Quote Originally Posted by natureisawesome
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.
I specifically, literally, specifically stated that I wasnt even touching the whole thing of credibility from your sources. I seriously do wonder if you read, or if you just skim and then assume what the entire post stated, because this isnt the first time you completely missed the mark on what someone actually said.

I do not care about the credibility. They can be 100%, or completely wrong. It matters very little to me in regards to what I was addressing.

My whole point behind this is, when someone is leaning almost exclusively on one specific source of information, I begin to question if they really understand, and believe everything being provided.

Sure, its easy, and not a bad idea, to give an example of something that is well written and thought out every once in awhile. Sometimes its just not feasible to type everything up, or you just feel that the link explains things more elegently then you can yourself.

But at this point, I think you could probably just make a single post saying, "read all of AiG", and you woudl accomplish the same thing.

Also, its great to show information from a "non-partisan" source, so to speak. Any information coming from a source that explicitly states that they are trying to show something specific, is going to be biased. Out of curiousity, since I havent taken the time to look myself, how many articles are in AiG or the other sites, that arent pro-creationism?

I am going to assume none, although if I am wrong, then I apologize for assuming. If you provide examples from outside of places that are cherrypicking information to prove their point, it makes your point seem less, flimsy.

If you provide me a link from a pro-life website, I know to expect prolife things, and expect it to be slanted towards pro-life. Same with pro-choice. But if you provide me a link from a site that is neither pro-life or pro-choice, I dont know what to expect, and it makes things seem less biased.

Do you see what I am getting at?

Your information could all be correct, I will not get into the information being right or wrong, since that isnt the point of all of this. The point is, diversify. Show me an article that shows what you are talking about from a Science journal. Show me an article from a source that isnt exclusively pro-creationism.

Providing links from a pro-whatever site when you are pro-whatever is perfectly fine, in the right amounts. And I stand corrected, you have linked to other sites, but from what I can see, none of them stray from the pro-creationistic viewpoint. People are going to tend to take things with a grain of salt when they are being told it from an obviously, and self admitted, biased source. Its immediately called into question, no matter the legitimacy, and is usually put under alot more scrutiny.

You have already, although usually in a general martyristic sort of way, said the same thing of those who are pro-evolution. How there is such a bias in science, and people are mocked for being pro-creation, and claimed that evolution is wrong. Yet those who are pro-evolution could provide you plenty of sites that dispute what your sites say, and have their own "proof" that what they say is correct. Would you accept that they are all reliable sources and not have any skepticism towards what they say because of their bias?

I wouldnt take anything either side says as truth, only as a viable possibility. Everyone who tells you anything is trying to get you to believe what they say, and not something else. Sometimes what they tell you is correct, sometimes it isnt, but it doesnt change the fact that everyone has an agenda, and everyone wants to sway you one way or another.

There is a possibility that God(s) exists, and a possibility that your specific God exists. There is a possibility everything in the bible did happen, and that no other gods exist besides God.

There is also the possibility that there is no God(s). That the universe was created in some sort of manner similar to the Big Bang Theory. There is a possibility that everything we see here is nothing more then one giant coincidence, and the product of millions of years of time.

There is also the possibility that we are all a part of some beings dream, and none of this really exists. Supernatural things that are seen are crazy portions of the beings dream, and anything that just doenst make sense is because of the dreamer.

We cant prove any of those three things right or wrong at the moment. We have evidence for all of them, for or against, but no proof. We cant state without a doubt that one of them is true and all others are false.

You however, have stated that your belief is correct, that God exists, that evolution is wrong, and you and your beliefs are right. Thats a pretty solid stance, and I think a stance deserving of evidence outside of pro-yourstance sites. I am not stating that your views and stance is incorrect, merely that if you are going to state something with certainty, then you should be able to adequately back it up. Providing nothing but links from pro sites, isnt adequate.
imitator Reviewed by imitator 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