Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
So the Bible is not perfect? Therefore there is no such thing as sin? Therefore God is not perfect because man wrote about and described Him?
Christ died for nothing?
I fixed a mistake in his writing. I hope he doesn't mind.
None of this objective evidence is denial of God, IMHO.
Science mines ignorance out of boredom.
Creationists mine ignorance as a tool to challenge scientific dogma.
Dawkins makes a fine preacher.
I don't see "bashing" (whatever that means) either. I do however, think the Kansas remark was unnecessarily derisive and subtracted from the author's otherwise solid message.
Exactly the problem with creation/ID. It's the science of punting on first down. "I can't understand it. I won't understand it. You can't make me! Goddidit. I won't learn any more about cause and effect!"
quite contrary, we are the ones talking about the FIRST cause,
I have to say again that Dawkins nailed it, and it's utterly damning. It's why I tend to call ID the UNscience. It's about undoing--sabotaging-- someone else's hard work at discovery. It's an active tearing down of knowledge, a sweeping under the rug of evidence. "Luddite" isn't too strong a word at all.
poor junior....there is no repenting in the hereafter. (Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment) ... Shalom
You're side may be correct. Our side my be right. BUT If our side is correct, I sure wouldn't want to be in your place at the last roundup!
The important thing to remember is both sides base their opinion on faith. Christians base their opinion on the life altering change Christ made in their life. Something they know as fact, yet cannot prove to anyone. Evolutionists base their faith on a theory developed by scientists. The people who once thought the world was flat.
One definition of faith is a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." One could say, allow me some latitude here, science is "belief that rests on logical proof and material evidence." (I suspect that belief word will start a conversation, but I’m going for contrast.)
Creationists are people of faith trying to win the argument on scientific grounds. It doesn't work because it's still faith masquerading as science; and so the debate goes on.
Not being a person of faith, I find I can’t hold a meaningful discussion with the faithful. It’s like trying to win an argument over which recipe is tastiest or which painting is the best. I’m sure they feel the much the same about me.
I know a guy who has three sisters, no brothers and five daughters.
His father's name will die with him.
Yet his father has 18 grandchildren.
I wouldn't say his father's genes have died out by any stretch of the imagination.
Simply saying 'Goddidit' is pretty lazy; but you can say 'Goddidit' and then ask, "how did God do it?"
For matters such as the origin of the universe (unknowable - we can keep pushing our understanding of how it changed from an initial state back to fractions of nanoseconds, but *never* be able to describe time=0). A "reason" or "purpose" could never be divined by science either. There is room for God and for faith (alas, a description of our observations does not require God).
Not being sensitive to these things is counter-productive. I would say that the majority of scientific contributions have been made by the faithful (for obvious raw number reasons), who probably see their work, in some way, as learning little bits about how God "goes about His work". Or appreciating His art.
according to Hank Hanegraaff:
Under the banner of "theistic evolution," a growing number of Christians maintain that God used evolution as His method for creation. This, in my estimation, is the worst of all possibilities.
It is one thing to believe in evolution, it is quite another to blame God for it. Not only is theistic evolution a contradiction in terms -- like the phrase flaming snowflakes -- but as we have seen, it is also the cruelest, most inefficient system for creation imaginable….
The most significant consequence, however, is that [evolution] undermines the very foundation of Christianity. If indeed evolution is reflective for the laws of science, then Genesis must be reflective of the flaws of Scripture. And if the foundation of Christianity is flawed, the superstructure is destined to fall.
Does God have to make millions of mistakes along the way to have fellowship with you and me?
Eve?
"I am black, but comely . . ."
-- Song of Solomon 1:5
"Behold, thou art fair, my love . . ."
-- Song of Solomon 1:15
And, is the Song of Solomon an allegory of Adam and Eve? Enquiring minds want to know . . . ;)
We were all created. Many devolve.
None of the evidence being swept under the rug, misrepresented, lied about, etc. is about that. God has to do everything, all the time. If the evidence doesn't show that, then it's the fault of immoral, Godless science.
ID is the science that says, "If it isn't a miracle, then THAT's a miracle!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.