I do not claim to read Gonzalez' mind. I have already answered twice, and explained how the discrimination against Gonzalez was based on the religion of his persecutors.
You seemed to suggest at one point, puzzlingly, that they must have fired him because he was Christian. Please explain the logic of this, since the majority of US scientists are actually Christian. Explain what it would have specifically been about his Christian beliefs, as opposed to his beliefs in ID, that could have been a factor. I'll hazard a guess: you can't.
Can you suggest an experiment that would produce some positive evidence for creationism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can. Who can't?
Please do so.
I'm non obligated to research every ancient issue. Even evolutionists who look into "horse evolution" consider it "a disgrace". Does your browser not have a search feature?
You came here and presented the assertion. You give the evidence for it. Otherwise it is totally groundless. At least Bex puts her money where her mouth is. You present assertion after assertion and come up with the most ridiculous excuses for why you won't explain them. It's off topic. It's not interesting. It should be obvious. You want
us to research your own claims. You'll get to it later. I don't know what I'm talking about/too stupid to realise/uneducated etc.
Answer the questions.
You really don't know what the arguments against CS & ID are, do you? If you did, you'd have no reason to ask this. You just take the conclusions of evolutionists on blind faith, without even examining the reasoning behind them.
Answer the question. What historical events that ID/CS accept are not testable?
Here's something your majority-is-right glasses might enable you to see:
There are 20+ scientific methods of determining the age of the earth which give dates under 50k years.
There are what? 4, 5, 6 that indicate it's billions of years old. Which is more likely: that 20 methods give right answers or that a handful will give right answers?
----------------------------------------------------------------
More unsubstantiated assertions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Untrue. Your Oort cloud is unsubstantiated, as is your faith therein.
Answer the question. What are the 20+ scientific methods of dating the earth to be under 50k years? I'll make it easier for you. Name one.
Which website would you like me to check? I've been to a few and they're riddled with inaccuracies. But if you can name one that isn't I'll be glad to look at it, it would certainly make a change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've already indicated that any slander levied against a creationist site will be taken as true by default. At this time, I don't see much point in subjecting good persons to further slander.
Answer the question. If your claim is true, and there are no scientific inaccuracies on the websites you had in mind, then there's no reason why I would point any out to you is there? Since when was correcting scientific inaccuracies "slander"?
Space is demonstrably 3-dimensional.
Where is your evidence for this? What you experience with your 5 senses? There's a lot in the world that we don't experience with our 5 senses.I also do not understand what you mean by "cosmic models". This is a rather vague term.
Isn't it then obligatory for DNA-world researchers to conclusively demonstrate the flaws in RNA-world (and half a dozen others)?
But the RNA-world and half a dozen others are not accepted theories. They are other competing ideas which attempt to explain abiogenesis. Having said that then yes, they do need to be taken into account and the other ideas would need to show why they explain the evidence better.
You're quite keen to cry "off topic" when you don't want to answer a question. Yet you were complaining about the perceived martyrdom of creationist scientists in the abiogenesis thread. I'm a little mystified.
