(July 21, 2014 at 3:38 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:(July 21, 2014 at 3:34 pm)SteveII Wrote: So the person that had the thoughts that were written down for all to read must be wrong because he/she believes something you do not. Isn't that a genetic fallacy? What did you think of the arguments that seem to be well reasoned (more so than the original article proclaiming enough time)?
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
No but really, the reason it's wrong is because it's scientifically and factually wrong. They start with the premise that their creationism is true, and they look for bits and pieces of evidence that can maybe be twisted to fit into their viewpoint, while outright ignoring the vast, vast majority of evidence that refutes their conclusion on this topic. That's is not science. It's pseudoscience. It's the same tactic used by woo-doctors psychics and homeopathy. Science draws conclusions based on where the evidence leads, creationists grab and twist evidence to fit their pre-drawn conclusion.
I don't remember them mentioning God when they pointed out all the problems with the math, the unrealistic assumptions that were made, etc. So if an atheist had written the same exact words down on paper, what would be the difference? You are giving typical AF vague objections and attacking the source and not the content.