Atheist says Creatinionist Wins...

[6days]

That doesn't change the fact the sentence you originally quoted was the opinion of the blogger and not something ever stated by anyone representing the school.

yes... I used a atheist website to show how the weasel reasoning they use. :dead:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Science is all about following the evidence, however scientists have belief systems.
*Many academics once had a belief system that if I spent enough time in the gym, my future kids would be more muscular.
*Many academics once had a belief system that that man had evolved from a common ancestor
Etc.

Hypotheses are not "belief systems".

Hypothesis: 6days lies.
Evidence: Every post 6days makes contains lies.
Conclusion: 6days is a liar.

The problem evolutionists have is they start with the conclusion and try make the evidence fit. That explains why they eat so much crow.

Does, "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record", bring back any lost memories?

So says the atheist argument I posted. But, the other side of this argument is that the university settled paying out a six figure amount, because they would likely lose the case. Armitage had not mentioned religion, but a different possible interpretation of evidence.

And what was that "different possible interpretation"? Godidit is a religious interpretation.

A Univeristy official then yelled 'We won't tolerate your religion in this department'.
Terminating an employee because of their religious views is completely inappropriate and illegal,” ((Even though it was not religion, but a different interpretation of evidence)said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, at the time the case developed.
“But doing so in an attempt to silence scientific speech at a public university is even more alarming. This should be a wake-up call and warning to the entire world of academia,” he said.
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/11/scien...ft-tissue-from-dinosaurs/#ddCCxM3BBexxMWYu.99

Courts have repeatedly ruled that creationism is not scientific. I read your link. It is full of half truths and states as fact things Armitage alleges happened. For example, "A Univeristy official then yelled 'We won't tolerate your religion in this department'," asserted to have been said, without evidence.

No... You are in love with your strawmen.

So, you still don't know what constitutes a strawman.

He suggested the soft dinosaur tissue might be less than 68 million years. That offended the religious belief of the university official.

Being a false witness and misrepresentation must be your favorite hobby.

That's off topic... sort of like moving goal posts. We were talking about a scientist getting fired because he suggested soft dino tissue might be less than 68 million years.

Off topic? How is something YOU brought up off topic? You made a laundry list of things scientist could "discuss", all having possible testing criteria, then mention an "intelligent designer" and not expect that theory not be held to the same standard? Really?

Btw..... How do you design an experiment to see if life originated without intelligence? ... You can't.*
How can you design an experiment to see if life evolved from a common ancestor? Answer... Examine the fossil record... test mutation rates in the lab...observe changes through sexual selection, natural selection etc...observe and test genetic drift. Then conclude evolutionism is a fairy tale. The evidence supports " In the beginning, God created..."

Shift the burden of proof much Mr. I wouldn't recognize a logical fallacy if it bit me in the crotch?

 

[Jonahdog]

The evidence supports " In the beginning, God created..."

No, you continue to be wrong. The evidence supports a universe billions of years old, an earth billions of years old and supports the basic concepts suggested by Darwin. Your fear requires you to ignore the evidence and to claim an old Holy Book to be 100% accurate. Must be tough to be so stricken with the fear of the judgment of your particular deity that you are forced to ignore the real world.

 

[6days]

Hypotheses are not "belief systems".

Evolutionism is a belief system that has resulted in many bad hypotheses and flawed conclusions.

Does, "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record", bring back any lost memories?

I think that is AIG statement of faith? If so, good for them standing on God's Word as their source of absolute truth.
Evolutionists start out with the false conclusion, or belief in materialism, then try shoehorn interpretations of evidence to fit their bwlief system. This has lead to many flawed conclusions and bad science.*

And what was that "different possible interpretation"? Godidit is a religious interpretation.

You could read what the scientist said...then you don't need to create strawmen arguments.*

Courts have repeatedly ruled that creationism is not scientific.

*
True... creationism and evolutionism are beliefs about the past. *
Why are you moving goalposts? Armitage wasn't teaching. He did suggest that the soft dino tissue may be an indicator this dino was less than 68 million years.*

I read your link. It is full of half truths and states as fact things Armitage alleges happened. For example, "A Univeristy official then yelled 'We won't tolerate your religion in this department'," asserted to have been said, without evidence.

Thanks for reading it. But questioning what Armitage said, does not mean the article is full of half truths. We don't know the exact words spoke between only 2 people. But, did the university official deny this?

So, you still don't know what constitutes a strawman.

