Anti-creationists should open their minds..

What creationists are asking for from evolutionists and darwinists, and young-earth creationists from old-earth creationists.

Why should they preach to six-day creationists about open-mindedness and not their own excessive bashers?

I went through likely more paradigms of origins than almost anybody in my younger days, including old-earth creationism, evolution, Big Bang, until real-world and science and historical fact with their logical consequences became so overwhelming that it became settled for me.

The Bible has proven time after time to trump its detractors, including those inside Christian institutions.

For example, I much prefer discussing the actual issues relevant to the issues of the Bible and the science than engage in discussions about behavior.

What is the norm in the establishment-approved “consensus science” today.

Take it from an anti-creationist if not me. Here’s Michael Crichton
blasting away at today’s “consensus science” and the way it is the /science establishment/ that has its sacred inviolable dogmas that are not permitted dissent:

Funny, he started off with a total logical emasculation of the “Drake equation”. It should have killed it forever, but it remains the favorite “science” argument of SETI.

*”The Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. . . ”

*”Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”*

*”There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . .”*

*”This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynman called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands…

“…Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?”*



Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: