"Evilutionists" submit their samples to laboratories for dating. They do not do that dating themselves, as they are practicing vastly different fields. For example, all of my radiocarbon dates go to Beta Analytic in Florida for processing.
Science, as shown in post 293, is based on Methodological Naturalism:
" Methodological naturalism is a philosophical rule used by scientists."[excerpt]
Methodological Naturalism is based on dogmatic assumptions that, among other things, there is no God.
Scientists Interpret the available evidence according to Methodological Naturalism.
It is these Atheistic assumptions being applied to science that YEC's have a beef with.
False (as usual). Otherwise all scientists would have to be atheists, which is a ridiculous claim.
And YECs have a problem with everything about science, because you can't pick and choose the results you like and discard the results you don't like. The earth is far older than 6,000 years and there's nothing the YECs can do about it other than denial of both the results and the methods of science. And the reasons they come up with for denying science are generally both hilarious and pathetic. One classic -- "the second law of thermal documents" will live in internet infamy forever!
Science is based on a working assumption of naturalism. This assumes that whatever gods there may be do not spend all their time diddling with nature, and that the scientific method can thereby discern the regularities of nature. In this they are joined by most recent popes and probably the vast majority of Christians. It is only a small percentage of fundamentalists who have a problem with science and its findings.
"This rule states that scientists must look for a naturalistic cause (and only a naturalistic cause) for a natural phenomenon. In other words, scientists cannot invoke supernatural explanations."[excerpt]
That's not fair. It's not even accurate. I love science! The vast majority of science works just the same regardless of the age of the earth or any other proposed idea of origins.
I just don't find the evidence convincing, and the dishonest tactics and straw men lend even less credence to the people telling me about the naturalistic idea of our existence.
-Jesse
[[One classic — “the second law of thermal documents” will live in internet infamy forever!]]
You’ve still failed to explain how moot examples of static geomentric patterns amounts to highly dynamic livign IC systems- the only ones laughing about misunderstandings are scientists who won’t touch the laughable examples of non living systems that show negative entropy equating to living systems in a law abiding world- I can give you many examples of scientists-= secular scientists who wouldn’t tough Schnieders rediculous ‘open system’ arguments- I asked you before if you wanted to step in it by asserting moot examples can show ‘Macroevolution can violate the second law’- but you tucked tail and ran- per usual.
Here- for your reading pleasure- Wallace rips Schneider a new science hole on this issue: http://www.trueorigin.org/9907.asp
[[because you can’t pick and choose the results you like and discard the results you don’t like]]
Says the man who picks and chooses everythign about Macroevoltuion to suit his needs.
[[The earth is far older than 6,000 years and there’s nothing the YECs can do about it other than denial of both the results and the methods of science.]]
Says the man who picks and chooses which dates he accepts and which he doesn’t
[[ And the reasons they come up with for denying science are generally both hilarious and pathetic]]
No more so than the reasons Macroeovlutionmists give for denying science by insisting a biolgocially impossible hypothesis ‘could have happened’- infact- the science ID does adheres far more strictly to scientific methods than anythign you’ve produced so far- but far beit from me to nitpick at ‘science’
[[And the reasons they come up with for denying science are generally both hilarious and pathetic. One classic — “the second law of thermal documents” will live in internet infamy forever!]]
I’ll issue the challenge to you again- just like I did in hte last thread on the issue where you ‘mysteriously’ went silent after I posted the links- anbd I’ll even be gracious and issue another warnign that you’ll come away looking as foolish as Schneider did when he too tucked his tail and stormed off whinging and complaining about Wallace and refusing to answer the questions that made him look rediculous. Care to defend the idea that an open system allows Macroeovlution? (Hint- you might want to go to trueorigins and type ‘second law’ into the search bar before you answer)
Schneider- for those who aren’t familiar is a ‘scientist who wrote a much cited article on talkorigins- problem is that no reputable scientists would touch his claims and examples with a ten foot pole because htey are so rediculous. Schneider main argument was that because ice crystals can ‘show negative entropy’ in an ‘open system’ then Macroevolution ‘could have’ violated the second law (supposedly at trillions of steps of ever increasing complexities, and ever increasing self-organizing processes along hte way- this despite the FACT that there is not one shred of scientific evidence to support any living system having done so- but mind you- if htere’s a snowballs chance in hell- this is good enough in the minds of Macroevoltuionists to conclude that Macroevolution beat hte odds at trillions of steps- no wonder scientists laugh at Schnieder- Yet less knowledgeable Macroevolutionists continue to this day to cite Schneider as the gospel truth because apparently this is the best they can offer) Keep laughing Coyote- it speaks volumes.