You don't know what consititutes a strawman because you seem to think you can use that type of argument effectively.*
A logic fallacy involving the purposeful misrepresentation of an argument in order to strike it down. You keep misrepresenting Armitage suggesting he was saying "goddidit". You seem to find it easier to beat up on a straw man you make...rather than refute the actual argument.*

I wouldn't recognize a logical fallacy if it bit me in the crotch?

Don't be so hard on yourself.*

 

[Silent Hunter]

Evolutionism is a belief system that has resulted in many bad hypotheses and flawed conclusions.

Evolution is a science. Creationism is not.

ALL scientific hyphotheses are testable; some pass, some fail.

You made a laundry list of things scientist could "discuss", all having possible testing criteria, then mention an "intelligent designer" and expect that "theory" not be held to the same standard.

Tell me, 6days, what are the guidelines for testing godidit?

Oh, by the way, have you found that Cambrian rabbit yet?

I think that is AIG statement of faith? If so, good for them standing on God's Word as their source of absolute truth.

The evidence is that your preferred book of fables is unable to stand up to scientific scrutiny but it is right even though the evidence says otherwise, right? Well, so much for following the evidence and "scientific" integrity, huh?

Evolutionists start out with the false conclusion, or belief in materialism, then try shoehorn interpretations of evidence to fit their bwlief system. This has lead to many flawed conclusions and bad science.*

Are you admitting that evolutionary theory IS science? Science makes mistakes and science corrects itself. Oh, by the way, have you found that Cambrian rabbit yet?

You could read what the scientist said...then you don't need to create strawmen arguments.*

Which scientists, the AIG/ICR trained ones, or those who actually understand science? I see you STILL don't know what a strawman is yet.

True... creationism and evolutionism are beliefs about the past. *

No, evolutionary theory is not a belief about the past. Repeating your lies won't make them true.

Why are you moving goalposts? Armitage wasn't teaching. He did suggest that the soft dino tissue may be an indicator this dino was less than 68 million years.*

OK, so the microscopic "soft tissue" is 67 million years old. I'm (not) impressed by your "argument".

Thanks for reading it. But questioning what Armitage said, does not mean the article is full of half truths. We don't know the exact words spoke between only 2 people. But, did the university official deny this?

Yes, they did, it's his word against the school official who fired him. Sounds more like a case of sour grapes than being denied scientific freedom.

You don't know what consititutes a strawman because you seem to think you can use that type of argument effectively.*
A logic fallacy involving the purposeful misrepresentation of an argument in order to strike it down. You keep misrepresenting Armitage suggesting he was saying "goddidit". You seem to find it easier to beat up on a straw man you make...rather than refute the actual argument.*

When did I say Armitage said/concluded godidit? In fact, Armitage wasn't fired because of his theology, he was fired because his contract expired and because of budget constraints. He didn't like it so he played the crybaby "you fired me because of my religion" card.

 

[ok doser]

Evolution is a science.

like sociology is a science :chuckle:

 

[Silent Hunter]

like sociology is a science.

No, that's geology



Sent from my SM-G930V using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Caino]

Headline from a prominent atheist website declares
"Creationist Wins Six-Figure Settlement After Getting Fired From a California University". http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...r-getting-fired-from-a-california-university/

Reading the story from the atheist perspective is interesting. The long and short of this story though is that Mark Armitage suggested soft dinosaur tissue is an indicator that the dino may be much less than 68 million years old. Apparently that bothered a evolutionist at the university who hollered 'We aren't going to tolerate your religion here'. Shortly after, Armitage no longer had a job.*

Like always, evolutionists oppose academic freedom and dissenting opinions of their belief system. And as often is the case, they refuse to follow evidence where it seems to lead...to the Creator God of the Bible, and our young earth. Notice in the article they refuse to even consider soft tissue can't survive millions of years. Instead they look for a 'rescue device' to preserve their beliefs. In this case, the rescue device is iron. They say, "there actually is a very good explanation for how soft tissue in dinosaur bones could have survived: Iron in their bodies may have protected the tissue before it decayed"

So if iron "MAY" have preserved,.....and, if you are willing to believe that, then why not be also willing to consider you MAY be wrong?, and that the C14 dates on dinos may be close to the truth? ( BTW -There is no evidence iron can preserve anything for 68,000,000 years...iron can act as a preservative but even after 2 years in lab conditions using pure hemoglobin , there is still some decay).

