Summations Only

Well luckily this is a really easy one to prove, show me a standard undergraduate science text book that teaches creationism in biology and a standard text that teaches. 10,000 year old earth in geology.

Wherever there are Old Earth assumptions we disagree, but the bulk of science has nothing to do with such assumptions. Genetics doesn't need them, most Geology doesn't need them, medicine doesn't need them, very little needs them and the stuff that uses them is all theoretical and impractical, essentially useless, they are tacked on and have nothing to do with the facts of the sciences.

Can you show me the last post you made on a scientific subject where you did not contradict what scientists have to say about it?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If what they said has to do with an Old Earth of course I contradict it. That's most of what is said at EvC since that's what the debate is about, but it isn't necessary to any of the sciences.

This is technically true, geology has no need to assume that the Earth is old, because geologists can prove it.However, your intention, I am sure, is to pretend that geologists have no need of this knowledge, while also pretending that it is a mere assumption --- that is, to tell two lies at once, not to tell the truth by their mutual cancellation. In this you are, of course, wrong.

So you can't show me any scientific text books that teach a young earth or creation. So you will you will now accept that your opinions do not agree with science.

Yes, I do believe they don't need it. They make use of it here and there though I don't think it's really necessary, but the vast majority of their knowledge has no need of it at all. 90% or more of your course in Geology is quite acceptable to a Creationist because all that knowledge has nothing to do with an Old Earth.

I said nothing about text books. I said science doesn't need it. Text books of course include it because they are brainwashed, but it's possible to read around their nonsense.

So you're defining "science" as something that doesn't need science books or even scientists.I suppose aircraft don't "need" service manuals or pilots either but they're not very useful without them.

You are saying that scientists do not need the science that they know? Even for you, that's an odd thing to say. The entirety of geology depends on the concept of an old earth - without that, none of it makes any sense at all, the study of geology would be no more than stamp collecting with no concern of where the stamps came from, it would just be a collection of rocks with no explanatory power.Believe what you like, but don't believe that your beliefs are congruent with science or that it doesn't matter; it does.

And beginning to give up old tribal superstitions is what allows science to find some answers.But so many cling to those old tribal superstitions and reject overwhelming evidence.

They disagree.I'll ask you again, why aren't there any creationist oil companies? You'd think that there'd be at least one, maybe based in Texas.

No I did not say that. I said that the sciences don't need the Old Earth concept.

Sorry, I disagree with you. 90% of Dr. A's Geology is presented without the Old Earth concept and is fine with a YEC.

As the author, may I say that that's complete bollocks?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.