Posted on 04/08/2009 7:27:21 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
==Well, if the scientist is a tropical arthropod entomologist, I want him tossing bugs out of trees.
That’s one of the beauties of creation science. They don’t need to dismember and throw bugs out of trees to validate the design of God’s creation.
The Evolutionists and the Creationists are saying the same things, while arguing over the details.
Problem is, they are both wrong.
If the theory has to explain why, and the Bible is your explanation then it's part of the theory.
You answer first.
Then what is the correct answer?
==It does not follow that anything offensive is the message of Jesus Christ.
It depends on what you mean by “anything.” The Bible is clear that the gospel is offensive to the unbeliever. So offensive, in fact, many a Christian (starting with the example of Jesus Christ Himself) have been crucified, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, etc. It’s part of the territory.
Theories are fallible. God’s Word is infallible. Therefore, God’s Word is not a theory.
Do you want to engage this as science or not? If you're going to demand that theories have to explain why, then your explanations should have to go on the table and be subject to the same criticism as everyone elses.
The Bible is not a theory. But scientists can use information from the Bible to formulate theories with respect to physical evidence for a biblical cosmology, a young earth, the flood, the created kinds, etc. But the Bible itself is not a theory.
Who knew? That Ole Time Evolution draws the heathen to Christ! No wonder Darwin has been sainted!
I knew the liberal denominations were trampling each other to see who can make the best apology to the Bearded Buddha of Naturalism, but I didn’t know they went and sainted him!
Thanks for the ping!
Oh, I see, he was sainted by eugenicist scientists. Makes sense.
Hey, at least we can ditch the ridiculous "common era" crap and go back to AD now. After Darwin.
The veracity of the Bible should be tested by reason. Just as the veracity of the scientific method should be reason.
Those who reject using "mere reason" or using "philosophy" to figure our where they place their trust, should reject science. As without using reason, there can be no justification for trusting it. After all the lower animals don't.
People who dillegently study the scientific method, and take the time to really understand it, usually accept it as a good way to understand the particulars of nature--within limits of what we can test.
People who dillegently study the Christian Bible, and take the time to really understand it, usually accept it as the inspired word of God.
Both pursuits are based on both faith and reason.
Perhaps they can occasionaly give each other support, but neither disipine should be limited to the structure of the other.
I’d say from the adoration given Darwin on his b-day Sainting may be too mild a word, but I am trying to be the new and improved Voice...never mind. i don’t want to drive anyone away by jabbing Chuck in the eye.
Eugenicist scientist, a.k.a., devotees of Molech.
Look here (and "places" similar) for a possible source of formation of cancerous growths? Just an idea...doubt it's original.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.