Age of mankind, dating, and the flood

The problem is that the flaws are invented by yourselves. But they're not really "discarded"... They're left unaddressed until actual evidence is brought forth. It could've been's and maybe it was's aren't scientific propositions if they aren't based on empirical evidence. There's no reason to waste time and money on them until they can actually be investigated. No, that's not the problem. The problem is that science has shown that the Bible gets things wrong and contains errors. Creationists^TM simply cannot accept that as a possibility. So, they invent these "flaws" in science so they can focus on that instead of facing the fact that their cherished book isn't perfect.That 'attack' on science is why these websites exist. It isn't that science really is biased against creationism and unwilling to address it, its that creationists don't have any empirical evidence and science ignores the unevidenced. Creationists feel slighted, but its nothing against them, personally. Its that their approach is unscientific from the get-go.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : proofreading by edit >.<

But the bias is only against unevidenced proclamations. Its not against creationists, themselves. Hell, I'm a creationist. It the anti-evolution portion of creationists, that just make up unevidence crap, that cry that they're being biased against. If they could just provide evidenced ideas, than there wouldn't be any bias. Got any examples? This medium, online discussion boards, doesn't allow you to determine emotion. Take this for example:OMG! HOW THE HELL COULD YOU WRITE THAT!!!!Did you detect any emotion in that? Well, it had none, I just wrote it that way to make you think it did.So what are you talking about, specifically, that was emotional? But its your application of those facts that people are arguing against. Like when you show that yeast can have different mutation rates in high UV and then erroneously think that can also be applied to humans. When you're told it can't be applied to humans, you cry that people aren't dealing with the fact that mutations are affected by UV. Well, its totally irrelevant to the issue. Unfortuantely, you only see bias. This site is representative of the evolution vs creation debate. It has all kinds of different "thought". Yeah, you see it... its just that you're wrong about what its towards.

A free for all is towards everyones' disadvantage equally. You are no more hurt by it than anyone else. Everyone can prevent off-topic side issues by not replying to them. Yeah right. Its really because you're completely wrong and getting your ass handed to you because the people who post here are pretty smart and can back up their arguments with evidence.But at least you found yourself a scapegoat. We wouldn't expect you to actually blame yourself. I'm just glad that your attempt at self-martyrdom didn't go as planned, 'cause that's no fun to watch.Watching you try to writhe out of facing the errors of your arguments by blaming it on the administrator is pretty funny tho.