Creation scientists

[Amo]

Let's not go there, you have a warning under your name for past behavior. 

To the contrary, we should absolutely go there. Surely there are lessons to be learned by all, concerning what they should be warned about not doing. If they wish to remain on these boards. I don't mind being reprimanded for wrong behavior, but I do not consider calling someone out, bad behavior. Let us examine exactly what I was warned about, that all may learn from the experience.

[Amo]

I think it is reasonable to place the Joseph famine about 2000 BC.  We know that there were significant populations in India and China much, much earlier than that.  In fact we have records of populations in the Americas much earlier than that.  So your analysis of Genesis 41:57 is more than a little lacking; it is downright laughable.

You are, of course, free to believe what you want. But I will warn you that if you present such analyses along with your presentation of Jesus Christ as Messiah, I doubt seriously that you will be well received by anyone. And I think that is a real problem today in any attempt at spreading the gospel.

The above is of course again, assuming certain present prevalent historical narratives are correct. Which biblical testimony and an increasing number of other sources, have and are beginning to question more and more often. Not just about time issues, but also about the capabilities of travel and communication regarding civilizations of the past. The presumed simple to complex evolution of societies as well as life narrative, is increasingly being questioned and or blown apart by various evidences. In your above analysis you apparently presume that global distribution of food would not have been possible when the famine under examination took place. This is apart from the fact that the scriptures in question themsleves basically point out that the famine was worse in some places than others. 

I am not as concerned with being well received, as I am with presenting the truth. As we both understand, I place more faith in scripture than present popularly accepted scientific or historical narratives. Which both have and will continue to change over time as more and more evidence is discovered. As far as being received by today's majorities, lest you forget, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was despised, rejected, persecuted, tortured, and murdered by the majority in His day. This for doing nothing but good, and telling everyone all the truths of holy scripture against the obvious false narratives of His day. Some things rarely change.

[Alan]

To the contrary, we should absolutely go there. Surely there are lessons to be learned by all, concerning what they should be warned about not doing. If they wish to remain on these boards. I don't mind being reprimanded for wrong behavior, but I do not consider calling someone out, bad behavior. Let us examine exactly what I was warned about, that all may learn from the experience.

Since you're insisting, in your case your warning was issued for berating another member that disagreed with you. You could have debated the point made to you, but you chose to be childish and make remarks about the member resembling lefties. Your behavior wasn't just unbecoming, it was against the rules of the forum.

[4WD]

As far as being received by today's majorities, lest you forget, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was despised, rejected, persecuted, tortured, and murdered by the majority in His day. This for doing nothing but good, and telling everyone all the truths of holy scripture against the obvious false narratives of His day. Some things rarely change.

I had no thoughts about appealing to the majority; rather I was thinking about simply presenting the gospel message to someone who was seeking the truth about God.

I will never forget a conversation I had with a young person many years ago.  He asked me if he had to believe the world was only 6000 years old in order to become a Christian.  I think you know what my answer to him was.

[Jaime]

Why would that bother the young man more than say having to believe in a virgin birth or Jesus  dying and resurrecting from the dead? There are many things about Christianity that involve pure faith and not anything close to reasonable logic.

[Amo]

Since you're insisting, in your case your warning was issued for berating another member that disagreed with you. You could have debated the point made to you, but you chose to be childish and make remarks about the member resembling lefties. Your behavior wasn't just unbecoming, it was against the rules of the forum.

I find it highly unlikely that I simply berated another as a lefty, without or apart from debate. Perhaps I called them out for using lefty progressive arguments or methodology. Refer me to the post, and if I did as you suggest as singled out from debating an issue, I will issue a public apology right here on this board. I don't even believe in using insults are argument or debate. As I have stated many times on these boards. Such suggests ignorance, indifference, or apathy, rather than concerned or conviction oriented debate.

[Cobalt1959]

Let's not go there, you have a warning under your name for past behavior.

I find that an ironic statement, since you openly ridicule people like Amo right on the open board if they don't agree with you, and you are a moderator.  You should have the same warning under your name, so it's pretty hypocritical for you to call Amo out on something you practice yourself.

I also find it highly ironic that at least 3 people in this thread are chastising Amo for being so un-moving in his beliefs but you are all just as dogmatic.  This thread is like a go-to gallery of hypocrisy.

[4WD]

Why would that bother the young man more than say having to believe in a virgin birth or Jesus  dying and resurrecting from the dead? There are many things about Christianity that involve pure faith and not anything close to reasonable logic.

Science cannot deal with the spiritual.  Science does not and cannot preclude the truth of God and His providential actions. Such are not illogical; they simply cannot be explained physically. There is no information or data that deny Jesus' virgin birth or His resurrection.    On the other hand the data in support of a 13+ billion-year-old universe is massive. It is possible that God could have created the universe 6000 years ago or so and simply made it appear as if it were 13+ billion years old.  That would have been more than a little deceitful.

There is a common notion that faith in God is somehow not logical.  That is simply false.  There is nothing illogical about the spiritual.  It is only that science, being the study of the physical, is incapable of dealing with the spiritual.  The reality and truth of the spiritual is demonstrated by God's written revelation.  That is the primary reason for prophecy and the documented miracles.

John 20:30  Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
John 20:31  but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

That is basically the case for the entire Bible. It gives us information and data concerning the spiritual. It gives us the logical basis to believe in God.

[4WD]

I find that an ironic statement, since you openly ridicule people like Amo right on the open board if they don't agree with you, and you are a moderator.  You should have the same warning under your name, so it's pretty hypocritical for you to call Amo out on something you practice yourself.

I also find it highly ironic that at least 3 people in this thread are chastising Amo for being so un-moving in his beliefs but you are all just as dogmatic.  This thread is like a go-to gallery of hypocrisy.

That is not true, Cobalt. Amo often accuses those who do not agree with him of a lack of true faith in God and His word.  Neither I nor Alan have ever accused Amo of a lack of faith in God. We disagree with his interpretation of some of what is written in the Bible. 

[4WD]

I find it highly unlikely that I simply berated another as a lefty, without or apart from debate. Perhaps I called them out for using lefty progressive arguments or methodology. Refer me to the post, and if I did as you suggest as singled out from debating an issue, I will issue a public apology right here on this board. I don't even believe in using insults are argument or debate. As I have stated many times on these boards. Such suggests ignorance, indifference, or apathy, rather than concerned or conviction oriented debate.

Amo, so many times you have presented your view of science being anti-God and therefore to believe the science is disbelieving God and disbelieving in God.  That is simply not true and it says nothing about God; it only says that you know so little about science.  Science is the study of the physical.  It is the study of the natural world as God created it.  There is nothing in the whole of science that says that God didn't create it. The act of creation produces the physical; but the act of creation is itself not physical; rather it is providential and therefore spiritual; and as such is quite outside of the study of science.  And that is the reason that I have often said that the very idea of "creation science" is an oxymoron.  There is science of the created but there is no science of creation.

[Jaime]

Something can certainly be spiritual and true AND illogical like the virgin birth and the resurrection from the dead Christ. My point was the young man had much higher hurdles to clear in becoming a Christian than unnecessarily accepting the 6000 year age of the earth. He wouldn't have to become a flat earther either. But to comprehend the Bible story, he would be called upon to accept or reject some fairly important AND illogical things and subject himself to a level of potential ridicule in being a Christian. For such a young man, he has a stigma against Christianity BECAUSE OF some of the logical connundrums LIKE the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ. NOT just limited to the fear of being stigmatized a young earther.

[Jaime]

To 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.

[4WD]

Jaime,
You 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. 

[Jaime]

Sure it it! Nothing logical about a virgin birth or a resurrection. Exact same lack of logic for a young earth belief that the young man feared. He fears the stigma of that. If that kind of fear of being stigmatized that way is present over possibly being associated with young earthers, embracing a virgin birth and resurrection definitely be would be a bridge too far.

Also I am not a Star Trek fan. WAY too illogical! 

And by YOUR definition, illogical is the very reason for the young man's concern, which would only scratch the surface with his challenges to Christianity.

[4WD]

Again, you are using the word "logical" not in the sense of logic but in the sense of expected or reasonable or in this case natural.  God said that Jesus was born of a virgin.  God has given the entire OT to demonstrate that the spiritual is real and that what He says is true, no matter how unbelievable it might be in the natural occurrence of events.  God is the author of logic and the logical. The providential is not illogical. God makes no illogical statements.

[Texas Conservative]

If someone was to not believe in Jesus Christ because of their beliefs in science on evolution or the age of the earth, they were probably not predestined to be of the elect.

[Jaime]

Each of the plagues of  Egypt were illogical to Pharoah and caused by a spiritual entity, yet very real. Just as the illogical parting of the Red Sea was. If it was logical Pharoah would not have followed the Israelites to his and his army's drowning demise. His reaction to perceived illogic was actually hugely illogical. The miraculous power of Jehovah was and is foolishness to unbelievers, yet as real as a heart attack.

[Jaime]

TC I think you are right in the sense the young man was frantically grasping for a reason NOT to become a Christian. There are many more for the deep thinkers than the young earth issue. Consider the Holy Grail of life begins at conception. Horrors! Or nowadays the reprehensible and rude notion of only two genders! What stigmas could THAT imbed in the unsuspecting?

[4WD]

Each of the plagues of  Egypt were illogical to Pharoah and caused by a spiritual entity, yet very real. Just as the illogical parting of the Red Sea was. If it was logical Pharoah would not have followed the Israelites to his and his army's drowning demise. His reaction to perceived illogic was actually hugely illogical. The miraculous power of Jehovah was and is foolishness to unbelievers.

Again, you are using the word to mean expected or reasonable.  That has nothing to do with logic.  Einstein's theory of Relativity was certainly not expected or reasonable for the majority of the scientific community.  His argument for it was however completely logical. For me, even now, quantum physics is neither expected nor reasonable.  Again, the argument for it is completely logical.

In the same way, God's presentation for the virgin birth is completely logical.

[4WD]

If someone was to not believe in Jesus Christ because of their beliefs in science on evolution or the age of the earth, they were probably not predestined to be of the elect.

As I have discussed so often here, no one was or is predestined to be of the elect, at least in the sense of the Calvinist elect.

[Jaime]

4WD, every human on earth responds to everything based on what is expected or what seems logical.

The virgin birth has never seemed logical or natural to me. It WAS necessary for God, but not logical in our logic. In fact it is one of the most "unbelieve-able" and unbelieved things in the Bible. To me far more fantastical to the cynics than most other things presented. I would assume it would be something every bit as repugnant or stigma causing as a young earth belief,'for people comcerned about atigmas.

[Jaime]

Not taking sides on the elect 4WD, but how does a proper view of the elect differ from the Calvinists view.

We need all the discussion we can get for this all but dead forum!

[yogi bear]

That would be a good topic to discuss but it needs its own thread not to hijack another

[Jaime]

With no more participants than we have, the concept of threads may be overkill. 

[4WD]

Perhaps I will start a new topic on election.  Later though, I haven't the time right now.

[Amo]

Amo, so many times you have presented your view of science being anti-God and therefore to believe the science is disbelieving God and disbelieving in God.  That is simply not true and it says nothing about God; it only says that you know so little about science.  Science is the study of the physical.  It is the study of the natural world as God created it.  There is nothing in the whole of science that says that God didn't create it. The act of creation produces the physical; but the act of creation is itself not physical; rather it is providential and therefore spiritual; and as such is quite outside of the study of science.  And that is the reason that I have often said that the very idea of "creation science" is an oxymoron.  There is science of the created but there is no science of creation.

That is pretty twisted 4WD. I am the one who actually argues that true science reveals God, you are the one who insists that science and God must remain separate. I most certainly do argue against "sciences so called" of this world, but have never stated that science itself is anti-God. My argument has always and only been consistently, that those so called sciences which contradict a plain thus saith the Lord, are anti-God. You are the one who emphatically insists that science cannot have anything to do with God or backing up scriptural testimony about creation. Insisting the term Creation Science is an oxymoron, because in your eyes the words creation and science are mutually exclusive. This is lie proposed by sciences so called of this world. God is, and there is no other. Apart from Him there is nothing, and He is Spirit. Who created and sustains all. How silly to declare that the examination and study of that which was cerated and is continuously sustained by God Himself, cannot reveal Him to those who do so. This is the mindset of the sciences so called of this world, in direct contradiction to the testimony of God's word itself. The following is a repost from another thread where I already addressed this issue with you in decisively stating that you are -

WRONG!

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:

God is revealed, no clearly seen, by examining the things which He has made. They are the evidence of God, and His most obvious divinely intelligent design. Those who deny this, deny God. As His word declares such to be proof of His creative power.

Isa 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. 26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

The stars themselves, are to remind the created, who created them.

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. 19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. 20 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. 21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

There is no science apart from God. There is nothing apart from God. All knowledge and truth proceeds from God. Therefore, any science so called, which excludes God, is false science.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

How silly, to suggest that the study of what is, cannot lead to or be connected with the very one who created and sustains it all. Nonsense!

Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. 4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, 5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. 6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. 7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. 10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. 11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. 12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. 13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. 14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

There is no good reason for a professed Bible believer, to insist that science must remain separate fro God. Science should be the persuit of knowledge and truth. God created and is the standard of knowledge and truth, as well as everything else.

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

The above principle is of course applicable to the so called sciences of our day as well. Especially in regards to those who demand science and God have nothing to do with each other. Just who do yo think inspires the separation of anything from God? Let alone a field professing to establish knowledge and truth. The sciences of this world so called which do so, are among the religions of this world as well. God is not a religion. He is all in all. Knowledge, truth, and the plain and simple fact of the matter. Any matter. In reality, there is no separating anything from God. Only false religions and or religious faith, do so.

This is the clear and concise teaching of holy scripture.

[Amo]

I find that an ironic statement, since you openly ridicule people like Amo right on the open board if they don't agree with you, and you are a moderator.  You should have the same warning under your name, so it's pretty hypocritical for you to call Amo out on something you practice yourself.

I also find it highly ironic that at least 3 people in this thread are chastising Amo for being so un-moving in his beliefs but you are all just as dogmatic.  This thread is like a go-to gallery of hypocrisy.

I most certainly have been called ignorant many times over on these boards. Totally ignorant concerning "science" of course. I guess that doesn't qualify as berating. Not that it matters to me, I would not seek to stifle one who considers me to be such. I of course do not agree with that summation, but I respect others right to think so, and or express such.

[Alan]

Something can certainly be spiritual and true AND illogical like the virgin birth and the resurrection from the dead Christ. My point was the young man had much higher hurdles to clear in becoming a Christian than unnecessarily accepting the 6000 year age of the earth. He wouldn't have to become a flat earther either. But to comprehend the Bible story, he would be called upon to accept or reject some fairly important AND illogical things and subject himself to a level of potential ridicule in being a Christian. For such a young man, he has a stigma against Christianity BECAUSE OF some of the logical connundrums LIKE the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ. NOT just limited to the fear of being stigmatized a young earther.

Your analogy is not even close to the same thing. The origins of life and matter are agreed upon by 99.99% of the scientific community, it's simply the observable and undisputed facts, which in no way detract from having a Christian point of view. The virgin birth however, requires 100% faith, since there is absolutely zero evidence to say that it happened or didn't happen.

