What will you feel and say when your world of conclusions is proven wrong?
No one here is married to any particular conclusions. We're devoted to following the evidence where it leads. When someone introduces new evidence or improved insights that lead to different conclusions then we'll think that's pretty neat.
That might be true, but with your record here of gross dishonesty how could I possibly believe what you say? You have thoroughly discredited yourself and this is one of the consequences of your persistent actions. Only you can try to correct this situation.
When any of our conclusions is shown to be wrong, then we correct it. That is one of the characteristics of science. And science busies itself with constantly testing its conclusions, which is another characteristic of science. In fact, scientists are very strongly motivated to test and try to prove wrong the conclusions of other scientists, because when your own research depends on the research of others, you want to be as certain as possible that those others' research is correct.
As a result, science is both self-correcting and highly motivated to be self-correcting. In sharp contrast, religious dogma is extremely resistant to any form of correction and is highly motivated to prevent any testing and attempts at correction. The same is true of your own position of promoting a state of unquestioning ignorance.
In fact, we want to be proven wrong. If we are wrong, then we want to have that situation corrected. Religion and the faith-based approach do not want to be proven wrong and will do everything it can to avoid being corrected. We are far more dedicated to truth and seeking truth than a faith-based approach could ever be.
quote:Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates. ("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
In another article discussing Gentry's polonium-halo claims, Wakefield contrasted the difference between how a scientist and a creationist view a mystery (paraphrased from memory):
quote:When a scientist sees a mystery, he wants to solve it. When a creationist sees a mystery he considers it proof of God, so he wants to keep it a mystery.
He has said a lot of things and has contradicted himself several times. Frankly, it is very difficult to read too much of his nonsense since it causes my eyes to both cross and roll at the same time.
Somebody had mentioned that he was claiming to be an 18-year-old girl and Percy replied that when he registered he claimed to be 30. Somebody else's mistake or more misinformation from Colbard? That's a toss-up at this point.
He still needs to straighten up and get his act together if he is to ever have any hope of restoring a modicum of honesty.