Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

[Lance Muir]

Who wouldn't be convinced when one employes terms/expressions  such as 'testable by empirical means', 'model of creation..less than 10,000 years old' , 'a prediction that is testable scientifically?' and 'empirical clocks to test this prediction?'  Now, why don't you take this on the road? ----- Original Message ----- From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 08:36 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Correct, and some of this activity proposes empirical predictions that are testable by empirical means.  For example, if a model of creation says that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, isn't that a prediction that is testable scientifically?  Don't we have empirical clocks to test this prediction?   David Miller ----- Original Message ----- From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:44 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Interpretation/interpolation/speculation re:Genesis leads one to that which one has just witnessed over the last week or so.   ----- Original Message ----- From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 17:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism I don't know why you are getting so emotional over this.   I think that when God spoke, in many situations, it took some time for what he said to take place.  For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said.  He also may have been involved in other ways that we don't understand right now.  Do you see it differently?  It does not have anything to do with resting for the next day.   David Miller ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David !!   Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have ever written.  First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist.   Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is rather simple  --  you have somehow lost the context of my statement.  My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour period.    To say that it is metaphorical does not  mean that God did not create  the world and even in the sequence depicted  --  at least not to me.   Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , today.   Look  --  do you really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!??   And "rest up " for what?   Com'on David, this is impossible.     jd   -------------- Original message -------------- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and speaking?  What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do with how long it took for the world to come into being?  I don't understand your point.   David Miller ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism So which fundamentalist version  of creation do you support.  That A & E were spirit people.   A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t.  ?   The version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that can be   spoken in 24 seconds !!!   I just did it in 24 big ones  !!   including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry.    Consensus has NOTHING to do with !!   Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of anything.   Which version goes into the school system ???  We are still waiting??   jd   -------------- Original message -------------- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't you get it JT? TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS! The opinions of Men are the key..... Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So? There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either.  What does that prove?    judyt   On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do.   I know this  --  there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church.     jd       -------------- Original message -------------- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process,  > IMO.   But  creationism in the schools?   Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL.  I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose.   John wrote: > But to allow a mere  statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?)   If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies  > --  go for it.   But I doubt that it can.  What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others.  In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools.  It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.   David Miller     Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.