Which do you trust, God or science?

Uhh, theres a problem when a christian says what God did in the bible was impossible. Theres the picture of someone who does not beleive what God has said.

 

I thought about this a little more. The events leading from abiogenesis to modern man are also so naturally improbable that they could rightly be termed "impossible".

 

The problem is not that you disagree with me—for you know nothing about my qualifications—the problem is that you disagree with hundreds of thousands of scientists whose qualifications are a matter of public record!

 

It appears to me that donnA believes that God is the collective body of those men and women who interpret the Bible like she does.

 

This is NOT a very good answer to the man’s question.

 

Do you mean the Inst. for Creation Research (ICR)?

 

Do you mean the Inst. for Creation Research (ICR)? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. I am sorry for the typo! (At least I got it right in earlier post ).

 

Apparently you have been asking the wrong people your question—ask your wife! Anyone with a degree in biology should know the answer to your question. Indeed, anyone with a university education should know the answer to your question.

By the way, I never suggested that your wife was dishonest—she is not one of the “scientists” at the Institute for Creation Research that I said I personally know to be dishonest.

</font>[/QUOTE]I asked my wife and she said it has been so long she doesn't remember. I am not sure why you believe in evolution. Seems to me evolution is a poor excuse for what God could have done in an instant. I have noticed over my lifetime of 51 years how the evolutionists have been stretching the time period from thousands of years to now billions of years. They have even changed their theories effectively modifying them. Sounds rather convenient to fit whatever they want making it a relative evolution.

Tell us what your stance on creation-evolution. I don't think I have read what you actually believe on evolution.

 

I just want to say that the question of the OP, "Which do you believe, God or science?" is basically an invalid question.

God made the laws that science is based on. But how scientists interpret what they see and know is the issue here. I trust God's word over the interpretations of scientists that may go against His word.

I do not think there is any conflict between God's word and the objective data of science, but when you get beyond the objective data and you can't know something for sure, then it's no longer science but theories and suppositions, etc. -- it may be a search for the science of something, but it's not objective or factual science in and of itself.

 

Can all of us agree that:</font>

• God is the author of all truth.</font>

</font>

• There is a harmony of special with general revelation.</font>

</font>

• The Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else.</font>

</font>

• In some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.</font>

</font>

• Extrabiblical views will never disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.</font>

</font>

• There are no genuine scientific facts that are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.</font>

Young earth creationists, Old earth creationists and Theistic evolutionists all are attempting to put the pieces of the origin puzzle together. Let me emphaticly say that there is no origin theory/interpretation without flaws.

When those that propose an old earth estimate it’s age, the type of proof they are looking at is not necessarily a scientific proof but a legal proof; it’s the preponderance of evidence. Science plays a role in gathering the evidence. There is no one piece of evidence that can be pointed to that prove an ancient earth beyond all doubt… there are a multitude of evidences. (We don’t really need to list them for you do we?) You really only need one bit of evidence to disprove an earth older than 6000 years.

You can niggle with each scientific evidence and take each proof apart looking for and pointing out errs or inconsistencies. But you will find that many of the evidences interweave and support each other. The virtue that makes modern science so appealing is its capacity for solving both internal and external problems. For example, it was mentioned that theories involving astronomical distances are not provable; these distance problems can be solved by using simple geometry but are reinforced by innumerable other measurements such as light (color-luminosity and redshift measurements), radiation (nuclear product abundance), and even, measurements of gravity. Each of these methods acknowledges a measure of uncertainty but each field of knowledge builds and supports other theories in other disciplines.

Rob

 

My wife too young to remember when we changed from apes .

Rob

 

Apparently your memory is no better than your wife’s. During the 51 years that you have been alive evolutionists have consistently believed that the earth is at least hundreds of million of years old and the figure of 3 – 4 billion years is older than you are.

Although most of my colleagues believed that modern man evolved from an ape-like creature, I was never convinced of it—but that was partially due to my highly inquisitive and investigative nature which kept me from taking just about anyone’s word for anything. When I got saved, God radically changed my attitudes and interests and the biological sciences that had been the focus of my life were not just moved the backseat—they were stored in the trunk of my car.

