YECist's tragically weak view of God

Status
Not open for further replies.

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Randon Guy for one
This quote almost proves the indoctrination for me its almost humorous. But the point was they continue to work on the theory, with the assumption, as well as the expectation, that they will in fact evolve the theory , which feeds back into the clever, cult like anwser, that I unfortunately hear many atheist use against christians time and again

No where in my post did I say science was perfect. In fact, you quoted me saying that the may be problems with the theory and it must be refined. If I though science was perfect, why would I also say that evolution is continually being updated. Not only that, if you look through my history, you'll constantly find me posting that science is nothing more than a tool for studying the natural world. This seems very dishonest, but on par for being a Creationist.

Science is a tool, and it is not the only way to gain information. However, until you figure out how to supernatural or why including the supernatural would improve science, science will be perfectly content to continue to study the natural world.

It seems if anything, you continue to fail to understand science. Facts are observations. Evolution (change of allele frequencies over generations) can be observed. Evolution is also a theory (selection+mutation drive the observation).
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
The basic flaw of the scientific method is that it assumes a reality without God. It should not be surprising if one then ends up with theories that exclude Him from actively working.


the problem is that this is simply not true.

for instance, today's sermon at church was on John 5.
there is a problematic verse at:

Jhn 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

how would you show that an angel "troubled the waters?"
if you showed scientifically that the water's turbulence was due to a air bubble released from a crack deep in the earth, would you eliminate "angel troubling the water" as a primary cause?

science does not eliminate God from any explanation.
it simply doesn't know how to include God or angels or green pixies or woodland sprits in science, and as a result doesn't want to try to force them into the science. the interesting thing is neither do you. tell me how to show to an impartial observer that "an angel troubled the waters" when they can not see this angel, nothing can detect the angel etc etc.

what is interesting is that science did this "silence about God and supernatural talk" long before any but a very few scientists were anything in the west but Christians. Christians themselves realized that to try to keep science as a branch of natural theology was fruitless in the near term because no one could agree on the first cause for phenomena. So essentially they agreed not to talk about
Aristotelian primary or first causes like God but concentrate on secondary naturalistic causes that everyone could agree on and see.

in an analogous manner to the disestablishment of denominations from the Federal US government and the break with an established state church from Europe was achieved because Christians did not want another denomination to capture the commanding heights of the Federal government, Christians argued for the naturalistic explanations because they were all too aware of the divisiveness of God-talk.


But try an experiment, explain how you would show "angel troubleing the water at the pool of Bethesda".
science is silent either for or against the existence of the supernatural, it doesn't eliminate God from science, it just does not know how, nor desire to try to introduce supernatural talk into the domain. the interesting thing is neither do you, if you did then you could apply those common principles and convince everyone that your theology is correct, since no one interpretation of Christian theology is overwhelming accepted, then supernatural talk is not intersubjective but rather very subjective and the evidence is not convincing.


when the Church can convince itself of a single theology, then i will be glad to listen to how it could use this technique to broaden science to theistic science, but until that day, science as methodological materialism and naturalism is apparently the best us poor human beings will manage.

until that time the division and divisiness of Theology convinces me that the attempt even to try to create a theistic science is a fools errand. sadly so, i really appreciate Abraham Kuyper's desire and passion to build a 2nd science, but it seems well beyond our grasp.
 
Upvote 0

Citanul

Well, when exactly do you mean?
May 31, 2006
3,420
2,618
45
Cape Town, South Africa
✟206,708.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
So when you say that evolution is the best current theory are you open to other possibilities?
And when I say this I am not nessesarily refering to Creationism, I am asking you (HYPOTHETICALY) that if sufficent evidence were put fourth that would turn evolution, and or creationism up on its head are you open to changing your position, even if it were something completely different than evolution?

I don't think anyone else has addressed this point, but for me personally, I am open to possibility that the theory of evolution is not correct, and that there's some other explanation. However, the only alternative I'm aware of is creationism, all the evidence I've seen points towards evolution.

If sufficient evidence appeared, then changing my position would be a possibility.
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
I apologize that I don't have enough time to join in more fully, but I want to note a couple of points.

Same here.


The basic flaw of the scientific method is that it assumes a reality without God. It should not be surprising if one then ends up with theories that exclude Him from actively working.

Actually, the scientific method assumes a reality, but does not assume a God. Big difference.

A theory which includes God actively working (i.e. Creationism) assumes Him, but leaves reality highly questionable... and that just won't work, because a theory needs to have some sort of ability to make predictions.

The second flaw is in ascribing evolution as "fact." (a different poster, I think) If one is referring to natural selection or limited evolution, there's no huge issue. However, if by evolution, one is referring to millions of years of history, then one can only discuss probabilities, not certainties. If, instead of a closed system, we have an open system with a loving involved God, things can change radically. I'm sure most of us have seen Him work in ways that were statistically improbable, but glorious as He answers prayer.

Glorious, yes, but can we make predictions? Can we perfrom experiments? Can we ever set up a "Control" condition where God does not intervene?

While many people do not think of science as "perfect" -- I am deeply disturbed by people placing the current scientific thinking above scripture. That is to say, that if the Bible dares to disagree with science, the Bible passage in question must be myth or legend or whatever word you want to use.

I've never seen anyone refer to science as "perfect." But the best part about it is that it is self-correcting... when it is wrong, it contains within itself the means to fix its own problem.

Especially since scientific thinking can change over time, it just seems wrong to put it on a higher level.

Higher than what?

In particular, I am not referring to various small passages using poetic language, but rather stories which are specifically presented as historical, with geneaologies that reach back to the specific people involved.

So...science is fallible, but our understanding of Scripture is not?

All that being said, I do think that most of what we see around us can be explained through natural means. God can and does work - but He also allows things to proceed naturally more often than not. It seems like the threads around here are quite often more concerned with the perceived flaws in creationism than the flaws in evolutionary theory. Of course, that is to be expected -- the general numbers here support TE more than YEC. I hope to have time in the next week or so to start some threads in the other direction.

Hopefully you'll not make the same mistake... I would love to see some positive evidence for Creationism instead of perceived flaws in evolutionary theory... for a change.

Many such threads have been asked for, but they seem to go nowhere.

The other point I'd like to make concerns "higher education". The basic truth that we learn statistically, is ::::gasp::::: students tend to believe what they are taught. Students who go to more liberal seminaries statistically tend to come out with more using liberal scriptural interpretations. Students who go to more conservative seminaries tend to come out with more conservative views. In general, a large number of people enter college believing in God, and leave without that belief. Again, I think the primary lesson from such statistics is that people tend to believe what they are taught.

Most likely... but where are they taught that there is no God?

Jesus came to fullfill the law in every respect. He talked about even the smallest parts (jot, tittle) not passing away. Why should we care about such things if we see it as a legend that is just trying to get spiritual lessons across? The details are important - sometimes crucially so.

But not at the expense of the larger picture.
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟16,420.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Actually, the scientific method assumes a reality, but does not assume a God. Big difference.

A theory which includes God actively working (i.e. Creationism) assumes Him, but leaves reality highly questionable... and that just won't work, because a theory needs to have some sort of ability to make predictions.
The scientific method specifically requires repeatability. It excludes any actions from an interested, loving omnipotent God because they cannot be controlled. It investigates natural processes, not supernatural. As such, it yields results which exclude any workings by God.

Higher than what?
Over the direct revelation of a loving God.

So...science is fallible, but our understanding of Scripture is not?
No, not at all. However, you must also avoid the position that would say that because our understanding of Scripture is not perfect we cannot extract any truth from it.

Most likely... but where are they taught that there is no God?
Virtuall all secular universities.

But not at the expense of the larger picture.
Agreed - both the details and the larger picture are important. We must not exclude either one.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Before I get into this, I want to state that it should at least attempt to be in terms that a layman can understand.
You seem to be admitting here that you do not understand the Wilson cycle and its relevance to supercontinents. Yet you are so hasty to reject the notion of Pangaea. What sense does that make?
Like you, I don't have all day to sit around and translate a 20 page technical document for you into laymen's terms. Instead, I suggest you take the time to educate (not indoctrinate) yourself on the matter so that you can make an educated assessment of the feasibility of supercontinents, rather than just 'hand-waving for Jesus'.
Correct me if I am wrong, But am I right in saying that basically wilson has proposed that the continents are adrift on a sea of magma, and bouncing back and fourth against each other, much the way multiple waves do in a bathtub, or bumper cars so to speak. And if so I would say that is an even bigger arguement against pangea in that its akin to saying if I put a puzzle in a box and shake it back and fourth enough eventually the pieces will at some point assemble themselves into the picture, at least once, before being seperated again from the vibration.
So yes I have issue with it.
Yes, you are wrong. The earth's mantle does not simply act like a wavy sea of magma (in fact, it is nearer to a solid, but has the properties of a liquid over long periods of time). The Wilson cycle speaks of ocean basins opening on one side of the world, and closing on the opposite side of the world. You can see this happening today, for example, with the opening of the Atlantic ocean and the subsequent closing of the Pacific. If this process continues as it has for the last hundreds of millions of years, North America with eventually collide with Asia, creating yet another supercontinent.
Are you stating that Geology, tectonics, and evolutionary biology are not interdeprndent upon each other?
They are inter-related; not inter-dependent. Geology obviously does not rely on evolutionary biology since not all rocks contain fossils. Plate tectonics do not rely on evolutionary biology because there are several lines of evidence in support of tectonism that are abiological (e.g., ancient glacier deposits, fit of the continents, rate of sea-floor spreading, etc.). Similarly, while evolutionary theory does make use of the fossil record in order to better explain the history of the world's diversity of life, it is also supported by non-geologic evidence like morphological homology and genetics. So no, to answer your question, the above scientific fields you mention are not inter-dependent.
And thats part of my point, You people are so against the Biblical, yet you don't care to look at other explanations either.
I am not against the Bible at all. I am against what I see at the YECist perversion of science in order to fit a biblical cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Virtuall all secular universities.

Could you back this up with evidence? In all my science classes, I have never had a single professor ever teach that there was no God. In fact, I have had over 150 credits of classes (spread over math, science, and computer science) and not a single one of my professors have ever make such a statement. And yes, I go to a secular university. If anything, this sounds like you think that not speaking about God == God doesn't exist. If so, do math classes also disavow God's existence?
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
The scientific method specifically requires repeatability. It excludes any actions from an interested, loving omnipotent God because they cannot be controlled. It investigates natural processes, not supernatural. As such, it yields results which exclude any workings by God.


is silence about something the same as excluding that something from the conversation?

consider:

if i never talk to you about the pink elephant who sits on my easy chair when i am not in it, am i telling you that it doesn't exist? in fact, i am silent about this elephant because i am afraid that if i talk about him, he will break my chair deliberately.

however, the psychiarist asked me last week if i had seen a pink elephant in the neighborhood, he explained that there had been a rash of pink elephant sightings on my block and he wanted to know if i had seen him. He was lying of course, seeing pink elephants while on the medicine i take is a common side effect and he was simply making up a sympathic story in order to gain my confidence. So i told him about my pink elephant.

well, i came home from that appointment and the easy chair was broken and unusable, i suppose that the pink elephant had overheard my conversation and deliberately broke it in order to punish me for talking about him.

the problem is that since he broke my chair he has disappeared and i really miss his company.



do you really want things like this to move from the pages of psychiatric journals to the pages of biology and chemistry? even if God does stir the waters of the pool at Bethesda, do you think any group of people can agree on the cause and effect relationship if it is not visible to their physical eyes?

