[geocentrism] Re: irrelevancy of creation science.
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:20:51 +1000
I think creationists would probably cut the tree open and see the marvel of
the fact that here's this enormous tree with NO tree rings showing age.
Yet, it would be fully grown.
I do not think God would create a hollow or one ring tree.. In any case even if
it were a 6 month sapling, my case holds... God created an old Boy in Adam,
some month old trees, and some well worn pebbles and sand...Which science could
never acknowledge as being one day or one month old.
I don't have disdain for anyone, especially scientists explaining or trying to
explain creation scientifically. ... I just say their work contradicts
creation, and the power of God... Adam was not hollow, but had to be a natural
grown man.
Philip
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Shelton
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 3:01 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: irrelevancy of creation science.
Philip,
I have never fully understood your disdain for creationism, but your post
here does elucidate your ideas somewhat.
Nonetheless, you say that creation scientists would look at the rocks around
Adam and claim they are millions of years old? Not the creationists, my
friend. We would look at the evidence as it was given.
Actually you are making the same error of uniformitarianism assumptions that
conventional science makes all the time. Why do you think that a tree made
by God today would necessarily be, say, 4 feet across and 100 feet high, and
still have the same number of tree rings we see today in a tree of that
size?
I think creationists would probably cut the tree open and see the marvel of
the fact that here's this enormous tree with NO tree rings showing age.
Yet, it would be fully grown.
Philip, why couldn't that happen? Creation scientists would face the facts
squarely. Your conventional boys, though, would probably deny the very
truth that stared them in the face until they burst with frustration.
Sincerely,
Gary Shelton
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 5:26 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.
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 2/22/05
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 2/22/05
Other related posts: