The John 3:16 & 4:16 flaw?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
your blinded by a book. there is no physical proof of gods existance. theres a book, written by humans. now i dunno bout you but ive seen some damn good liars in my time on earth. im sure you have. it is certainly not farfetched to believe that multiple good liars made a book about a god as a control mechanism. you keep claiming the bible is right yet you have provided little to no proof. substantiate your claims or GTFO NOOB

RESPONSE SECTION 2

The Hebrew word Tanniyn originated before 1400BC and means “dinosaur”. The Hebrew word Behemoth also originated before 1400BC and its modern equivalent, brachiosaurus, was not coined until 1903. Leviathan too predates 1400BC, yet its modern equivalent, kronosaurus, was not coined until 1901. The Bible teaches real history, and while it is not a science text, it does accurately report scientific information. The fossil record supports the Bible, not secular evolution.

“But wait!” some will protest. “I thought the fossil record overwhelmingly supported evolution over millions of years?” In fact, it is the secular humanist interpretation of the fossil record that concludes the earth is many millions of years old. There is no definitive reason to assume this from the evidence. This is why I think it is unfortunate that so many evangelicals are buying into Theistic Evolution. Any take on evolutionary theory is a foundational abuse of the evidence. Here's a clip to consider:

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT2040

“But wait!” some will protest. “Doesn't the Hardy-Weinberg Principle prove evolution?” Hardy-Weinberg states that “the genotype frequencies in a population remain constant or are in equilibrium from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced. Those disturbing influences include non-random mating, new mutations, selection, random genetic drift and gene flow.” This helps explain variations within a species, but does not support transitions between species. Again, natural selection is supportable. Evolution is not. Secularists often fuse the two, but they are distinct postulates.

“Ya,” they say, “but hasn't Dawkins disproved the idea that God created the universe?” Absolutely not! Richard Dawkins' argument goes something like this:

1.The Bible says God created everything.
2.But there is no evidence proving the existence of God. (untrue)
3.Therefore, there is no God.
4.Therefore, wherever the universe came from, it could not have been created by God.
5.Therefore, the Bible is wrong.

Any scientist who bases his hypothesis on a preconceived conclusion, must be viewed with the utmost skepticism. No person, including Dawkins, has EVER disproved the existence of God. Atheists simply assert that a perceived lack of evidence for God qualifies as negative proof. Unfortunately, the atheists' perceptions are dead wrong. The bulk of physical and metaphysical evidence clearly demonstrates the need for a thinking, personal creator.

For example, the first law of metaphysics says “Whatever begins to exist, must have a cause.” This law creates serious problems for atheists, yet it is in complete harmony with biblical revelation. You see, if everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe had a definitive beginning, then the universe must therefore have had a cause. Very few mainstream scientists would argue that the universe did not, in fact, have a definite beginning.

It is important to remember that science is continuously changing as new information comes to light. The Bible, on the other hand, does not have the freedom to be mistaken. It is a static standard of absolute truth. If it contains even the slightest autographical error then the whole of its contents must be called into question. Legitimate science, on the other hand, can never claim attainment of absolute truth. Science needs to change and grow as new discoveries surface. Consequently, science is severely limited in its scope and authority.

For many years, evolutionists stood squarely on the work of legendary biologist and chemist Dr. Stanley Miller, whose theories on earth's primordial atmosphere laid the basis for spontaneous generation. Miller hypothesized that earth's early atmosphere contained certain basic gases that made possible that initial spark of life. Without an appropriate gas mixture, life could not exist, never mind begin from nothing. When Miller conducted his laboratory experiments using this gas mixture, and was able to successfully produce a series of compulsory amino acids, the world of secular science erupted in shouts of praise. FINALLY, someone had proven that life could come from lifelessness.

Unfortunately for secular science, more recent studies have shown that Miller's hypothesized recipe, originally founded on an approximation of Jupiter's atmosphere, was entirely incorrect. Thus Miller-Urey is invalid. By the time of his death in May of 2007, Miller freely acknowledged his error. Now science is right back where it was in the 1950s – without any evidentiary basis for spontaneous generation. In fact, current data suggests that the spontaneous generation of life from nothing is not chemically possible. But the Bible has an explanation. Creation is a miracle of God. We exist because He made us. Atheists and other skeptics insist that given enough time, science will figure out the mystery of origins. But such an assertion is not a statement of fact; it is a statement of faith – in science. It is actually quite plausible that science will never figure out the origins of life. Again, science has limits.

