

Yeah... and the big bang was wrong.... the expanding universe is more reasonable.

Just proves that science cannot really prove what they want you to believe...

Quote from: Rella on Mon Apr 24, 2023 - 16:50:00
Yeah... and the big bang was wrong.... the expanding universe is more reasonable.

Just proves that science cannot really prove what they want you to believe...

The Big Bang is still the best explanation for the beginnings of the Universe, that has not changed.

This entire debate over logic is illogical, moreover it shows there is a lack of understanding about how logic is formulated.

 No, it shows that God IS logical and some people seem to view God and his actions as illogical or foolishness (those that are perishing) - exactly what scripture ststes.

1 Cor 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Quote from: Alan on Mon Apr 24, 2023 - 17:22:49
This entire debate over logic is illogical, moreover it shows there is a lack of understanding about how logic is formulated.

Who are you saying has a lack of understanding about how logic is formulated?

If you are going to make an accusation, you might as well name names.

No one challenged how logic is formulated. My point as one of the main participants was that God IS logical, but some people mistakenly think God or the Gospel is illogical or foolishness. And scripture specificly SAYS that. My argument was NOT an assault on God's logic, but it was an assault on some people's logic as compared to God's logic.

QuoteYes!  Scientists can; science cannot.  Amo, if you read carefully the quotes of those scientists that you posted you will notice that in those instances that science is even mentioned it is in reference to the inherent limitations of science to answer certain questions about the universe and the source of its operation.  In many cases, it is stated that those very limitations of science is what supports, and in some cases, caused the scientist to believe in creation and the Creator.

Thank you for admitting, in your own particular way of course, that science itself can in fact convict even scientists themsleves of God and Creation.

Quote from: Rella on Mon Apr 24, 2023 - 16:50:00
Yeah... and the big bang was wrong.... the expanding universe is more reasonable.

You know that how, precisely?

Quote from: Alan on Mon Apr 24, 2023 - 17:20:54

The Big Bang is still the best explanation for the beginnings of the Universe, that has not changed.

In your opinion.

Quote from: Rella on Tue Apr 25, 2023 - 04:58:33
In your opinion.

It may be Alan's opinion, but he certainly is not alone in it.  True or not, there is a wide range of solid support for the reality of the big bang.

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Apr 22, 2023 - 06:07:09To me the act of creation is by a spiritual being, doing a spiritual thing that produces a physical reality. Just as the virgin birth was both spiritual and absolutely physical. It wasn't just spiritually conceptual. Jesus himself is not logically explained. The best we can do is say he is 100% man AND 100% God. Which to me would be even more logically offputting than a young earth. I do agree with you that disagreeing with a young earth does not condemn one, neither does being a flat earther make one a better Christian. They argue a flat earth is congruant with several scriptures. I disagree with them and I imagine they have every chance of being in heaven someday as you or I.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Apr 22, 2023 - 06:18:37You have watched too many shows in the Star Trek series where Dr. Spock stated that something was logical or not.  The meaning there was that something was reasonable, expected or understandable or not. It is a poor use of the words logic or logical. By definition logic is "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference; it is a particular method of reasoning or argumentation".  The English word "illogical" can mean that something stated is not "according to or agreeing with the principles of logic" or it can mean simply that something stated is "not reasonable or expected". In the second sense it has nothing to do with logic.  The Bible is NOT illogical in the sense of the first meaning.

Quote from: Alan on Mon Apr 24, 2023 - 17:22:49This entire debate over logic is illogical, moreover it shows there is a lack of understanding about how logic is formulated.

First off, "logic" as we know it, is a Greek philosophy.  It was defined by Aristotle, a polytheistic pagan. Deduction, induction, mathematics are all part of it.  It works well to describe the natural world.

But, there are other defined frameworks of logic. What is used in the Bible is different than western Aristotelian logic.  It is called Hebraic Logic, block logic, or adductive logic. It can hold 2 things that are contradictory or "mutually exclusive" in western logic as equally and simultaneously true.   

That is because, unlike western logic, it is not limited to the physical realm. It takes into account the spiritual as well.

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Apr 25, 2023 - 05:33:20
It can hold 2 things that are contradictory or "mutually exclusive" in western logic as equally and simultaneously true.   

What does that even mean? Please give us and example of 2 things that are contradictory or "mutually exclusive" in western logic as equally and simultaneously true.

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Apr 25, 2023 - 05:33:20That is because, unlike western logic, it is not limited to the physical realm. It takes into account the spiritual as well.

What makes you think "western" logic is limited to the physical realm? You are saying that "western" logic cannot be used in theological discussions or arguments?

https://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

Quoted article below from link above.

QuoteThe Scientific Case Against Evolution

by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

Evolution Is Not Happening Now

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Evolution Never Happened in the Past

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5

Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6

Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8

Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?

Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11

As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12

Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13

Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14

Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.

The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."

The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15

There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16

However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17

It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.

A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.

Evolution Could Never Happen at All

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Evolution Is Religion -- Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24

It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25

Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30

Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33

Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."34 Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."35

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Apr 25, 2023 - 03:29:17
You know that how, precisely?

The same way you know about the big bang.

Quote from: Rella on Tue Apr 25, 2023 - 08:58:28
The same way you know about the big bang.

I don't think so.  I have read and studied much about the big bang.  I don't fully understand all of it, but I do understand a quite a bit of it.  And I believe that it is in compliance with or in basic agreement with what God describes in His Genesis account.

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Apr 25, 2023 - 10:10:29
I don't think so.  I have read and studied much about the big bang.  I don't fully understand all of it, but I do understand a quite a bit of it.  And I believe that it is in compliance with or in basic agreement with what God describes in His Genesis account.

Oh come now.

You cannot have it all ways.

If you feel the big bang was as God described in Genesis, then you do believe that In the beginning did not happen near the beginning of the creation week... did it?

So those 144 hours could not be.

But you do believe in the 14 billion years from the start... correct?  But that this ball of mud we walk on only came about as they estimate that Earth formed more than 4.4 billion years ago.   WHY WOULD THAT BE because all I have read of in expansion allows for that hypothesis.

And it is said CNN
—
Fossils of early human ancestors from a South African cave are 3.4 million to 3.6 million years old – making them a million years older than previously suspected and shaking up the way researchers understand human origins and evolution.

So I ask you where in the list of all these years does Genesis 26 fall. AND MORE IMPORTANT .... WHY???

Here we are getting closer to our 6000 year pedigree beginnings...

Homo sapiens - The Smithsonian's Human Origins Program
Then, within just the past 12,000 years, our species, Homo sapiens, made the transition to producing food and changing our surroundings. Humans found they could control the growth and breeding of certain plants and animals.

Also from Smithsonian Jan 12, 2022The era in which Homo sapiens likely first appeared and gradually evolved in Africa, between about 360,000 years ago and 100,000 years ago, was one of cataclysmic volcanic activity.

That gives us 88,000 years to have evolved to what we are today....

BUT NO... DO NOT GET INTO EVOLUTION... I was just wandering there and wondering especially as there has been much now written about the lack of evolution connections.... (A fabulous article I recently read and cannot for the life of me find it now. )

Once again I am out of time..... later  should this be continued

Quote from: Rella on Tue Apr 25, 2023 - 10:37:51



Oh come now.

You cannot have it all ways.

Yeah, I can.

http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/the-age-of-the-universe/

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Apr 25, 2023 - 06:19:48
  What does that even mean? Please give us and example of 2 things that are contradictory or "mutually exclusive" in western logic as equally and simultaneously true.

There are many examples in the OT.  One that quickly comes to mind (since we just celebrated Passover) is, during the plagues, who hardened Pharaoh's heart?  God or himself?  The bible says both.  We try to divide it out so he did it to a certain point but then God took over.  In the original Hebrew, both were going on simultaneously.

QuoteWhat makes you think "western" logic is limited to the physical realm? You are saying that "western" logic cannot be used in theological discussions or arguments?

Exactly.  Using western logic in theological discussions will produce uncertain results since that is NOT the framework the Bible was written in.

