"Science v Religion"

[Esquilax]

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!)

I can't say I find this terribly compelling, given that aspects of it still clash with the origin stories of all religious doctrines; since we can trace the genetic lineage of humanity back to proto-human animals that are vastly different from, say, the creation account of Adam and Eve in both the form of the initial life forms and the mechanism of their original creation, then christianity would have to relinquish its deathgrip on the concept of original sin, and all that follows on from that.

I guess what I'm saying is, you can't get to any specific god from that concept, and in fact you'd be contradicting more than a few. You'd be getting to a non denominational deistic god, in the end.