Replies

"A rational person would recognize that it is the book which is wrong and would then come to the unavoidable conclusion that it is therefore NOT the word of god."

If the only credentials the book had for being the word of God was the disputed science, I'd probably agree with you. But the book has fulfilled prophecies, and it has the nation of Israel's testimony to being the written works of Moses who was confirmed by both prophecies and miracles.

This statement is the problem with the whole notion of “Christian science”. You have decided on what the outcome must be before performing the experiment. This is the very antithesis of science and rational inquiry.

Actually I think it's the other way around. The current scientific clique is predetermined to make everything fit into a long age framework

Anyway, we don't decide outcomes, it's the interpretations of what outcomes mean, that we dispute. And we dispute them, because the Creator has way more credence with us, than the latest so-called scientific fad. That's why Dave posts all those articles where the leading so-called scientific minds are constantly chucking out one theory and imagining a replacement theory.

“But the book has fulfilled prophecies, and it has the nation of Israel’s testimony to being the written works of Moses who was confirmed by both prophecies and miracles.”

Interestingly enough, there is strong evidence that there never was such a person as Moses and that the events described in the Exodus never happened. For example, there is no evidence that there ever were Hebrews in Egypt as slaves or otherwise. There is also the interesting question of who wrote the description of Moses’ funeral if Moses was the author of the Penteutech?

“The current scientific clique is predetermined to make everything fit into a long age framework”

This is a common refrain amongst biblical literalists, but it’s simply not borne out by evidence. Things are not ‘made to fit’ into a long-age framework, a long-age framework fits the evidence.

“That’s why Dave posts all those articles where the leading so-called scientific minds are constantly chucking out one theory and imagining a replacement theory.”

Dave chronically misrepresents the meaning of the articles that he posts. Also, this ‘chucking’ out of theories is the great strength of science. At no point have we ever claimed to know everything, but we do know that there is at least one way which things certainly didn’t happen.