« Bonhoeffer: Sharp Mind, Warm Heart | Main | Who Do You Say That I Am? »

July 21, 2010

Comments

The fine tuning arguments for the existence of God look good as do the historical arguments for Jesus and arguments for the reliability of Scripture.

I'll pass though because 1/3 of the book is (I haven't read the book, but it is Dembski after all) filled with Intelligent Design garbage which creates a false dichotomy between Science and Religion and ignores Scientific evidence.

I, too, believe that Science vs. Religion is a false dichotomy. This was shown in the Copernicus/Galileo discoveries and the Church's initial rejection of them as heretical (even Luther thought so). There have been many since then, and there are sure to be many more. Another biggie is geological evidence for an old Earth vs. a literal six-day creation. When we recognize that the Bible is not a science textbook, but was written through the eyes of a culture with an old cosmological view, we can relax and look to the Bible as a story of Man's grappling with his relationship to God. "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven; Science tells us how the Heavens go."

I can't wait to learn about all this new evidence and about all these new arguments for the existence of a God. No longer will we have to rely on flawed logic, inconclusive evidence, and outright absurdities. Finally, we will have good arguments and solid evidence. And 50 of them.

One thing that has puzzled me through the years is why many Christians feel the need to make the Bible match up with scientific evidence, especially concerning paleontology. If I want to find out a list of movies Humphrey Bogart appeared in , I wouldn't go to the Bible, I would go to the Imdb. If I wanted to learn Calculus, I wouldn't go to the Bible, I would go to a Calculus class. Likewise, if I wanted to study the dinosaur fossil record, geology, and paleontology, why would I go to the Bible for that? The Bible is sufficient for certain things, but is not a repository of all knowledge. This is not a swipe at the Bible, it's just a fact.

Has anyone ever said the bible is a repository of all knowledge?? Please show me quotes...This is simply a strawman showing how unreliqable the bible supposedly is.

The fact than man has misconstrued what the scriptures are saying is one thing.....Saying the bible is wrong in what it does say is often suggested by folks who don't know what they are talking about.

No the bible is not a science book per say but science has never contradicted anything written in scripture. In fact the exact opposite is true...the bible has been proven correct many times by those who thought they had found a "contradiction".

Vic - Luther and others thought Copernicus and Galileo were contradicting Scripture with their heliocentric theory of the solar system, because the Bible speaks from an old-world viewpoint of the earth being the center, the moon giving its own light, and stars being able to "fall" from the sky. This fits in perfectly with the old view that earth was at the center of several spheres upon which the stars and planets rotated.

Some Christians believe in a literal six-day creation, when the evidence shows otherwise. Some Christians believe Man coexisted with dinosaurs (ref. the "Creation" museums) which, again, science disproves.

So, with all due respect, I disagree that it is a straw-man argument.

With all due respect Perry...You are mistaken if you think the bible has ever supported any idea of the earth being the center of the universe. If others including Luther thought otherwise...so what? Luther was wrong on other things too. There is no biblical "Old world viewpoint" concerning the earth's location within the universe.

As far as a six day creation....the one and only reason for suggesting otherwise would be because evolution would require long periods of time. Since evolution has never been proven to even have occured....a six day creation is definite possibility. I mean... 6 days...6 nanoseconds who really cares?

Vic,

I recommend the site reasons.org, where you can find information on many lines of evidence supporting an old age for the universe. This is from an organization that does not accept the theory of evolution.

Eric... I can also recommend "sites". Thats easy part. But I won't...if you won't....cause agendas being what they are, I know you'll mostly ignore what they have to say.

Following a famous quote.."We don't need no stinkin "sites'. All we need do is be honest about what we experience.

Atheists always pretend these things are sooooooo complicated that only a few elite know whats really going on....and of course bible thumpin, mouth breathin. knuckle draggin Christians never do. In reality...no one has ever really needed a PHd to understand the basics. We've had the answers to origins for centuries...but of course we are way to smart for that. We used to think that not one thing could come out of nothing...but we know better now, eh?

Round and round and round we go....

Just once...I would like to see skeptics actaully BE skeptical and examine the evidence. No time for that though. Evolution is a fact and so thats..that.

Vic,

Please reconsider your attitude about this. It looks like you not only refused to look at the site I referenced, but you also refused to read past the first line of my post. The fact that you continue to cite evolution as the problem tells me you didn't read my comment.

The site I suggested is a Christian apologetics organization that is solidly anti-evolution, but nonetheless supports an old universe. I provided this link so you could see that allowing time for evolution is not the only reason someone might not agree with a 6 day creation.

Your response to this seems a little unbalanced.
If you don't want to participate, that's fine, but why bother posting?

Eric....

I do not deny that there are Christians who attempt to deny 6 day creation....but listen closely...there is ONLY one ultimate reason they do so. It is to accomodate evolution. It is obvious that Evolution could never have happened in the 6,000 to 10,000 time period. Evolution demands "millions and millions"...and these poor folks do not want to be thought of as rejecting "science" so they capitulate to the popular idea.

Yes i want to respond..but no I am not interested in reading "links" to what "others" say at theis point. If you have a point...say it. If you can't articulate what needs to be said, you shouldn't be saying anything. If i want links I'll ask for them.


Vic,

You propose that the only reason someone would disagree with a 6 day creation is to allow time for evolution. My point is that this is not correct. Rather than simply assert my point and leave it at that, I provided evidence for my point. The Reasons to Believe ministry is evidence that your position is incorrect. They are not trying to allow time for evolution. They deny that evolution has occurred. They also deny a 6 24-hour day creation. Your position is wrong.

Vic,

I'm not trying to convince you that your opinion on 6-day creation is false, and I did not provide the reasons.org link to persuade you that their opinion on creation is correct. I provided the link as evidence that your assertion about the motives for denying 6-day creation is incorrect.

There is a sizable contingent of "Old Earth Creationists", including the host of this site, who also denies evolution.

This reminds me of Morton's Demon:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html

M.M. - thanks for that. Very good, and something I wish was more widely read. Even to this day, many Christians fear a new thought or new take on something they've been drilled with since birth.

Eric...You can't convince me that my "opinion" on 6 day creation is false because i haven't given you an opinion. What I am saying is that if God really has created all that is...then the time frame is a moot point. Its just that the 6 day frame is perfectly logical given the universe as we expereince it right now...and why not just go with what He actually said He did.

You tell...ME...why is long ages so enticing to you? (Bet I'm going hear something about ...REAL science..eh?:))

Vic,

If you care to address what I have actually said in my comments, I will be happy to continue a discussion.

The comments to this entry are closed.