Posted on 10/24/2006 10:55:25 AM PDT by lizol
I get it..."scientists" cannot be creationists and "creationists" cannot be paleontologists.
Thanks for your deep wisdom and insights!
Elementary, my dear Watson.
Some other stuff that evolutionists say may be humbug, but you picked the wrong example here: these are facts.
Science involves a specific method, the scientific method.
Creationists are generally unable to adhere to the scientific method because of their beliefs.
A good example is the "scientists" at the Creation Research Society. The CRS has the following on their home page:
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.Lets see what else they say.
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Does this sound like science to you? Does this sound like the way to do research?
Any time preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing apologetics, not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as this, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, and which violates the scientific method, is to cease doing science.
With beliefs like this, most creationists despise sciences like paleontology, and they don't tend to go into them. (And as we see here on FR, many creationists know very little about the sciences they dispute.)
If you're waiting for radiometric dating to be overturned you may be in for a long wait.
And the same people who mock isotopic decay will be the first to rely on smoke detectors to protect their lives.
"If you're waiting for radiometric dating to be overturned you may be in for a long wait."
Well if you can try the dating method 40 times before you get the date you want (like in the famous Leakey skull), its a terrific method. I've personally heard of samples that get tested in one lab and get totally different dates than another lab or 2 parts of the same bone sent to the same lab get totally different dates.
more guesses. Your so sure of all these guesses by darwinists. I hope you are around when this house of cards (darwinism) finally comes crashing down. I will be there to remind you of this foolishness.
I would not be so eager to claim these are guesses. In the first case, we now have 31 radiocarbon dates from the site, and there is good agreement. None are anomalous and need to be thrown out, as often is the claim by creationists. These radiocarbon dates also are also confirmed by the artifacts and the stratigraphy.
You should study some of these fields instead of making blanket denials of things you have no knowledge of.
Creative writer: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, Alice in WonderlandEvolutionist: "Why, sometimes I've seen evidence for as many as six formerly impossible things before breakfast."
Creationist: "Why, sometimes I've declared as many as six things impossible before breakfast."
"there is good agreement."
among darwinists - ha ha; coyote you need a big smack upside the head by reality and common sense.
among darwinists - ha ha; coyote you need a big smack upside the head by reality and common sense.
You really should read what I write. On this particular archaeological site I am researching there is good agreement among the 31 radiocarbon dates, the artifacts, and the stratigraphy. No "darwinists" involved at all.
And you are going to educate me in terms of what "reality and common sense" are? You who believe in mythical beings, supported by no material evidence at all? Versus the evidence I am accumulating on the prehistory of this area based on good science, good archaeological technique, and lots of hard work and study?
Bring on the Sleestacks!
Get a life, and stop bringing your sexual fantasies to FR.
You have to ask the right questions.
See Dimensio, he does it right. I bet he gets lonely; no one ever responds to his inquiries except the occasional unsuspecting newbie.
Poor lil fella... ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.