My, what a wonderful and outstanding "strawman" argument. Who are you going to sterotype next?
So what you are saying is ALL geoscientists and biologists and chemists etc. all practice PSEUDO-SCIENCE instead of proper science as we were taught in school. For the record, many geoscientists, biologists chemists etc. have, for many years, taken parts of the "theory" and applied "proper" scientific techniques to confirm or deny or amend parts of the theory. Properly trained scientists will not practice "pseudo-science". For if they do they will be wacked by other scientists such as me.
As I have told you "creation" is not a theory. It is an absolute belief that forms part of a religion. A person who believes in creation must, at all cost, conclude it to be true no matter what because God has stated so in the bible. Then that person will go out and seek the evidence and ignore any disputable evidence to uphold their conclusion of creation. For to disagree with Creation would mean a loss of God and the afterlife to a number of people. That's what faith is all about and completely the opposite of proper science.
The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. It is something that can be tested (using science) to see if it really is likely or needs to be amended or needs to be disgarded.
Take care.
hawk
My, what a wonderful and outstanding "strawman" argument. Who are you going to sterotype next?
As usual, the evolutionist argue against my conclusion while totally disregarding addressing the facts leading to that conclusion. I am not talking about biologists, chemists, etc.. Most of them are real scientists and they do not care a hoot about evolution. They care about the truth and that is why they ignore evolution. Evolution has not led to any scientific achievements because evolution, as I have said many times is ANTI-SCIENCE. The central point of science is the discovery of causes and effects and materialist evolution denies it. It proposes random events as the engine of the transformation of species. This is totally unscientific, it is an attack on science which in order to expand human knowledge and human health and living standards needs to find the causes and effects of how our Universe functions. Randomness answers nothing and leads to no discoveries. In fact it opposes scientific inquiry and is a philosophical know-nothingism. That is why evolution has been popular with the masses and virtually ignored by scientists. It is pseudo-science for morons. With a few words such as 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection' it seeks to make idiots think they are knowledgeable.
We see the idiocy of evolution and evolutionists daily on these threads. That is why they all repeat the same stock phrases, throw a few links (because they cannot even understand the concepts being discussed), but never give any facts showing their theory to be what they claim it is - the center of science. If it was, they should have no problem doing so. It is not, that's why they cannot.
The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.
It may be a theory, but it is not a scientifically supported theory which is what evolutionists claim it to be. Anybody can have a theory about anything. It is whether a theory is valid that is the point. So you have not given any evidence for your side. All you have done is indulge in rhetoric, but you have not shown that evolution is science or have in any way refuted my statement that evolution cannot in fact be science because of its central proposition that 'evolution just happens'. Such is not science.