The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

stevejazzx

wolfsbane wrote: »

stevejazzx said:

As far as I can determine, the Origin-of-Life Foundation is not creationist. It is a science and education foundation encouraging the pursuit of natural-process explanations and mechanisms within nature.. See: About The Gene Emergence Project http://www.us.net/life/

Robins five minute stint as Columbo has undone said mysterey...and what do you know it's just as I called it, out of their depth 'young earthers' trying to put one over on evil science...yawn.

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

FSC (Functional Sequence Complexity)....eh......

......mmm.....almost CSI (Complex Specified Information)....

He sounds like an Evolutionist......'on the verge of ID' :eek::D

.......and so do YOU......Scofflaw!!!:D

That would be, minus the smilies and the lunacy, the point.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ah, no, for the evolution story has its initiation point in abiogenesis. I know it's an embarrassment to you all, but that's your problem. :D:D

Well, if it's an embarrassment, it's one we haven't tried to conceal. We've discussed abiogenesis on the thread many times, and each time we've stated that the origins of life are not known with any certainty at all - the field is wide open.

Unfortunately, abiogenesis is not required for evolution. God could have created the first life, or it could have been seeded from space, or anything, pretty much - but that would have no impact whatsoever on the Theory of Evolution, as has been pointed out before. Indeed, that's the very reason why the origin of life is so difficult to pin down - however it started, it can then evolve, and it makes no apparent difference how it got started.

We've also covered the question of "the evolution story" as against the Theory of Evolution - the former refers to the "whole story" from the Big Bang on, the latter to a specific scientific theory that illuminates part of that story.

Now, there are mysteries in that story - unsolved problems - but they are at this stage in the minority. We know quite a lot about the Big Bang, the evolution of the Universe, the formation of stars, the formation of solar systems, the formation of our planet and its moon, the history of our planet in terms of both geology and evolution, and the history and pre-history of mankind. We are hazy on the exact mechanics of how our solar system came to have the configuration it has (and how other systems came to theirs), and we are hazy on exactly when and how life started - but that's mostly it. Along the way we have learned an immense amount, much of it usefully applicable, all of it correlating with the rest of our discoveries, and in turn leading, by detailed prediction, to further discoveries.

Creationism, on the other hand, has no evidentiary support, and no explanatory power whatsoever. The sum total of its support is that it is in a Holy Book - and that you therefore believe it.

You could say that we all started in the darkness of ignorance. Science has set out to explore the world - and along the way, has developed flashlights, telescopes, and a hundred other useful things. You have remained in the dark, clutching your book.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, if it's an embarrassment, it's one we haven't tried to conceal. We've discussed abiogenesis on the thread many times, and each time we've stated that the origins of life are not known with any certainty at all - the field is wide open.

Unfortunately, abiogenesis is not required for evolution. God could have created the first life, or it could have been seeded from space, or anything, pretty much - but that would have no impact whatsoever on the Theory of Evolution, as has been pointed out before. Indeed, that's the very reason why the origin of life is so difficult to pin down - however it started, it can then evolve, and it makes no apparent difference how it got started.

We've also covered the question of "the evolution story" as against the Theory of Evolution - the former refers to the "whole story" from the Big Bang on, the latter to a specific scientific theory that illuminates part of that story.

Now, there are mysteries in that story - unsolved problems - but they are at this stage in the minority. We know quite a lot about the Big Bang, the evolution of the Universe, the formation of stars, the formation of solar systems, the formation of our planet and its moon, the history of our planet in terms of both geology and evolution, and the history and pre-history of mankind. We are hazy on the exact mechanics of how our solar system came to have the configuration it has (and how other systems came to theirs), and we are hazy on exactly when and how life started - but that's mostly it. Along the way we have learned an immense amount, much of it usefully applicable, all of it correlating with the rest of our discoveries, and in turn leading, by detailed prediction, to further discoveries.

Creationism, on the other hand, has no evidentiary support, and no explanatory power whatsoever. The sum total of its support is that it is in a Holy Book - and that you therefore believe it.

You could say that we all started in the darkness of ignorance. Science has set out to explore the world - and along the way, has developed flashlights, telescopes, and a hundred other useful things. You have remained in the dark, clutching your book.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hear, hear!

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Hear, hear!

......I accept that you can HEAR.....


......but are you really LISTENING????:D

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

......but are you really LISTENING????:D

Look, look!

DapperGent

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, if it's an embarrassment, it's one we haven't tried to conceal. We've discussed abiogenesis on the thread many times, and each time we've stated that the origins of life are not known with any certainty at all - the field is wide open.

