Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThere actually are various forms of creationist.
If I remember correctly, creationists don’t only believe that the Earth is 6000 years old but they also believe that the whole universe is 6000 years old?
The speed of light has been scientifically measured precisely. It has been calculated that, given the speed of light, light from other galaxies takes millions of years to reach us. For example, ...[text shortened]... lain this evidence that contradicts their belief that the whole universe is only 6000 years old?
Originally posted by PinkFloydThe response I've heard from theistic scientists (i.e. not the oxymoronic "creation scientist" is that they can't believe that god would be a deceptive god.
One reply I heatd drom a creationist was that God created the universe with "the appearance of age". I believe the universe is 13.5 byo, or so, but it IS an interesting argument. Since I do believe God is omnipotent, I can't argue that he COULDN'T do that. I can only wonder why...
Originally posted by Penguin"A slightly biased attempt to discredit evolutio... "
If you do a Google on him, you get a few hits.
TalkOrigins has a page on his halos theory (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html). The page goes into some depth and requires knowledge of geology, minerology and radiation physics far beyond my own so I cannot form a reasoned opinion on the stregths and weaknesses discussed. Here is TalkOrig ...[text shortened]... s as further confirmation of the validity of the scientific method.
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you have any intellectual honesty, you know there is ALWAYS an agenda when creationists start talking in the language of science. They are not after a real scientific debate. What they are after is to destroy the science behind evolution, pure and simple. I've said it before and I'll say it again:
"A slightly biased attempt to discredit evolutio... "
We know there is never any biased attempts at discrediting anything
that may discredit evolution.
Originally posted by sonhouseIf you had any you'd know everyone has agendas, a points of view
If you have any intellectual honesty, you know there is ALWAYS an agenda when creationists start talking in the language of science. They are not after a real scientific debate. What they are after is to destroy the science behind evolution, pure and simple. I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Suppose for some unfathomable reason, creationists were ...[text shortened]... like a hot potato and merely go back to bible thumping and there would be no further science.
Originally posted by KellyJayI freely admit agenda's in science. If you look at Edison for instance, he was hell-bent on DC generators while Tesla, his underling, knew, as we well know now, that AC was the way to go because of transmission line loss you have to use ultra high voltages and you have to be able to crank that down to ordinary household voltages, 100 to 200 volts and ATT it was impossible with DC, yet Edison fiercely defended his position to the extent of firing Tesla, a world class genius. Of course there is agenda in science, no argument there. The point I am making is the creationists would cease and desist all pretense at science if they ever won their argument.
If you had any you'd know everyone has agendas, a points of view
they wish to defend, assumptions they want to confirm, and so on.
You act like only those who believe in creation have that going for
Originally posted by FabianFnasMaybe the Creationist Christians should've listened in high school science when they had the chance. It's almost sad ... for all that I hate their ideas and their ignorance and their dogma, they're now broken and have nowhere else to go.
They (the creationists) are desperate. They begin to realize that their middle age ideas is coming to an end.