Creation Museum a House of Cards Sitting on Old Old Earth Rocks

No I'm not. It's all very well going all dewy-eyed and Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto about them, but there are differences. For example, I wouldn't presume to teach others about a scientific subject without first having looked at a relevant textbook. I have spent what must amount to several working days this year alone looking up quotations and references to verify them. (Not just about evolution, I have other interests, but still.) I find out what my intellectual opponents think by reading what they have written, and criticize them accordingly. And so forth. There are subjects on which I may still be irrational --- who knows? --- but at least I am conscientious. This does, I think, make them inferior to me, because they have failed, not through want of reason, but through want of effort. Any man may be irrational now and then, but no-one is obliged to be habitually and systematically lazy.

Technically, he's right --- the Ica stones are the most compelling evidence for creationism.

What post do you think you're replying to?--- Well, a scientist has to do science. My stepson has a degree in teaching, but he doesn't have a job as a teacher and never has; in fact he works as a security guard. So would it be accurate to call him a teacher? No, he's a security guard.In the same way if someone gets a qualification in science, but spends all his time bullshitting rather than doing science, then it is reasonable to say that he is not a scientist but a bullshitter. Because it's easy to discount very small insignificant trivial things.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Though I like to think that mathematicians are wrong less often.