Unfortunately, abiogenesis is not required for evolution. God could have created the first life, or it could have been seeded from space, or anything, pretty much - but that would have no impact whatsoever on the Theory of Evolution, as has been pointed out before. Indeed, that's the very reason why the origin of life is so difficult to pin down - however it started, it can then evolve, and it makes no apparent difference how it got started.

We've also covered the question of "the evolution story" as against the Theory of Evolution - the former refers to the "whole story" from the Big Bang on, the latter to a specific scientific theory that illuminates part of that story.

Now, there are mysteries in that story - unsolved problems - but they are at this stage in the minority. We know quite a lot about the Big Bang, the evolution of the Universe, the formation of stars, the formation of solar systems, the formation of our planet and its moon, the history of our planet in terms of both geology and evolution, and the history and pre-history of mankind. We are hazy on the exact mechanics of how our solar system came to have the configuration it has (and how other systems came to theirs), and we are hazy on exactly when and how life started - but that's mostly it. Along the way we have learned an immense amount, much of it usefully applicable, all of it correlating with the rest of our discoveries, and in turn leading, by detailed prediction, to further discoveries.

Creationism, on the other hand, has no evidentiary support, and no explanatory power whatsoever. The sum total of its support is that it is in a Holy Book - and that you therefore believe it.

You could say that we all started in the darkness of ignorance. Science has set out to explore the world - and along the way, has developed flashlights, telescopes, and a hundred other useful things. You have remained in the dark, clutching your book.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wonderful post.

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Look, look!

......I also accept that you can LOOK.....


......but are you really SEEING????:D

J C

Originally Posted by J C
FSC (Functional Sequence Complexity)....eh......

......mmm.....almost CSI (Complex Specified Information)....

He sounds like an Evolutionist......'on the verge of ID'

.......and so do YOU......Scofflaw!!!

Scofflaw wrote: »

That would be, minus the smilies and the lunacy, the point.

.....so you accept that you ARE An Evolutionist ......'on the verge of (accepting) ID' :)

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C
FSC (Functional Sequence Complexity)....eh......

......mmm.....almost CSI (Complex Specified Information)....

He sounds like an Evolutionist......'on the verge of ID'

.......and so do YOU......Scofflaw!!!

.....so you accept that you ARE ......'on the verge of ID' :)

As you know, I have long admired your firm grasp of the wrong end of the stick. I am delighted to see this attribute once again displayed.

Subtitles for the hard of thinking: no, JC, I'm afraid I am still not finding your 'case' persuasive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, if it's an embarrassment, it's one we haven't tried to conceal. We've discussed abiogenesis on the thread many times, and each time we've stated that the origins of life are not known with any certainty at all - the field is wide open.

Unfortunately, abiogenesis is not required for evolution. God could have created the first life, or it could have been seeded from space, or anything, pretty much - but that would have no impact whatsoever on the Theory of Evolution, as has been pointed out before. Indeed, that's the very reason why the origin of life is so difficult to pin down - however it started, it can then evolve, and it makes no apparent difference how it got started.

We've also covered the question of "the evolution story" as against the Theory of Evolution - the former refers to the "whole story" from the Big Bang on, the latter to a specific scientific theory that illuminates part of that story.

Now, there are mysteries in that story - unsolved problems - but they are at this stage in the minority. We know quite a lot about the Big Bang, the evolution of the Universe, the formation of stars, the formation of solar systems, the formation of our planet and its moon, the history of our planet in terms of both geology and evolution, and the history and pre-history of mankind. We are hazy on the exact mechanics of how our solar system came to have the configuration it has (and how other systems came to theirs), and we are hazy on exactly when and how life started - but that's mostly it. Along the way we have learned an immense amount, much of it usefully applicable, all of it correlating with the rest of our discoveries, and in turn leading, by detailed prediction, to further discoveries.

....sounds like you are 'hazy' about a lot of things!!!:D

Big picture Evolution 'from molecules to Man' is in just as much scientific trouble as Abiogenesis......

.......it is ONLY natural selection / 'evolution' within Kinds that has been scientifically validated.:D

Scofflaw wrote: »

You could say that we all started in the darkness of ignorance. Science has set out to explore the world - and along the way, has developed flashlights, telescopes, and a hundred other useful things. You have remained in the dark, clutching your book.

.....most of these inventions were actually developed by CREATIONISTS!!!!!:D

Scofflaw wrote: »

Creationism, on the other hand, has no evidentiary support, and no explanatory power whatsoever. The sum total of its support is that it is in a Holy Book - and that you therefore believe it.

