I stand corrected for the most part. Yes, I do understand that many Christians have embraced evolution as scientifically correct. However, I believe that a believe in evolution
started with the rejection of the written Word of God. It was then when the theory of evolution became mainstream that some Christians were compelled to accept it as truth, and then came the tasks of fitting this theory with the Bible. It is too bad that one has to change the meaning of some plain and obvious texts, and twist it to make it fit with the current prevailing theory in science, the evolutionary theory.
From what I have read in literature, we have a lot to learn on the laws of physics, and we have a lot to discover yet. In the 20th century scientists thought that we were at the peak of knowledge concerning nature. This however is no longer the case. We are just starting to understand quantum physics and the many particles associated with it. Right now, it is hard for us to know how deep and how many more "fundamental" particles there might be. And this is the nature of science, continually searching and refining today's theories. The more we know, the better our understanding of the world around us.
For instance, we know that the speed of light is finite. If the universe is only a few thousand years old, then we should not be able to see any stars that are more than a few thousand light-years away. But we can.
by Chiroptera
It is true, however you are not familiar with how gravity and time dilation at the beginning of Creation can account for this. The theory proposed by Dr. Humphreys says that galaxies at the edge of the known universe is actually 14 billion years old, however, our galaxy and the earth is not. He came up with this theory by using todays laws of physics, but his assumption was that the universe has an edge and centre. Big Bang cosmology assumes no center and no edge and hence no gravity and time-dilation because everything is "smooth" at large distances.
Dr. Humphreys theory can be seen in the book "Starlight and Time".
I know that some responses from you will be to attack the author, but refrain from that, however, attack the theory.
Similarly, if the earth is only a few thousand years old, then reliable radiometric dates should indicate that no rock is more than a few thousand years old
Perhaps, but radiometric dating is still not fully understood in my opinion. We have yet to find more at the quantum level to see how this actually works. Currently we have no way to tell which atom will decay. As well, we do not know why the half life works the way it does. For instance, why does one atom decay very soon, and another will not decay for a billion years?
I understand that these questions do not provide reasons to doubt the dating method. However, there is current research being done to find out if radioactivity could have increased in the past (i.e. at creation, or during the flood). I am a firm believer that God exists, but also, that He gave us His Word, the Bible. And in my opinion, evolutionary theory is in direct conflict with the Bible, and despite many Christians trying to mold the two and the reasons they give forth, it is not sufficient in my opinion.
The evidence shows pretty clearly that the earth and the universe are billions of years old, that life has evolved over several billion years, and that there was no global flood
This is a bold statement and I have to claim this as utterly false. Currently, science HAS NO explanation on how life evolved. The chemical hurdles to try to explain how life evolved remains an obstacle. The design argument bashes evolution without a designer, however God using evolution still works with this observation. Evoltuionists have put forth many stories on how species could evolve, but no empirical evidence supports this. Story telling and speculation, but far from science. The natural selection process observed today coupled with mutations do not lead from single celled to complex multicellular organisms. BUT it does lead to different species and loss of function. Science observes the latter, not the former. No example in nature or in the lab will show how a lower life form can move up the ladder to more complex form using natural selection and unguided mutations. It only goes down hill, (even though it might benefit a species or a new species might come out of it, this is due to destruction of information or switching on/off of certain genes, but not a gain ).
As for the flood, I believe the global layers and fossils observed is direct evidence of a global flood. And what evidence shows clearly that there was no global flood? What about the moon? do you realize the surface closest to earth is more volcanic, and is more smooth due to the "lakes" of lava that flowed once in the past? Do you realize the far side of the moon is covered with small & large meteorite impacts making the surface rough relative with the close side of the moon? Think of this, and you will come to the conclusion that if all those meteorites came from space, they would hit the moon from any random direction and thus the moon would have an even surface all around. It DOESNT. The best, and I mean this, the best explanation is that an event happened on earth, so violent, that this is the only explanation of how the moon looks. (Perhaps the flood). This is explained in more detail in Walt Brown's "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood".
So I would like to see examples of evolution happening today if there is one. Please refrain from using examples of natural selection or a loss of function which benefit a creature (this does not show a complexity gain required to explain how single celled organisms evolved into multicelled, and so on). Just because we can diversify certain species so much to an extent that they no longer sexually reproduce with one another, but only with a subset and therefore a new species has been made, this does not mean evolution (in a general context of moving up the ladder) has been observed. It could be, but one has to show the extra complexity gained by all these mutations and natural selection to show how life moved up the ladder in the first place.
Edited by Reserve, : Sentence was ambigious
™ Version 4.2