It is important to remember that, as much as atheists ridicule theists and insist the basis of their disbelief is completely rational, they too espouse a faith. Their faith is generally classified as some form of secular humanism. Secular humanism claims to have no god, though in reality its self-righteous jabber makes each atheist his own de facto deity. It takes more faith to believe evolution, than it does to believe the Bible. In order to believe secular evolution, a person must ignore the bulk of physical and metaphysical evidence, and reinterpret reality to fit with a completely unprovable paradigm – life from nothing, WITHOUT God. And keep in mind – there is nothing unbiblical about the idea of creation from nothing (creation ex-nihilo). Every evangelical Christian believes that God created the universe out of nothing. Still, we have to ask -- is atheism's denial of God logical? Consider this clip from Dr. William Lane Craig:

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1201

Christians who dance around the bush of Theist Evolution run the risk of shipwrecking their theology, since any evolutionary theory requires that death precede sin, and the Bible makes it crystal clear that death came as the direct and exclusive result of sin [Romans 5:12]. Our understanding of sin and death is central to the gospel message [Romans 6:23]. If we start to toy with the idea that death was in the world before Adam and Eve fell, then we must also inevitably conclude that humanity was originally engineered to die – and this cannot be [Genesis 2:17]. Theistic Evolution has profound, negative implications for our understanding of the end times and God's restoration of His original design, in which death is at last destroyed [Revelation 20:14; 21:4].

Here's an interesting clip from Lee Strobel on divine origins:

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1002

As Strobel points out, atheists often ask the rhetorical question, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” The answer to this question is “no one”. God is eternal. He always existed. The first law of metaphysics does not demand that everything in existence have a cause; rather, it asserts that those things which BEGIN to exist must have a cause. God is eternal. Thus He has no beginning. Thus He requires no cause.

“Hold the phone!” some protest. “Doesn't the Bible say that human beings possess an eternal soul and can receive eternal life?” Yes. But human beings and other spiritual creatures like angels, are only eternal in one direction – the future. God alone is eternal in both directions – past and future.

When one lives under a culture of intellectual tyranny, the real propaganda is often best reflected in the party line. Heaven knows evolution is popular. Heaven knows secular humanists have had a profound influence on our world. But those who think with a clear and objective mind are starting to see that Christians aren't as deluded as our critics insist. Rather, there is real sense and real science behind the Book we believe and the Lord we follow. After all, God invented this universe and the science through which we come to understand it.

id quote u but its WAY to big. ok good points but easily refutable. on the dinosaurs we have some nifty new technology thats called carbon dating and radiometric dating. try looking that up bro. 2nd science is acutually unlimited. you made a complete reversal there. science has the ability to change which is a much better idea than a rigid standard. ask most people and they will agree, flexibility is better.

just because 1 hypothesis is wrong does not mean a thory is invalid. evolution can be proven and has been multiple times.could it be possible(the obvious is coming people)
that though 1 gas mixture was wrong another wouldnt be. *GASP* i never though about that you say. i know its mindblowing

humanity was meant to die dipshit. we age, cells grow old and cant function and they die. saying that isnt provable is ignorant and rediculus. everything needs a creator. you might not accept that but it does. there are no iinfinite beings. if you can provide evidence to the contrary id love to see it. im so sad digimark isnt debunking any of this christian bullshit

Originally posted by chickenlover98
id quote u but its WAY to big. ok good points but easily refutable. on the dinosaurs we have some nifty new technology thats called carbon dating and radiometric dating. try looking that up bro. 2nd science is acutually unlimited. you made a complete reversal there. science has the ability to change which is a much better idea than a rigid standard. ask most people and they will agree, flexibility is better.

