"[People] go on to explain away the miracles of Christ in the New Testament. Sometimes (and increasingly so), even the virgin birth and the Resurrection are denied. Once one accepts Genesis as literal and understands it as foundational for the rest of Scripture, it is an easy step to accepting as truth the remainder of what the Bible says. I take the Bible literally unless it is obviously symbolic. Even where it is symbolic, the words and phrases used have a literal basis.Many people use the example in Scripture where it says that Jesus is the door to say that we cannot take that literally. However, understanding the customs of the times, we find that the shepherd used to sit in the gate and literally be the door. So, in this sense, Jesus is literally the door, just as the shepherd literally was the door. Too many people are quick to jump to conclusions concerning the literalness of Scripture without carefully considering the statement, the context, and the customs. When Scripture is meant to be taken symbolically or metaphorically, it is either obviously so from the context or we are told so..." Full text: Death: A Curse and a Blessing by Ken Ham
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "A theory in science is a well supported explanation of the natural world. Literally thousands of pieces of data support the theory of evolution and more are found and published every day. A theory in science is the highest representation of scientific knowledge...If you think there is overwhelming evidence that points to YEC, you are living in a dream world."
I live informed in a real world informed by a real God who was there in the beginning (Ge 1:1). Darwin's world is the dream world, created so that he could forget all about God for his own reasons. Men today who wish to do the same believe the theory (Ro 1:18).
Evidence supports God's revelation not man's theories. The theory of evolution has numerous problems. Take natural selection--natural selection does not produce design. Evolutionists admit this:
"Anyone who understands basic biology recognizes, of course, as Darwin did, that natural selection is a logical process that one can observe. However, natural selection only operates on the information that is already contained in the genes—it does not produce new information. Actually, this is consistent with the Bible’s account of origins, in that God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind...natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists would agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon." Full text: Is There Really a God? by Ken Ham & Jason Lisle
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Unfortunately the physical evidence of this universe does not point to any deity, yet alone the One."
Why call yourself a Christian when you do not believe the Bible?
When you see Mt. Rushmore do you see a designer? When you see a watch, do you suspect there was a designer? Human beings are far more complex than either of those--yet you see no designer? You must not be looking (Ps 50:6).
"I think you really need to keep more abreast with actual science."
There are actually Christian scientists (e.g. Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus). Same empirical data--different interpretations--from the godless and the god-fearing.
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Darwin was never an atheist, indeed he was studying to be a priest when he made the observations that led to his theory."
Darwin lost his child and needed to understand living in a world without God. He came up with the theory of evolution. People still love to believe lies (Jer 5:31).
"The authors you cite don't know anything about modern biology..."
Ad hominem. Did you graduate from MIT?
"Let me define science.
science: A field of study seeking to better understand natural phenomena through the use of observations and experiments.
Broad, but increasingly precise and concise, relationships are sought between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events.
Notice, this does not mean that the first cause must be naturalistic. It is poor logic to say that because science deals with natural, cause-and-effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural event. Furthermore, if the first cause were a natural consequence of something else, it would not be the first cause. Scientific laws can give great insight on ultimate origins even though the first cause cannot, by definition, be duplicated. Yes, there was a beginning. [See Items 53 and 55 on page 30.]
Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence.
scientific evidence: Something that has been measured with instruments or detected with our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible physical explanations.
All evidence in Parts I and II of this book is based on observable, natural phenomena that others can check. (Part II contains 37 testable and potentially falsifiable predictions.) To most people, this evidence implies a creation and a global flood. This does not mean that the Creator (The First Cause) can be studied scientifically or that the Bible should be read in public-school science classes. (I have always opposed that.) Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools. That is wrong. Also, the consequences of a global flood have been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a flood. That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science. [See Part II.]
Explanations other than creation or a global flood may someday be proposed that are (1) consistent with all that evidence and (2) demonstrable by repeatable, cause-and-effect relationships. Until that happens, those who ignore known evidence are being quite unscientific. Evolutionists’ refusal to debate this subject (see pages 420–423) and their speculations on cause-and-effect phenomena that cannot be demonstrated also show poor science, especially when so much evidence opposes those speculations.
Evolutionists raise several objections. Some say, “Even though evidence may imply a sudden beginning, creation is supernatural, not natural, and cannot be entertained as a scientific explanation.” Of course, no one understands scientifically how the universe came into existence—how space, time, matter, and the laws of physics began. [See Figure 185 on page 408 and the paragraph preceding that figure.] Others, not disPutin 
g that the flood best explains many features on earth, object to a global flood, because the Bible—a document they wish to discredit—speaks of such a flood. Still others object to the starting point for the flood (given on page 115), but in science, all starting points are possibilities. The key question must always be, “What best explains all the evidence?”
Also, the source of a scientific idea does not need to be scientifically derived. For example, Friedrich Kekulé discovered the ring structure of benzene in a dream in which a snake grabbed its tail. Kekulé’s discovery laid the basis for structural chemistry. Again, what is important is not the source of an idea, but whether all evidence supports it better than any other explanation. Science, after all, is a search for truth about how the physical universe behaves. Therefore, let’s teach all the science...
See:
What does the Bible say about Creation vs. evolution? Is Creation vs. evolution a question of science, or a question of sin?
Is there any evidence for the Bible's view of a young earth? Is the earth billions of years old, or thousands of years old?
How does radiometric dating fit with the view of a young earth? Is the earth billions of years old, or thousands of years old?
What is the age of the earth? How old is the earth? Is the earth billions of years old, or thousands of years old?
What are Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve? Is there really scientific evidence that everyone alive descended from one woman?
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "I do believe the Bible. I just don't believe your absurd interpretation of it."
Do you believe Jesus' absurd interpretation of it? (Jn 5:47).
"Have you studied the processes that make a human function and the genetic information that codes for it? It looks exactly like what we would expect if it had organically grown over time, with lots of redundancies, miscodes that are passed along, suppressed information that codes for atavistic traits no longer expressed, and needlessly complex."
Did you know that scientists once thought that some of our DNA was junk? So-called Junk DNA is "not so junk" (Real Science Friday, kgov.com): "[T]he thinking went, if a protein’s makeup ends up being correct, any small glitches in the process leading to its construction could not do a body harm.
Yet detective work occasionally traced a disorder to a silent mutation, even though researchers presumed that it could not possibly be the culprit. Similar mysteries popped up in studies of genome evolution, where patterns of changes in the DNA of various species indicated that many silent mutations were preserved over time—a sign that they were useful to the organisms possessing them..." Full text: How Trivial DNA Changes Can Hurt Health: Small changes to DNA that were once considered innocuous enough to be ignored are proving to be important in human diseases, evolution and biotechnology
"You realize, all of those scientists you just listed worked before the theory of evolution was even proposed?"
You are right, people seem to have stopped thinking after Darwin. My point is--when you begin with God's word, you get better results and better scientists. Heard of Albert Einstein? He was a god-fearing man and a pretty good scientist.
"You apparently don't know what an ad hominem is with a response like that."
You will be able to find many scientists who know more than I do in their area of study--a lot more. Does that make them right? You have a bias, and so do I--and so does each person who studies empirical data. I admit my bias. I admit that I begin with the word of God and understand the world from there. Why don't you admit your bias? Admit that you dismiss anything that might hold you accountable to a holy God?
"What would graduating from MIT have to do with having good knowledge of Biology?"
Read the works cited by Dr. Brown.
"The subject of origins is inherently interesting to all of us, yet this topic is so broad that one can get lost in the sheer volume of information. As a biologist and a Christian, I find In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood to be the most concise, scholarly treatment of the scientific evidence supporting creation that I have ever read. This book is a must for anyone who is serious about understanding the creation/evolution debate. Science teachers, regardless of religious affinities, should also find this excellent resource a valuable addition to their reference libraries.
Terrence R. Mondy, Outstanding Biology Teacher for Illinois, 1999–2000" Full text: Endorsements: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th Edition (2008) by Dr. Walt Brown
"Since I have a PhD in the biological sciences, I think I can safely say I know more about biology (and especially DNA) than either of them. If either did outside study to become knowledgeable, it certainly doesn't show in the segment you quoted."
It is possible to be a PhD and an S.O.B.
"[Junk DNA] "[E]veryone knew it must be doing something."
Everyone? Why not just say "oops"?
"We simply didn't know what until relatively recently."
Is there anything else scientists could have gotten wrong?
"That said there are segments of DNA that are nothing but junk, retroviral elements, mobile genetic elements, pseudogenes, etc."
We'll have to see. Creation scientists believe that the human body is getting worse not better. Creationists believe that the world changed after Adam's sin. God never called death, disease and decay "good". Life in the garden was "very good" (Ge 1:31). Now it is very bad. Paradise lost will be paradise restored [Re 21:1] (Hanegraaff).
"It [science] is never perfect, however."
God is. I trust his revelation to man (Jas 1:25). He has proven scientists wrong time and time again.
Speaking of wishful thinking--nice avatar. How did that creature get blood from his heart to his head? And, I think you have a feather problem, as well.
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Christ said nothing about how to interpret scripture. Do you think Christ came to reveal spiritual truth or trivialities about our world we could discover on our own? Don't cheapen God's word."
The book of our origins is no trivial thing (Jn 5:47). Who has cheapened--and blatantly dismissed God's word? It is always unwise to chose man's opinion over God's word.
"No good scientist, Christian or otherwise, begins with God's word..."
If you would like to be right, you would (1 Cor 1:25). Science eventually confirms what God revealed long ago.
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: ""Circles aren't square" the same kind of truth as "Christ is the Son of God"..."
You are not a Christian, denying the deity of Jesus--you do not believe the Bible; you do not believe that Jesus is the creator God, second person of the godhead. This puts you in the kingdom of the cults not the kingdom of heaven. Why do you claim to be a Christian?
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "You cut out the context of his sentence, making him sound like he said something entirely different, when he was actually asking YOU a question. You're being dishonest at this point SD."
This comment was a response to LightSon not me. I hope you are right. I took: "Is "1+1=2" the same kind of truth as "I had a burrito for lunch"? Is "the capitol of France is Paris" the same kind of truth as "entropy increases in closed systems"? Is "Circles aren't square" the same kind of truth as "Christ is the Son of God"?" [3 Oct 09, 11:20 PM] to be a non-trinitarian view.
I will be happy to apologize if I misunderstood. Until then, I've posted an update at Satan Inc (ToL Heretic's List). However, facts remain; If I were to try to convict PB for being a Christian in court, I would have a hard time finding enough evidence.
"When did I do that?"
Speak of the devil (maybe literally, we are trying to decide)...Look at all the trouble you've caused! Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, second person of the trinity, the one who spoke and created the heavens and the earth (Ge 1:1-3)?
"Surely you don't think that you are the sole arbiter of how to read and interpret the Bible?"
No. That is the ministry of the Holy Spirit (Joh 14:26; 16:13).
"[S]cience, incompatible with Christ as savior and Son of God? Stop projecting your nonsense onto me."
Do you think the teachings of Jesus are incompatible with science?
[Kingdom of Cults] "Because I am. Why do you claim to be a Christian when you fear truth and hide behind outright lies and pathetic ignorance?"
Christians can discern whether a person is a Christian or not by two things: "Do you believe the Bible is true?" and "Tell me what you believe about Jesus." You fail test one--denying that the Bible is true. What about test two--who is Jesus to you?
What cult are you in?
Response to comment [from an atheist]: "I think there may be some confusion on the various uses of the term supernatural, here. I think the word itself is inherently meaningless. As soon as something is established as existing it is, by definition, natural. Being beyond nature is synonymous with non-existence.
However, some people seem to use the term to describe phenomena that defy natural law, and not just our impression of natural law. Such phenomena cannot be explained because the defy explanation. If such phenomena did exist, though, it would be impossible to scientifically characterize them. It would be like measuring a piece of wood that changes its length every time you look away, and/or its density and/or transforms into a flute. You cannot objectively study the non-objective."
I agree with you. The supernatural realm is outside of science.
"The truth of an opinion does not justify it. If you guess that something is true, and you're right, it doesn't give you a hill to stand on and yell I told you so. You got lucky."
Again, I agree. Our faith is based upon the eyewitness testimony of others (Luke 1:1, 2; 2 Pet. 1:16). Once a person is saved (though I do not believe in luck) he is the luckiest person in the world--to have been saved by the Creator of the heavens and the earth. It is only the Holy Spirit who can make this real to a person. The apostle John told us that we can know with certainty that we belong to him (1 Jn 5:13). Nothing in the world compares to knowing that you are His.
"Can you propose a scientific experiment that would either verify or refute intelligent design?"
Science screams intelligent design. God could use an audible voice but he chooses not to. God seems to value our faith--from Abraham down the line. He is calling out a people who will: ask, seek, knock (Mt 7:7) and have faith in Him (Heb 11:6). I don't think it is too much to ask of his creation.
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "PB has a far better lawyer than that...The evidence for a very very old earth and an even older universe is overwhelming."
Believing in young earth creation and salvation are two different issues. Can you be a Christian and believe in evolution and "millions of years"? I suppose it is possible--but your worldview will not be a biblical one.
You do not go to heaven or hell because you believe in evolution and "millions of years". You go to heaven or hell based on a right or wrong relationship with Jesus Christ (Geraci).
Is PB a Christian? We can figure that out. Let's hear the answer to: "Do you believe the Bible is true?" (not looking good there); and "What do you believe about Jesus?" (Jn 1:1, Jn 14:6).
Response to comment [from an atheist]: "Do you have a link to this research?"
See:
KangarooGenomics.org
Creation.com
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Listening to Bob's show for science is like letting your three year old child drive you to work."
You are the scientist--yet, I notice you never challenge your own views. I thought scientists never stopped asking questions.
Response to comment [from an atheist]: ""Intelligent Design theory" (it's not a theory but an a priori assumption)."
"Naturalism, logic and reality...Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence)..." Full text: Creation: Where is the Proof?
"If you refer to the gospels, those books were written decades after the alleged events in them..."
"It is generally agreed that the Book of Matthew was the first Gospel written and that it was written between A.D. 50 and 75. Of the four Gospel's, John's is considered to have been the last one written, around A.D. 85. The Book of Acts, a historical account of the establishment of the early Christian church, is believed to have been written by one of the Apostle Paul's associates, around A.D. 62 (near the end of Paul's imprisonment in Rome).
The Pauline Epistles (the Apostle Paul's letters to the early church) were authored between A.D. 50 - 67. The author of Hebrews is unknown, but the book is commonly thought to have been written around A.D. 70. The epistles of the other Apostles were written between A.D. 48 - 90.
The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is believed to have been penned by the Apostle John between A.D. 70 - 95..." Full text: When Was the Bible Written?
"...[A]nd those events are so full of inconsistencies..."
"Each writer wrote with a different style, from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some minor differences. However, a difference is not a contradiction. It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable way the verses or passages can be reconciled. Even if an answer is not available right now, that does not mean an answer does not exist. Many have found a supposed error in the Bible in relation to history or geography only to find out that the Bible is correct once further archaeological evidence is discovered..." Full text: Does the Bible contain errors, contradictions, or discrepancies?
"...[A]nd historical errors that one can easily cast doubt upon whether or not they are based on anything other than the author's imagination."
"...Most people simply get their ammunition from these places; they do not find supposed errors on their own. There are also books and websites available that refute every one of these supposed errors. The saddest thing is that most people who attack the Bible are not truly interested in an answer. Many “Bible attackers” are even aware of these answers, but they continue to use the same old shallow attacks again and again." Full text: Does the Bible contain errors, contradictions, or discrepancies?
"[T]he universe requires no pre-existing intelligence to exist in its present state."
"..[H]uge amount of information in living things must originally have come from an intelligence, which had to have been far superior to ours. But then, some will say that such a source would have to be caused by something with even greater information/intelligence.
However, if they reason this way, one could ask where even this greater information/intelligence came from. And then where did that one come from? One could extrapolate to infinity, unless there was a source of infinite intelligence, beyond our finite understanding. But isn’t this what the Bible indicates when we read, “In the beginning God ...”? The God of the Bible is not bound by limitations of time, space, or anything else.
Even Richard Dawkins recognizes this:
Once we are allowed simply to postulate organized complexity, if only the organized complexity of the DNA/protein replicating engine, it is relatively easy to invoke it as a generator of yet more organized complexity. That, indeed, is what most of this book is about. But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein replicating machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself. Far more so if we suppose him additionally capable of such advanced functions as listening to prayers and forgiving sins. To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like, “God was always there,” and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say “DNA was always there,” or “Life was always there,” and be done with it.
So what is the logically defensible position? Is it that matter has eternally existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason) and then that, by itself, matter was arranged into information systems against everything observed in real science? Or did an eternal Being, the God of the Bible, the source of infinite intelligence, create information systems for life to exist, which agrees with real science?
If real science supports the Bible’s claims about an eternal Creator God, then why isn’t this readily accepted? Michael Behe answers with this:
The fourth and most powerful reason for science’s reluctance to embrace a theory of intelligent design is also based on philosophical considerations. Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don’t want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words ... they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior.
The crux of the matter is this: if one accepts there is a God who created us, then that God also owns us. If this God is the God of the Bible, He owns us and thus has a right to set the rules by which we must live. More important, He also tells us in the Bible that we are in rebellion against Him, our Creator. Because of this rebellion (called sin), our physical bodies are sentenced to death; but we will live on forever, either with God or without Him in a place of judgment. But the good news is that our Creator provided a means of deliverance for our sin of rebellion, so that those who come to Him in faith and repentance for their sin can receive the forgiveness of a holy God and spend eternity with Him..." Full text: Is There Really a God?
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Evolution of new genes"
"Evolutionary scientists have no way around this conclusion that many scientists, including Dr. Spetner, have now come to. Mutations do not work as a mechanism for the evolutionary process. Spetner sums it all up as follows:
The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume ... . Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory [emphasis added]..." Full text: Is There Really a God?
Response to comment [from a Christian]: [Laughing] "So what"
It simply takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation.
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "[S]cientific theories are extremely unlikely to be wrong..."
If you ignore all of the problems associated with the theory of evolution:
"More Problems!...Imagine yourself sitting in the seat of a 747 airplane, reading about the construction of this great plane. You are fascinated by the fact that this flying machine is made up of six million parts—but then you realize that not one part by itself flies. This realization can be rather disconcerting if you are flying along at 500 mph (805 km/h) at 35,000 feet (10,668 m).
You can be comforted, however, by the fact that even though not one part of an airplane flies on its own, when it is assembled as a completed machine, it does fly.
We can use the construction of an airplane as an analogy to understand the basic mechanisms of the biochemistry of cells that enable organisms to function.
Scientists have found that within the cell there are thousands of what can be called “biochemical machines.” For example, one could cite the cell’s ability to sense light and turn it into electrical impulses. But what scientists once thought was a simple process within a cell, such as being able to sense light and turn it into electrical impulses, is in fact a highly complicated event. For just this one example alone to work, numerous compounds must all be in the right place, at the right time, in the right concentration—or it just won’t happen. In other words, just as all the parts of a 747 need to be assembled before it can fly, so all the parts of these “biochemical machines” in cells need to be in place, or they can’t function. And there are literally thousands of such “machines” in a single cell that are vital for it to operate.
What does this mean? Quite simply, evolution from chemicals to a living system is impossible..." Full text: Is There Really a God?
"The Bible has been used to prove science wrong? When did that happen?"
A. Rogers says in his "How to Know the Bible is the Word of God" sermon (notes, paraphrased):
You will never be greater in your Christian life than in your conviction about the word of God (2 Ti 3:16). The Bible is not the book of the month-- it is the book of the ages.
Man only has three problems: sin, sorrow and death. There is not a problem in the world that is not a subset of sin, sorrow and death. This is the only book in the world that has the answer to these problems. There are those who hate the Bible. They do not believe it. There are those like the cults that distort it. There are others who dissect it, reading it like a math book rather than a love story. Then, there are those that disregard it--they give lip service but they do not study it.
Why believe the Bible? Because your salvation depends upon it. If you want someone to be saved they must have something to believe. Your growth depends upon the word of God. Your sanctification depends upon the world of God. Your assurance depends upon the word of God. It is important to have a solid conviction that the Bible is the word of God.
We can believe the word of God (1) because of the scientific accuracy of the Bible. Some say: "Of course the Bible is not scientifically accurate because it was was written thousands of years ago." Before you say that, make sure of two things--make certain that you know science and make certain that you know the word of God. The Bible does not always agree with science--and for that I am infinitely glad. If you've been to Paris, you may have visited the Louvre. There are 3 1/2 miles of books on science and almost every one of them is obsolete. Science is changing. What is scientific fact in one era is not in another era.
In 1861 there was an anti-God French academy of science that gave 51 facts that prove the Bible wrong. Today, more than 100 years later, there is not a reputable scientist who believes one of those 51 facts. Aren't you glad the Bible did not agree with that science? Had the Bible agreed with that science the Bible would have been wrong. Give the scientists enough time, perhaps they'll catch up with the Bible.
The Bible teaches about science:
The earth suspended in space (Job 26:7). How did Job know that?
Ancient Egyptians believed that the earth was supported on five pillars. Greeks believed that the earth was held on the back of a giant named Atlas. Ancient Hindus believed the earth stood on the backs of huge elephants. When the elephants shook that created earthquakes. Someone asked, "What are the elephants standing on?" On the back of a huge tortoise. They asked, "Then, what's the turtle on?" The turtle is on the back huge coiled serpent. They asked, "Then, what is the serpent on?" The serpent is swimming in a cosmic sea.
Earth is a sphere. Isa 40:22. How did Isaiah know that?
By observation you would think that the earth is flat. Columbus sailed west. Men said you'd better be careful or you might fall off the edge. It was not until 1492 that time that men conceded that the earth is round.
The stars are without number (human number, uncountable) [Jer 33:22].
Hipparchus counted stars, the noted astronomer of that day. He said there are 1022 stars. That was the science. 250 years later, another Ptolemy checked up on Hipparchus and he laughed. There are 1026. 1300 years later that Galileo created telescope and gave a gasp--millions and billions of stars in the canopy of space. Now, with the Hubble telescope---stars upon stars. Jeremiah said the host of heaven cannot be known. How did Jeremiah know that?
How did they know? All scripture given by inspiration of God (2 Ti 3:16).
Now move into physiology and biology. Blood is in the life. We that that for granted. It was not until 1615 that William Harvey discovered that blood even circulates in the body--the incredible properties of human blood. In relatively recent times when men got sick they would attribute it to blood. The barber pole represented a bandage. They would bleed men in the hopes that they would get well. The father of our country George Washington got sick and they bled him three times. They bled him to death. Lev 17:14, blood--it is the life of all flesh, an incredible scientific statement.
In the Middle Ages there was a Bubonic Plague, called the Black Plague. 1 out of 4 died. They could not figure out what caused it. It was one of the greatest natural disasters in human history. The word of God was the solution. If a man had the plague quarantine him (Lev 13:46).
1840, in hospitals in Vienna 1 out of 5 mothers were dying of infection. They would go in for inspections and they were getting infected. Doctors did not wash their hands. Dr. Semmelweis said from now on, you will wash your hands before you examine. They would go from the morgue to make examinations. 1 out of 84 died. After this policy 11 out of 12 died. Then he said, you will wash between every examination. Doctors said, no we can't do that. Nu 19:14-19, when men die in a tent they shall be unclean 7 days (time for the bacteria to die) every open vessel is unclean, if you touch one slain, or a dead body or bone or one in the grave, they shall be unclean 7 days. They had no idea about a germ. God says don't contaminate.
The Bible is not a science book but it is scientifically accurate..." How to Know the Bible is the Word of God (Pt. 1 of 5) by Adrian Rogers
Response to comment [from an atheist]: "It takes more faith to believe in a process with scientific evidence backing it up than it does to believe that an invisible man in the sky made everything in existence in 6 days?"
Some will never believe (Ro 8:7). It is willful ignorance. Notice, the Bible does not attempt to prove God's existence. That is obvious. There is external evidence (Ps 97:6, Ps 8:3-4, Ps 139:14) and internal evidence (Ro 2:15). Men are without excuse (Ro 1:20). The Bible says if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (Ro 10:9). How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? (Heb 2:3).
Response to comment [from an atheist]: "[N]o one is arguing against "creation" simply because there is no case for it in the first place that doesn't resort to supernaturalism (which is outside the realm of science to comment on one way or another)."
