Are there any creationist resources (sites, books) to do not misrepresent science and evolution?

[pitabread]

Creationists primarily use faith in God's Word (some stop there) and the scientific method to provide an interpretation of what they consider evidence.

Do you have a specific example of the above?

 

[inquiring mind]

Do you have a specific example of the above?

Are you saying there are none... you quoted one yourself. In the two or three years I've debated here I have seen numerous such works presented, which you ridiculed.

 

[pitabread]

Are you saying there are none... you quoted one yourself. In the two or three years I've debated here I have seen numerous such works presented, which you ridiculed.

I'm asking what you would consider a fair example of what you described: Creationists primarily use faith in God's Word (some stop there) and the scientific method to provide an interpretation of what they consider evidence.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm asking what you would consider a fair example of what you described: Creationists primarily use faith in God's Word (some stop there) and the scientific method to provide an interpretation of what they consider evidence.

Your man is a good example, as I said he puts evolution in a positive light, yet he openly states he is a creationist who believes God's Word.

 

[inquiring mind]

I brought up the "Is Genesis History?" video some time back, which has numerous credentialed scientists in it. I think that's a good example.

 

[pitabread]

I brought up the "Is Genesis History?" video some time back, which has numerous credentialed scientists in it. I think that's a good example.

Do you have a specific example from it? It's a ~2 hour film after all.

(On a side note, I recall this was the film that Paul Nelson specifically disavowed his own role in.)

 

[inquiring mind]

Do you have a specific example from it? It's a ~2 hour film after all.

I think it would be best to watch it all because of the different disciplines covered. The intro about how Mt. St Helens changed the landscape so quickly got my attention though.

 

[pitabread]

I think it would be best to watch it all because of the different disciples covered. The intro about how Mt. St Helens changed the landscape so quickly got my attention though.

Is that the claim whereby Mt. St Helens deposited layers of ash and therefore the geological column could also have been laid down quickly?

 

[inquiring mind]

Is that the claim whereby Mt. St Helens deposited layers of ash and therefore the geological column could also have been laid down quickly?

That's just one portion... not a little water and a lot of time, but a lot of water in a little time. Give them a chance, they're trying.

 

[pitabread]

That's just one portion... not a little water and a lot of time, but a lot of water in a little time. Give them a chance, they're trying.

Creationist claims regarding Mt St Helens to try to argue for a young Earth go back decades (probably about far back as the eruption itself). I'm a little surprised they'd still be using those claims in a recent film.

 

[inquiring mind]

Creationist claims regarding Mt St Helens to try to argue for a young Earth go back decades (probably about far back as the eruption itself). I'm a little surprised they'd still be using those claims in a recent film.

Its been some time since I watched it. I think I'll watch it again. I'm not one for agendas, I look at possibilities.

 

[pitabread]

Its been some time since I watched it. I think I'll watch it again. I'm not one for agendas, I look at possibilities.

If they are talking about Flood geology, do they bring up the issues with thermo-energy release? It's an issue with creationist Flood models that I don't think creationists have ever addressed.

 

[inquiring mind]

If they are talking about Flood geology, do they bring up the issues with thermo-energy release? It's an issue with creationist Flood models that I don't think creationists have ever addressed.

Like I said, its been a while since I watched it. They do cover Flood models, but I can't remember to what extent. You should watch it, if nothing else it would give you points of view to counter. If I was an evolutionist and scientist, the first question I would ask myself is 'what do the Phds there see that I don't?'

 

[pitabread]

Like I said, its been a while since I watched it. They do cover Flood models, but I can't remember to what extent. You should watch it, if nothing else it would give you points of view to counter. If I was an evolutionist and scientist, the first question I would ask myself is 'what do the Phds there see that I don't?'

The first question I ask is, "if the creationist version of geology is correct, why doesn't anyone in geology-dependent industries like oil & gas or mining use it?"

 

[inquiring mind]

The first question I ask is, "if the creationist version of geology is correct, why doesn't anyone in geology-dependent industries like oil & gas or mining use it?"

Is there an actual difference in the science, or as I think the video says only a difference in the history?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionists use faith in man and the scientific method to provide an interpretation of what they consider evidence. Creationists primarily use faith in God's Word (some stop there) and the scientific method to provide an interpretation of what they consider evidence. You must mean they can't find any evidence that evolutionists will accept (why this forum is alive and well)... such interpretations of evidence are all over the internet and in published works.

No, why do you use what should be considered a personal attack? Faith is not allowed in the sciences. You are at best misusing that term. People that accept reality accept evolution. It is really that simple.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I brought up the "Is Genesis History?" video some time back, which has numerous credentialed scientists in it. I think that's a good example.

"Credentialed scientists" is meaningless if they have no clue what they are taking about. A physicist is a poor person to go to for arguments on biology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there an actual difference in the science, or as I think the video says only a difference in the history?

There is a huge difference in the science. One side applies the scientific method. The other orders their workers to shun it, in fact they have to swear to do that. That makes one work scientific and the other not.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, why do you use what should be considered a personal attack? Faith is not allowed in the sciences. You are at best misusing that term. People that accept reality accept evolution. It is really that simple.

What term would you prefer I use?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What term would you prefer I use?

Trust. There is a well earned trust in the sciences. Faith is what one uses when one does not have a reliable belief. I don't have "faith" that a bus will stop at a certain time. I don't have "faith" that a rock will fall when I drop it. People that rely on faith recognize its unreliability so they will accuse others of the same fault.