Creationists: "When science/reality contradicts the Bible, science/reality must be wrong?"?

Science has contradicted the bible. Read the first chapter of the Bible. The expanse, this is the word used in the NIV Bible, is from the waters below to the waters above. Which means from the sea to the clouds, which is the immediate sky. God says he put the sun, moon and stars in the expanse. That means the sun, moon and stars are only 3 miles from us. This is not true of course. Back then that is what they thought. The Bible is suppose to be written by God without mistake through man. Man is not to make mistake when he writes the Bible because God is writing the Bible. So if God is writing the Bible he should know where he put the heavenly bodies. This proves God did not write the Bible, it is man made. So that proves the God of the Bible is make believe. Think about it.

That's a false dichotomy.

True science always agrees with the Bible. Give one example where is does not.

You often find that people interpret the evidence with a particular worldview and then claim that science contradicts the Bible, when in reality it is their interpretation of the evidence that creates the contradiction.

It is important to understand that everyone has exactly the same evidence - which exists in the present. Creationists and evolutionists interpret the same evidence with different worldviews. That is different assumptions about the past and different philosophical approaches.

People who dismiss creation as 'unscientific', or who claim that evolution (or creation) is 'proved', have missed the point. They either don't understand what science is, or want to hoodwink people into agreeing with them.

It is not possible to prove anything about the unobserved past using the scientific method, which involves observation, testing, repeating.

If one was to take an unbiased approach, one would ask simply which of creation and evolution provides the best explanation of the observed evidence. It is difficult to take an unbiased approach, since we all have a worldview.

I used to believe that evolution was the best explanation, but then I discovered that there is an awful lot of evidence which contradicts evolution, which is 'hidden' by evolutionists and most of the media. But if you check CMI you will see that evolution is quite easy to refute scientifically.

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-index

It is not a question of science v religion. It is the science of one religion v the science of another religion.

The question is, which worldview provides the best explanation of the evidence that we all have. Everyone has the same evidence in the present.

There is much evidence that evolutionists find very uncomfortable. Creationists have no problem discussing all the evidence.

I have yet to see a piece of evidence that cannot be explained by the creationist model. There is plenty that evolutionists find troublesome - such as coal having carbon 14, young age dating methods etc.

Many of the icons of evolution - peppered moth, etc are no more than natural selection. Where's the evidence for evolution???

Now this is something I like!

It's so rare to see someone come up with a novel/creative/new idea on this, so I applaud you.

Honestly, it's not that I consider science to be wrong. I consider the interpretations of information provided by science and the conclusions made from some things to be incorrect.

I believe in gravity, inertia, and many other basic tenets of science.

I don't see the same level of verification for and support of other areas, like evolution.

I also see basic scientific principles, like the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which show evolution to be counter scientific.

Now to answer the actual question:

Yes, the Bible was written by fallible people, but the work they did is not fallible. That's plainly stated in scripture.

Specifically, II Timothy 3:16-17 states that this wasn't just written by men of old, but was done with God's inspiration. Not only that, but it contains everything needed for a child of God to be "perfect" and "throughly (completely) furnished unto all good works."

Additionally, there is a warning in scripture about people trying to deceive God's people using "science, falsely so called" (I Timothy 6:20).

EDIT:

I do hope nothing I said sounded mean or arrogant, since that is not my goal. Your question is a good one, so it deserves a good reply. I hope that was someone else mischaractarizing your statements.

In reply to your counter arguments:

First off, it is meaningless what "the scientific community has come to acknowledge as true." That statement is the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority."

I'd also point out that the same could have been said of the scientific community in the days of Gallileo, and we all know how wrong they were.

The thing is that the science of evolution is FAR FROM settled. There are constant changes and revisions being made by its supporters. Many of the indiviual pieces that are used for support of it (things like carbon dating and fossil records) have multiple issues with them.

At the same time, there are plenty of scientists, though not recognized by the scientific community as a whole, which are doing studies and finding issues with the evolutionary theory.

The problem is that the average person is told, and accepts as mindlessly as Atheists claim Theists accept creation, that evolution is flawlessly proven and a sure fact. That's just not the case.

EDIT2:

I actually am aware of what thermodynamics means, and their primary application, but they apply in other areas as well.

Evolution requires the greater gathering of energy and the establishment of greater order (which goes against the principle of entropy).

Both scientific principle and naturally evident fact shows that energy is disipating and the Universe is moving toward a more chaotic and decayed state.

Yet, somehow evolution is moving against that tide. That makes little sense.

The greatest flaw for evolution and its adherents is that the start of it cannot be proven scientifically.

The scientific method, which is the foundation of science, says that hypotheses are made based on observable and repeatable events.

No theory of origin, whether creation or a big bang, was observed by anyone, nor can it be repeated (even if you could somehow to it in a lab, you can't prove it happened the same way).

So, since you can't prove either with the scientific method, neither one can be proven scientifically.

that is extremely not what I do. case in point, i think of there is info for reincarnation (documented), and evolution. i'm unlikely to be slightly jerk approximately it and say there's no info whilst somebody can coach me info, i've got seen info and that i think of that evolution has info. I purely disagree with the tip; the info isn't sufficient adequate for me to ascertain the info as evidence. no remember if evolution is actual or no longer, it does no longer mean the Bible isn't actual, it purely skill that God would have created in a distinctive way. i think of the info against evolution in nature alongside with the complexity of a cellular, weighs against the thought of Evolution. For reincarnation, the comparable element is actual. there is info, yet i do no longer come to the comparable end that others have. Why is it significant for me to have faith the two one? i do no longer see the magnitude of believing in evolution fantastically; it does not substitute something for all people, including my religious ideals.

Our God told these men to write down His food and hygiene laws that are based on His working knowledge of the germ theory of disease and the modern human body 3500 years ago. So they wrote them down without being able to truly understand the meaning behind them for many centuries to come until our scientific knowledge advances to the point where it will force mankind to reinterpret the meaning behind this old scripture which is not what we thought it was. This will renew this part of The Bible from the ancient outdated religious book we thought it was into the advanced modern science book it always has been. That time is now because I am the Chosen One who God allowed to discover it.

Why does science have to equal reality?

If it happened that string theory came into direct conflict with Christianity, I do not think that theologians would need to be unduly worried. String theory isn't falsifiable, and it shows no sign of hardening up so that it becomes falsifiable.

I keep my faith in God before men and over science

William "Billy Boy" Lane Craig actually said that, though not in those exact words. And godweasels can't understand why we don't take him seriously.

Science has never contradicted the Bible. It may have contradicted a RELIGION using the Bible.

You don't actually understand what "science" means in context, do you?