PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     YE Creationists - Real Science
       Do YE scientists contribute to Science?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have seen many Old Earth evolutionists proclaim that YE creationists are non-contributors to science.  

Statements such as "JM: A quick search on georef shows that Ye-creationism is mentioned in only a few editorial pieces, there are no scientific articles about ye-creationism in the scientific literature."

The general sentiment is:

Creationists have made no contribution to the progress of biology, geology,  or any other of the historical sciences.

This is a blatantly false claim, not just a matter of opinion or interpretation. Many key aspects in biology (as well as the other major branches of modern science) were discovered by creationists! For example, Louis Pasteur discovered that many diseases were caused by germs and showed that life comes only from life, Gregor Mendel discovered genetics, and Carolus Linnaeus developed the modern classification system. And even today, many scientists, including biologists, contribute greatly to their field despite believing in biblical creation and disbelieving the ToE.

Also, people whom evolutionists praise for their contribution to astronomy — Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton — were also young-earth creationists, but they don’t inform anyone of this!

Geneticist who coverted from Evolutionist to Creationist
Dr Jerry Bergman has 8 degrees and has has over 600 publications in 12 languages and 20 books and monographs.

And how about
Dr, Russel Humphrey's Perspective

Q: Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?
We referred this question to Dr D. Russell Humphreys (pictured), a nuclear physicist who works at Sandia National Laboratories. Dr Humphreys says he has often had this question put to him. He writes:


‘When people ask me this, I feel a certain amount of frustration because of the evolutionist brainwashing in our society which it reveals.

‘Firstly, it shows that the questioner is unaware of the large number of published professional scientists who are creationists. Where I live and work (Albuquerque, New Mexico) there are large numbers of scientists, and I know many who happen to be biblical creationists. Using a simple statistical approach, I would conservatively estimate that in the United States alone, there are around 10,000 practising professional scientists who openly believe in six-day recent creation.

‘Secondly, it suggests that the questioner doesn’t understand what the day-to-day life of a scientist is all about. One could almost say that publication in professional journals is the essence of being a scientist. So asking a man who says he is a scientist if he’s published in secular journals is like asking a man who says he’s married if he’s got a wife!

‘I would therefore reply to such a question ‘Are there any who don’t?’ Every one I know does publish. Even scientists who are full-time in creationist organisations usually have a few such publications, despite the serious disadvantage their institutional connections give them. Although there is strong discrimination against high-profile creationist scientists, most creationist scientists publish non-creationist scientific articles frequently. Moreover, many of them have published data with important creationist implications—but without explicit creationist conclusions, which would point out the significance of the data to the average non-creationist scientist.

‘What about creationist scientists publishing articles, in secular journals, which specifically come to creationist conclusions? The bitter experience of a number of us has made it clear that there is almost no chance that such articles will pass the review process, no matter what their quality. I have also had repeated correspondence with the letters editors of major journals, having submitted brief, well-written items which critiqued published conclusions favourable to long-agers or ‘big-bangers’. These contained no explicit creationist connotations, but I have concluded that, now that I am known as a creationist, such items have virtually no chance of publication.’

That’s why creationists have had to develop their own peer-reviewed journals, such as the Creation Research Society Quarterly and the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. Some creationist scientists are world leaders in their field, like geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner of Los Alamos Laboratories, in the field of plate tectonics [see interview Creation 19(3):40–43, 1997].


Regarding today's exclusionary view to creation science:  
Comtemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
The writer interviewed over 100 persons who were active in what is known as the creation-intelligent design movement.  Most felt that the standard evolutionary paradigm of origins was inadequate and should be ‘balanced’ with alternative positions.  The creationists interviewed differed considerably relative to their views of origins, and about half would be identified with the seven day literal 24-hour day non-gap universal Noachian deluge creationist position.  Almost all felt that they had faced serious religious discrimination in their academic careers at least once or more often.  The discrimination ranged from derogatory comments to denial of tenure or an earned degree.  The writer also reviewed the literature and interviewed about a dozen academic deans and department chairs in the field of science.  All, without exception, felt that openly holding a ‘scientific creation’ worldview would seriously impede or terminate an academic career. Many openly stated that they would not hire or support the candidacy of an out-of-the-closet scientific creationist for a tenured position in academia.

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?

The tyranny of 'tolerance'
This article deals with the stereotyping such as what I discussed with Kronus about the word 'fundamentalist'.  One of the biggest battles we face concerns the way we use words.  One of the most glaring examples is the word ‘tolerance’.  Not long ago, this meant ‘bearing or putting up with someone or something not especially liked’.  However, now the word has been redefined to ‘all values, all beliefs, all lifestyles, all truth claims are equal’.  Denying this makes a person ‘intolerant’, and thus worthy of contempt.


Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination

Other creationists of the past:

Francis Bacon - usually considered to be the man primarily responsible for the formulation and establishment of the so-called "scientific method".  Said the following:  "There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power."

Johannes Kepler - Kepler's laws of planetary motion were his greatest contribution to science. These laws had an enormous impact on scientific thinking, providing the groundwork for Sir Isaac Newton's later work on universal gravitation.  Kepler is recognized as one of the founders of modern science. In his three books, Cosmic Mystery, The New Astronomy, and Harmony of the Worlds, he began the process that eventually replaced superstition with reason.  Kepler's Christian faith had led him to a pattern of thinking which had eventually enabled him to solve the riddle of planetary motion where so many other scientists had given up trying. Kepler had sought and found a simple logical pattern for planetary motion which reflected God's wisdom. As Kepler said: 'We see how God, like a human architect, approached the founding of the world according to order and rule and measured everything in such a manner.'

Robert Boyle- his active mind pondered a vast number of scientific puzzles, such as the problems of elasticity and pressure, and problems associated with gas pressure and volume. He worked with the brilliant physicist Robert Hooke, who, like himself, was a Bible-believing Christian; and together they invented the forerunner of the modern air-pump. While experimenting with air, Boyle began to promote his atomic theory, which is the foundation for our modern understanding of matter.  It was about this time also that Boyle proposed an idea that has become perhaps his most notable contribution to science. He formulated a law which describes the behaviour of gases under pressure. This is now known as Boyle's Law. Stated simply, Boyle's Law is that the volume of a given quantity of gas varies inversely with the pressure when the temperature is constant.  In 1661, at the age of 34, Boyle published The Skeptical Chymist. In this book he overturned Aristotle's conception of the four elements (the belief that everything was composed of earth, air, fire and water) and replaced it with the modern idea of an element—namely that an element is a substance that cannot be separated into simpler components by chemical methods. The Skeptical Chymist is recognized as the foundation-stone of modern chemistry.  In the year before his death in 1691, Boyle published an important work he called The Christian Virtuoso. In this book he explained that the study and dominion of nature is a duty given to man by God. His basis for this was the command given in Genesis 1:28, where God the Creator blessed the first man and woman and told them to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the Earth and subdue it, and to rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the Earth.  In his lectures and many writings, Robert Boyle showed that science and faith in God can exist side by side. He praised his Creator for all the scientific discoveries he had made, and urged others to do likewise. He recognized that the universe works in accordance with the laws of nature which God established for its order and control. As a powerful Christian apologist, he established in his will provision for the Boyle Lectures for the defence of Christianity. He strongly supported missionary work, and gave great support to societies which promoted the Gospel.

Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator.

A big List at AiG
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:49 PM on May 1, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

anyone else notice that these "creationists" who contributed to science were all dead long before the ToE was ever proposed?

Strange also how there is no actual examples of all this great work creationists are doing that is being supressed


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 4:16 PM on May 1, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It seems you are incapable, TQ of following links....



Just Before Darwin
The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
Jedidian Horse (1761–1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F. B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
Charles Babbage (1792–1871) Operations research; Computer science; Ophthalmoscope (old-earth compromiser*)
John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Just After Darwin
Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
John Murray (1808–1892) Publisher
James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
George Romanes (1848–1894) Biology; Physiology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
The Modern Period
Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist
George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
A. Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer


Are there scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation?
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Metrologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer: Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer , Physiologist
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris , Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr Andrew Snelling , Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Prof. James Stark , Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography

 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:22 PM on May 1, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup,

  You're a goofball.  I've never made a claim that ye-creationists have not made contributions to science.  Indeed, I noted that Baumgrander, Austin, Woodmorappe (aka Jan Peczkis), Humphreys and even Sarfati have made scientific contributions.  Don't lie to make a point.  The point I've made is that ye-creation science is not making any useful contributions because they refuse to submit their work to scientific journals.  There's a difference that your mind can't grasp.  There is a difference between ye-creationists doing science and the same people doing ye-creation science.  By the way, there are more Steve's publishing evolutionary articles than the list you provided.  


Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 7:04 PM on May 1, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmmm... so lets examine some of these scientists:

Dr John Baumgardner: his present day modelling of tectonic plates may have received acclaim in the New Scientist,  but I do not think his opinions on timescales for tectonic movement would be as well received

Dr Steve Austin: his paper on Argon inclusions in the 1981 Mt. St. Helens dacites is a classic example of "look! I've found doubt in a specific example! every example is open to doubt!".

Dr Harold Coffin: how exactly is this man a Paleontologist?

Prof. Dennis L. Englin: Co-author of "Designs in the Living World", a book aimed at high school students which concerns itself with general issues of science and (most significantly) putting them firmly within a creationist structure. Not talking outside of ones field of expertise are we, Prof. Englin?

Dr John D. Morris: I note this man is the President of the ICR. His section, "Dr. John's Question & Answers" on the ICR is certainly illuminating, although sadly not with regard to sound scientific analysis of the evidence available.

Dr Gary E. Parker: much like Dr Coffin, I find the association of the word Paleontologist with this man tenuous, at least with regard to his work ever being published by a scientific journal concerned with the subject. His assertion that fossils serve to contradict evolution in his book "Dry bones and other fossils" is eye-brow raising to say the least.

Dr Graeme Mortimer: did not find anthing on this fellows work. Pity.

Dr Joachim Scheven: This mans lack of knowledge on Dinosaurs, one of his pet topics, is so lacking as to be embarassing. I could quote a whole page of his rubbish to pull apart, but I will limit myself to his comment that there is no fossil evidence of ancestral forms of Diplodocus and Iguanodon. An uniformed comment at best, a deliberate lie at worst.

Dr Emil Silvestru: Fortutously, I've already said a bit on this fellow in the ye geology thread:  
Dr Silvestru on Dolines Karstologist indeed!

Dr Harold Slusher: Dr Slusher's claims that he holds an honorary doctorate in Geophysics are dubious to say the least.

Dr Andrew Snelling.... co-authored a book with Ken "Evolution: The Lie" Ham I also read his article on the Platypus... where Dr. Snelling sees a "degenerated" present day form, I see a more efficent and well adapted form to its environment. I think I'll take Dr. Tom Grant's conculsions, who has spent the last 20 years objectively studying the Platypus.


Dr Kurt Wise: there is the old adage that a picture can say a thousand words, and in this instance Dr. Wise's contribution is laudable:


Once again, I think this "paleontologist" is speaking outside of his field of expertise.


Now, unlike the above people, I have limited myself to commenting on areas where I have some background knowledge (Earth sciences and Geophysics), and find I cannot take their views as being good science.

Maybe someone else could critique the "Biologists"?

P.s. I note that even Mr. Behe has made sure his name has not cropped up on that list


(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/20/2004 at 09:04 AM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:23 PM on May 1, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JM: Don't lie to make a point.

Lie?  You are the 3rd evolutionist to call me a liar.  By all means - show me where I lied.  

I quoted your words exactly.  I copied it directly from your post.  If quoting your exact words is lying, then you are admitting to lying.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:40 PM on May 1, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We've already shown you, numerous times.  If Joe wants to do so as well, he's welcome to, but I for one don't have the inclination to beat my head against a wall again.

