Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Folderal, pure folderal. Science and it's minions is not about manipulating facts to fit their theory. That would be the realm of the believers, for whom evidence is a nullity and dogma is totality.
Why not pure unadulterated Hogwash! or Pure Balderdash! Pure Baloney! Or Pure horse manure? or Pure Codswallop, or Pure Trumpery, or Pure Wish-Wash, or Pure tripe?
Why Pure Folderal? ehhhhh?
But seriously, that description you provided is exactly how creationists view godless evolutionist thinking.
Rafius Wrote: Well that's true...but they can only do that by ignoring verifiable, objective evidence...which the do with splendid aplomb!
Actually what I see creationists doing whenever presented with data that seems to contradict creationist beliefs is look for viable alternative explanations. In most cases they find excellent reasons why the preferred atheistic explanation isn't the only one possible. At other times they find that the preferred atheist explanation is premature, lacking substance-and that the biblical explanation fits in far better with the evidence at hand but is being subjectively and unceremoniously shunted aside.
Actually what I see creationists doing whenever presented with data that seems to contradict creationist beliefs is look for viable alternative explanations.
Like coming to a conclusion first and then looking for anything that gels with the conclusion.
Quote:
In most cases they find excellent reasons why the preferred atheistic explanation isn't the only one possible.
....but they can only do that by ignoring verifiable, objective evidence...which they do with splendid aplomb!
Quote:
At other times they find that the preferred atheist explanation is premature, lacking substance-and that the biblical explanation fits in far better with the evidence at hand....
.... but they can only do that by ignoring verifiable, objective evidence...which they do with splendid aplomb!
Rafius wrote: Like coming to a conclusion first and then looking for anything that gels with the conclusion.
Well, evolutionists go on their field trips in full belief that evolution is a fact-don't they? Once the framework is in place then they just join the dots. They certainly aren't out there to destroy the framework are they? They are there to fit the pieces together as best they can and to interpret everything within that framework. If it doesn't fit-or goes contrary they either shelve it or else modify the framework so that it does fit. But the evolution framework remains because it's a given that's not open to any negotiation and any evidence that might threaten it is viewed as anathema.
To be honest to me that smacks of quackery and unworthy of being called science since science is supposed to be objective and a scientist who loses his objectivity in the service of a theory ceases to practice science. Instead he becomes an obsessed fanatic ignoring better answers to questions for the sake of maintaining his status quo in the scientific community and preserving his university of government grants which he knows he will lose if he dares to go-ummm-religious in his explanations.
Well, evolutionists go on their field trips in full belief that evolution is a fact-don't they? Once the framework is in place then they just join the dots. They certainly aren't out there to destroy the framework are they? They are there to fit the pieces together as best they can and to interpret everything within that framework. If it doesn't fit-or goes contrary they either shelve it or else modify the framework so that it does fit. But the evolution framework remains because it's a given that's not open to any negotiation and any evidence that might threaten it is viewed as anathema.
To be honest to me that smacks of quackery and unworthy of being called science since science is supposed to be objective and a scientist who loses his objectivity in the service of a theory ceases to practice science. Instead he becomes an obsessed fanatic ignoring better answers to questions for the sake of maintaining his status quo in the scientific community and preserving his university of government grants which he knows he will lose if he dares to go-ummm-religious in his explanations.
Posted by PanTerra: But then, ummm, it isn't science
Going religious to atheists simply means providing scientific evidence that contradicts their pet theory. It doesn't mean simply postulating a supernatural force. Even if the ID evidence is more compelling than the atheistic one they feel duty-bound by their anti-ID principle to reject it. Which of course is unscientfic since science is a search for truth no matter what that truth might involve.
Since the creation of animals and man in Genesis, the most common animals mentioned in the Bible are the ones we know of. if the bible possess the absolute truth of God then dinosaurs should have been more present in the bible as we all know how incredibly enormous these creatures were.
If the earth is 6000 years old then how on earth or what on earth happened to the dinosaurs?
There are monsters in the Bible. There's Leviathan and Behemoth. The creatures we know as dinosaurs could be remnants of a time between the creation of the planet and the appearance of man. Why were they wiped out so abruptly? No one knows, but we do know that the Extinction Level Event was so severe that it permanently changed our planet. Solar raditiation, atmosphere, everything. A new cycle of creation?
What is six thousand years from God's perspective?
God's ultimate truth has to pass through our limited human understanding before it can be recorded as such.
Well, evolutionists go on their field trips in full belief that evolution is a fact-don't they?
They go knowing it's true beyond all reasonable doubt.
Quote:
Once the framework is in place then they just join the dots. They certainly aren't out there to destroy the framework are they? They are there to fit the pieces together as best they can and to interpret everything within that framework. If it doesn't fit-or goes contrary they either shelve it or else modify the framework so that it does fit.
No, you couldn't be more wrong. Science goes where the evidence leads, unlike religion that doesn't deviate from the framework no matter what the evidence says.
Quote:
But the evolution framework remains because it's a given that's not open to any negotiation and any evidence that might threaten it is viewed as anathema.
Wrong again old chap and the fact that theist are constantly harping on about the way science 'changes' shows that you are wrong. Science continually changes as new evidence comes to light. Can you say the same for religion?
Quote:
To be honest to me that smacks of quackery and unworthy of being called science since science is supposed to be objective and a scientist who loses his objectivity in the service of a theory ceases to practice science. Instead he becomes an obsessed fanatic ignoring better answers to questions for the sake of maintaining his status quo in the scientific community and preserving his university of government grants which he knows he will lose if he dares to go-ummm-religious in his explanations.
You know that's total bull. You have never heard of 'peer-review' it would seem. An obsessed fanatic ignoring better answers to questions for the sake of maintaining his status quo in the scientific community and preserving his university of government grants would soon be exposed. That's the good thing about scientists, everyone of them wants to win The Nobel Prize. If a scientist could find a way of disproving the ToE or any other Theory for that matter, fame and fortune would follow. If the Theory could be discredited it would have been by now. It has stood the test of time because, try as people have, it can't be shown to be wrong. Nuff said!
Going religious to atheists simply means providing scientific evidence that contradicts their pet theory. It doesn't mean simply postulating a supernatural force. Even if the ID evidence is more compelling than the atheistic one they feel duty-bound by their anti-ID principle to reject it. Which of course is unscientfic since science is a search for truth no matter what that truth might involve.
Let's review what you wrote:
Quote:
preserving his university of government grants which he knows he will lose if he dares to go-ummm-religious in his explanations.
Going against a pet theory is not necessarily religious. However, if it as you wrote goes religious, then it is not science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
