Comment as made to YEC Jason Petersen, under his new blog post about tonight's big debate:http://answersforhope.org/preliminary-c ... comment-37
The FULL debate title is 'Is Creation a viable model of Origins in the modern Scientific Era?' (or something very similar to that). You may choose to censor me here but Ken Ham and co cannot censor the agreed debate topic.
Some things in science eg dark matter or dark energy are 'up for question'. However, a 4.5 bn year old Earth and an even older wider universe are NOT up for question - sorry. And your accusations against the science community are false - they are not trying to turn science into an immutable and unchangeable authority on every topic. And scientists who are not religious but secular are not pushing pseudo-science - unlike Ken Ham and co. I agree that proclaiming that science has disproven God might be pseudo-science - but few do that (I doubt that Bill Nye does). "Creation scientists have governing presuppositions that The Bible is true, and they will interpret scientific data in light of that fact. A secularist might say, well, that is pseudoscience". They would be correct. Normal scientists do NOT have presuppositions that FORCE a particular interpretation of evidence and/or RULE OUT ON PRINCIPLE other possible interpretations.
By the way, what is a 'secularlist'?
Given your past record of censoring me instead of trying to rebut my comments, I am also posting this onto the BCSE community forum under 'Conversations with creationists'.
EDIT: a predictable largely fact-free rant from Sorensen:http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/02 ... -anti.html