do you really want to introduce the divisiveness and subjectiveness of religion back into science? would you like to see university's have competing departments of chemistry? one dedicated to one supernatural cause for covalent binding and another to a different, competing and mutually exclusive one?


now my easy chair is broken, that is objective, how it got broken, who did it and the cause-effect relationship of the situation is anything but public and objective if you allow pink elephants to be a valid scientific force, even if i am sure that they are. You however are equally sure that they are not and that something is wrong with my perception of them.


how do we find an objective judge to weigh our two theories?
i and my pink elephant and you with the thought that i really weigh too much for this old chair? science is all about attributing cause and effect in a way that a reasonable person in that field will arrive at the same conclusions.

do you really want to break science's self imposed silence about God and lose this extraordinary intersubjectivity and substitute for it the unending arguments of religion?

let alone allow my pink elephant to be a valid physics cause for broken chairs.
i can't help thinking that if i never told the doctor about the elephant that i would still have his company and my intact chair.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
I was fixing the frame on my bike the other day, and I noticed that the bike manual I was using was atheistic. It didn't mention God or encourage me to pray once! Those infidels are sure to go to hell.

not only that, mine is written in Chinglish and i just can't stop laughing long enough to figure out what it means.


my favorite Chinglish sign in China was:
boiling paint thinner coffee shop
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
63
Asheville NC
✟19,363.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Where do you folks usually post,
I am feeling like a foreigner here.
You are a foreigner here. The place is crawling with evolutionists, watch where you step. ;)

Some post in the YEC subforum, others like myself don't really post much, that is unless the thread is biblically centered. Unfortunately that doesn't happen here too often. As you've probably noticed most everything is centered around the science end of it because science, as it is currently being interpreted, is the thread that hold evolution together. I myself see science as an idol, and much like any other idol it is worshipped and revered above the Truth of God's Word. :sigh:
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
You are a foreigner here. The place is crawling with evolutionists, watch where you step. ;)

Some post in the YEC subforum, others like myself don't really post much, that is unless the thread is biblically centered. Unfortunately that doesn't happen here too often. As you've probably noticed most everything is centered around the science end of it because science, as it is currently being interpreted, is the thread that hold evolution together. I myself see science as an idol, and much like any other idol it is worshipped and revered above the Truth of God's Word. :sigh:

Yes, because us TEists hold ceremonies chanting Darwins name while praying to Isaac Netwon. We perform the Passion of the Pasteur by heating our milk and injecting ourselves with rabies vaccinations. Science is our golden calf.

Get real. Time and time again, I have stated that science is a tool for studying the natural world, no more, no less. When I comes to religious issues, I don't turn to science. However, when it comes to studying and understanding the natural world, I use science. Not only that, science is a great way to help others, since I'll hopefully soon be researching how to engineer bacteria to create cheaper drugs. God forbid I want to help others using science.

If science is an idol, why do you partake of its fruits? Why do you use computers, take vaccinations, or use a car? Do you also think mathematics is an idol because I accept that .999~ == 1? It seems that Creationists are quick to attack science until it comes time to save their lives or their loved ones lives against diseases.
 
Upvote 0

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
63
Asheville NC
✟19,363.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Yes, because us TEists hold ceramonies chanting Darwins name while praying to Isaac Netwon. We perform the Passion of the Pasteur by heating our milk and injecting ourselves with rabies vaccinations. Science is our golden calf.
Is that what all that strange stuff that's been going on is, you're mutating yourselves to prove evolution? :p
Get real. Time and time again, I have stated that science is a tool for studying the natural world, no more, no less.
I totally agree with that.
When I comes to religious issues, I don't turn to science. However, when it comes to studying and understanding the natural world, I use science. Not only that, science is a great way to help others, since I'll hopefully soon be researching how to engineer bacteria to create cheaper drugs. God forbid I want to help others using science.
No one is advocating that we not use science. Science and the study thereof is good. Just like money is also good, but when it becomes the object of attention as opposed to God the study of Him, then it becomes an idol.
If science is an idol, why do you partake of its fruits? Why do you use computers, take vaccinations, or use a car? Do you also think mathematics is an idol because I accept that .999~ == 1? It seems that Creationists are quick to attack science until it comes time to save their lives or their loved ones lives against diseases.
Like I just said, science is good as long as we don't idolize it. I only attack science when it attacks God's Word.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am not against the Bible at all. I am against what I see at the YECist perversion of science in order to fit a biblical cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.
What has happened to the Rep link?
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
The scientific method specifically requires repeatability. It excludes any actions from an interested, loving omnipotent God because they cannot be controlled. It investigates natural processes, not supernatural. As such, it yields results which exclude any workings by God.

