The trouble, Kelly, is that Creationists have shown no sign of actually doing that. They're not doing experiments, formulating detailed hypothesises, making predictions.
If you think they are, you need to show us some examples of when they've actually done that; we're not going to just take your word for it.
The paper scrupulously describes the painstaking scientific methods used to gather, preserve and analyze the samples.
Actually, and this is a key point, it doesn't. It describe in intricate details various methods used to ensure the sample was properly processed in the lab, but it doesn't describe the method for gathering the sample, or the means by which it has been preserved, it only says:
quote:In July 1947, a small piece of coalified wood measuring almost 3 centimeters in length (Figure 2), was found in a "sand bed" —Snelling
A "creative work" just means that someone created it. It applies to a book, a history of the world, a scientific paper or a computer program to run the NHS equally.
More intriguing to me is that the different places that the same creationist article appears claim different copyrights on it.
I ask myself the same thing. I think we are too aggressive in our dealings with new creationist members, and pile on in too great a numbers. I'm not sure what the board can do about this really?
Hello and welcome, -Sky-. If you look in the corner of everyone's post you'll see a 'peek' button - this will show you the markup they used to make their post.
Here, we mostly use [ qs ] to make quotes, like this:
[ qs ]This is a quote[ /qs ] (without the spaces around the qs) to get this: