And if they use the scientific method they will come up with the same results as scientists have.
But if they use creation "science" they could come up with all sorts of oft-refuted anti-science nonsense.
In the interest of helping them out down there in Texas, here is a refutation of a few hundred of the most common creationist claims:
No, not necessarily.
It is simply beyond the comprehension of any evolutionist that the data could be interpreted in any other way than to support evolution.
They need to break out of their boxes and stretch their brains a little bit.
There's a big difference between *We know evolution is true, let's find the evidence to support it. It's there, some where. We'll find it if we keep looking long enough, in all the right places.* and *Here's the evidence, what else can it tell us?*
And evos have been looking for that fossil to link man to apes for how long now?
"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." (Conway Morris, Simon [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)
I always thought that good science came out of doubting old scientific theory and finding more/better ways to understand the world with new scientific theory. I always thought this was the way science “progressed.” But in this day and age, if you dare merely to question the science (global warming, evolution) then you’re a “buffoon” worthy of ridicule.
Hey Coyoteman, if belief in God is good enough for Einstein, it is good enough for me.
In the itnerest of keeping the public informed of the TRUTH- here’s a site that exposes the one you listed for the liars and deceivers they really are! http://www.trueorigin.org/
That site refutes the absurd claims of hte one you listed- it refutes practically everythign styated on your link- but that’;s ok- just wave your hand and pretend it doesn’t, and that you’re ‘doing science a favor’ by linking to a site that has been exposed time and time again as liars and frauds and deceivers.
Talk.Origins has been pretty thoroughly discredited by now, lad.
My favorite on the list is
CA112. Many scientists find problems with evolution.
Silly creationists. They know that they don't qulify as scientist unless they accept mud to man evolution as an proven fact.
To doubt it means you are not a scientist.
If the accepted orthodoxy does not approve of your ideas, you're not a scientist.
If peer reviewed journals disagree with your findings, you're not a scientist.
Thus, no scientists doubt. Perfect petitio principii!
click on the scientists link to see your lies for exactly what they are.
Check out this list of scientists and compare your qualifications to theirs.
At least your screen name is appropriate. All you seem to accomplish here is howling at the moon, which serves no real purpose.