The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Ok, let's make an agreement, since I am kind of getting tired of this. How about we agree to both use our own sources and we will discuss their validity based on the material given? So I won't make fun of your youtube videos and you won't make fun of things just because they are from ICR or CMI? Deal? I think this will be much more productive and we will get more accomplished. Fair?

ICR? CMI?
Seriously?
No, seriously?

You don't need my permission to use whatever resources you think are valid but don't think for a second that I won't attack resources like the Creation Ministries International or the Institute for Creation Research over their complete lack of any actual scientific research or data or whatever over at those "institutions."

While I occasionally use youtube for easy and formatted arguements against your positions, they've all used science that is as well established and understood from every other resource I can find consistently. If you're dissatisfied with some youtube video I happen to use, just point out the issues you have with a pratiuclar topic, and not only can I expound on a particular topic with further data from completely unaffilated sources, but professional ones as well.

The problem with this entire discussion is entirely because I can and have provided everything I need to refute the claims of creationism as you've presented them in any manner of my choosing. Although I've taken a rather lazy route by linking youtube videos where other individuals have already done all the work for me, that doens't detract over the fact that I can and can continue to refute your claims with evidence to support my claims.

The fact of the matter is that all the evidence I need is already so well established and engrained in modern science that much of the research to, say, prove evolution that evolution happens is already the foundation of several forms of modern sciences that are much more ground breaking, like phylogenetics and many research programs for medicine and medical technology.
The big bang theory has been confirmed dozens of times over the past century and was clenched with the discovery of the microwave background radiation and confirmed by independant sources from around the planet, as has relativty, dendrochronology, and numerous other sciences that have been brought up over the course of the discussions concerning creationism.

With all that in mind, that is the reason why evolution is a science and creation science is not. It has proven nothing and made no evidence-based claims that science has not already proven or disproven. This isn't to say there aren't christian scientists as much as there are muslim, jewish, or other scientists who hold their own religion, but creationism and the beliefs contained wherein are a special brand of madness that immediately assumes that science and scientists are wrong and is largely inconsistent with what observation and evidence-gather methods that have already been so consistently correct that our entire modern 7-billion population planet literally depends on science for survival and continued long life. It even has the power to prevent the next major disaster that science has evidence for that wiped out >50% of the entire planet's population of life forms 5+ more times in ancient history.
As such, there can not be creation scientists and statistics have proven that scientists are largely either atheist or agnostic for this very reason. The many scientists who are religious in their outlook are not because they've rejected science, but because they've allowed their views to not interfere on their objectivity and the results of their research and knowledge to co-exist with their religious belief by rejecting the notion of things such as a literal creationist account of life on earth. That's why when you meet a reputable christian evolutionary biologist, it's always because they've chosen to believe that god created life through the natural processes that they observe and there's nothing wrong with that view.

What's wrong with creatoinism is that it exists *despite* evidence and I can and will continue to prove this to be the case, as will everyone else literate in science will tell you despite your abject desire to not listen to anyone or anything who doesn't agree with your worldview.

So a student in a fifth grade class learning about Newton's views on gravity would be a Physicist in your eyes? This person could then make claims using their authority in the subject of Physics? Give me a break. You earn the title of Physicist when you earn a degree in the field of Physics.

People don't become scientists with advanced learning degrees - they become scientists when they have the desire to learn.
The kind of scientists who write professional papers and have contributed works to scientific fields are curious children who grew up and got degrees.
We listen to the latter more than the former because of what they've learned and can prove. We listen to the former to show them what has been learned.

After all, anyone can prove a science and many foundations of modern science was done well before science and mathmatics was even a concept.