Re: Rational thought process vs creationist 'thought' processes

On Apr 30, 9:49 am, "s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <swa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Apr 29, 6:13 pm, misanthropic_curmudgeon
> <misanthropiccurmudg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2764/sciencevscreationismjd7.gif
>
> From the cartoons presented in the website it can be said both methods
> are means of *****sing what is the truth as to which facts fit best.

An that is your frst problem: the creationist does not ***** or seek
the truth -  he has in geneis and will do anything to proove his truth
is right, no matter how much date he must ignore or how little he has
to manipulate or selectievly interprete.



> Both groups of scientists are equally trained.

And that is the second problem you have, repeating this old fallacy
again.

Your 'creationist scientists with triple doctorates' do not exists
outsoide your head, Gladys.  And a mail-order PhD from Hoot'n'hollar
Tabanacle Community College does not count.



> Evolutionists can be just reaffirming what was indoctrinated
> through the school system as the basis for further studies
> and research.

Your third misundertanding: science hold nothing sancrosant.  If you
could disprove a big scientific theory, you'd have a Nobel Prize.



> The Creationists are the ones *****sing those indoctrinations
> both scientifically and theologically.

Your fourth error: creationist dont use the scientific methods, so
they cant do as you suggest.

Note that sticking the word 'science' in aname does not make it
scientific.



> It is the bias of Evolutionists

Your fifth error is to suggest that science is some sort of glabl
conspiracy: I refer to yo the above comment rearding Nobel prizes.



> will not allow the Creationists
> to give their ideas in schools and through the media.

Now the media are in on it too?




> Evolutionists haven't the scientific evidence that living came from
> non-living.

Do you even know what evolution is?