[Junior]

Ah, of course. "When we're right, we're right. When we're wrong, we're right."

No. But at least scientists admit when they are wrong. I have yet to see a creationist concede a single point even when shown the errors of his reasoning.

[Taliesan]

But at least scientists admit when they are wrong. I have yet to see a creationist concede a single point even when shown the errors of his reasoning.

I take your point that there are creationists who are immune to argument. But surely you can see that this: "...scientists admit when they are wrong..." is circular. The "scientists" get to define the data set consisting of the times they have been wrong. "See there, we always admit it when we are wrong. On those points where we have not admitted error we are not in error."

And anyone who defines the data set differently is thereby defined as outside the mainstream, and not one of the "scientists" who always admit it when they are wrong.

I can't argue about the complex data of science with any authority, because I'm a laymen, educated in business. So I'm asked to trust the experts because they "all" agree on this and that. But presumably I'm still allowed to think. So then I observe this pattern of simple facts over and over again: some "scientists" identified a data point, touted it as further confirmation of a theory...then other "scientists" said -- no, it is not confirmation of the theory at all. It is in fact not A but B, and has nothing to say about the theory at all. And some of the "scientists" agree, amd some disagree. Yet the entire community would treat me as an ignorant peasant if I would DARE -- DARE! -- express any doubt about their previous confident utterances.

And you point to such an incident as EVIDENCE that the enterprise is sound.

I have the highest regard for the scientists who are developing medicines, building bridges, and making my car more comfortable every year. But this is not that. I'm not an anthropologist nor an engineer, but I'm not stupid enough to think they are functioning under the constraints of the same logic.

They are manifestly not.

[That Subliminal Kid]

What is a "Creationist", exactly? Let's define it so I can link to your post every time someone uses the word, seeing as how it's flagrantly tossed around and tacked onto the arse of every person on this site who dares to question neo-Darwinian orthodoxy.

[berned]

So far every single "missing link" type of discovery, from piltdown man to nebraska man, have all been either gross mistakes made by scientists, or outright hoaxes.

The "vast array of skeletal and fossil remains of missing links" repeatedly promised to us by the Darwinists have never materialized despite almost a century of intense, well-funded archaeology.

We just get these periodic hoaxes like this one, which prompt the evos to bad-mouth Bible believing Christians in general and God's Word in particular, until it finally comes out that, "yes, this too was just another one of our li'l scientific mistakey-poos".

Nothing to see here, folks, just go on giving the Teacher's Unions pernission to brainwash our kids with "evolution" as if it too, was not the hoax that it is.