I want to clear something up real quick before I address any other issues you've raised. One is that I, as a Christian and Creationist, don't feel threatened by Evolution. Not in the least bit. Honestly.
I object to Evolution on strictly scientific and logical grounds, not because my Bible or personal beliefs dictate that I should. I invite you to visit the previous pages and count how many times I quoted scripture as an objection to Evolution. You'll find
that I didn't, because it's isn't an objective way of discussing this subject, and I readily admit that. What you will find is that I make constant reference to the inductive nature of science, and the non-objective nature of evolutionary understanding. I
defend my position as objectively as possible.
Creationists are Scientists as well, regardless what head-in-the-sand participants wish to believe. Ask a Creationist how the Grant Canyon formed, and an Evolutionist how it formed and they will describe the exact same processes in every detail. Where they
differ is in how long it took, and when it took place. But their science is practically the same thing. The same is true if you ask them about immunology, antibiotic resistance, reproduction, inheritance, and any other scientific topic.
I'm not sure what you mean by "God in Science," because no Creationist is asking for any such thing. Instead, I am asking for reason in Science. I'm asking that we distinguish between facts, and our interpretations. That's all. There isn't a single fact in
science that Creationists disagree with, not one piece of data is objected to.
i though creationists believe something like "jewish GOD created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day and the world is the way it is because HE wants it to be that way"
why religion and science dont mix? lets have an example, john was walking(fact), he fell(fact), he broke two ribs(fact) ..then john shouts .."praise the LORD!! ..i only broke two ribs because jesus loves me so much..i would have broken 15 ribs if it wasnt for
him" ..how exactly can you prove/disprove the last part? ..i think this is where science and religion dont mix because at the end of the day, a creationist will say "this thing is this way because GOD wants it that way" ...
that grand canyon will have to be less than 6000 years old ..i think evolution has holes in it, i think the bible also has holes in it ..the biggest hole in the bible is this 6000 year old world ..the world is clearly more than 6000 years old ..the biggest
hole in evolution i think is the missing gaps btw species ..
evolution is not perfect, but its the best explanation of our natural world if you think about it logically ..for example, the bible says that GOD created adam first and then later one created eve when he saw that he was lonely alone ..at least thats how i
remember my bible, the question follows, why did GOD created Adam with nipples? he is man, he doesnt need them ..male gorillas have them, cats dont ...nipples in male animal showed up somewhere in the animal tree, where? ..why did it happen? ..becaue GOD just
felt like it?
do you know that you share close to 70 % of your DNA with a banana? why is that? was it because GOD was lazy/efficient and reused some of the DNA lying around from his previous creatins? IF he reused stuff, wont evolution be a better candidate to explain how
he started with simpler stuff and build complex stuff ..
if you look at the periodic table, you will notice that all elements share the same elementary entities, electrons, protons and neutron ..the logical existance of the periodic table is that these elementary particles just add themselves up to form the periodic
table ..if you look at animal classification, you will see the same pattern ..if GOD created everything he seem to follow some sort of a plan ..as you can see, i am bordering an intelligence design argument ..the reason why this doesnt fly with science is
that the only thing that can reasonably be assumed about GOD in a scientific discourse is that he keeps his hands to himself and can safely be removed out of equestions and assumptions
as a cretionistt, how do you explain the existence of the periodic table? how do naturalists explain the existence of the periodic table?