Even the godless acknowledge that intelligent design is the most logical conclusion based on observations in the natural world (e.g. Richard Dawkins quoted earlier). It's ok--you can admit there is a God--but that you hate him. Then we can call you honest instead of a fool. I would not call you that, God does (Ps 53:1). So, are you lying or are you a fool? I like to assume the best in people.
"A greater problem still...In the DNA of a cell, the order of its molecules is also meaningless, except that in the biochemistry of a cell, there is a language system (other molecules) that makes the order meaningful. DNA without the language system is meaningless, and the language system without the DNA wouldn’t work either. The other complication is that the language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA. This is another one of those “machines” that must already be in existence and fully formed, or life won’t work!..." Full text: Is There Really a God?
[When was the Bible Written?] "[G]ospels..."
“The Great Upside-down Philosopher: Top is bottom, black is white, far is near, and day is night. Big is little, high is low, cold is hot, and yes is no.”
--Title and caption of cartoon about Joseph Stalin, by Rube Goldberg
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Show me where I said anything to that effect or retract your statement."
[Do you believe in the doctrine of the trinity] You answered "Yes" 
"Yes...Show me where I said anything to that effect or retract your statement."
Ok, my mistake. I retract and apologize. I must have misunderstood: "Circles aren't square" the same kind of truth as "Christ is the Son of God"..." I'm glad you do not reject the doctrine of the trinity. The doctrine of the trinity is of course a fundamental issue and you clarified that. Thank you.
"[Y]ou are beginning an inquiry with a pre-supposed conclusion, which prevents you from giving information that contradicts your conclusion any serious consideration."
The secular naturalist begins with a pre-supposed conclusion as well--there is no God.
"SCIENCE AND RELIGION: The Truth About Science and Christianity...
...The people of Jesus’ day demanded miraculous signs as a condition for belief (John 4:48). Yet even though Jesus performed astonishing miracles, His Jewish brothers and sisters by and large rejected Him as their Messiah (John 1:11). Today many people reject Christianity on similar grounds. We live in a natural world, they say, a world that can be explained by science. Since Christianity relies on faith, it no longer applies in our modern, scientific world. In fact, Christianity and science conflict.
The interesting thing is that while many top scientists do not make this claim, many untrained people do. They have bought into a number of myths, including the following:
1. Science can be proved; Christianity cannot. The truth is that both science and Christianity deal with evidence. Science examines evidence about our world from things that we can see, touch, measure, and calculate. Christianity is based on evidence about our world from the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Of course, it is a misconception that science can be “proved.” The heart of the scientific method is to allow the evidence to lead one where it will. But in that case, one cannot “prove” a scientific hypothesis, but only support it with evidence.
2. Science is progressive; Christianity resists progress. There is some truth to this—but only some. At certain times in history, Christianity has opposed ideas that seemed to challenge its worldview. Yet at other times Christians have been (and still are) on the vanguard of scientific progress. Indeed, modern science is largely the product of inquiring believers.
3. Science is logical; Christianity involves a leap of faith. Without question there is a logic and an order in scientific inquiry. But the same is true for the philosophical, historical, ethical, and theological disciplines of Christianity. Our faith is not opposed to reason. At points it may go beyond reason. But it is a reasonable faith. It hangs together logically.
At the same time, science demands an element of faith. In science, one must commit oneself to the belief that the world we see and touch is real, that nature is uniform, and that it operates according to the principle of cause-and-effect. Without these prior “leaps of faith,” reasonable though they are, one cannot undertake science.
4. Science deals with the laws of nature; Christianity thrives on miracles. If science involves a closed, physical universe with fixed, unalterable laws, then the concept of miracles, which involve the local, temporary suspension of natural laws, will prove intolerable. But that is a nineteenth-century view of science. Few scientists of stature today support such a view.
Moreover, the so-called “laws of nature” are not prescriptive but descriptive. They do not determine what may happen; they describe what normally does happen. Therefore, science can legitimately say that miracles do not usually occur in nature. But it would be illegitimate to claim that miracles are impossible. Such a claim speaks outside the limits of science. If God has really come into this world in Christ, is it so surprising that He would perform miracles, as the Gospels report?
Science is not in conflict with Christianity. To be sure, some scientists are. But other scientists are passionately committed Christians, just like people in other walks of life. There are reasons why people choose for or against Christ, but those reasons are found elsewhere than in science."
Thomas Nelson Publishers. (2001). What does the Bible say about-- : The ultimate A to Z resource fully illustrated. Nelson's A to Z series (356). Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson.Response to comment [from an atheist]: "Which geometry class did you fail? Circle =/= Sphere."
You know the earth is round, right?
Definition of sphere: 3. Astronomy. a. a planet or star; heavenly body.
b. celestial sphere.
c. any of the transparent, concentric, spherical shells, or layers, in which, according to ancient belief, the planets, stars, and other heavenly bodies were set. Sphere definition, DictionaryReference.com.
Math points to God, too:
"The Laws of Mathematics...
