Quote
Quote
Many creation scientists have rigourously tested the Bible and established that it is indeed true.

How do you "rigorously test" for a 6-day creation? How do you "rigorously test" that manna fell from heaven? Please give me an example of one of these rigorous tests. It needs to be scientific, i.e. based on empirical evidence, which the Bible itself is not. It is a religious book.
No. You do not dictate how people are to conduct tests. The Bible contains an awful lot of history. Its accuracy has been verified by archaeology and by other historical documents. The Bible also contains prophecies which have been fulfilled. It contains promises which have been kept.

Now if you want to contend that the history is flawed, there is a thread available. Lest you try to change the subject, the point here is that it is proper for people to take all facts into account when forming an hypothesis (to the best of their ability). Your position, in case you've forgotten, is that the history recorded in the Bible must be erased/disregarded when forming an hypothesis. You fault creation scientists because they're unwilling to do this.

Thus far, what progress have you made?


Quote
You haven't convinced me that it's anything other than what I said it was. You'll need to do better than circular reasoning.

Quote
Carl Baugh is in charge of the Creation Evidence Museum. His "scientific" credentials are about as valid in the scientific community as Kent Hovind's. Anyone can claim they've found stuff and if they have enough money, put it in a museum. How is the validity of those finds established? Through publication in scientific peer-reviewed journals, a process in which Baugh does not engage. Scientists have scrutinised Baugh's claims and have quite clearly shown them to be false, possibly even fabricated in some cases. Even AiG has discredited him, as you can read here. If you'd like to present the actual details of one of his finds here, we can discuss that.
I present evidence and you attack Carl Baugh. Glen J. Kuban is not a reliable source of information himself, so it's pretty ironic that you link to his writings.

Unless something's new, AIG has not discredited him. AIG has advised creationists not to use the dinosaur & human prints because the evidence isn't clear enough. They say Dr. Baugh is basically too optimistic. I'm not aware of any time they've accuse him of wrongdoing.

I didn't find discrediting at all when I checked AIG - just the same old recommendation against using the tracks. As the digs continue, the situation is likely to improve IMO. For anyone who cares, here's what I came up with at AIG
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/best-proof-of-creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/bullet.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/archaeologist.asp

You asked for evidence. I presented some. We have your response. Done now?
Quote
I still don't understand why you think a passage from the Bible is scientific proof of anything. I could tell you that the Bhagavad Gita is literally true too. Why? Because I said so. Look, thus it is written. I think you know what I mean by empirical science and I think you're having a giggle with this.
I think the report contains some good direct tests. Do you have a problem with the tests, or is your prejudice against the Bible getting in the way of the evaluation process?

Quote
Quote
Don't even try to play philosophical games. People believe what they think the evidence shows them.

Why is it a philosophical game to say that belief should be excluded from science?
Because nobody can do it. Why would you bother to practice science in the first place unless you believed it would produce results?

Quote
You never set anything in stone because new evidence might emerge in the future to overturn current ideas.
Is the rule against setting things in stone exempt? Or is it set in stone?

Quote
This is how the scientific method works. Does anyone try to eliminate bias where the Bible is involved? Does anyone say, "I'm going to leave room for doubt because new evidence might come to light which disproves it?" Of course not, and these are some fundamental reasons why creationism is not scientific.
Those who say the Bible cannot be true, does this apply to them? You police thoughts mighty selectively. Why must they not be required to leave room for doubt?

I told you not to play philosophy. Would it help if I told you to employ circular reasoning as often as possible, apply double standards, and always keep a closed mind?

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson