Originally posted by Helen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
It is against the rules of science to turn to scripture to defend science.
And who made up these 'rules of science'?
Men.
</font>[/QUOTE]And who made up the interpretations of scripture that deny the findings of science?
Men.
Who are constantly changing their minds about things. In fact, it was not so long ago that western science was the child of the Christian faith! Talk about teenage rebellion!
If a body NEVER CHANGES HIS MIND ABOUT ANYTHING then by definition he NEVER LEARNS ANYTHING!
"It is the glory of science to progress - " C. S. Lewis
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Science finds out what truth it can - truth about the physical world - by what means it can - using physical means of investigation.
"what truth it can....by what means it can". You are right in that. Science is extremely limited. Rules or not.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, and science has given us computers, cars, bountiful crops, easy world travel, rockets to the moon, the ability to discuss issues from world wide locations together, views of the universe from billions of light years distant, and the ability to discern a very interesting past for our earth.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I feel very sorry for those who say the world is one way and science found out it is another. This should bring them to question the ways they decided what the world was like and perhaps revise them.
If there are any errors to be made, I think most of us would rather err on the side of believing God instead of man, Paul. I feel very sorry for those who depend on man and man's science, which says one thing one day and then something completely different not long after.
</font>[/QUOTE]You have to depend on your human ability to understand and interpret what God says to you. That human ability is just as prone to error in religious matters as in all other matters.
Why haven't the Calvanists and the Armenians come to a common conclusion years ago? They continue to beat their seperate drums on this very board, both quoting Bible Verses in sufficient quantity to show anybody they must be right, and they disagree. How can that be?
Hmmmm. MAYBE OUR INTERPRETATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO HUMAN ERROR . . . .
In the long run, it is a matter of
1. believing God
2. looking at the data without long-ages OR short-ages presuppositions and without evolutionary bias.
When you can do those two things, you will find you are living in a very young universe.
Even though science is today saying otherwise.
The scientific method, acknowledging as it does that men are fallible and can make mistakes, puts out the findings and conclusions for all to see; shows everybody how the findings and conclusions were arrived at; invites everybody to attempt to repeat or refute as they are able; and by these means we have some very impressive achievements.
If I say that I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, I am not saying I disagree with God. I am only saying I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible.
I count the findings of science as evidence against your interpretation of the Bible, not as evidence against God.