gregorygarver.com

tashiasdad · Joined: 21 Aug 2005 Posts: 8

No. I know a variety of means of synthesizing hydrocarbons from organic and inorganic carbon sources. Neither invalidates the other. The fossils in coal and the progression from peat to coal show in that sequence. Nice try.

BMD · Joined: 10 Jun 2004 Posts: 4

Got anything from a peer reviewed source? Yeah I didn't think so.... Creationist propaganda sites are not impressive.But here is the difference between how science does things and religion. Science makes up for mistakes, religion keeps them:http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html

golfer7 · Joined: 06 Apr 2004 Posts: 4

The answer is in the full title of the organisation:The Kolbe Center for the Study of CreationDefending Genesis from a Traditional Catholic PerspectiveThat says it all. If you want to find out about science, ask a scientist, not a religionist.

raichasays · Joined: 22 Nov 2006 Posts: 5

This "science" is not presented in the West because it is bollocks...Paranoia is it's own reward....enjoy your anxiety...

rob · Joined: 24 Dec 2004 Posts: 3

Lots of stuff. We just won't know that for sure until some smarter scientists come along and tell us that though

shauna · Joined: 11 Jun 2004 Posts: 7

every days scientists discover new things it may complete previous discoveries or prove its fault this is nature of sciences it is ordinary thing

Kimie · Joined: 07 May 2005 Posts: 6

No. Science is logical and testable. Science is 100% open to examination and verification. Science is 100% open to question.This contrasts markedly with the closed nature of Eastern totalitarian regimes.

MCWife · Joined: 28 Apr 2003 Posts: 7

Do you really believe that science in the Soviet Union has never been biased and controlled because of political interests ?

LibsRwimps · Joined: 24 Mar 2006 Posts: 5

One of the things about science is that over time it is self-correcting. When new or contradictory evidence is collected, it will mount until somehow it is addressed in a new theory that makes more sense in light of the new evidence than the old theory. Truly open-minded scientists will consider the evidence and assess its validity using reason and their own experimentation. Most of the time, that's how it works. Even if some kind of corporate or government interference tries to keep this new evidence out, eventually it will surface somewhere else and be addressed. It's true that sometimes science is interfered with, and no American administration has been worse about this than the Bush administration. But still, history shows that over time, science will allow us to understand reality more and more accurately, and with that knowledge we are able to find solutions to more and more problems that face us.In contrast, when some religions are confronted with contradictory evidence, they ignore it. And if the evidence can't be ignored, they either suppress it or mount a smear campaign full of faulty arguments to try to stop people from listening to it and considering it on its own terms.

openthoughts · Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 5

I am sorry but your question sounds like nonsense to me. What I will say is that scientists spend a lot of time finding out that the previous ideas and theories are wrong and correcting them that is the point of scientific study

CherylS3347 · Joined: 15 Jan 2004 Posts: 7

Petroleum DOES come from decaying organic matter! That doesn't mean that the process can't be simulated, and just because the process can be simulated does NOT mean that the natural process does not exist.Science isn't controlled by non-altruistic influences - it is controlled by the fact that it is a self-correcting way of doing things. Remember when that Korean scientist claimed he had created new stem cell lines but was later proven to be a fraud? People condemned science for this, but the truth is that the fact that science is ALWAYS questioning its results PROVES that the scientific method is alive and well and will eventually catch a "stinker". There are corporations that might try to influence science reports that they might have funded, but over time because of the nature of the scientific method the nonsense WILL be thrown out. Science isn't "wrong about oil", and in case you haven't heard the Soviet Union is dead and gone, and had a highly questionable reputation in regards to some of the sciences - especially genetics - because the results didn't fit the Communist Party's idea of what the "truth" was and as a result their genetics research was years behind the rest of the world. Don't blame science - blame human beings that try to misuse science (and the truth) to further their own agendas. Some people still believe that AIDS isn't caused by the HIV virus - we now call these people "crazy".Add: I am wondering why you are listing an example from an atheist government as proof of your clearly religious idea - this makes no sense.

Suzy · Joined: 24 Jul 2006 Posts: 5

i've never heard that, but i'm from the United States.scientists are also wrong about global warming...it does exist, since it's part of the Earth's cycles.it's ALL FOR POLITICAL POWER!

indyfaninark · Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 7

Right on, this bit about other reasons for the source of oil is news to me. Thanks for sharing it.Of course this information would be concealed, because it flies in the face of the 'were running out of oil' little chickens, who run around promoting this lie, so that the rich people can rape us for even more of our hard earned money.Of course the science lovers apparently do not care if their hard earned dollars are taken away by this lie. Just look at their answers.

2nd_account_suspended_FUK · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 3

I don't think that you have done "all your homework" on this matter. The Germans used the Fischer-Tropsch method in WW II to extend their fuel supplies as did the South Africans before 1990. Moreover, there are "tar sands' in Canada and shale-oil in the US. There is no conspiracy to hide the fact that petroleum can be made from non-fossil fuels. Even with $ 100 a barrel oil, these methods are more expensive pretty "dirty" to operate. As for the Soviet Union, they couldn't run a nuclear energy plant without screwing up, why should be believe their claims here?

blahblahblahblahblah · Joined: 15 Oct 2003 Posts: 9

And your question would be?