Summations Only

Yes, as long as facts are given as being unconnected to each other, there is no problem to the YEC. Once you show how the facts fit together, it is disputed.

That's precisely what I don't wonder about at all because that's what REAL science does, builds stuff that works. It's the fantastic stuff that has nothing to do with reality that I reject, the supposed ancient age of the earth and the supposed evolution of all life forms from millions of years ago. And not just because of my religion, simply because it's idiotic. It's unprovable for one thing, can't be proved, and is nothing but conjecture from beginning to end although it's treated as Fact by Science. And it has nothing whatever to do with what science is able to build that works. Which someday even all you here will know.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You could clear this all up by pointing to one bit of "real" science you accept. As of now, you've simply asserted that you (and all YEC's, apparently) actually do accept some science even though the evidence ("real" evidence, that is) strongly indicates otherwise.So, let us have it. What actual science that can be found in a science text do you accept? Since you claim to accept 90% of it, I expect you to not toss a softball and offer up some hard science that you accept.Do you accept or deny this challenge?

Unfortunately, Faith, you ought to have a problem with all science. Not one branch of science recognises your personal opinion as having any special value. It's not the conclusions that are the real issue - it's the methodology.Simply calling it "idiotic" to prefer the truth over your falsehood is not much of an argument. And one that any real scientist would find laughable.

Also there's the, y'know, finding of the oil. On which basis we seem to have built an entire civilization.However, it's nice to know what you consider "REAL science". Apparently things that aren't "REAL science" include propositions such that the planet Jupiter exists, that giraffes have long necks, and that daffodils have yellow flowers. Terribly unscientific.Also you might want to get in touch with the people who coined the phrase "creation science" and stop them from using it, because unlike geology and biology, it's never been any use to anyone except the charlatans who profit from selling propaganda to dupes. Yes, Faith, just because of your religion. If you weren't a fundie, you would have absolutely no need to oppose well-established facts. That would be a really telling point if it was true.Has it ever occurred to you that the reason scientists disagree with you about scientific subjects which they, being scientists, know about, and you, being you, do not, is that they know more about science than you do?Exhibit #1 would be foreveryoung, who shared your views until he learned something about geology. If you ever learn anything about geology, you too might find yourself starting to doubt.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sorry, I have no problem with the real sciences, including scientific methodology. I was in high school when the Sputnik science craze was going on and we got an indoctrination in the principles and history and value of science that couldn't possibly be outshone by any or all of you at EvC, and I never lost any of that although I never pursued science myself. Evolution, however, is ABOUT THE PAST, it is NOT SCIENCE AS REAL SCIENCE is SCIENCE, the kind of science that can be replicated in the laboratory, that produces things, that builds things and so on. I laugh right back at the laughing ones who can't tell the difference.

Foreveryoung capitulated to the usual mental acrobatics, sad. It is possible to be a Geologist and remain true to the Biblical Young Earth; Kurt Wise has done it. He's wrong that there is sufficient evidence but by conceding it while expecting it eventually to be falsified he's permitted himself to live in both worlds.I began having doubts about evolution long before I was a Christian. It is true, however, that I probably wouldn't have pursued them beyond my initial attempts if I hadn't become a Christian and read some Creationism, I would simply have lived with the cognitive dissonance indefinitely, constantly recognizing the lack of evidence, the evidence that goes nowhere and so on, while having to accept the party line at the same time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Have you ever recieved an influenza vaccination?

Heavens to betsy, are you going to accuse me of denying basic medicine?

Kindly answer the question. It's not a trick.

I don't remember if I ever had a flu injection, maybe once a long time ago, but probably not. I don't worry about the flu.

Fair enough. Do you dispute the efficacy or the methodolgy of the administration of the flu vaccine? Do you accept that it works for it's stated purpose?

When they get the right match of vaccine with strain of flu for the season, which sometimes they've goofed up, other than that yes of course I accept that it works.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then the following vicious and stupid assault on the scientific method seems somewhat unjustified. Please promise me you'll never sit on a jury. Faith. Faith, Faith, Faith. These "laughing ones" who think that science can tell us about the past, and can tell us things with no practical utility, include ... y'know ... scientists. And the scientific method is, pretty much by definition, the method that scientists use. Y'know, the method that tells them that the Earth is old, that evolution has been happening for billions of years, and that YEC is a pile of horseshit?Now, if you have a different method, and clearly you do, then it's a free country. But it's dishonest to call it the scientific method, when a more appropriate name would be "the bunch-of-hooey-Faith-made-up-in-her-head-that-makes-scientists-laugh-with-contempt-and-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-scientific-method-'cos-of-not-being-scientific method".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Are you aware that the administration of the flu vaccine is based on evolutionary biology? You don't sincerely think they just guess, do you?::edit::if you doubt me, here you go:Everyday Evolution Revealed in Flu Shots | Live ScienceInfluenza, an ever-evolving target for vaccine development - Understanding EvolutionThose are two pretty esteemed science sources. Since you claim to not object to 99% of science AND you admitted to accepting the science behind the flu vaccine, you have yourself quite a pickle.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.