Spleen Squeezin's

The AIG scientists are, at least, open in admitting that 1)they start from the premise of Creation 2)their models, as such, are based on their best current research-- and are not cast in stone, and are the work of fallible men.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/bigbang.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/does-the-big-bang-fit

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/31/reason-nine-stars

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/stars.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

It's not whether or not their ideas are right, it's that some I have read have had flaws so obvious I read the entire article looking for them to answer that criticism, and a few where their methods seemed rather shady, and that makes me uncomfortable. As I've said somewhere in the post, a couple of the lecturers at my uni were creationists and actually gave lectures with AIG at my school a couple of times, and they said they'd prefer not to be associated with some of it. Thankyou for the links.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)