"Evidence and Faith"

Isn't that a conclusion?What about forensic science?What about a scientist who devotes his whole life to studying the pyramids? He concludes that the pyramids exist, so he studys to find out how.Cancer is a conclusion, then we seek to find a cure.Evolution. We are the conclusion, because we are here, then we seek to find out how.The real problem is the label "creation science". They should have labeled it, the theory of creation.But for sake of this discussion, let's get into a whole creation science is not science arguement, because the average person, probably wouldn't see a rpoblem with people searching for evidence of creation.What we have to explain to people, is the way these "creation scientists" are handling evidence, and selectively throwing what doesn't fit.But I will also use your definition in my explanation, about starting with a conclusion.I hope I am explaining myself correctly.

Why do you waste replies? Come on, this is serious. I am trying my best here.Besides, there is a difference between knowing something will offend someone, and purposely offending someone (with intent to offend).I know when I present this, people might get offended, or they might not, but I am not purposefully offending them. I know you can see the difference.

Ok, let me substitute:If creation is true, then ....?Come on really. There is nothing wrong with "creation science" other than it is probably labeled wrong, and the people doing it. Otherwise, what is wrong with searching for proof that the world was created?
If you were doing science correctly, and you were totally wrong, at least what you found could be used in other areas of science. If it was done correctly. Yes, I agree.

Yes, I read the "who we are" og the AiG web-site, and I do not agree with it. That is why I am pursuing this.This is not only about "creation science."I guess I am blending issues. That being what I think creation science should be about, and what it is really about. The later being a lie.

Ok, I get that, that is why I am taking steps towards doing something about it.I asked my Pastor if we are a bible literalist church, especially Genesis, and this is was his response:
As a group of Assembly of God Evangelicals, the answer is technically yes. But I surely believe that there is room for discussion in some of these areas.So I believe a door is open for me to do something about it.You'll have to understand something, my Pastor is more than a Pastor, he has a consulting firm, that comsults churches around the nation, and he is a very large influence on many churches. Because I do not see a problem with searching for the truth.
For many years, scientists believed the world was created.All of this has pointed out, as well as God has been pointed out to me, but I really do not know for sure, since, I am not the one dealing with evidence, or did I go to college to experience what is truth in science, and what is not.Science makes mistakes too.As you state:"Well, yes, of course. Science is wrong all the time." Don't you get it? That is what I am asking you, and the "experts" to provide. There are some responses already, and I need time to go through them. Are you saying there is no possible way that the world was created? Or the universe? Is this proven fact?can we leave emotion out of this?

I thought science was niether right or wrong. That's good, I like that. Maybe.

In all your definitions, your conclusion explains the "how."Creation science does not explain the "how" only who, and that we were created, but not "how."I think what jar said is very significant, and that if we could explain the "how" then God is in a box, and small.

In other words, no miracles....ever?Or just no objective miracles?

Then what science are they claiming that they do?

Is it that you have a rpoblem with what they do, or what they call themselves? OR both?What would you call it?You see, I do not have a problem with what they do, and I do not really even call what they call it, unless they are purposefully lying to us.If a search for creation was genuine, I would be for it.And just so you know, I haven't spent as much time in the science forums here, and do not argue about creation science on a regular basis. I stay more in the faith, and coffee house forums, so I haven't been through all the material.I mean even creation science whole objective was to show that evidences we use for evolution are false, then I am for it. But, again, not if they are going to lie about it.I want to know the truth about things, spiritual, and scientific. Right, what I didn't understand is to what extent.This is my problem, and how I will presenting it. On one hand, we believe in God by faith, but on the other hand, when we are sick, and God has not cured us, we go to the doctor, we drive cars, we use technology (Even to preach) all formed from "real science" not creation science. We even pray and thank God for the ability to do science.So we are hypocrites.

No, in this case, I am trying to educate people, and if they are ignorant to the facts, then I will probably offend them. My purpose is to educate, not offend. MY purpose is to get closer to the heart of God.

I do think of the universe itself as a miracle.We need more miracles than that we can come to know God. It gives people hope, and faith.No matter what I present to my church, I am sure I will never be able to say: "there are no miracles."I have witnessed miracles in my own life.If science doesn't want to admit to miracles, or if science is unable to prove miracles, then that is fine. That is where we draw the line. But the "cause unknown" will forever be miracles in the minds of those that have faith.I will not even attempt to take that away from people.

Thanks Percy for your replies, it all makes sense to me. This is significant, and what I am looking for. Is there anyway of proving this?

You mean to tell me that everything on this page:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.aspCannot be proven wrong?

So what are they, odds in your favor?I won the lotto, it's a miracle!This also means Jesus did not walk on water.