[[I’m still waiting for you to produce all of those atheist IDers.]]
you’ll find confessions from many scientists who confess that there’s no way aroud the problems facing macroevolution- We’ve posted many here on FR- knock youreself out
[[Actually, what makes it non-scientific is that all results must agree with a preconceived non-scientific conclusion.]]
Actually htis is a childish statement that just further goes to hsow yor ignorance of ID
[[In fact, to work for the ICR a person must agree that the Bible is scientifically free from any error;]]
Pssst- #1 the bible IS scientifically free of error #2 Of course you’d take an oath IF soemthign is scientifically free of error- you’d not be objective if you didn’t-
[[therefore, any research they do must support that conclusion.]]
Bzzzzt- Wrong- any research they do IS supportive of that statement- the problem with folks like you is that you’re always suggesting they simply ‘wish’ it to be true, and draw conclusions based on that wish- that’s hogwash- the fact is that it IS free of error, and the scientific evidence itself DOES support the ibble- it’s you macroevolutionists that go BEYOND the science and you know it-
[[IOW, you are not free to examine any evidence of the age of the Earth and come to your own conclusions based on the evidence,]]
And what ‘evidnece’ woudl that be? ‘Evidence’ based on methods that rely solely on ASSUMPTIONS? That’s not evidnce, that’s OPINION
[[you must make the evidence or the interpretation of it fit to the literal story of Creation as written in the Bible.]]
Psssst- the objective evidence DOES fit the bible- Dating methods are only accurate back to 5000 years- Beyond that- the methods used to ‘determine age’ are based solely on ASSUMPTIONS- Care to examien the evidence that shows this?
[[So the creationists weren’t the first ones to bring up that flawed 2L argument,]]
You’d better do some reasearch- As I explained in my posts about it- NO seriosu scientists even go near the subject because they admit it’s a problem and have doen so for a great many years- Wallace listed just a few who stated that the law was devestatign to the hypothesis of Macroevolution
[[I suspected that about many of your posts.]]
I read the relevent parts and always do- that quote you listed was in a section fro mthe paragraphs that wasn’t pertinent to the evidneces and explanations being given- it was simply his opinion, which again- I simply skim over- I’m looking for the facts and evidences- if someoen wants to give their opinion along with the facts, I certainly have no problem with it, because the evidences speak for themselves and the truth stands on it’s own merrits-
Ones who could have no religious or other non-scientific motives for their opinions?
Pssst- #1 the bible IS scientifically free of error #2 Of course you’d take an oath IF soemthign is scientifically free of error- you’d not be objective if you didn’t-
What declared it free of scientific error? What made it authoritative on the subject of science?
Psssst- the objective evidence DOES fit the bible- Dating methods are only accurate back to 5000 years- Beyond that- the methods used to ‘determine age’ are based solely on ASSUMPTIONS
In other words, don't believe your lying eyes.
You’d better do some reasearch
I did. It was a creationist argument, now it's an ID argument, perfectly supporting my claim that IDers rehash old creationist arguments.
I read the relevent parts and always do
Apparently not.
that quote you listed was in a section fro mthe paragraphs that wasn’t pertinent to the evidneces and explanations being given
Then why post it? It's because you're a copy/paste king who can't make his own arguments. You didn't even set out the copy/paste as the work of others, making you a plagiarist.