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Apr 25, 2023 - 11:47:52
Yeah, I can.

http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/the-age-of-the-universe/

No... this is not as you have come across.... But it is not off the mark with what I have long said.

Especially as I have long touted that a day is not a day as in 144 hours of 6 days of creation.

BUT....

"These ancient commentaries were finalized hundreds or thousands of years ago, long before Hubbell was a gleam in his great-grandparent's eye. So there's no possibility of Hubbell or any other scientific data influencing these concepts. That's a key component in keeping the following discussion objective.

You do realize that a comment of this type needs to discount any further, more current discoveries....

Then

"Universe with a Beginning

In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your estimate of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology – the deep physics of understanding the universe – was just developing. Several years ago, the response to that survey was republished in Scientific American – the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds – an overwhelming majority – of the scientists gave was, in essence, "Age?" There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal."

There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal."?

ERGO.... NO BIG BANG, and NO EXPANSION. All. Including Hubble was wrong......

The only thing this article has for anything concrete in on what a day is.....That provides more value then anything else.... 

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Apr 25, 2023 - 13:22:34
There are many examples in the OT.  One that quickly comes to mind (since we just celebrated Passover) is, during the plagues, who hardened Pharaoh's heart?  God or himself?  The bible says both.  We try to divide it out so he did it to a certain point but then God took over.  In the original Hebrew, both were going on simultaneously.

There is nothing contradictory or mutually exclusive in the example you cited. The truth of that is easily treated with "western" logic.

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Apr 25, 2023 - 13:22:34Exactly.  Using western logic in theological discussions will produce uncertain results since that is NOT the framework the Bible was written in.

What will produce uncertain results is anything that is contradictory or mutually exclusive.

Quote from: Rella on Tue Apr 25, 2023 - 13:56:50

BUT....

"These ancient commentaries were finalized hundreds or thousands of years ago, long before Hubbell was a gleam in his great-grandparent's eye. So there's no possibility of Hubbell or any other scientific data influencing these concepts. That's a key component in keeping the following discussion objective.

You do realize that a comment of this type needs to discount any further, more current discoveries....

Not at all.  He is not discounting any modern-day scientific discoveries; he is only discounting biblical commentary by any that might be influenced by such discoveries.  His argument rests, in part, upon Einstein's theory of relativity and the expanding of the universe, both of which are modern-day scientific discoveries.  And he is arguing that the results of such discoveries are consistent with at least some ancient Hebrew scholars whose commentary is in line with the modern scientific discoveries that they could not possibly have known about.

Quote from: Rella on Tue Apr 25, 2023 - 13:56:50There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal."?

ERGO.... NO BIG BANG, and NO EXPANSION. All. Including Hubble was wrong......

So your conclusion is that Hubble was wrong because it disagrees with Aristotle and Plato??? I think you do not understand what those scientist are saying. They, at least most of them, are not denying the situation of the present universe originating in the "singularity".  They are only positing that there was something physically present before that instant in time which in some way gave rise to it.  That, of course, is pure speculation since there is no way to obtain any data from before the "singularity".

According to Lemaître, one of the first to suggest the "singularity", that initial singularity was not "the creation" (in the theological sense) but only the "natural beginning" as he said many times. Science has no way at this time to provide and explanation of anything before the "singularity"  Also at this time, Einstein had accepted the idea of an expanding universe but he cannot accept an initial singularity, a beginning of the universe.

Also take a look at the following:

https://phys.org/news/2014-02-einstein-conversion-static-universe.html

And while scientists speak of a "singularity", they all know that is not a physically existing possibility.  Nothing physically existing is infinitely large or infinitely small.  It is science-speak for "we don't have the science that allows for a singularity".

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Apr 25, 2023 - 16:11:49
Not at all.  He is not discounting any modern-day scientific discoveries; he is only discounting biblical commentary by any that might be influenced by such discoveries.  His argument rests, in part, upon Einstein's theory of relativity and the expanding of the universe, both of which are modern-day scientific discoveries.  And he is arguing that the results of such discoveries are consistent with at least some ancient Hebrew scholars whose commentary is in line with the modern scientific discoveries that they could not possibly have known about.
So your conclusion is that Hubble was wrong because it disagrees with Aristotle and Plato??? I think you do not understand what those scientist are saying. They, at least most of them, are not denying the situation of the present universe originating in the "singularity".  They are only positing that there was something physically present before that instant in time which in some way gave rise to it.  That, of course, is pure speculation since there is no way to obtain any data from before the "singularity".