just because 1 hypothesis is wrong does not mean a thory is invalid. evolution can be proven and has been multiple times.could it be possible(the obvious is coming people)
that though 1 gas mixture was wrong another wouldnt be. *GASP* i never though about that you say. i know its mindblowing

humanity was meant to die dipshit. we age, cells grow old and cant function and they die. saying that isnt provable is ignorant and rediculus. everything needs a creator. you might not accept that but it does. there are no iinfinite beings. if you can provide evidence to the contrary id love to see it. im so sad digimark isnt debunking any of this christian bullshit

Your last paragraph clearly indicates the content of your character. Even a fairly detailed, intelligent argument is answered with profanity and name calling. No wonder people like you fail to convince people like me. To adopt your position is to adopt your world view, and there is nothing in your philosophy I find worthy of emulation.

Loooooooooooooooooooooooong posts.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
id quote u but its WAY to big. ok good points but easily refutable. on the dinosaurs we have some nifty new technology thats called carbon dating and radiometric dating. try looking that up bro.

Actually, C-14 dating is most accurate when testing wood samples, and even then is only accurate to about 6000 years. C-14 testing is mathematically useless when measuring artifacts theoretically older than 50,000 years. Again, it's not radiometric dating that's at fault, but how it is being misused and misrepresented by secular scientists who desperately need the earth to be millions of years old. Carbon dating does not support an evolutionary time line.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
RESPONSE SECTION 1
You know Chicken, it troubles me greatly how some critics of the Bible misrepresent the fundamentals of science in making their case. Whether one develops a hypothesis from an examination of data, or constructs it intuitively, it is considered valid provided that it is testable.

Not completely correct; It must also be falsifiable.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
For example, the Bible says that God created the universe in an instant [Psalm 33:9]. Evolutionary theory suggests the universe formed slowly over many billions of years;

Not completely correct; Evolution also allows for Catastrophism. Drastic changes that happen through mutations can happen in one generation.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
usually, this developmental period is attributed to the Big Bang,

How is any developmental period attributed to the Big Bang? This makes no sense.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
though technically evolution and BB are independent theoretical systems. But if we test both the biblical hypothesis and the secular hypothesis against the evidence, what do we find?

In 1988, nuclear physicist Robert V. Gentry conducted a study of polonium isotopes found in a series of Precambrian granite samples. Standish reports the following with regard to Gentry's research:

“To understand the findings of Gentry we will explain the process critical to his investigation. Three radioactive atoms are the initiators of a decay chain. The one relevant to Gentry's research is Uranium-238 which initiates a decay chain that ultimately ends in Lead-206. The half-life of a radioactive isotope3 is the time it takes for half of the radioactive atoms to decay. Uranium-238 presently decays at the rate of a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. Further, after another 4.5 billion years, a total of three-quarters of the uranium atoms would have decayed and after yet another 4.5 billion years (providing the decay-rate remained constant during this vast period of time) seven-eighths of all the uranium-238 would have decayed.
However, the decay from Uranium-238 to Lead-206 is a complex process involving 14 steps: Uranium-238 Thorium-234 Protactium-234 Uranium-234 Thorium-230 Radium-226 Radon-222 Polonium-218 Lead-214 Bismuth-214 Polonium-214 Lead-210 Bismuth-210 Polonium-210 Lead-206.
Within this decay chain, Gentry became interested particularly in the three polonium isotopes in the decay chain--Polonium-218, 214 and 210. These polonium isotopes all have short half-lives. Polonium-218 has a half-life of 3 minutes, decaying into Lead-214. Polonium-214 has a half-life of 164 micro seconds, decaying into Lead-210. Polonium-210 has a half-life of 138.4 days decaying into Lead-206 which concludes the uranium decay chain.
During the decay process, all three polonium isotopes emit heavy alpha particles4 which travel a microscopic distance in minerals when emitted in the decay process. Each leaves a damage trail of a predictable length. When billions of alpha particles are emitted from the same center they collectively form a spherical damage pattern around the center causing color changes which microscopically appear as radio-halos. These halos are darker at the edge because damage is greater at the end of their alpha particle's "travel." Because the different isotopes travel different identifiable distances, it is possible to identify which isotopes (there are eight of the 14 isotopes in the uranium-lead decay chain that emit alpha particles) have produced the halo. Therefore it was possible for Gentry to make definite identifications of each of the three different polonium halos.
Gentry's research evidenced that polonium halos were indeed in granite rock separate from uranium. Because of the fleeting half-life of polonium, the evolutionary, big bang model, has found no credible explanation for this discovery. If molten magma had cooled into granite rock over long ages of earth's history, given the fleeting half-life of polonium isotopes, all traces of their radioactive decay would have been obliterated long before the magma cooled into granite rock.” [Colin Standish, Sundaylaw.net]

