The Most Comprehensive Theory of How...

Why do you assume that science can check against Scripture?

You can't have it both ways: either
you believe that science can support Scripture - but by that same token science can fail to support Scripture; or
you believe that science can have nothing at all to say about the Scriptures' moral authority.

I'd leave the science out of it.

Here's a list to get you started. Many of them have books available as well.

http://www.icr.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.creationresearch.org
http://www.creationontheweb.com
http://www.creationism.org
http://csm.org.uk
http://www.nwcreation.net
http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page

If you have faith that the Bible MUST be read literally to be true, then I'm not sure why you need science for support. It doesn't work that way. You don't get to say, "Here's what I believe, now please show me some evidence that backs me up." Most scientists, philosophers. and theologians will tell you as much.
Still, if it's a comprehensive tome you want, you can't get more comprehensive than Gould's 1464-page The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.

humbledbyhim said:

All science isn't against athe bible, nor is all modern science good science in my opinion. (There are a lot more presuppositions in science than I thought until I really statred reading up on things.)

Click to expand...

Most science is against the creationist view of the Bible. This includes biology, geology, astronomy, physics, paleontology, archaeology, chemistry, and meteorology.

Also to the other poster. Science can't support acts of God, but it can support normal occurences in the bible. (Just like it can support normal occurences today, but not miracles.) For instance, I think it's silly to try to use science to prove the flood. however, using it to verify that leprosy had the effects mentioned in the Bible is not unreasonable.

Click to expand...

A global flood would most certainly leave behind physical evidence that science can study. Science doesn't need to be able to study the miracle of it happening in order to see the end result of it. And the fact is, there is not a single shred of physical evidence on this planet that indicates a global flood ever occurred.

humbledbyhim said:

I don't think science itself is the problem. I think the real problem is that we get mixed up on the big red word below. People seem to think that we can observe everything with our five senses (or what our machines tell our five senses). Any born-again believer knows that's not the case.

Science Defined
2.Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Click to expand...

True, we can't observe everything with our five senses. But only materialists would limit reality to what we can observe via our physical senses.

My problem with YE creationism is not that observation is limited in what it can reveal, but that there seems to be resistance to the idea that observation gives us any accurate knowledge at all.

So observation cannot tell us everything. Does that mean it is of no value at all? Is everthing we observe an illusion? Listening to YECs, I definitely get the impression that this is what they believe. And I see this belief as contrary to the very doctrine of creation which they are supposedly defending.

It is also a very dangerous idea. For if you cannot believe your own eyes, your own senses, even when they have been corroborated by every available objective test, then you are totally dependent on somebody else to tell you what is real. This is a road to becoming dependent on human authorities who claim to speak for God.

If you cannot trust your own logic, your own feelings, your own mind, you are totally dependent on someone else to tell you what you ought to think, feel, believe and do. That is a prescription for submission to totalitarian authorities, not the freedom in Christ which is the heritage of a believer.

here's one i've found interensting
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/

Arriving said:

here's one i've found interensting
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/

Click to expand...

From the site's definition of evolution:

Evolution- Evolution tries to explain the origin of life by natural means (in other words without God as creator).


The mere fact that they can't even define evolution correctly makes me doubt the validity of anything else on their site. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life.

Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency within a population over time.


Skimming through the rest of the site, there are just too many errors to even elaborate on. And the fact that their primary source cited is Kent Hovind, we really should throw that site in the "Sources creationists should never use" pile.

Jase said:

From the site's definition of evolution:

Evolution- Evolution tries to explain the origin of life by natural means (in other words without God as creator).


The mere fact that they can't even define evolution correctly makes me doubt the validity of anything else on their site. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life.

Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency within a population over time.


Skimming through the rest of the site, there are just too many errors to even elaborate on. And the fact that their primary source cited is Kent Hovind, we really should throw that site in the "Sources creationists should never use" pile.

Click to expand...

i don't agree with everything on there, i just like it because it offers a different perspective on a lot of things i've never thought about. Most creationist sites just talk about the mainstream cliche views on things without getting into any controversial ideas among creationists

Arriving said:

i don't agree with everything on there, i just like it because it offers a different perspective on a lot of things i've never thought about. Most creationist sites just talk about the mainstream cliche views on things without getting into any controversial ideas among creationists

Click to expand...

Yeah, but if from the start, they can't get a basic scientific definition right, but instead, spread misinformation, how much can you trust the rest of the site? The best way to tell is to email the site that their definition is wrong, and see if they fix it. If they don't, I'd say the site is completely junk, and to take all information on the site with a grain of salt.