[geocentrism] Re: irrelevancy of creation science.
- From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:57:32 -0600
Philip,
How do you know what God created?!!
How do you know that God would not have created a one-ring or no-ring tree?
How do you know that the pebbles would have been worn-looking in the
beginning?
At least you are saying now that science (as opposed to creationists) "would
never acknowledge as being one day or one month old." As I said, it would
burn their britches good. The creationist would take it in stride as he
tends to look at things as they are, not as how he believes they ought to
be.
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 12:20 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: irrelevancy of creation science.
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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:
