subjective science

Originally posted by @black-beetle
You are wrong.

When one wants to back up scientifically one's view, one simply has to make a case grounded on peer reviewed scientific papers. ICR is not a scientific institute; J.D. Morris, the president of ICR, has never ever peer reviewed any article of his, therefore his articles are not papers and thus they are not considered as "evidence" of a ...[text shortened]... nd evidence to the superstitions promoted by your religious beliefs. Well, it does not work.
😵

Would it matter where it came from if it contradicted the common theme/dogma it wouldn't
be accepted and the names of those involved would be belittled, just as you are doing.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Would it matter where it came from if it contradicted the common theme/dogma it wouldn't
be accepted and the names of those involved would be belittled, just as you are doing.

When they can’t handle evidence they attack and person who presents the evidence so they don’t have to deal with the actual evidence.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
When they can’t handle evidence they attack and person who presents the evidence so they don’t have to deal with the actual evidence.

I wish I could agree, but it isn't "they" its we. We tend to do that a lot, if you read the vast
majority of the posts here more are directed at each other than topics. Its a human thing! 🙁

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I wish I could agree, but it isn't "they" its we. We tend to do that a lot, if you read the vast
majority of the posts here more are directed at each other than topics. Its a human thing! 🙁

Yes, you guys are guilty of that.

😏

Originally posted by @dj2becker
As anticipated you will label any evidence that contradicts mainstream science as pseudoscience. So much for falsifiability.

If you have evidence, provide it.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Yes, you guys are guilty of that.

😏

I try to admit my short comings, there are more than a few!

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
If you have evidence, provide it.

How does modern geology explain the following?

1. A clam fossilized in the closed position
2. A fish fossilized in the process of eating another fish.
3. Rapid fossils such as an ichthyosaur trapped in sediment at the moment of giving birth.
4. Fossilized jellyfish
5. Polystrate fossils that cross several geologic layers and cannot be explained by processes that require millions of years of deposition.
6. A hat fossilized in a mine in less than 100 years?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I try to admit my short comings, there are more than a few!

Let's discuss them. 🙂

Originally posted by @dj2becker
How does modern geology explain the following?

1. A clam fossilized in the closed position
2. A fish fossilized in the process of eating another fish.
3. Rapid fossils such as an ichthyosaur trapped in sediment at the moment of giving birth.
4. Fossilized jellyfish
5. Polystrate fossils that cross several geologic layers and cannot be explaine ...[text shortened]... require millions of years of deposition.
6. A hat fossilized in a mine in less than 100 years?

In 'your own words' why not first explain why 'you' think modern geology would have problems with the 6 points listed. (Silly, and 'copied', as they are).

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
In 'your own words' why not first explain why 'you' think modern geology would have problems with the 6 points listed. (Silly, and 'copied', as they are).

If you had actually bothered to read the link I posted you would know exactly what problem modern geology would have with these 6 points.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you had actually bothered to read the link I posted you would know exactly what problem modern geology would have with these 6 points.

No link In the post I read.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Let's discuss them. 🙂

To what end? 😉

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
No link In the post I read.

Why then claim that they are copied if you didn't see the link?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Ok let's just focus on specific evidence then. Do you deny the existence of clam fossils that were found in the closed position? Yes or No?

I do not deny the existence of fossil bivalves. I do not deny the existence of our solar system either.
What I deny, is the possibility that the pseudoscience of creationism can come up with scientifically accepted theories of reality as regards geology, cosmology and every other field of science.
Evidence please. What is the exact case you want to debate, who authored the related paper, and to which scientific journal was the paper submitted?
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
I do not deny the existence of fossil bivalves. I do not deny the existence of our solar system either.
What I deny, is the possibility that the pseudoscience of creationism can come up with scientifically accepted theories of reality as regards geology, cosmology and every other field of science.
Evidence please. What is the exact case you want to d ...[text shortened]... te, who authored the related paper, and to which scientific journal was the paper submitted?
😵

Obviously no atheistic scientist will accept any findings of a creationist because it does not fit into their atheistic framework.