Posted on 05/21/2009 6:05:26 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Not *blind faith*. Using one's mind, one can read Scripture and see stated in there the facts about the world around us that *science* keeps discovering and acts as if they are discovering something new and special, that nobody ever thought of before.
That's simply not true.
Science keeps coming to the same conclusions that have been stated in Scripture for thousands of years but scientists only think they've uncovered something new because they don't think that the Bible has anything worthwhile to say about all subjects so they don't look in there for guidance. Instead, they waste all kinds of time chasing their tails. Then they act like the conclusions they arrived at that match Scripture have more validity because it can be demonstrated using science instead of being true because it says so in Scripture. As if knowing about something because of God telling us something He did, is somehow inferior to learning about it ourselves.
Evos would love nothing more than to make FR DClite.
They have their own website where they can post all manner of articles, place them where they want, ban all the creationists at whim, and yet they choose to come over to FR, post on crevo threads, and then er, ah, complain about how the forum is being run.
Yeah, arrogant is a good word to describe it.
I think that all things are possible. I don’t think that scientists ought to contend that they or the methods they use are the only ways to know things. Karl Popper, whose has such authority among them, would only accept scientific knowledge, would only consider theories that are “falsifiable,” That certainly doesn’t include evolution, or at least what it says about the origins of life. I’ ve
noticed that materialists keep returning to their vomit and then throwing up as fact what has constantly been shown to be full of difficulties. A hundred years ago, vitalism was current because material simply did not compute. Well, that approach had its faults, but I think that if men like Bergson were to look at the facts in evidence, they might comes up with another alternative but they would still see the limitations of evolutionism.
Or that their way of knowing things is the only valid ways of knowing things.
They scoff at divine revelation as if it's an inferior or totally invalid way of learning things, but divine revelation taught us things thousands of years before humans learned about them through their own means.
In the end, the result is the same, the knowledge is gained. The advantage that divine revelation has is that it results in far less wasted time and effort. If the unbeliever wants to waste his time spinning his wheels, that's his affair, but to condemn others who don't want to join his exercise in futility, well gets back to the arrogance of the evo.
You know, I’ve read the Bible many, MANY times and I’ve never seen a description of osmosis or cell division. Never once seen Ohm’s Law or either of the Kirchoff’s Laws. Never once saw Newton’s laws laid out. Never mind Maxwell’s equations or the periodic table!
Seems that the Bible really isn’t concerned with science too much, as these are pretty basic scientific facts required for modern life to function. Seems that science doesn’t need the Bible to discern, understand, and utilize these fundamental physical facts.
Maybe the Bible isn’t concerned with these scientific fundamentals because the Bible isn’t a science book?
“Or that their way of knowing things is the only valid ways of knowing things.
They scoff at divine revelation as if it’s an inferior or totally invalid way of learning things, but divine revelation taught us things thousands of years before humans learned about them through their own means.
In the end, the result is the same, the knowledge is gained. The advantage that divine revelation has is that it results in far less wasted time and effort. If the unbeliever wants to waste his time spinning his wheels, that’s his affair, but to condemn others who don’t want to join his exercise in futility, well gets back to the arrogance of the evo.”
Boy, will they pick apart a lot on this post... and gee, do I love your logic.
You put it in perspective in a way I’ve never reasoned it. I have no problem with those guys believing differently or stating what they believe on this forum or any other. It’s the sheer arrogance that they know more than the Bible and God and that WE are the ones who are misled that gets me in the debate. And then they go back to DC and whine because we “attack” them on FR. WAAHHHH!!!!
Simply amazing.
Surely, you have a dizzying intellect...
I have to agree with you. The creation of the universe, the atmosphere, the elements, the earth and everything in it doesn't fall into the category of science. Or maybe the Genesis account is not science to you because you disagree with it.
Hmmm... Welcome to my world, Evo...
First, there was nothing. Then there is the creation of the heavens, then the earth, then the skies. Then plants, then animals, then man. How is that order different? Does that mean the Hindu story is correct?
“Please tell me how - from a purely timeline/non-theistic standpoint the Hindu creation story differs from the Biblical account.”
“Please tell me how - from a purely timeline/non-theistic standpoint the Hindu creation story differs from the Biblical account.”
