timmytomthegreat said:
Final-Fan said:
heh. Ahah. AHAHAHAHAHAHA
That site is a mass of misinformation and proselytizing. "Ultimately, biblical creationists accept the recorded history of the Bible as their starting point. Evolutionists reject recorded history, and have effectively made up their own pseudo-history, which they use as a starting point for interpreting evidence. Both are using their beliefs about the past to interpret the evidence in the present."
So, evolutionists begin with what they can demonstrate with evidence, and creationists begin with what a self-contradicting* book meant to teach about religion says, and they're "both" basing their research on "belief"?
*If interpreted literally, which, of course, is precisely what AiG does.
That road leads to research papers that go, "Well, there are two hypotheses we have that come close to explaining this, but Hypothesis #2 contradicts Genesis 3:10*, so we can throw that out. Hypothesis #1 is therefore the best explanation." Whereas Hypothesis #2 might actually be a somewhat better fit for the facts.
*Made up those numbers, it could read "and then they went into the valley" for all I know.
What I'm saying is that unquestionable dogma of any kind restricts scientific inquiry; holy scripture is nothing BUT such dogma whereas theories based on evidence are, by nature, not -- in fact they are the opposite since the way a theory is accepted is by testing it (i.e. questioning it) and the way it gets to be an important part of science is by people doing tests of theories based on that theory (i.e. indirectly questioning it).
In fact, that's why creationism is so at odds with science -- it makes assertions about properties of the world that science also deals with, only you can't question the creationist assertions the way you can in science. So I would say that a creationist scientist either isn't a very good creationist or isn't a very good scientist -- unless he chooses to be a scientist in areas of science that creationism doesn't have much to say. That's why there aren't a lot of creationist geologists. Science and religion get along fine when science doesn't make claims about e.g. the afterlife and religion doesn't make claims about e.g. the Grand Canyon and dinosaurs.
Sorry to shoot you down so brutally in the first part of my post but Answers in Genesis is a complete joke from a scientific standpoint (and I don't think most theologians look on it very kindly either). The sooner you stop taking anything on that website without a mountain of salt, the better -- for your sake. |
What misinformation?
I know a creationist geologist. He teaches at my university.
|
You do realize, don't you, that you ignored the entire substance of my post? Every single argument I advanced went unchallenged. All you did was question my opening statement (and if you want an example of misinformation, try "the Flood carved the Grand Canyon" or perhaps even
the two paragraphs right after the quote explaining why I think it is misinformation, and the two following paragraphs explaining why I think creationism is incompatible with science) and validate the reason I said that
few creationist geologists exist, not "none".
Why don't you try answering those four paragraphs? And don't you dare answer this post with a spammed AiG article.
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
