{{_ Have you read 1 cor 15:35? reconcile that with science. }}
We have no duty to reconcile that which is beyond us. Where there is apparent contradiction between the Bible and science, I believe the Bible. After all, the Bible claims to be absolutely true. Science does not. There may or may not be helpful harmonizing conjectures. This is secondary.
There are apparent contradictions within science. Is light basically a ray, a particle, or a wave? But we have faith in the application of the correct analogy according to the immediate practical problem.
There are apparent contradictions in the Bible. Most get resolved with prayer and study and meditation and Providence and the indwelling Spirit. Some remain to remind us of our weakness and dependency upon God. Some are clearly beyond us. Scripture clearly and strongly teaches both an absolutely sovereign God and human moral responsibility. The harmonization of this is clearly beyond us. But those that have been give the faith that is born of God (1 John 5.4-5), that have persistent inner assurance to two impossible things,. that one is a child of God despite defects, and that a Man rose from the dead, also are able to believe strongly in those things strongly and plainly taught, despite apparent paradox. From the point of view of the Creator there is evidently no paradox in this case.
{{_ >>It seems to me to be very illogical to believe in the Bible except when it is contradicted by science.
{{_ Joshua held up his arnm and the Sun and moon remmained stationary for a whole day. Would you say the earths rotation stopping is anti-science? }}
No. I would say that God is not to be limited by human knowledge. There is an interesting conjecture about this. Science no longer looks at time as an absolute. The simplest way for this miracle to take place would be for time outside of the vicinity of Moses to stop.
{{_ >>After all, the Bible claims to be eternally true, science states that it can change.>
{{_ Being fixed like astrology is not a basis for expanding knowledge. }}
(I did not know that astrology has a sacred text. Astrology has been used since Galileo to bash the Bible, but this is discredited foolishness.)
The sureness of knowledge is due to the sureness of its base. The base for some is eternal unchanging values of truth, beauty, moral goodness. The relative unchanging nature of language and the absolute laws of mathematics add to this base. Some believe in these things through God-given saving faith. Others have the great classical systems of philosophy and reason. Others cling to them as they seem to need them to keep from drowning in unreason. This is called building on a rock, sand, and quicksand, respectively.
{{_ >>Evolution as a theory of origins of life and species is the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.>
{{_ Evolution is how life evolves the begining of life is a seperate area, As I stated creationists magazine say only 16000 animals entered the Ark 4000 years ago, and from that we have todays over i million veriations, and no one notice horse giving birth to Zebra or Tigers giving birth to Puma who gave birth to mountian lion who gave birth to lepoards. }}
The important, real life, present day, illusion that is leading the vast majority of educated mankind astray is the notion that life, and separate species or kinds evolved through random variations.
These spiritually impoverished souls, be they elect or reprobate, are ignorant of the God-affirming and Bible-affirming truth: that all this is a myth and the antithesis of true science.
Evolution as taught and believed is the world's new astrology.
And the various brands of creation science taught as science are even more arcane astrology.
{{_ >>Creation science faces the horrific task of proving its theories both from science and scripture.>
{{_ IThey don't actually do science, they do reviews. }}
Then why don't they call it "Creation Reviewing"?
The answer is plain. The "creation scientists", like the evolutionists, wrap themselves in the flag of true science for propaganda purposes.
The extraordinary material benefits of the application of true science have made science even more than patriotism the last refuge of scoundrels, and the first cloak of faulty thinking.
{{_ >>At the heart of true science is the reproduceable experiment.>
{{_ I suggest past events can't be reproduced. }}
Some can. Some cannot. Those that can, like the apple hitting Newton's head, are the basis of true science. Those that cannot, like the evolution of life or species, are the basis of conjecture.
{{_ >>Evolutionary science has failed to evolve a new species.>
{{_ If they did would you stop believing in a god?}}
No. If science contradicts scripture, I believe scripture. Why believe something that admits it changes, when the Lord has affirmed the unchangeableness of scripture?
Particularly when one is given the inner witness of the Spirit that God is true.
{{_ The area of interest would be genetics. }}
Are you serious? The main area of interest for many would be Bible bashing.
{{_ >>Or to produce a reasonable conjecture about the evolution of cellular life in terms of today's micro-biology.>
{{_ I have no idea what you mean. }}
Today, microbiologists know a lot more about how the cell works than Darwin and his contemporaries did. No qualified scientist has published even a conjecture of how cellular structures could have evolved on their own.
{{_ >>And the creation scientists have been of use in pointing these things out.>
{{_ They use other scientists findings, edit to suit and just post those that agree with their religious stance. As you said "After all, the Bible claims to be eternally true". So they are only about evanglising and profit. }}
They and the people who support them believe the effort to be worthwhile. And small arms used against the fortress of evolution at least get peoples attention.
But the big guns are the honest scientists. (Note: Behe links at Amazon not working. Anti-Behe links are. Usual suspects, one supposes. Swift Boat Vets had problems there too.) But Google gets: Darwin's Black Box link.
{{_ >>Itelligent design appears to be the best scientific conjecture these days
{{_ I have been to ID forum. same old arguments.}}
Get mostly the same old arguments on all forums. Intelligent Design lacks the excitement of "Bible bashing" or "Standing up for the Creator through Science", but it is as far as true science can take us.