YEC-ism requires greater and wider denial schemes. The belief that dinosaurs and humans were supposed to live together is beyond silly.

 

[Crucible]

YECism is a denialist movement. If you look at AIG for example, there is a list a mile long of debunked arguments they implore others to not use, and the list of valid arguments is virtually nil.
That's pretty much how they operate- they find an excuse to keep their notion alive and come up with another when the former fails.
That's about it.
Denialism.

 

[Lighthouse]

Was it a direct quote, no. Did it, in essence, say the same thing? ("The school is essentially saying".)

Do you not know the answer to the second question?

Next time you want to show the world how stupid a person can be, try to not proclam your ignorance so loudly.

Next time you want to show the world how stupid a person can be, try to not proclam your ignorance so loudly.

Did you mean proclaim?

You really aren't the person who should be calling other people ignorant.

yes... I used a atheist website to show how the weasel reasoning they use. :dead:

They corner the market on ignorance, that's for sure.

 

[6days]

Evolution is a science. Creationism is not.

Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past and not science.
If by the word 'evolution' you mean the heritable characteristics observed from generation to generation...that is science.
If by the word 'evolution' you mean the molecule to man belief system...that is pseudo science.

(you)mention an "intelligent designer" and expect that "theory" not be held to the same standard.

*An intelligent Designer is not a theory... It is a belief based on evidence.

Tell me, 6days, what are the guidelines for testing godidit?

Do you mean how would you test if something is intelligently designed?* That's easy. Maybe you can tell me, how do you test when looking for aliens in space if you are listening to random noise, or a signal that is from intelligence?

Oh, by the way, have you found that Cambrian rabbit yet?

Creationists do not expect rabbits in that layer.
It's interesting how you jump around with goalposts.* However ....'rabbits'* are found in the Cambrian such as eyes as sophisticated as any that exist today. Evolutionists use psuedoscientfic explanations to try shoehorn data to fit their beliefs. IE "It must have evolved in the blink of an eye"

***
OK, so the microscopic "soft tissue" is 67 million years old. I'm (not) impressed by your "argument".

Lets do some tests.. How well does iron preserve the soft tissue. What percentage of iron do we mix with the sample? How should we replicate 67 million years of temperature fluctuations? How about if we ignore the presumption of 67 million years and do C14 testing?

*
Yes, they did, it's his word against the school official who fired him. Sounds more like a case of sour grapes than being denied scientific freedom.

No... it sounds like the university official was angry that his belief system was being challenged. Armitage had only suggested that soft dino tissue might be an indicator the fossil had been assigned a age much too old. *

 

[KingdomRose]

Headline from a prominent atheist website declares
"Creationist Wins Six-Figure Settlement After Getting Fired From a California University". http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...r-getting-fired-from-a-california-university/

Reading the story from the atheist perspective is interesting. The long and short of this story though is that Mark Armitage suggested soft dinosaur tissue is an indicator that the dino may be much less than 68 million years old. Apparently that bothered a evolutionist at the university who hollered 'We aren't going to tolerate your religion here'. Shortly after, Armitage no longer had a job.*

Like always, evolutionists oppose academic freedom and dissenting opinions of their belief system. And as often is the case, they refuse to follow evidence where it seems to lead...to the Creator God of the Bible, and our young earth. Notice in the article they refuse to even consider soft tissue can't survive millions of years. Instead they look for a 'rescue device' to preserve their beliefs. In this case, the rescue device is iron. They say, "there actually is a very good explanation for how soft tissue in dinosaur bones could have survived: Iron in their bodies may have protected the tissue before it decayed"

So if iron "MAY" have preserved,.....and, if you are willing to believe that, then why not be also willing to consider you MAY be wrong?, and that the C14 dates on dinos may be close to the truth? ( BTW -There is no evidence iron can preserve anything for 68,000,000 years...iron can act as a preservative but even after 2 years in lab conditions using pure hemoglobin , there is still some decay).

The "young earth" idea is not only un-scientific, but it is unbiblical. If there was indeed discovered soft dinosaur flesh, it just might be explained in another way, rather than the young earth nonsense. You chide scientists who say that iron "may" have preserved tissue. Why don't you consider that YOU "may" be wrong as well?

The more that the "young earth" stuff is set forth, the more reproach you bring on the Bible....for no reason, because the Bible does not tell us that the earth was created in 6 days. That is absolutely absurd.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Do you not know the answer to the second question?

Is that a rhetorical question? Don't YOU know the answer?

