[geocentrism] Re: irrelevancy of creation science.
- From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:46:08 -0500
The Creationists aren't doing anything wrong in looking to prove from nature
that God's word is true. They're not doing anything differently than we
are -- looking to nature to prove God's word. There's nothing wrong with
science. It's science so-called that's bad -- pseudoscience, like the
medical industry and pharmacy industry practices all the time. I put Carl
Sagon into the pseudoscientists, also Darwin. The "authorities" in the CDC
(that's the national Center for Disease Control in the US) are
pseudoscientists -- tailoring their "science" to fit the politically correct
views of certain groups.
I don't think the Creationists are fudging anything that has to do with life
on earth, the creation of earth and all that's in the earth. I do think
they are backing away from the geocentrists and giving aid and comfort to
the helios, to cosmologists like Sagon and the panspermia people.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:14 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: irrelevancy of creation science.
> 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:
