Replies

I have read a lot of what they write. They start with a preordained conclusion, and proceed to stretch, distort, and misrepresent scientific evidence, as well as fabricate the most amazing nonsense, to validate their a priori conclusions.

An amazingly ironic statement to be made by a darwinist! You see it so clearly in others yet completely overlook it in yourself : ) Got a real chuckle on that one!

Are you willing to admit that creationists do the same thing?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2054633/posts

I have read a lot of what they write. They start with a preordained conclusion, and proceed to stretch, distort, and misrepresent scientific evidence, as well as fabricate the most amazing nonsense, to validate their a priori conclusions.

An amazingly ironic statement to be made by a darwinist! You see it so clearly in others yet completely overlook it in yourself : ) Got a real chuckle on that one!

Glad you enjoyed it.

Just in case you are not familiar with the details, here is how science works.

Science works under the assumption that the natural/physical world can be observed and understood using natural/physical means. This means, anything that can be observed is some way is a suitable field for study.

Science then proceeds to gather data and attempt to explain that data. Hypotheses and theories are the ways in which science attempts to explain that data.

The database can change through better measurements or through finding new data. Theories can change based on the new data. Indeed, when any significant amount of scientific data contradicts a theory it must change to accommodate that data.

Science does not know where all of these theories will end up. The data drive the theories.

Your suggestion that science starts with a preordained conclusion is absolutely false. Science relies on a method, which is based on an assumption. This is absolutely not a conclusion. If that assumption is correct everything will work. If that assumption is not correct things will not work and that assumption will have to be changed.

So far the assumption under which science works has not been shown to be incorrect. All creationists have to do to show it is incorrect is to produce scientific evidence of the supernatural.

What creationists typically want is for science to change how it works in order to conform to their particular religious beliefs, which are based on revelation and other such sources, and which are held by faith rather than by evidence. In fact, they would be overjoyed if science confirmed their beliefs.

So much so that some of them... But that's where we came in.