One thing that bothers me - why do scientists who debate here in religious threads have such a good grasp of what the Bible is saying, having taken the time to educate themselves, yet the Creationists who jump into science fora haven't done the same?
It's due to a difference in goals. A scientist's goal is to learn as much as possible about reality. A creo's goal is to defend their already arrived at conclusion against all perceived attacks.
As a result, the scientist will investigate with a purpose to learn. In the situation you describe, investigation entails reading the bible. And, since science doesn't come loaded with preconceptions, scientists don't read to refute, they read to learn.
The creo doesn't learn science for the purpose of learning science. A creo looks for perceived flaws in science to see what they can use to either attack science's perceived assault on their beliefs or attempt to show that science props up their beliefs.
One approach is infinitely more likely than the other to arrive at accurate conclusions.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
™ Version 4.2