Did you mean proclaim?

You really aren't the person who should be calling other people ignorant.

If the best retort you have is a misspelled word, typed hunt-and-peck on a cell phone, while fighting auto-correct you should look for more substantial battles in which to engage..

They corner the market on ignorance, that's for sure.

Well, that's because creationists are standing on the other 7 on the cube proclaiming their non-science laugh-track.

 

[Lighthouse]

They let him go due to budgetary reasons but paid him a settlement 15 times his annual salary?

Is that a rhetorical question? Don't YOU know the answer?

Why settle out of concern for time and the state's money if they thought the judge was going to dismiss it? If they thought that then they wouldn't be expecting a protracted legal battle.

I fall on the side that the spokeswoman didn't essentially say it.

If the best retort you have is a misspelled word, typed hunt-and-peck on a cell phone, while fighting auto-correct you should look for more substantial battles in which to engage..

Two different times? And if you're using auto-correct don't you think it would have caught that?

Well, that's because creationists are standing on the other 7 on the cube proclaiming their non-science laugh-track.

Looks like somebody doesn't understand the turn of phrase I used.

And Creationists are in full support of science. We don't support begging the question.

 

[6days]

The "young earth" idea is not only un-scientific,

Yes... that is what evolutionists say. If interested in what many Christian scientists say...
Evidence for a Young World
http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/

"The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth"
https://answersingenesis.org/eviden...nces-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/

Evidence for a Young Earth
http://creationtoday.org/evidence-for-a-young-earth/Z

If there was indeed discovered soft dinosaur flesh

Soft dino tissue had been discovered quite often.

it just might be explained in another way

True...evolutionists try explain it away.

You chide scientists who say that iron "may" have preserved tissue. Why don't you consider that YOU "may" be wrong as well?

Sure I might be wrong. Show me how iron in your body might preserve soft tissue for millions of years. Lab experiments show that even if soft tissue is put in pure hemoglobin, in laboratory conditions, there is decay after only 2 years.

...the Bible does not tell us that the earth was created in 6 days. That is absolutely absurd.

Ex. 20:11 "*For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"

 

[Silent Hunter]

Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past and not science.

Then why did you call evolutionary theory science? Should I repost that for you? What is "intelligent design" and why is it being pushed as science?

If by the word 'evolution' you mean the heritable characteristics observed from generation to generation...that is science.

Ok...

If by the word 'evolution' you mean the molecule to man belief system...that is pseudo science.

You still don't seem to get, even after being corrected time-after-time-after-time, that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life. I'd think, after being told so often, you creationists would eventually understand the difference... sigh.

*An intelligent Designer is not a theory... It is a belief based on evidence.

Theories are scientific and are based on evidence; evolutionary theory, for example. Ergo evolutionary theory is scientific. Beliefs, IE creationism/intelligent design, are based on faith. Ergo creationism/intelligent design is not scientific. Thank you for once again admitting evolutionary theory is science.

Do you mean how would you test if something is intelligently designed?* That's easy. Maybe you can tell me, how do you test when looking for aliens in space if you are listening to random noise, or a signal that is from intelligence?

I'd look for something non-random in the background noise. However, evolution is a random "process" guided, so to speak, by natural selection/survival of the most adapted to survive.

Creationists do not expect rabbits in that layer.

Neither does the theory of evolution.

It's interesting how you jump around with goalposts.* However ....'rabbits'* are found in the Cambrian such as eyes as sophisticated as any that exist today. Evolutionists use psuedoscientfic explanations to try shoehorn data to fit their beliefs. IE "It must have evolved in the blink of an eye"

Moving the goalposts? Nope. I gave you a simple means of falsifying the theory of evolution, show me rabbits in the Cambrian.

Humm, I'm not aware of fossilized eyeballs preserved in such a way to determine their "sophistication" being found in the fossil record. Enlighten me (a non-creationist source if you please).

Geologically, "in the blink of an eye" turns out to be a rather long wait.

Lets do some tests.. How well does iron preserve the soft tissue. What percentage of iron do we mix with the sample? How should we replicate 67 million years of temperature fluctuations? How about if we ignore the presumption of 67 million years and do C14 testing?

I don't know, that isn't my area of expertise and I'd venture a guess it isn't Mr. Armitage’s either... or yours.

