Originally posted by Knitewing:
Too many other things in the bible turned out to be proven by archeology exactly as they were stated.
Well, I’m sure we can say the same about
A Tale of Two Cities, as well as a lot of other thoughtful fiction, which is not to argue that the Bible is mostly fiction, only that the kind of proof you point to is hardly distinctive of only nonfiction. But I take your point to be that you are quite comfortable accepting the archaeological evidence as indirect proof for God’s stated role in the creation of life. How curious, then, that when it comes to evolution you will accept
only direct, unquestionable proof.
No I find fault with scientist who say they have the answer when they have something that fits the situation but is not proven and then stick by it after it has been proven wrong.
I agree with milo: you simply don’t have a very good understanding of how science works. But I’ll take you seriously all the same. Based on your general complaint, I assume you don’t believe in gravity either, and you’ve concluded that the phenomenon science continues to assert must be gravity is really God personally “pushing-and-pulling” everything. I mean, science still lacks a settled theory of so-called quantum gravity. And Einstein’s old bugaboo, the cosmological constant (or “anti-gravity”), has unexpectedly reared its intriguing head again. In short, there are “holes” in our understanding of gravity. So, just like evolution, you really must have a problem believing in gravity, right?
I require proof period. Both of religion and of science. I would not put my faith in something such as religion unless I was sure it was right. . . . I researched the subject and found way to many holes in evolutionary theory and I found answers in Christ.
With all due respect, I suggest what you found in your religion was comfort, which is a great thing that science admittedly can’t always provide and sometimes even takes away. It’s indeed a scary world where nuclear war can occur.
What caused the big bang? They [the evolutionists/scientists] do not answer the questions raised by dating from background radiation. They do not answer the impossibility of everything happening just so that something as fragile as life could form . . . Religion has an answer. An all powerful creater.
No, it is more accurate to say that religion as well as mythology assert a certain kind of answer, usually metaphysical/moral, but without the explication and deeper understanding of the physical world that science strives over time to provide (albeit at the risk of sometimes overshadowing or diminishing those original “answers”). But also let us not gloss over the classic difference between faith and knowledge. Given a choice between believing and knowing, I (and I daresay quite a few others) would and should prefer “making the leap” toward knowing. (And if in the pursuit of science we mortals should ever come face-to-face with God, I’m sure we’ll still have no end of questions for her.)
No my friend, I have never come across any part of scripture I find false due to science.
Then I must stand by what I said originally, essentially that you will never take science seriously, no matter how strong the proofs, whenever it threatens to overthrow your religious beliefs. In sum, you present yourself as perfectly content to believe whatever your chosen religion believes (and that’s certainly your right).