tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6243316872146384062.post4597713525856423091..comments2016-03-18T05:13:20.753-07:00Comments on CreationDino: Wilson's Scientific Law of Biblical 6-Day CreationAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14596103031502197388noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6243316872146384062.post-56379840022141998612015-10-10T21:35:47.734-07:002015-10-10T21:35:47.734-07:00Very interesting. I agree with some, disagree with...Very interesting. I agree with some, disagree with the more salient points. i generally don't have time for this but your post is interesting and deserves a rebuttal.<br /><br />1. By hypothesizing that God used this or that aspect we know of the physical universe in now way implies any constraint placed upon Him. While I share your respect for God as all-powerful, in my opinion you see over-sensitive on this matter. Citing scientific aspects does not in any way diminish God's capabilities. It actually does the reverse because.....<br /><br />2. .... by citing scientific concepts which deal with the highest order of theoretical and actual science of which the world is aware, God's works are perceived differently in the media-driven world in which we live. To say "supernatural" not only invokes the mockery of the term "magic" by our popular culture, in my mind the word is moot: if God created all, then nothing God can do is supernatural, because a leaf is as much a miracle as a flood. In the larger sense, what this site strives to do is indeed separate the word "magic" from God's work. <br /><br />While Christianity is still strong, the youth of the world are turning away in droves. European counties once devout are becoming increasingly secular. Kids can quote more Star wars than they can the Bible. And in my long-standing opinion, this is because our side gives ground to the atheists: when they say magic, we say miracle. When they say old-fashioned, our side says historic. These are losing media propositions. They are PROVEN to be losing. So this site and its works and videos, (see www.creationdino.com, our video page) are trying to reverse that, and in the 2-3 weeks I have returned to the mission, the posts on this blog, immodestly, have already caused many atheists formerly merrily dancing on the supposed grave of the Christian faith go silent, and this includes in their own strongholds in places like the Facebook pages of Richard Hawkins, Bill Nye and the like. So far two atheists have conceded the possible existence of God when previously they fought me on the idea, and as these discussions play out, others watch - and are influenced.<br /><br />lastly, this site even gives pre-composed rebuttals people can use against atheists. As of this post we are including art and will be doing more, and are gearing up for Volume 2 of Behemoth.<br /><br />In my opinion people like Ken ham and Kent Hovind are now failing miserably. Ham's debate against Bill Nye was barely a tie when any decent creationist should be able to to wipe up the floor with the guy (I could, easily). Their sites appear, in my opinion, to have grown into big businesses where saying what the paying audience wants to hear, and that includes what you want to hear: miracles instead of science. That experiment has been tried. Young people are turning away in droves while 'cool" personalities kick the teeth out of Christianity and the youth laugh. Well, it;s time to shut up the jerks and the laughing. There is huge awe in to be experienced ion God's works, but we need to connect with the world as it is today, and be realistic about it.<br /><br />You don;t like science explained to support the understanding that God's works coul;d be genuine to a doubting world. Okay, you don;t have to hang around here. But many others disagree with you and in a few short weeks of returning to this mission, we have seen really extremely significant achievement in winning the war, and that's what it is - a war, a culture war started by atheists who, for whatever unbalanced reasons, IMO like Nazis, want to see all of us and our love of God crushed,. Achievement in a battle of that magnitude has not been won by Hovind or Ham, from what i can see. They seem content to preach to the converted. I have no desire to do anything but convert.<br /><br />You are entitled to your opinion but I disagree with it. in the strongest possible terms.<br /><br />Thanks for the comment. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14596103031502197388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6243316872146384062.post-255114548540197462015-10-10T20:31:44.510-07:002015-10-10T20:31:44.510-07:00Although very interesting, your arguments effectiv...Although very interesting, your arguments effectively place God inside the box of science. If you derive your understanding of God from the Bible (which I assume you do if you're arguing for a six day creation), then you have no need for these scientific models, as interesting as they are. The omnipotent God described in the Bible is outside of time and is not constrained by it. Although your theory implies that God can control time by manipulating matter and gravity, it also implies that He is constrained by it. In effect, this line of argumentation misses the point altogether. God is perfectly capable of creating all matter, including organized life, in the six, 24 hour days without manipulating time. Its not that He couldn't get it done in six days, and so He modulated time. He simply did it in six days as He described. His power is manifested in His ability to supernaturally create the universe in a minuscule amount of time, not in his ability to extend the deadline. The former displays His preeminence, the later displays the preeminence of the physical world. This sort of kowtowing to science demonstrates a submission to the world and a skepticism about God's nature as defined by His word. We need to approach science from a Biblical perspective, not the Bible from a scientific perspective.Just a guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807183342516246357noreply@blogger.com