Which do you trust, God or science?

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The natural man is the unsaved man.

 

"BenFranklin, Christian's should NOT twist God's word and / or DOUBT God's word! Genesis is not a fable or allegory. To doubt one word of the Bible is to doubt it all! I cannot understand how a Christian can be an evolutionist. Where is their faith?"
...............................................

The testimony of the fossils and rocks is also a very persuasive voice. I grew up in a home where everyone believed that the earth was only a few thousand years old and that there was a flood in Noah's time etc. But the contrary evidence convinced me that my parents and their peers were wrong.

 

So your saying you don't believe God?
But you do believe man's opinion?

Now seems theres something wrong with that.

 

I might say that to agree with those thousands of scientists is to disagree with God.
Which seems more likely to be right, God or man?
Who seems to be more likely to know the truth, God or man?
Who does God say we are to listen to, God or man?

It isn't the Genesis account being called into question here, or even the misunderstood eveidences of the as of yet unproven theory of evolution, but God Himself.
You have to choose either God and His true words, the unwise wisdom of man.

 

This is not true! The ONLY thing being called into question is the interpretation of Genesis by profoundly ignorant fundamentalist extremists that is in stark contrast to the interpretations of Genesis by virtually every Old Testament scholar alive today. While scholars around the world are publishing vast numbers of volumes of evidence to support their position, the fundamentalist extremists continue to chant their mindless mantra of “God said in His Word” when in fact their god is their own profoundly ignorant interpretation on a book that they do not have enough education or basic common sense to understand. Trusting in God is not chanting a mantra from the underworld—trusting in God is first learning what He said and then believing what He said—the very opposite of what the fundamentalist extremists are doing.

The mantra of these fundamentalist extremists is “destroying the influence and disgracing the character” of the Gospel, the Christian Faith, and our Lord himself, and yet these fundamentalist extremists choose to resort to anything necessary, however dishonest and sinful, to defend the bliss of willful ignorance rather than use the intelligence that separates human beings from baboons swinging in the tree tops.

 

Craigbythesea: " ... the fundamentalist extremists continue to chant their mindless mantra of “God said in His Word” when in fact their god is their own profoundly ignorant interpretation on a book that they do not have enough education or basic common sense to understand."

Can you say that again in 4 or 5 word sentences?
Take how ever many sentences it takes to say it all.
We need to make it simple for the "mindless mantra"
folk to maybe understand. Oh, I know:

Amen, Brother Craigbythesea -- Preach it!

Speaking of FUndamentalist Extremists,
I am a fundamentalist of the old school.
in the 1990s "fundamentalist" changed to
mean "bigot" which I am not.

The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism:

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

Nope, nothing about "creationism" here.
(though i must admit creationism is good theory)

Here are the new bigoted/judgemental/legalistic
pseudo-fundamentals:

1. Anti-Bible (KJBO = King James Bible Only)
2. Anti-education
3. Anti-success
4. Anti-female
5. Anti-alien

 

Craigbythesea said:
The ONLY thing being called into question is the interpretation of Genesis by profoundly ignorant fundamentalist extremists

chant their mindless mantra of “God said in His Word” when in fact their god is their own profoundly ignorant interpretation on a book that they do not have enough education or basic common sense to understand.

The mantra of these fundamentalist extremists is “destroying the influence and disgracing the character” of the Gospel, the Christian Faith, and our Lord himself

fundamentalist extremists choose to resort to anything necessary, however dishonest and sinful, to defend the bliss of willful ignorance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

You are the 'ignorant' man here Craig. I have added you to my prayer list.

 

2Ti 3:1
¶ But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come.
2Ti 3:2
For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3
without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good,
2Ti 3:4
traitors, headstrong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5
holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power therefore. From these also turn away.
2Ti 3:6
For of these are they that creep into houses, and take captive silly women laden with sins, led away by divers lusts,
2Ti 3:7
ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Now why oh why did this particular Scripture come to mind when I read Craigs post?
"Things that make you go hmmm..."

In HIS service;
Jim

(There's a KJV boo-boo for you! I just noticed that my Bible software was in the ASV!!!)
Edited for info.

 

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!

</font>[/QUOTE]And agree with thousands of others... If it takes a majority to be right then Christianity has always been wrong.

Go back and read the article I cited by Michael Crichton. Consensus does not equal science. When you get people to uniformly adopt uncertain premises in such a way that they never question them much less test them then you limit the possible results before investigation even starts.

As he points out, the truth in science has often been opposed by nearly all scientific experts.

You all say that God cannot be considered because He cannot be falsified (or whatever). The same is true of the naturalistic premises of evolution. Further, eliminating intelligence from consideration of nature and its history discludes a very legitimate vein of inquiry.

You may not be able to falsify God but the characteristic signs of intelligent design very much fall within the bounds of what is reasonable and testable. Intelligence as a cause is just as rational if not more so than the idea that blind chance can account for nature.

Behe's ideas of irreducible complexity are sound and point toward a master intelligence. IMO from the brief interview in Stroebel's book, he comes very close to refuting evolution at the molecular level completely.

 

WARNING AND ADVISORY
The rules are posted for a reason. You agreed to them before you registered, when you clicked that button that said "I agree."

Your posts can and will be edited, if need be.

Concerning your post,
Your assertions are most absurd, and totally unproveable. Most Catholics believe in a literal 7 day creation. Seventh Day Adventists do also. Do you call them Fundamentalists. Call a Catholic a fundamentalist and see what reaction you will provoke.

If you want a good debate on evolution vs. Creation go to the Other Christian Denominations Forum and engage Bob Ryan in a debate. He will arm wrestle you to the ground in no time flat. BTW, Bob is a SDA. I doubt if they are in the Fundamentalist camp either--not in my fundamentalist camp anyway.

You commit illogical fallacies in presenting your arguments which actually makes you the "ignorant one." "Virtually every Old Testament scholar alive today." Really? And just how much research did you put into this? How long a list of creationists do I need to give you to make "virtually every" a lie? Does virtually every minus 2, or minus 5, still make it a true statement? If it does, how about minus 10? The truth is I could get you a lot more than 10. You statement is not only a "virtual lie, it is a blatant lie, and shows the ignorance of not doing the research to back up an arrogant statement made out of sheer bias. It decries your own liberalism, shows your colors through and through, and your lack of study. It is a statement ignorance, not a statement made out of any scholarly research. It is pure bias. You have my pity, and that is about all.
DHK

 

"Behe's ideas of irreducible complexity are sound and point toward a master intelligence. IMO from the brief interview in Stroebel's book, he comes very close to refuting evolution at the molecular level completely. "

They are not sound. Someone on one of these parallel threads recently tried his flagellum line. It was found to be wanting. Mainly by showing that it is not really IC.

Second, do you consider Behe a source you accept? You do know that Behe accepts common descent including for humans, right?

 

And of course that is why it is so very critical that fundamentalist Christians who have no advanced degrees in the sciences refrain from arguing about evolution and the age of the earth.</font>[/QUOTE] It doesn't necessarily take advanced degrees to see that the assumptions don't add up. Once again, anyone who doesn't agree with you is demeaned.

BTW, there are people with advanced degrees who disagree with evolution. Of course, you all have other attacks for them... the truth is that your bias is hardened. From that point, it is much easier to consider others wrong for reasons outside of the actual merit of their arguments.

For instance, AiG/CRS/ICR have had a group studying radiometric dating methods from a chemical standpoint. (I am sure you just had a kneejerk reaction) Now, will you honestly consider the substance of what they argue or will you simply wave your hands because they are not a reliable source in your opinion.

They have a few contentions I think demand a substantial response/defense. One is that Carbon-14 shows up in fossils when it shouldn't. The only explanation is contamination but that seems to be born of necessity more than evidence.

Second, many of the samples still contain significant helium. The helium should have long since leaked out. In fact, they sent a blind sample to a non-creationist lab from supposed pre-Cambrian rock. The lab confirmed that the helium present limited the age to thousands, not millions, of years.

Third, a diamond was tested and still contained C-14. They contend it shouldn't.

 

In what way?

You can take pieces and still have an operational flagellum. However you can't take whole types of parts... at least not according to Behe.

Yes and no. Do I think Behe has valuable things to say? Yes. Do I appreciate his critical look at macroevolution? Yes. Do I think he is an infallible guru of all creation wisdom? No.

BTW, I consider you a good source of information for some things.

I haven't seen that from the interview or directly from his writings. However his value to me isn't very much from the full scope of his alternative conclusions. Rather, I am satisfied with his efforts to shine a bright light on the mammoth weaknesses of biological macroevolution. I would disagree with most if not all of Stroebel's experts on one thing or another. Many obviously believe in the Big Bang and old universe.

I so far have found common ground with them on their critiques of naturalism and have found their other ideas interesting even if not convincing.

Craig and others seem to want to characterize us fundamentalists as closed-minded morons. I am not opposed to listening to the ideas of others. I have in fact considered theistic evolution. Not trying to offend you... but I don't find the supposed proofs for macroevolution convincing in the least. You and others keep saying that the data supports it... but I find that it doesn't specifically support it. Rather, evolution remains a possibility but far from being the overwhelming indication of the evidence.

 

No. I believe that you need to read a few books on the philosophy of science. If you will do that, you will find that your “paradox” is in reality a misunderstanding on your part.

</font>[/QUOTE]Craig, If it is discovered in the end that evolution was false, will that prove that it was not scientific all along?

 

Craig and others seem to want to characterize us fundamentalists as closed-minded morons.

I certainly would not make that generalization. I would add however that there seem to be some on this board who characterize all "old earthers" and evolutionists as not having trust in God - an equally poor generalization.

As one with a doctoral degree in the sciences I come down on the old earth side. My main problem with the YEC side is that many seem willing to jump on whatever argument leads to a young earth, whether or not it is reasonable. Indeed much of the apologetics stuff in the little Bible bookstore shops is woefully misleading. Many of these authors either do not know the subject matter on which they write or are being intellectually dishonest.

My main concern apologetically is that we maintain honesty. I agree that evolution is not an air tight scheme - but it would explain alot of what we see today in terms of archeology and geology. If the facts on a particular issue (like light from stars, shared genes etc) seem to favor an old earth then YECers should admit it. I think we all agree that our understanding of things is always changing as we learn new stuff.

I also think that one need not justify (with science) a belief in the superiority of the biblical narrative. That is to say if one believes a literal Genesis over science (as in the topic of this thread) then why turn around and use SCIENCE to try to prove it?

 

Did you know that the few Germans who continued to oppose Hitler in the 1930's were those who had the least amount of one-sided indoctrination?

All your post demonstrates is that certain things are taught uniformly as "science" and to reject them is paramount in academic circles to rejecting science itself.

Who said that science must be based on a presumption of naturalism?

Prove it. I would point to John MacArthur as someone who is very well grounded in these things and also opposes evolution. There are many others.

Nor do I... but I do believe you have misplaced faith in evolution.

Evolution is founded on presumptions that demand faith... You either accept the idea of naturalism or you reject it. But either way, you do it for non-scientific reasons.

Not really. If you can read you can discern what Genesis actually says.

It is you that discards the Word in favor of "interpretations of mortal and sinful men" about nature.

So we are ignorant for believing what the Bible literally says against what scientists operating on an assumption of naturalism (that creation occurred absent God's action)... But you are informed because you allow scripture to be limited by something that is ultimately nothing more than "science" built on an atheistic, egocentric philosophical bias?

Sorry but you nor anyone else here has provided a sound textual reason for concluding that Genesis 1-11 is anything other than a narrative.

 

"she is omnipotent"?

 

Job 15:2 "Should a wise man answer with empty knowledge, And fill himself with the east wind? 3 Should he reason with unprofitable talk, Or by speeches with which he can do no good? 4 Yes, you cast off fear, And restrain prayer before God. 5 For your iniquity teaches your mouth, And you choose the tongue of the crafty. 6 Your own mouth condemns you, and not I; Yes, your own lips testify against you. 7 "Are you the first man who was born? Or were you made before the hills? 8 Have you heard the counsel of God? Do you limit wisdom to yourself? 9 What do you know that we do not know? What do you understand that is not in us? 10 Both the gray-haired and the aged are among us, Much older than your father. 11 Are the consolations of God too small for you, And the word spoken gently with you? 12 Why does your heart carry you away, And what do your eyes wink at, 13 That you turn your spirit against God, And let such words go out of your mouth? 14 "What is man, that he could be pure? And he who is born of a woman, that he could be righteous? 15 If God puts no trust in His saints, And the heavens are not pure in His sight, 16 How much less man, who is abominable and filthy, Who drinks iniquity like water!

Craig said:

I've been in church since 2 weeks old and saved for 46 years in June. I attended Tift Baptist Women's College and took Old and New Testament. I also attended Moody Bible Institute for 2 years after I was married. My GOD and my Bible are not little 'g', little 'b' and I take GREAT offense to your degradation of the vast majority of God fearing Christian's who disagree with your 'men of science' of whom the vast majority are not believers.

 

Sorry, about that Scott, that was definitely a typo.