[creation] Re: irrelevancy of creation science.
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:02:07 -0800 (PST)
2 Peter3: 5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God
the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the
water:
There are many metrics that the Evolutionist use to "prove" an old
earth/Universe. The point the creationists are making is that the use of those
metrics for those purposes are flawed as they assume uniformitarianism
mechanisms. Those Mechanisms have been demonstrated to be susceptible to
fluctuations with unknown variables and outright unproven assumptions, thus
unreliable at best. The conclusions promoted based on them are dubious &
dishonest as well. This not to mention that some of the metrics used could be
identical in both old and young subjects. The point is that the dating
mechanisms & the conclusion drawn from them, cannot be relied upon and what
evidence exist is demonstrates youth not eons. However, I think the term
creation science is still useful as it is just used simply to distinguish the
differences between the methodologies of developing knowledge & understanding,
Biblical v Philosophical. What we are ultimately left with is a FAITH in
"evening and the morni
ng" as
just that, or some external privet interpretation to that, which yields a
entirely different meaning.
Allen Daves
Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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:
