> Of science and the Bible Randy Landrum wrote:
>
> >I care about both. Can't one, for instance, like peanutbutter and jelly? I
> >also care (like I am sure many others) about the dangers of the
> >propagation of bad science or rather religion which really is not science
> >but rather sticking a high brow label on a sow's ear. Some say it's
> >creation other say it's evolution.
>
> I too care about both. If the Bible is not historically true, then I have real
> problems. But I cannot see how it is beneficial to advocate an interpretation
> of the Bible which requires what I can see with my eyes to be false.
First, it is not only an interpretation of the bible. The bible speaks for
itself.
Second : What do you see which is incompatible with this 'interpretation'
of the bible ?
> This
> forces me to choose between what I see or what I believe. To me it is a matter
> of getting our facts straight. A case in point is Whitcomb's and Morris'
> juvenile water argument for the age of the oceans.
>
>[discussion deleted]
It seems to me you don't make any difference between what the bible is
saying and the theories which YECs have built on it. One should always
distinguish between the facts taught by the bible and the scientific
theories by which we want to describe the facts of nature according to the
bible. The direct creation of everything is an example of the former, the
water canopy around the earth before the flood of the latter.
Oliver
student of physics