According to Lemaître, one of the first to suggest the "singularity", that initial singularity was not "the creation" (in the theological sense) but only the "natural beginning" as he said many times. Science has no way at this time to provide and explanation of anything before the "singularity"  Also at this time, Einstein had accepted the idea of an expanding universe but he cannot accept an initial singularity, a beginning of the universe.

Also take a look at the following:

https://phys.org/news/2014-02-einstein-conversion-static-universe.html

And while scientists speak of a "singularity", they all know that is not a physically existing possibility.  Nothing physically existing is infinitely large or infinitely small. It is science-speak for "we don't have the science that allows for a singularity".

  It is science-speak for "we don't have the science that allows for a singularity".    No kidding... IOW we just are taking educated guesses......
While you are reading things.... add this to your list.  https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/big-bang-beginning-universe/

It is far too long to copy here.

But I have copied the last part of things here ,first... then a couple of key comments... just in case you do not take the time to read and process all that is in the the article. Though you should for it is extremely well explained... and it has pictures 

This new picture gives us three important pieces of information about the beginning of the universe that run counter to the traditional story that most of us learned. First, the original notion of the hot Big Bang, where the universe emerged from an infinitely hot, dense, and small singularity — and has been expanding and cooling, full of matter and radiation ever since — is incorrect. The picture is still largely correct, but there's a cutoff to how far back in time we can extrapolate it.

Second, observations have well established the state that occurred prior to the hot Big Bang: cosmic inflation. Before the hot Big Bang, the early universe underwent a phase of exponential growth, where any preexisting components to the universe were literally "inflated away." When inflation ended, the universe reheated to a high, but not arbitrarily high, temperature, giving us the hot, dense, and expanding universe that grew into what we inhabit today.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we can no longer speak with any sort of knowledge or confidence as to how — or even whether — the universe itself began. By the very nature of inflation, it wipes out any information that came before the final few moments: where it ended and gave rise to our hot Big Bang. Inflation could have gone on for an eternity, it could have been preceded by some other nonsingular phase, or it could have been preceded by a phase that did emerge from a singularity. Until the day comes where we discover how to extract more information from the universe than presently seems possible, we have no choice but to face our ignorance. The Big Bang still happened a very long time ago, but it wasn't the beginning we once supposed it to be.

From the quoted link....
Surprise: the Big Bang isn't the beginning of the universe anymore
We used to think the Big Bang meant the universe began from a singularity. Nearly 100 years later, we're not so sure.


KEY TAKEAWAYS

The Big Bang teaches us that our expanding, cooling universe used to be younger, denser, and hotter in the past.
However, extrapolating all the way back to a singularity leads to predictions that disagree with what we observe.
Instead, cosmic inflation preceded and set up the Big Bang, changing our cosmic origin story forever.



Happy reading

Quote from: Rella on Wed Apr 26, 2023 - 08:46:06


  It is science-speak for "we don't have the science that allows for a singularity".    No kidding... IOW we just are taking educated guesses......

No, It is not about taking educated guesses.  It is the case that any process that proceeds to the point that anything divided by zero is infinite.  Since that is physically impossible, it means that before the process actually gets to that point, something else must be happening and that something else is not within presently known science.  In the case of the big bang that means that at a time previous to one Planck time science cannot make a rational analysis. One Planck time is 10^-43 seconds. That is a very, very, very, very, very short time but still is not zero. Recall that 10^-1 seconds is a tenth of second; 10^-2seconds is a hundreth of a second; 10^-3 seconds is a thousandth of a second.  So then, you can see that 10^-43 is a really short time period.

I skimmed the article.  I am not sure what the author is trying to say.   But I think he is trying to describe a situation in which there must have been something before the big bang.  And that is because he cannot allow for the possibility of the universe beginning from nothing, since that would require a creator.

For example, he says

QuoteThis new picture gives us three important pieces of information about the beginning of the universe that run counter to the traditional story that most of us learned. First, the original notion of the hot Big Bang, where the universe emerged from an infinitely hot, dense, and small singularity — and has been expanding and cooling, full of matter and radiation ever since — is incorrect. The picture is still largely correct, but there's a cutoff to how far back in time we can extrapolate it.

Yes that cutoff is one Planck time, the 10^-43 seconds that I just mentioned.

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Apr 26, 2023 - 09:56:29


I skimmed the article.  I am not sure what the author is trying to say.   But I think he is trying to describe a situation in which there must have been something before the big bang.  And that is because he cannot allow for the possibility of the universe beginning from nothing, since that would require a creator.

And I see him trying to describe the scenarios that would allow for scientific "proof" of a beginning or even a big bang.

Having proven nothing he simple states.

"Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we can no longer speak with any sort of knowledge or confidence as to how — or even whether — the universe itself began. By the very nature of inflation, it wipes out any information that came before the final few moments: where it ended and gave rise to our hot Big Bang. Inflation could have gone on for an eternity, it could have been preceded by some other nonsingular phase, or it could have been preceded by a phase that did emerge from a singularity. Until the day comes where we discover how to extract more information from the universe than presently seems possible, we have no choice but to face our ignorance. The Big Bang still happened a very long time ago, but it wasn't the beginning we once supposed it to be."
Also
He says"This new picture gives us three important pieces of information about the beginning of the universe that run counter to the traditional story that most of us learned. First, the original notion of the hot Big Bang, where the universe emerged from an infinitely hot, dense, and small singularity — and has been expanding and cooling, full of matter and radiation ever since — is incorrect."
And
"observations have well established the state that occurred prior to the hot Big Bang: cosmic inflation. Before the hot Big Bang, the early universe underwent a phase of exponential growth, where any preexisting components to the universe were literally "inflated away."

To me these knock the big bang out of the way.

Certainly, most of these scientist would never dream to suggest that maybe what went on before the big bang might have
come from God.

Even Georges   Lemaitre... the allegedly very religious scientist did not want the Pope to mention God in his findings.
He was very upset when Lemaître, who firmly asserted that his primeval atom model was a scientific hypothesis, [21] found himself at the center of a firestorm when in 1951 Pope Pius XII opened a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Science by asserting that the primeval atom model demonstrated the existence of a Creator.

Quote from: Rella on Wed Apr 26, 2023 - 10:51:42
To me these knock the big bang out of the way.

To you maybe but not the author.  He was only giving a different description of the big bang.  I think he was trying to argue that inflation happened in the first Planck second.  At least he was arguing that inflation occurred before the big bang.  I wouldn't agree with that. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. It seems to me that he is trying to say that something was always there and the universe simply came out of what was already there. He clearly was trying to provide a means to get around the very idea of creation.

Quote from: Rella on Wed Apr 26, 2023 - 10:51:42
Even Georges   Lemaitre... the allegedly very religious scientist did not want the Pope to mention God in his findings.

Yes, because God wasn't in his scientific findings. God was there certainly but that was not demonstrated in results that he, Lemaitre, had presented.

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Apr 26, 2023 - 11:24:24
Yes, because God wasn't in his scientific findings. God was there certainly but that was not demonstrated in results that he, Lemaitre, had presented.

But dont you understand that every time God is not mentioned as in when the Pope said the primeval atom model demonstrated the existence of a Creator.

OR

"Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we can no longer speak with any sort of knowledge or confidence as to how — or even whether — the universe itself began. That even a hint of a suggestion that there might be divine creation involved just is someone or many someones egos wanting to be "the one" to offer a concrete explanation.....

And when they cant comes someone else offering well... it appears the universe never had a beginning so it must always have been. (Yes, I read that yesterday but cant find it to exact quote it)

And while we are at it... tell me.

If the universe... as far as we can see is 13.8 Billion years old. And earth is 4.4 billion years ago. ( Britannica and Wiki)

BUT   WAIT FOR IT

When you go to look up the age of our sun......

