"Sorry not to be more exciting, but that is how science works."
Hasn't got anything to do with being more exciting. It does have everything to do with avoiding the responsibility of explaining Mr. Fraud Protsch. This sweeping under the rug of "well, isn't it nice that science showed that science was wrong" is awfully convenient.
Sort of like saying that Christians discovered that Jim Bakker was running a shell game, but weren't we good for knowing that he was a fraud?
If you're going to call Christians to task for the Ken Ham's of the world, you've got to answer for the Prof. Protsch's.
That's how the game is played in the real world.
Read your own link; he's being called to task.
What on earth are you babbling about? The explanation for him is that he's a charlatan. Yes, shocking as this revelation may seem to you, charlatans exist.
This sweeping under the rug of "well, isn't it nice that science showed that science was wrong" is awfully convenient.
Science didn't show that science was wrong. Please refer back to my post #110 about this statement. What science showed was that a scientist was wrong. To be more precise, it showed that a scientist probably fabricated claims.
If you're going to call Christians to task for the Ken Ham's of the world, you've got to answer for the Prof. Protsch's.
You have your answer, and only in your fevered imagination was anyone evading it.
"If you're going to call Christians to task for the Ken Ham's of the world, you've got to answer for the Prof. Protsch's. "
We do. We say he is wrong. We say what is wrong. We condemn his results and we let everyone know it.
You want to try the same thing with Mr. Ham, Gish, Behe, etc.?
(nice to see you again, but you sure are grumpy today :=).