Which do you trust, God or science?

You can't blame the scientists intirely,
Who was a liar from the beginning? The answer to that is also the answer to the mastermind behind the evolutionary theories that contradict the bible, Darwins teachings are actually considered a religion, because it also requires faith, since a lot is assumed, or created from the minds of humans.
I don't think it is any differant than mormanism,
Both go against the bible, and both try to make it a lie.

 

Three points:

1. There are more than 11 chapters in the Bible.

2. I have posted in detail evidence that a literal interpretation of Genesis is impossible without believing that Genesis is untrue—which of course we all agree is wrong, that is, we all know that Genesis is true.

3. The response to the evidence that I posted was that I didn’t believe God but no one posted a rebuttal to the evidence other than to say that this or that creationist (who has never studied the subject) has already rebutted the evidence.

 

dhiannian,

Welcome to the Baptist Board!

 

The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.
Prov 15:2

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2nd Peter 2:1

 

Amen on that welcome, Brother Craigbythesea!

Craigbythesea: " ... but no one posted a rebuttal
to the evidence other than to say that this or that creationist (who has never studied the subject) has already rebutted the evidence."

That is sad. The mantra chanters never seem
to learn: you can't win just by
attacking the major point.
You have to defeat the minor points as well.

 

Thx Craig!

Sorry to interrupt you guys btw..

 

"Agreed. As an interesting addition, one of the interviews in Lee Stroebel's book said that fraudulent fossil finds are a widespread problem. Searchers, motivated by money, use their knowledge of what scientists are "looking for" to "find" it... and one would surmise, to find it in the right geologic layer."
..............................................
Name three fraudulent fossil finds and the corresponding date when they were found and we can discuss this in more detail. I suspect you may not be able to name three but if you do, you will find that some date from a very long time ago.

 

Craig said:

Maybe Craig SHOULD have said

 

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


I think you are asking whether I believe the bible as literally interpreted by you and other people or whether I believe the scientific opinion of what the rocks and fossils tell us. Here is my answer: I believe that man's literal interpretation of Genesis is not correct and that the scientific interpretation of the natural world seems to be more correct that man's literal interpretation of the bible. If you say that your interpretation of the bible cannot be in error, my reply is that I think you can be in error. Both the bible and scientific evidence must be evaluated and I trust my own evaluation better than yours. The words exist on paper but must be interpreted by our brain in order that meaning can be extracted from the words. I consider myself quite competent to do that and prefer my own interpretation to yours. If you say that you know precisely what is meant by the first few chapters in Genesis and that it is meant literally, then my reply is that many christians disagree with you and why should I accept your ideas on that in preference to theirs?

 

"I have lived in various parts of the country and have found that "God fearing" people are virtually uniform in their acceptance of a literal Genesis and rejection of evolution."

You must be writing off whole nations of Christians then because many main line christian groups accept evolution. That is more true overseas than here but I think you will find if you check that the majority of christians groups in the USA accept evolution. I don't doubt that the majority of Baptists reject it.

 

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

I wouldn't go that far but I do think it is a fact that many here who reject evolution do not have the academic background to discuss it intelligently. That conclusion comes from the interactions I have had here, for example with those who use thermodynamic and other incorrect arguments.

 

I most certainly would not go so far as to characterize fundamentalists as “closed-minded morons,” but I would go so far as to agree with Benfranklin403 in saying that “many here who reject evolution do not have the academic background to discuss it intelligently.” I would also go as far to say that “many here who reject a non-literal interpretation of Genesis do not have the academic background to discuss it intelligently.” My grandfather used to tell me that arguing with people who don’t know what they are talking about is a waste of time . . . and I am beginning to think that my grandfather was smarter than I thought.

 

Craigbythesea: "I most certainly would not
go so far as to characterize fundamentalists
as “closed-minded morons, ...”

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

Fundamentalist Extremists are the the kooky edge
of the Fundamentalists.
Both the statements are of Brother Craigbythesea
can be correct (in his viewpoint) if one
understands that Fundamentalist Extremists
is a subset of Fundamentalists.

Brother Craigbythesea safely spake of non-present
Fundamentalist Extremists and was very careful
not to ever say anything ill about the
co-posting Fundamentalists.
In fact, i suspect Brother Craigbythesea
is a Fundamentalist himself and surely not
a Fundamentalist Extremist.

 

Brother Ed,

I perceive that the years have been very good to you, allowing you to be blessed by God with an abundance of wisdom. Thank you for your friendship and your Christian responses to my posts. You are very much appreciated and I am very much in debt to you.

 

Do you know that there are more than one in five in this world that don't believe in evolution. They are all Muslims. Islam also believes in Creation. Just thought I would throw that in.
DHK

 

If you have, I didn't see it. What I have seen is claims that Genesis cannot be literal founded on the same faulty premise that evolution is founded on- naturalism.

I first and foremost reject naturalism. I reject naturalism over and above rejection of evolution which naturally flows from such a premise.

We can haggle over what degree the supernatural explains things versus naturalism. I recognize fully that both have contributed to history (natural and otherwise). Even you adopt this with regard to man being a special creation. What you apply to man alone- I apply to all of creation. Once I reject the naturalistic premise I find no reason whatsoever to uncritically accept interpretations of nature built on that premise.

Every time I consider evidence presented in support of evolution I filter it through the scripture- the revelation of supernatural involvement. I consider scripture the rigid standard. The interpretations of nature by men must conform to that standard.

You seem to take the opposite tack. You appear filter scripture through the "truth" of naturalism. Things in scripture (or at least the largest things effecting nature) that do not conform to naturalism you reject or conform.

You seem to believe in a God that could create heaven, resurrect people, perform miracles, defy the laws of physics at a whim, create spirit beings directly that reside in a realm every bit as grand as ours, etc.... but who can't get representative animals on a boat. (BTW, how did Christ get all the food needed to feed the multitudes from what one boy could carry? It directly relates to any objection you might have over the capacity of the ark.)

You believe in a God that is omniscient and omnipotent but somehow could not possibly have put the universe and the living things on earth together in the same manner as a man would construct an engine.... Collect all of the pieces (God created the heavens and the earth)... Provide an energy source (let there be light)... Put the pieces in order (last 4 days)... and set it in motion.

Nothing random. Nothing left to chance. A purposeful, intelligent creation... very much consistent with the divine attributes taught in scripture.

 

"I first and foremost reject naturalism. I reject naturalism over and above rejection of evolution which naturally flows from such a premise."
.................................................
Natural processes can explain all that I have seen in life and my life has not been short or altogether uneventful. You have an uphill battle convincing me that supernatural processes are at work in the present time.

 

How about the salvation of a soul? New birth?

Is there a more meaningful, consequential event in human experience?

Beyond that, I know personally of people whose lives have been spared after doctors had given them no chance but people of genuine faith prayed for them. A Baptist missionary who was definitely not a babbling wacko once gave testimony of walking across hot coals because that was the only way a village under the influence of a witch doctor would believe his God was more powerful than the other.

But more to the point- I don't think natural processes do a very good job of explaining the origins of life at all. In fact, I think they do a very poor job. I have considered the claims of evolution and genuinely find that what some evolutionists will acknowledge in candid moments is true: Macroevolution is nothing more than wishful speculation.

 

"she is omnipotent"? </font>[/QUOTE]Bump to Ben.