Whenever the scientific community blows it, as in this case, and creationists point out that they didn’t believe it to begin with, as also with the Piltdown Man, the typical evo knee jerk reaction is to point out that scientists were the ones to disprove the fossil (or whatever), something that evos then go on to say no creationist would be capable of doing because they don’t possess adequate scientific skills to do so.
So instead of the scientific community looking like fools, again, for jumping the gun, they are portrayed as the heroes for demonstrating that the fossil was not genuine, quite ignoring the fact that it was the scientific community that labeled the thing wrong in the first place.
The scientific community has egg on its face, again, for doing what it has a tendency to do, again, and no amount of trumpeting that scientists finally corrected the misinterpretation of the fossil is going to change the fact that creationists didn’t believe that it was going to “prove” what the scientific community wanted it to prove and that scientists mislabeled, again.
Creationists maybe don’t have what scientists consider a *scientific* reason for their conclusions, but they were proved right, again.
Creationists simply don’t believe that archaeologists are ever going to find that missing link that evos are sure exists because we don’t believe that man evolved because the Bible states that man was created. Evos may not like our reason, but until they can produce those fossils they’re looking for, it puts creationists in the position of being correct.
What makes you think the fossil is "not genuine"? I see you've dragged out Piltdown Man again (can you let the poor guy rest? he's been acknowledged to be a hoax time and time again)--what relevance do you think that has to Ida? Is the rule that if scientists were ever wrong about anything, you're entitled to conclude they're wrong about everything--or at least whatever you want them to be wrong about?
Creationists simply don’t believe that archaeologists are ever going to find that missing link that evos are sure exists
What missing link is that? What do you think they're looking for?
What do you think Ida is, anyway?
And this begs the question...how do so many liberals come off labeling the dissentfromdarwin.org scientists as anything but valid scientists in the first place?
Because they most certainly DO have scientific reasons for such conclusions!
If anything, the scientists that liberals hold up in such high esteem are looking more and more like the very people they project about...caught up in an ideology while blatantly ignoring the science!