#1. Secularists Complain Again— http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2015/02/creationist-unicorns.html
Creationism is lousy theology that leaves its proponents looking ridiculous in ways that more intellectually flexible believers are spared. But it’s lousy theology masquerading as actual science — something it’s even worse at than theology.
Creation is not science nor can it fit into the secular scientific model simply because creation was not done the secular scientific way. it was a one time supernatural act never to be repeated and continuing to appeal to a field of research that has nothing to do with creation is more foolish than they accuse creationists of being. The insult aside as it applies to secularist and their scientific ideology more than it does creationists as the former fail to acknowledge that once you have the truth, you are no longer allowed to be flexible.
That person’s attempt to make science the final and ultimate authority over every facet of life is not the proper way to use science. Science has no ability to measure the supernatural thus any result it brings to the world about origins doesn’t matter because no Bible, no true christian and so on has ever claimed that creation was scientific. The secularists are creating their own version of origins, then declaring that version to be the ‘true’ method of origins while manipulating the evidence to support that claim.
It is foolish to make claims about one’s version while demanding that physical evidence be used, while sweeping under the rug the fact that the alternate versions have no physical evidence to confirm the claim.
When science asks a question, it seeks the answer — wherever that journey leads, whatever that answer is.
I really wish secularists would stop making this claim. Every time a creationist says that science doesn’t have the answer, they trot out the tired old defense that science is not about finding answers. Secularists are trying to have it both ways whenever it suits them and whenever it helps them defend their wrong position. The last part of that quote is laughable as well as when you present the secularist the answer, and it leads to God, they beat it double time in the other direction.
The old western movie Indians have a couple of words for secular scientists which describe their behavior to a ‘T’– they speak with a forked tongue.’
When Creationism asks a question — “Unicorns in the Bible?” — it’s not looking for an answer… it offers one as absolute truth and grabs at whatever fact or rhetoric can be plugged in as needed, in order to cobble together the semblance of a supporting argument.”
This is simply an argument of convenience and not even close to true. If the secularist would take the time to find out what the word ‘unicorn’ really meant, especially at the time the KJV was made, then they would have no platform to mock the believer (of course the believer needs to educate themselves better as well). The original meaning of the word ‘unicorn’ is as follows:
Two Kinds Of Love? What Valentines Teaches On Nonviolence
his meme image from God of Evolution made me laugh. It is really funny, if you think about it. Ham is claiming to be able to replicate the ark which he believes was a real thing. He also apparently cannot afford to do it without an injection of cash from multiple sources as well as tax breaks. Is Ham actually trying to show that the Noah’s ark story is not a realistic one, or is he just doing it by accident?
He uses opposition to “millions of years” in an attempt to get millions of dollars…
Contrary to Snelling’s claim, the actual age of geologic formations—millions to billions of years—is very important to modeling whether or not they could have produced usable oil and gas, for the same reason that you set a timer on the oven.To understand how geologists use the conventional timescale to find oil and gas, you need only know how to cook! And I don’t mean a top chef, just someone that can turn raw food into cooked food.
Not exactly, so let’s run a couple of experiments to figure out why. In the first case, simply pour your batter into a pan and bake it for 30 minutes in an oven that is preheated to 150°F (66 °C). Next, try the same cooking time at 350°F (177 °C) and again at 500°F (260 °C). What are the results?
In other words, the Earth’s subsurface works like a giant oven—in fact, this terminology is frequently used by petroleum geologists. As with cooking in our homes, the end result depends on three factors: the original recipe, time, and temperature. When geologists search for oil/gas, they try to constrain those variables as best they can.
You do not need evolution to find oil and you do not need millions of years to make it either. But I let Dr. Snelling carry that ball.