- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,977
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And, if you really believe that deep down, then hey, more power to you.
Scripture, God, would tell me "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be also like unto him." But the next verse also says "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Pro 26:4,5.To look towards actual scientists to learn about their field of expertise, is not a "hinderance". It is common sense.
You wouldn't go to your garagist to have him diagnose your lumb on your chest, so why would you go to a non-scientist to learn about science?
I'ld say the opposite of your statement is true: it is a hinderance when you are not able to properly evaluate the credibility of sources.
When a non-biologist arrogantly tells me that all actual biologists are wrong about biology, I tend to shrug my shoulders and walk away.
In context of biology, he would be correct. Why would you use any kind of ancient text when it comes to a topic of 21st century science?
The problem is that in this analogy, scripture is not a sword.
Biology is a scientific subject, so you use scientific data and scientific sources to make your point - if you even have one.
Scripture is not such a source and it literally has no relevancy in biology. Or indeed any other scientific subject.
Run Forrest, run!
Maybe you can shed some light on a question I have, then. If the bible is so correct, then when was Jesus born? Was it during the rule of Herod, or during Quirinius' census?Christian beliefs, if according to the Word of God (The Bible) to hold up, and hold up quite well. It is the one that rejects the Word of God that will reject Creationism. There is tons of evidence verifying both Creationism and the Word of God. It is the "evidence" that the evolutionist submits to support their position that keeps proving to be so unworthy, and only worthy of rejection.
Without the Bible, it is true, Creationists, Christians have nothing to debate when it comes to the subject of creation. That is a "no-brainer." Truth is "We do have a Bible, whose "author" is God, Who used human authors under His perfect control, to pen original manuscripts that were the perfect Word of God, without error or contraction, trustworthy, and the text by which every individual will be judged.
Are you bragging or complaining?If we were to erase all knowledge of Christianity and evolution/geology and just keep the scientific method, young earth creationism wouldn't exist.
Neither. I'm making the point that creationism and evolution are not based on the same evidence as has been claimed here. Creationism uses the Bible while evolution was discovered through the use of the scientific method.Are you bragging or complaining?
Neither. I'm making the point that creationism and evolution are not based on the same evidence as has been claimed here. Creationism uses the Bible while evolution was discovered through the use of the scientific method.
If we were to erase all knowledge of Christianity and evolution/geology and just keep the scientific method, young earth creationism wouldn't exist. We would rediscover the theory of evolution and the approximate age of the earth (4.6 billion years) because those were discovered by using the scientific process. Where as all of the evidence for young earth creationism comes from the Bible. The age of the earth for example is done by following the genealogy in the bible and counting back until Adam.
Yep, it's much easier to "goddidit."
The difference between wise men and Homo sapiens is: wise men prioritize.I save my real effort for things that benefit me (I have a list of those things, and the study of evolution isn't on it).
You can't be serious. Why else are you guys here?
Why? Because people will be ETERNALLY judged by God according to that book! That is why.
That book is God's Word, which He had men write down. It is not a book by man
, that is untrustworthy, having contradictions and errors as men want to argue regarding certain translations.
One can disagree, not believe, but when all is said and done, people will still be judged according to "God's book, the Bible."
Christian beliefs, if according to the Word of God (The Bible) to hold up, and hold up quite well. It is the one that rejects the Word of God that will reject Creationism. There is tons of evidence verifying both Creationism and the Word of God.
It is the "evidence" that the evolutionist submits to support their position that keeps proving to be so unworthy, and only worthy of rejection.
On the contrary, scientists have been taught not to try to figure God into their evaluations or conclusions.
Also, God and His work is highly detectable in natural phenomenon, whether some people see it or not.
Many scientists in history have attested to the detectable manifestation of God in His creation.
Some scientists in history have even made discoveries of God's work after reading in the Bible what God has had written down. For instance Matthew Maury's discovery of currents in the ocean after reading Psalms 8:8's reference to the "paths of the seas."
Columbus is said to have had faith to sail beyond the supposed flat earth's horizon, having read of the "circle of the earth" in Isaiah 40:22. Of course skeptics will always stay up late at night dreaming up rebuttals to try to prop up their own rejection of God's Word in order to maintain their own bias and disbelief in it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?