There's a weird phenomenon going on here.
If a creationist says something, it is assumed to be wrong, and people jump all over what is said and the person who said it, without really putting any thought into the objections. This is especially true if it appears that the creationist is saying it in order to support creationism.
You are probably right, and I won't say that I am never biased towards Creationists.
But the question here is not only about what DOC asserted in this particular OP. We can have a discussion about what he says about science and what might be right or wrong according to Science or according to whatever it is that DOC believes in (and to some extent people are doing that here). But an honest discussion is not what DOC is after, and that becomes pretty clear when you look at
how he replies to things, and not what he may say about this particular subject. It becomes clear when you read his others threads as well.
What's the point in us discussing this honestly when he doesn't? His intents with these threads are not honest from the start. He doesn't really want to know what Science actually says (if he happens to be right about what science says, what does it matter? It doesn't matter one bit for his intents). His intents are not to have a discussion about this and to maybe learn more about it. His intent is to ask "trick questions" that will lure athesists into painting themselves into corners and thus make a case for his true opinion (in this case: "if atheists really knew what absurd things science says they would think worse of it and turn more to religion instead"). He thinks that if he can pull something out of context that he think sounds absurd, and can make us agree that it is absurd, then we will also agree that religion is a better thing to turn to when finding a basis for how we want to look at life. See?
Like his thread about that you can't be an atheist and become the president of the USA. If we agree to that atheism would mean you would get no votes, then he thinks we will also agree that it is wrong to be an atheist, and that the fact that most people won't vote for an atheist is some sort of proof that religion is right and god exists and so on...
It's a tactic he runs with. "Tricky" questions that we (hopefully) can't really disagree with, and then trying to make us agree with his reasons, opinions and beliefs based on said "tricky" question.
Thing is, his tricky questions are not so tricky, they are very transparent and silly, and often factually wrong. Even when they are not factually wrong, they are meant to trick us, not asked in honesty. He also constantly fails in making people here fall in his "oh so clever" traps. He constantly fails in making people draw the conclusions that he wants us to draw. Still, he keeps at it. It just makes him dishonest. Stubborn, stupid
and dishonest.
Maybe we are biased against Creationists, but in this case I think people are just seeing through this guy, and that is why they are not respecting him.