Creation Science is making steady progress.......
.......the fact that all life WAS created......and 'molecules to Man Evolution' is a myth......provides a very strong foundation for Creation Science research.....

.......it is always easier to prove something, like Creation, which has ACTUALLY happened!!!:D

......trying to prove something that is physically IMPOSSIBLE.....like Perpetual Motion Machines and Spontaneous Evolution......is a much more difficult task.......
.....but fair dues to Evolutionists for trying!!!:eek::D

J C

Originally Posted by J C
He sounds like an Evolutionist......'on the verge of ID'

.......and so do YOU......Scofflaw!!!

Scofflaw wrote: »

Subtitles for the hard of thinking: no, JC, I'm afraid I am still not finding your 'case' persuasive.

You can take a horse to water.....but you can't guarantee that he will drink.......even when he has ALREADY indicated that he wants to drink.....and is completely dehydrated!!!:D:)

MooseJam

Does creation science actually exist ? are people actually spending large amounts of money doing research into creation

Scofflaw

MooseJam wrote: »

Does creation science actually exist ? are people actually spending large amounts of money doing research into creation

Virtually all of it is PR, then a little bit of literature review and "critical" articles, and then a few Creationists (Snelling, for example) sending lumps of stuff from spoil heaps to dating companies. JC is a very fine example of a Creation Scientist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

stevejazzx wrote: »

Robins five minute stint as Columbo has undone said mysterey...and what do you know it's just as I called it, out of their depth 'young earthers' trying to put one over on evil science...yawn.

The 'Origins of Life Foundation' IS an Evolutionist project........
.......yawn!!!:)

.....maybe you should enter a project for the $1 million prize....

....or failing that, maybe you should apply to Harvard for funding......and Harvard certainly ISN'T a bunch of "out of their depth 'young earthers"!!!!:eek::D

J C

MooseJam wrote: »

Does creation science actually exist ? are people actually spending large amounts of money doing research into creation

Creation Science doesn't have the effectively limitless resources available to Evolutionists.....but they do work hard within their limited means.......and they are able to 'beat the scientific pants off' any Evoultionary Scientists that they encounter......in debate.....or academically!!!:eek:

This thread proves that one Creation Scientist is more than a match for over 100 Evolutionist Scientists!!!:)

...with God and the truth on our side....WHO can be against us????:D

Scofflaw wrote: »

JC is a very fine example of a Creation Scientist.

Thank you Scofflaw!!!

...and I freely give ALL of the credit to God.....and the National University of Ireland!!!:)

sdep

Scofflaw wrote: »

You could say that we all started in the darkness of ignorance. Science has set out to explore the world - and along the way, has developed flashlights, telescopes, and a hundred other useful things. You have remained in the dark, clutching your book.

Beautifully put.

Yet for a millennium, the Christian church was a powerhouse of learning and exploration. Where did the curiosity go?

Modern scientific discoveries have challenged religious preconception. As John Ruskin put it,

Ruskin wrote:

"If only the geologists would let me alone, I could do very well, but those dreadful hammers! I hear the clink of them at the end of every cadence of the Bible verses."

And how has Christianity responded? Churches that treat Genesis as metaphor centre their message on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus; the nature of the universe, with all it might reveal about God and humanity, is largely ignored. Far worse though are fundamentalists who preach literal Biblical creation despite the wealth of contrary evidence. That is simply shameful obscurantism.

Might the faithful come closer to their God by trying to comprehend better His creation? Is denying humanity's hard-won understanding of the universe in some sense denying Him? I at least think that wilfully closing your eyes to the wonders revealed by scientific endeavour shows a want of intellectual and, if you excuse my continuing presumption, spiritual courage.

J C

DapperGent wrote: »

I have a big stick.

Are you trying to compensate for something??:D

DapperGent wrote: »

I don't even want to know.

Is this a common attitude amongst Evolutionists???:D

J C

sdep wrote: »

Yet for a millennium, the Christian church was a powerhouse of learning and exploration. Where did the curiosity go?

The curiosity is STILL here......amongst the millions of Christians who are leading scientists!!!:D

sdep wrote: »

Modern scientific discoveries have challenged religious preconception. As John Ruskin put it,
"If only the geologists would let me alone, I could do very well, but those dreadful hammers! I hear the clink of them at the end of every cadence of the Bible verses."

......Geology must be a terrible problem for the Evolutionist......
...... what, with all those billions of fossilised dead things being found in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth.....it must be very hard to continue denying the reality of the worldwide Flood of Noah!!!:D

sdep wrote: »

And how has Christianity responded? Churches that treat Genesis as metaphor centre their message on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus; the nature of the universe, with all it might reveal about God and humanity, is largely ignored.

.....it's a pity that they don't have a few Creation Scientists in their midst, then!!!:D

sdep wrote: »

Far worse though are fundamentalists who preach literal Biblical creation despite the wealth of contrary evidence. That is simply shameful obscurantism.

.....and what is 'obscurantist' about the objectively observable truth???

sdep wrote: »

Might the faithful come closer to their God by trying to comprehend better His creation?

...they certainly might.....

.....and that is what Creation Science is all about, after all!!!:)

sdep wrote: »

Is denying humanity's hard-won understanding of the universe in some sense denying Him? I at least think that wilfully closing your eyes to the wonders revealed by scientific endeavour shows a want of intellectual and, if you excuse my continuing presumption, spiritual courage.

I agree.......

...and Creation Science agrees.......

.........and the Bible agrees.....
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (KJV)

Nerin

i dont even know why im still subscribing to this bloody thread...

..they certainly might.....

.....and that is what Creation Science is all about, after all!!

creation science is all about the truth?so if you found evidence that suggested tthe evolutionists were right,you'd have no problem accepting it?
yeah right.
as i've said repeatedly,just because some guy writing a book thousands of years ago doesnt think thats how god rolls,doesnt make it true.
is it really hard for you to think maybe your god created things to evolve,and therein is the amazing show of his power?
yeah,probably is hard,because the old book of facts doesnt say so, am i right?

now,time for over use of smileys.
:):rolleyes::o:eek::(:mad::cool::D:confused

J C

nerin wrote: »

i dont even know why im still subscribing to this bloody thread...

If you don't know, then I certainly don't know......
...... could it be that God is drawing you to an appreciation for the truth of Creation Science....I wonder????

nerin wrote: »

creation science is all about the truth?so if you found evidence that suggested tthe evolutionists were right,you'd have no problem accepting it?
yeah right.
as i've said repeatedly,just because some guy writing a book thousands of years ago doesnt think thats how god rolls,doesnt make it true.
is it really hard for you to think maybe your god created things to evolve,and therein is the amazing show of his power?
yeah,probably is hard,because the old book of facts doesnt say so, am i right?

God could use Evolution to develop life....and He has certainly inbuilt significant genetic diversity into Created life to allow NS to 'evolve' a wide variety of species within practically all Kinds.

However, He has said that He directly (and instantaneously) created all living Kinds ......and the insurmountable barriers that are evident between Kinds .....in both the fossil and living records, indicates that this is true.

.....so 'molecules to Man' type Evolution is NOT supported either scientifically or theologically!!!:D

nerin wrote: »

now,time for over use of smileys.
:):rolleyes::o:eek::(:mad::cool::D:confused::

......and why not!!!

.........because you're worth it!!!

........and you have just brightened up my life with one of the finest sets of smileys, that I have seen for some time!!:D

Nerin

However, He has said

to who??!!! to you???? no,he hasnt.
he hasnt said, oh hai guys, i didnt make the evolution, i makes da creationism stuffs,and da world is only a couple of thousand years old, i swearz!
he hasnt said any such thing, and he hasnt sent me here to be converted by you either,thank you very much.
"She" or "He" or "Both" could more likely have sent me here to try talk some sense and logic, but only to find my patience repeatedly tested by nonsense and silly answers.
and im sure you realised that the smileys were not there "to brighten" up my post, but to highlight the annoyance of your over use of them. blargh.

Scofflaw

sdep wrote: »

Yet for a millennium, the Christian church was a powerhouse of learning and exploration. Where did the curiosity go?

It was learning and exploration on their terms.

Something that isn't pointed out often enough in Creationism debates is that Western science started off as an exploration of God's Creation as it was put in the Bible. Geology started off as an examination of the relics of the Flood, biology as an examination of Biblical Kinds.

Much like the attempt to keep astronomy within the bounds of the Ptolemaic System with its perfectly circular orbits - by adding epicycles, and epi-epi-cycles, and so on - it became harder and harder to save the Biblical paradigm, except by citing miracles at every turn, which made investigation meaningless, and breached one of the guiding principles of "Biblical" science - that God created the world perfectly, with no further tinkering required. Interestingly enough, this is essentially a uniformitarian position - God set atomic decay rates at Creation, and there is no reason for them to have changed since.