Given that God can intervene with any natural process to cause any result He wishes, and that He can easily do so in such a way so as not to be detected, what alternative do you propose?

God is not a practical joker throwing off our observations for kicks.

Having seen how the natural world operating with nearly clockwork efficiency, a scientist can either (Atheistically) presume there's no God, and proceed as normal, or (Theistically) assume that God is not going to intervene without a reason and a sign of His presence involved.

Over the direct revelation of a loving God.

And what has God directly revealed to you which contradicts what we have learned through the scientific method?

No, not at all. However, you must also avoid the position that would say that because our understanding of Scripture is not perfect we cannot extract any truth from it.

I would never take such a position... and since I accept that "truth" need not be presented in a literal, historical form, I never need to.

Virtuall all secular universities.

Funny, I went to a secular university, and received no such lesson. Is this experience talking, or paranoia?

Agreed - both the details and the larger picture are important. We must not exclude either one.

You can't appreciate a painting by obsessing over each individual color or brush stroke... it is necessary to step back and take it all in at once.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gus2009

Regular Member
Jul 20, 2006
133
16
38
✟15,346.00
Faith
Baptist
Originally Posted by random_guy
Yes, because us TEists hold ceramonies chanting Darwins name while praying to Isaac Netwon. We perform the Passion of the Pasteur by heating our milk and injecting ourselves with rabies vaccinations. Science is our golden calf.

Is that what all that strange stuff that's been going on is, you're mutating yourselves to prove evolution? :p

Haha, the irony here kills me. Yes, all that "strange stuff" going on is what happens daily in modern civilization and really is essential for it to continue(save praying to famous scientist). I believe the original poster wanted to use examples that showed the practicality and nessecity of science. You however, saw them as "strange". And yes, the reason you can buy milk at the grocery store and get a rabies vaccine is because were "mutating" to prove evolution. Yet another YEC sticks his foot in his mouth. I know this was intented as a joke and nothing serious but i find it quite funny and satisfying that even in their humor, YEC's show their ignorance of science and how it works. They see very important concepts as "strange", here lies the disconnect. Heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, the sun revolves around the earth and evolution disagrees with Gods' Word. Saying anything else on the matter is just "strange". This is sort of like when you tell a good joke and the person you told it to starts to laugh for reasons that have nothing to do with the punchline. Here is a prime example
 
Upvote 0

chris777

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2006
2,005
114
GA
✟17,817.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You are a foreigner here. The place is crawling with evolutionists, watch where you step. ;)

Some post in the YEC subforum, others like myself don't really post much, that is unless the thread is biblically centered. Unfortunately that doesn't happen here too often
Well I have noticed an almost hostil attitude toward the scripture, as if it is somehow beneath mankind now that man is "enlightened"

. As you've probably noticed most everything is centered around the science end of it because science, as it is currently being interpreted, is the thread that hold evolution together. I myself see science as an idol, and much like any other idol it is worshipped and revered above the Truth of God's Word.

I was going to skim the replies this time, and I had thought of mentioning that as it is held in such high esteem. I am going to try and clarify a few more things, and then I am moving on to a more constructive thread, as no one seems to be willing or able to reflect upon themself.
 
Upvote 0

chris777

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2006
2,005
114
GA
✟17,817.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I guess after I comment here I am going to have to go back and hit the other replies previous, since you apparently keep missing my point.

