Search results

I see nothing intellectually honest about it. It repeats the same old nonsensical arguments against evolution as science, and it doesn't advance an alternative theory although it claims to do so. Typical creationist fare.

I've read that book and several other books by Phillip Johnson, and I think it's a deeply dishonest book. His basic topic is that the methodological naturalism of the scientific method is the same thing as the philosophical naturalism behind the atheistic worldview. In that, he's utterly...

That's an argument between theism and atheism, not an argument about how things happened. There are a lot of people who think that God created evolution. All wide-ranging scientific explanations are theories. Atomic theory is a theory. Germ theory is a theory. When you talk about theories in a...

One example of creationists misunderstanding a scientist and then refusing to correct their statements when the scientist pointed out that he'd been misunderstood is the case of Don Johanson's statement about Lucy's knee joint. Several creationists have written that this part of the skeleton was...

Well, Meatros, at least she's identified the Intelligent Designer. It would appear to be the Christian God. WHAT a surprise.

Sad, innit? People are believed for who they are (or claim to be), not for the quality of what they say.

I think there are a couple of them. ICR has one called "That their words may be used against them," and AiG has something called "The revised quote book" edited by Steve Austin. On another board a creationist challenged the science supporters to show that any of these quotes were taken out of...

Lee Strobel's books are apologetics texts; Case for a Creator isn't a science book. You won't find out about actual science by reading that book; you'll get one side of an argument that isn't really about science at all. you'd be better off reading some actual science for nonspecialists, such as...

I think the reaction of his former friends and creationist colleagues is very sad. It was that rather than his scientific discoveries that nearly pushed him into atheism.

What degree do you have? BSc and PhD in chemistry, back in the 1970s. The PhD was about theory; I never enjoyed lab work. 2. What College/University(s) did you attend? University of Kent. 3. Are you pursuing more degrees/additional education? No. 4. Why did you choose your...

The scientific method is the way we investigate how God created the universe. If you're going to say that regardless of how things appeared to have been done, they weren't necessarily done that way because God, having created the laws of nature, then proceeded to ignore them at random and do...

They're flawed both logically (as already pointed out) and scientifically. Generally, the people who understand the sciences involved reject the young-Earth scientific arguments; the ones who accept them are the ones who don't know enough science to make an informed decision.

And therefore we can, at this stage, just reject the bits of it we don't like (because they conflict with our theology) by saying that they're the result of sinful man's imperfect understanding of a fallen world while keeping the bits we happen to find useful and don't conflict with our...

YECs claim different ages - some say 10,000, some say 6,000. Both are YEC claims. In terms of an alternative to four and a half billion, 6,000 and 10,000 are both young. What on earth does misspelling "deceive" have to do with the truth of the statement? The statement that we can see stars...

That's the blue bit surrounding the stars. It was the warmth from the stars that kept it from freezing.

Your scientific evidence being?

Please tell me this is a joke.

Any other deity? But who else other than the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Or are you a closet Iggy worshipper?

Their theological positions are irrelevant. As long as they aren't claiming that God's existence is disproved by science - and even Richard Dawkins doesn't go that far - they're entitled to whatever theology they want. Simon Conway Morris, a leading researcher on Cambrian life, is a theist. So...

Scientists don't presume that God doesn't exist. Scientists study nature in order to explain it on the basis of natural processes. There's no way to tell whether those natural processes incude interventions by God. If you're talking about miracles, you need to have some way to differentiate...