Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think creationists really understand how much is known about the geological history of the earth and that the ancient age of the earth is irrefutable. It's not just one single piece of evidence such as sea floor spreading and plate tektonics, it's the fact that everything we see in nature and have studied for the past few hundred years all point to the fact that all of the geological forces, the changes in climate from ice ages to tropical rainforests, the building of places like Hawaii from volcanic activity, etc. just can't be explained away with simplistic answers. No one is ever going to present scientific evidence that the earth is just a few thousand years old because there is already massive amounts of evidence that the age of the earth is about four and a half billion years old. And by the way, this is evidence that has been published in respected scientific journals by probably thousands of scientists over the last century or so.
This is part of the general issue in society of the high level of ignorance among the populace about what science is, what science actually does, and the nature, scope, and relative certainty of scientific knowledge. Some people finally do realize as adults that the scientists *do* actually run the modern world as we know it. But the other basic fact that everyone probably grasps too weakly is that it actually only requires relatively VERY FEW scientists in the world (as a percentage of the overall population) to keep making all these astounding discoveries! For this reason per se, it's probably not surprising that there is a high level of ignorance about scientists, just as about morticians, glass blowers, and any other field that actually employs a relatively very small number of workers.
In contrast, medical doctors are also highly trained, but the general populace comes into contact with a doctor much more frequently than with a scientist. So the average Joe probably *thinks* he/she knows more about what a doctor does every day than what a, say, geologist does every day.
Mams, an independent site would be useful...That site is not independent and just parrots creationists, and is not science, and the papers published have not been reviewed by legitimate scientists.
Mams, an independent site would be useful...That site is not independent and just parrots creationists, and is not science, and the papers published have not been reviewed by legitimate scientists.
Qualified PhDs are not legitimate scientists?
Scientific peer-reviewed papers are not legitimate?
Did you even read anything on the site?
Oh, because they haven't been reviewed by Darwinists, then they're not legit. Okay. Got it. My bad .
Qualified PhDs are not legitimate scientists?
Scientific peer-reviewed papers are not legitimate?
Did you even read anything on the site?
Oh, because they haven't been reviewed by Darwinists, then they're not legit. Okay. Got it. My bad .
For petes sake...It is a biblical creationist site, totally biased, and nothing on it has been reviewed by the independent science community who are not Darwinists... What do you not understand about the word independent?
Independent science. Astrobiology Magazine - earth science - evolution distribution Origin of life universe - life beyond :: Astrobiology is study of earth science evolution distribution Origin of life in universe terrestrial (http://www.astrobio.net/news/Topic3.html - broken link)
I assume you meant ARJ, the site mams posted? Yeah I read some of it...Not exactly independent.....
ARJ will disseminate research conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science by providing scientists, students, and supporters the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins.
The scientific journals will not allow a document that alludes to the possibility of the existance of a God. That would be againt their presuppositions and their a priori acceptance of a materialistic origin of the universe.
ARJ is a place that scientist who have evidence for the creation model can present their work. It is despised by the scientific comunity and more so as it becomes a viable and respected source.
Scientific journals would gladly allow a document proving creationism if one existed. That's the thing. Creationism is nothing but religious dogma- nothing scientific about it. Nothing can be proven that it exists-period.
What 'evidence' of creation do they have? I'd love to know. Good, solid, evidence- Nope, didn't think so.
Quote:
It is despised by the scientific comunity and more so as it becomes a viable and respected source.
yea.. sure..
Creationists willingly put their religious blinders on. If the bible told you the sky was purple, you'd keep your head buried in that book & agree with it. If you looked around the world with some logic & human common sense, you'd get it- Not that you ever will. Just rely blindly on a book that's full of falsities & confliction- and frankly, never think & reason for yourselves.
Last edited by PixiStix; 05-09-2008 at 05:31 AM..
Reason: spelling
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
