Search results

Really, I don't want to go into it.  These topics have been discussed to death to no avail.  And ... that wasn't the original intent of this thread.  But in a nutshell: Fact is one thing.  The interpretation of that fact is something...

Most of the documents were written by Ph.D. scientists.  I'm not sure what you find objectionable to the links I provided.   

I'm not going to discuss Facts vs. Interpretation and Biblical bias vs. Naturalistic bias in this thread.  Suffice it to say, I disagree with the implications of your above statement based on those grounds.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.  Try going to Answers in Genesis  or the Institute for Creation Research. Here's a quick list for you: FAQ Anthropology Astronomy Genetics Geology Information Theory Origin of Life Radiometric Dating

Here's your original claim: Here's my response: Granville Penn George Bugg Andrew Ure Henry Cole Thomas Gisborne Samuel Best

Well, it's the safest.  Otherwise, you can make the Bible read whatever way you want it to read. I must strongly disagree with you here.  If that's the case, why did God bother inspiring the writing of the Bible at all?  He could have let his Creation speak for...

I'm going to be focusing on the last 3 names that you listed, since your original claim was: (clue added emphasis to lucaspa's quote above) Unless I misunderstood the intimation that the former list of names were not composed of Christians? Smith, Cuvier, and Owen.  These are...

I'm saying that science, if it is practiced with an a priori commitment to naturalism, will NEVER lead to God.  The scientific method of observation, induction, etc. which leads to proof/disproof, and thereby knowledge, cannot be tweaked to prove God.  Why?  Because...

You've just demonstrated the reason why I am as literal as possible when it comes to interpreting the Bible. I agree that science is pretty reliable a majority of the time. That's not my position at all.  My assertion has always been that science, while it is...

Not really.  For example, the Song of Solomon is poetry in nature.  It should not be taken literally.  And I didn't even need a commentary to tell me that.  :) There is nothing in Gen 1 and 2 to signify that it is allegorical in nature. What were the names of...

Thank you for admitting this. We'll see.... Who was responsible for this methodology? Who is suppose to make these observations? Who is suppose to make these reviews?   Thank you for proving my point that science is an imperfect venture run...

I'm not writing that Atheism requires absolute proof at all.  In fact, I think a person who believes in Atheism is even blinder than a person who believes in a god. I guess I didn't express myself very well.  What I was trying to say is that there is a 'blindness' factor when you...

At the risk of sounding paranoid, I don't think science is as objective as you would like us to believe.  Science is driven by people.  Are people usually objective, devoid of any leanings left or right? Well, I was really referring to myself and not theists in...

Hope this helps. Naming of the Animals

I totally disagree. Psalm 19:1-2 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. Romans 1:20 For  since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His...

Sure.  And I'm not assuming (like you are) that we are necessarily smarter than our ancestors.  We are more advanced, but that advancement was a progressive movement, not sporadic increases in brain power over a period of time.  In other words, our current achievements...

Either way, I would wonder whether this Creator wants to communicate with me or not.  And if He does want to communicate with me, I would expect that communciation to be as coherent as possible.

Let Scripture interpret Scripture.  Sounds like good advice to me. And let's not forget the TINY rule that in Hebrew, verb tense is determined by context. Exactly. In this instance, you perfectly can. Exactly! That's just your say so.  Using your logic, it can...

I respectfully disagree. Gen 1 is plants, animals, mankind. Gen 2 is STILL plants, animals, mankind. If you read the NIV, this becomes glaringly apparent and all seeming contradictions are laid to rest.  I like to use Scripture (Gen 1) to interpret Scripture (Gen 2).

Because the writer was trying to convey that everything created up to this point was still not a suitable helper for Adam.