quote:
You're basically right.
AAAHHHH!!!!
You finally did it, TB!!!!
You just admitted that Creationists take what they "know" to be true, before they ever do any research, attempt to explain nature to make these preconceptions "true", and ignore the evidence that doesn't fit those preconceptions.
You admitted that Creationism is not science!!
Never thought I'd see that.
quote:
So it comes down to whether the creationist sceanrios explain the data well or not. I think they do.
Why? If you just admitted that your way blatantly ignores evidence if it doesn't fit with what you have already decided is true, before doing any research or looking at any actual evidence, how on earth can you honestly think Creation Science explains anything?
quote:
The evolutionary scenarios are also proposals that initially came from only a hint in the data. So the foundations of both sides are not that different.
But this is in direct contradiction to what you just said above!
You just said that the origins of Creation Science is a bunch of presupposed "truths" that you try to fit the evidence into. This is exactly the opposite to the way real scince is done. The evidence, the data, is gathered first in real science, and hypothese and theories are developed as frameworks to explain the data.
quote:
If you think creation is not hinted at in the data I think you are extremely biased.
Biased in favor of the evidence? Of course.
I must say, in conclusion, that you are one of the most nimble, adept mental gymnasts I have ever known, TB.
The intellectual contorsions you go through to hold your illogical, unscientific views, all the while really believing that you think and reason scientifically must actually physically hurt sometimes!
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-24-2003]