[Zionist Conspirator]

What is inexplicable is the insistence by some that God did not and could not have created the science and math by which He governs the universe because primitive tribes were unable to imagine or comprehend it. Some may accept the "abracadabra" process because they believe it more flattering of God, but to those who have invested their lives in the study of science God's magnificent schematic is even more breathtaking. Knowing how God created does not diminish His accomplishments. Not understanding the math and science does not diminish those who accept that He did.

I am sorry you opted not to read what I wrote but rather to simply hit the button and regurgitate the same talking points of all evolutionists and science worshipers. I am also sorry you persist in your ignorant belief that Genesis is the product of the primitive imagination of primitive people rather than (along with the rest of the Torah) written in its entirety by G-d and dictated to Moses letter-for-letter.

Though you will not read these words either, I will go to the trouble to type them on the off-chance that someone else will read them:

The whole point is that the laws of science are not eternal or self-existent--they were brought into existence from absolute nothingness by omnipotence in an act of ex-nihilation. No one dispute that G-d did not create the laws of science. What they do dispute is that the laws of science are eternal and governed the ex-nihilation event itself.

People who believe that children can be born without the participation of a human male at conception have no business invoking the "laws of science."

I notice the "laws of science" disappear whenever Genesis 1-11 is not the subject being discussed.

[Zionist Conspirator]

By the way, is “abracadabra” anything like “hocus pocus?”

[Mad Dawg]

Are there laws of science at all in your view? Is it an integral part of your opinion that those who differ from it do so through moral fault?

[dsc]

“they were brought into existence from absolute nothingness by omnipotence in an act of ex-nihilation.”

By “omnipotence” I presume you mean God, so that your sentence means that the laws of science are what they are because God says so. Is that correct?

“No one dispute that G-d did not create the laws of science.”

Since that seems to contradict the previous sentence, I wonder if there is a typo. Did you mean to say, “No one disputes that God created the laws of science?”

“What they do dispute is that the laws of science are eternal”

Whereas others believe that the laws of science remain as they are only for so long as it pleases God. Is that what you mean?

“and governed the ex-nihilation event itself.”

By this, do you mean that some people believe that the laws of science predated the existence of the universe? Wouldn’t that mean that the laws of nature governed their own creation?

“People who believe that children can be born without the participation of a human male at conception have no business invoking the “laws of science.”

Wow. Talk about swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that the universe and the laws of nature were brought into being by “omnipotence” in an act of ex-nihilation—which is to say that God created the heavens and the Earth, all that is seen and unseen—and yet that same God that can bring clusters of galaxies into being is incapable of bringing a single strand of DNA into being at a time and place of His choosing?

Seems to me like it would be less of a strain to create a single strand of DNA than an entire universe. But then, what do I know about big bangs?