oh dear... are people still calling "young earth creationism" "creationism"?

it's just like calling "peanut butter ice-cream" ice-cream, which is perfectly correct, except that if peanut butter ice-cream is disgusting, it doesn't mean ice-cream is disgusting. remember that Dooley is Muslim -- do you think Dooley believes in a world-age estimated based on the Jewish-Christian Bible?

the Bible doesn't teach an age for the world. some people tried to calculate the age of the world using the Bible, but it wasn't written with the world's age in mind.

the idea that one can calculate the world's age by looking at the Bible is quite fanciful and pretty cool, hence its popularity, but just because that concept is wrong doesn't make the Bible, or Creationism, wrong -- Creationism in general being that something of some intelligence created the world and the universe; and as far as Smitty, Dooley and i are concerned it's the concept that the one and only all-powerful God created it all.

even from a scientist's point of view this hypothesis is without flaw, and just because it's untestable doesn't mean it's not true.

and just because it's untestable in this life, doesn't mean it's not a concern. doesn't mean that if it's true you won't regret rejecting God after you die.

no one wants to deal with the idea that you're playing Russian Roulette by holding onto atheism? science is inherently agnostic, i would've thought.

and before someone says "well even if we choose to believe in God, do we want Islam or Christianity or what? what will save us? why even bother?" consider if you were in a room starving, and you can see down several paths in front of you, some or one of which may lead you to safety. will you just sit there and starve to death, in defiance of how many options are in front of you? or will you explore them?

julz