“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.
[[Where “creation science” fails is that it believes that because science is not absolute, that it is all false.]]
again with the misrtepresentation of ID and Creation science- they say no such thing- nor even intimate such a silly notion. They provide evidence showing WHY the evo claims are wrong- as I said before- you’ll find plenty of such evidnece on trueorigins.org
[[I’ve yet to see one that substantially refutes or alters any established scientific views.]]
Really? Because just a geenral searchwill reveal quite a bit actually
[[It also fails in taking due skepticism and then publishing alternate conclusions with all the data and research to back up the alternate conclusion]]
You haven’t looked too hard into ID science if that’s your position
[[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.]]
noone’s quesitoning that- ID science is presented to peer review and scrutiny- and many science sites have taken it upon themselves to try to refute the research of ID- however, like I mentioend, thsoe site’s claism are also refuted. The question is, which side presents them ost reasonable ‘beyond reasonable doubt case’? ID does inthat it doesn’t propose assumptions which violate natural laws
[[No I didn’t. If you falsify and ignore data - without proper documentation, you aren’t engaging in science. That’s why “creation science” isn’t real science.]]
Yes you are overstepping- to make such a claim ignores the facts- and for hte record- what ‘data’ are you referrign to that ‘real scientists’ engage in when making claims abotu things they base on assumptions about past events for which htere is no evidence, and worse yet, for which the evidence we have of todays events show that past events woudl have had to violate several key scientiific principles in order ror evolution to occure? you’ve overstepped by claimign that evolutionists, or ‘real scientists’ as you seem to suggest, present data to back hteir claims up, and you overstep by claiming creation science ‘isn’t real science’ because suppsoedly all creations scientists are negaged in deceit and cover-ups per your words and insinuations. Both premisses are false
[[“creation science” is based on literal Genesis - all reasearch need do is reach a conclusion that something is “just as it is in the Bible”. If someone is skeptical - they risk being held out as a heretic in the “creation science” community.]]
wow! Really? I’ve NEVER heard or read any such hting- apparently you have insight into this claim you’d liek to share?
[[Maybe there are genuine researchers in “creation science” that simply want to know the scientific facts before reaching conclusions.]]
‘Maybe’? you can bet on it