Ray Boltz GAY?

[charl]

So that's were the outlandish statements come from. That makes me feel better.

[separateunion]

SU, you are wrong about faith and science. I worked for a church where the pastor went from accepting the literal days of creation as written, to evolution, gays on staff (which led to me leaving) and other things. He would interview doctors from KU, and they would discuss evolution as a fact, and dismiss scripture and long held traditional interpretations to suit what THEY think science says.

Then that pastor obviously didn't have sound faith. Science and faith can work hand in hand and do not have to be in opposition. Do people try to use science to disprove faith? Yes, but that doesn't mean we need to fear science.

As a side note, I tend to lean toward Old Earth Creation theory. There is too much scientific evidence in opposition to a seven day creation theory. The problem with Young Earth Creationism is that it tries to build a scientific theory on Scripture and ignores the empirical evidence that exists. This is why many Christians are more willing to believe in Theistic Evolution.

[brent]

There are former evolutionists with PhDs, etc, etc that have since accepted Christ and the 6 day creation after looking at the facts in all honesty. These people are way smarted than we are. Maybe they know something we don't.

New or old doesn't affect salvation. But think about this. God made it and it was. He did not have to wait for trees to grow from seeds he planted. The circle as a whole was made when he spoke it, in the time frame that is mentioned in scripture. If God is capable of making mature trees and saplings, grown man and wife, birds that were old enough to fly, then why could he not make an earth have age? How do we know the affects of the flood did not age the earth? There is no more evidence for an old earth than there is young earth. It is all on how you look at the same data and interpret it.

[separateunion]

There are former evolutionists with PhDs, etc, etc that have since accepted Christ and the 6 day creation after looking at the facts in all honesty. These people are way smarted than we are. Maybe they know something we don't.

That really doesn't mean anything. Plenty of PhDs believe in Evolution. So what?

New or old doesn't affect salvation. But think about this. God made it and it was. He did not have to wait for trees to grow from seeds he planted.

Sure, God had the power not to wait, but He also had the power to wait if He so willed it. You have no empirical, eye witness proof, so studying science will give you the best guestimation we could possibly have. If science says something different than what we believe about Creation, than perhaps we are trying to stick pieces where they don't fit, much like people who begin with a theological construct and then attempt to force Scriptures to fit their already preconceived worldview.

The circle as a whole was made when he spoke it, in the time frame that is mentioned in scripture.

The Bible uses many stories and allegories that are not fact for fact true the way we read them. What proof do you have that this was any different? Even Adam and Eve weren't there at the very beginning, and Moses was most likely the one who wrote the story. There is nothing that proves any time frame except for a literal interpretation of Scripture, and there are plenty of passages where you wouldn't read literal meaning into what is written. Why does this section have to be different?

If God is capable of making mature trees and saplings, grown man and wife, birds that were old enough to fly, then why could he not make an earth have age?

Because He wanted to. I guess you can ask Him this question when you get to heaven, but God does not always use what would seem to us to be the quickest, most logical means.

How do we know the affects of the flood did not age the earth? There is no more evidence for an old earth than there is young earth. It is all on how you look at the same data and interpret it.

I have yet to meet an Old Earth Creationist who denied the flood. So, they are taking that into account and STILL saying that scientific evidence more closely resembles an old earth.

[Jonathan]

OK, what about man-crushes. Like the one I have for Detroit Tigers centerfielder Curtis Granderson? And the one SOMEONE here has for Derri Daugherty?

[brent]

I think when we get to heaven, we are going to look back down through our history of science and think, "Gosh, we were WAY off on this, that and the other." We have no idea. We cannot think like our creator, so we will never prove our creator or the age of the earth through science. We can see indicators or testimonies, but we will never be able to describe with 100% certainty how it happened in scientific terms.

I trust the bible as it was interpreted then and now by Jews, Mesianic Jews, etc, where the word one means one and the word day means what it is. One is the same word one that is used to describe God. So by popular interpretation of one day meaning thousands or millions of years, I guess we have scripture that contradicts itself with more than one God. God was creating before he created earth and man. He rested from creation but still it continues in man, in heaven and who knows where else.

The components, the core, etc were said to be unorganized, so they were in existance in the beginning. Who knows for how long? God has been around forever. So were they around as long as him? Maybe. If so, carbon dating is a bit off by a few infinities. My point is that you and others are letting science skew your interpretation of scripture and the creative process. That is spooky to me. Science has been wrong on crap loads of things. People have died from opposing it. Even the church got involved.

The earth was said to be the center of the universe
The earth was said to be flat
Aristotle was off on many things
The list goes on and on and on.