pianoprincess* writes:
kinda like in the 2nd law thread I posted...the first responce of offensive and all it did was imply that I was stupid and the ppl who teach me are stupid. That's now with i n the "professionall atmosephere" of the board i didn't think....
I think you've got a point. I was wincing at some of the replies to you. Moderator attention might have been called for, but it's probably a tough call since as a new member it wasn't possible to know how sincere you were.
Traditional creationist such as yourself reject scientific views in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, geology and cosmology. Efforts to oppose evolution by having creationist views on these subjects taught in science classes eventually ended in either unsatisfactory results or outright failure. Creationists now instead promote ID because it opposes none of those fields of science and makes it much more difficult to prove wrong.
Unfortunately for traditional creationists, ID does not advocate Biblical inerrancy or a young earth, and it outright rejects the 2LOT argument and many other traditional creationist arguments that you might not have heard about yet, such as the shrinking sun, the diminishing magnetic field of earth, the errors of radiometric dating, and all geology being a result of Noah's flood.
So the traditional creationist views you're advocating are getting short shrift from those groups most active in publicly opposing evolution today. And these views don't seem to be getting much respect here either. I encourage all evolutionists to treat traditional creationist views with dignity and respect while pointing out the errors and flaws.
By the way, about the charge that some creationists are dishonest, I don't believe dishonest creationists are any more common than dishonest evolutionists. But hope can make a slave of reason, and most creationists are much more familiar with the Bible than science, so it is easy to get them to accept false arguments on scientific topics.
But there are some creationist arguments that are so boneheadedly and obviously wrong that there could be no creationist scientist who doesn't understand that it is wrong, and the 2LOT argument is one of them. But creationists like Duane Gish who travel the country debating evolutionists are very reluctant to give this argument up because it is an extremely convincing argument to those unfamiliar with science that can be made in just a few sentences, and the evolutionist has not a prayer of educating the audience to the point where they can understand the fallacy, even if he were to use all his available time on that topic alone. And so the 2LOT fallacy continues to visit boards like this, frustrating evolutionists no end.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2