[QUOTE][b]Be honest, even if God Himself approached you wouldn't you somehow rationalize him away?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
No but you probably would. I am a member of a well-known but poorly understood Christian congregation that believes in modern-day revelation. I believe that God Himself descended to the Earth in the earlier part of the 19th century and continued to do so for some time thereafter to restore His Church and may do so again anytime he pleases, to anyone he pleases. But most other churches reject modern-day prophecy and revelation. No more prophets, God doesn't talk to people anymore.
Sooo...as far as accusing each other of being stiffnecked goes I think I have the higher ground.
However, as I doubt you are a member of the same Church I am, that means that you have either not been exposed to our doctrine, or rejected it outright, or both. That means you must have "rationalized" it away.
[QUOTE][b]Rationalize His creation into chemicals and matter[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Actually you seem to be talking about ToA and the Big Bang.
[QUOTE][b]Science and religion are almost one AND the same![/QUOTE]
[/b]
Religion depends on faith. Normally, to receive a divine manifestation to confirm your belief, you have to already have a high level of faith. You pay for it upfront in what you already believe and God pays you back with a little interest.
Science is the opposite, it is opposed to faith and instead tries to find what works, with the assumption that some better idea might come along to replace what works right now.
[QUOTE][b](you do have to have faith in evolution don't you?)[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Nope. It's always being tested. To the extent we rely upon is the same extent to which it has worked in the past. I don't have 'faith' in it any more than I have 'faith' in gravity or faith in the Heisenberg model of the hydrogen atom. It works. It is parsimonious with evidence. But it is incomplete and there may be exceptions to the current rules of how it works. Plus there might be other factors we don't know about yet. All of these will be dealt with in due time, but what I can say, at least now, is that it
works and I don't see you putting anything better or more useful on the table.
Results first, acceptance later.
[QUOTE][b]But why should science discount theories that can't be disproved
and why do I as a "fellow scientific beleiver and enjoyer" have to be discounted in the scientific community because "I'm not an evolutionist"
[QUOTE][B]That is boxing science in and I don't know if you are aware that quite a few respected scientists are in fact Creationists and Christians.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I know of people who claim degrees (some degrees are real and some are fake) in science that claim to be 'doing' Creationist science but I don't know I would go so far to call them "respected". Creationist articles almost never appear in the journals and most Creationists (like recently-retired Duane Gish, who has a real degree in biochem from an ivy-league school) don't publish in the journals and have generally done nothing that even resembles science since getting their Ph.Ds. To make things worse, many Creationists lie repeatedly even after being corrected (Gish) or fudge other people's data beyond recognition (Setterfield). Then of course you have the pretenders
(Hovind) that confuse everything and even get censured by other Creationists. Dr. Robert Gentry made the best effort in getting Creationism into the mainstream with Po haloes in minerals. The problem is that he is a physicist and short-sided geology in his papers, and his arguments (carefully edited to show no references to a young Earth, only "instant formation" of a mineral) did not survive long. AiG keeps a list of "Creationist scientists" they are affiliated with. Interesting enough the list includes a plastic surgeon and several psychologists. Very few geologists and biologists are present in the list. In fact, these two fields are the least sympathetic to Creationism. Most highly educated creationists are engineers and there are comparatively very few natural scientists amongst their ranks. (We might mention Behe but he's not a young-Earther to my knowledge and I'm not aware of him publishing his work in the journals).
[QUOTE][b]Even the man who made up the genius phylum etc. chart was a Christian...[/QUOTE]
[/b]
A lot of scientists are Christians. That does not mean a lot of scientists are Creationists.
[/QUOTE]
[b]Don't take this the wrong way because I'm not comming off offended(completely)LOL and my heart is in the right place, it's just you can't disprove Creation, at least not all together and therefore it should be fully looked at and treated with the utmost respect.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
But
can it be disproven?