Dear Another,

Lack of faith in our scientists?!? Research the “Nebraska Man”. “Scientists” found a tooth and constructed a jaw from the tooth, then they constructed a skull from the jaw and came up with a new species. Unfortunately it was the tooth of a pig. Throughout the years there have been plenty of “scientists” who have propogaded their own agendas

John R.,

Certainly, I grant you all of that, in everything. That does not have to be a reason to dismiss people, professions, or beliefs.

This is where I list evey misdeed of every person for every profession and walk of life and use it to disgard anything that does not align with my own?

That is not faith.

what disturbs me more, in that line of thinking, is our religious leaders lack of faith and patience in allowing God’s word to prove itself.

The misuse of knowledge to further an agenda has always been a temptation. It may be that in modern times the abuse is becoming more pervasive as we rely more on information to make choices.

Dear Another,

There is supposed to be faith in science? We should accept everything in science without proving it repeatedly? Those scientists who misrepresent their findings should be believed in the future on first glance? Which church leaders are you refering to? I think you are combining my post with inference to religion. My post was merely a response to your assertion that the Creation Museum demonstrated a “lack of faith in scientists”.

faith - confidence or trust in a person or thing.

It is with faith that all things come to past.

One quote from the site: “Biblical history is the key to understanding dinosaurs.”

What are they doing to the Bible?

I guess I’ll put it on the shelf next to my Farmer’s Almanac.

Dear Another,

I guess, since you nor StirThePot will answer a direct question, I now know what the sound of one hand clapping is……………

Sorry, assumed they were rhetorical.

There is supposed to be faith in science? Faith in all things. Faith is a powerful tool apart from a belief in God. Faith is a choice. Choose powerfully. God promises to provide.

We should accept everything in science without proving it repeatedly? Absolutely not, prove it and prove it again. What we know will always be changing. Faith and proof are distinct. Faith is the source of all outcomes.

Those scientists who isrepresent their findings should be believed in the future on first glance? Absolutely not, that would be silly and irresponsible. Hold everyone to their integrity. That is distinct from attempting to dismiss them, their passion, and their contribution.

Which church leaders are you refering to? In general, the weakness of leadership is to maintain the past. Breakthroughs in most things happen on the fringe. Leadership requires great training and discipline to be in the presence of transformation in that it is not the source of it, only the representation of it. The temptation for authority is to maintain the past. The future is where possibility resides.

My post was merely a response to your assertion that the Creation Museum demonstrated a “lack of faith in scientists”. Religion appears to be taking on science in an attempt to align it with the Bible. It is unnecessary and inauthentic. Patience would be a better choice, in my view.

For example, the Catholic church commissioned a study that agreed in 1992 (I think) that the earth orbits the sun. In 1990 they were still unprepared to make this assertion.

“Let it be.” -Paul McCartney.

Dear Another,

I thought that science should be based on facts and devoid of faith. Isn’t faith the belief in the unseen?

What we know will always be changing? The Laws of thermodynamics have changed?

Faith is the source of all outcomes? Again, I thought science was supposed to be based in fact.

The weakness of church leadership is to maintain the past? So there are no theological absolutes?

What we know is always changing in the sense that we’re always learning MORE, and sometimes the things we learn today are significant enough that the things we ascertained to be true in the past get superseded by today’s knowledge.

To me, faith in science means faith in the process. The process being fundamentally self-correcting over time. If I publish a result, and someone else can’t duplicate my result, then my results get called into question, and either get overridden or strengthened, depending on what else is learned.

To me, the Church gets into trouble when it writes physical observations about the universe into doctrine. Once something becomes doctrine, changing it is virtually impossible. Why does the place of the earth in the universe MATTER in a religious sense? Why is it (in the case of the Creation museum) so all fired important that the universe be 6000 years old? Why is it so hard to admit what we don’t know? Most scientists will acknowledge the huge discrepancy between what we know, and what we don’t know. Each new discovery reveals (conservatively) 10 things that we don’t know. After all, ultimately, creation, and the beginnings of life, and the workings of things, are all mysteries. And, we may never know all the answers. But, what is wrong with asking the questions, KNOWING that there is no answer?

I started to respond to all, and then shortened it to the fun one.

What we know will always be changing? The Laws of thermodynamics have changed?

We once considered them universal as they applied to the known world. We now know they may not apply at the sub atomic level while they do at the molecular and cellular level.

More importantly, there is speculation that consciousess occurrs at the quantum level, and may prove to be free of the forward flow of time and high probability on which thermodynamics depends. If we attain (or reattain from when stripped from us by God when we were driven from Eden) freedom from the flow of time the laws of thermodynamics will end up displayed (unchanged) in museums next to the steam engine.

To what I said. Knowledge is by definition experienced and therefore unchanged.

What we know, is constantly changing, both in fact and point of view.

Okay, here is another one.

A theological absolute - “God is.”

Is it knowledge or truth?

Spoken as knowledge (past) and universal as in there is no choice in the matter, the impact is lost, there is no faith in the outcome, and those that hear it are not touched by the spirit.

Spoken as truth, authentically as and for yourself, nothing added,and those that hear it are moved that you have this for yourself. We are moved by the spirit in you.

This is the distinction of jargon and authenticity, knowledge and being.

Many leaders believe they deal in knowledge. The power is in the being.

A Bible museum, cool!

A Creation museum! There is an agenda, and by definition inauthentic.

Authentic is a sharing for sharing sake. No agenda. A free and safe place for choice.

Share the Bible, faith. Take on proving the Bible, not so much.

“God is.”" A powerful demonstration of the disinction of knowing the truth or being the truth.