English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I laugh at the way Creationists support their "theory." They basically put in huge amounts of time and effort into discrediting scientists in an attempt to make scientists look like fools (which they are not). Then they turn around and use the discoveries of the scientists they are trying to discredit to support their own "theories." How about making you own discoveries for once instead of selfishly using their discoveries to support your "theories" and then trash talking them after they give you their discoveries?

2007-06-19 10:05:34 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

9 answers

To each his own. Both sides of the argument have some bad analyses, and both have good ones. The question is, how much time have you spent studying the argument? Before criticizing, you might want to learn more about Creationism and Evolution.

2007-06-19 10:10:27 · answer #1 · answered by txofficer2005 6 · 1 1

I have to agree. Many creationalist arguements are a combination of trashing science while at the same time trying to rationalise the few parts of science which they can with their beliefs.

It should be noted that creationalists are a pretty diverse bunch, and I'm sure that some of them do have some strong arguements.

In some ways it is good to have a counter theory to evolution. Up until the mid twentieth century, there wasn't very much physical proof of missing links between species etc. I think that the creationalist lobby in part gave scientists the motivation to keep looking - the result is more evidence for evolution and a greater insight into where we came from.

2007-06-19 17:13:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Could it be... creationists only disagree with only some of the things some scientists say and not with others? That basically what they disagree with is interpretation of data and not the data itself? That they make a distinction between "observational science" and "historical science"?
"So the debate is not science vs religion. In reality, it's between two different belief systems, using the same evidence and the same observational science." (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/04/11/cincinnati-post-journalism)

2007-06-19 18:12:49 · answer #3 · answered by Deof Movestofca 7 · 0 0

Creationists don't try to disprove scientists or science. They try to disprove evolution, which is as much a faith position as any other theory for how we got here. So, yes, of course they use science to back up their theories. It would be stupid not to do research on a theory you're trying to prove.

Kind of like how you clearly did no research before asking this "question" (rant).

2007-06-19 17:30:23 · answer #4 · answered by Chelsea 3 · 0 0

Many of them do. However, it's very difficult for Creation Scientists go get their findings published.

http://www.orionfdn.org/papers/index.htm

I haven't read all of this, but this is an example. There are more. This guy is a little rude though & not the best example.

2007-06-19 17:12:32 · answer #5 · answered by Kathy M 3 · 0 0

Yeah, I love it. Especially:

o The Earth's 6,000 years old.
o God made everything in 6 days.
o And what about the Cambrian Explosion?

Waaahahahahahaaa!

CD

2007-06-19 17:12:29 · answer #6 · answered by Super Atheist 7 · 0 1

Convert ye to FSM, arrr!!

The Flying Spaghetti Monster has created all, don't ye know.

2007-06-19 17:10:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

won't spend a lot of time on this one. since it isn't even a question..

2007-06-19 17:09:47 · answer #8 · answered by † PRAY † 7 · 1 0

So you want them to make sense? Think about that for a few.

2007-06-19 17:10:20 · answer #9 · answered by t_rex_is_mad 6 · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers