Stormbringer's Thunder

The rules of the game As the ‘rules’ of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion—even if true. by Carl Wieland ‘Creationism isn’t science.’  ‘They don’t understand the rules of what science is, or they deliberately ignore them.’  Comments such as these flow readily from the pens of the many critics of the modern creationist movement. Why are such comments so widely and passionately believed? I believe that the only rule creationists are ‘breaking’ is one which cannot be said to properly belong to a scientific inquiry into origins, and which effectively imposes a religious dogma upon science. Read the rest of this article here .

Buona sera. First, a bit of business to take care of. An atheist troll keeps bugging me about the Photoshop "Crocoduck" picture that I had up for a while. "What does it mean, Cowboy Bob?" (sigh) It's something that some of us who are Creationists mention. Since there are no examples of transitional forms between species in the fossil record, the crocoduck is an illustration of that point — if evolution were true, you'd see change of this nature all the time. Can we move on, now? Did the big words in the title scare you? Don't let them. According to Matt Slick of CARM , "A Christian presuppositionalist presupposes God's existence and argues from that perspective to show the validity of Christian theism. This position also presupposes the truth of the Christian Scriptures and relies on the validity and power of the gospel to change lives (Rom. 1:16)." Essentially, I see it as, "Let's assume for this discuss...