Changes

::: And why do you put the words "science" and "scientist" after "creation" in quotes? Are you questioning whether they really are scientists, despite their being no room for doubt on that?

::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

== Failure to include information ==

::Wait, so if Genesis isn't giving us a literal timescale, then Jesus wasn't here to save us? I'm going to hold off on my criticism of that statement until I know that I interpreted your statement correctly. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:17, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: No, that is not the case. What TerryH said was that if Genesis is ''incorrect'' on the timescale, then it would not be ''trustworthy'' on other things. He didn't say that it wouldn't be ''correct'' on other things. That is, if a person says some false things, it doesn't mean that everything they say is false. But if you know some of what they say is false, why should you take their word on other things that you don't know the accuracy of? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Criticize all you want--but if the [[Bible]] is found in definite error on any one point, then it ceases to be trustworthy on any other point.

:::::And what makes you think that the universe looks as old as you think it is? I have seen old people and I've seen young people, and I've seen young people grow old. So if I see a person who's age I don't know, I can compare then to ones that I do know and get at least some idea of their age. And I could say the same for trains, houses, appliances, and almost anything that you like to name. However, I have ''not'' seen young earths and old earths and young earths growing old, so I don't have any such yardstick to compare this Earth against. Therefore, I am not in a position to say that it "looks" old, and I suggest that neither are you. Additionally, until the advent of the assumption of uniformitarianism around 200 years ago, virtually nobody thought that the world looked "old" (as in millions of years or more). The idea that it looks "old" has only come about since the idea that it is old has been promoted, not because of looks. So contrary to your claim, I ''can'' deny that it "looks like the earth is billions of years old".

:::::The Bible is not unattributed, and not all from the 10th century BC. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:02, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Mr. Jazzman, I shall ask you to produce your "seemingly contrary evidence"--more on that word ''seemingly'' later on. I ask this to challenge you. But I am not challenging you to fight. I am merely challenging you to think, and think ''hard'', about the quality of what you take to be the evidence contrary to a young earth.

::Now about "peer review": I have the direct experience of "peer review." "Peer review" means a bunch of guys sitting around a table and asking each other, "Is this guy for real, or are his theories just flat-out too outrageous to be true?" And contrary to what you might think--and I know this because I've been there--"peer reviewers" are human, too, and they have a human weakness: that they always seek consensus, because they're not willing to think for themselves. And so a creationist submits a paper, and nobody wants even to review it, because his theories are too outrageous for them even to admit the possibilities. Nothing nefarious (well, sometimes it is, but not usually); just a case of "[[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong|His theory cannot possibly work under our theories, and so his theory must be wrong]]."