Notice that the laws of physics are highly mathematical in nature. They would not work if there were not also laws of mathematics. Mathematical laws and principles include the rules of addition, the transitive property, the commutative properties of addition and multiplication, the binomial theorem, and many others. Like the laws of physics, some laws and properties of mathematics can be derived from other mathematical principles. But unlike the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics are abstract; they are not “attached” to any specific part of the universe. It is possible to imagine a universe where the laws of physics are different; but it is difficult to imagine a (consistent) universe where the laws of mathematics are different.
The laws of mathematics are an example of a “transcendent truth.” They must be true regardless of what kind of universe God created. This may be because God’s nature is logical and mathematical. Thus, any universe He chose to create would necessarily be mathematical in nature. The secular naturalist cannot account for the laws of mathematics. Certainly, he would believe in mathematics and would use mathematics; but he is unable to account for the existence of mathematics within a naturalistic framework since mathematics is not a part of the physical universe. However, the Christian understands that there is a God beyond the universe and that mathematics reflects the thoughts of the Lord. Understanding math is in a sense “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”6 (though in a limited, finite way, of course).
Some have supposed that mathematics is a human invention; it is said that if human history had been different, an entirely different form of math would have been constructed—with alternate laws, theorems, axioms, etc. But such thinking is not consistent. Are we to believe that the universe did not obey mathematical laws before people discovered them? Did the planets orbit differently before Kepler discovered that p2 = a3? Clearly, mathematical laws are something that human beings have discovered—not invented. The only thing that might have been different (had human history taken a different course) is the notation—the way in which we choose to express mathematical truths through symbols. But these truths exist regardless of how they are expressed. Mathematics is the “language of creation...” Full text: Don’t Creationists Deny the Laws of Nature?
Response to comment [from an atheist]: "No - philosophical naturalism holds that nature is all that is required to explain what can observed. It's silent on the issue of whether or not something called "god" can exist because "god" isn't a testable claim. "
Secular naturalists have their own bias against God (e.g. rejecting overwhelming evidence that points to a worldwide flood):
“Willingly ignorant …[I]t is a deliberate action on a person’s part not to believe:
(a) God created the world, which at first was covered with water (which means that its surface was cool at the beginning, not a molten blob, as evolutionists teach).
(b) God once judged this world with a global, cataclysmic flood at the time of Noah.
(c) God is going to judge this world again, but the next time it will be by fire.
People often make the statement: “If there is so much evidence that God created the world and sent a global cataclysmic flood, then surely all scientists would believe this.” The solution is given here in 2 Peter 3. It is not simply a matter of providing evidence to convince people, for people do not want to be convinced. We read in Romans 1:20 that there is enough evidence to convince everyone that God is Creator, so much so that we are condemned if we do not believe. Furthermore, Romans 1:18 tells us that men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” It is not a matter of lack of evidence to convince people that the Bible is true; the problem is that they do not want to believe the Bible. The reason for this is obvious. If people believed in the God of the Bible, they would have to acknowledge His authority and obey the rules He has laid down. However, every human being suffers from the same problem—the sin which Adam committed in the Garden of Eden—a “disease” which we all inherit. Adam’s sin was rebellion against God’s authority. Likewise, people everywhere today are in rebellion against God, so to admit that the Bible is true would be an admission of their own sinful and rebellious nature and of their need to be born again by cleansing through the blood of Christ.
It is easy to see this “willing ignorance” in action when watching debates over the creation/evolution issue. In most cases, the evolutionists are not interested in the wealth of data, evidence, and information the creationists put forward. They usually try to attack creationists by attempting to destroy their credibility. They are not interested in data, logical reasoning, or any evidence that points to creation or refutes evolution, because they are totally committed to their religious faith called evolution.
Modern geology today tells us that there never was a worldwide flood as described in the Bible. We are told that millions of years of geological processes can explain the enormous fossil record in the sedimentary rock layers around the earth’s surface. However, creationists have shown that the fossil-bearing rock layers were produced by enormous catastrophic processes consistent with Noah’s flood.1 But evolutionists refuse to accept this, for to do so would mean that the Bible is right, and thus the whole of their evolutionary philosophy would have to be rejected. These people are “willingly ignorant” about the facts that do not support their evolutionary ideas but do fit into a model of geology based upon what the Bible says concerning Noah’s flood. This is another fulfillment of prophecy before our very eyes..." Full text: Creation, Flood and Coming Fire
Respone to comment [from an atheist]: [Know the earth was round] "So did the ancient Greeks..."
False, see earlier post "...Greeks believed that the earth was held on the back of a giant named Atlas--" you may have seen the man holding the world on top of his shoulders? We take the fact for granted now that the earth is round, but men did not always believe that. You would not know that, had men not told you.
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Read the Hebrew, not the English. And read how the term is used in other contexts."
Hebrew: [chuwg /khoog/] n m. From 2328; TWOT 615a; GK 2553; Three occurrences; AV translates as “circle” once, “circuit” once, and “compass” once. 1 circle, circuit, compass. 2 (BDB) vault (of the heavens).
Response to comment [from an atheist]: "You've made similar claims regarding magic...Go ahead, I dare you to link to that stupid PDF again."
