"Science v Religion"

[jap23]

Oh, I know what you meant. The problem with it is that we can trace the lineages back further than six thousand years.

Oh, and that evolution works at a much, much longer timescale than thousands of years, that's a problem with your theory too. The differences on animals if the totality of life was created a few thousand years ago would be drops in the bucket, nothing compared to the diversity the actual fossil record shows.

Oh, it appears that I didn't acknowledge that there wouldn't be much difference... I had it in a previous draft!! Oh well, yes, I realise that. I don't see why these were problems? (other than the fossils, carbon dating etc.- but I'll get to that)- that's why I specially used the analogy of terminal velocity, we know that something can be capable of reaching a point, but that's only IF it was permitted to.

So, fossils, carbon dating, and aborigines: It also appears that there may have been a creation before this one, if you look at the creation account, we see that there was already water, there was already earth underneath, etc. (I said it in my previous post). There's more biblical evidence than this, but that also comes with a lot of explaining- so I'll just leave it out.
Carbon 14 dating also supports this- and provides some harmony between ancient finds and the idea of a pre-creation; as I believe that Carbon 14 decay is generally not affected by external influences? That's why I said in my original post that science can help us to understand God (or lead us to an alternative truth- which can only be good for us to make the most of our lives). I guess they would have had a different plan, a different means of redemption etc. but we just aren't told much about it- but that's probably how the angels came about. (keep in mind, angel's were often mistaken for men!)