So far, we have heard from some christians saying that the flood was necessary in order to save ourselves from ourselves. God did us a favour, basically.
If this god is an all-loving, compassionate and just god, why choose drowning as the method of wiping life out? Why not just have a click of...
But the whole of creation didn't sin. It was (apparently) just one species. Why the need for wholesale destruction?
If I were a designer, I would fix the part that didn't fit, not scrap the whole design if the rest was ok.
If true, it makes god the worst mass-murderer in history, surpassing all tyrants and dictators we have seen to date. To be fair to the big guy, though, he was later sorry for what did.
So it all worked out fine in the end.
Yes, Behe made a fool of himself at the trial. My more recent points above, though, concerned the qualifications of the scientists, not what they promote.
Regarding the 50 scientists: what compelling arguments do they present? None whatsoever, in my view. Hence the need to debate and expose...
In the field of ID (which I regard as a form of creationism), there are numerous highly qualified scientists. Prof. Behe, for example. Regarding straightforward creationism, an interesting book is "In Six Days - Why Fifty Scientists Choose To Believe In Creation" edited by John F Ashton. In this...
Smoke and Alceste.
I understand what you are saying, but I'll have to agree to disagree. Allowing creationists into a University setting to debate with specialist academics in front of an audience is no bad thing, imo. If sections of society are scientifically illiterate, hearing a debate in...
But if creationists are not debated or required to come up with valid evidence, then they will continue peddling whatever nonsense they want. If they debate with scientists on matters concerning evolution, flood geology etc, then they would have to verify their claims, which, of course, they...