Replies

Nevertheless, when someone with a physics degree speaks on evo and doesn't toe the party line, all he's criticized for is not being an expert in that field. Lots of people have degrees in science with a strong scientific background. The qualifications you give yourself are not a whole lot different than mine. But all I keep hearing is that I don't understand ____. You even told someone with a PhD in the Biological sciences that they didn't understand what a theory was because they were a creationist. Obviously, for an evolutionist, the criteria for understanding science is not the level of education achieved and their success in it, but whether or not they agree with the ToE as put forth by people like the evos on FR.

So is your degree in evolutionary science? Are you qualified by education in that field to speak on it? You never answered that question. I don't really care what field it's in if you're not inclined to reveal it because that's personal info but a yes of no wouldn't be revealing too much.

You even told someone with a PhD in the Biological sciences that they didn't understand what a theory was because they were a creationist.

Turns out she wasn't. It was Dr-somthing-or-other was the name, but in a followup post she admitted to being NOT being a doctor.

I don't expect everyone to be an expert. But I think they should have a basic understanding of the material at hand.

Perhaps my examples were a little over the top and suggested that only super-experts like Coyoteman can participate. In that I admit to some bombast.

But I think it is fair to ask people to come to the table with the basics.

You even told someone with a PhD in the Biological sciences that they didn't understand what a theory was because they were a creationist. Obviously, for an evolutionist, the criteria for understanding science is not the level of education achieved and their success in it, but whether or not they agree with the ToE as put forth by people like the evos on FR.

The scientific method has some specific rules.

If a great scientist starts doing creation "science" they are not following the rules of science.

Here is why: science does not have any final answers. Science has a method for discovering new information: data and theory.

Creation "science" already has a final answer--adherence to the scriptures. Creation "science" will distort scientific data and theory, and the scientific method itself, or flat out lie if necessary, in order to make everything come out supporting the scriptures. That is not science.

Don't believe me? Check out the various creationist websites. See what kind of science they are doing. See what they have to do to support the "global flood." See what they have to do to support the "young earth" belief.

Its not pretty. And its not science. Its apologetics.