Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'd be interested to know what funding pressures affect, say, university or government research as opposed to say, creationist funded 'research'... science is of no use and progress is not possible in secular land if the research isn't done honestly, remember that all walks of life and religions engage in this 'secular evolutionary' science - Creationists who have a mandate before entering the lab are a very different story. They even announce their bias proudly beforehand.
Problem is, peer reviews are simply refused. It is a form of blacklisting.Great! Go find all the peer-reviewed scientific research showing where evolution and anthropomorphic climate change is disproven, and present it. I'll wait.
There is no such thing as YEC science. All professional YEC's do is badly interpret data to lie the the flock.
What do you mean by pre-conceived notions?And secular scientists interpret the data based on secular pre-conceived notions shared by their followers. There's no dishonesty. Both sides are quite open about it.
Having personal biases that could influence how data is interpreted is one thing. But the OP shows a creationist making claims about bones that weren't even discovered at the time. That is extremely intellectually dishonest and has nothing to do with budget limitations or data interpretation. He was making up an interpretation of data that didn't exist.
Well there you go, guess you're qualified to tell why evolution is a religion, then.
Some peer-reviewed articles in secular science journals have been exposed as frauds. That doesn't make all secular science fraudulent. The same holds true for YEC research. YECs and evolutionists are operating on different assumptions.Sources?
So, you are saying that the 'YEC community' is one of either purposeful deception or incompetence? Because what they seem to think constitutes 'evidence' is distorting what others have written, rigging analyses, refusing to admit error, etc.
Evolutionists don't engage with YEC research. It's dismissed out of hand. Yes, YEC and ID communities draw from secular sources. Their communities aren't large enough to only cite each other. The huge funding and institutional resources that evolutionists have aren't there for them. YEC and ID research is more scientific apologetics, based on private donations.What do you mean by pre-conceived notions?
And why do creationists lie like Mitchell did?
You seem to be saying that secular science (talking specifically about evolution-related research here) and creation science are but 2 sides of the same coin, so I presume you can present several example of evolution scientists taking creation science claims and clearly distorting/lying about them?
I would first point out that other than perhaps the occasional article in RNCSE, evolution research is NOT based on taking creationist publications and nitpicking them, which the overwhelming bulk of creation/ID science output is.
No, they're not. YEC's have no relevant education or training... none.Some peer-reviewed articles in secular science journals have been exposed as frauds. That doesn't make all secular science fraudulent. The same holds true for YEC research. YECs and evolutionists are operating on different assumptions.
No, they're not. YEC's have no relevant education or training... none.
And the one or two who do, distort their findings to mislead.
That is incorrect. Actual research is generally exposed as erroneous, to say the least:Evolutionists don't engage with YEC research. It's dismissed out of hand.
Or they write about things that they have no relevant background in. Henry Morris (hydraulic engineer) writing about genetics, Walt Brown (mechanical engineer) writing about biology, Jon Sarfati (physical chemist) writing about fossils and genetics, Jeff Tomkins (genetics) writing about fossils, etc.Or talk out of both sides of their mouths by publishing legitimate science papers which support the "secular" findings and then publishing in an AIG "journal" and directly contradicting their legit work. See Andrew Snelling.
No. The scientiic method is not like religion, but many scientists involved in junk science (e.g. evolution fundamentalists and global warming evangelists) defend it like a religion.
The scientists doing the actual work are, well, busy doing the actual work, not arguing about it on non-scientific forums.
Yes, evolutionists don't recognize YEC research as science. This assertion isn't an argument against YEC being scientific.
There is no "YEC science" nor is there "evolution science". There is only science and YEC ain't it.
This assertion isn't an argument against YEC being scientific.
And twisting my words is not a refutation.Yes, evolutionists don't recognize YEC research as science. This assertion isn't an argument against YEC being scientific.
Maybe I should have said, "the good/smart ones", because they are smart enough to understand the futility of arguing with lay people about such a thing - regardless of what the lay people believe.
Fascinating claim because we have a few scientists on here and I know quite a few on Facebook who are engaged in the Crevo debate.
Fulfilling their [master's] version of the great commission, are they?Fascinating claim because we have a few scientists on here and I know quite a few on Facebook who are engaged in the Crevo debate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?