1) Jet, great post, it deserves it's own thread and a link in the archives.
2) Why is it that when creationists missrepresenting science and hoaxes are brought up, the creationists always bring up nebraska man as a hoax scientists fell for? Don't they know that is was Never treated as evidence and was even questioned by the finder?
I find it sad that creationists are willing to misrepresent the misrepresentations of science. If you are going to attack scientists for accepting a hoax, you better not use bad information.
3) Not to off track this thread anymore than it has been but, this is currently my favorite from AiG, I found it while doing whale research,
2) Why is it that when creationists missrepresenting science and hoaxes are brought up, the creationists always bring up nebraska man as a hoax scientists fell for? Don't they know that is was Never treated as evidence and was even questioned by the finder?
I find it sad that creationists are willing to misrepresent the misrepresentations of science. If you are going to attack scientists for accepting a hoax, you better not use bad information.
3) Not to off track this thread anymore than it has been but, this is currently my favorite from AiG, I found it while doing whale research,
"As far as I am aware, none of this extra material has been subjected to peer review. That is, it has not been published in a refereed scientific journal. As such, it is not admissible as scientific evidence (evolutionists are quick to demand this of creationists)."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp
Not only are they wrong (the material was peer reviewed and early material was even accepted by AiG) but apparently AiG now refuses evidence that hasn't been peer reviewed. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp
Upvote
0