Are you referring to magic, spells and divination?
See:
Magic, Spells & Divination
"...and the paranormal..."
See:
What does the Bible say about ghosts / hauntings? Is a ghost actual a demon? Can a demon inhabit a physical location?
What is the difference between the Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost? Why does the King James Version mention both a Holy Ghost and a Holy Spirit?
Response to comment [from an athiest]: "You mean, where a 2000+ year old book written by desert sheep hearders and the objective reasoning of current day scholars disagree, he picks objective reasoning. Most sane people do..."
Ad hominem. In fact, no other book has been attacked more than the Bible. Yet, it stands.
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (Ti 3:16-17, NKJV)."
* The Bible is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
* The Bible is made up of 66 different books that were written over 1600 years (from approximately 1500 BC to AD 100) by more than 40 kings, prophets, leaders, and followers of Jesus. The Old Testament has 39 books (written approximately 1500-400 BC). The New Testament has 27 books (written approximately AD 45-100). The Hebrew Bible has the same text as the English Bible's Old Testament, but divides an and arranges it differently.
* The Old Testament was written mainly in Hebrew, with some Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek.
* The books of the Bible were collected and arranged and recognized as inspired sacred authority by councils of rabbis and councils of church leaders based on careful guidelines.
* Before the printing press was invented, the Bible was copied by hand. the Bible was copied very accurately, in many cases by special scribes who developed intricate methods of counting words and letter to insure that no error had been made.
* The Bible was the first book ever printed on the printing press with moveable type (Gutenberg Press, 1455, Latin Bible).
* There is much evidence that the Bible we have today is remarkably true to the original writings. Of the thousands of copies made by hand before AD 1500, more than 5,300 Greek manuscripts from the New Testament alone still exist today. The test of the Bible is better preserved than the writings of Caesar, Plato, or Aristotle.
* The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed the astonishing reliability of some of the copies of the Old testament made over the years. Although some spelling variations exist, no variation affects basic Bible doctrines.
* As the Bible was carried to other countries, it was translated into the common language of the people by scholars who wanted to know God's Word. Today there are still 2,000 groups with no Bible in their own language.
* By AD 200, the Bible was translated into seven languages; by AD 500, 13 languages; by AD 900, 17 languages; by AD 1400, 28 languages; by 1800, 57 languages; by 1900, 537 languages; by 1980, 1,100 languages...
See:
How We Got the Bible
"When you become ill, do you take medication and/or see a physician?"
Yes.
"...Or do you pray..."
The sick can go to Christ, the Great Physician (Lk. 5:12-15).
"...because it's not micro-organisms that make you sick, but evil spirits (demons)?"
The world that God created was "very good" (Ge 1:31). Death, disease and suffering are the result of the fall of man (Ge 3).
"If you do the former, why do you worship science instead of trusting in the word of god as written in holy scripture?"
I worship God not science. God is gracious. He has given medicine for man's use. You could say thank you for: the doctors who heal you, for the medicine that cures you, etc. (De 32:39; Ps 103:3; Isa 38:5,9).
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "I can say that the Bible is your God, not God himself...You can be a Christian without turning the Bible into an idol of heresy."
You can trust God's word: " You have magnified Your word above all Your name (Ps 138:2)." Christians trust the word of God.
"[T]ruth can not be in conflict with reality unless God is a deceiver..."
Men can be in error because they are fallen, sinful beings.
"If I choose to not believe reality I choose an illusion, a fraud and a deception (at least I'm not doing my best to avoid it)."
Men are responsible for believing lies (Ps 96:13; Ro 1:20, 2:2).
[Science book] "I would be a fool to treat it as one."
The Bible is not a science book but it is scientifically accurate. You would be a fool to elevate man's opinion over God's opinion (Ac 5:29).
"What do you want to know about my thoughts about Jesus?"
Christians believe that the Bible is God's word. It is true and it can be trusted. When you reject God's word as truth, error follows (e.g rejecting the deity of Jesus; believe in evolution and "millions of years", etc.) Jesus said: "But if you do not believe his [Moses'] writings, how will you believe My words?” (Jn 5:47). So far, you only attempt to undermine God's word.
Response to comment [from an atheist]: "Repeat: Death and sickness are not because of sin and/or demons..."
You can repeat all you would like. The Bible teaches that death, disease and suffering came after the fall of man when sin entered the world (Ge 3). Sin has taken its toll on this world. Read the newspaper today for more proof of this.
"...Therefore: By using medication and consulting doctors rather than just praying for forgiveness for the sins that caused your illness, you are defying your god."
Medicine (and all good things [Lk. 5:12-15]) come from God (Jas 1:17). The saved thank God for his goodness (Psa. 50:14, Ps. 140:13, 1 Thess. 5:18, Phil. 4:6). The lost don't (Titus 1:15, 16). You breathe his air and eat his food--do you give him thanks?
Response to comment: "Is it only the Bible as we perceive it today?...That would be strange..."
See:
How We Got the Bible
Why Trust the Bible?
Intelligent Design