It's legitimate to say, "I believe someone was here, I'll go look for footprints." What geologists 200 years ago were doing is to declare anything they found to be a footprint. Then, funded scientists came along and said, "Bad Science = Bad Hypothesis," which is equally wrong.
Der, this a bunch of nonsense. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Flood geology was rejected long before there were "funded" scientists.
At this point, while you say you don't want a flame, war, you keep asking for one. This whole post in the main, was pretty out there. I suggest you refrain from further comment on the issue until you have researched it.
1000
When the facts aren't on the creationist side, which is most of the time, they try to get you angry and think they won. It is typical rhetorical tricks over scientific fact.
BDK:Der, this a bunch of nonsense. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Flood geology was rejected long before there were "funded" scientists.
At this point, while you say you don't want a flame, war, you keep asking for one. This whole post in the main, was pretty out there. I suggest you refrain from further comment on the issue until you have researched it.
T:Maybe I am misunderstanding post 994 and derheimwill will correct me; but the latter sentences (requote coming up) in it seemed to indicate a (partial? grudging?) acceptance of the mainstream science position that no evidence exists for a global deluge and that it has been searched for fairly and open-mindedly:
der also from post 994:Most people doing creation research nowadays are doing so for un-scientific reasons - to convince religious groups to not listen to the non-religious research. As a Christian, I find this disturbing. It leads to people parroting the preacher and convincing themselves they are saved (because they know the right words to say), when they are not.
T:Am I right here der, or have I misunderstood you?