"Now I know why there are few Creo 's on this forum ."
"There are few `` Creo 's `` in this forum because it becomes very quickly apparent to them that they ca n't defend their belief in mythology . They find out that they have been misinformed and that they are scientifically illiterate . They realize that they have no evidence or proof , only statements of religious faith . That 's why they leave . They make statements like , `` radiocarbon dating is inaccurate because it is based on assumptions. `` Creationists are unwilling to examine their beliefs with the same skepticism as they direct at science . By the way , when asked for evidence you quite rudely responded that you would furnish it when you were good and ready . If you wished to be treated with respect , then would n't it have been better to explain that your material was n't available but you would find it and post it as soon as it was - say next Tuesday ? Instead you copped an attitude and responded with snide remarks . You invited the disrespect because you gave none . You are rude and verbally abusive and then play the martyr when you are mocked . We 've seen it before . Your behaviour is quite typical of creationists in general , but especially those who ca n't back up their assertions . [ edit to add ] Here 's how science works . A scientist makes an observation of some natural event or the effects of some natural event that he/she does n't understand . Drawing on experience and current theory in that field of science , the scientist formulates a speculative explanation due to natural causes . This is called an hypothesis . If the scientist were to declare , `` It 's a miracle ! `` then that would shut off all inquiry and place the assertion beyond challenge . That would be giving up . It is important that the hypothesis is open to challenge , that is to say , it must be falsifiable . The scientist then makes a prediction of some potential observation that is a logical requirement of the hypothesis . In other words , the predicted observation must be true if the hypothesis is the correct explanation . This is what I meant when I spoke of predictive value above . The scientist then designs and carries out an experiment that tests whether the observation can be made exactly as predicted . If the scientist is correct , then he publishes his hypothesis in an appropriate scientific journal where his work is evaluated and the testing can be repeated . Sometimes further predictions are made and tested . If the experimentation shows that the hypothesis is n't correct , then it is amended to account for the new experimental data and the process is repeated with further predictions and tests . Sometimes the hypothesis is abandoned entirely . I certainly hope that your `` proof `` has been subjected to the kind of challenge that scientific theories undergo . Science advances by being challenged . Religion does n't advance and challenges have resulted in burning at the stake , torture and death ."
"Now I know why there are few Creo 's on this forum ."
"find out that they have been misinformed and that they are scientifically illiterate . They realize that they have no evidence or proof , only statements of religious faith ."