Evolution's Wrong Biblically!

[Sopharos]

logic != reality

If YEC = "reality", then you're right, Logic =/= "Reality"

Logic > "Reality".

 

[Faith In God]

Wow. Spoken like a true YECist.

not familiar with terminology yet. I just said that logic cannot be declared reality unless all points involved are observed and applied; otherwise logic fails.

 

[Jet Black]

To Believe In The Theory Of Evolution You Have To Believe That We Started Out As Single Cell Organisms And Later Formed Into Something Else And Something Else Etc. Etc. Biblically It Says In Genesis That We Were Created In The Image Of God, And To Create Eve He Took A Rib From Adams Chest, So The Two Obviously Contradict Each Other. But What Are Your Views.

don't take it literally.

 

[Faith In God]

don't take it literally.

so you believe in the bible as long as it's not taken literally?

that is your view?

not to be rude, but that post was a bit vague (esp as a response), no?

 

[Jet Black]

so you believe in the bible as long as it's not taken literally?

no, but then I'm not here to destroy people's christianity. they can believe the bible if they want, but a literal interpretation just goes against everything that exists.

not to be rude, but that post was a bit vague (esp as a response), no?

not really, he was saying evolution if biblically wrong, where this is simply not true. it only contradicts a literal interpretation.

 

[Bushido216]

not familiar with terminology yet. I just said that logic cannot be declared reality unless all points involved are observed and applied; otherwise logic fails.

No, you just said that logic doesn't equal reality. It's assumed when someone says "logic" or "science" they're referring to logic or science applied correctly.

In that case, your statement was, infact, spoken like a true Young Earth Creationist.

 

[Bushido216]

no, but then I'm not here to destroy people's christianity. they can believe the bible if they want, but a literal interpretation just goes against everything that exists.

not really, he was saying evolution if biblically wrong, where this is simply not true. it only contradicts a literal interpretation.

A literal interpretation of some parts shown to be demonstrably false. Written history bits you can assume literal in the absence of contradicting information, i.e., good science.

 

[Faith In God]

A literal interpretation of some parts shown to be demonstrably false. Written history bits you can assume literal in the absence of contradicting information, i.e., good science.

so whatever man says is okay with the bible is literal. gotcha.



I don't believe the bible has to be filtered through science. I think (at the very least for Christians (who follow the bible ie the thread topic)) that science should be filtered through the bible.

 

[Nathan Poe]

so whatever man says is okay with the bible is literal. gotcha.



I don't believe the bible has to be filtered through science. I think (at the very least for Christians (who follow the bible ie the thread topic)) that science should be filtered through the bible.

So what men wrote 5,000 years ago overrides what we observe about the universe with our own eyes?

Why stop at evolution and cosmology? Imagine if medicine, archetecture, and economics had to be filtered through the Bible.

 

[leoj]

don't take it literally.

Do you mean just not take creation literally, if so, how do you know where to start taking it literally?

 

[Arikay]

Ok,
Science is the study of the natural world.
If God created the world,
Then science is the study of Gods creation.
Thus, we would be filtering Gods word through Gods creation.
Why do you have a problem listening to God?

A couple hundred years ago, filtering science through the bible ment believing the geocentric model. Yet we don't anymore, I wonder why?

so whatever man says is okay with the bible is literal. gotcha.



I don't believe the bible has to be filtered through science. I think (at the very least for Christians (who follow the bible ie the thread topic)) that science should be filtered through the bible.

 

[Bushido216]

so whatever man says is okay with the bible is literal. gotcha.



I don't believe the bible has to be filtered through science. I think (at the very least for Christians (who follow the bible ie the thread topic)) that science should be filtered through the bible.

That's not a good idea. The two should be used in tandem. However, they should be left to their own respective fields. The Bible is a theological work describing the spirituality of our existance. Science is a process that studies God's Creation and explains the physical aspects of our existance. The two are not mutually exclusive. However, we can use the one to help us better understand the other. In this case, God's Creation helps us understand God's Word.

 

[Faith In God]

So what men wrote 5,000 years ago overrides what we observe about the universe with our own eyes?

Why stop at evolution and cosmology? Imagine if medicine, archetecture, and economics had to be filtered through the Bible.

You have never tried that. science thought that you could perform surgery without washing your hands under running water. many patients died because of this after successful surgeries. I'd say science should listen to the bible more.

 

[Faith In God]

Ok,
Science is the study of the natural world.
If God created the world,
Then science is the study of Gods creation.
Thus, we would be filtering Gods word through Gods creation.
Why do you have a problem listening to God?

A couple hundred years ago, filtering science through the bible ment believing the geocentric model. Yet we don't anymore, I wonder why?

filter science through the bible. the bible says that the earth is the center of the universe. well, it very well may be since God's will centers here. as for the bible saying the sun has a curcuit, it does. golly.

 

[Faith In God]

That's not a good idea. The two should be used in tandem. However, they should be left to their own respective fields. The Bible is a theological work describing the spirituality of our existance. Science is a process that studies God's Creation and explains the physical aspects of our existance. The two are not mutually exclusive. However, we can use the one to help us better understand the other. In this case, God's Creation helps us understand God's Word.

I'd say look to God's word to understand God's creation, because the study of God's creation is mainly led up by people that are not God's peaple.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I'd say look to God's word to understand God's creation, because the study of God's creation is mainly led up by people that are not God's peaple.

WHo's people are we? Just how many creators are there?

 

[Faith In God]

WHo's people are we? Just how many creators are there?

you don't even acknowledge God's existance.

 

[Arikay]

Great example,
You just filtered the bible through science without making the bible false.

If you filtered science through the bible then you should have said that the earth is the physical center of the universe. But since we know thats not true, you reinterpreted the bible through science and kept it correct at the same time.

filter science through the bible. the bible says that the earth is the center of the universe. well, it very well may be since God's will centers here. as for the bible saying the sun has a curcuit, it does. golly.

 

[Faith In God]

Great example,
You just filtered the bible through science without making the bible false.

If you filtered science through the bible then you should have said that the earth is the physical center of the universe. But since we know thats not true, you reinterpreted the bible through science and kept it correct at the same time.

trust in the bible to be true and know that if something is wrong with sciece(ie they don't match up) then science needs to be altered, not the word.

and besides, we do not know that the earth is not the physical center of the universe. saying the earth is not the center is like saying a point on a line is not in the center, which cannot be proven.

 

[Ave Maria]

I personally believe in Young Earth Creationism. I honestly don't see how someone could come up with a much different interpretation by reading Genesis.