bent strata

quote:

---

And no, I didn't take any credence to his post. He claims he's a "scientist", yet he believes in creation, and accepts the flood as an actual occurance...hmmm

---

The difference between a real scientist and one of those creationist "scientists" is that real scientist experiment and experiment until they have sufficient data to come up with a theory while a creationist try to make everything fit with his faith. This includes using a hammer and pound the heck out of scientific laws until they comply with his faith.Speaking from experience, I advice you to not take credence in any of these creationists.

quote:

---

Speaking from experience, while the majority of YEC's are uneducated and incredible, I know that there are at least a handful who are very much deserving to be called scientists without the quotations.

---

Creation "scientists" aren't really scientists at all, period. In order for someone to be a scientist, he has to be willing to conclude that his beliefs may be false if enough data go against them. However, his faith prevents him from doing this. THAT is the difference between real science and creation science. Real science come up with conclusions AFTER having done experiments and extrapolations, while creation science come up with conclusions first THEN beat the hell out of the data to conform with the conclusions.I remember one of my old philosophy professor snapped at a girl who wrote a paper trying to validate creation science even after he spent an entire lecture hour talking about how creation science isn't real science.

quote:

---

Your claim is true about 99.99% of "creations scientists", but blanket generalizations are always dangerous.

---

I agree that every once in a while, you get an exception, just like everything. But it isn't my job, your job, or anyone's job to convince these people to be more objective at science than make everything fit into their faith. Perhaps TC came a long way from where he started, but it wasn't anyone's job to make him realize that he can't shape science anyway he wanted to make it fit his faith. He was supposed to approach everything objectively if he wanted to claim he was a *scientist*.But yes, I do agree that blanket generalization is always dangerous. But then again, danger is my middle name[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-03-2004]