53
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 167:
Line 167: + + +
no edit summary
:"''Coming up with an implausible, complicated story to explain away a comparatively simpler scientific theory boggles the mind, not to mention the other problems.''. I wonder if the supporters of geocentricism with all it's adjustments to accommodate the observations said the same of heliocentricism? I don't consider creation implausible at all, and I don't consider it as complicated as the hurdles that evolutionists jumps over to maintain their faith.
:"''Coming up with an implausible, complicated story to explain away a comparatively simpler scientific theory boggles the mind, not to mention the other problems.''. I wonder if the supporters of geocentricism with all it's adjustments to accommodate the observations said the same of heliocentricism? I don't consider creation implausible at all, and I don't consider it as complicated as the hurdles that evolutionists jumps over to maintain their faith.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Philip, you truly astound me. You manage to sound so reasonable spouting the most ridiculous stuff. I am amazed that someone who seems genuinely intelligent and well spoken can truly dismiss science so readily and try to make the scientific community out to be te crackpots. One thing that truly bothers me in your arguments though is when you continue to claim that dating methods are flawed because they proceed from the assumption that creation did not exist... but this is ridiculous. You are referring to the Flood which supposedly altered the carbon ratio of the planet. Science does not assume this didn't happen. Science does not have to assume it didn't happen. The absence of an event is the default assumption. Without credible scientific evidence of a global flood that altered the carbon ratio. there is no reason to include it in the calculation. Claiming the dating methods don't stand up to scrutiny because your assumption of creationism requires it is disingenuous at best. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 09:00, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
== thanks! ==
== thanks! ==