Science Supports Creation

"Vizard" wrote in message
news:q%oGj.8858$Oj5.7237@trnddc06...


As readers of these threads know, there is a wealth of scientific evidence
for creation. The weight of such evidence has moved many leading
scientists of the 20th century to speak publicly of creation and a
Creator. Among these have been William T. Kelvin, Dmitri Mendeleev, Robert
A. Millikan, Arthur H. Compton, Paul Dirac, George Gamov, Warren Weaver
and Wernher von Braun, to name some.

Cosmological arguments for creation have been mustered by Robert Jastrow
in his book God and the Astronomers. Speaking of the big bang theory of
the origin of the universe, many scientists have freely used the word
“creation.” Even scientists whose personal predilections are against the
idea of creation reluctantly confess that the convincing nature of the
evidence leaves them wondering.

Why do you think this is a confirmation of the Bibical statement:
"In the beginning..."? The only point you can make of this brief
text is that after the Big Bang Science and religion both are in
agreement on one point. There was a beginning.

On Jun 24, 10:12 pm, "Danwood" wrote:
"Vizard" wrote in message

news:q%oGj.8858$Oj5.7237@trnddc06...



As readers of these threads know, there is a wealth of scientific evidence
for creation. The weight of such evidence has moved many leading
scientists of the 20th century to speak publicly of creation and a
Creator. Among these have been William T. Kelvin, Dmitri Mendeleev, Robert
A. Millikan, Arthur H. Compton, Paul Dirac, George Gamov, Warren Weaver
and Wernher von Braun, to name some.

Cosmological arguments for creation have been mustered by Robert Jastrow
in his book God and the Astronomers. Speaking of the big bang theory of
the origin of the universe, many scientists have freely used the word
“creation.” Even scientists whose personal predilections are against the
idea of creation reluctantly confess that the convincing nature of the
evidence leaves them wondering.

Why do you think this is a confirmation of the Bibical statement:
"In the beginning..."? The only point you can make of this brief
text is that after the Big Bang Science and religion both are in
agreement on one point. There was a beginning.

"there was a beginning" only as it pertains to the known universe, of
which there should be many such impressive universes out there to
behold. So what's the point or argument worth of this topic?

Of which rebirth cycle is our known universe in?

If you knew as much as God, nothing good or bad would ever change, nor
would bad natural things of the future be prevented. So once again,
what's the point or value of this silly topic?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Brad Pee-Air not only supports creation he is 'big" on creation. It
fits bert

No it doesn't BEERTbrain! lmao!

Saul Levy


On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:38:17 -0400, (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

Brad Pee-Air not only supports creation he is 'big" on creation. It
fits bert