Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CreationTalk] The Bible and Science (was fossils on mountains)

Expand Messages
  • Teno Groppi
    ... This is such a salient point. WRITTEN HISTORY is the PRIMARY method of determining what happened. We don t do radiometric dating and DNA testing to
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I have come to the conclusion that science cannot be the primary source of information about history.  Truth in history and truth in science are arrived at by different pathways.  Each may have information which assists the other, but the method of one cannot be used as the sole informant of the other.  Yet this is what both astronomy and geology claim to do.  They claim to provide a history of origins and development, and call it science
       
      On the other hand, the Bible does provide an historical account.  It is entirely proper, then to use this historical account to inform us of the history of the world.  It does not conflict with science, only the historical theories put forward by science, which have been arrived at by inappropriate means.  This does not make it some kind of scientific textbook 

               This is such a salient point. WRITTEN HISTORY is the PRIMARY method of determining what happened. We don't do radiometric dating and DNA testing to determine that Columbus came to America in 1492, or that George Washington was the President of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Or that Jesus Christ rose from the dead circa 33 A.D. We go by WRITTEN HISTORY. The things we are MOST CERTAIN of were determined by written history. The Bible is 75% WRITTEN HISTORY (and another 10% history written BEFORE it happened!).

      Teno Groppi
      Genesis Evidence Ministry (GEM):
      http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/gem.0

      EVOLUTIONISM is a RELIGIOUS FAITH:
      (No man quoted below is a creationist)

      [Darwin, speaking about Huxley:] "My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel, the devil's gospel." (Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, "Why Scientists Accept Evolution", (1988), p. 45.)

      "Darwin wrote in his autobiography: `I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true ..." (M. Grano, "The Faith of Darwinism", Encounter, November 1959, p. 48)

      "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an
      unproved theory - is it then a science or faith?" (L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)

      "... post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. (Colin Patterson, The Listener (Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.]

      "[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: 'A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory." (Colin Patterson, "Evolution", 1977, p. 150.)

      "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory
      replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." (T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal", 1975, p. 101-102.)

      "Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion." (E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe", Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia 1974, p. 1007.)

      A Belief in Evolution is a basal doctrine in the Rationalists Liturgy." (Sir Arthur Keith, "Darwinism and its Critics" 1935, p. 53)

      "It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available." (G.A. Kerkut, "Implications of Evolution", 1960, p. 150.)

      "... evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it ...  {H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980)

      "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone ... exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." (Louis Trenchard More, quoted in "Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur", p. 33)

      "The doctrine of evolution is a newly invented system, a newly concerted doctrine, a newly formed dogma, a new rising belief, which places itself over against the Christian faith, and can only found its temple on the ruins of our Christian confession." (Dr. Abraham Kuyper, "Evolution" speech delivered in 1899.)

    • Charles Creager Jr.
      I can not agree more. Another point is the fact that the Bible is the best preserved ancient historical document in world. Not only has the Bible it self been
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I can not agree more. Another point is the fact that the Bible is the best preserved ancient historical document in world. Not only has the Bible it self been preserved but the languages in which it was written has been preserved as well. Despite all that the Bible has in its favour as written history, it ignored by standard geology. This is purely a philosophical action, and leads to great error. The real reason is that to accept the Bible as written history, also requires accepting the existence of God, miracles, and absolute morality.

        --- Charles Creager Jr.
         

        Teno Groppi wrote:

        I have come to the conclusion that science cannot be the primary source of information about history.  Truth in history and truth in science are arrived at by different pathways.  Each may have information which assists the other, but the method of one cannot be used as the sole informant of the other.  Yet this is what both astronomy and geology claim to do.  They claim to provide a history of origins and development, and call it science.

        On the other hand, the Bible does provide an historical account.  It is entirely proper, then to use this historical account to inform us of the history of the world.  It does not conflict with science, only the historical theories put forward by science, which have been arrived at by inappropriate means.  This does not make it some kind of scientific textbook

        This is such a salient point. WRITTEN HISTORY is the PRIMARY method of determining what happened. We don't do radiometric dating and DNA testing to determine that Columbus came to America in 1492, or that George Washington was the President of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Or that Jesus Christ rose from the dead circa 33 A.D. We go by WRITTEN HISTORY. The things we are MOST CERTAIN of were determined by written history. The Bible is 75% WRITTEN HISTORY (and another 10% history written BEFORE it happened!).
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.