There is not enough here to understand what he is talking about.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
In order to be scientific in our interpretation of the evidence, we must ask ourselves which hypothesis best fits with the data. Of course, it is possible that both hypotheses are incorrect. As it is, however, there are only two major camps within this field of study – evolution and creation – so we are safe to limit our test to the two. (It should be noted that some scholars espouse a hybrid position called Theistic Evolution).

The physical evidence from Gentry's research demonstrates that the Bible's account is the more likely explanation for the presence of polonium halos in Precambrian granite.

That is one possibility, but you have to ignore a large amount independent data that shows that the Earth to be no less the 2 billion years old.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The extraordinary import of Gentry's research led to immediate malediction from many of his peers. After all, if Gentry is right, evolution is wrong. But we must realize that such baseless ridicule is to be expected from secular scientists whose entire world view is dependent on a godless universe.

You are making an incorrect conclusion. Evolution does not mandate atheism.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Consider also the second law of thermodynamics. Assuming no outside influence, matter has a tendency to move from a state of organization to a state of disorganization, and energy has a tendency to move from a state of concentration to a state of dissipation. This flies in the face of evolution, which requires that life spontaneously erupt from inanimate building blocks all on its own.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. You are twisting the facts. In other words, you are being deceitful.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Furthermore, evolution insists that all living things, despite their great diversity, have a common ancestry and have developed into various species through an extensive process of positive mutation. The second law of thermodynamics makes this impossible. In fact, nature containes no examples of mutations that result in the increase of genetic information. All naturally occurring mutations are degenerative.

This is a false primous. Just because we have not created something in the lab does not mean it does not happens in nature.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Now, just to be clear, one must distinguish between natural selection and evolution. Natural selection involves genetic variations and adaptations within a species. Evolution involves genetic interchange between species, such that one kind of creature evolves into another.

The division between species is a human invention and does not exist in nature. Nature always finds a way. Also, sense there is no real divide between species natural selection is evolution.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Natural selection is scientifically verifiable and, by the way, consistent with Scripture.

And natural selection is Evolution. The truth is more important them scripture.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Evolution runs contrary to the laws of science and is inconsistent with Scripture.

This is an untrue statement.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
In my view, believers who espouse Theistic Evolution are unnecessarily compromising both the Bible and good science. Nevertheless, there are plenty of heaven-bound souls who attempt to harmonize secular theories with biblical truth. I'm simply not one of them.

Sooner or later, once I've made it known that I am a young earth creationist, someone will stick up his hand and say, “What about the dinosaurs? Doesn't the evidence show that they lived millions of years before mankind?” The only accurate answer I can give is, NO. The evidence DOES NOT show that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. In fact, the evidence shows very clearly that dinosaurs lived on this earth right alongside human beings, and were even present on Noah's arc. The fossil record repeatedly shows the remains of so called “pre-historic” dinosaurs right alongside human skeletons. In one case, they even found an iron hammer lodged in the same Lower Cretaceous Limestone that secular scientists insist is some 140 million years old. Here's an interesting site to visit if you want to see more: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-fossils.htm

A flood never covered the Earth. The story of Noah’s arc was taken rom the story of Gilgamesh. To think that human’s lived next to dinosaurs is equal to believing in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Dr. Steve Austin's study of sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon shows that secular theorists are wrong when they say that it takes millions of years for fossils to form. In fact, certain fossils can consummate in as little as a few decades under the right conditions. Many of the giant dinosaurs paleontologists have dug up over the years are many thousands of years old, yes, but not millions. In fact, the bulk of the evidence suggests the great mass extinction that killed off many of these enormous creatures was likely the global flood described in Genesis 6-9, and not a catastrophic meteor strike.

