To: b_sharp
I guess that we will have to agree to disagree. I’m a Bible believing fundamentalist Christian that believes that the story of Genesis is correct.
34 posted on
08/17/2007 9:40:46 PM PDT by
doc1019
(Fred Thompson '08)
To: doc1019; b_sharp
I guess that we will have to agree to disagree. I’m a Bible believing fundamentalist Christian that believes that the story of Genesis is correct. That's fine. I have no problem with that.
My objection comes when some of those holding your beliefs distort science beyond all recognition in order to support those beliefs. This is particularly common on creationist websites. The first thing that must go is the scientific method, the heart of modern science. But, that's no big deal -- "We have to make science support our beliefs somehow! And if they won't do it we'll do it ourselves."
Junk science in the support of religious belief is still junk science.
35 posted on
08/17/2007 9:47:51 PM PDT by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: doc1019
"I guess that we will have to agree to disagree. I’m a Bible believing fundamentalist Christian that believes that the story of Genesis is correct." I can respect you for your firmly held beliefs.
However I do believe, after a fair bit of investigation, that the evidence we have of historical events conclusively shows that the events in a literal interpretation of Genesis could not possibly have happened.
45 posted on
08/17/2007 10:00:08 PM PDT by
b_sharp
("Science without intelligence is lame, religion without personal integrity is reprehensible"-Sealion)
To: doc1019
Do you know how to differentiate the inspired Word of God from the priestly interpretations?
Both are in there ~
56 posted on
08/18/2007 5:23:53 AM PDT by
muawiyah
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson