@KenS I have to ask something. Your earlier posts suggested to me that while yes, you are indeed a Christian creationist, you also understand that it is first and foremost a religious belief. IOW, you're a creationist because that's what you believe God has revealed through scripture (and possibly the Holy Spirit).
So we're clear, I've always appreciated when a creationist is up front like that. It's honest.
Yet in your latest posts you're starting to act as if your creationism is actually rooted in science (e.g., claims about scientists agreeing with you, copied old creationist arguments about Haekel and peer review.
So my question: Are you trying to make a scientific case for creationism here? Or are you trying to pull a fast one (as other creationists do) where you'll talk about science when you think it suits you, but whenever it doesn't you fall back on religious concepts (as you did with my question about increases in complexity)?
Thank you for an honest and upfront statements. If it seems like I become a little more "argumentative" - it is only because there are some who just are irrational in their approach so I just stop trying.
To be honest, you could almost say that the Haekel comment is just that I knew it would make the poster squirm and react.
Hey, I'm human.
And he did.
After a while, the comments of that poster becomes more of an atheistic blah blah responses that don't merit putting my head into deep thought.
Not trying to pull a fast one at all.
Science, at its best IMV, can only explain what happened and even how it happens. But it can never explain the beginning.
I'm not a scientist, for sure. But the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (for me) does throw a wrench for no creative source. (I can be corrected if it is cogent and understandable).
When I look at the body (again, just me thinking) - I find the complexities to complex to not have a driving creative force behind it.
Yes, obviously, as a Christ follow and a believer in the texts given, I find harmony between what is written and the science we see. So (for me) I'm satisfied with my position.
I don't require anyone to follow my faith or beliefs.. But certainly no one has proven my beliefs wrong either. (not scientifically)
So it will alway be an impasse between believers and non-believers. Reality is that there are non-believers who become believer and then believers that become non-believers and both are convinced in their minds.
So, there are scientist, who after furthering their studies, came to the conclusion there is a Creator. Can they say "here is the empirical and verifiable proof" - of course not. But it is the best and simplest answer to that which fits what is seen. For them it is the Occam's Razor.
And then, for those who read how they come to that conclusion, finish the thought by just saying they are "loons". An answer that doesn't merit deep thought.
it will be an argument until the end.
I hope I was clear and honest. let me know.