YEC is physically impossible

[AV1611VET]

The poor hate the rich, the ugly hate the beautiful, and theres those who hate the educated.

I must hate myself then, since I have a college degree (summa cum laude).

In addition, I must hate my pastor as well (DDiv. and PhD in Theology).

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually there is no science in creationism ...

Though in general they need faith, not evidence.

And some of the more astute realize there never will be any.

 

[AV1611VET]

You should ask one yourself. I don't think AV knows or cares much about theology other than his own.

That's rich, coming from someone who just joined here.

I have 9414 times the number of posts you have, and you make this doosey of a statement.

Kinda quick on the draw, aren't you?

 

[BCP1928]

And some Christians are aware that there doesn't need to be any science in Creationism..

 

[AV1611VET]

Why yes I do. Here is a list of edits of the book, clearly showing the word creationists was changed to cdesign proponentsists in a mangled cut-and-paste. What exactly is the big problem that you thought existed?

This is the way I feel about it:

Intelligent Design can take a hike.

Cdesign Proponentsists got what they deserved.

 

[BCP1928]

That's rich, coming from someone who just joined here.

I have 9414 times the number of posts you have, and you make this doosey of a statement.

Kinda quick on the draw, aren't you?

Sure, AV. But sometimes it seems like I've been reading your posts for years.

 

[AV1611VET]

And some Christians are aware that there doesn't need to be any science in Creationism..

There's not one bit of science in true Creationism.

Creationism is a series of one miracle after another, over a period of six days, that raised the level of mass/energy from zero to what it is today.

And anyone who needs, asks, and begs for evidence of the Creation Week doesn't understand it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure, AV. But sometimes it seems like I've been reading your posts for years.

I also have 321 times the number of followers you have.

And for the record:

Respect To AV1611VET

 

[DJWhalen]

My understanding is science is Christian.

 

[Astrid]

My understanding is science is Christian.

Could you explain please?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My understanding is science is Christian.

Science is agnostic. It neither supports nor opposes Christianity, nor any religion. It just describes what is. Once it gets past that, then it's anyone's tool.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sorry. I don't buy it. A woman is hired to meticulously scan over the book looking for evidence of religious agenda. Finds a word with a broad definition that had been changed to a term deemed more appropriate (a term that wasn't even used at the time of the original writing) to avoid confusion. And then claims it's smoking gun evidence.

The search of the manuscripts (turned over in discovery) was to find evidence for court. Everyone in the anti-creationism movement already knew ID was hidden creationism, they knew the DI was religiously motivated, and the faction of the Dover school board that picked OP&P as a text weren't shy about their religion and motivations either.

If it was so obvious it was religious in nature, why the need to hire a philo vigilante to place it under a microscope?

What you can demonstrate and what you can prove in court are often different. For example, evidence that would normally work for non-court situations might be excluded by the judge.

Thus the trial that was basically a circus. It's such a mess that the accusers are not sure if it's a constitutional issue, science issue, science class issue, or a public school issue in general.

No, it was always a constitutional issue -- the impermissible injection of religion into schools under the false premise that it was "science". It's not really that hard to understand what the issue was.

 

[AV1611VET]

My understanding is science is Christian.

That's one way to look at it!

 

[DJWhalen]

I have no data, links, articles to back me up but I believe the Bible. God made the earth, visable and invisible. Adam and eve was put in the garden. A few decades later the flood happened. Noah was real, the earth is about 10,000 years old.
I have my Christian faith, that is good enough.

 

[AV1611VET]

Could you explain please?

God has proprietary rights to science by virtue of having created it.

 

[Astrid]

The search of the manuscripts (turned over in discovery) was to find evidence for court. Everyone in the anti-creationism movement already knew ID was hidden creationism, they knew the DI was religiously motivated, and the faction of the Dover school board that picked OP&P as a text weren't shy about their religion and motivations either.

What you can demonstrate and what you can prove in court are often different. For example, evidence that would normally work for non-court situations might be excluded by the judge.

No, it was always a constitutional issue -- the impermissible injection of religion into schools under the false premise that it was "science". It's not really that hard to understand what the issue was.

The creationists were the ones who brought
their circus to town and forcrd the issue.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is agnostic.

No, science is neutral, as in non-judgemental.

But she is obedient to God.

So that would make her Christian, if anything.

Matthew 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, science is neutral, as in non-judgemental.

Matthew 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Yes, and agnostic is a neutral position. It makes no claims for or against God or any religious figure.

Science is neutral on Buddha, on Shiva, on Ame-no-Minakanushi, on the Flying Spaghetti Monster (food science might caution you about the right way to cook it).

Science just describes what is. And then you and your ilk take umbrage with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The creationists were the ones who brought their circus to town and forced the issue.

Are you talking about the Scope's Monkey Trial?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, and agnostic is a neutral position. It makes no claims for or against God or any religious figure.

Science is neutral on Buddha, on Shiva, on Ame-no-Minakanushi, on the Flying Spaghetti Monster (food science might caution you about the right way to cook it).

Science just describes what is. And then you and your ilk take umbrage with it.

I edited my post.

QV it for more, please.