Darwinist
Out of context: Reply #321
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- discipler0
Rubbish, kelpie. First off, no one is certain of the earth's age. The scientific evidence is thoroughly inconclusive, based on Carbon dating and Potassium Argon dating and the inconsistencies of the Geologic Column. It is also inconclusive Biblically, since the word "day" (yom in Hebrew) can mean an undisclosed period of time. This why both Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists exist. And frankly, it's a secondary issue. And why are you mentioning the 2nd law of Thermodynamics? Which simply states that the universe, both open and closed systems, are running out of useful energy - things deteriorate. So, I don't follow why you would say I'm an "anti" scientist. I'm not a scientist at all.
You ask what the "point" is if there was at some point a designer to spark things into motion. Well, the point is to let people know that this is the direction which science is pointing, and to let people know that the Darwinian Narritive is not an established fact, hardly. And to get people to consider the philosophical implications of both. Either we were created for purpose, or we are cosmic accident. Where does the evidence point?