Jesus spoke parables. He wrote no scripture.whatever scripture He inspired, pre or post incarnate, would be parable. How does one judge the innerrancy of parable?

"zero-energy theory"

I was just curious, is this a genuine theory or still in the only mathamatical/hypthetical phase? I haven't heard of this version until now so i will be interested to see how this idea turns out.

"Two brilliant experts on this subject are Victor Stenger and Lawrence Krauss,"

Well i disagree with you on that to be honest. But i am no expert in physics so i have much to learn about this subject still. I don't believe any new information will change my view but i am always open to learning more. So i will indeed check these people out.

"Also on the topic of science v religion, I'm sure that it has been proven that as scientific knowledge expands religion decreases just look at the population now"

Can you show me the stats pls? 7% i think is inaccurate to be honest, as far as i have learned it's about 40% not 7%, i will look it up and show u the link ok.

"Also you didn't answer my point about what parts of secular evolution via Natural Selection are different than theistic evolution (or EC) besides that God guided it"

I did answer you, i gave you a link of a person i share the same thought with on that. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=352HUa5sBn0&feature=autofb)

None of it is different in the scientific sense, only in the theolological sense. The only real difference between deism and theism is, i believe God is more personal and continues to be apart of our lives. I believe that God is the driving force behind evolution and all things, since God created the heavens and the earth, both the visible things and invisible things, but yes i believe He does so through natural selection. Again this is theological point of view not a scientific one. Science to me is agnostic and no matter how much an atheist such as yourself tells me science kills God it is in my mind a pure theological point of view (materialistic) as well. To assume no God can exist simply because science shows us so much, is reaching a little toward strawman to me.

While i respect ur point of view i do not agree with it. I am sure you have seen/heard of theist scientists who are well known/respected in their fields and find no issue with their faith in God and in their scientific explorations. By all means though share what you have learned and i will evaluate it honestly.

My wife is Catholic and she is a truly great woman and wife to me.

"Ian you seem to be scientifically literate so I'll talk to you"

I wouldn't say i am anything special on science at the moment, but i would like to think i am fairly scientific minded for some strange reason. But my knowledge is still in the infant stage in my view.

Also you seem to be intrigued by science and accept it when enough evidence is found to support the premise(a very logical way of thinking), but do you study physics as well as biology.

Yes i am checking out and learning a bit about both. Yes i am generally a logical man, so if enough physical evidence presents itself you can't honestly deny it, but i have also found sometimes things are beyond us and do require faith. Faith in humanity to grow up despite no proof of this ever happening would be a good example.

"wow fundamentalist Christians picking on a moderate Christian(who use to be a fundamentalist Christian, the irony), lol...it's the Spanish Inquisition all over again(to a lesser degree obviously)"

Yes it is ironic ha, i simply asked the questions in the most polite way i could and decided to genuinly have a look at their evidence. Now i find i am being insulted by fellow Christians, it's almost enough to turn me away from my faith all together. At least i was willing to look at things properly.

"So you support theistic evolution(or EC), I was just wondering what branch of Christianity you are(I'm a former Roman Catholic, myself)?"

Pentecostal generally but i don't always follow all their doctrines since i don't see it as scriptural.

"probably because I use to be one until science and atheism won."

One doesn't need to include the other mate. See this link for more on the views i hold ok.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=352HUa5sBn0&feature=autofb

but do you study physics as well as biology. Physics although most fundamentalist Christians don't realize is even more anti-God than biology.

I disagree with ur premise here, because physics is again about energy and matter and cannot explain away super natural origins nor is there any serious consensus on how it all began past the big bang, remember that you have over 400 theories other then "string theory" in competition. There is alot of unknown variables in physics yet for you to go and lay that claim in a scientific sense no offense. As i said nothing in science is so solid that God cannot be found in it. I see it as Gods workmanship and yet to be fully understood.

What would happen if you deemed certain theories about the origin of the universe without a divine creator enough evidence to support them, would you lose your belief

I doubt there would be such an amount of evidence that i would conclude God doesn't exist. Faith isn't just about what you can see with ur natural eyes, it's about ur relationship with God in spiritual sense i couldn't begin to describe to you. It's like love you don't truly understand it till you have experienced it.

The more science you learn the more you question your beliefs and that will eventually lead to a rejection of one or the other, that choice is up to you(Which is why I'm assuming some/many Christians do not want to understand science at all since it is possible for it to bring about a crisis of faith).

Again this is an assumption i don't believe is true mate. I have understood enough to know that science can't determine eveything in our lives and world. Even though it does explain a lot and will continue to shed light on many things. God is not something anyone simply get rid of because of scientific views as previously stated. I do appreciate that at least you weren't entirely condesending as the others were, so thank you for that much.

And just so you know I have been talking, debating and preaching to/with atheists long enough to know that if they have any clue on evolution or science, a Christian preaching to them who brings up God created us super naturally as in creationist/I.D. movement, is NEVER going to be taken seriously to be able to preach anything to them. You can believe that for a fact.