I still don’t believe that modern man evolved from an ape-like creature, but the scientific evidence definitely points in that direction. That raises the question of why I don’t accept the theory—and I really don’t have a very good answer to that question. Genesis 1 – 11, when taken literally, virtually eliminates the possibility than man evolved from a different species, but a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 -11 also virtually eliminates reason and common sense and leaves us only with absurdities. Romans 5 suggests the likelihood that Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve but there is no suggestion that he believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis and he may simply have been using the couple as a literary device. Therefore the Bible is of no help at all in answering the question and all we have is science and intuition (whatever that is). The bottom line is that I intuitively believe that God created modern man as modern man without the help of evolution, but the issue is of no theological importance whatsoever, and the fundamentalists who believe so strongly in a literal interpretation of Romans 5 spiritualize Romans 6 right out of existence and make Romans 7 teach an impotent Christ.

 

When I read the posts by fundamentalists, I often wonder if they have yet been changed. Indeed, they themselves may be the missing link.

 

"One question I have never received an answer to is if evolution is true and man came from apes then why do apes still exist."

Your question strikes me as strange. Why do you think that the evolution of one species into another requires the demise of the original species? I am not trying to evade your question and will give my answer after hearing yours.

 

This is absolutely untrue. I took many courses of biology in college and I'm 47. I have taken recent courses in microbiology and it is very true that evolution theory has "evolved" quite a bit. It has gone from a few million or less to billions. Why because of the INCREDIBLE ODDS AGAINST the possibility of a living cell to evolve naturally.

Now, add the factor of a supernatural creation and you can look at all of the evidence you want and the Bible is pretty blunt about six days, including statements made by Jesus Himself.

So, again, evolutionists here have a paradox:

A) They accept absolutely no possibility of religion or supernatural action in the creation, therefore missing a potential variable that could change science dramatically. How can a person BELIEVE in an omnipotent God who could snap His finger and make a functioning universe and not even "consider" it as a factor? So, we have bad science because we don't allow for the possibility of supernatural power.

or

B) We accept science that does not allow (or believe) in supernatural capability and determine that everything HAD to occur naturally, and don't leave room for supernatural powers. If we eliminate the fact that supernatural can exist, then our science become "good" because we didn't leave a variable that could not possibly exist out.

You can't have it both ways.

I base this entirely on the statements made that we are "not allowed by science" to use supernatural explanations. If this is the case, and we believe a supernatural God exists, then our science is obviously bad, regardless of how He decided to create the world--simply because we do not allow for supernatural occurance.

 

It would only be logical that if an improvement is made to the species that "survival of the fittest" would delete the original species in most cases.

Secondly, evolutionists always point to non-existent fossils as being steps from single cells up to multiple celled creatures, yet none of these fossilized animals exist any more; indicating that if evolution of the species were taking place then the improved species would eliminate the unimproved species.

 

I have asked you believe BenFranklin403, what are YOUR personal beliefs about Adam and Eve and the Virgin Birth and all of the miracles Jesus made happen in the New Testament? Give us a little background about yourself and where you stand on all of these issues, please...

Thank you...

 

Craig, I must say that I am impressed that you would even accept the possibility of a created mankind, rather than coming from ape. Maybe I am wrong, but I think you are getting this impression from more than just "thinking about it".

 

__________________________________________________

No sir. For those measurments to be useful at all they must be accurate to the 'n'th degree. Any school boy knows that even with a variable of just 1 degree in an angle you get a very wide margin of error just one mile away. Now you take that error and multiply it by the supposed millions of light years and you get astronomical errors. And that sir, illustrates my point quite well.
How so? Simply by the fact that some folks will claim that we can know how far away a particular star is from us, and by knowing that distance we can know how long it has taken the light from that star to reach us, thereby giving us a reasonable knowledge of how long ago that star was created. Therefore the conclusion is that the universe MUST be billions of years old becasue of how long it has taken the light to reach our planet.
It all breaks down on the fact that the distances cannot be accurately known!
Therefore, the evolutionists have nothing to stand on in this regard because their whole scheme is based on knowing the age of the universe. If they can show the age of the universe, they postulate that they can likewise show the age of the earth.
I submit, that only the literal Biblical model is accurate enough to know these things. Hence my offer of this one simple High School Geometry fact!
As to the OP? I trust God to give us accurate Science, and He has. What is called science, often is not these days. I have offered a simple formula which is taught in many high schools today. It is Science, it is accurate, and it is unimpeachable. It is called, Geometry!
In HIS service;
Jim

 

Apparently the Okies are about 50 years behind the times. It has been a few years since I read anything that Steinbeck wrote.