[Jaime]

The reality of the virgin birth or the resurrection need no proof for those with faith. To the unbelieving scientist, he or she would require 100% proof, which cant be obtained, but doesn't detract from the fact of either. To the young man in the example, he would not be convinced for scores of proof issues beyond the stigma of accepting the young earth. It would never happen if the young earth stigma was bothering him. There would be MANY such issues to overcome. That is all I was trying to communicate. Sounds to me like he would never get comfortable with anything illogical. There is a bunch to signoff on in Christianity. Scientists can certainly come to faith in Christ, but their unbelieving peers would hold them in ridicule as the young man feared. Even though the age of the earth has nothing to do with salvation, the same as worshipping with instruments doesn't have any impact on salvation. The rub that 4WD was alluding to, I think, was that some young earthers challenge the faith of non-young earthers. That shouldn't be the case anymore than an Acappella worship advocate doubting the Christianity of one that worships with instruments and vice versa. With the young man that 4WD mentioned, it wouldn't take much research to find out that most Christians are NOT young earthers, and shouldn't even be close to a stigma of being Christian. Some Christians believe handling snakes should be part of their worship. That shouldn't deter anyone from coming to faith anymore than a minority of Christians believing in a young earth. A large majoritynof the Christian world, Catholics specifically believe the wine in communion becomes the literal blood of Christ. Certainly far fetched, but in comparison no more far fetched than the widey accepted virgin birth and resurrection of Christ. Still many logical hurdles to get over for a scientific mind, in addition to an illogical origins theory.

[Texas Conservative]

The origins of life and matter are agreed upon by 99.99% of the scientific community, it's simply the observable and undisputed facts, which in no way detract from having a Christian point of view.

This argument is a logical fallacy of the appeal of authority. What 99.99% of whoever believes is of no value.  Only the truth matters.

Further, the scientific community has no observable facts on the origins of life.

Believing life came from a mixing of building blocks of non-life and evolved to what we are now requires 100% faith.

[4WD]

That is pretty twisted 4WD. I am the one who actually argues that true science reveals God, you are the one who insists that science and God must remain separate. I most certainly do argue against "sciences so called" of this world, but have never stated that science itself is anti-God. My argument has always and only been consistently, that those so called sciences which contradict a plain thus saith the Lord, are anti-God. You are the one who emphatically insists that science cannot have anything to do with God or backing up scriptural testimony about creation. Insisting the term Creation Science is an oxymoron, because in your eyes the words creation and science are mutually exclusive. This is lie proposed by sciences so called of this world. God is, and there is no other. Apart from Him there is nothing, and He is Spirit. Who created and sustains all. How silly to declare that the examination and study of that which was cerated and is continuously sustained by God Himself, cannot reveal Him to those who do so. This is the mindset of the sciences so called of this world, in direct contradiction to the testimony of God's word itself.

All of that is a long-winded demonstration that you haven't the slightest clue what science is all about.  It really is terribly, terribly sad.  There is, of course, nothing wrong with your being ignorant of a field of study.  But to not even know that you are is sad. 

The following is a repost from another thread where I already addressed this issue with you in decisively stating that you are -

WRONG!

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:

God is revealed, no clearly seen, by examining the things which He has made. They are the evidence of God, and His most obvious divinely intelligent design. Those who deny this, deny God. As His word declares such to be proof of His creative power.

Seriously Amo, I am surprised that you do not even understand what that passage says and means. That is speaking about God's general revelation, not His written revelation. What you present as the history of the universe is not based upon examining the things which God has made.  It is based upon a faulty translation/interpretation of a couple of words in God's special revelation, His written word. Actually examining the things that God has made is what leads us to the deep time description beginning with the Big Bang.

There is no science apart from God. There is nothing apart from God. All knowledge and truth proceeds from God.

That is absolutely true.  Now given that it is true, I find it just a little odd that you so completely reject it.  You obviously have made no effort in the to study it and learn from it. 

Therefore, any science so called, which excludes God, is false science.

Of course such a statement could only be made by someone who is ignorant in nearly all aspects of the field of science. Science doesn't exclude God.  Science is the study of the physical.  It has no ability to study the spiritual.  For that we need what God gave us in His special revelation, His written word.