I have heard him speak, and what he has to say is laughable.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Perhaps most surprising to Bible critics is the fact that the Bible contains several references to living dinosaurs. The popular apologetics site “Clarifying Christianity” reports the following about the Hebrew word TANNIYN (dinosaur):

“Although we alter the spelling of Behemoth and Leviathan slightly, we still use those same words in bibles today. However, tanniyn is always translated into another word when we write it in English. Tanniyn occurs 28 times in the Bible and is normally translated “dragon.” It is also translated “serpent,” “sea monster,” “dinosaur,” “great creature,” and “reptile.” Behemoth and Leviathan are relatively specific creatures, perhaps each was a single kind of animal. Tanniyn is a more general term, and it can be thought of as the original version of the word “dinosaur.” The word “dinosaur” was originally coined in 1841, more than three thousand years after the Bible first referred to Tanniyn.”
[http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml]

And references to UFOs. It all depends on how you look at it.

Tim Rout, you may not realize this, but I have seen all of it before, and it is a pile of trash. You should really get away from the Christian propaganda sites.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Tim Rout, you may not realize this, but I have seen all of it before, and it is a pile of trash. You should really get away from the Christian propaganda sites.

I too have heard it all before, Shaky. To suggest that the evolutionary camp is absent of propaganda is either misinformed, or downright deceptive. Nevertheless -- mutual accusations aside -- your comments only serve to exemplify my point. The issue isn't the evidence. We all have the same data. The issue relates to how that evidence is interpreted.

First, being a physicist, Gentry is expected to to not only understand the rules that govern his own feild of expertise, but he is lent the credence to understand and appreciate those that govern another; namely geology. However, over and over in his hypothosis he demonstrates a total lack of appreciation for the methods or previous findings of actual experts in the feild. He contended that the polonium isotopes in his samples of granite were evidence that the earth cooled in a matter of minutes. However, he ignored the fact that this evidence wasn't consistant in other types of rocks. He also ignored the fact that the evidence was only found in certain rocks that were clearly not formed in the precambrian period, which just happens to be 7/8th of the planets history, which he publically refutes.

His supporters refer to these haloes as "bubbles", being similar to an alkaseltzer being dropped into a glass of water. Over time, the bubbles produced by the alkaseltzer disappear as the alkaseltzer interacts with the water. His theory posses the idea that the bubbles would remain present and unchanged in the water because the water was flash frozen and the bubbles were trapped by this instantaneous ouccurence. (Creation) But, then one would expect these "flash frozen bubbles" to appear in rocks from the 7/8th worth of history from before the samples used by Gentry, on top of them appearing in rocks that didn't fit a very specific radioactive criteria. They do not appear in precanbrian rock and are found in rocks that date far older than the 6000 years alloted to his theory.

Furthermore, Gentry was a witness in the trial, McLean v. Arkansas, regarding the state amendment that creationsim be taught in science classes alongside evolution (a trial that eventually saw the original act over turned) in which his motives were questioned and, apparently, found to be consistant with a man that often, while working with other scientists who refuted his findings and made it quite clear that they did not agree with him or his methods, was motivated by his membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, even serving as a deacon, activities director & sunday school teacher in the church. He was given grants for research by the National Science Foundation, furtheration of which were later denied, repeatedly, when his research was reviewed and found to be unscientific. Dr. Gentry is also a founding member of the Creation Research Society; a member of the Bible Science Association; a member of the American Scientific Affiliation, a christian science research group. He has admitted to (under oath) using the bible as the basis for his "scientific" research AND that it is the infallible word of god.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The issue relates to how that evidence is interpreted.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of your "side" are basing their interpretation of the evidence, including the scientists you parade out from whatever was the last "biblical/creationist-science" website you visited, on the bible.

You consistantly insist on science and scientists having an agenda, ignoring the fact that the majority of scientists are religious/spiritual. You simply insist on confusing religious/spiritual with Christian, which is simply not the case.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I believe scholars need to employ a certain degree of objectivity in their science. While it is impossible for even the most honest researcher to eliminate all bias, it is important that we carefully examine how a scholar handles the evidence. Bible critics often accuse Christian scholars of undue bias. But such assusations generally assume secular scientists are free from such proclivities...and they're not.