Yes, because us TEists hold ceremonies chanting Darwins name while praying to Isaac Netwon. We perform the Passion of the Pasteur by heating our milk and injecting ourselves with rabies vaccinations. Science is our golden calf.

Get real. Time and time again, I have stated that science is a tool for studying the natural world, no more, no less. When I comes to religious issues, I don't turn to science. However, when it comes to studying and understanding the natural world, I use science. Not only that, science is a great way to help others, since I'll hopefully soon be researching how to engineer bacteria to create cheaper drugs. God forbid I want to help others using science.

If science is an idol, why do you partake of its fruits? Why do you use computers, take vaccinations, or use a car? Do you also think mathematics is an idol because I accept that .999~ == 1? It seems that Creationists are quick to attack science until it comes time to save their lives or their loved ones lives against diseases.

If it is just a tool to you, why do you defend it with a veracity that rivals one defending the faith itself?
I do not hear you speaking of how the hammer has benefitted us all (and it really has far more than science has over the long run)
A tool is innoculos Are you telling me that If i said a screwdriver was useless, and of little value , you would post links to articles about the beneft of screwdrivers?

I am going to go back to my last reply from last night , and do my best to try and clarify some things for you and others.

While I am thinking about it, Could You please clarify your views on the Bible, Jesus, miracles, basically a simple
"doctrine of faith" so to speak, Its difficult to have a discussion, with someone, Whom I dont even know where they stand on our faith.
I need some perspective, this is not a question to agitate, nor have most of my replies been, I am not trying to be hostile, just to clarify myself.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
I guess after I comment here I am going to have to go back and hit the other replies previous, since you apparently keep missing my point.

If it is just a tool to you, why do you defend it with a veracity that rivals one defending the faith itself?
I do not hear you speaking of how the hammer has benefitted us all (and it really has far more than science has over the long run)
A tool is innoculos Are you telling me that If i said a screwdriver was useless, and of little value , you would post links to articles about the beneft of screwdrivers?

I am going to go back to my last reply from last night , and do my best to try and clarify some things for you and others.

While I am thinking about it, Could You please clarify your views on the Bible, Jesus, miracles, basically a simple
"doctrine of faith" so to speak, Its difficult to have a discussion, with someone, Whom I dont even know where they stand on our faith.
I need some perspective, this is not a question to agitate, nor have most of my replies been, I am not trying to be hostile, just to clarify myself.

Do I need a good reason to correct falsehoods? Pseudoscience is pseudoscience, and correcting misbelief is an important goal for me as I want to be an educator someday. Part of the reason is because I come from a poor immigrant background (war refugees), but through education, my family has been able to overcome much hardship to start a new successful life here. To see Americans actively hinder education is sickening to me. Not only that, if people think that they must choose between science and religion, how many people will we lose because of this false dictonomy. That's what sites like AiG and ICR promote, either you accept "Godless" science (many Creationists on this site echo this idea) or Creationism.

If you said a screwdriver is useless, I would also say you're wrong and give some examples, but leave it at that. However, if you say evolution (and science in general) is anti-Biblical, then you are spreading misconceptions about science that may cause people to reject Christianity. This is why I fight strongly for my beliefs.

As for my views on the Bible and faith, that is separate from science. I do believe that Jesus is real, and that He died for our sins, and I believe in the miracle of His Ressurection. It doesn't matter if science has never seen anyone rise from the dead or if later science can bring back the dead because science can never falisfy the act of Ressurection just like science can never falisfy God. I don't need science to prove my faith.

As for my views of Genesis, kenrapoza said it best in his first post, and I agree with him completely.
http://www.christianforums.com/t3309386-genesis-and-truth.html The rest of the Bible follows closely those views. I will never be sure what parts are 100% historical and what parts are myth, but I am sure of one thing: the truths and messages of the Bible are far more important than trying to figure out what part is historical and what part is myth.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.