Points Of View

I might infer from the dismissive nature of your reply that you perceive me as closed minded and or ignorant of the "facts". That might have hurt my feeling if I had one. As for talking points, your side uses them too you just paid more for yours ours are better. Much easier to say what a crappy argument than to refute it with facts. I won't be dismissive at this point. I want to see just how these "talking points" were "refuted". I read your stuff. Did you ever read the bible? Just asking.

While I can not isolate specifics as to predictions made by Creationism aside from the entropic theory. I can say that big bang theory failed to predict the accelerating expansion of the universe. We now call the cause of that "dark energy" undefined much as the strong atomic force. The strong atomic force being whatever the *^%#@! keeps the protons in the nucleus of an atom from flying apart (as if "we" knew). Personally I believe it to be gravity as if we ever actually knew what that is either. Gravity likely as not being the force responsible for both "dark energy" and the "strong atomic force" in my uneducated estimations. In as much as no one has adequately defined either, my guess really is as good as yours.
More directly much of the speculation you call science is the result of the assumptions I assert have been accepted as science. Cosmic entropy is consistent with scripture and physics. To that degree I find physics acceptable to my world view. The big bang would be consistent with big crunch if the velocity of expansion was insufficient for heat-death. Heat-death would be consistent with current understanding of physics be it Newtonian or under Einstein but for expansion to be accelerating there is no prediction. My world view is consistent with current observation. Creation wears thin like a garment. Certainly not inferior to any put forth by what you seem to be calling "science".

Been real sick and not sure I replied to this.
This guy did the research and repeatable experiments.
Just got blown off by by people unwilling to repeat said research.
I never claimed to be any kind of expurt I just pay attention.
If I am not mistaken the facts outweigh the theory.
This guys facts are not refuted in the lab..
Am I wrong?

Razd,Let me cop this quick plea. Not that I am denying my ineptitude on many fronts but when I logged in here I was on my third or fourth day without sleep, and for that matter am in a similar state as I type. See there is no longer decongestants that "may cause drowsiness". As a result I can be wide awake with a debilitating headache or wide awake without one. I am just guessing here but when I managed to figure out how to log in, it was along the lines of as long as I am miserable I might as well go for broke. Absolute truth, no argument. I think I rejected that already but we should at least teach that there is one belief that inspired guys like Newton that there is a creator God. That his belief did not diminish his capacity to interpret the physical world around all of us nor express it's parameters in whole rational numbers. In that regard none of us has a monopoly on the distant past.Where I rely on dogmatic scripture you rely on dogmatic theory.I submit that uniformatarianism is dogma and that any deviation from it is academic heresy, you would say my scriptural perspective is dogmatic as well. Where "Historians" rely on text written at best centuries or even millenia after the fact, scripture, in particular new testament documents have been authenticated to the decade of the authors. While I am relying on the writings of men in some cases these were men that would preferred to dye before renouncing them and again have been proven to have been written to within a decade or so of the times in which they lived. Also again they would have lived longer had they only stated they were in error. All of that withstanding, I admit that I am dogmatic. Do you? Ancient history goes back so far and is then considered "myth". How far back do we go before history is myth? Do we go back until we encounter things the expurts did not experience for themselves? Well, since the victors write the history... or better yet what about a culture that carefully documents their total failure for posterity? Not only did God predict they would totally blow it, and not only did they proceed to blow it and stone the prophet that predicted it, but went ahead and preserved the prediction and actuality of the incidents. That is off topic though. The point here would be that I equate what you might call myth a cut above say Paul Bunion or Pecos Bill. Did the Trojan war take place? hmmmm... As long as there is an equal playing field to "invalidate" theories I am in total agreement. Majority rule is not invalidation when it comes to truth. Ask any lynch mob. Um.... what? Um.. yeah maybe I do. I like to think I am open minded but I have a bias. Define falsified? Look I am not about to start bragging about how "educated" I am but I am not going to sit here and let you call me closed minded. You have accepted things as fact that I am willing to question. Who is wearing the blinders here? Truth is I am not really clear on what you are saying here. Maybe you can rephrase?On definitions, well gee what can I say? Uniformity continues to redefine itself somehow. Look it up for yourself. I was stating it it terms consistent with the those that established the principle of uniformity in terms of geological theory at the time of it's inception. By the way you might want to look at the latest one yourself. Can you say "punctuate equilibrium"? (Thank God for spell checker.)You will get this crap a lot from me but here goes. I read more than the bible. Toss out uniformity and I might call it science. I don't disavow what I read in science rags as quickly as you might what you see on AiG and you probably been there more than me. So much of what you believe was heavily influenced on the early definition of uniformity (look it up if you can't believe me) and it is just an assumption. A leap of faith far greater than mine. Wait.... lemme guess.... another AiG talking point, right?All that being said you went outta your way to help me post and I am grateful to you for that. I also think you went out of your way to not be condescending and at considerable effort on your part. I wish I was better at that.I meant to get back to you sooner but I tried to explain that earlier on. You oughtta be more than a member here.JD Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add all the blank lines between paragraphs again. Someone has a "get your attention" suspension coming.

Thanx
JD

Agreed as you stated. I submit we all interpret with some bias. Mine is pretty much figuring God gave us a clue. What I do not see is this evidence I must be ignoring. You must be a superior theologian than I. I am not familiar with that quote or it's context. Coptic ?
I do see your point though and I am forever worrying that I may be bending my understanding to fit my preconceived notion. In all candor I would not have gone that far with that one.
Two seas? I mean even the Med at the time of the writing of any of scripture was divided into more than two, let alone the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Indian, Atlantic... Something there alright. Which two? So much to learn so little time.
JD