Always a laugh

Well, being that Creationists are humans, the potential for them to lie is there. However, the potential is also in the hands of evolutionists.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[b] However he should not use absolutes in his posts. I also want to point out that Gish's degree is valid, he just never put it to respectable use.

​

[/QUOTE]Thank you for admitting this. It is very misleading to accuse Creation scientists as a whole of being bad scientists, and then citing one example.

The whole "Creation scientists find facts to fit around a theory" is total hypocrisy. I'm sure most evolutionists start out with their theory, and then find facts to fit. If you can prove me wrong about this, I will be very suprised. Just because evolutionists don't have a statement of faith, they still are subject to the act of bias. And not all Creation scientists have signed a statement of faith. Gary Parker actually CONVERTED after he re-analyzed the facts!Please, somebody prove me wrong or stop claiming this silly argument!

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
The reason why i doubt that creation science IS science is because the conclusion that the world was made by God is reached BEFORE any study of the question is even done.

---

Don't you think it could be the same case with evolutionists? If not, why not? What is to stop scientists from interpreting the evidence to fit their preconcieved theory? (Although an opinion, I don't think peer-reviewed articles cleanse the bias, because scientists are usually INTERPRETING facts, not BENDING them. Therefore, it would be hard to identify incorrect work, since it is only an interpretation. What scientists may not always realize is that there is an alternate interpretation.)