Wrong tree, barker. I ain’t a Hindu and their account of creation doesn’t interest me.
The point I was making is not that the Bible is a scientific document per se’, but that if you believe in the literal Creation as I do, then it’s as close to a scientific account as possible, given the time it was written. Your idea that the Bible should provide the equivalent of genetic code is ludicrous and that’s what my response referred to.
I believe in the Biblical account of Creation. My argument with you folks is not that you disagree, but with your general arrogance and your annoying inclination to whine whenever someone disagrees with your chosen stance.
Evolution is faith more than Creationism is... take Ida for instance. If this is the kind of thing (and it is) you base your beliefs on, you worship nothing more than broad theories based on the supposition of grant-sucking scientists.
You have your faith, I have mine. It’s a free country... you can be wrong all you want.
[[Maybe the Bible isn’t concerned with these scientific fundamentals because the Bible isn’t a science book?]]
You seem obsesses with whether the bible is a science book or not- Who cares that it isn’t? What’s your point? The reader’s digest isn’t a science book either, but htose hwo read it should be banned from reading and udnerstanding science by your calculations? IF a science article in a science mag happens to agree with somethign written in the readers digest, it must be immediately dismissed because the RD ‘isn’t a science book’?
Scienceh happens to agree with hte bible- the fossil record happens to verify the bible’s claim of special creation AND discontinuity, biology happens to verify ID, Geology happens to agree with what the bible states happened, archeology happens to verify events and places and people that hte bible talks about- not sure why you keep harping on about the bible not being a science book- it doesn’t have to be- however, sceicne backs up the bible far more than you apparently are willing to give it credit for?
[[They scoff at divine revelation as if it’s an inferior or totally invalid way of learning things, but divine revelation taught us things thousands of years before humans learned about them through their own means.]
You bet your bippy it did- it spoke of pleaides (sp?), Orion, moons not visible to hte naked eye, planets not visible or known, that hte world was a sphere, talked about geological events that were not known to men, spoke of biological events, etc, long before sceince came on the scene- it prophesied of events 1000’s of years before they happened, and these events came 100% true, IN DETAIL (unlike hte silly broad generalizations of ‘psychics, who are only right approx 40% of hte time, and are so obscure, that they could be interpeted any which way- even a broken clock is right twice a day)
While hte bible isn’t a ‘science book’ per se- it sure did verify scientific finds in many instances 1000’s of years before they were even ‘discovered’ by ‘modern science’- not bad for a book that is supposed to be so ‘riddled with error due to translations mistakes’ huh?
“What’s odd to me is that this reply truly appears to beg a response from an ignorant Creation-believing literalist like myself, who is so obviously in the minority. What’s even more odd is how the evolutionists (and you know who you are) keep dragging out this tired old thing about how we Creationists are in the minority.”
—If you are tired of that “old thing” (i.e the inconvenient fact that most evolutionists believe in God and most people who believe in God are evolutionists) than you should probably avoid the old, tired, daft, insidious, obviously false, absurd-on-its-face, poisoning-of-the-well, canard that “almost every evolutionist in history” was moved “to deny the existence of God”. It’s just begging for the correction that you’re so tired of hearing. And no, the God that most evolutionists believe in is not some metaphorical God, but a God as real as yours. And conversely, most of those that believe in a theistic miracle-producing God believe in evolution.
Evolution/Darwinism is no more materialistic or atheistic than any other scientific theory in existence. As with every other scientific theory in existence, it’s merely saying what many believe ought to occur as a result of the laws of nature - and uses physical evidence and the laws of nature to derive what did occur. Of course, it does collide with some people’s interpretation of the Bible, just as heliocentricity collides with some people’s interpretation of Scripture (http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/geocentr.htm) but that doesn’t mean that the goal of evolution or heliocentricity is to attack God or Christians.
No kidding. But it does make mention of many scientific subjects that science has come to verify. One only needs to look and read it with an open mind instead of blowing it off as a bunch of fairy tales passed on by a bunch of *ignuring goatherders*.
Maybe you could explain how they did know so much to begin with, such as......
Gen 1:1 In the beginning.....
