Summations Only

You keep using "law" in an incorrect way.In science, a law is a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature, such as "the laws of thermodynamics."In other words, a "law" is devised by humans to describe what we observe.

And all the creationists in the world, and all the gibberish they come up with, won't change that.We have seen many examples where creationists try to change long-standing definitions--because they are inconvenient to creationists' claims.We have seen many examples where creationists try to change how science is done--because science contradicts creationists' claims.But since the Enlightenment, that's getting harder and harder for them to do, especially in the West. We no longer have to kowtow to established religions and their dogma.This has led creationists to try to (falsely) co-opt science through whatever means possible. This thread is but one example.

This thread has descended into absolute gibberish. Time for me to abandon ship.

The people who understand those things say they are evidence for an old earth.You, when you admit to not understanding them, are not entitled to an informed opinion.Repeat--you are not entitled to an informed opinion. On issues you don't understand you should remain silent, and perhaps learn!

That is not the end of it.That is evidence that the bible is wrong.That you refuse to accept the fact that the bible is wrong, or that someone's interpretation of the bible is wrong, is immaterial. Refusing to accept that fact just makes you wrong as well.

Creationists let belief get in the way of learning (hey, that would make a great signature line!). They will not--CANNOT--accept anything that contradicts the bible.They are not doing science--they are doing religious apologetics, the exact opposite of science. You are parroting a narrow interpretation of a bronze age myth, not expressing an informed opinion.An informed opinion would rely of evidence which could withstand challenges. The evidence has overwhelming shown that the 6000 year old date or anything close is absolutely wrong. So you are relying on belief, not evidence and you are doing religious apologetics, not science.Your opinions on the age of the earth are not based on reality, and you should not even think of using the word "science" in anything you ever post here. You are literally the exact opposite of science, and have no valid opinions whatsoever on science or its discoveries.

They believed the bible until they looked at the evidence and found out that it was wrong. Because they had seen the evidence for themselves they had to accept it.And it was more like 200 than 100 years ago that these early geologists reached those conclusions.

It doesn't matter if they were biblical or unbiblical--they were wrong!The evidence showed that they were wrong, but bible believers have continued to reject reason, evidence, and what the real world shows. In spite of all the evidence that shows that the earth is very old, bible believers continue to reject that evidence.Fine--but never call what you do science. That's an absolute delusion. It is the exact opposite of science.And saying you are just interpreting the evidence differently is also a delusion. You have to ignore a huge amount of evidence, cherry-pick a little bit of it, and misinterpret pretty much everything else in order to force the bible's version onto the real evidence. Science simply doesn't work that way--you're doing religious apologetics.I think you'd be calmer and happier if you just admitted that.

And easy example of "near-perfection, smoothness, [and] uniformity" would be a drop of water forming on the end of a pipette or faucet.It may not last for long, but it meets your criteria while it does. And there is no way that it can be considered to be "designed."Nor does it have "irreducible complexity" or "purpose."

Along with all of those other scientific items being discussed, I wonder how much understanding there is of the Kobayashi Maru scenario...Hmmmm.

And you claim to be doing science?That's exactly the opposite of science. That's pure apologetics.Edit: I see Jar said the same thing already, but more eloquently.Edited by Coyote, : Addition

Actually, archaeologists now-a-days have to be familiar with genetics and we have always had to know something about geology and soils. Since we use techniques from many other fields, we have to know a lot about them.And one of the first things we learn is to consult experts when we don't know something.

The Nobel Prize was established a long time ago, and the only categories are: Medicine, Chemistry, Physics, Literature, Peace, and Economic Sciences.They can't award a prize for Astronomy, Geology or any of the other similar sciences as they don't have an award category for them. This does not make them second-tier sciences.

The scientific method is "extreme in nature?" Or just the results you disagree with for religious reasons? You really dispute electronics, physics, chemistry and all the rest of the fields that rely on the scientific method? That I doubt highly. You just don't like the conclusions of some fields of science that contradict your religious beliefs, so you try to attack the scientific method as a whole? What nonsense. Only by creationists, who do so for religious reasons. Those who do science have accepted the evidence.Again creationists are disputing the method because they can't accept the conclusions, while many other fields that use the exact same methods do not get the same treatment. Biased a bit, eh? Nonsense back to you. The creator is what the whole of creation "science" and the intelligent design movement are all about. The current game is trying to hide the one specific creator that creationists all believe in so as to try and sneak one specific religious belief back into the schools and elsewhere. Everyone knows this, so trying to hide it is futile. No, it is not. You have to establish a workable hypothesis, which means you need a mechanism and supporting data, along with successful predictions. With enough of those, you might be able to establish a scientific theory. You do know what a scientific theory is, right? If not, let me know and I'll help you out.A proposition does not automatically lead to a conclusion in real science. What you do in creation "science" makes no difference in the real world. You are doing religious apologetics, and everyone knows that, so you aren't fooling anyone. The Dover decision made that clear. What you are doing is not science--it is religious apologetics, the exact opposite of science. And, like other creationists, you never even started doing science. Rather, you are trying 1) to co-opt the good name of the scientific method, and of science, by making vacuous claims that you're doing science while you are doing the exact opposite, and 2) you are trying change the definition and methods of science because real science contradicts your claims, rather than supporting them. Again, you're not fooling anyone.The rest of your gibberish ignored for the time being.

Then why do creationists spend all their time attacking evolution in particular and the scientific method in general?Why do creationists not present their evidence, and the methods they use to develop that evidence, into a scientific theory?It is if creationists think that by disputing evolution they prove their religious beliefs.This thread shows that very clearly. It started with the premise of "Science in Creationism" but after hundreds of posts, never got there.