Hangdawg13 writes:
I watched a show on the discovery channel about mystery after mystery that science cannot explain, and it was SOOO obvious to me how the hydroplate theory explained them.
This confirms Yaro's explanation in this thread. To be frank, you wanted an easy way out.
People have the misconception that science is suppose to explain everything, and if it can't explain some things then the rest of it is wrong.
Your message there really really sounds like you wanted everything to be handed to you on a silver plate.
Science isn't about finding out truth or to explain everything there is to explain. It is about being objective when approach the problems. No wonder you are so disappointed. You wanted the scientific community to give you truth.
By the way, you just introduced the hydroplate theory as if it has been confirmed. I have seen several creationists done something like this, where they presented ideas in threads like this as if these ideas were confirmed facts even though they've either been debunked in other threads or are so rediculous that noone ever paid attention to. Other people couldn't say anything because it is technically off-topic. So please, spare us the preaching. Actually, why don't you start a new thread on the hydroplate theory?
Let me ask you a simple question. Please be honest. Regarding the various theories that are out there to support creationism, did the people come up with those theories with the purpose of verifying the existence of a creator or did the people look at the evidence, came up with those theories, and then saw that those theories suggested a creator? In other words, is the creator a given or not?
The Laminator