Faith,
Just a few observations:
Faith writes:
You have stumbled into a booby trap where all the boobies are trained at a certain kind of combat you can never beat.
This is what happens when creation 'scientists', and IDists want their beliefs thrust into science classrooms. If you want something accepted as science then you've got to play by the rules of scientific method: produce a testable hypothesis, and test it If you can't play by the rules then stop complaining and keep creation in religious studies.
Faith writes:
Doesn't matter how reasonable your posts are, there will ALWAYS be major killing faults.....
You may not believe this, but this
is the way science works. You can construct what you think of as a perfectly reasonable, watertight explanation for something only for some smart alec to say "Yeah, but...". I think this actually happened to Watson and Crick when they produced their first DNA structure. Scientific theories have to stand up to tough inspection, why should ID or YEC stuff be any different?
Faith writes:
If it isn't the "wrong" references
This is actually quite an important point. In history which is the most reliable: a primary source or one that has been passed down via two more people? Scientists like to see the original data so they can assess it themselves without somebody 'filtering out' important aspects of it.
Faith writes:
If you make a terrific point about one thing they will ignore it and point out something utterly irrelevant and beat you to a pulp for supposedly overlooking it.
Then do what the Evos here do, remind them that they have missed it and that you would like a response. If you don't think something is relevant then ask why they think it is relevent.
™ Version 4.2
