[This is just an excerpt from quite a few paragraphs of nonsense.]
When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we're given. Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).
42 comments
ahum
*citation needed*
alot of them
You were doing great first two sentences in, Jon. You had to just screw it up, didn't you?
Ya coulda been a contender.
So it's the truth even though all of the evidence points against it?
Honest your honour, I know you have my fingerprints at the scene, the video of me stealing the money, and found the money in my apartment. But God says I'm innocent!!Yeah, doesn't work in that scenario either
And what evidence, besides the bible, exists for the idea of a young earth?
cit.....ation!!
PS "As you can see, both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises. "
The "philosphical" starting point of (ahem) the big bang and, separately, evolution, is that there is no evidence of a god, and that these two theories can be deduced without one.
Saying an unproven "goddidit" isn't a scientific position
The scientific method doesn't consist in knowing one truth beforehand and then using data to corroborate(WTF?). They try to find the truth by observation, testing and confirmation, whatever it comes. It has been like that throughout history because it works. And you wouldn't be typing this if it were not true. Things are the way they are, whether you believe it or not.
Creation Science Evangelism
If there's a bigger oxymoron out there, I've yet to hear it.
If you had stuck with your story in the first two sentences and didn't go past that, you would not come off as a fool. You could have stopped there...just stopped with the weak generalization about what is basically the scientific method. But no...you go on to say that, somehow, Creationism is consistent with reality and it is evolution that is not factually based. Hilarious for someone claiming that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and yet we have evidence of human civilizations existing before then, to say nothing of life.
6000? I thought it was 4000? Or was that 10000? Actually neither. Carbon dating proves this.
It's millions and millions of years old, and chattering this nonsense of yours doesn't change that.
"World's Oldest Living Tree -- 9550 years old -- Discovered In Sweden"
Well that little fact fucks you up good and proper.
creationism 0, Science 1,000,000,000,000,000 ....
No, it doesn't, retard. Every heard of radiometric dating? Or how about explaining how we can see the stars and nebulae that are shown to be more than 6,000 light years away from us?
Oh, I'm sorry, you've just FAILED.
No, you guys make up things that are physically impossible and depend on the existence of a deity who may or may not even be there.
Whereas our explanations are powered by observable phenomena [Thanks, AMD, for helping me remember how to spell that word!], such as erosion, and i dunno, sedimentary... deposition.
Lying and bluster don't constitute a scientific method, Sampson, but if you ever decide to show up with some facts, we'll be here.
You don't really understand what is meant by "AFTER data is brought in, we test our hypothesis", right? You have a preconceived idea and then you seek indications that support it. The mountain of evidence against your idea you totally neglect, you only see the tiny, insignificant detail that could be interpreted to support your idea.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
