FABNAQ at TalkOrigins

Please see the following link for the original questions. Also, this is incomplete, but I will try to update as often as possible.

FABNAQ

1. Basically, this question is asking why I think the Biblical account is correct.

Well, firstly, it’s the one I was taught. Secondly, much of the Biblical creation account is very pragmatic. Thirdly, the Biblical account introduces the idea that God wanted to share profound knowledge with us. What evidence do we have for all of this? If we had all the evidence we need, there would be no need for faith. There would be no true choice to love and serve God.

I can’t say dinosaurs weren’t on the ark.

I think some Christians are evolutionists because they want to believe what other people see. They take it as “gospel” what a lot of scientists say, rather than knowing it all out for themselves, and relying on God to reconcile what seems amiss. Rather, they choose to believe that the parts of the Bible that seem conflicting are not literal. But why ask me, or someone like me? Why not ask them?

Again, I don’t know why some choose not to believe the Bible is a perfect representation of what God wants us to believe. It’s better to ask those people directly, or to ask questions that I can honestly supply the answer to. I can really only answer for myself. But, again, I think it comes down to faith. I choose to have faith that God’s answers will pan out, and more than faith, actually. What others do instead, I can’t attest.

Young-life? Is this phrase implying that life began on earth shortly after the formation of the earth? Well, even Campbell and Reece, who wrote the college text, Biology, mention that. Bacterial life arose surprisingly early after the formation of the earth, and molecular clocks are giving us much earlier dates for certain events. Why other people don’t believe this, I don’t know.

I do not think that science and religion should be held separately. Both evaluate the limits of truth, and there is ambiguity. One can have both. In fact, Newton was a believer, as were many early scientists. Einstein’s theology is questionable, but even he seems to have respect for that which he didn’t know, and funny enough, hated uncertainty. Rather, I think it is ridiculous to attack someone else’s faith when you must have faith, yourself. As long as a Christian doesn’t lie about scientific findings, or engage in dishonest debate, I see no cause for ridicule.

2. Well, I don’t know how much THEORY there is in belief in a Biblical account of creation, but I can say with confidence that the ideas, or hypotheses, that such an idea gives rise to have not been completely evaluated, and to write it off is questionable scientific practice. If I’m correct in interpreting the phrase “young-life” then that is just one such instance that is being explored by molecular biologists, today. Again, in Biology, 6th Ed., Campbell and Reece state that life began much earlier than originally estimated, according to molecular evaluations.

Can the Biblical idea make predictions that are concurrent with observation? Well, early arisal of life. But if we take current data and reinterpret Scripture to fit it, that isn’t making a prediction. Rather, let’s look at ERVs (endogenous retroviral insertions). These might suggest that viruses arose from existing life, rather than arising naturally. Any way to prove this? I don’t know that all instances of ERV can be accounted for, but I do know that transcription of ERV segments of DNA have given rise to viable, infectious viruses. I have more to say about ERVs, but this answers the question at talkorigins.

Regi G

PS. Yes, these are my original answers.