Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnox
I still can't believe people feel the need to discuss this.
Ken Ham starts with the assumption that the Bible is true and tries to find evidence to support it.
Scientists start with ... no assumptions and try to find evidence to support what they observe.
I don't know why anyone would be confused about which is a more logical approach.
|
I have the same problem with this - what is there to debate about ?
I once started reading Dawkin's God Delusion, one chapter in I realised I did not need to waste my time listening to a non debate, or have my rational logical approach to life reinforced. It left me lost as to where the likes of Dawkins find the interest or energy for the debate. Why bother trying to discuss something when the opposing side have rational logic blocked out on pain on death and eternal damnation.
Science is a moving feast which changes upon learning from observation, Religion (s) are dogmatic sets of rules laid down in times when people did not know any better. Ok so the creation story worked well before we learned that the universe is billions of years old, and plants and animals have existed on earth for hundreds of millions of years. What is there to debate about ? I actually find it quite bizarre that US based Christians have decided to create a debate about this issue. Rather than let Genisis be understood as a parable they have to insist on a literal interpretation, which frankly turns them into goggle eyed loons.
What is there to debate about ?