Just as God made two marbles disappear so that 2 marbles plus 2 marbles is actually six.
Exactly, there is no need to show evidence. Once the supernatural is involved, there is no argument that can overcome it, since it operates above a level that us mere humans can comprehend. You can present any argument you like and all I have to do is say no god did it.
'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat' The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
How exactly like a geologist might feel....especially if there is reduced financial gain unless "the boss/your peers/the media" likes your pet theories.
Then why don't creationists go to the same rock formations and measure the isotope ratios of the same samples? If geologists are truly fudging their data then it would seem to be pretty easy to discover. For example, use K/Ar dating to measure the K/T tektites. Use Ar/Ar dating to measure the same historically dated lava flows that Dalrymple dated*.
I think we all know why this doesn't happen. Creationists know that no one is fudging the data, so they have to cast doubt on the methodology. The sad thing is that they do so by misusing the methodology.
* Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1969. 40Ar/36Ar analyses of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6: 47-55.
"This is very strange. Are you accusing all scientists of tinkering with test results?"
First, we are mostly talking about historical speculation. We could cal it "Scientific Historical Speculation" if you like.
If we are talking about...actual, current, live test results, then choose your topic drug safety global temperatures diets that work drug effectiveness I dunno....you choose a current scientific topic, I'll show you massive tinkering, bias, and discovered fraud.
How do we find Oil? Just what IS oil, by the way? How did so much organic matter build up in one place anyway? Millions of tiny thin layers of leaves over millions of years? When we dig in the bottom of lakes or oceans we don't find much buildup. It gets eaten and digested.
I don't have "unquestionable authority in scientific research". I have 2 decades of firsthand experience in scientific research. Seen with eyes, felt with hands, burn marks, watched people die kind of experience. I know what goes on in R&D. Whatever the boss wants or/and the customer is paying for.
So you still trust anything that claims to be "Science". But I've seen behind the curtain.
The real argument here should be "Why aren't 99.5 percent of all fossils clearly transitional?"
Being that "Evolution" is supposed to be the nature of everything that we see around us...the question should be why did Darwin have to search for 20 years to find enough to back his wacky idea?
The answer is that ANY theory so foundational to the development of life should have BILLIONS of trees and fossil series. Horse Series, Fish series, whale series, shark series, turtle series,,,etc, etc.
Skip those last two. Even Science admits that sharks and turtles east Darwin theories for breakfast.
Then why don't creationists go to the same rock formations and measure the isotope ratios of the same samples?
A group of scientists, also creationists, did just that. With over a million dollars in creationist money they set out to show the decay constant was a variable, and that radiometric dates are all wrong.
Their results confirmed what scientists have claimed all along.
The creationists refused to believe their own results.
But the evidence is not known for a thousand years after their experiment is completed.
The evidence is here, right now. All evidence is created in the past, be it seconds or millenia.
As some of those scientist of 2000 years ago and even a 1000 years ago have been proven to be wrong in the last 200 years.
How were they proven wrong?
But I did not have a marble experiment.
Ok, that's fine.
But I am still curious as to how you would pick between the four marble and the six marble conclusions. What criteria would you use to determine which is correct? Both are consistent with the evidence, are they not?
Well if your 2 + 2 = 4 was on topic then my 4 quarts of water poured into a gallon jug was just as on topic.
Care to speculate how much water you would have in the gallon jug that will hold 4 quarts of water.
You can even put the 4 quarts into two half gallon jug's making sure there is exactly 2 quarts in each.
Then pour them into the gallon jug.
You will not have 4 quarts of water in the gallon jug.
Of course you won't have 4 quarts. You will have 6 quarts, and God makes the other two disappear to make it seem like there are 4 quarts of volume in the gallon jug. This is a proper conclusion, is it not?
The same thing happens when two scientist examine the same evidence of an experiment and come to different conclusions.
It makes no difference whether the scientist is creationist, theist, atheist, or agnostic.
Their world view has an effect on how they interpet the evidence.
So you are arguing for a post-modernistic, everything goes mentality? So you agree that the 6 quart conclusion above is just as legitimate as the 4 quart conclusion above? You would also agree that it is just as legitimate to claim that the universe was created Last Tuesday by an omnipotent deity who included false memories and a false history into the universe?