quote:
GDR, keep an eye on my debate with Moose regarding fossil dating. I debate the true creationist POV.
By which you mean YOUR POV. Which the vast majority of creationists would reject. By what standard is it "the true Creationist POV" ? Does that mean anything more than "Buzsaw believes it" ?
quote:
Of course you all think my science is inaccurate. Why should any evolutionist agree with someone else's hypotheses?
I think you mean that we KNOW that much of your "science" is inaccurate. For instance we know that your claim that palaeontologists date fossils be working out the age of the particles of sediment, going back to when the original rock the sediment was eroded from is not true. In fact we can say with reasonable certainty that it is an invention born of prejudice and wilful ignorance, with no concern for the truth.
So this is the "ideological" difference, that you find so important. Evolutionists, in general, care about the truth. You care only about your own beliefs.
quote:
You should judge not judge my posts on the basis of the accuracy of them in the views of members debating on a totally different ideology about science. I will be applying some sensible arguments supportive to the creationist paradigm with Moose regarding fossil dating problems.
In other words your arguments should not be judged on their truthfulness nor even whether they really make sense (it does not make sense to ASSUME that palaeontologists are idiots who cannot see the problem with your method of dating fossils and actually use it, for instance - even for someone who does not know that the assumption is false). On what criteria should your arguments be judged then ? It seems the only one you will accept is "Buzsaw believes it". That is hardly a reasonable "Science Paradigm"