quote:
It makes it impossible for another interpretation of the same phenomena to be offered. You don't give enough of the particulars for a person to think about and you don't like your interpretation being questioned because it's "science" and so on, but that attitude prevents your reader from thinking through the evidence, and especially if one is a YEC makes it nearly impossible to sort out enough fact from fiction to have an answer to you. But of course you don't want to hear the creationist's answer anyway. All you want to do is prove to us we're wrong, so there's not much motivation to be very careful about distinguishing the facts from the interpretations and imaginative scenarios.
IrishRockhound writes:
Imagination and speculation are more the creationist's forte.
Boy is that a delusion.
Creationists seem very ready to jump to an accusation such as this - that scientists are deluded for thinking that evolution might be true and the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. This shows a lack of critical thinking - that they are ready to point the finger at others, but do not seem to recognise that they could be just as deluded.
For example, literalist creationists believe:
1) some guy 2000 years ago (it happened so long ago and no one witnessed it, how do you know it really happened?) healed the sick just by touching them, raised someone from the dead, rose from the dead himself, made lots of loaves and fishes out of thin air.
2) some being who is supposedly all-powerful (but somehow can't make himself known to anyone who doesn't already worship him) poofed the world into existence and has been screwing around with it ever since for reasons unknown.
3) a man can be swallowed by a whale and survive, that humanity started from one man and one woman, that snakes and burning bushes can talk, and that some evil bogeyman called Satan is making people do bad things.
All this is in defiance of what doctors, physicists, geologists, biologists, whoever say about it based on their years of rigorous training and research in their particular fields. In comparison, thinking that the world is very very old and creatures can evolve is pretty tame.
Essentially this seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. What right does a creationist have to call scientists deluded when they themselves are apparently deluded about a lot of things?
IRH
This message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 03-16-2006 05:40 PM
™ Version 4.2