“No, we are going to get to the bottom of this one creationist claim, then we can move on to another.”
Who is this ‘we’?
That’s the problem I have with these posts.
This site as a whole isn’t going to get to the bottom of anything. Everyone is talking to each other with the full knowledge that no one is going to move an inch. Sure, maybe you’ll say everything you feel like saying and then say something like, “Oh, I’m tired of speaking with idiots,” but then the very same part of the debate will come up in a future thread and it’ll start all over again.
If creating one large crevo thread is impractical (and perhaps it is given the egos involved), then the subject should be handled in a manner similar to other ultra-sensitive topics.
I remember kevmo suggesting something like this before. His idea of treating science like religion on this forum is a smart one, but for the wrong reasons. Science is not a religion (and calling it ‘scientism’ was a rather rude way to put it), but it is something that relies on a method that is different from that of religion. To me, it makes sense to enforce clear boundaries on these threads for precisely this reason. Discuss science in science threads, religion in religion threads, and then have a thread (or several, if necessary) to debate issues like crevo, morality vs. scientific experimentation, etc. There is no reason why there can’t be threads for creationists to discuss their beliefs on creation without being criticized by nonbelievers and threads for scientists/enthusiasts to discuss theories without creationists disputing every point.
This, of course, would mean people on all sides of the issue respecting boundaries, suppressing the urge to make some snarky comment on a thread where it doesn’t belong, and being polite to each other . Would egos allow that? I have my doubts. But at least it’s a step in the right direction.
I realize variations of this have been tried before in the site’s history, but things are getting really, really bad with this current mixture, and there has got to be a solution.
I don't know what else I can do. I have posted information from the original article, and still the facts are being twisted and distorted.
But I guess that's just creation "science" as usual. It just is unable to accept evidence that goes contrary to belief. In fact its whole reason for existence seems to be to advocate and defend beliefs that are contrary to evidence.
Maybe tomorrow I'll scan the article and post it so folks can see what the facts really are. In the meantime, there is only so much nonsense I can tolerate in one day, so its Miller time.
Some of you other creationists really should take a look at these issues and weigh in. Cottshop is making your side look really bad, and your silence is tacit agreement with what he claims.
[[Everyone is talking to each other with the full knowledge that no one is going to move an inch.]]
Why should the one with hte FACTS move anywhere? The link I listed shows that radiometric dating methods were wrong- that’s all I’ve claimed- IF you or anyone else can provide coutner evidence to show that ASM testing didn’t prove the old dating methods were wrong- then feel free to provide it, but the fact is that you won’t find any such evidence because the fact is, they were wrong- as are hte other methods of dating- these aren’t opinions, these are scientifically verifiable evidences which quite reasonably show them to be wrong.
[[Science is not a religion (and calling it ‘scientism’ was a rather rude way to put it), but it is something that relies on a method that is different from that of religion.]]
IF you’re talking about hte ‘science’ of Macroevolution, then you are wrong- it IS a religion that flies i nthe face of biological reality- again, this isn’t opinion, but scientifically valid facts. I’ve posted many many such evidences refuting the hypothesis of Macroevolution, and exposing the biological impossibility of it, but NEVER get any responses except for the same lame ‘ID isn’t science’ crap- Again, why should the TRUTH move an inch when confronted with bogus biology violating hypothesis’?