</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by fogus,
You make it look as though creationists have manipulated numbers to fit their beliefs. You go further to say that evolutionists have not changed their data but have changed their theories. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Scientific theory and knowledge is subject to peer review all over the world and is constantly changing.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by You also claim that creationism is not a science because it searches for data to fit the belief that God created the earth in 6 days which are 24hrs. long each. What do you think the “scientists” were doing when they dug up Nebraska “man”? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The Nebraska man story is old and was never taken seriously for long by scientists. It is a good example of how science weeds out bad data and information.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by What do you think the mars rovers are doing? Why are we spending millions of dollars looking for water, or even a simple sign of life from outer space? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I think its great that were exploring and understanding the universe. President George Bush, a fundimentalist Chriatian, fully supports the exploration of Mars and space.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by What are we doing with all of the millions of dollars of research going towards evolutionary “science”? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Great! But not enough. A lot of the research goes to the field of genetics and the benifits have been significant.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by If science really changes its truth to match reality then why does it not look at the other 90% of dating methods which point to a young earth? Why is the dynamo theory of the earth’s magnetic field accepted when the rapid decay theory fits the data with extreme accuracy in comparison? The answer is that every “scientist” has a bias! You can’t escape from it! I will agree with all of your numbers about the similarity between the DNA of humans and apes. In fact I will agree with you on everything you can observe. You can use carbon dating, but I won’t agree that the world is millions of years old because your math can pump out big numbers; carbon dating can’t give ages larger than 50,000 years accurately.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Much misinformation. Of course carbon dating cannot date anything older than about 50,000 years old. The dating methods for older rocks uses strategraphy and the radioactive decay of heavier elements.
What source do you quote that shows 90% of dating methods point to a young earth? The decay rates of some heavier elements have half lives greater than the time frame for a young earth.
The rapid decay currently observed in the magnetic field fits the long history of the earth, because it fits the cyclic switch of the polarity of the earth over the history of millions of years.
Many scientists do have bias, just like the sky is blue, but peer review, critisim, new research and new research methods among the scientists weed out the false information like the 'Nebraska man' example you sited. Change is apart of the progress of science. That's why you are not riding a horse to work today.
I do have a real problem with the 'Creation Science' advocates abusing science and taking quotes out of context like your example of the James Barr letter.