Random guy:
Please tell me you understand that explanation. I really don't think you understand any of the arguments being made. I don't know how to make it any simpler.
it is not that i do not understand what was initially said or subsequently said, i am tired that those who believe inalternatives and who create their own set of restrictions complain about other scientists who do the exact same thing.
AIG, ICR are well within their rights to pose restrictions on what kind of science they will accept, Dr. Ratzsch in his book, 'Battle of Beginnings' makes this perfectly clear.
He also added a caution which i will have to look up later as well.
Lady:
The same reason that rational thinking people get on board with any theory... because it fits the facts.
no, people get on board because they believe the interpretation not the facts. finding a fossil or group of fosils in the ground, whether they are similar or not does not prove that evolution was at work, responsible for the changes or evenif the timeline line is correct.
your finding fossils in the ground with no records as to when they were placed there or in what order. it is all assumed, inferred and that is what people believe.
the fact is all fossils can do is state that such a creature existed at some point in time and that if one is honest, there are other valid options/possibilities as to how they came to be.
or how about the mass extinction evidence describes as happening inthe past. The Bible says it was Noah's flood, but scientists, who have no motivation to prove the Bible true, have come up with approx. 4-6 great extinctions, despite the evidence discovered throughout the world. {read Dr. Charles Hapgood's book,'The Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, Dr. Rehwenkel's, 'The Flood' and other such books}
these same scientists cannot prove such extinctions actually took place when they state such events occured yet people would rather believe those far fetched tales instead of one flood which punished sin.
what that tells you , is that people would rather believe the lie than deal with the truth; which is that God will punish people for their sins when the end comes.
I could reverse the question with why are there some Christians on this board so anti-knowledge?
Jase:
who says i am anti-knowledge? just because one rejects evolution does it mean they are anti-knowledge, that accusation is just false and a mis-representation.
The problem for Creationists is that real journals peer review the actual science and if you submit a paper on pre-flood vapour canopies or a global flood depositing all sedimentary rock well you are going to be in trouble. Not trouble from a gist perspective but trouble from the fact you cannot do science perspective
the former i may agreewith you about as it would very hard to 'scientifically' study such a thing; but the latter is a valid option and can be considered for it is a possibility with merit. a very honest paper would shed light on alternative origins for sedimentery rock.
what i see is that such a position you describe would be in fear of competition or possibilities that would threaten one's life work. yet christians are not to be afraid of such a thing as they are supposed to be following the Truth,( Jesus, and not darwin) and one must change as God leads them not change God as science leads them.
(just saw an A & E biography on Darwin this morning on a korean english channel and again it just cements my position that evolution is a secular construct which believers need to dismiss and avoid)
