happydolphin said:
What is funny about that? If you want to talk about the tenest of creationism, how does it not make sense to pull references from the major creationist outlet in the world? @2. It's possible. Like evolution changed its tuned many times in the past, so has creation. It's based on scientific findings after all. |
As with many things; I think I'm gonna go ahead and agree with 99 percent of the world's scientist on this issue. And young earth creation scientists are not actual scientists : their works are not peer reviewed, they limit their thinking and conclusions to a religion - these "scientists" will never arrive to the conclusion that they might be wrong, because that's not an option for them. They start out with an answer from their religion and work their way down to find out how that answer might be possible, rather than the other way around. In many cases these scientists are also priests, or preachers, or evangelists. Their ideas don't hold up to scrutiny from actual scientists. What they're doing isn't science; it's pseudoscience - religion masked as science to compensate for the fact that their religion is not infallible and modern technology has the proof to suggest that many, if not all, of their beliefs they've had since childhood are false.
You wouldn't want someone who wrote an article that wasn't peer reviewed, and yet went against everything medical professionals know as fact, one that said: "not exercising and eating excessively is good for your health" be your doctor would you? So why let a person like that be the one you trust for accurate information?
