Booh! said:
haxxiy said:
Booh! said:
RockSmith372 said:
dsister said:
I thought that by saying I don't accept macroevolution that it also implies that I don't accept that life has been around for a billion years.
|
Well Macroevolution is because speciation(changes in between species), which scientists have observed numerous times. The main question for creationists is whether or not they accept an old age earth or a young earth. Is your religion the reason why you don't accept the old age earth model or is it something observable in nature that makes you question it? If it's religious issues, then I cannot talk much since there would be no point since there would be bias involved, but if it's something in nature that makes you question the old earth model, ask me and I will try my best to answer.
|
To say the truth none ever observed speciation...
|
Honestly, in terms of "none ever observed" stuff, I'd say religion is far ahead of science 
|
In fact, a dogmatic approach to science is not better than religion.
|
For sure some scientists are no better than a fanatic priest and it's followers. They're all human after all.
Actually for me the main issue with religions lies with the institutions shoving stuff down people's heads instead of one believing on a God and creationism by it's own pondering and thinking. Making it's own decisions about what believing or not instead of relegating it to others just Because.
Then these beliefs are just as valid and sincere as any philosophical approach.
