Replies

Does anyone see the irony of asking me to post examples backing my claim and not asking Coyoteman to do the same? See my original post #232 and Coyoteman's post #212.

No Coyoteman, I am not asking you to back up your claim. I not only believe your claim is valid but I have seen enough to validate it myself.

I also believe that those wishing me to back up my claim have studied the subject enough to know that my claim is equally valid.

Does anyone see the irony of asking me to post examples backing my claim and not asking Coyoteman to do the same? See my original post #232 and Coyoteman's post #212.
No Coyoteman, I am not asking you to back up your claim. I not only believe your claim is valid but I have seen enough to validate it myself.

I also believe that those wishing me to back up my claim have studied the subject enough to know that my claim is equally valid.

Your claim, back in post #232, in bold, was as follows (in response to my post, in italics):

You should be very careful of the "science" you find on creationist websites. They do not do real science; they have all the answers figured out and they are bending facts every which way to make things come out the way they want. That is not science!
LOL, the same can be said of many evolutionists past and present.

"Evolutionists" (actually paleontologists, evolutionary biologists, and a host of other 'ologists) are expected to back up their claims. They do not start with a goal, and bend and twist data to reach that goal. If they did, creationists would not be constantly accusing them of changing their theories, and other scientists would hound them out of the professions. And that is the way it should be; when new data is uncovered, any parts of a theory that are incorrect will be modified or discarded; anyone who fudges data is driven out of science, and there is no second chance. That's the way science works.

The creationist websites, on the other hand, routinely state that they are committed to "proving" scripture, and that anything that does not agree with scripture will be ignored.

An example of this is found in the article Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms, by Wayne Frair, Ph.D, published in Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol 37. No 2 pp. 82-91 (September 2000) and reprinted at CreationResearch.org. This states in part:

Guidelines
In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:
1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible...

Did you catch that? To paraphrase: Scripture claims have priority over all other considerations.

This is not science, and any pretense that this has to being science has just been blown out of the water.

And this is very common on creation "science" websites. Readers are invited to check this out for themselves.

So, to wrap things up:

I don't think scientists are "bending facts every which way to make things come out the way they want." This is absolutely contrary to the way science works.
I have shown an example in which a creation "science" article and website advocate twisting and bending data to conform to scripture. There are other examples out there if one cares to take a look.

Does anyone see the irony of asking me to post examples backing my claim and not asking ......

Of course, it happens all the time. That's their mantra!

Does anyone see the irony of asking me to post examples backing my claim and not asking Coyoteman to do the same? See my original post #232 and Coyoteman's post #212. No Coyoteman, I am not asking you to back up your claim. I not only believe your claim is valid but I have seen enough to validate it myself.

OK, just let me know if you change your mind, and you require Coyote's claim to be backed up. Just for going on with you can start with this list, a tiny sample of the vast amount of creationist misrepresentation. There's nothing odd about asking for claims to be backed up with evidence. Rational people do it all the time.

I also believe that those wishing me to back up my claim have studied the subject enough to know that my claim is equally valid.

I have studied the subject, and I am unaware of evolutionary scientists who "do not do real science; they have all the answers figured out and they are bending facts every which way to make things come out the way they want." Any scientist caught doing this is finished, no second chances. Kindly cite some examples please, (how about 5 in the last 50 years) or withdraw the claim. Come on, if evolutionary scientists' twisting of data and fraud is as common as you claim this should be easy for you to achieve.