I have seen people turn away from Christ solely because of creationist literalistic approach to scripture and them being shown to be wrong and all that teaching was easily rebutted which in turn made them question why they believed so much in Christ and God to begin with?

But some things we can have a case for (such as Christ's existence and decent cause for his resurrection) that opens the door for them to hear the gospel and receive Christ more easily. Because i am honest with myself and i except scientific facts without denying God i have found they are more open to my case for Christ and their need for Him. But in the end only God can convert the soul, but i can open the door way by addressing things in the right way.

If you want to pursue Evolutionary Creationism, then by all means, do so; that is your prerogative.  I’d be real curious to see how you’d breech the topic if Jesus were to show up for supper at your house.  Me, I’d rather talk about my sin debt, and how I can be sure that I’m following in His path, and that I have not turned aside.  I’d want to know the most sure-fire way I could help my friends to truly believe, and who/what that true belief should be in.  I’d bet that EC doesn’t come up as an answer.

This what i meant about you insinuating i have compromised because i know evolution is true as i know gravity is true and the earth revolves around the sun is true. None of this effects one bit of how i see sin or my reverence for Christ and His word, but i do get a greater appreciation for just how incredible Gods creation truly is.

I'll bet you have no idea what ur talking about on our view as well since u choose to ignore any Christian as a real Christian if they don't follow ur creationist ideals. You honestly think that me believing in evolution demishes Christs work in me? If you do you clearly haven't understand Christ's purpose as well as you think u do.

I close with this:

GOD SAID approximately 2,000 years before Christopher Columbus; before ships had ventured beyond the line of danger; before a satellite had ever captured a picture of the Earth, that the Earth is round. Isaiah Chapter 40, Verse 21-22:

21 Have you not known? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?

22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

That scripture is out of context by the way. If you think i am wrong pls show me ONE Christian writer of the past before they knew the earth wasn't flat, that confirmes this as the meaning you give it. Attaching a modern meaning to an ancient text doesn't make it true. That scripture is a poetic one and isn't meant to be scientific as further passages clearly indicate.

Isa 40:28  Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.

So if we are to interpret this scripture as literally as you did that last one, that should mean it has an end or corner by ur definition, because there is NO ends of the earth with a spherical earth. but this is clearly not the case, He is simply using poetic metaphors to express the truth that He is almighty God creator of everything and all bow down to Hm essentially.

"You go, Ian.  I'm just some ignorant Christian, hiding with my head in the sand.  I hope you do well in life, and I hope you find the answer(s) you are looking for.  If you are satisfied that you are right, and we are but mere peons, basking in your immense grasp of reality, then so be it.  I do not feel belittled by you, nor your scientific friends.  I've been made fun of and belittled all my life.  Actually, I find it typical, yet sad, all at the same time."

You started on me, so don't you dare condescend me like that. I wrote in my blog that i found the evidence for evolution overwhelming and true and what response did i get from u and bird brain? I'm essentially a compromising Christian and you think you were belittled?

You are ignorant about evolution whether you accept that or not, just as i was before i had a decent look as to why they believed it to be scientifically true. Nothing you or birdbrain has shown me has changed the fact it is true.

Using scripture out of context as though you are holier then me doesn't make you're creationist argument any stronger or your faith any better then mine either by the way. Insulting me with scriptural passages as though i am clueless about what the bible means is plain rude! You think i went into it lightly? you would be dead wrong and when i was being good about it, you BOTH insult me as though i have questioned Gods authority and have become a compromiser with the world and no nothing of Christ or His word anymore.

If you even bothered to look at those links you might have a clue where i am coming from and stop being hypocritical and judgmental of me. Creationist's views don't have a case, I'm sorry if you don't like it but it's true none the less and it don't take anything from God in knowing that either so i find out. So stop being so high and mighty on me both of you!

P.S. If you want to buy into the lies that creationist websites tell you that ur problem not mine. I learned the hard way how full of it they are and believe me it hurts to know so called leaders like that knowingly lying to us for money.

You go, Ian.  I'm just some ignorant Christian, hiding with my head in the sand.  I hope you do well in life, and I hope you find the answer(s) you are looking for.  If you are satisfied that you are right, and we are but mere peons, basking in your immense grasp of reality, then so be it.  I do not feel belittled by you, nor your scientific friends.  I've been made fun of and belittled all my life.  Actually, I find it typical, yet sad, all at the same time.

Typical, if you recall Matt 5:11-12;

¹¹ “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. ¹² Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

sad if you think about Ephesians 4:14-16.

¹⁴ that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, ¹⁵ but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— ¹⁶ from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

 I do like the one thing that BirdBrain mentioned, and that is that I don't have to argue the point with them, or with you.  If y'all are satisfied that you've driven home the point, and that I have no scientific leg to stand on, and that my points are meaningless, without merit, straw men, vacuous, inane, childish, etc., then you definitely have all the knowledge about this topic, and I am a mere poser, trying to act like someone who knows something, but has no idea of what I am talking about.

Actually, I'm just another one of the sheeple; blind and ignorant.  I must prefer it that way; else I'd be more than happy to accept your new "insights" as to the existence of reality, the physical universe, and how God planned evolution all along.  You must surely have the mind of Christ to know all this, and I must have a reprobate one, since I am unwilling to accept this newfound wisdom, knowledge, and understanding.

