Rebuttal
Uploader Comments (lucretius1)
Top Comments
-
Nice job, keep it up.
-
'Creation science does not test the suprnatural. It tests the natural for evidence that the explanation offered in the Bible is plausible or probable.'
Which it is neither.
Video Responses
All Comments (21)
-
Vader just got pwnd!
-
You're a good man, Charlie Brown
-
@VaderSpeaks Why would you bring up Copernicus, it hinders you're argument (as lucretius 1 indicates) All mentioning Copernicus does is remind readers that then as now, creationists and scientists have always disagreed (creationists and scientists advocate two different concepts). Therefore there can be no science in creationism.
-
Maybe because scientists demand evidence. You can't validate an invalid religion.
-
Alternate reasonable explanation for wrong dates:
C14 production de novo, if the diamond deposits are near a radioactive source (such as uranium).
The same thing is believed to happen in coal beds according to talk.origins.
-
why ?
-
A very good rebuttal. Thank you for posting.
It's been good discussingthis with you, and I honestly do appreciate the fact that you are doing more than simply schilling my video, but I have household responsibilities I have to get back to. Break time is over.
VaderSpeaks 3 years ago
Sounds good man, take it easy.
lucretius1 3 years ago