I hate to burst thine bubble, sir. But apparently you've never studied much religion. Reason is used entirely throughout religion and a lot of it makes more sense than primodial mud giving rise to anything. Read the Catholic Catechism.
There is no evidence for evolution (don't even think of quoting TIME bs). In the same way, there's nothing concrete to support creation. It all boils down to assumptions and where evidence points.
Like someone said earlier, we'll never no for sure what happened. We just have to take a very educated guess. Which way does the evidence point? It's already very plain that there was something similar to a global flood (hmm....Genesis....). There's tons of stuff that points towards creation. So far, I have seen nothing at all that would give any evidence of evolution. Nothing. Show me something, and I'd be grateful. I am not entirely convince either way. But more and more I see the fallacy of evolution.
If you reject the outcome of the scientific method because of faith or dogma, you aren't doing good science period. Of course if your area is nothing to do with biology it isn't going to intefere with you science. I'd seriously question the statement "Many scientists are creationists" though.
This may seem like a valid statement, but you have to realize that it goes the other way. Most scientists are so blinded by their "addiction" to "proving" evolution that they will reject anything that could possibly lead to evidence for creationism. In fact, a great number of scientists mock creationists in a base manner hardly befitting an acedemic. Why? Because they don't even think of it as a possiblity. They right creation off as a bunch of religion crap and then mock it.
you can't be a Creationist and a (good) scientist.
That's just dumb.
Slashdot Mirror
Aye aye. Well put.
I hate to burst thine bubble, sir. But apparently you've never studied much religion. Reason is used entirely throughout religion and a lot of it makes more sense than primodial mud giving rise to anything. Read the Catholic Catechism.
There is no evidence for evolution (don't even think of quoting TIME bs). In the same way, there's nothing concrete to support creation. It all boils down to assumptions and where evidence points.
Like someone said earlier, we'll never no for sure what happened. We just have to take a very educated guess. Which way does the evidence point? It's already very plain that there was something similar to a global flood (hmm....Genesis....). There's tons of stuff that points towards creation. So far, I have seen nothing at all that would give any evidence of evolution. Nothing. Show me something, and I'd be grateful. I am not entirely convince either way. But more and more I see the fallacy of evolution.
These people seem to have a few things in order
If you reject the outcome of the scientific method because of faith or dogma, you aren't doing good science period. Of course if your area is nothing to do with biology it isn't going to intefere with you science. I'd seriously question the statement "Many scientists are creationists" though.
This may seem like a valid statement, but you have to realize that it goes the other way. Most scientists are so blinded by their "addiction" to "proving" evolution that they will reject anything that could possibly lead to evidence for creationism. In fact, a great number of scientists mock creationists in a base manner hardly befitting an acedemic. Why? Because they don't even think of it as a possiblity. They right creation off as a bunch of religion crap and then mock it.
you can't be a Creationist and a (good) scientist.
That's just dumb.