No... it sounds like the university official was angry that his belief system was being challenged. Armitage had only suggested that soft dino tissue might be an indicator the fossil had been assigned a age much too old. *

Armitage wasn't fired because of his theology or that he had "suggested that soft dino tissue might be an indicator the fossil had been assigned a age much too old"; he was fired because his contract expired and because of budget constraints. He didn't like it so he played the crybaby "you fired me because of my religion" card.

 

[Silent Hunter]

They let him go due to budgetary reasons but paid him a settlement 15 times his annual salary?

Obviously you have no idea how much it costs to litigate frivolous lawsuits.

Why settle out of concern for time and the state's money if they thought the judge was going to dismiss it? If they thought that then they wouldn't be expecting a protracted legal battle.

Obviously you have no idea how much it costs to litigate frivolous lawsuits.

I fall on the side that the spokeswoman didn't essentially say it.

Why am I not surprised. I'm about to have a heart attack from not surprised.

Two different times? And if you're using auto-correct don't you think it would have caught that?

If the best you have is a couple of misspelled words to beat upon (copy-and-paste is also to blame) then you would do well to clean your own house for I'm more than certain you have committed spelling errors yourself.

Looks like somebody doesn't understand the turn of phrase I used.

Well, I do understand when someone is a walking, talking bag of hot air. You're looking as foolish as 6days, as exhibited by your sharp focus on the letter "I".

And Creationists are in full support of science.

You are? Really? Then why do you strive so religiously to promote something so unscientific as "intelligent design" as science?

We don't support begging the question.

You don't? Really? Then tell me, smart guy, where did your preferred version of deity come from? (FYI, "he" always existed and is "the uncaused cause", is begging the question.)

 

[6days]

Then why did you call evolutionary theory science? Should I repost that for you?

Sure... repost it.***

If by the word 'evolution' you mean the molecule to man belief system...that is pseudo science

You still don't seem to get, even after being corrected time-after-time-after-time, that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life.

Ok...lets call it the bacteria to biologist belief system.

Do you mean how would you test if something is intelligently designed? *That's easy. Maybe you can tell me, how do you test when looking for aliens in space if you are listening to random noise, or a signal that is from intelligence?
I'd look for something non-random in the background noise.

Yes... you look for signs of intelligent origins.

However, evolution is a random "process" guided, so to speak, by natural selection/survival of the most adapted to survive.

Natural selection is a process that eliminates...it does not create.
*"Negative frequency dependant selection) is one of the few forms of natural selection that can act to preserve genetic variation,[/b] most forms of natural selection lead to the loss of genetic variation[/b] as unfit alleles are "weeded out" of the population.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm

Humm, I'm not aware of fossilized eyeballs preserved in such a way to determine their "sophistication" being found in the fossil record. Enlighten me (a non-creationist source if you please).

Sure. I'm sure you are aware of the sophisticated and complex trilobite eye design?* Now we see something even more amazing. Giant shrimp about 3' long (1 meter) are dated at 515 myo by evolutionists. (Anomalocarus). These shrimp like creatures dated at more than a half billion years have eyes that contain about 16,000 hexagonal 'lenses'. This is somewhat similar to house flies which have 3,000 and dragonflies with 28,000.* "A prehistoric sea predator had better vision than most of its modern descendants"
http://www.earthtimes.org/nature/ey...edator-anomalocaris/1694/#6k8cLXGY0srHXWVr.99

Dr John Patterson wrote:
"The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye"
Notice what he is really saying..... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED. It's a Cambrian rabbit!:bowser:
Nature#480 p237-240* / http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...d-by-natural-selection-in-a-geological-blink/

Lets do some tests.. How well does iron preserve the soft tissue. What percentage of iron do we mix with the sample? How should we replicate 67 million years of temperature fluctuations? How about if we ignore the presumption of 67 million years and do C14 testing?

I don't know, that isn't my area of expertise and I'd venture a guess it isn't Mr. Armitage’s either... or yours.

You seem unwilling to test or accept results showing thousands of years. (C14 tests)

Armitage wasn't fired because of his theology or that he had "suggested that soft dino tissue might be an indicator the fossil had been assigned a age much too old"; he was fired because his contract expired and because of budget constraints. He didn't like it so he played the crybaby "you fired me because of my religion" card.

The OP shows that is the atheist claim. The facts seem to indicate* something different... Lighthouse covered that.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Sure... repost it.***

Evolutionists start out with the false conclusion, or belief in materialism, then try shoehorn interpretations of evidence to fit their belief system. This has lead to many flawed conclusions and bad science.

