Originally posted by ivanhoe
WTF = World Trade Fenter ?

Willful Toddler Fiddlers?

Originally posted by dj2becker
What about the Nebraskan man?

Says he who tried to present "Cardiff man" as proof that giants used to roam the earth!!!

Originally posted by orfeo
One man's interpretation is another man's manipulation. Your choice of words pretty much begs the question.

I really don't understand how this insistence on keeping science and religion separate came about. If you go back a couple of centuries, theology was regarded as a form of science. It only seems to be atheists who want the two fields kept utterly separate.

The great seperation probably originated around the time that science started eroding at the credibility of biblical creationism.

Originally posted by orfeo
Whereas scientists never manipulate data? South Korean stem cell research is immediately springing to mind, along with cold fusion.

Occassionally scientists do lie, unfortunately. Happily though, science has mechanisms (i.e. distrust of single sourced reports etc) where they are rapidly brought back into check, and their scientific career is forfeit if they lie. Priests can bu**er little boys and get promotion - see the difference there??

Originally posted by Halitose
Here's what you said: "Creationists do not interpret evidence differently from scientists. They manipulate the evidence to fit thier[sic] beliefs."

If this accusation is true, it certainly implies that creationists are morally and intellectually bankrupt.

I see no disclaimer that there are exceptions to this sweeping statement of yours. It qua ...[text shortened]... This you have clearly done, so I still maintain my accusation of shameless conduct by you.

I'll agree with twhitehead here.

Literal biblical creationists, by refusing to accept valid data (such as the antiquity of the earth), are manipulating the data to fit their belief. This is academically reprehensible. Refusal to accept valid facts, based upon preconceptions simply smacks of some deep seated intellectual weakness.

Scientists (good ones anyway, and there are, of course, both good and bad ones, because, after all, we're all human) should take into account all relevent data to base their judgements. If they do not, they will be quickly superceeded by scientists who will, and their careers will be forfeit.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'll agree with twhitehead here.

Literal biblical creationists, by refusing to accept valid data (such as the antiquity of the earth), are manipulating the data to fit their belief. This is academically reprehensible. Refusal to accept valid facts, based upon preconceptions simply smacks of some deep seated intellectual weakness.

Scientists (g ...[text shortened]... t, they will be quickly superceeded by scientists who will, and their careers will be forfeit.

Whitehead made no distinction between the literal and non-literal creationists.

Anyhow, your statement begs the question. Don't the non-creationist scientists reach their conclusions based on the preconceptions of the uniformitarian principle? They have merely traded their beliefs/preconceptions for more non-empirical axioms.