[Tribune7]

A scientist finds a fossil and he has questions for it. A creationist finds a fossil and he has dismissals for it. . .

Questions are fine but declaring conclusions as unquestionable is not fine.

Creationism has nothing to teach us.

I think you are placing many, many different world-view philosophies under that rubric, and the word should be restricted to the belief that Genesis and the calculations based on Biblical genealogies should be unquestioned.

If you use the world broadly, however, as in "we are endowed by our Creator" creationism can teach us much.

You say you are an agnostic. What's more important to know -- the existence of God or the age of the Earth?

[VadeRetro]

Questions are fine but declaring conclusions as unquestionable is not fine.

Science is a systematic investigation of nature. You aren't investigating if you refuse to realize when you're getting someplace.

You say you are an agnostic. What's more important to know -- the existence of God or the age of the Earth?

If you have evidence for the age of the Earth, you've been paying attention. If you have evidence for the existence of God, you're either nuts or up for a Nobel.

[grey_whiskers]

What's more important to know -- the existence of God or the age of the Earth?

The age-old quarrel between religion and science is based on a confusion between connaître and savoir.

"To know God; to make Him known."

"Do you know the generating function for the associated Laguerre polynomials?"

Cheers!