RE: Silly Creationist
June 22, 2011 at 7:57 pm
(This post was last modified: June 22, 2011 at 8:08 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(June 21, 2011 at 8:55 pm)Epimethean Wrote:
Allister and John are certainly not young earth creationists. I love them both and think they are solid debaters but I believe even Dawkins says that he does not view Allister as a creationist. I actually thought that Dawkins got beat up pretty good by Lennox in that debate, the whole "Richard, you don't have faith in your wife?" quip was awesome.
I don't put stock in one particular journal over the others; I try to examine the articles by themselves. The peer review system as a whole has some merit, but it has become rather corrupt and has missed the boat on some of the biggest scientific breakthroughs in the last century and has published some of the biggest hoaxes in the last century. So I don't put much faith in it anymore.
.
(June 21, 2011 at 10:40 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: I've read a lot of creationist theory. It's all shit.
Like what have you read?
(June 22, 2011 at 3:21 am)Epimethean Wrote: I found a creationist who seems almost halfway sane. Kurt Wise, a former student of Stephen Jay Gould. He admits that creationism doesn't have much scientific evidence going for it. Unfortunately, he still holds onto the hope something might happen to support the belief he has in god. Ah well.
Way to misrepresent Dr. Wise there. He is a presuppositionalist, so that is what he was referring to, not who has all the evidence. Have you read his book "Something From Nothing"?
(June 22, 2011 at 3:29 am)Gawdzilla Wrote:
Ahh! So now we are getting somewhere, so you disallow supernatural explanations for origins from the get-go, but then turn around and say the evidence supports naturalistic explanations. Circularity at its finest. I should start using this,
Me: “The only explanation I will accept for the Universe is a supernatural one.”
Atheist: “How do you know that this is the correct hypothesis?”
Me: “Oh, well all the evidence supports it.”
Atheist: “What about the evidence that infers a naturalistic explanation?”
Me: “Oh, I already said I don’t allow naturalistic explanations, that’s not science!”
Just plain silly.