Comments on: Creationist Details Papua Dino Sightings

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 03:17:02 +0000

Personally, the fact that there is a creationist faction in the cryptozoological front doesn’t really bother me. I have my own ideas on creationism, but it is not relevant for my view on cryptozoology. I choose to look at it as one more pair of eyes looking for my favorite cryptids…who cares if somewhere down the line somebody tries to use NEssie to support the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old…I’m sure Nessie couldn’t care less…and in the end, what matters is the critters!

By: Rogutaan

Rogutaan — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:22:40 +0000

Everytime I see Creationist vs Evolution debates I lose some of my religion.

By: planettom

planettom — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:56:54 +0000

Gridbug, please keep in mind that creationists stand with science and are using science to prove their theories and hypothesis.

Let’s understand that scientists, creationist or not, are trying to prove their hyposthesis. All hypothesis are tentative assumptions made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences, based on scientific study, testing and results.

Also, I would like to point out that not all creationists believe in the the “young earth” theory. There are some who believe in the “old earth” theory just as well. That opens up to the debates in the field of geology and some critics claim that the Geologic Column is flawed in that it relies upon circular reasoning. This is because the strata layers are not always found in the order in which they are supposed to be.

By: Foxfier

Foxfier — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:42:50 +0000

This really is wonderful irony.

Thank goodness for the internet!

By: gridbug

gridbug — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:37:41 +0000

@ rsswope:

All well and good, until you take into account the whole “re-written, re-translated and re-edited” angle. Whatever the book was in its original form we’ll probably never know. Therefore, it’s more an historical curiosity than a scientific standard.

By: rsswope

rsswope — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 20:42:36 +0000

What ever happened to Theistic Evolution?

Girdbug,Actually the Bible is the most reliable historical document (not document of history) when it comes to comparing ancient text with our own today. While the JEDP theory has been popular for decades in Biblical Archeology, recent finds put it into question.

By: gridbug

gridbug — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 20:03:19 +0000

CREATIONISM/INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE.

Considering that “the bible” is actually a collection of tales that have been edited, censored and mis-translated ad nauseum, what you’ve got at best is an interesting read filled with myth, conjecture, and cautionary fairy tales designed to keep the easily led in line, it’s impossible to measure the fiction against proven, hard data.

Science is fact. Visible, hands on, easily tested and retested.

Creationism/ID is 100% faith based with no physical evidence to substantiate its claims. NONE.

But by all means, believe what you want. Just stop trying to bring this nonsense up to the same level as true science. Thanks.

By: Foxfier

Foxfier — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:54:36 +0000

skeptik-
Please, stop showing off your ignorance of history…you just make yourself look bad.

By: jamesrav

jamesrav — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:34:49 +0000

that 1st depiction is pretty hilarious to me, a zebra-striped, obese
fella with Edward-Scissorhands arms. I know he’d kill me in one
swipe, but I’d be laughing at him as he did so.

By: Munnin

Munnin — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:25:05 +0000

It seems to me that Cryptozoology is, at its core, a scientific pursuit. Since creationism begins with a conclusion (not a hypothesis constructed from observations, but a point of faith and conviction based on a religious doctrine) and attempts to order scienticially obtained information about our surroundings in a way that supports that conclusion, it isn’t really science at all. To me, it is inappropriate to try to use Cryptozoology as a tool for asserting the dominence of just one religious doctrine among many, which is really the ultimate aim of creationism, whether creationists look at it that way or not.

I think this is a similar dynamic to the one that drives the arguments of many skeptical debunkers, who go to the length of actively discouraging and even ridiculing scientific inquiry into subjects upon which they have already passed judgement.
That’s not science, and neither is creationism.