1. Your practices (especially the practices of people with some academic training) are dishonest. You do not defend the flat Earth and the geocentric theory (also supported by the literally interpreted Biblical quotes), because now even a complete layman knows that this is nonsense.
2. I have mentioned many scientific disciplines above. Contemporary science differs from the pre-XVIII century science, which was based on gathering observations and categorizing them within isolated disciplines. Modern science is interdisciplinary. Mathematical background is universal. Observations, findings and methodologies from one discipline find applications in another. Scientific discoveries create a foundation for technology, and even a layman can see the products of this technology. The system works, and we don't see conflicts and discrepancies, suggesting the existence of any substantial holes in our current understanding of nature. Now, you guys propose to tinker with this and that (whatever necessary), and most of these attacked things are of quite basic nature, they have been validated, cross-validated and practically applied over and over. The law of radioactive decay provides a perfect example. If you are so brave, then feel free to create a completely new, competitive, WORKING SYSTEM of science and technology, INCOMPATIBLE with the current one. Good luck, but before you achieve this, please keep the theories to yourselves, because you give the Left a good excuse (or, sadly, even a reason) to claim intellectual superiority.
Any supporting sources to support your contentions?
LOL!!!!!!!!
Now, you guys propose to tinker with this and that (whatever necessary), and most of these attacked things are of quite basic nature, they have been validated, cross-validated and practically applied over and over.
Like global warming has been validated and cross-validated?
Like Lucy?
Like Ardi?
You said “I will give you my final answer. The YE creationists’ “science” is based on the following principle: “this and that needs to be reconciled with the number 6,000, so let’s find a hole (or a semblance of a hole) in the particular fact.”
Evolutionary “science” is based on the following principle: “this and that needs to be reconciled with the number millions and millions and billions of years so lets make presumptions, date fossils by rock layers, hide evidence that doesn’t support this view.
You said “So, you guys try hard to create the perception of existence of such holes in selected aspects of:
- physics
- chemistry
- biochemistry
- mathematics
- biology
- geology (sedimentology, stratigraphy, mineralogy, tectonics)
- paleontology
- computer science”
We dont try to find holes in any of these fields. Scientist who believe in creation work in all of these fields. None of these fields have anything to do with evolution although some of them are used to TRY to explain evolution.
YOu said “Whenever it’s needed, established knowledge is attacked (using incomplete, or even plainly untrue arguments), for the sole purpose of reconciling facts with the certain literal interpretation of the Bible.”
What established fact have I attacked. Again HISTORICAL SCIENCE IS NOT ESTABLISHED FACT. You weren’t there so all you can do is make assumptions. Assumptions aren’t fact. Now in a million years, if it survives, scientists will have research from now. They will not have to make assumptions about the rate of decay or the amount of C14 in living things. You however do not have that luxury.
YOu said “So I want to make two final observations (form now on I am going to plainly ridicule YE creationists)”
Ridicule is the defense of those who have lost the argument.
You said “1. Your practices (especially the practices of people with some academic training) are dishonest. You do not defend the flat Earth and the geocentric theory (also supported by the literally interpreted Biblical quotes), because now even a complete layman knows that this is nonsense.”
The Bible does not promote a flat earth or a geocentric theory and YOU KNOW IT. You are being dishonest on this point as several people on this forum have refuted your attempts to say it does.
Speaking of using dishonesty. What about peppered moths, Haeckel’s embryonic development chart, the artistic license taken to reconstruct a human foot for Lucy and every other artistic rendering used to confuse people of the facts, showing examples of OBSERVED micro evolution and using it to support macro evolution. All of these things can still be found in textbooks today.
You said “2. I have mentioned many scientific disciplines above. Contemporary science differs from the pre-XVIII century science, which was based on gathering observations and categorizing them within isolated disciplines. Modern science is interdisciplinary. Mathematical background is universal. Observations, findings and methodologies from one discipline find applications in another. Scientific discoveries create a foundation for technology, and even a layman can see the products of this technology. The system works, and we don’t see conflicts and discrepancies, suggesting the existence of any substantial holes in our current understanding of nature.”
Agreed, but evolution has not added an understanding to any of these sciences.
You said “Now, you guys propose to tinker with this and that (whatever necessary), and most of these attacked things are of quite basic nature, they have been validated, cross-validated and practically applied over and over. The law of radioactive decay provides a perfect example.”
Again radioactive decay is based on assumptions about the past. It has been applied over and over. The results that don’t fit the evolutionary timeframe are thrown out. The rock with known ages that are dated with millions of years are explained away. The millions of year old fossils with C14 in them are never mentioned (especially diamonds and coal).
You said “If you are so brave, then feel free to create a completely new, competitive, WORKING SYSTEM of science and technology,”
The old system works just fine and many brillant creation believing scientist work in these fields. The problem is not with science and technology but with evolution which has become a religion not to be questioned. Besides what does technology have to do with this? Technology which is MUCH less complicated than a living thing, had a creator, a designer. Alot of technology is actually based on DESIGN we see in nature. As much as you want to say it and believe it, evolution is NOT science. Science is observable, repeatable, testable. That is the kind of science that gives us medicine, technology, creature comforts. You want to paint us with a broad brush of being ANTI science because we are ANTI evolution. You can say it all you like but it isn’t true and I will call you out on it every time!
YOu said “INCOMPATIBLE with the current one. Good luck, but before you achieve this, please keep the theories to yourselves, because you give the Left a good excuse (or, sadly, even a reason) to claim intellectual superiority.”
I didn’t realize you were so concerned about what the left thought. They think you are loony anyway because you are conservative. I have as much right to espouse my theories as anyone. I am glad to see that you think questioning evolution is intellectually inferior to the godless mindset of liberals. It tells me alot about who I am debating with.