And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.
Is this how the search for making life works? I mean scientists have been failing for fifty, sixty, or maybe by now seventy years. We are talking about intelligent people. In fact very educated people, at that. Not blind random chance, and they have only proven life comes from life.
That may ultimately prove to be true, and I'd have zero issues with that. However, knowledge is not gained by saying "this seems to be true, let's stop looking at it altogether and just assume its right"...they obviously didn't stop looking at the age of the universe just because previous scientists thought they had the numbers right, and that's the way science should work.
"They" dated" the earth by a meteorite called "Allende". And we, as creationists, are not suppose to challenge their blind assumptions. Scientists, both creationists and evolutionists, are just like the garbage man and the logger. They have presuppositions and try to find "facts" to support their presuppositions.
Like I have challenged so often, name one of creationist Ph.D. (no theologians or philosophers) who, after earning their doctorate, became an evolutionists and I will give you a list of evolutionists who became creationists. Unbiased lab and field work tends to support creation and a curse. That's why they switch.
Why are you going on about PHD'S and theologians and creationism all of a sudden? The OP posted an article about how several new dating methods may(or may not) be more accurate and if so could change the commonly accepted age of the universe. He believes that this is not science, although he didn't offer any scientific theories of his own. I stated that this was indeed science being done properly, since they admitted new technology and new evidence and thus were prepared to revise the earlier estimates if it proves out. Now suddenly you want to arque about which side has more converts? I don't give a schitt who has more converts.....you realize people will hold onto the most ridiculous, easily disproven and downright idiotic beliefs even under threat of death,right? I don't care what people believe when it comes to science, unless they have some decent evidence to back it up.Its not a contest, and I'm not saying one side is right and the other wrong, I'm simply saying that this is how science is done, it's not a mark against them.
