B. B. Warfield

Question:
What would happen if Kent Hovind and Phyllis Schlafly had a love child.

Answer:

I've mentioned Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield here several times, but no one seems to know who he is. He's very relevant to the interface between Christianity and evolution, so I think I should probably tell a little about him..

Must be atheist snow.

Evolution is the religion you cling to in faith. You think it'll save you from hell, (though it won't)
there is no proof of it
(though you claim there is)
in order to maintain your belief you have to supress the truth in unrighteousness
(which doesn't make your belief system true)
see? It's a religion, troll.

Evolution is a huge lie. If I told you that because you overcame your cold you are now no longer a human being, that would be rediculous.


DNA is digitally encoded, when darwin made His thesis Science of the day believed DNA to be an analog. Digital to analog does not work...

THis is why quantum physicists have by and large rejected evolution.



Also, God said when adam and eve were created?

"It is Good"

He didn't say "a work in progress"

The gap idea is pseudobiblical as well. It just doesn't have the Biblical backup. It is a nice myth also.

also ask me about how Evolution was a foundation for communism.


Evolution, you watch will slowly transform from science to philosophy.


I can't proove beyond a shadow of a doubt, christianity.

Nor can we evolution.

But at least I know mine is a religion...

Evolution is a huge lie. If I told you that because you overcame your cold you are now no longer a human being, that would be rediculous.

DNA is digitally encoded, when darwin made His thesis Science of the day believed DNA to be an analog. Digital to analog does not work...

THis is why quantum physicists have by and large rejected evolution.

Also, God said when adam and eve were created?

"It is Good"

He didn't say "a work in progress"

The gap idea is pseudobiblical as well. It just doesn't have the Biblical backup. It is a nice myth also.

also ask me about how Evolution was a foundation for communism.

Evolution, you watch will slowly transform from science to philosophy.

I can't proove beyond a shadow of a doubt, christianity.

Nor can we evolution.

But at least I know mine is a religion...

your view of biblical literalness is funny to me.

Would God allow a book to be called by His name, and not be true?

Also if it is true? Would God mispell, or have bad grammer

also would God allow us to make 100 percent of the bibles lie.

to not accept the bible is to believe in the nonexistence of God

because God if He is all powerful would not permit lies about Him, unless one were true.

thus either all scripture is false, or one is true.

DNA is digitally encoded, when darwin made His thesis Science of the day believed DNA to be an analog. Digital to analog does not work...

I've mentioned Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield here several times, but no one seems to know who he is. He's very relevant to the interface between Christianity and evolution, so I think I should probably tell a little about him.

Here's a brief biography of him. He's yet another famous person who lived within ten miles of my house:

B. B. Warfield is widely considered to be the greatest Christian theologian of the last 200 years. Most Christians consider his understanding of the Bible to be matched only by the likes of Calvin, Augustine, and St. Paul. He was also a scientist, and accepted evolution on the basis of the evidence for it that he had collected.

This is described in further detail here:

I consider this to be significant for a few reasons. It is impossible to say that he accepted evolution because he did not understand the Bible--there has probably been no one since him that understood the Bible as well as he did. It is also impossible to say that his acceptance of it related to anything other than the physical evidence for it. He certainly was not looking for a way to avoid believing in a God, since the emphasis of his life was Christian theology even after he accepted it. It is likewise impossible that he was seeking to undermine Christianity. He probably did more to defend Christianity than any other person in the last 200 years--evolution was only one of several topics he wrote about. C. S. Lewis's attempts in this area are nothing compared to Warfield's. Evangelical historian Mark Noll described him as "the nation's most forceful defender of Biblical inerrancy at the end of the nineteenth century."

He was a truly unbiased scientist--or if he had any bias at all, it was in favor of Christianity. Yet even someone whose life was devoted to the Bible, and who understood the Bible better than anyone else in the world, ended up accepting evolution. There is no possible reason he could have accepted this theory except the reason that he himself gave: that the evidence for it is stronger than the evidence for any of the alternatives.

Here is a quote from his biography:



There is no one alive today whose understanding of the Bible can match Warfield's enough to say that Warfield had his doctrines mixed up. He also had no reason to accept evolution except because of the evidence for it, since he could have not had any of the alternative reasons for accepting it that creationists have proposed evolutionists to have. Apparently the evidence for evolution is strong enough to convince even the greatest Bible scholar in the world.