NASA says How Old Is the Sun? | NASA Space Place - NASA Science for Kids
May 25, 2021Our Sun is 4,500,000,000 years old. That's a lot of zeroes. That's four and a half billion. How do we know the Sun's age? How do we know how old it is? We look at the age of the whole solar system, because it all came together around the same time. To get this number, we look for the oldest things we can find. Moon rocks work well for this.

Which means our solar system is just a baby.... in comparison to the universe....

WHY?

I read this...Dec 16, 2022The closeness to a 1/3 ratio is coincidence but the observation that the Earth is a lot younger than the universe may be quite profound. Firstly, the Earth cannot be as old as the universe. The first galaxies and stars likely formed about 0.5-1 billion years after the big bang, once primordial hydrogen and helium had time to cool and clump.

And The Universe must be older than its stars, so this method establishes a minimum age for the Universe. Similar studies show that the Sun is about 5 billion years old, consistent with the age of the Earth measured by radioactive studies. A third way to determine the age of the Universe involves measuring the ages of long-lived dying stars.

And even this The universe may be a billion years younger than we thought. Scientists are scrambling to figure out why. New research suggests that the Big Bang that birthed the cosmos occurred 12.5 billion ...

So... why do you think and entire solar system developed as it has?

2 trillion galaxies in the universe, each containing OA 100 billion stars. That equates to 200 billion, trillion possible solar systems. With that massive number posed, it's not difficult to understand that not all solar systems could develop at the same time, and new stars and galaxies are still developing.

Quote from: Rella on Wed Apr 26, 2023 - 17:51:52
The first galaxies and stars likely formed about 0.5-1 billion years after the big bang, once primordial hydrogen and helium had time to cool and clump.

This was actually recently dis-proven.  The James Webb Space Telescope has found fully formed galaxies only half that old even older than that. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLry_CT-iwc

edit: said it wrong XD

1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Kind of sad really. Fallen humanity groping along in the dark, literally cut off from any knowledge of the majority of what actually is, making endless grandiose speculations and theories from the tiny amount of data they actually can observe or substantiate. Then patting themselves on the back proudly they presumptuously tell everyone how it really is and or was from the beginning. Even mocking those who don't go along with their necessarily ever changing story, according to new and increased observations which prove their prior points deficient or simply wrong. An arrogance well addressed and predicted by the holy scriptures themselves.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

According to scripture, such cannot even properly determine the truth about this earths past, let alone what supposedly happened 14 billion years ago. Such is the vanity of fallen humanity though.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

They didn't worship idols and then become fools. They changed the glory of the uncorruptible God revealed in and through His creation, into the likeness of corruptible man. Then they became fools and idolaters, having already exalted themselves above God in doing so. Casting His word aside and creating their own gods, stories, speculations theories, and vain imaginings in its place. Such as compose the "sciences so called" of this world.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Quote from: Amo on Wed Apr 26, 2023 - 21:29:59
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Kind of sad really. Fallen humanity groping along in the dark, literally cut off from any knowledge of the majority of what actually is, making endless grandiose speculations and theories from the tiny amount of data they actually can observe or substantiate. Then patting themselves on the back proudly they presumptuously tell everyone how it really is and or was from the beginning. Even mocking those who don't go along with their necessarily ever changing story, according to new and increased observations which prove their prior points deficient or simply wrong. An arrogance well addressed and predicted by the holy scriptures themselves.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

According to scripture, such cannot even properly determine the truth about this earths past, let alone what supposedly happened 14 billion years ago. Such is the vanity of fallen humanity though.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

They didn't worship idols and then become fools. They changed the glory of the uncorruptible God revealed in and through His creation, into the likeness of corruptible man. Then they became fools and idolaters, having already exalted themselves above God in doing so. Casting His word aside and creating their own gods, stories, speculations theories, and vain imaginings in its place. Such as compose the "sciences so called" of this world.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

  And you are the the biggest culprit here!  This thread is a monument commemorating Amo-trying-to-use-science-to-understand.