Are you admitting that evolutionary theory IS science? Science makes mistakes and science corrects itself. Oh, by the way, have you found that Cambrian rabbit yet?

Done.

Ok...lets call it the bacteria to biologist belief system.

Biology is science, not a "belief system". Lets go over it again:
Theories are scientific and are based on evidence; evolutionary theory, for example. Ergo evolutionary theory is scientific. Beliefs, IE creationism/intelligent design, are based on faith. Ergo creationism/intelligent design is not scientific. Thank you for once again admitting evolutionary theory is science.

Yes... you look for signs of intelligent origins.

How do you plan to isolate and unequivocally identify an "intelligent origin" in a biological system that by all units of measure is a random process "controlled" by natural selection?

Natural selection is a process that eliminates...it does not create.
*"Negative frequency dependant selection) is one of the few forms of natural selection that can act to preserve genetic variation,[/b] most forms of natural selection lead to the loss of genetic variation[/b] as unfit alleles are "weeded out" of the population.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm

You just can't seem to get over the fact that this canard has been refuted, can you? :sigh:

Sure. I'm sure you are aware of the sophisticated and complex trilobite eye design?* Now we see something even more amazing. Giant shrimp about 3' long (1 meter) are dated at 515 myo by evolutionists. (Anomalocarus). These shrimp like creatures dated at more than a half billion years have eyes that contain about 16,000 hexagonal 'lenses'. This is somewhat similar to house flies which have 3,000 and dragonflies with 28,000.* "A prehistoric sea predator had better vision than most of its modern descendants"
http://www.earthtimes.org/nature/ey...edator-anomalocaris/1694/#6k8cLXGY0srHXWVr.99

I guess it all comes down to your definition of "sophisticated". You assume the word, as used, means incredibly, incredibly, incredibly complex. It doesn't.

Dr John Patterson wrote:
"The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye"
Notice what he is really saying..... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED. It's a Cambrian rabbit!
Nature#480 p237-240* / http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...d-by-natural-selection-in-a-geological-blink/

For someone into "plain reading" you certainly don't find a need to apply the same standard outside of your favorite fairy tale. "A geological blink of an eye" is a lot longer than 6-24 hours days.

You seem unwilling to test or accept results showing thousands of years. (C14 tests)

You seem unwilling to accept that C14 is the wrong test method. What's funny is that your "own people", using C14, arrive at a date far, far exceeding your preferred 6k year time frame yet you won't accept those results either.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record".

The OP shows that is the atheist claim. The facts seem to indicate* something different... Lighthouse covered that.

The facts indicate Armitage wasn't fired because of his theology or that he had "suggested that soft dino tissue might be an indicator the fossil had been assigned a age much too old"; he was fired because his contract expired and because of budget constraints. He didn't like it so he played the crybaby "you fired me because of my religion" card.

 

[Hedshaker]

Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
Ok...lets call it the bacteria to biologist belief system.

Biology is science, not a "belief system". Lets go over it again:
Theories are scientific and are based on evidence; evolutionary theory, for example. Ergo evolutionary theory is scientific. Beliefs, IE creationism/intelligent design, are based on faith. Ergo creationism/intelligent design is not scientific. Thank you for once again admitting evolutionary theory is science.

In many cases it's not that they don't get it, but that they don't like it. The Statement of Faith by sites like Answers in Genesis make that as clear as day. In what universe can a Statement of Faith possibly be related to science in any way?

So creationists try to combat this, not by producing sound unambiguous evidence for creationism since there is none but, by desperately attempting to discredit the scientific Theory of Evolution, even when that means disparaging their fellow Christians who find Evolutionary evidence too compelling to ignore.

They then go on to argue that Evolution is not even science but also a blind faith religion like creationism. And, not that it's difficult to get words used by enough people into the dictionary but, they invent their own buzz words like "Evolutionism" and "Scientism", none of which carries much weight with sceptics and genuine science advocates. There is no Statement of Faith in Evolutionary science, nor is one needed.

So I suspect we will be seeing more repeated same old same old repartition from 6days, all of which we've heard dozens of times already and none of which makes the slightest dent in the highly respected and well established scientific Theory of Evolution.

Not that ignorance and stupidity should be given any sort of credence where science is concerned but one is almost tempted to, up to a point, excuse Cadry on the grounds of garbage in, garbage out. Others, on the other hand, and you know who you are have no such excuse.......

......You just don't like it. Well tough!