Disproving the Bible

[FatAndFaithless]

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.

You're willfully ignoring the source, which is important. And no, before cling to your genetic fallacy teddy bear, its not a fallacy to to note that these people are arguing from a position that is pre-drawn and in direct contradiction to the article they're analyzing. They are starting from a point that is scientifically laughable and has zero evidence and has never been seriously proposed by any real scientist, AND they make it clear they hold these views on that same website. You want us to just ignore that while they 'analyze' a scientific article? Nope, sorry. Its like listening to an anti-vaxxer criticizing an article that says vaccines are useful. We cant ignore the lens through which these people are operating, and its a lens that's utterly deformed and corrupted through willful ignorance, manipulation of data, unscientific practices, and dogmatism.

And yes, if an atheist were to engage in this kind of huckster-like pseudoscience crap they would be called out just as much.