There was a beginning supported by the Big Bang Theory and Einstein’s equations and Hubble’s observations.
Gen 1:2 The earth was formless and void,...
Supported by the solar nebula theory and the proto earth.
Gen 1:20 ”Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures,
Scientists say that life arose in the seas.
Gen 1:24 ”Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind...
Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,
“Shaped from clay [origin of life]” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1515522/posts
Scientists have concluded that clay was necessary for the formation of life.
Eccles 1:6 Blowing toward the south, Then turning toward the north, The wind continues swirling along; And on its circular courses the wind returns.
Scripture describes the circulating system of winds.
Eccles 1:7 All the rivers flow into the sea, Yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, There they flow again.
The Bible also describes the water cycle.
Lev 17:10 - 12 `And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. `For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’ “Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, `No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.’
Blood is necessary for life. The life is in the blood.
Isa 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
Earth is round. Could also refer to the orbit of the earth as seen from space.
Job 9 5, 8 ”It is God who removes the mountains, they know not how, When He overturns them in His anger; 8.Who alone stretches out the heavens And tramples down the waves of the sea;
The expansion of the universe.
Col 1: 15- 17 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
All things are being held together; gravitation, strong and weak nuclear forces, magnetism.
The other issue is, as I've pointed out on other threads, is even if the Bible addressed things like that, there's a translation problem to overcome. Sure God could have said "deoxyribonucleic acid" but who would have know what it meant? It would have been one of those words of ambiguous meaning like *selah*, *leviathan*, etc.
Those who want to find fault with Scripture will always find something to justify their criticism.
“but that doesn’t mean that the goal of evolution or heliocentricity is to attack God or Christians.”
I certainly don’t feel attacked... you talk about interpretation, other of your kindred spirit throw around the words metaphor and allegory. Either way, you’re both wrong.
I won’t argue about what you believe or don’t believe. I’m sure you do believe in God. But Genesis is very, very specific and it’s not for naught. It’s a lot of wasted ink and a lot of wasted years if it does not mean what it says.
Semantics aside, you cannot get around the fact that Genesis means six literal days and that throughout the Bible the idea was carried from generation to generation.
Now if you want to argue the bible is incorrect, then I’ll go there with you. Your particular argument is no different than the atheist who claims this nation is not and never was founded to be a Christian nation. In my opinion they can argue the founders were wrong, but they cannot intelligently argue original intent.
In summation, scream it ‘til your throat is raw, but most Christians do not believe in evolution, my friend (please shoot me... I’m channeling McCain). Most Church going, Bible believing Christians believe in Creation and not Evolution. It’s the ones who do not know the scripture or were never taught it properly that believe in the desecration that is Evolution.
Now, that’s what I’m sayin’ ‘bout it brutha!.
“While hte bible isn’t a ‘science book’ per se- it sure did verify scientific finds in many instances 1000’s of years before they were even ‘discovered’ by ‘modern science’- not bad for a book that is supposed to be so ‘riddled with error due to translations mistakes’ huh?”
Right on! I like your argument.
I would point out that some of the keys on your keyboard (or Blackberry) have been switched from their usual place. :0)
“Semantics aside, you cannot get around the fact that Genesis means six literal days and that throughout the Bible the idea was carried from generation to generation.”
May I ask why you insist that Genesis must be an unequivocally literal account? Why is it even logical to assume that the Genesis day is 24 hours when the sun, upon which we base the concept of a 24-hour day, was not created until the fourth day? A non-believer might read Genesis and infer that God’s first act of creation was not to create Heaven and earth, but to create the concept of a 24-hour day. Additionally, how was Adam privy to the details of the 5 days of Creation that preceded his existence?
The hypothesis that the Creation account, complete with a “literal day”, was communicated from generation to generation is of little significance when you consider that the Israelites did not form the concept of a 24-hour day. The Egyptian civilization was the first civilization to divide the dawn-dusk cycle into 24 segments. The Israelites could not have know about the 24-hour cycle until they were in captivity under the Egyptians, which was many generations after Adam.
Also, I would like to see the statistics to back up your assertion that “Most Church going, Bible believing Christians believe in Creation and not Evolution.”
Thank you for you time.
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.