|
Time for a rant.
Basically all of the links you posted consisted of creationists pointing out incomplete data in the evolutionary account, saying that more data is needed to prove their theory, therefore the big bang is a myth, therefore the creationist account is right (which needs to evidence other than the Bible.) That is bullshit.
For example, in your article 'The Big Bust,' what they claim as evidence is simply saying "Uh, the Big Bang theory doesn't explain the lumps in the CMBR" or "Uhhh, we haven't ever seen a star form so we don't know how it happens." (Which Harv showed to be false) ALL they're doing is saying that scientific theories are not totally complete, so the Bible is right. That's INSANE. Here's the final quote of the article that sums up its subjectivity well:
"Oh, but there is a need! [for an external creator] Without a Creator, there is no Savior and no hope for eternity. May God help us to do all we can to tell the world there is a great God who made us for Himself and has even, through Christ, given us eternal life in Him!"
Egad! People who say that there is a need for God or else we won't live forever have immediately become fools in my eyes. After reading these articles in depth, I don't think I'll ever take ICR seriously. Don't you understand how terrible that logic is? You can't criticize a theory on scientific grounds ('it's incomplete, doesn't accomodate observation X, etc.") and then not apply those same standards to yourself. All their points lead to the obvious conclusion that they have previously decided they're correct, independent of evidence. Therein lies the problem. And this rampant hypocrisy, the use of science when it suits them (always to point out unfinished details, never to propose an equally valid alternative) and the discarding of it otherwise shows a deep, underlying belief that they don't NEED evidence to confirm their beliefs, the only people who need evidence are those who disagree with them. |
