The problem with very olf though is not supported by "scientific facts", and there are historical accounts if ancient civilizations encountering some type of dinosaurs and other "prehistoric beasts", and reported into current times even
Should any Christian Hold to Theistic Evolution then?
- Thread starter YeshuaFan
- Start date
I'm just playin' with ya. I naturally tend to probe by taking the counter view when I can, just to test how things work.
Evolution changes the animal and plants , but NEVER changes them to something else, as no fish ever became a frog, or cat a dog
Sorry, but I take it you struggled with spelling in school. A good scientist would not study his subject with preconceived biases.
Every researcher approaches a project with an hypothesis, which is a preconceived bias. The researcher then proceeds to prove the hypothesis. If the hypothesis proves unsound, an honest researcher jettisons the preconceived bias with which the project was approached. My point is that no such thing as an unbiased scientist exists. Honest, objective ones exist, but they're not initially unbiased.
Absolutly correct.
Acutally I really struggled with the Hebrew and Greek languages. Didnt like them back then and even less today.
A scientist can always have a personal bias just like a Preacher or a forum member.
However, a "good" scientist approaches a problem with an open mind and allows the evidence to speak for itself.
A professor once told me the key to understanding what bias is.
"We like what we know, even if what we know is wrong".
That is also the definition of "Stubborn"!
Amen!
I personally think that the best way to grasp what the Bible says is to allow it to say what is written.
What I see in a lot of people these days is the practice of "adding to" what is actually in the Bible.
It is the Burger King way of understanding........"You can have it your way"!
That is exactly what is happening in the creation topic.
Since you have been following this conversation, you have seen that very thing take place here. Personally, since none of us know "when" I really do not care what others think about when Creation took place. It is not an essential to salvation.
In addition, It is a false dichotomy to believe that all of the scientific dating methods used, is either secular (therefore unreliable) or biblical (therefore reliable). A dating technique can be discovered and utilized by unbelieving scientists, and still yield reliable results.
Multiple dating methods have been repeatedly and rigorously tested and proven reliable when properly applied. Confidence in these methods is rooted in the belief that God has created the universe in such a manner as to reveal His existence.
He intended the natural realm to be studied, measured, and understood, thereby offering a glimpse of His power and love and that is what we need to learn.
"Essential to salvation". Yes, those are powerful words.
If by 'evening and morning', thousands of years is meant (instead of one day),then we have words from a God who can't be trusted...not in science or for the salvation of our souls.
Romans 10:17 NKJV
So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
My contention would be that it is a serious mistake to interpret the Scriptures according to the findings of scientific discoveries, This I believe is a 'Sola Scriptura' issue. When science and Scripture collide, I'm going with Scripture.rather than science.(nevertheless I'm not anti-science)
John 20:29 KJV
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Many scientificts though are naturalists , and since they refuse to acknowledge God even exists, so would automatically deny Creator needed
Marco Polo saw very large reptiles in China caged, Greek soldiers saw large flying lizards, and Bible does record to us Behemoth and Leviathan to us
Agree that young or old earth not essential doctrine, but just stating that many are trying to make scriptures and evolution agree, but they cannot, as will be in conflict
Many assumptions are made for old Universe/earth, as has speeds of light always be constant? was there a Universal Flood or not? Did God create after their own kind, or use evolution process?
Scientists find no evidence of God. The proper term would be agnostic, having neither proof for nor against the assertion. But since scientists are also human, and fallible, they take emotional positions, as do we all.
And yet the laws built into creation, woven into it screams that there is a God, for without divine intervention, almost zero"chance" life originates, much less humans
Agreed, but it's like asking a man with closed eyes to see.