Glass houses maybe.... I watched an interesting video recently called "expelled" Any scientist, educator or even journalist who raised the question of Intelligent design immediately found their positions redundent, their funding ceased or they were often sidelined and rediculed as misrepresenting science. I wonder about that. What are evolutionists so afraid of. You'd think that evolution was more than a theory already.....
Glass houses indeed:
Evangelical scholar forced out after endorsing evolution - USATODAY.com
As Papias already posted, there are multiple and significant problems with the film Expelled. I would check out his link if I were you, as it addresses most of them. In short, the film is merely an argument ad ignorantiam followed by an argument from personal incredulity, finished with a steaming pile of reducto ad hitlerum.
Absolute rubbish. There is much evidence to support a worldwide flood. The fact is evolutionist interpret according to their unbelief.
Evidence is not subject to 'belief' or 'unbelief'. Real evidence stands immune to personal opinion. Geologists and christians alike have been looking for flood deposits for the last 200 years, and have found nothing even remotely pointing towards a global flood as described in the bible. In fact, the very first true geologists set out with the express purpose of finding evidence for the flood. After decades of searching, nearly all of them concluded that it does not exist. Nothing has changed.
If you think you've got evidence for the flood, and if you think you're a good enough geologist to defend this evidence, then feel free to pop into the Biblical Flood thread
here. If you decide to make this jump, please do read the thread before posting, as we will not be dealing with points already addressed. I hope you do. I'd like a new opponent. Juve isn't much of a challenge.
Christians are encouraged to not take offense easily and I suggest such Chrsitians exercise such restraint. Majority? Maybe in your neck of the woods. Or have you researched this worldwide?
I apologize. I thought I remembered a specific poll of christians world wide, but I can't seem to find it. Suffice it to say that YEC is significantly more popular in the US than in the world as a whole, so your personal experience may not exactly be representative.
The fact of the matter is the Bible is quite clear how and when the earth was created and if you do not believe that account how on earth do you say you believe the Bible.
Your
interpretation of the bible is that the creation story should be taken literally. All physical evidence that I am aware of contridicts this (Disagree? Present your testable evidence.). Since the physical world is the only
direct evidence of god's work that we have (the bible was written by fallable men, and has since been translated by the same), its evidence outweighs your personal interpretation. Where your faith is contradictory to physical evidence and fact, your faith is mistaken.
They have been many attempts to discredit them and one has to ask the question why. Perhaps you can shed some more light on your accusation above.
They have been discredited because their science is bad. They start with a conclusion (earth is young, flood occured), and set out to fit the data to this conclusion. This is not how science is done. If you would like me to discuss a particular example of their 'research', please outline it and I will respond.
The problem with the science evolutionists talk about is that it is not so scientific. It is presumption.
No, this is presumption. You presume to understand more about how science should be done than the entirety of the scientific community. All of biology relies on the premise that the principles of evolutionary theory are valid, and the application of evolutionary theory produces wonderful medicines as well as industrial and commercial products that could not otherwise be produced. If it didn't work, the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of biologists, anthropologists, geneticists, and geologists around the world would have probably would have figured it out by now. If you've got a better theory that is scientifically testable, and you've got evidence that can support this theory only, please present it. There's a Noble prize in it for you if you're successful.
No one knows what the atmosphere was like 6000 years ago never mind 50 000.
Wrong again. We can use oxygen isotopes, carbon isotopes, fluid inclusions, paleosols, various faunal and floral morphological indicators, depositional environments, and probably some other techniques that I'm unaware of to assertain the nature of the paleoatmosphere. Making uninformed statements based on incredulity doesn't disprove science, but nice try.