It was my understanding that the Bible was good enough for me to know, but I guess I was wrong.  The bottom line is that, NO MATTER WHAT I SAY, it will never satisfy, nor will it be good enough.  You, and your scientific friends, have me pretty-well summed up.  Yup!

Neither you, nor they, nor I, have the answer.  The way I practice my faith may be wrong, and the God I worship may be just a figment of my imagination.  If we all had perfect understanding of whom God really is, then there would be but one way, and no need for 180+ different denominations (whatever the number actually is, I don't know, nor do I really care).

My desire is to know Christ, and to share in His sufferings (a hard thing to desire, for sure).  I try to keep the main thing the main thing.  Gal 2:20 -  I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

If you want to pursue Evolutionary Creationism, then by all means, do so; that is your prerogative.  I’d be real curious to see how you’d breech the topic if Jesus were to show up for supper at your house.  Me, I’d rather talk about my sin debt, and how I can be sure that I’m following in His path, and that I have not turned aside.  I’d want to know the most sure-fire way I could help my friends to truly believe, and who/what that true belief should be in.  I’d bet that EC doesn’t come up as an answer.

I close with this:

GOD SAID approximately 2,000 years before Christopher Columbus; before ships had ventured beyond the line of danger; before a satellite had ever captured a picture of the Earth, that the Earth is round. Isaiah Chapter 40, Verse 21-22:

21 Have you not known? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?

22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

MAN SAID the Bible is of no scientific significance. Its words are the words of mere men.

I’ll go with God; you can go with the scientists.  LOL!  Peace, Bro.
(I don't care who you are; that's funny)

"They think they have disproved God with their little bitty finite minds."

Based on what actual evidence do you base this assertion? It's nonsense and ur trying to lay claim to a false ideal and take the moral high ground. Evolution and science, can't disprove God if He is the creator of it, now can it? nothing in science and nature should ever conflict with God or His word. So the fact that some of the evidence don't agree with a literal translation should tell you that it wasn't all meant to be taken literally anyway.

 "furthermore, how did the earth get here in the first place?  It evolved from nothing, I suppose."

For a start, isn't that the same claim we are making as Christians? The universe and all life came about by God? Something from nothing? 2nd of all no one is stating it came from nothing as far as i have understood. Check this link out and c what i mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANtpsunRYIs&NR=1 (short sharp version)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n19HIHCpOVE (long version)

Abiogenesis, Evolution, & Science 01-08 (This is about how life possibly begun, just before evolution)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObuQhCozCo

Actually Ian, I laughed, not got aggravated, when I read this.  I know the fruit of this one.  Since you think you disproved this, you will begin to "disprove" pieces and parts of the Bible, and you will fall away from your first love.  People can say otherwise, but in their hearts, the real fire is not there.  They think they have disproved God with their little bitty finite minds. 

That statement is a load of crap brother and i can prove it too. Listen to this scientist and you tell me if he is a washed down not genuine Christian. I can show you plenty more people who don't deny facts and still quite passionate about God and Christ Jesus if you want.

"The Language of God: Intellectual Reflections of a Christian Geneticist"
February 4, 2008, at The University of California, Berkeley

Presentation by Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. Dr. Collins presents a case for harmony between faith in science and faith in God. He also shares about his personal intellectual and spiritual journey from agnosticism, to atheism, and to Christianity.

Followed by an interview conducted by Jasper Rine, Howard Hughes Professor and Professor of Genetics, Genomics and Development at UC Berkeley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y

"Sorry Ian, the word testifies that Noah took care of it.  Furthermore, how does rain come upon the whole earth for 40 days and 40 nights?  Or furthermore, how did the earth get here in the first place?  It evolved from nothing, I suppose."

First of all the total of the flood and dry land issue was 370days.Besides i found no solid evidence for Noah's flood to account for how fossils accumulated in the layers, the way it did, and found no humans existing evidence or people being drowned with the dinosaurs either, and i have not found a solid mammal like a rabbit or wolf in the "Cambrian" either for that matter (Remember God only needed a pair of each) so something must be in the layers to match ur argument, but there isn't. Now if you do or have found solid proof from the geological columns or fossils, by all means pls show me?

Who said the earth evolved from nothing? not one real scientist will say anything of the sort.

What is Evolution?

In the biological sciences, evolution is a scientific theory that explains the emergence of new varieties of living things in the past and in the present; it is not a "theory of origins" about how life began. Evolution accounts for the striking patterns of similarities and differences among living things over time and across habitats through the action of biological processes such as natural selection, mutation, symbiosis, gene transfer, and genetic drift. Evolution has been subjected to scientific testing for over a century and has been (and continues to be) consistently confirmed by evidence from a wide range of fields.