Gradually, the main body of scientific thought was forced to abandon the Biblical paradigm. In a very real sense, however, western science still follows a Christian paradigm, in which a Creator started the whole ball rolling - except that the Big Bang is now, for most scientists who are Christian, the point at which God intervened to create the Universe, and Genesis is clearly metaphorical.

Nevertheless, the Big Bang is still a model in which the Universe was created ex nihilo in one event, which sits extremely easily within the Christian (and more generally Middle Eastern) cosmological framework - what is not so acceptable are the ideas of multiple universes, cosmic fireball engines, etc, all of which have no correspondence with that mental framework, and which have remained of academic interest in a way that the Big Bang has not.

You can see from this, I think, that Creationists are up against quite a lot - in particular, they are up against a paradigm that allows an easy reconciliation of Christian and scientific thought. This is one of the reasons why Creationists are particularly keen to label science as 'materialistic' - to set up an opposition where currently there is actually a comfortable synthesis.

As to why they do it, my own feeling has been for quite some time that the Bible represents the only possible source of authority for Christian denominations and sects outside the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Those churches (and others like the CofE) avail of an apostolic tradition - authority from the idea that they literally inherit the authority of the apostles - and traditional authority - authority derived from custom and usage over centuries, with the result that they can be a lot more flexible about the Bible. Indeed, it quite suits those churches to interpret the Bible metaphorically, since it gives them a good deal more scope.

The newer 'churches', however, have little option but to rely on the Bible as the source of their authority - and the problem there is that once you admit that the first book of the Bible is metaphorical and mythological rather than historical, you've opened the field up for any part of the Bible to be open to almost any interpretation. When you're trying to hold together a congregation, that's a serious disadvantage...

We should see, therefore, that the successful "young" Christian churches should be more literalist in their interpretation of Genesis, and that those young churches that aren't should tend to die away by constant fission.

Right, I'm stopping here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nerin

It was learning and exploration on their terms.

Something that isn't pointed out often enough in Creationism debates is that Western science started off as an exploration of God's Creation as it was put in the Bible. Geology started off as an examination of the relics of the Flood, biology as an examination of Biblical Kinds.

Much like the attempt to keep astronomy within the bounds of the Ptolemaic System with its perfectly circular orbits - by adding epicycles, and epi-epi-cycles, and so on - it became harder and harder to save the Biblical paradigm, except by citing miracles at every turn, which made investigation meaningless, and breached one of the guiding principles of "Biblical" science - that God created the world perfectly, with no further tinkering required. Interestingly enough, this is essentially a uniformitarian position - God set atomic decay rates at Creation, and there is no reason for them to have changed since.

Gradually, the main body of scientific thought was forced to abandon the Biblical paradigm. In a very real sense, however, western science still follows a Christian paradigm, in which a Creator started the whole ball rolling - except that the Big Bang is now, for most scientists who are Christian, the point at which God intervened to create the Universe, and Genesis is clearly metaphorical.

Nevertheless, the Big Bang is still a model in which the Universe was created ex nihilo in one event, which sits extremely easily within the Christian (and more generally Middle Eastern) cosmological framework - what is not so acceptable are the ideas of multiple universes, cosmic fireball engines, etc, all of which have no correspondence with that mental framework, and which have remained of academic interest in a way that the Big Bang has not.

You can see from this, I think, that Creationists are up against quite a lot - in particular, they are up against a paradigm that allows an easy reconciliation of Christian and scientific thought. This is one of the reasons why Creationists are particularly keen to label science as 'materialistic' - to set up an opposition where currently there is actually a comfortable synthesis.

As to why they do it, my own feeling has been for quite some time that the Bible represents the only possible source of authority for Christian denominations and sects outside the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Those churches (and others like the CofE) avail of an apostolic tradition - authority from the idea that they literally inherit the authority of the apostles - and traditional authority - authority derived from custom and usage over centuries, with the result that they can be a lot more flexible about the Bible. Indeed, it quite suits those churches to interpret the Bible metaphorically, since it gives them a good deal more scope.

The newer 'churches', however, have little option but to rely on the Bible as the source of their authority - and the problem there is that once you admit that the first book of the Bible is metaphorical and mythological rather than historical, you've opened the field up for any part of the Bible to be open to almost any interpretation. When you're trying to hold together a congregation, that's a serious disadvantage...

We should see, therefore, that the successful "young" Christian churches should be more literalist in their interpretation of Genesis, and that those young churches that aren't should tend to die away by constant fission.

