[creation] irrelevancy of creation science.

  • From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:26:17 +1000

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: