I know its a moot point, because you will respond with some sort of "logic" as to why its ok, but can you seriously find an arguement that you didnt have your proof from answers in genesis?

That and trueorigin.

I am not discrediting your sources here, no matter what my opinion on them. But it seems like you can only tackle an argument if there is something on one of those two websites to support you.

Its great you found a reference that helps you out, its another to depend solely on said reference for your point.

The real question is, can you find the same answers you are getting from these websites, elsewhere? Widely elsewhere, or narrowly elsewhere?

At this point in time, honestly, at least to me, you would have more credibility by just leaving the links to those websites out. It really is starting to look like nothing more then a crutch for you, and your inability to grasp or tackle any subjects that are brought up unless you can find a link to something in AiG is telling.
I'll tell you the truth. I'm not a scientist. I'm not even a genius. But I do understand the things I get from websites and I try to find things other people can understand too. There are several reasons I use websites as a reference/source of information. One is it's more credible than my word alone, they have scientists working hard. ANother is because it would take me too long sometimes to type everything and it's more reasonable to get it from a source. Third, everything we learn is from an outside source anyways so what's the big deal. There are more than a few creation websites other than AIG, but I find them to be easier to navigate and I'm more familiar with their beliefs. Also there are some ideas among creationists that don't exactly match up such as how the flood happened or the ice age. ANd then there are wackos who have some good things to say but are otherwise wackos such as Kent Hovind who is currently serving ten years in prison for tax evasion. So you have to be careful. The creation movement is still small and underfunded compared to evolution and so there are fewer resources. But many Christians are working hard and there is headway being made such as the huge new Creation Museum.

It's not fair, Imitator to discredit the creation websites I use simply because they support creation which you are convinced is not credible. I could do the same thing to evolution, and the only thing you would seem to have on your side is larger opinion, which is irrelevant. Don't discriminate them simply because of their belief but based on the evidence they show. Remember that Darwin himself had a view that was minority and heretical to many, but being heretical to someone does not in itself prove it's falsehood. It's the reasons for it's hereticity that are what's important. So focus on the information and evidence and less on my resources, which are by and large credible PhD scientists.

And I've used several other creation sources besides the two you've mentioned so that's not true.
natureisawesome Reviewed by natureisawesome on . A path to faith with science Some people don't think that faith and science are compatible. This is to demonstrate that is not the case and that science plays a part in helping to confirm God's existence and reveal his divine nature. This is to demonstrate one path to God. There is contained within both evidence for God's existence and attributes from the nature of the physical universe, and also evidence from direct communication from God and mankind. Finding out whether God exists or not is not just for philosophers Rating: 5