Is evolution a random process?
	Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment. Are evolution and "survival of the fittest" the same thing?         How do organisms evolve?     Individual organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve. Because individuals in a population vary, some in the population are better able to survive and reproduce given a particular set of environmental conditions. These individuals generally survive and produce more offspring, thus passing their advantageous traits on to the next generation. Over time, the population changes. Does evolution prove there is no God?     No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs. Evolution and "survival of the fittest" are not the same thing. Evolution refers to the cumulative changes in a population or species through time. "Survival of the fittest" is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection, a mechanism that drives evolutionary change. Natural selection works by giving individuals who are better adapted to a given set of environmental conditions an advantage over those that are not as well adapted. Survival of the fittest usually makes one think of the biggest, strongest, or smartest individuals being the winners, but in a biological sense, evolutionary fitness refers to the ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. Popular interpretations of "survival of the fittest" typically ignore the importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on one's genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the "fittest" because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them.

Actually Ian, I laughed, not got aggravated, when I read this.  I know the fruit of this one.  Since you think you disproved this, you will begin to "disprove" pieces and parts of the Bible, and you will fall away from your first love.  People can say otherwise, but in their hearts, the real fire is not there.  They think they have disproved God with their little bitty finite minds.  

Sorry Ian, the word testifies that Noah took care of it.  Furthermore, how does rain come upon the whole earth for 40 days and 40 nights?  Or furthermore, how did the earth get here in the first place?  It evolved from nothing, I suppose.  

The kind is exactly as it is written.  When did God have to tell you what He meant by kind?  His word plainly tells you.  

As far as animals getting to specific places,  to me, that is no different than people doing the same.  I see migration happening regularly, and to see certain animals thriving at different parts of the planet is no surprise to me.  I didn't see any elephants today.  Why not?  Because they are not here.  But that disproves Noah?  Not quite.  Just to those who think they are smarter than the Word. 

Heres some interesting web pages.

Evolutionary Creation - A Christian Approach to Evolution 1-2
Denis O. Lamoureux - http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/  - is an assistant professor of science and religion at St. Joseph's College in the University of Alberta. His appointment is the first tenure-track position in Canada dedicated to teaching and research on the relationship between scientific discovery and Christian faith.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPZI99cTyio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8RC3PDOF_c&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du4OdJ45aU0&NR=1

http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims

Jesus never once contradicted anything in the Word, from Genesis to Malachi, and we know the New Testament was written about him and by inspiration from him.  He began to tell about himself from Moses and the prophets - he testified to Abel, which means he was well aware of the Genesis accounts.  As a matter of fact, Jesus was and is the Word made flesh.  It is accurate - albeit often misinterpreted, but not inaccurate. 

Jesus was addressing people of his day with their 5 elemental understanding and their finite grasp of the natural world. For example we know the mustard seed is not the smallest seed in the world, but he uses it because it illustrates his purpose and they can grasp it. The fact it wasn't the smallest seed is besides the point and some what semantic to use that as an excuse to dismiss what He said. Same goes with His creation explanation. To their understanding, NOT OURS. Its spiritaul message/meaning stays in tact even today's understanding of nature.

Ian, when I read what you write, I hear, science, science, science...and that is fine and good.  But I am not going to get into a scientific debate with you.

You did look at the title didn't you? This was suppose to be about science and how it effects my understanding of faith.

To try to break down every phrase that God says, and come to a point that you cannot make your scientific understandings match your biblical understandings, and you come up with a new thesis that the Bible is inaccurate - well, that is inaccurate.

Well there goes theologians purposes then and all those who would study every aspect of scripture and every commentary u own, you just made it clear they are in error for doing that, and every archaeologist who studies the biblical narrative and searches for the proof they need to show the bible true. Silly people they are ha.There goes answers in genesis argument for the defence of scriptural authority and Ray Comforts as well.

But to get into a scientific debate is the same thing Darwin did.  It is the search of the knowledge of good and evil, which ultimately will fail.  You will never prove God's word fallible - you will only prove that your conceived notions based on scientific "proof" (not all claims are proofs - even some of the greatest proofs have flaws in them, to a degree) do not line up to your finite understanding of an infinite God.

It's what passionate Christians do when ever they give a defence for the faith they have as well. Science has nothing to do with search for good and evil birdbrain. As stated at the end of my original post science has proof without certainty, since that is the nature of it. My finite understanding of God ha? You think i only have an intellectual understanding of God? Just because i agree with evolution based on facts not on material biased has nothing to do with how i view God or His word in over all context as it's meant.

some might interpret it that the Earth is totally static.  Of course, we know that the Earth revolves upon an axis, but that axis is also part of the "foundations of the earth" - not just the physical components.

Some might? Read your Christian history of what they believed on science and scripture and u will find the vast majority did in fact believe the earth was static and it was only through scientific proof that it was found wrong. This again doesn't take away the importance of the message or Gods infallibility. How do you know its on an axis? because of Gods word?, or because God gave us a brain to work things out naturally? No such "foundations of the earth" argument as u make, existed in the biblical text or was implied, until as i said it was shown physically that it was true. If it was before pls show me birdbrain?

But Ian, before going any deeper into this discussion, let's lay the foundation in a short sentence for evolutionary creationism.  I am going to quote Wikipedia for this definition:

Again i already showed the definition thank you in my original post. There is a difference between theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism, that being in our person understanding of God in the bible and not just any person force/god.

