[geocentrism] Re: irrelevancy of creation science.
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:14:46 +1000
Aussie, yes, and I should have been mpre specific of the aims of different
creation scientists.. I have met some wo believe in biblical evolution... of
creation
Re the others proving a young earth, they look to unexplained missing geology,
like sand in the gulf of Mexico for the grand Canyon, and I do not deny God
might have left some signs for stumbling block of science... But I don't
thinkso as this would be a form of deceit. .. and take away the need for faith
in his word, not science.
I'm sure, just as the trees in the garden had age rings, so would the entire
earth.. The sand will be somewhere, and the pebbles..
Interesting science though is the argument against traditional aging of the
fossils. and the flood... and geological layers...
Yet once again, given the rings in the trees, why not a million year old fossil
or two.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Cheryl B.
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 10:34 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: irrelevancy of creation science.
Philip -- I admire your steadfast faith in Scripture. I don't think the
Creation Scientists like ICR, AiG, Kent Hovind and the rest of them believe
in any evolution whatever. In fact I know they don't. They believe in a
young earth, say 6,000 years old, and that every living creature was created
in an instant, fully grown and complete. They are trying to debunk the
evolutionists the way we are trying to debunk the helios.
The only problem with the Creationists is that they treat the geocentrists
as orphan outcasts, kind of like the way Right to Life treats the prolife
street activists like Missionaries to the Preborn and other more activist
prolifers.
Bible says love of money is the root of all evil, and after awhile
ministries and "movements" take on a life of their own, become money-making
ventures that must be preserved for that purpose, making money -- and the
original mission gets forgotten or even opposed lest it result in the
business not being "needed" anymore.
BTW -- Are you an Australian?
Respectfully,
Cheryl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 6:26 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] irrelevancy of creation science.
> The creationists believe that if 'C' decayed then so
> did radioactive decay also decay and this would make rocks younger.
> Jack
> a copy to creation, because this is their cup of tea.
>
> This question is irrelevant. Creation science is a contradiction in terms.
I repeat what I have said everywhere so often.
>
> When Adam was created, he was a young man, what , say 18 years old, and
we know that creation scientists examining him would certify that he was
18.years old.
>
> We know that when Adam walked upon the earth in the garden, and waded in
the river, creation scientists examining this river would declare it
geologically as being millions of years old, yet we know that it is no more
than a few weeks old...
>
> Likewise the tall cedars... in the forest.. Real annular rings showing the
seasons......according to as God willed they would have had.
>
> Creation science is a contradiction in terms... God Created a geologically
old world, instantly, perhaps a day, for our intellectual inferiority to
accept.
>
> For so called Christians to say that God used controlled physical
evolution over aeons, to produce this universe, is a denial of His infinite
power.
>
> What next, some natural scientific explanation for rhe ressurection of
Jesus? Its already coming. watch for it.
>
> Philip.
>
Other related posts:
