Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DaveLoneRanger

17 posted on 09/16/2007 4:39:23 PM PDT by RightWhale (Snow above 2000')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: RightWhale; DaveLoneRanger
"science is validating them" - DaveLR

"I wouldn't accept that if I were inclined toward Creationism. Lie down with dogs . . . " - RightWhale

That's because you frame the debate as Science vs Creationism or Science vs Religion. While Creationist frame the debate as the Word of God vs the current extremely limited often faulty scientific interpretation. Creationists aren't against science at all. We're not against scientific observation, we're not against forming hypotheses or scientific testing (as long as it doesn't do something stupid like violate the sanctity of human life).

It's just that we know in the end, that the scientific explanation must match what God said happened. To assume otherwise, would be like taking the word of a modern literary critic over the word of William Shakespeare, about what Shakespeare's plays meant. The critic might be educated about literary forms and historical content, but his knowledge on the subject pales in comparison to the original Author.

111 posted on 09/17/2007 4:52:11 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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