Genesis 1:20-25 /  ²⁰And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

 ²¹And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Did you look up what the ancient people describe this firmament is? I doubt it. Yes i also believe God created these animals. First i understood the bible to mean as far as "kinds" refers too and what the hebrews and middle east of those times would have understood as Birds make more birds, cats more cats, dogs more dogs and people make only people. Which got this responce from an evolutionist. See if you can define exactly what KIND these are; 

What "Kind" are these creatures:

Platypus
Tuatara
Girraffe and Okapi
Vicuna, Guanaco, and Alpaca (and if these are just camel "kind" how did they get to inhabit just South America?)
Trilobite
Rhinocerros


I assume this science is based on the biblical flood

How did Noah get all those marsupials, and only marsupials, to Australia from Mt Ararat? What "Kind" are they? or is a Thylacine, Koala, Kangaroo, Wombat, and Opossum different "kinds"? How does creationism explain why marsupials are so diverse on this island?

How many different "kinds" were on the ark? What about the dinosaurs? Were they on the ark? or did they miss the boat? If there were just two of every critter on the ark, what did the carnivores eat?

What kinds of birds were on the ark? Was there just one species that all other birds "micro" evolved from? What were they like? Or did Noah have two of every species of bird too? I keep 30 some odd chickens in my yards of roughly 400 cubits and I have to ask....where did all the crap go after 40 days and nights? How did 8 people take care of and redistribute so many animals to just the right place? Are there any scientific facts to back up this dispersal?

"Obviously, I won't see eye to eye with you, and you have studied your case quite thoroughly, but I have one point that I wish you would think about in my argument."

Yes i sure have looked into it because i too was a creationist of the young earth variety and i was systematically corrected on my understanding of science and evolution and was shown the creationist websites misrepresent themselves and have no case for their literal understanding of the biblical passages as they try to conform them to science badly. Sometimes rudely i might add, but when u get the same arguments coming at u and u have correctly them so often i suppose u would be annoyed.

Ian, when I read what you write, I hear, science, science, science...and that is fine and good.  But I am not going to get into a scientific debate with you.  Interpretation, as you even said, has caused people to kill in the name of Jesus.  But that doesn't always mean it is Holy Ghost inspired either.  To try to break down every phrase that God says, and come to a point that you cannot make your scientific understandings match your biblical understandings, and you come up with a new thesis that the Bible is inaccurate - well, that is inaccurate.  I cannot argue this with you - you have your thoughts, but I will tell you what Jesus said - Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.  I don't always go along with what everyone out there teaches.  Some teach once saved, always saved - not biblical.  Some teach the whole church is the Bride of Christ - once again, not biblical.  But to get into a scientific debate is the same thing Darwin did.  It is the search of the knowledge of good and evil, which ultimately will fail.  You will never prove God's word fallible - you will only prove that your conceived notions based on scientific "proof" (not all claims are proofs - even some of the greatest proofs have flaws in them, to a degree) do not line up to your finite understanding of an infinite God. 

We'll look at some of the points you brought up in the Word.  Ps 104:5 - Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.  When we see this scripture, some might interpret it that the Earth is totally static.  Of course, we know that the Earth revolves upon an axis, but that axis is also part of the "foundations of the earth" - not just the physical components.  There is also a promise in Genesis 8:22 - While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.  This lets us know that the Earth is going to remain in a constant axis with the Sun - otherwise, we would not experience the seasons as we do.  But not only is there a physical lesson in the Word, but also a spiritual - everything that God does has a spiritual lesson, that can only be spiritually discerned.

But Ian, before going any deeper into this discussion, let's lay the foundation in a short sentence for evolutionary creationism.  I am going to quote Wikipedia for this definition:

 In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.  (SOURCE- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution)

This is in contrast to what God says in His Word - let's see the Word of God.

Genesis 1:20-25 /  ²⁰And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

 ²¹And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 ²²And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

 ²³And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

 ²⁴And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

 ²⁵And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Then there is the Genesis 2 account, which actually gives the natural creation of animals, versus the spiritual creation in Genesis 1.  Genesis 2:18-20 / 

¹⁸And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

 ¹⁹And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

 ²⁰And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

According to the Bible, there was no evolution.  I cannot go with scientists on their evolutionistic theories.  God made them out of the dust.  Was there life before Adam and Eve?  I believe so - but the Bible deals mainly with Adam and Eve and their descendants - sufficient fruit to help one grow spiritually.  

It isn't bad to study science, but when you think you have a euphoria that trumps the Word of God, be careful.  Lucifer gave a similar experience to Eve in the Garden, and it caused man to err ever since.  

Obviously, I won't see eye to eye with you, and you have studied your case quite thoroughly, but I have one point that I wish you would think about in my argument.  Jesus never once contradicted anything in the Word, from Genesis to Malachi, and we know the New Testament was written about him and by inspiration from him.  He began to tell about himself from Moses and the prophets - he testified to Abel, which means he was well aware of the Genesis accounts.  As a matter of fact, Jesus was and is the Word made flesh.  It is accurate - albeit often misinterpreted, but not inaccurate.  

Lesson 5/16: Geography and Cosmology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxYGIZRr7Ck&feature=related

Sometimes it's easy to think that only modern Christians wrestle with issues of science and faith. But during medieval times, there were a few revolutionary discoveries in the fields of geology and cosmology that shocked the Christian world. What can we learn today from these past controversies?

Basically all of those clips would show you that being christian doesn't mean denying the physical realities in science.

Lesson 6/16: Does the Earth Move?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FDJfNQ9cwc&feature=related

Today, most Christians understand that the earth rotates on its axis once per day and orbits the sun once per year. But this idea was once totally incompatible with Christian theology. What changed in the last 400 years? Why do some Christians still reject the moving earth on biblical and theological grounds?

Check out this link and then tell me it's not a solid case that ur understanding is still not the literal rendering as was believe before science showed the facts. In that clip you will see ancient bible believing Christians of that time arguing for the flat earth and sun revolving around the earth and that the earth is the center of His creation and they use biblical text to justify it, just as young earth creationist do today.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ian, I don't use science to explain the Bible."

No you just try to fit modern scientific understanding into an ancient biblical text. That is not good idea.

"Science will never fully explain the Bible, as there are things that God didn't mention on purpose"

That's true in the more spiritual sense, but science has enabled a lot of truth to come out because it investigated it. That don't mean the bible is designed to tell us every important thing in regards to how He created it. By the way the Holy Spirit is not a scientist either and He isn't there for that reason either. You think He is there to map out the entire universe for you? 

"Go ahead and try to solve all the mysteries.  I'll continue to read the Word of God.  Mine will be true, and you will continue to search.  I don't have to understand the exact way a star was created - God made it."

Again with the insistence that if i don't believe in the young earth creationist model that can't be tested or proven i am not a real Christian?

You're right, you don't have to science, but you're still effected by it every single day of ur life whether u admit it or stay deliberately ignorant of it.

I am glad that not all Christians want to remain uneducated about science and are actually curious how this incredible God of ours made it happen.

