1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Tracing DNA

Discussion in 'Science' started by Alcott, Apr 14, 2005.

  1. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "The point here is two fold. First, we see that science was INVENTED by youg earthers - therefore the notion that YE are not scientific, or impede scientific progress is rejected."

    I draw a different conclusion.

    The sciences to which you so strongly object and to which many refer to with some string like evil Satanist atheist science, were started by Christians and to this day have Christian working in them and therefore cannot be described by the slanderous string of adjectives that are often attributed to them.

    " Secondly, we see that science can exist and progress just fine without evolution - it is non-essential to the work of science."

    Again I disagree.

    There has been a revolution in our understanding of creation in all of the areas in which the old earth sciences touch in the time since the old earth sciences came on the seen. Our understanding of the creation was trivial before that time. Our understanding was restrained by the very shackles which you seek to reimpose onscience. But since science has shed those shackles and opened its eyes to the reality of the creation, led by believers, God has allowed us tremendous understanding of how His creation works and the laws which He set up to allow for all that we see. Including biological evolution. His laws. His plan.

    "It said that his faith in God as the creator made him a big failure."

    Could you explain a little about how they reached that conclusion.

    IMHO, his failure was that he refused to accept that the underlying physics of everything could be the random chance of quantum mechanics. He thought that there must be identifiable and quantifiable cause and effect. He was smart, but he was wrong. And it kept him from making progress on such a theory. Perhaps if he had been more open, string theory would have been developed decades earlier.
     
Loading...