This is another example of why creationists are ill treated here. We all get painted with the same broad brush. A significant percentage of us are not YEC 6000-ers. Many YECs like Kent Hoven even call for a young Universe. That's nonsense, though he has some valid evidence and arguments for many aspects of ID and creationism. I don't through out the baby with the bathwater as some critics of Hovind do.
As I understand it you see yourself as an old-earth, young-life creationist, yet have never explained what evidence you are basing this on. After all the evidence that shows the earth is old also shows that life is almost as old, so you suggest that a pre-flood canopy throws out any radiometric data to suggest old life. But this also affects evidence for an old earth, so your position becomes indistinguishable from a YEC.
The Buzsaw unique creationist paradigm factors an infinite Universe. Jehovah, god who exists in the cosmos/heavens, is eternal; thus an eternal Universe and thus an infinite stable amount of energy as per LoT1. No energy is created or destroyed infinitely. As per science, it only changes forms.
Yet in the topic when you described the actions of your god in maintaining this universe it became quite clear you didn't know what the laws of thermodynamics actually were and that your god completely contravened them. The rest of the topic devolved into everyone trying to explain the problems to you, and you refusing to learn. You just reiterated your original claim as if you didn't understand what was being said to you. What made your insistence on this point odd was that if your god does exist it would be completely understandable if it was capable of contravening the laws of thermodynamics.
Just like in this topic where you are adamant that you know what 'crysper' was and proceeded to throw together random words that were vaguely related to genetics as some sort of explanation. I feel sorry for shadow71 who has obviously put in the effort to read up about CRISPR, yet you haven't even made it as far as a
wikipaedia article. Now if you were released back into the general populations of this forum and you got involved in a formal topic about CRISPR the exasperation trying to describe the basics to you would affect his chances of getting a fair hearing. In fact your posts, as they stand, would probably drown out his contribution.
Like others I would like to see you start posting again in the main forums, but you are going to have to show a willingness to learn, and to admit your mistakes. Maybe even the "is this science?" forum, since question of what is evidence would fall under this.
Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