2. Ancient Science
Genesis 1-11 features an ancient science
of the structure, operation, and origin of the
universe and life. Figure 1 presents the world as
conceived by ancient Near Eastern peoples,
including God’s chosen people, the Hebrews. It
may come as a surprise to most Bible-reading
Christians, but a 3-tier universe is found in the
Word of God. A few of these ancient
conceptions of the natural world include:
The earth is flat. The word “earth”
appears over 2500 times in the Old Testament
(Hebrew: ’eres) and 250 times in the New
Testament (Greek: ge). Never once is this word
referred to as spherical or round. Instead, the
universe in the Scripture is compared to a tent
with the earth as its floor (Ps 19:4, Ps 104:2, Is
40:22).
A circumferential sea borders a circular
earth. Proverbs 8:22–31 and Job 26:7–14
describe the creation of the world. The former
states, “God inscribed a circle on the face of the
deep” (v. 27); and the latter, “God has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters” (v. 10). The
Bible also asserts that the earth is circular. Isaiah writes, “God sits enthroned above the circle of the
earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads
them out like a tent to live in” (Isa 40:22).
The earth is immovable. The Bible records three times that “the world is firmly established;
it cannot move” (1 Chr 16:30, Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10). The stability of the earth is understood to be like
that of a building set on the solid foundations. The biblical writers frequently refer to this solid base
as “the foundations of earth” (Job 38:4-6, Prov 8:29, Jer 31:37). For example, “God set the earth on
its foundations; it can never be moved” (Ps 104:5).
A solid domed structure holds up a body of water over the earth. Created on the second day
of creation, the firmament separated the “waters above” from the “waters below” (Gen 1:6-8).
Notably, this heavenly dome and body of water did not collapse during Noah’s Flood. As the psalms
of David’s day reveal, “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament proclaims the work
of His hands” (Ps 19:1); and God “stretches out the heavens like a tent and lays the beams of His
upper chambers on their waters” (Ps 104:2-3).
The sun moves across the sky. Created and placed in the firmament on the fourth day of
creation, the daily movement of sun is found in King Solomon’s observation: “The sun rises and the
sun goes down, and hurries to the place where it rises” (Eccl 1:5). It also appears in the psalmist’s
Figure 1. The 3-Tier Universe. The regional
geography led ancient Near Eastern people to the
reasonable conclusion that the earth was encircled
by a sea. Journeys in any direction eventually led to
a body of water: the Mediterranean Sea is west,
Black and Caspian Seas north, Persian Gulf east,
and Arabian and Red Seas south.
7
praise, “The sun rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other” (Ps 19:6).
Of course, many Christians are quick to point out that all of passages cited above are only
“appearances” in nature. That is, these are phenomenological descriptions (Greek phainomenon:
appearance). The earth “looks” flat, “seems” to be surrounded by water, and “feels” stationary; the
sky gives the “impression” of being a blue body of water overhead; and the sun “appears” to cross
the dome of the sky, rising and setting every day. However, to ancient peoples like the biblical
authors, these are descriptions of the actual structure and operation of the universe. As history
reveals, the notion that the earth was immovable and that the sun moved daily across the sky was part
of astronomy up until the early seventeenth century. In fact, this was the issue of the Galileo
controversy.
Scripture does indeed employ phenomenological language to describe the natural world. But
there is a critical and subtle difference between what the biblical writers saw and believed to be real
in the universe, and what we see and know to be a scientific fact. Observation in the ancient world
was limited to unaided human senses, like the naked eye. Today scientific instruments, like
telescopes, have broadened our view and understanding of the cosmos. As a result, it is essential to
appreciate that statements in Scripture about nature are from an ancient phenomenological
perspective. What the biblical authors and other ancient peoples saw with their eyes, they believed
to be real, like the literal rising and setting of the sun. In contrast, we view the world from a modern
phenomenological perspective. When we see the sun “rising” and “setting,” we know that it is only
an appearance or visual effect caused by the rotation of the earth. Therefore, it is crucial that these
different viewpoints of nature not be confused and conflated together. This is the problem with the
so-called “phenomenological language argument” (or poetic language argument) often heard in
churches—it reads the ancient science in Scripture through a modern mindset and perspective. To
correct this situation, we must read our Bible through ancient eyes. Figure 2 distinguishes between
ancient and modern phenomenological perspectives.
It is important to note that ancient peoples also understood the origin of life from an ancient
phenomenological point of view. Biological evolution was not even a consideration because in the
eyes of the ancients, hens laid eggs that always produced chicks, ewes only gave birth to lambs, and
women were invariably the mothers of human infants. Living organisms were therefore static and
never changed. In conceptualizing origins, they used these day-to-day experiences and retrojected
(to cast back) them to the beginning of creation. Ancient peoples came to the very reasonable
Figure 2. Phenomenological Perspectives.
8
conclusion that life (and the universe) must have been created quickly and completely, “after their
kinds” as stated ten times in Genesis 1. Termed “de novo creation” (Latin de: from; novus: new), this
was the best origins science-of-the-day. It appears in most ancient creation accounts and it involves
a divine being/s who acts rapidly through a series of dramatic interventions, resulting in
cosmological structures and living creatures that are mature and fully formed. With this being the
case, it becomes evident that the God-of-the-gaps model of divine creative action is ultimately rooted
in de novo creation, an ancient origins science.
Recognizing that the Word of God features an ancient science is troubling to most
conservative Christians, because they believe that statements in Scripture about the physical world
are inerrant and absolutely true. Many assume that the Holy Spirit revealed scientific facts in the
Bible thousands of years before their discovery by modern science. In other words, these Christians
accept “concordism” (or better “scientific concordism”). They take for granted there is an accord or
alignment between Scripture and science. In contrast, evolutionary creationists make no apologies
for the obvious ancient science in God’s Word. Instead, they attempt to understand Holy Spirit’s
revelatory process in the light of this feature. In the same way that the powerful Messages of Faith
in Scripture penetrate our heart and remodel our mind (Heb 4:12, Rom 12:2), Christian evolutionists
contend that the incidental ancient science in the Bible must also penetrate and remodel our
understanding of biblical inerrancy.
Evolutionary creationists are not disturbed by the fact that Scripture includes an ancient
science. For that matter, they expected it, and draw a parallel to God’s greatest Act of
Revelation—the Incarnation. The Creator not only came down from heaven and took on human flesh
in the person of Jesus, but He also embraced the intellectual categories-of-the-day. The Lord spoke
Aramaic, the common person’s language in first century Palestine; and He preached using parables,
