If creationism is not scientific, according to your definition of 'scientific', perhaps your definition of 'scientific' is useless. To me it is, because I'm only interested in the truth (whether that be an old earth or a young earth), not your 'science'.
31 comments
"...I'm only interested in the truth (whether that be an old earth or a young earth),..."
So. How are you going to resolve that question, hmmm?
You know, that isn't entirely idiotic: science would indeed be useless if you hang yourself up on a pre-defined notion without accepting new, improved evidence. Of course, this does not apply to science even nearly as much as it does to... well...
I heartily agree. If this 'science' thing doesn't agree with my preconceived conclusions about the world, than 'science' is useless for determining reality. Because, you know, reality is subjective.
"If creationism is not reality, according to your definition of 'reality', perhaps your definition of 'reality' is useless. To me it is, because I'm only interested in my own baloney (whether that be an old earth or a young earth), not your 'reality'".
There. Fixed.
Science has worked with that definition since ever and has produced the very computer you're using. So, be consequent, and disappear from the forum because it's OBVIOUS that a snake can't speak and that nothing of what you're using would exist if science hadn't worked that way.
“If creationism is not scientific, according to your definition of 'scientific', perhaps your definition of 'scientific' is useless.”
“ To me it is, because I'm only interested in the truth”
“(whether that be an old earth or a young earth), not your 'science'.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
