Replies

I suppose you are correct, but I can understand both views. The creationists are treated like a$$holes, and called stupid by “scientists,” very often, and at some point, it looks like all scientists are haters of God. Much the same, some creationists act like whatever comes from some quarters are lies. Sometimes, like in the above blog, “scientists” make such outrageous claims it deserves scorn. I suppose, cooler heads should prevail, but not usually. -Glenn

I too can understand both views.

Where a legitimate conflict arises is where some scientists extrapolate beyond what science can speak to. But very few scientists go about bashing religion.

But that is not what I have seen on this website this past year or two. Many, if not most, fundamentalist/creationists here deride science because it does not agree with, nor confirm, their particular religious beliefs. They rightly deride science for overstepping its bounds, but then they consistently commit the same logical error -- but in far greater numbers and with the absolute conviction of true zealots. And they can't see the comparison.

This brings up those cases where "creationists are treated like a$$holes, and called stupid by 'scientists...'”

Those cases are pretty much limited to where creationists make claims that extend into the scientific realm. The young age of the earth and a global flood about 4350 years ago are two prime examples. The twisted science that we see in these threads to try to force science to accommodate these two creationist ideas leads to the harsh responses from scientists.

Scientists are often very anal about the accuracy of their chosen fields. Many have studied for 30, 40, or 50 years, and peer-review is generally cut-throat. Junk science, or errors of any kind are absolutely hated--a single major error will end a scientist's career.

Most scientists do not take kindly to creationists whose only science education is a visit to AnswersInGenesis and a stay at a Holiday Inn Express telling them how to practice their chosen fields.

I have often suggested that scientists stick to their fields and creationists stick to theirs, but that doesn't seem viable on these threads.

Most scientists do not take kindly to creationists whose only science education is a visit to AnswersInGenesis and a stay at a Holiday Inn Express telling them how to practice their chosen fields.

You think highly of yourself there Coyoteman.

I do not get my information from AiG.

I read hard copy, if you do not know what that is, it is a books or magazines.

I would like you to know as I have stated before creationist believe in science. That is the real stuff with the ability to test and study. Not the stuff of evolution which is not testable.

Also radiometric dating is not an accurate science. It is a field based upon assumption. Those who do the testing assume that a rock found in a layer should be this old because of the fossils found in that layer. The fossils are this old because of the rock layer they were found in. The funny thing is these layers which are still held as fact were decided hundreds of years before radiometric dating. So you see the science you presuppose as correct is only validating what they want is not a true test. Do you have a 4 billion year old rock with a date stamp as proof if not they assume correctness of the test, any thing else is denial.

They assume leaching never takes place in any of your presupposed correct tests.

They assume the daughter element is the product of decay and could not be anything else, mixing leaching, environmental force, decay rate change as time goes on.

Your comments greatly expected.
I also have placer mined and hard rock mined and am run an excavator, I see more dirt every day and it does not have the long and slow exhibits you believe. I see large scale catastrophe

burst out from another dimension and exploded.

That is a statement of mythology not science.

If those who made that statement claimed it was a faith-based one, that would be acceptable. If it actually appeared in a science text book, however, it shows beyond doubt that there those who claim to be arbiters of what science is are not practicing science, and more damningly, are not honest.