Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Intelligent Design

"Perfect thinking" about all Biblical issues in not a requirement for gaining a saving knowledge of Christ. Thank the Lord for that!

BTW, what is it I believe that you take exception to?

Alos, you should check out my thread on "Theories of Biblical Inspiration" in "Christ at the Campfire" if you want to delve into the issue of how various "Christians" view the Bible.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47973

"If scientists know life came from matter and matter from non-matter, why don't they show us how this was done, instead of asserting it was done, and calling us names for not taking their claims on faith?

Clearly, a continued belief in the absolute truth of Darwinist evolution is but an act of faith that fulfills a psychological need of folks who have rejected God. That picture on the wall of the science class of apes on four legs, then apes on two legs, then homo erectus walking upright is as much an expression of faith as the picture of Adam and Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden."

Fundamentalist or reality, take your pick.

Dixie, you said what I was trying to say but you said it much clearer... good post.

That illustrated picture most of us were subjected to was a product of faith , actually blind faith as it was a construct and a contrivance with not one shred of scientific evidence to support it. There never has been nor will be one species that evolved or will evolve from another.

As DF intimated the foundation of this lie is the refutation of God and the personal responsibility that that would imply.

Blaine, I hesitate to answer on the internet what it is about what you believe that I find difficult because communication is so in part and parcels and I simply don't know fully what you believe.

I have mostly decided to not participate in these debates because I find with the exception of a few folks most don't "listen" anyway and have intractable opinions and so it becomes a waste of time.

I was riding the other day just checking out my stock. The wind was kind of stiff. A paper sack blew out of the now dry irrigation ditch and across the feed lot. Gave my horse a little start but he calmed right down without bouncing me off the frozen ground. It made me wonder how many thousand years it was going to be until it evolved into a cardboard box. I doubt I will be around to watch it happen.

Goodnews,

You said:

"BTY why would some come to a believing faith in Christ if they don't believe in other parts of scripture;i.e., the creation story? If you reject one part, by what authority does one elect to believe in another?"

Since you do not want to be specific, I will. You seem to asserting that I reject some parts of scripture. I am not sure of that, so that is why I asked a specific question. I can assure you I do not reject any part of Scripture. My position on Scripture is pretty much the same as put forth by the "Chicago Statement".

How about if God came down to earth and said He did it.... Oh wait, He did that 2000 years ago.

Good post, denton. My only alibi would be that when you say

"My personal belief is that God exists. And I don't find any conflict between that and my scientific training. "

I would qualify that with what real scientific training involves. As you say, those who insist that evolution is true are not working in science, but faith.

"At one time scientist believe the world to be flat too."

Scientists never believed the world was flat. From the time of the ancient Greeks who invented 'science' it was know that the world was spherical.

It was the Church and the religionists that insisted erroneously that the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe.

Someone once opined that if one gave enough [bleep] typewriters they would eventually recreate the works of Shakespeare. One only needs to be patients.

Makes sense. After all if you give enough priests a pen they would, and did, eventually create the Bible.

Questioning the validity of evolution of the 'Big Bang' theory only serves as a distraction of the real issue, that the Bible is demonstrably not "inerrant'. It is filled with self contradictions, scientific and historical falacy, etc.

The difference is that, at least, scientists are trying to find the truth while the bible thumpers would rather persist with the false but comfortable familiarity of tradition.

The real issue? Why is that the real issue? Why would somebody like you care about that? Do the contradictions and fallacies of the Bible bother you, and if so, why?

Intelligent Design isn't about the Bible: it has nothing to do with the Bible. It's simply a reaction to the fact that the theory of macroevolution is demonstrably not inerrant.

Sure, there's a big hole in Intelligent Design--who's the Intelligent Designer?--but Intelligent Design very carefully does not fill that hole with the God of the Bible, or Allah, or aliens, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or anything else: that's the difference between Intelligent Design and Creation Science.


As time goes on, there are fewer and fewer people who are prepared to believe that all scientists are really trying to find the truth. Once you get into the real world and outgrow your government-school indoctrination, you begin to see that scientists are trying to preserve their grants and attract new ones and gain prestige among their peers and be published in the right journals and so on. You begin to see that there's not that much difference between coming out of graduate school and working toward the Nobel Prize, and coming out of seminary and working toward the papacy. In both cases, you have to have a certain amount of true competency to get there, but there's also a considerable amount of political and religious skill required.

I don't know where you are in your walk of life: if you haven't hit the real world yet--or rather, if it hasn't hit you yet--then a certain amount of idealist illusion is to be expected, and even probably commended. Political correctness is out there waiting for you, though.

You obviously have not conducted serious study of the Bible's development and transmission.......................

And brother Barak is right. ID is not based on the Bible. It arose when a few biologists got tired af all the inconsistencies with the theory of macro-evolution. ID just happens to be a theory that is appealing for Christians.

Herein lies the true nature of why some refuse to permit the possibility of a Creator <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

You've made many assertions about the Bible---Now back them up with evidence---give examples--yada, yada

Scientists are not excluded from personal bias' and philosophical presuppositions. Working from a purely naturalistic viewpoint excludes any other area of potential information. Is that open minded? Hardly.
There are many
Scientists who reject Darwinism <READ
and many of those have Articles and papers that are peer reviewed <READ so you can't really make the argument that they "aren't real scientists" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

What is sad is the level and degree of intolerance by Darwinists towards those who are Sympathetic towards Intelligent Design--major scientist dissed <READ

Stifling academic freedom <READ

Article Darwinists tried to supress <READ