apologetics website

[Esquilax]

Zen Badger,

You wrote:

You're not going to go far here quoting articles from creation ministries lad.

This is not a valid argument. You are employing the genetic fallacy (see: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html ).

You misunderstand Zen's point, bud. The reason we won't accept articles from creation.com is because it, like a number of other creationist sources, have this nasty little phrase in their "what we believe," section:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Given this little presupposition taints every last thing they say, they have nothing objective to add, and are literally proud of the fact that they won't even consider information if it conflicts with the view they already have.

The reason we won't deal with creation sources is, frankly, because they're liars. The genetic fallacy has nothing to do with it: their admission that they're only open to their own viewpoint does.