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

The above principle is of course applicable to the so called sciences of our day as well. Especially in regards to those who demand science and God have nothing to do with each other. Just who do yo think inspires the separation of anything from God? Let alone a field professing to establish knowledge and truth. The sciences of this world so called which do so, are among the religions of this world as well. God is not a religion. He is all in all. Knowledge, truth, and the plain and simple fact of the matter. Any matter. In reality, there is no separating anything from God. Only false religions and or religious faith, do so.

This is the clear and concise teaching of holy scripture.

And there we have yet another case of really bad translation/interpretation.  First let's consider a better translation/interpretation:

1Ti 6:20  O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge,"

That which is there referred to as the falsely called "knowledge," has nothing to do with science, the study of the physical.  Rather it is about that knowledge "of the different kinds of inspiration bestowed on the first preachers of the Gospel, 1Co_12:8, we find the word of knowledge mentioned; by which is meant that kind of inspiration which gave to the apostles and superior Christian prophets the knowledge of the true meaning of the Jewish Scriptures. This inspiration the false teachers pretending to possess, dignified their misinterpretations of the ancient Scriptures with the name of knowledge, that is, inspired knowledge; for so the word signifies, 1Co_14:6. And as by these interpretations they endeavored to establish the efficacy of the Levitical atonements, the apostle very properly termed these interpretations oppositions of knowledge, because they were framed to establish doctrines opposite to, and subversive of, the Gospel. To destroy the credit of these teachers, he affirmed that the knowledge from which they proceeded was falsely called inspired knowledge; for they were not inspired with the knowledge of the meaning of the Scriptures, but only pretended to it."  (Per Adam Clark quoting a Dr. Macknight)

[4WD]

The reality of the virgin birth or the resurrection need no proof for those with faith.

Where does that faith come from?  There is a gross misunderstanding in a significant majority of Christians about where that faith comes from.  It is not a blind faith as some would claim.  Neither is it a gift given by God to some and not to others.  Rather it is developed through a demonstration by God's written word, the Bible, that what He says there is true. It took God nearly 4000 years from Adam to Jesus to firmly establish that what He says is absolute truth. That for us is largely by the evidence of fulfilled prophecy. God's demonstrations, recorded in the OT, of His ability to "know the end from the beginning" is what gives us the basis for our faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, our Lord and Savior.

[4WD]

This argument is a logical fallacy of the appeal of authority. What 99.99% of whoever believes is of no value.  Only the truth matters.

Correct.  But then what is truth?

Further, the scientific community has no observable facts on the origins of life.

That is not quite true.  There are a lot of observable facts about the origin of life.  There just aren't any observable facts about the cause of the origin of life.  The what, where and when of the origin of life is well studied and may well explain much about the origin of life.

Believing life came from a mixing of building blocks of non-life and evolved to what we are now requires 100% faith.

Is believing God "caused life to come from a mixing of building blocks of non-life and evolved to what we are now" any less truth than believing anything else?

[Jaime]

4WD, for me and millions of Christians, faith comes from the word of God. Of course some of my faith is blind faith because I BELIEVE not because I was logically convinced of such things as the virgin birth or the resurrection of Jesus. I am not a stranger to the academia of science but have not been logically convinced of an old earth any more than you and Alan have not  been convinced of a young earth. MUCH has to be TAKEN AS truth rather than logically being convinced of it. I would say if people were educated in God's word 1% of their secular education, many would change their views on quite a few things.

[4WD]

4WD, for me and millions of Christians, faith comes from the word of God. Of course some of my faith is blind faith because I BELIEVE not because I was logically convinced of such things as the virgin birth or the resurrection of Jesus.

I could be wrong, Jaime, but I think that you believe such things as the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus because, for whatever reason or by whatever means, you believe God's word telling you that both events occurred.  That is not blind faith. You weren't logically convinced of either the virgin birth or the resurrection of Jesus.  What you were logically convinced of is the truth of God's word. That is the message of Romans 10.