indicating that He used the ordinary ideas and concepts of the people at that time. For example, Jesus
often employed the agricultural knowledge of His listeners in the parables of the good sower (Mk
4:1-9), the weeds (Matt 13:24-30), and the mustard seed (Matt 13:31-32). Of particular interest is
the last parable. The Lord used the botany-of-the-day in stating that the mustard seed is “the smallest
of all seeds” when in fact many seeds, like orchids, are much smaller. In other words, Jesus
accommodated or descended to the knowledge level of His ancient audience.
In a way similar to the Lord’s teaching ministry, the ancient science in the biblical accounts
of origins is an accommodation by the Holy Spirit to the conceptual level of the inspired authors and
their readers. For example, they believed the blue of the sky was a body of water that God made on
the second day of creation. But today modern science has determined that this is a visual effect due
to the scattering of short wave light in the upper atmosphere. Despite these radically different
understandings of the physical world, the inerrant Message of Faith remains steadfast: the blue
body/effect overhead was created by God. Evolutionary creationists emphasize that it is
inconsequential to the divine theology whether or nor statements about nature in Scripture are
scientifically accurate and actually describe physical reality. The powerful spiritual truths concerning
the natural world transcend the incidental vessel of the ancient science that transports them. Or stated
another way, the biblical notion of creation does not focus on how God created, but that He created.
9
3. Ancient Poetry
Genesis 1-11 includes ancient
poetry. Of course, the term “poetry”
carries a number of meanings. But using
the most basic definition, it refers simply
to a structured writing style in contrast to
a free flowing narrative. Figure 3 reveals
that the six day creation account features
two parallel panels. This passage opens
with the Spirit of God hovering over a
formless and empty earth shrouded in
darkness and submerged under water. The
description of the earth using rhyming
Hebrew words (tohu: formless; bohu:
empty) immediately attracts the attention
of ancient readers and points to the
structure of Genesis 1. In the first three
days God deals with the problem of
formlessness, while during the last three days He resolves the emptiness. Striking parallels also
emerge between the two panels. On the first day of creation, God makes light. This corresponds to
the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. The Creator then separates the waters
above from the waters below during the second day, providing an air space for birds and a sea for
marine creatures made on the fifth day. On the third creation day, God commands dry land to appear
in anticipation of land animals and humans created during the sixth day. The so-called
“contradiction” of the creation of light before the sun disappears if the panel structure is respected,
because obviously it is poetic license on the part of the inspired writer.
Figure 4 shows that ancient
poetry also appears in Noah’s flood
account. Genesis 6-9 is framed on a
chiasm. This is a common literary device
used by ancient Near Eastern writers,
including the Holy Spirit-inspired biblical
authors. A chiastic structure is made up of
two parts. The first half is a mirror image
of the second half, producing a reversed
sequence of ideas or words. Especially
noticeable in the biblical flood chiasm are
the matching days of 7s, 40s, and 150s.
Such a technique facilitated ancient
peoples to memorize these accounts. In
particular, the chiasm focuses the reader
to the middle of the structure and the main message of the passage, which in the flood account is that
Figure 3. Genesis 1: Creation Account Parallel
Panels.
Figure 4. Genesis 6-9: Flood Account Chiasm.
10
“God remembered Noah” (Gen
8:1). Therefore, the central
spiritual truth in this passage
to all generations of Christians
is that the Lord remembers
righteous men and women
despite any flood of trouble
that may inundate and
submerge them.
In light of the poetic
structures present in the
biblical creation and flood
accounts, evolutionary
creationists doubt that Genesis
1-11 offers a historical record of actual events. As most Christians know, real history simply does
not unfold in chiasms and parallel panels. For example, does Israel’s history as a nation develop in
a chiasm? Is the historical record of the church structured in parallel panels? Or better, do the
ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus emerge in these brilliantly crafted poetic structures? The
answer to all these questions is “no” because these examples are actual historical events. In contrast,
the poetic frameworks in Genesis 1-11 are calling out to us not to read these passages as literal facts
of history. That is, the Bible itself is pointing away from the traditional literal interpretation.
To be sure, suggesting that the first chapters of Scripture are not an account of actual events
in the origin of the universe and life is threatening to most conservative Christians. However, this
does not in any way undermine God’s Word. The Holy Spirit inspired these passages, and they are
central to the Christian faith. Instead, this proposal only challenges our traditional assumption that
scientific concordism is an inerrant feature of Genesis 1-11. Of course, it is reasonable to assume an
accord or alignment between Scripture and science. After all, God is both the Creator of the world
and the Author of the Bible. But the question is this: Is scientific concordism true? And the answer
is “no” because the Word of God features an ancient science. Once again, the Scripture itself is
pointing away from the traditional literal interpretation.
Consequently, in reading the biblical accounts of origins, Christians today must separate, and
not conflate, the inerrant Messages of Faith from their incidental ancient scientific and poetic vessel.
To illustrate the application of this Message-Incident Principle of scriptural interpretation, consider
one of the most important passages in the New Testament—the Kenotic Hymn (Phil 2:5-11). In
highlighting the fact that God emptied Himself and came down to the level of humans in the person
of Jesus, the apostle Paul writes:
Therefore, God exalted Him [Jesus] to the highest place and gave Him the name that is above
every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, [1] in heaven and [2] on earth
and [3] under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of
God the Father. (v. 9-11)
Regrettably, English Bibles do not translate fully the original Greek. “Under the earth” should be
rendered “the underworld” [see Figure 1]. In fact, the Greek word katachthonion in this verse refers
Figure 5. Genesis 1-11 and the Message-Incident Principle.
11
to the beings down (kata) in the chthonic (chthonios) or subterranean realm (cf., Matt 12:40; Eph
4:9–10; 1 Pet 3:19). Nevertheless, the Message of Faith in this passage is clear—Jesus is Lord of the
entire creation. And Paul delivers this inerrant spiritual truth by using the incidental science-of-theday—
the 3-tier universe. Similarly, in the opening chapters of Genesis, we must separate the eternal
Messages from the incidental vessels as presented in Figure 5.

Ian, I don't use science to explain the Bible.  That is like getting a French man to teach me German.  I go to the source, the Holy Ghost.  Science will never fully explain the Bible, as there are things that God didn't mention on purpose - not all knowledge edifies in growing up in Christ.  Go ahead and try to solve all the mysteries.  I'll continue to read the Word of God.  Mine will be true, and you will continue to search.  I don't have to understand the exact way a star was created - God made it.  The Bible also testifies of a virgin birth - get science to explain that one.