From: "Robert Comer" 

> Isn't the earth about 6,000 years old for many creationists?

Not all creationists, just the literalist variety...

>Most Intelligent Design adherents don't have a problem with science the
>basic argument is 'first cause' - god?, burping black hole? turtle gas?

Not quite, ID people aren't necessarily religious and their designer is no
one specific (or type of) creator -- it's kind of like taking the religion
out of it and trying to say it's a science.

--
Bob Comer


"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:43e17f67$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> billions of years.  Isn't the earth about 6,000 years old for many
> creationists?  Most Intelligent Design adherents don't have a problem with
> science the basic argument is 'first cause' - god?, burping black hole?
> turtle gas?
>
>
> "Geo"  wrote in message
news:43e17889{at}w3.nls.net...
>> what's the difference between a and b?
>>
>> Geo.
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:43e0c558{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Darwin must be turning in his grave
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm
>>>
>>> Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best
>>> description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.
>>>
>>>   a.. 22% chose creationism
>>>   b.. 17% opted for intelligent design
>>>   c.. 48% selected evolution theory
>>>   d.. and the rest did not know.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5