Posted by bistiza on 12/28/2012 4:12:00 PM (view original):
Yes. And over time, science debunked these notions. To attempt to portray yourself as open-minded because you can see both sides of the flat earth vs round earth "issue" is ridiculous. Your young earth "theory" falls into this category.
The difference is that there is scientific evidence to support a young earth model (I listed some before in the other thread, but I'm not going to rehash it now), just as there is to support an older earth model. THAT is why I remain neutral on the subject.
The problem is that too many people can't look at the evidence from anything remotely resembling an unbiased point of view, and you're obviously among them.
You take the word of mainstream science as unquestioned gospel, which is surprising in this day and age when you can easily look up evidence for any and all scientific theories if you so desire.
Yet instead of reading the information with an open mind, you accept what has been spoon-fed to you and spew it back out without ever looking at any of it with a critical eye or thinking for yourself.
I guess I can understand why you do that. The pressure to conform and join the group think is enormous. After all, if you dare to think for yourself and somehow come to a conclusion other than that of the majority - even if you don't take a side - someone like bad_luck may attack you mercilessly and most people would rather avoid dealing with those kinds of issues.
"The difference is that there is scientific evidence to support a young earth model (I listed some before in the other thread, but I'm not going to rehash it now), just as there is to support an older earth model. THAT is why I remain neutral on the subject."
Horseshit. I'm not sure where you posted your "evidence," though I'd just about bet you have some of Duane Gish's nonsense in there. In any case, the thermodynamics objections have long been part of the creationist literature (btw, can we stop pretending this "young earth" crap is anything but a prelude to creationism?) and has long since been discredited. Ironic that you don't want to rehash what you posted in another thread, but scientists are supposed to keep answering an objection that was debunked before you were born, ad infinitum, just so you can pretend you're discussing a "competing" theory.
And I haven't even mentioned the countless areas of well established science that need to be thrown out to accommodate your crackpotology, I'm sorry, "theory." Biology, geology, radiocarbon dating, for starters. But the best part is that we are apparently contemporaries of the dinosaurs. To paraphrase Lewis Black, I can't be kind about this, because bis is watching The Flintstones as if it were a documentary.
As for the masturbatory drivel that is paragraphs 2-5 of your post, it scarcely merits a response. I will say I'm reminded of the words of John Dewey. He argued that genuine open-mindedness is like being hospitable to guests; it is not tantamount to putting a sign out saying, "Come on in, no one's home."
Sorry to disappoint you, bis, but someone is home.