Posted on 03/25/2009 9:09:02 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
According to meteorlogy, period, the water cycle makes Noah's flood impossible. According to geology, period, the world is millions of years older than what you claim. Neither of those require Darwin or his theories for support.
When you look at the same data from a Creation Science perspective
Creation science is a contradiction in terms.
I realize that Romans 5 puts the blame on Adam. How is it that the Genesis account seem to intimate that both Satan and Eve sinned before Adam?
"The thought of a ruined condition of the earth succeeding its original creation...is required by the typical view" (F. W. Grant).
On another thread, you mention you believe in the de-evolution of “kinds” to the species seen today.
For you to believe in DE-evolution, evolution must exist.
Therefore you believe in evolution!
Who says we "target" only one branch? All these fields of science are so overrun with evolutionism that I fear there's no recourse other than to toss their so-called "progress" (since Darwin's theory choked them with its iron grip) into the round file and start back over.
All these "science" papers today are rife with past assumptions that they just assume are true. If it can't be tested starting from basic first principles, then you can't rely on it as being true, and you're just waving smoke and mirrors.
Science needs to return to first principles and make some real progress. The Creator inspired the first great scientists (Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, etc.), and now science has turned its back on the Creator.
“I'm glad you agree that creationism is not falsifiable.”I guess you could say that Darwinian Evolution is a form of creationism.
Evolution is not limited to Darwin. It's a nature worshiping religious movement that seeks to interpret every aspect of reality in terms of material causes. As such, everything is couched in the language of, and interpreted as the result of, materialistic evolution.
==According to meteorlogy, period, the water cycle makes Noah's flood impossible.
You obviously know little to nothing about Creation Meteorology. Meteorology that is tainted with the ideas of the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism is not meteorology, it is evolutionary meteorology.
==According to geology, period, the world is millions of years older than what you claim.
Again, you obviously know little to nothing about Creation Geology. Geology that is tainted with the ideas of the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism is not Geology, it is evolutionary geology.
==Creation science is a contradiction in terms.
Only to a fanatical disciple of the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism. However, as God well knows, evolution science is a contradiction in terms. And those who deliberately try to steal credit from God's creation and give it to Darwood's brain-dead natural selection god will have a lot to answer for come judgment day.
Romans 1:20-26
Again , please provide details that are proveable.
I said it wrong originally and corrected it in 122. The ice age was the aftermath of the flood. There is not enough ice to flood the entire earth. However, there is plenty of water to cover the earth if the topography was different prior to or changed during the time of the flood.
I used "They" because this thread was about ICR's article and their positions. I don't know if I agree with everything ICR has ever said, but I am a young earth creationist. I think man's knowledge is still so limited, that even the things we think we know from scientific observation may be completely wrong as our knowledge increases, no matter how logical it may seem now.
I think ICR has actually done a good job of looking for the evidence of a young earth, as well as challenging the observations and the interpretations that are leading to a conclusion of an old Earth.
"If you start with the conclusion that there is a Design was evolution......then ANYTHING complex or not understood at that time can be deemed "part of the Design the result of evolution
It's not that your comment is wrong, it's just a shoe that fits every world view.
....and the GWT is bunk, generated by politicians and massive wads of research $$$$ to lefty researchers. Anyone in ANY scientific field can look at the raw data and laugh.
I agree, but there are a lot of lefty researchers who aren't laughing. And I often laugh at the conclusions of evolutionists, but they don't laugh with me either.
So we add to the science curriculum a couple of new courses — Creation Meteorology and Creation Geology? Care to provide an outline of what will be taught in these classes?
And these will be followed, I suppose, by Creation Physics, Creation Chemistry, Creation Math, and Creation Phys-Ed. And the students from this Creation School will, of course, graduate to jobs in the exciting field of Creation Fast Food.
LOL! As if an education from the brain dead Big Pharm-poisoned, evolutionism-infected institutions that pass for "medical schools" these days would somehow lend him more credence. Those places push for invasive surgery and body-damaging pills/vaccines as a cure/preventative for every ailment, because their practitioners are just plain too lazy and/or greedy to look for the actual (usually natura, God-given) cures our bodies need.
From what I've seen, editor-surveyor puts in extensive work to find more reliable information than that in the posts he makes regarding this subject!
The word obviously is not used in science. You have to back up your hypothesis with previously proven facts. I hope you never file a patent for anything. It will be dead in the water.When I worked in a biotech company, the first thing the legal VP told us, after not to gab about company secrets, was to never use the word obviously. If something is obvious , it is known to all and cannot be patented.
Obviously not. Why not enlighten me? How does the Biblical water cycle differ from the scientific one?
GED?
You must believe in faith healers then.
Wow, are you smart ever! D'you has a PhD or sumpin'?
You go first.
How did the Flood happen?
Do some reading. I answered it earlier in this thread and also on others.
Yes I did. You disagree?
“Yes I did. You disagree?”If testability is a prerequisite to falsifiability, then yes.
You picked a very appropriate screen handle!
Patent?
Gab?
The more people that get the truth, the better! - No secrets here. I’m sorry that it has to destroy your religion, but worshipping humanity is a dead end street.
Yes, its a fluorescent decal on his forehead! - (now bow to evo...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.