Take Richard Dawkins, for example. His argument against God as creator goes something like this:

1. The Bible says God made everything.
2. There is no evidence for the existence of God.
3. Therefore, we may resonably conclude that there is no God.
4. Therefore, however the universe came into being, God did not create it.
5. Therefore, the Bible is wrong.

That isn't science. That's pure speculation, and I don't buy it. Peter Slezak and other noted atheists support Dawkins' hypothesis that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and even go as far as to base their whole atheistic platform on this one point. But they're wrong. Dr. William Lane Craig debated Slezak on this issue and shot a thousand holes through his argument, easily winning the debate. Here's a brief clip of Craig's rebuttal.

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1201

I believe we should listen to careful, humble, objective scholars who take their work seriously and don't hand you their conclusion before they've even looked at the data. That said, I nevertheless believe that the evidence stands firmly in support of the Bible.

Originally posted by Tim Rout

As to the gnostic gospels and other pseudoepigraphal works, they lack the substance and character to be seriously considered as additions to the canon. Unlike the New Testament Gospels, the "piggies" were all written after the first century. None were authored by an Apostle or someone closely connected with an Apostle. None were written by the person to whom they are attributed. None are consistent with the literary style of the New Testament. And none propose a theology consistent with previously revealed Scripture. In short, THEY'RE JUNK! Dan Brown can have all the fun he likes toying around with the "Gospel of Judas", but serious Bible scholars don't give the pseudo-piggies a second thought. Surely you're not suggesting they should?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
RESPONSE SECTION 2

The Hebrew word Tanniyn originated before 1400BC and means “dinosaur”. The Hebrew word Behemoth also originated before 1400BC and its modern equivalent, brachiosaurus, was not coined until 1903. Leviathan too predates 1400BC, yet its modern equivalent, kronosaurus, was not coined until 1901. The Bible teaches real history, and while it is not a science text, it does accurately report scientific information. The fossil record supports the Bible, not secular evolution.

“But wait!” some will protest. “I thought the fossil record overwhelmingly supported evolution over millions of years?” In fact, it is the secular humanist interpretation of the fossil record that concludes the earth is many millions of years old. There is no definitive reason to assume this from the evidence. This is why I think it is unfortunate that so many evangelicals are buying into Theistic Evolution. Any take on evolutionary theory is a foundational abuse of the evidence. Here's a clip to consider:

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT2040

"All who believe in him can be saved, " doesn´t mean those who have never heard of him cannot be saved as well.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
"All who believe in him can be saved, " doesn´t mean those who have never heard of him cannot be saved as well.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I too have heard it all before, Shaky. To suggest that the evolutionary camp is absent of propaganda is either misinformed, or downright deceptive. Nevertheless -- mutual accusations aside -- your comments only serve to exemplify my point. The issue isn't the evidence. We all have the same data. The issue relates to how that evidence is interpreted.

Or corrupted.

Originally posted by Devil King
Unfortunately, the vast majority of your "side" are basing their interpretation of the evidence, including the scientists you parade out from whatever was the last "biblical/creationist-science" website you visited, on the bible.

You consistantly insist on science and scientists having an agenda, ignoring the fact that the majority of scientists are religious/spiritual. You simply insist on confusing religious/spiritual with Christian, which is simply not the case.

It is true that I often make reference web-based material, which gives my readers an easy opportunity to interact with creation science for themselves. Your consistently low opinion of the scholars who support a biblical word view does nothing to eradicate their credentials, anymore than a prejudiced, anti-Christian court in Arkansas can debunk the work of Robert V. Gentry.

But as to your assertion that the majority of secular evolutionists are religious/spiritual -- I think you are either misinformed or dreaming. Bergman quotes Weinberg in stating: "Among today's scientists, I am probably somewhat atypical in caring about such things [as God]. . . . on matters of religion, the strongest reaction expressed by most of my fellow physicists is a mild surprise and amusement that anyone still takes all that seriously. Many physicists maintain a nominal affiliation with the faith of their parents . . . but few . . . pay any attention to their nominal religion's theology.... Most physicists today are not sufficiently interested in religion to even qualify as practicing atheists." [http://www.icr.org/article/386/]

Additionally, I draw a clear distinction between Christianity and other religious systems, because I forthrightly believe the Christian faith to be exclusively valid. Such is the nature of our theology. We believe the Bible is true, and thus the Bible forms the basis of our world view. Many of us also believe there is sound scientific evidence supporting the Bible's claims.

That said, secular science is by no means a values-free venue. Consider the words of noted evolutionist, James R. Hofmann PhD:

"Well...I think if evolution disappeared from someone's education it would be like giving someone a case of amnesia. It would be like asking, 'What harm would it be if you could not remember anything that happened longer ago than five minutes ago?' I think you would object. Evolution is the story of our past, and removing that story from our consciousness and from the education of our children is, essentially, to give them a serious case of amnesia."

When Hofmann says "Evolution is the story of our past," he is making a values judgment. Evolution is nothing more than one possible explantion of our past. To dismiss other historical sources, including the Bible, is to assert scholastic predominance where none exists. And let us not forget that Hofmann thinks people who are not taught evolution are being harmed. That sounds a great deal like a religious person who believes his particular brand of faith will save society. While I'm not knocking the idea that I, as an evangelical, believe in preaching the gospel for the good of the lost, Hofmann's attitude is not that of an objective scientist. Rather, he espouses evolution as a values system.

Consider also the words of James L. Powell PhD:

"I think that a society that turns its back on reason and prefers idiology, is headed toward some kind of theocracy. You're headed toward Iran, for instance, and I don't want that to happen to my country."

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7880806308550896553

Now I don't know about you, but I'm with Dr. Powell. I like living in Canada and have no desire for my country to turn into another Iran. But notice the discriminatory parallel Dr. Powell is drawing between creationism and bad government. It would seem clear that, to his mind, the only valid basis for democrasy is secular science -- and that is simply untrue. In fact, if one wanted to be ingracious, one might accuse Dr. Powell of fear mongering. But clearly, evolution is more than mere scientific conviction for Powell; it is his life philosophy; it forms his world view and those who differ with this world view are seen as a real threat.

Also, it is grossly invalid for Powell to falsely dichotomize reason and idiology. It is by no means an either/or scenario. A person can be both logical and idiological. In fact, the Bible demands that Christians use their minds [Romans 12:2]. It is sheer poppycock -- absurd drivel -- to suggest that Christian scholars are unthinking.

So let us have no more of this ridiculous pretense about secular science being a bright reflection of objective truth. It is anything but. Science is a highly limited discipline that, while valuable, cannot hope to answer all of the elemental questions reasonable people field about their universe. Have faith in science if you wish. Believe that it will ultimately unlock every door and open every vault of wisdom. To most conservative Christians, science is a tool, not an authority. So at least do us the courtesy of explaining why your faith in science is any more compelling than our faith in God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or corrupted.

Agreed. But that pendulum swings both ways.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
It is true that I often make reference web-based material, which gives my readers an easy opportunity to interact with creation science for themselves. Your consistently low opinion of the scholars who support a biblical word view does nothing to eradicate their credentials, anymore than a prejudiced, anti-Christian court in Arkansas can debunk the work of Robert V. Gentry.

But as to your assertion that the majority of secular evolutionists are religious/spiritual -- I think you are either misinformed or dreaming. Bergman quotes Weinberg in stating: "Among today's scientists, I am probably somewhat atypical in caring about such things [as God]. . . . on matters of religion, the strongest reaction expressed by most of my fellow physicists is a mild surprise and amusement that anyone still takes all that seriously. Many physicists maintain a nominal affiliation with the faith of their parents . . . but few . . . pay any attention to their nominal religion's theology.... Most physicists today are not sufficiently interested in religion to even qualify as practicing atheists." [http://www.icr.org/article/386/]

Additionally, I draw a clear distinction between Christianity and other religious systems, because I forthrightly believe the Christian faith to be exclusively valid. Such is the nature of our theology. We believe the Bible is true, and thus the Bible forms the basis of our world view. Many of us also believe there is sound scientific evidence supporting the Bible's claims.

That said, secular science is by no means a values-free venue. Consider the words of noted evolutionist, James R. Hofmann PhD:

"Well...I think if evolution disappeared from someone's education it would be like giving someone a case of amnesia. It would be like asking, 'What harm would it be if you could not remember anything that happened longer ago than five minutes ago?' I think you would object. Evolution is the story of our past, and removing that story from our consciousness and from the education of our children is, essentially, to give them a serious case of amnesia."

When Hofmann says "Evolution is the story of our past," he is making a values judgment. Evolution is nothing more than one possible explantion of our past. To dismiss other historical sources, including the Bible, is to assert scholastic predominance where none exists. And let us not forget that Hofmann thinks people who are not taught evolution are being harmed. That sounds a great deal like a religious person who believes his particular brand of faith will save society. While I'm not knocking the idea that I, as an evangelical, believe in preaching the gospel for the good of the lost, Hofmann's attitude is not that of an objective scientist. Rather, he espouses evolution as a values system.

Consider also the words of James L. Powell PhD:

"I think that a society that turns its back on reason and prefers idiology, is headed toward some kind of theocracy. You're headed toward Iran, for instance, and I don't want that to happen to my country."

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7880806308550896553

Now I don't know about you, but I'm with Dr. Powell. I like living in Canada and have no desire for my country to turn into another Iran. But notice the discriminatory parallel Dr. Powell is drawing between creationism and bad government. It would seem clear that, to his mind, the only valid basis for democrasy is secular science -- and that is simply untrue. In fact, if one wanted to be ingracious, one might accuse Dr. Powell of fear mongering. But clearly, evolution is more than mere scientific conviction for Powell; it is his life philosophy; it forms his world view and those who differ with this world view are seen as a real threat.

Also, it is grossly invalid for Powell to falsely dichotomize reason and idiology. It is by no means an either/or scenario. A person can be both logical and idiological. In fact, the Bible demands that Christians use their minds [Romans 12:2]. It is sheer poppycock -- absurd drivel -- to suggest that Christian scholars are unthinking.

So let us have no more of this ridiculous pretense about secular science being a bright reflection of objective truth. It is anything but. Science is a highly limited discipline that, while valuable, cannot hope to answer all of the elemental questions reasonable people field about their universe. Have faith in science if you wish. Believe that it will ultimately unlock every door and open every vault of wisdom. To most conservative Christians, science is a tool, not an authority. So at least do us the courtesy of explaining why your faith in science is any more compelling than our faith in God.

So, you've ignored my second to last post pretty much entirely while substantiating my last one almost completely.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
As to the first part of this I say WTF does this have to do with my post?????

Yes. So just because it disagrees with the Bible and not written in the “style” of the NT they are junk, this is why you can not use the Bible to back up the Bible. Using the Bible to back up that God exists is the perfect example of a circular argument. “Why do you believe in God because the Bible tells me so, why do you believe in the Bible because God wrote it.?

While I would not wish to diminish the significance of the Bible in the formulation of my theology (where it holds central standing), my elemental belief in a God far predates my becoming a Bible believer. From my earliest years I believed in a deity. Call it intuition. Call it observation from nature. I can't be sure. But long before I turned 20 and became convinced of the Bible's truth, I still had an inner sense of something or someone "out there". Interestingly, the Bible actually describes this intrinsic sense of God in Romans 1:18-20, but I didn't know that at the time.

And once again, since you seem altogether determined not to listen carefully to my arguments.....

The Bible is not a single book. It is a collection of 66 individual books written by some forty different authors, in three different languages, on three different continents, over a period of about 1500 years. In the case of the New Testament, we see 27 individual documents written by no fewer than eight INDEPENDENT authors, at least six of whom were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. The other two (Mark and Luke) might be viewed as investigative reporters who carefully collected the testimonies of those who had seen Jesus for themselves; this is especially true of Luke, who says as much. If one treats the New Testament as a collection of at least 8 independent sources, then these sources CAN and SHOULD be used to cross-corroborate. The cross-corroboration of contemporaneous literature forms the basis of historical documentary study.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, you've ignored my second to last post pretty much entirely while substantiating my last one almost completely.

No Devil. I've decided to simply ignore you altogether.