Right, I'm stopping here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

well done Scofflaw. i super agree. even theologians who are christian are teaching in college that its METAPHORICAL.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
He has said that He directly (and instantaneously) created all living Kinds ......and the insurmountable barriers that are evident between Kinds .....in both the fossil and living records, indicates that this is true.

nerin wrote: »

(God has said it) to who??!!! to you????

....He has said it in the Bible......and it is confirmed by all living and fossilised organisms!!

nerin wrote: »

no,he hasnt.

.....oh yes he HAS...

.....in Genesis 1 & 2!!!:D

nerin wrote: »

he hasnt said, oh hai guys, i didnt make the evolution, i makes da creationism stuffs,and da world is only a couple of thousand years old, i swearz!
he hasnt said any such thing, and he hasnt sent me here to be converted by you either,thank you very much.

.......I cannot convert ANYBODY........only YOU can freely make the decision to be saved!!:)

nerin wrote: »

"and im sure you realised that the smileys were not there "to brighten" up my post, but to highlight the annoyance of your over use of them. blargh.

WHY should anybody be annoyed by a beautiful innocent little smiley of goodwill that is sent with total love for the recipient???:)

...tough love, admittedly.....but total love nonetheless!!:D

AngryHippie

Creationists are funny. Creationism is Funny,
Evolution is plausible, Creationism is not.
Please get over it creationists.

By the way, God did not write the bible, someone more intelligent than those who believe it did.

I have been saved. By myself. Thanks for the offer Godboy

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

It was learning and exploration on their terms.

Something that isn't pointed out often enough in Creationism debates is that Western science started off as an exploration of God's Creation as it was put in the Bible. Geology started off as an examination of the relics of the Flood, biology as an examination of Biblical Kinds.

I agree......and therefore Creation Science IS actually in a sense, science going back to it's roots, so to speak!!

Scofflaw wrote: »

Much like the attempt to keep astronomy within the bounds of the Ptolemaic System with its perfectly circular orbits - by adding epicycles, and epi-epi-cycles, and so on - it became harder and harder to save the Biblical paradigm, except by citing miracles at every turn, which made investigation meaningless, and breached one of the guiding principles of "Biblical" science - that God created the world perfectly, with no further tinkering required. Interestingly enough, this is essentially a uniformitarian position - God set atomic decay rates at Creation, and there is no reason for them to have changed since.

In tandem with the rest of science, Creation Science has made enormous progress in our understanding of these phenomena since then!!!

Scofflaw wrote: »

You can see from this, I think, that Creationists are up against quite a lot - in particular, they are up against a paradigm that allows an easy reconciliation of Christian and scientific thought. This is one of the reasons why Creationists are particularly keen to label science as 'materialistic' - to set up an opposition where currently there is actually a comfortable synthesis.

....would this be an example of the 'comfortable synthesis' to which you refer, between the mainstream churches and secular academia???
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1703692,00.html

Scofflaw wrote: »

We should see, therefore, that the successful "young" Christian churches should be more literalist in their interpretation of Genesis, and that those young churches that aren't should tend to die away by constant fission.

Reasonable conclusion.

Nerin

.....oh yes he HAS...

.....in Genesis 1 & 2!!

no, he hasnt.
its like l ron talking bout aliens,its created by humans!!!!written by humans for humans.

only YOU can freely make the decision to be saved!

i made the decision not to believe in christianity.
and im not going to hell for it, i bow to neither man nor god that says believe what i tell you or else.

J C

AngryHippie wrote: »

I have been saved. By myself.

Just like you cannot pull yourself up by your own boot laces.....you also cannot save yourself.......only Jesus can save you.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Thanks for the offer Godboy

I can offer you nothing......your salvation is a matter between yourself and Jesus Christ.:D

.....and I am neither a 'God' nor a 'boy'.....so I guess I'm not a 'Godboy'!!!:D:)

J C

nerin wrote: »

no, he hasnt.
its like l ron talking bout aliens,its created by humans!!!!written by humans for humans.

You are free to believe that if you wish......it's what free will is all about!!!

....indeed the true freedom granted by God means that you have the right to be wrong!!

nerin wrote: »

i made the decision not to believe in christianity.
and im not going to hell for it, i bow to neither man nor god that says believe what i tell you or else.

You are free to believe that if you wish......it's what free will is all about!!!!!!

Man cannot and God will not force you to believe on Jesus Christ!!

.....but IF God exists......it could be a distinctly risky proposition not to bow in His general direction......but that is entirely up to you!!!:D