[[While “creation science” types like to point to “global warming” as an example of “science gone bad” and excuse for not listening to real scientists, I prefer to point out that the hiding of actual data, the obfuscation, and outright misrepresentation of results is the realm of “creation science”.]]
that’s a misrepresentation of our position- we NEVER question the science simply because global warming has been shown to be a fraud- We quesiton it because there is evidence to show that hte claims are not infact true, and are based on assumptions, and NOT on solid science evidence- As well, we quesiton it because scientist after scientist has stated that they are systematically shut out of the process IF they question the science (much akin to the way the myriad of scientists coming out against ‘man-caused’ cliamte change were treated- so there we have a legitimate reason to question the integrity of hte process)
[[I prefer to point out that the hiding of actual data, the obfuscation, and outright misrepresentation of results is the realm of “creation science”.]]
mmm no, not so much- Trueorigins puts a stop to that claim right off hte bat- and exposes the FACT that it’s NOT the creationsits doing the hiding and obfuscation and outright misrepresenting but rather the ‘science’ sites like talkorigin- True origin has reams of evidence backign htis up- exposing hte cover-up- half-truths, and outright misrepresentations made by such sites as talkorigin. I’ve yet to see you or others make valid coutnerarguments to much of the science refutign macroevolution- all i ever see are great long posts that say nothign more siginificant really than ‘Creationists hide evidence’- or, at best, all I see are more assumptions provided as thoguh they were scientific fact not to be quesitoned either.
It’s claims liek you made that grate on those you dissagree with- IF you have evidence showign the statements made by creationsits are infact not correct, present htem- let hte evidence speak for itself- We’re stil l waiting. (Note, I have seen some attempts to provide evidence that refutes the scientific evidence that supports creationism or ID, howdver, upon doign research into the issue shows that those coutnerarguments have been themselves refuted, and has hsown that the science suppsoedly supporting evolution are just more of the same assumptions that lack evidence to support. as well, these assujmptions fly i nthe face of scientific laws that we ‘ignant deceitful creatards’ keep askign for for explanations for, but never receiving- Calling us ‘anti-science’ and ‘ignorant of ‘real science’ doesn’t answer the questions I’m afraid
“That’s a misrepresentation of our position- we NEVER question the science simply because global warming has been shown to be a fraud- We quesiton it because there is evidence to show that hte claims are not infact true, and are based on assumptions, and NOT on solid science evidence-”
No, I don’t think I’m overstretching. Science encourages questioning of established results and new approaches. That is why in order for science to be legitimate, it must be published, and data made available for scrutiny.
So absolutely there is reason to be skeptical of all conclusions in science. Where “creation science” fails is that it believes that because science is not absolute, that it is all false. It also fails in taking due skepticism and then publishing alternate conclusions with all the data and research to back up the alternate conclusion - there are of course papers published, I’ve yet to see one that substantially refutes or alters any established scientific views. There may be some out there - but I haven’t seen them. Point them out, by all means, I’m open to receive all the “creation science” research you can bring forward. I will give it the same due scrutiny that you would expect.
So, “evidence conclusions are wrong” is not refuting anything - you must go the rest of the way. “Creation science” never does that - because it isn’t legitimate research, as far as anyone can tell.