Star Trek

In case you were wondering.  I was testing out the hyperlink.

It doesn't seem to have worked.  I've sent one to Lanceromega.

If you wanted to read it than I suggest creationscience.com.

I know Lanceromega is into macroevolution.

You have to put the http:// in front, otherwise it assumes that you're linking to the file creationscience.com

Creation science isn't a real science because it doesn't use the scientific method. Not to mention the fact that even if they do prove that there is intelligent design, they have no proof that it was done by god and not aliens or time traveling humans.

Quote (jtk2jlp @ Jan. 06 2005, 4:08 pm)

In case you were wondering. I was testing out the hyperlink. It doesn't seem to have worked. I've sent one to Lanceromega. If you wanted to read it than I suggest creationscience.com. I know Lanceromega is into macroevolution.

Once again I am mislabel. I not into Macroevolution but the fact that Creationalism is not a science.

Creationalists misrespresent themselves as scientists and attack solid scientific theories such as Relativity. Any scientific tools such as redshift and radiactive decay rates are attack as being inaccurate since they provide proof that the basics tenets of Creational theory are false.

Needless to say that most of modern science use these tools, and there are little doubt of how correct these tools are.

Quote (lanceromega @ Jan. 06 2005, 10:37 pm)

Needless to say that most of modern science use these tools, and there are little doubt of how correct these tools are.

Exactly.  For creationism to work they would even have
to deny the existence of dopplar shift, since how could
there be stars that are a million light years away (and
since we can see their light they must be at least that
old) when the Earth was supposedly created only six
thousand years ago?

  Besides, the teaching of evolutionary principles is not
a declaration that "there is no god", but the science of
a "process".  Whether this process or gravity is the result
of a grand "intelligence" is irrelevant; science only seeks
to explore how it works.  

  Actually, most modern christians today are not
creationists, anyway, but merely accept the findings of science as a description of how "God set things up".
  It's time for creationists, especially the scientifically
trained ones, to throw in the towell of outright intellectual dishonesty, and shutting their eyes to that which can be scientifically proven.

  Creationism is theology, not science.   They shouldn't
be allowed in the classroom  (except as a curiosity) any
more than a team of Astrologers coming in and presenting
their beliefs as "science".

If you want proof that creation science IS authentic science that involves the scientific method, I suggest you check out Dr. Hugh Ross' work.   He is an astrophysicist who is closely afilliated with CalTech.  He has authored several books such as "A Matter Of Days", "Creator And The Cosmos" and "The Fingerprint Of God."  For even more proof, check out his website at reasons.org.

Quote (GulMatan @ Jan. 07 2005, 12:24 am)

If you want proof that creation science IS authentic science that involves the scientific method, I suggest you check out Dr. Hugh Ross' work.   He is an astrophysicist who is closely afilliated with CalTech.  He has authored several books such as "A Matter Of Days", "Creator And The Cosmos" and "The Fingerprint Of God."  For even more proof, check out his website at reasons.org.

He at least believes in the big bang, and doesnot deny either the evident of Redshift or radioactive decay, he also denies the 6 day 10,000 years old universe of mainsteam creationalist. Along with that he also believes in Evolution


I have to admit I admire the man, he has drawn the Wrath of the Christian right wing with attempts to have his ministry removed from him and constant attacks against his work...

While he label himself a progessive Creationalist, He not really a creationalist but a believer of intelligent design. And is not consisted to be a creationalist by mainstream creationalist:

"

Email to a friend Printer-friendly version
Special Feature: Hugh Ross Exposi
Introduction by Ken Ham

Full article below

23 August 2002


As I have traveled across the USA and other parts of the world, I have been asked many times as to my response to the teachings of Dr Hugh Rossprobably the worlds leading Progressive Creationist.

In summary, Dr Ross accepts Astronomical Evolution (Big Bang and billions of years) and Geological Evolution (evolutionary geological time scale encompassing billions of years). He does not accept Biological Evolution per se, but teaches that God created millions of creatures (species) in batches over billions of years (but using the basic evolutionary time scale and order of events), with death, struggle, extinction and disease occurring all along the way. He does not accept the clear Biblical teaching of a global Flood, but instead teaches it was universal with respect to mankind (which Ross sometimes calls worldwide), which was living only in a limited geographical area in the Middle East. He also advocates soulless hominids (who exhibited human characteristics of painting, burying dead, etc.) before Adam and Eve.

When Dr Ross was first thrust to considerable prominence as a result of his books being published by NavPress and particularly his appearances on Focus on the Family, many Christian leaders embraced or endorsed his teachings.

At first, Dr Ross appeared to be an answer to many an academic who wanted to maintain belief in billions of years, but did not want to be classed as an evolutionist. (Because of the phenomenal influence of the mainstream creation movement (e.g., AiG, ICR), many in the church were aware of the inconsistency of positions such as Theistic Evolution God used evolution).

The teachings of Dr Ross seemingly allowed Christians to use the term creationist, but still give them supposed academic respectability in the eyes of the world, by rejecting six literal days of creation and maintaining acceptance of billions of years.

However, AiG speakers and writers have spent considerable time alerting Christians to the fact that in reality, Rosss position still has the same basic compromise of evolutionary theory with Scripture as does Theistic Evolution, and ultimately undermines the authority of the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Through such efforts, I have noticed in recent times that many who previously embraced Rosss teachings are now realizing how bankrupt they arehow much they undermine Gods Holy Wordand how such teaching can lead people away from the Gospel.

AiG staff researcher and writer, Dr Terry Mortenson, worked with Campus Crusade for twenty-six years. During that time, Dr Mortenson challenged (with gentleness but boldness), without success, the leaders of this commendable evangelistic organization to withdraw a major article by Dr Ross posted on one of CCCs Web sites.

Because of AiGs concern for those who have been publicly led astray by teaching that compromises Gods Word, Dr Mortenson has written a detailed critique of this article.

Dr Mortensons article will not only help the readers to understand more about the compromise teachings of Hugh Ross, but will assist them to learn to be Bereans and thus to search the Scriptures to see if these teachings are true. It will also help readers to see the importance of philosophical assumptions in science.

This special feature article will equip and challengebut most of all, what Dr Mortenson has written shows clearly AiGs position, that we must submit mans fallible ideas to the authority of Gods infallible Word.

The article is below. E-mail any of your friends and acquaintances (pastors and other Christian leaders) to challenge them to read this article, which deals with an issue of compromise that has contributed greatly to weakening the church in this increasingly anti-God culture.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woooow talk about eating your own young