Presumptuous Creationists

I notice all creationist proofs/articles are never, ever published in a repsected scientific journal, like scientific america.

In fact the only place creationist theory is taken seriously is in churches and religious journals. That to me in itself speaks voulmes.

Do you really believe that 1 or 2 posts are going to refute a 120 year strong theory supported by 99.9 percent of biologists? Doesn't that seem a bit presumptuous?

If someone made apost saying they could "disprove einstein" like the one here: http://www.thedeepdark.com/cgi-bin/i...184&replies=31


wouldn't you be more then a bit apprehensive?

Isn't such a belief more then a bit presumptuous?

It seems odd that Xians talk about the value of trust and faith, yet believe that the world's top biologists are spreading falsehoods for no really reason other then the fact that some fringe scientists have questioned the theory.

I mean, do they not realize in light of every scientific theory, there are a few quacks who question it? Vilovosky and modern astronomy for example. It seems thus their faith and trust are very selective indeed.

__________________
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition."
-- Isaac Asimov

Creationism is thought so poorly of that any scientific journal would be put to shame by publishing it. That's probably why you don't see any proofs in Scientific America.

But regarding the other points, why not let people question these scientific practices? If it is the truth, then this questioning will only confirm it.

__________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough troubles of its own."
- Matt6:34

‘Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.’
- excerpt from "Hound of Heaven"

Science is all about questioning. THat is how science progresses. Yes, it is true that sometimes certain scientific notions become almost dogmatic with a few proponents - but the weight of new evidence generally convinces the whole scientific community eventually.

Scientists such as Biologist John Davison from the Uof Vermont do question evolution without censure. If his or someone elses arguments had enough merit they could eventually overturn or rewrite the whole theory. Yet evolutionary theory has remained in place in face of challenges. That is what makes it good and valuable science - because it is questioned. The basic concept of evolution has remained as new evidence has accumulated, the basic concpet has remained even as the theory has been updated. It is unlikely - but not impossible - that evolutionary theory could be overturned in favor of a whole new theory - but creationism does not pose a serious challenge. Anyone who did find a better, but contradictory theory to evolution would likely face opposition but in the end would probably walk home with the NObel prize.

__________________
"We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," Pastor Ray Mummert speaking out against teaching evolution in Pennsylvania schools
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The flood becomes harder and harder to support when you get more information.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Do you think a 120 year old Theory is going to refute a 6,000 year old Fact.

Whoops, looks like you're ignoring all dating methods, and the known age of the earth.

The earth is 4.5-5 billion years old. This is not a theory. This is a fact.

I notice that no satanic worship articles are published in Christian magazines. I think that speaks volumes, don't you?

__________________
If you lived here you'd be home by now.

True, but man has only been around for 6,000 years so the FACT of creation as known to men has been for that period.

And you clearly stated it was only a Theory and that it was only 120 years old.  And hasn't it changed many, many times in such a little time.  What a confusing theory it is.

Let me think.

Satanism isn't Christian, so it's not being published in Christian magazines.

Creationism isn't science, so it's not being published in science journals.

Hey, makes sense to me. Glad we're on the same side. *High fives Nick*

That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

__________________
Alea iacta est.

- Gaius Iulius Caesar

Agite, Buckeyei!

Perhaps it's not the theory that is confusing, but it's you that is confused?