Believers: Should we trust a book that is 2000 years old? or Science that is up to date?

Answer 1

You can trust what you want, I'm trusting God and that is the Bible. The Bible never changes.

Answer 2

Faith can get neither to truth nor to justice

The idea that one can be certain, without proof, that God exists, if applied to the practical matter of administering justice would certainly have dire consequences. Imagine a juror that by the same standard of thinking decides the guilt or innocence of an accused. If evidence and logic were disregarded in the belief in God, it can also follow that they would be equally unnecessary in the prosecution of a juridical case.

Since we know that justice can only be served if there is no compromise between reason and faith, we are likely to trust the person who consistently follows reason. For if we believed that it were possible to pursue the truth by mixing reason with the sentiment of faith and cast aside the unyielding evidence of unquestionable facts, both justice and truth would become a mere matter of opinion.

Answer 3

True science is the truth but it has to be interpreted and that interpretation is where man goes wrong. The same is true for the book, It is the ability that was given man to discern what is truth and what is false and the answer you are looking for is in between the two. The problem is humans and their stupidy, pride, selfishness and their greed not with the book or science.

Answer 4

I would rather trust a more than 5000 year old book of wisdom, accumulated through the ages than any bunk " science" any day. The bible's wisdom is proven through the ages. The works of " science" in most cases have not even been tried by a generation of time. after all, " science" tells us to immunize ourselves with vaccines containing mercury, the most toxic metal on earth then scratches its head in wonder as the cases of childhood autism skyrocket from 1 in 15,000 childen to 1 in 150.,real smart!

Answer 5

Science.

Answer 6

Hum don't think I would make a decision with out doing some research on Science and the Bible, Prophecy and the Bible, Archeology and the Bible, then I might make be able to give a intelligent answer.
I guess I'm one that digs for facts before basing my decision on one theory. Also history and the Bible would be another good study......the answers are out there for those that are willing to look for them.

Answer 7

Yes, Darwin is obsolete.

4 The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.”1 Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.”2

5 After an important conference of some 150 specialists in evolution held in Chicago, Illinois, a report concluded: “[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. . . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight.”3

6 Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists.”4

7 A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.” Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind.”—Italics added.

8 Booker also stated: “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.” He concluded: “As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall.”5

9 Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: “Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side.” He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching proportions, “potentially one of those times in science when, quite suddenly, a long-held idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary evidence and a new one takes its place.”6 And Britain’s New Scientist observed that “an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”7

Answer 8

Yes! Ignore science! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtin.

Answer 9

Neither. Trust the one who caused the 2000 year old book to be written.

Answer 10

I would trust anything written with God's holy spirit before I would ever trust mankind who can only study what God has already created.

Answer 11

Science is more interesting, and factual. Thats my vote.