Leading Creation Scientist in Winnipeg November 14
rotondi+ at pitt.edu
Tue Oct 6 15:23:38 EST 1998
Possibly you'd re-read my message and then respond to my comments
and questions. What you have provided is clearly evasive and does not
respond to what I posted.
This might be related to the legitimacy of your position.
> The Dark Ages have little to do with creation
> science since modern science did not begin until the sixteenth century.
The end of this sentence is irrelevant to its begining. The date that modern
sciencebegan, does not establish one way or the other the relevance of the dark
> At that time the minds of men were enlightened by Scripture and
> so came the contributions of Galileo, Newton, Kepler and from other great
> creationists for the next couple of hundred years, until the atheistic
> tenets of evolution raised its head.
Yes, you are restating the point that you have already stated. As I mention
abovere-read my last post and please be so kind as to respond to the point
I made about this.
> Kepler and Galileo expressed the same sorts of thoughts regarding
> their science as do modern creationists when they said "We're thinking
> God's thoughts after Him" and again when in letters they expressed
> amazement at the wonders that Jehovah the Creator was showing them".
Nice but irrelevant--again as is in my last post.
<What I believe to be irrelevant dribble, sniped>
Let me reproduce one of the exchanges from my last post.
>> You might believe that creation science is an oxymoron or just plain
>> religion made to look like science but this is a bit of propaganda,
>Really. Possibly you would like explain how creationism is science.
May I suggest that you begin making a response to the last message
here, with this exchange. I know, I know, you're not able to, because
creationism is not science, and you know it. But, I thought you
should be given ANOTHER chance.
More information about the Bioforum