Debate - Ongoing controversy, the EvC question

This is terribly OT for a Great Debate topic, but what the hell? Nobody that I'm aware of says Christians can't do science. Persons of all faiths or none are welcome in the scientific brother/sisterhood.But like all scientists, they must cling to scientific methodologies. That stipulates:1) that theories be falsifiable
2) that all relevant evidence be considered
3) that findings be submitted to peer reviewamong other things. Creationists, on the other hand, promote "theories" that are universally unfalsifiable, reject evidence that conflicts with their a priori conclusion (that the Bible is inerrant), and never submit to the peer review process.Christians can be scientists, but creationists aren't scientists because creationism isn't science, it's dogma. And those very same scientists, to a man, rejected the idea that the Bible was inerrant and literally true. Why do you suppose that was?

Nope, they're the universal rules of doing science, and it's how we separate good science from junk science: UFOlogy, Holocaust denial, paranormalism. and creationism. No, they don't, Almeyda. Not everybody's like you. I realize that you think rejecting evidence that doesn't fit your conclusion is standard operating procedure, but it isn't. You only think it is because that's all you've ever seen creationists do, and because they style themselves as "scientists", you assume that's what scientists do.In a lot of ways what you've gone through is like abuse - like when a child-molesting father tells his daughter that "that's how fathers love their little girls." It takes a long time for a woman to trust men after that - just like it's going to take you a while to trust scientists again.Scientists don't reject data just because it's contrary to their conclusions, because tearing down conclusions is how you win the Nobel Prize. With that on the line, don't you think there's a pretty good incentive to follow the evidence wherever it goes?Now that you know that scientists don't just reject data because it conflicts with an "evolutionary worldview," don't you think it's time to find out exactly what it is that leads otherwise Christian scientists to reject creationism?

The fact that the results for a valid test are corraborated by other dating methods.If the tests weren't valid, they would return radically divergent dates. Instead, for objects within the valid time frame, dates from unrelated dating methods tend to converge. It's like being weighed on a spring scale, a doctor's balance, and by submersion in water. If you get the same weight each time, you can be pretty sure those methods were valid.So no, that's not evolutions rejecting evidence - that's the realization that measurements have practical limits, and when you exceed them, you get information that doesn't match other measurements. This isn't even a true story.The human jaw does form from an embryonic structure that, in some other organisms, becomes a gill. So Hackel wasn't a liar, but either you are, or whoever told you that story was. Seems to me that presenting half-remembered or outright inaccurate stories as evidence is the same thing as lying, but that's just me.Again, you've presented a story that's just plain wrong. Evolution simply is a change in allele frequencies, which causes speciation under specific circumstances. So it's not changing the definition - evolution means both of those things, because they're the same thing.

That it proves that, over short timeframes, broth does not give rise to bacteria.So what? It hardly proves that life can never come from non-life, because Pasteur hardly tested every concievable situation of non-life, now did he?