Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Oztrich Boy; count-your-change; Alamo-Girl; betty boop

A difference without distinction what with the way scientists exclude God from any consideration.

If they’re not outright atheists, they disallow any *interference* from Him. For all practical purposes the best a scientist can do as a scientist is claim that they do not know about Him.


69 posted on 01/25/2009 4:17:50 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]


To: metmom
This is what passes for a biology writer at “The New Scientist:

“Evolution myths: The theory is wrong because the Bible is ‘inerrant’
18:00 16 April 2008 by Michael Le Page
This argument is undermined by the hundreds of errors and inaccuracies and contradictions found in Bible. It is anything but “inerrant”.
A few creationists are honest enough to admit that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is irrelevant as far as they are concerned: as it contradicts the “Word of God”, it simply has to be wrong.
Some Christians regard the text of the Bible as literally true or, to use their term, as “inerrant”. If people reject evolution on this basis, it is only fair to ask whether this belief stands up.
Whichever translation of the Bible you look at it is not hard to find errors. The texts are full of internal contradictions as well as historical and scientific inaccuracies.
There are so many examples it is hard to know where to start. Take its cosmology: according to the Bible, the earth is flat and immovable, the moon emits its own light, the sky is solid and the stars can be shaken from the sky by earthquakes.
Its mathematics is also poor. How many sons do you count: “The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six” (I Chronicles 3:22). Such errors are common. The value of pi is given as 3, even though many other cultures had already worked it out with greater precision.”

This is just first part of the article. It shows a deliberate obtuseness as well as deception, as in the quote of 1 Chron. 3:22.

70 posted on 01/25/2009 4:53:19 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: metmom; betty boop; Oztrich Boy; count-your-change
A difference without a distinction

So very true.

History of Science: Antiquity to 1700

Our notions of "science" and "scientists" date only to the 19th century. Before then, "science" simply meant knowledge; the label of "scientist" did not exist.

Instead, the study of the natural world was known as "natural philosophy." And even the great philosophers Plato and Aristotle are considered two of the most influential figures in the history of science.

And the Scripture:

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science [gnosis] falsely so called: - I Timothy 6:20 KJV

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, - I Timothy 6:20 NIV


81 posted on 01/25/2009 9:23:28 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson