Replies

""..The Bible clearly teaches that Death entered the world after Sin, which started with Man.

If the Bible is wrong about Sin, then it's wrong about Jesus, who was Incarnated and Crucified so that we could be forgiven for our Sin.

If the Darwinistas are right, Christianity is a complete and utter fraud. This bullcrap about there being no conflict between the two is the unintelligible blatherings of the uninformed."

I am not a Christian, which makes me a bit like your mirror image, not needing to straddle both sides of the argument. While I disagree that the two are inherently incompatible if you choose to have a "flexible" interpretation of the Bible, they are indeed incompatible if you choose to interpret literally, the Bible or most any religious work. It is not just evolution however, most science is incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The universe was not created in 7 days, nor did the earth stand still for even one (physics, astronomy, cosmology). The grand canyon is millions of years old, and was not created in a few days (geology). Animals have died ever since animals have lived, well shortly thereafter anyway (biology). Oceans do not part (theory of gravity, fluid dynamics). Water does not turn into wine except after spending some time inside a grape (chemistry, enology). A person who is writhing, drooling, spasming and shouting obscenities is likely suffering from a chemical imbalance or really bad day, not demon possession (biology, psychology). My wife is not "unclean" seven days a month although she has been know to stink when returning from the gym and I have no intention of selling my daughter into slavery and neither should you (common sense).

A true literal interpretation of every word of the Bible would be not just the end of science, but the death of reason.

Clearly we are on opposite sides of the debate, but in many ways you are right. The rabid attacks on science make more sense, or at least would be expected when viewed from the perspective of an individual with an outlook of looming demise of a their cherished world view. Even a rabbit bites when cornered, of course, he usually gets eaten anyway.

It's funny how nearly all the fathers of the (modern) scientific revolution shared all of the faith commitments, as Christians, that you deem so terribly unscientific.

Your problem is that if you assume God doesn't exist, then divine intervention is indeed impossible. You are claiming that miracles are in conflict with science? They wouldn't be deemed miracles if they weren't a temporary violation of the regular laws of physics and/or biology. The point is that the laws of science are generalizations about how God has ordered the world to work 99.999% of the time, but He reserves the right to overrule those once in a while to remind us that He's in charge, or for whatever reason He sees fit actually.

Newton, Hooke, Kelvin, Boyle, any number of these giants of modern science would be most surprised at the education you've just given us!!! Newton spent more time studying Christianity than he did science. What a nut!