Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why creation "science" isn't science
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 365 (2334)
01-17-2002 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
01-13-2002 9:22 AM


"In most of these cases, I really think that the people saying this simply do not know how to evaluate a notion on it's scientific merits. IOW, they don't know how to tell the difference between real science and religion dressed up in a lab coat pretending to do science."
--Ok lets see then.
"Listing web sites which explain the difference between science and the non-science of Creation "science" have produced nothing more than bald assertions and denials such as, "That's not true." "
--This is not about listing various web sites opinons on what they think to be true, infallable, fact, and whatnot. We are here to discuss our own views not start jumping in with other peoples views and saying, thus, you have to be dumb to think creation science is science. Anyone who is ready to say 'that's not true' must certainly be equipt or know where to find the equiptment and understanding to uphold what you have claimed or withdraw it before it is subject to critisism.
"In this thread, I would like to start a very specific discussion of what science is (including methodology), in what ways Creation "science" isn't science, and in what ways Biology and the ToE are science."
--And I will continue to press why 'creation 'science'' is science, and theology and faith are in a realm beyond science, and thus creation science.
"Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods
which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in
order to understand them. We think we understand empirical phenomena when we have a satisfactory theory which explains how the phenomena work, what regular patterns they follow, or why they appear to us as they do. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena, although science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural."
--Exactly
"Science does not assume it knows the truth about the empirical world a priori. Science assumes it must discover its knowledge. Those who claim to know empirical truth a priori (such as so-called scientific creationists) cannot be talking about scientific knowledge. Science presupposes a regular order to nature and assumes there are underlying principles according to which natural phenomena work. It assumes that these principles or laws are relatively constant. But it does not assume that it can know a priori either what these principles are or what the actual order of any set of empirical phenomena is."
--Sounded good untill it accused scientific creationists as being uncooperative with this definition, we in no way claim that we are infallably right and that we cannot be falsified because we believe that the Bible is infallable, thus unfalsifiable. Which is exactly the flaw, scientific creationism has nothing to do with supernatural entities, though on the other hand the origin of the universe does.
"So, here we have one violation of the definition of science by Creation "science": Creationists assume that they have special knowledge ahead of time of what they are going to find."
--We do not assume that we have prior special infallable knowledge, we simply say hey look at this book, and look at science, science is evidence that this book is right. This is your flaw in what your view is on 'scientific creationism'.
"Here is another non-scientific quality of Creation "science"; the fact that it is considered non-falsifiable by it's proponents. The basic premise that the Flood happened, for example, is held to be infallibly true, it is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific."
--Again this is another misunderstanding of creation science. Your getting theology and faith mixed in with it. I in no way say that the Flood is infallibly true, I say that I believe it happend and here is my evidence to back it up, as we discuss in the Flood Discussion thread.
p.s. Sorry I've been gone for about 4 days, things are really heating up in these forums, and I'm liking it
happy debating.
------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 01-13-2002 9:22 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by gene90, posted 01-17-2002 3:02 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 33 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-17-2002 5:13 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 34 by nator, posted 01-17-2002 9:33 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 365 (2380)
01-18-2002 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Minnemooseus
01-17-2002 5:13 PM


"But generally the creationist view is that they do have special infallable knowledge."
--Generally mabye, I would have to admit that AiG or ICR may feel that it is the way they think creationism has to be universaly speaking. Though this makes no relevance now, you are unable to say that Creation science is this way, because creationists look at Creation science in their own view and what to include in it. I also will admit that if Creation Science is including the Faith, then it isn't real science. Though I do believe that AiG and ICR and such and so creationist organisations make these on their statements of belief, not how they are going to do their research. I believe the same things, though I disclude the supernatural in the realm of the science of creationism, excluding origins. To fight against any statement of belief that any other organisation proclaims makes really no relevance in this forum unless they are here to defend it. This goes also for any belief of an evolutionist for the creationists to undermine.
"I find it acceptable that a creation hypothesis is put forward. Then you can indeed look for scientific evidence to support it. But all the scientific evidence creationists put forth consists of perceived flaws in the theory of evolution, which are proposed to be gaps for the creation hypothesis to fill. But there is no evidence presented, in support of the creation hypothesis itself."
--Ofcourse there is evidence presented in suport of the Creation theory, everything that evolution has that is evidence for evolution that I have ever seen has a relevance to an interperetation for the Creation theory. And in many cases it seems more logical, but this is mostly because the evolutionists claim that they will find more information to work with their theory, this is completely relevant and shouldn't be disscredited against, though we cannot work with something that has not been discovered yet.
--------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-17-2002 5:13 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 365 (2385)
01-18-2002 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by nator
01-17-2002 9:33 PM


"Well, it isn't science, as science as defined in my original post, which is a very good definition."
--I totally agree with the definition of science, and it is exactly what I will work with, there is a small problem with saying that 'creation science' isn't scientific, because then you include the entire creation science society, the beleifs of every creationist claimed to be unscientific. I haven't much of a problem with you trying to say that some Creationist organisation is unscientific, that we can possibly work with, but saying 'creation science' as a whole, should not be claimed.
"Have you read the ICR and CRS websites at all?"
--Yes I have, but you cannot argue the definition of creation science on the foundation of any organization as being the fundimental and the reality in its whole. To argue with 'creation science' in its whole will lose, though to argue with ICR or AiG's statements of faith is another story and another topic.
"Sorry, but you most certainly do assume knowledge of nature a priori."
--This is my faith, not my logic. I don't exactly 'assume' I 'believe'.
"If you decide that the Flood happened before you even go looking at the natural evidence, and you do not allow any evidence that the flood didn't happen to sway you from your belief that it did happen, then you are assuming prior special infallable knowledge."
--I never claimed this? I do not say that it is infallibly correct that the Global Flood happend, just as you think that the evidnece is overwhelming toward evolution, I look at the exact same thing and say that it is feasably explained by this Global Flood. To prove the flood didn't happen to me, you have to prove that it isn't possible, I only believe its possibility in the realm of 'creation science', and I cannot claim it as otherwize unless I have some sort of video tape of its happening or something of that nature. It is my faith that says it happend. This isn't an argument against Creation science.
"This is not science."
--I agree
"If you can show me that the ICR and CRS is in any way different from my portrayal of Creation Science, be my guest, but I doubt that you can do it."
--For one, this would take alot of reading. Second, it has no relevance to creation science, it is an argument against the science of these organizations, not against creation science.
"Your problem is that you still think that creationists somehow do any science. They do not."
--You have been unable to prove me wrong. And even if you were to claim this against any of those organisations, I could flip up one of their articles and discredit your assertion that they do no science. Though to say anymore more research would be needed.
"Creationists do not submit papers to peer-reviewed publications. They do not do research."
--Ofcourse they do, some of their work is even looked up to to some secular unbiased scientists. If your implying that we need to subit something to national geographic or nature magazines or anything of that nature, it isn't going to happen, they are quite biased and ther have been some attempts and even some successes though, following attempts to fireingm, discrediting them, and blocking them towad new science submitions.
"They spend most of their time trying to poke holes in real sceintist's research when it disagrees with their interpretation of the Bible."
--No creatinist disagrees with any scientists findings, we find fossils, ok, we find layers, ok, we find radiometric decay, background radiation, etc, the interperetation of this is where we differ.
"Evidence which seems to agree with their interpretation is eagerly accepted and praised."
--Who wouldn't be happy to see more evidence? Evolutionists do the same, this isn't something to attack but is a strength to science.
"When you state that you "believe the Flood happened", YOU are the one mixing faith with science."
--But that isn't my science? The evidence is my science.
"That is a completely unscientific way to think about a problem. You have decided ahead of time that the Flood happened. Then, after you have decided what happened, you pick and choose what evidence seems to back up the claim that the flood happened."
--Actually I look at the evidence, and figure out what could have happend, its backwords. I don't pick and choose, I look at everything and it must comply and be explinations of everything and why it is the way it is.
"the scientific method never assumes it can know ahead of time what it will find."
--Agreed, though it suggests what it could find to be evidence for the theory, such as background radiation for the big bang was
predicted.
"A hypothesis relating to a theory about natural events is proposed (prediction)."
--exactly
"Observations are made and evidence is gathered, and only then are conclusions made about if the evidence tends to support or refute the hypothesis."
--Correct, and I find it fascinating that it complies with the Bible. Refutations of various mechenisms for the Global Flood are made, thus, the theory is refined, juast as with the ToE, and as we have discussed before, this is a strength, not weakness.
"Creation science has it backwards."
--Argue with ICR, not Creation science.
"Tell us what the potential falsifications of a Theory of a World wide Biblical FLood be, if such a theory existed?"
--More than one ice age, inability of enough water, inability of variation to where it is today, polar bears and penguins, etc. Not enough room on the boat, inability of any assertion made in Genesis, or any impossiblity.
--------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by nator, posted 01-17-2002 9:33 PM nator has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 365 (2387)
01-18-2002 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by mark24
01-18-2002 5:30 AM


"Actually,creationists do submit papers to scientific journals"
--Just wondering, what journals? And wheres the quote from.
-------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 01-18-2002 5:30 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by mark24, posted 01-19-2002 10:53 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 365 (2393)
01-18-2002 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Cobra_snake
01-18-2002 10:15 AM


"This arguement really bugs me."
--Likewize
"Why is it Creationists are the only group of people that let their pre-determined ideas affect their research or interpretation of the facts?"
--Again I would have to say that it is wrong, and thus your statement is falsified, from your assertion as pointing toward 'creationists' you can point the finger at any indidual (though it would be a pointless conversation and argument against the creationist and not the science in most cases) if you want but don't direct it toward the 'creationists' I equally cannot make a statement against 'the evolutionists' and If I have, I stand corrected and I admit my falicy in my word usage. Pre-determined Ideas do not effect my view on any scientific aspect, my belief and my evidence/my science are seperate.
"My belief is that scientists obtain the same flaw as Creationists. I believe most scientists accept evolution with little doubt and information they find is interpreted according to the evolutionary outline.
You may disagree with me, as you are entitled to. However, nobody can offer me any proof that scientists are free from bias. "
--My belief is that all belief's are bias, science is not, though some people (evolutionists and creationists) feel they should mix their pre-conceived Idea into their research, thus ignoring anything they find against it.
--------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-18-2002 10:15 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 365 (2400)
01-18-2002 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Quetzal
01-18-2002 10:41 AM


"Hi TrueCreation!"
--Hey Quetzal!
"I've been following a number of the threads on this board. You have often repeated: "
--Yes I have
"I find this an interesting statement. Could you please provide one or two specific examples of this evidence? When I say specific, I don't mean a general statement like "the geologic record" or "irreducible complexity". I hope you can provide an example such as "evaporites in the Toroweap Formation of the Grand Canyon are evidence of Creationism because...", or "the 1300 separate dinosaur trackways of the Purgatoire Valley, erroneously attributed to the Jurassic, are evidence of Creationism because...". Or if you'd prefer biology, how about "the existence of a vestigal pelvis in the rainbow boa, but not in many other snakes, is evidence of Creationism because...", or "the three separate reproductive designs in modern sharks is evidence of Creationism because...". You get the picture. Specifics."
--Thanx, I love specifics, makes you have to think. I agree also, it gets frustrating when all someone will say is point to the geologic record, radimetric dating, trees, vague statements like so.
Considering Evaporites - This is often credited as being from long term vaporation as the cause of sun shine for instance. Though the high Chemical purity shows that it wasn't exposed to dry dusty climates for long periods of time. A creatinist interperetation of this would be, they formed rapidly from the interaction between hot and cold seawater during undersea volcanic activity a hydrothermal deposit. Earlier I remember there was a comment saying that some of the grand canyon was formed from uplift (suggesting magmatic activity and possibly volcanic or heated sediment floors).
"the 1300 separate dinosaur trackways of the Purgatoire Valley, erroneously attributed to the Jurassic, are evidence of Creationism because..."
--The effects of sedimentary deposits in the flood are more contributed toward 'jumps'. Or seemingly quick deposits of sediments, thus giving days, or weeks of time to give creatures time to make trackways. The sudden disapearence of dinosaurs could be contributed to a massive catastrophic activity in which would allow more mammals to survive rather than the overgrown lizards, possibly the setting in of the ice age.
"the existence of a vestigal pelvis in the rainbow boa, but not in many other snakes, is evidence of Creationism because..."
--I'll see if I can't find another interperetation of this, though one is that some snacks such as this rainbow boa were a variant with a sort of leg. As this could even agree with the bible saying that the serpent in the garden of eden would crawl on its belly for the rest of its days. Also vastigials, though virtually almost every one can be contributed to a definant function, it is a 'devolving' process. To slowely lose something isn't a problem for creationists.
"the three separate reproductive designs in modern sharks is evidence of Creationism because..."
--I believe you are refering to the different egg development designs in sharks, Viviparity, Oviparity, and Aplacental Viviparity (Ovoviviparous). This could be a product of variation, though it seems more likely contributed to the different kinds that were on the earth and in the seas after the creation, as there is a large variation in each of these 3 development mechenisms.
"Thanks in advance."
--Welcome very much
-------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Quetzal, posted 01-18-2002 10:41 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Joe T, posted 01-18-2002 4:10 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 50 by Quetzal, posted 01-19-2002 6:46 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 365 (2420)
01-18-2002 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Cobra_snake
01-18-2002 3:58 PM


"I think bias is still apparent in scientists, despite the scientific method. And if any bias is involved, science can not be pure."
--Bias is apparent in many scientists, though I wouldn't say all, though I cannot name any :/. Its the way that the scientists present what has been found that would include the bias. Science is not bias, I think the order would be Science--->Evidence----->Interperetation. The bias comes in after the evidence, the evidence is your findings. Unless it is a fraud then Evidence is at fault, but what proved it to be at fault? Science did.
"Science is not just facts. It is interpretation of the facts. If a bias affects the interpretation, the science is not perfect. I think Evolutionists and Creationists are equally guilty of letting bias affect interpretation."
--Science and interperetation are a bit seperate I would say, the Science is the basis fundimental, then it branches off into evidence and interperetation of the evidence. in this interperetation is most likely where you will find bias, lest they be lying.
"I think Evolutionists and Creationists are equally guilty of letting bias affect interpretation."
--I would say this woulnn't be true, bias effects my belief, but not the science and the interperetation, as I strive to look at everything that would challenge it and give it a reason or explination. Creation science simply is science. Its just given this name because of the nature of bias and they think that you need to give it another name, they believe that their interperetations are the facts/the science.
"My question was not meant that way. I should of said,
"Why is it Creationists are CONSIDERED the only group of people that let their pre-determined ideas affect their research or interpretation of the facts?"
--Ok I can see. I beleive that it would be a cause of ignorance for against science because it is being judged in a creationists eyes. The people that simply do not know of the method of creationists which is the same as the evolutionist, they are both scientists. From organizations such as talk.origins (a quite biased group claiming to present the facts). I recall vividly their Problems with a Global Flood and wondered why, when they seem to be presenting a case, they claimed them to be problems when they have already been answered. There will be attacks against indiduals and such, though an attack against the Creationist because they are a Creationist and attacking 'Creation science' will lose.
---------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-18-2002 3:58 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by lbhandli, posted 01-18-2002 5:26 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 365 (2490)
01-19-2002 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by mark24
01-19-2002 10:53 AM


"I should have referenced properly, my mistake. The ORIGINAL source is from the sept 1985, issue of Science, (vol. 6, no.7, p.11). So these figures only hold true until then."
--IC, though this is relevant to a degree and it seems at the same time irrelevant. I think the 'Creation bomb' first started exploding and reaching the globe per se in 1983 and then it jumped again in the later 1980's and is continually rising in the 2000's. Is this based on creationist paper submitions to 'Science' mag? or Science and other mags?
---------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by mark24, posted 01-19-2002 10:53 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by mark24, posted 01-19-2002 4:36 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 365 (2491)
01-19-2002 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Cobra_snake
01-19-2002 11:36 AM


"All of these theories are much easier to prove using physical knowledge. Is it possible these theories are wrong? Yes, without a doubt. However, it does not seem likely to me."
--Actually, possibly discounting the Atomic Theory of Matter, Germ theory and Heliocentric solar system or something such as the theory of Gravity are proven to be reality, now this does not mean that additions will not be added to it or even giving it a new name, we know basically what Gravity is, we see the effects of it and we call these effects the causes of gravity. Now mabye scientists will discover all these different aspects about gravity and how you can minipulate it and do whatever it is you want with it, but the basics are still there, its a force and the force is called Gravity.
"Evolution (in my opinion) differs from these because it does not have enough evidence to support it."
--'E'volution doesn't have enough evidence to make it even a theory in my mind but lets give it that much, it has no more power to go forward in that. What are the evidences of 'E'volution, some of the evidence is that we see a unity and similarity in life, but for this to be evidence for 'E'volution you have to assume it has allready happend. Another evidence is that basically if you discount possible flaws you see a steady increase in the geologic column which is what 'E'volution would predict(discounting the transitional fossil argument). Is all this evidence for 'E'volution? Only if we assume that it happend, and also it is not the only explination.
"The fact that scientists accept it does not really matter when it comes to actual knowledge."
--Yes Majority means no more than the slightness of nothing.
"This is because the evidence for evolution is obtained mostly from inferences from the past."
--And an assumption that it has already happend.
"Anyways, this whole post is besides my point. My point is that scientists are very likely to let bias affect their interpretation of the facts. I don't see why that is so hard to understand."
--Bias isn't really going to effect the 'facts', it will effect the way they present these facts, but unless he fraudulently posed the facts falsly then the facts remain truth. I see what your getting at Cobra.
----------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-19-2002 11:36 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 365 (2493)
01-19-2002 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by mark24
01-19-2002 4:36 PM


"Are there any creation science papers submitted to, & accepted by, scientific journals since 1985?
Also, the quote does give numbers of publications checked, though not the the journals specifically. It couldn't have been in "science" only, unless they publish 4 times a day (4,000 over 3 years)"
--I would speculate many papers (though I have no source to back up my claim of 'paper submitions and publications'). Though I can see the bias that Science Magazine inherets in its magazine by its refusal to higher creationists which speaks volumes on paper submitions. Creation ex Nihilo Volume 13 Number 2, March - May 1991 pg. 16-17
--Here is a short article on the subject of paper/article editor bias pre-peer reviewed submitions http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp
--If I could do my own magazine it would be a magazine on Creation and Evolution and Creationists would have a segment and evolutionists would have a segment with a discussion and open FAQ area or something of the nature towards the back. Free of bias is knowledge.
--------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by mark24, posted 01-19-2002 4:36 PM mark24 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 365 (2494)
01-19-2002 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Minnemooseus
01-19-2002 12:01 PM


"The thing is, science has checks to correct biased results. The first scientist must be careful with his or her work, or risk looking bad when other scientists descover flawed work."
--Very much agreed, and when flaws are found, the scientists should withdraw or give an explination of the flaw, need it be a flaw.
"Real scientists don't do cover-ups for the mistakes of other scientists."
--Yes, Real scientists don't do cover-ups, but real scientists do revisions.
---------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-19-2002 12:01 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by LudvanB, posted 01-19-2002 8:58 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 365 (2540)
01-20-2002 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by LudvanB
01-19-2002 8:58 PM


"And it should be pointed out also that REAL scientists dont assume that any part of their theories is "innerant"
--As I have explained throughout this forum, i am very much agreed with this concept.
"They test their theories,making every attempt to knock them down and inviting anyone to do the same."
--Right.
"If the theory can wistand all these tests,it becomes accepted as a valid interpretation of the facts at hand."
--Ditto
"When do creation "scientists" ever put the corner stone of their whole theory on the beginings of the world to the test?"
--When entering the debate of origins you automatically step out of the realm of science, science cannot answer these questions to our understanding of the universe. When dealing with the concept of the origins of the universe, the singularity, life and the various others it is outside the realm of science, such is why it is not included in creation science.
"When do they ever ask the important all question "IS the Bible the INNERANT word of God"?"
--I believe this debate is taking way in another forum, though I do believe that to our knowledge and understanding of the various aspects of the scientific method, the bible is innerant. Keep in mind the bible provides the model, we provide the mechenism.
----------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by LudvanB, posted 01-19-2002 8:58 PM LudvanB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by lbhandli, posted 01-20-2002 10:52 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 365 (2541)
01-20-2002 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by edge
01-20-2002 1:34 PM


"However, if some contradicting evidence arose, I assure you that the questions would blossom"
--I would wish that they would, just a word of caution, if you wan't to get someone to question whether the basic fundementals of evolution have ever occured or not, don't ask the smithsonian, and other wealthy evolutionary organizations.
----------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by edge, posted 01-20-2002 1:34 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by edge, posted 01-20-2002 7:23 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 01-20-2002 7:48 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 365 (2542)
01-20-2002 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by edge
01-20-2002 4:10 PM


"I thought that you said scientists never question evolution. What is your point?"
--The challenges are presented frequently, though it is seldom you get a response, and when you do, it is even more seldom that it is not filled with bias or a chuckle.
----------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by edge, posted 01-20-2002 4:10 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by edge, posted 01-20-2002 7:20 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 365 (2578)
01-21-2002 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by edge
01-20-2002 7:20 PM


"That means your evidence is inadequate. It also means that we've heard this on before and refuted it so many times that it's not worth our time."
--These challenges are 'new' at the time challenges, thus it is simply wrong and a bias assertion to say that you shouldn't look at it or give a response without lying or lowering its meaning because, 'we've heard it before and refuted it so many times that it's not worth our time'. An example is that this is the case with the smithsonian's bias, also Science Mag's refusal to higher creationists.
"I'm not sure what you mean here in relation to you last post."
--This was more of me seeing a comment and I thought I would comment.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by edge, posted 01-20-2002 7:20 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by edge, posted 01-21-2002 11:00 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024