Do you not think it odd that three of us have called you a liar in the span of one week?  And before you go off on a conspiracy rant again, let me remind you that not once did we call YET a liar.  I have debated many creationists, and never called them liars


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 8:03 PM on May 1, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: We've already shown you, numerous times.

Actually, you have never been able to show one credible instance of me lying.  This is because I don't lie.  I speak my mind, and I speak the truth.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 10:54 AM on May 2, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 10:54 AM on May 2, 2004 :
TQ: We've already shown you, numerous times.

Actually, you have never been able to show one credible instance of me lying.  This is because I don't lie.  I speak my mind, and I speak the truth.  


JM: You may speak your mind, but I am not so sure you speak the truth.  In your initial post you quote me directly (no problems so far), but then go on to say in the very next sentence:

Creationists have made no contribution to the progress of biology, geology,  or any other of the historical sciences.


JM: That is a false statement as I mentioned the contributions of Baumgardner, Peczkis (aka Woodmorappe), Austin and Humphreys.  If this is not a lie, then it is very misleading and you should correct it.  I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in that while earnestly trying to make a point, you neglected the full context of my claim.   You can correct this by withdrawing your 'general' claim above and replacing it with a specific claim that I would support.  Namely:

"Ye-creation SCIENCE has made few, if any, useful contributions to modern scientific thought."

I say 'few'.  I actually think that there are not any useful contributions to modern scientific thought because I've not seen any in the published literature (but there may be one or two out there that I am unaware of).  Most ye-creation 'science' appear in theologically based publications such as CentJ, TJ, AIG and ICR documents rather than in the scientific literature.  The claim is made that the ye-creationist authors are summarily censored, but I've yet to see any documented evidence that ye-creationists submit ye-creation articles to mainstream journals or that they have been systematically censored.  For GUP you need the following to support your point:

1. Show that articles have been submitted to secular journals by ye-creationists on ye-creationism (I would say that a couple of dozen example should be enough).

2. Show that these articles were summarily rejected solely on the basis of their ye-philosophy rather than on the science contained in the paper.

I should add that submissions to NAture and Science require several additional layers of evidence for your claim because many submitted papers are never even sent out for review.

Cheers

Joe Meert



 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 1:26 PM on May 2, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Go back and read it again, joe.  No where did I give the indication that you said that "Creationists have made no contribution to the progress of biology, geology,  or any other of the historical sciences."


I clearly indicated my discussion was regarding the group of evolutionists as a whole in the first paragraph.

I then gave an exact quote which I put in quotation marks.

I then closed the quotation and doublspaced - then I qualified the next remarks with "The general sentiment is".  

No where did I say "joe meert says that creationists have made no contributions...".  

I was speaking to the spirit behind the quotes.  I was speaking to the general belief that generated the quote.  But no where did I say that you had said "creationists have made no contributions...".  

JM: You can correct this by withdrawing your 'general' claim above and replacing it with a specific claim that I would support.

Well if you knew it was a general claim, why did you get upset and claim that I had lied?  Clearly I was not quoting you directly, and was indicating a generalized air of belief that permeates the fabric of the evolutionary paradigm.  

JM: "Ye-creation SCIENCE has made few, if any, useful contributions to modern scientific thought."  

I actually think that there are not any useful contributions to modern scientific thought because I've not seen any in the published literature (but there may be one or two out there that I am unaware of).


While I respect the integrity you display here of feeling you may be unaware of some, these comments only boulster the premise that my generalized claim is indeed correct.  

JM: 1. Show that articles have been submitted to secular journals by ye-creationists on ye-creationism (I would say that a couple of dozen example should be enough).

Source
On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * 'Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps' to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn't want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn't even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a 'slight bias' exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

In the 70s and early 80s, physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn't publish openly creationist conclusions. Gentry had discovered that granites contain microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. According to evolutionary theory, polonium halos should not be there. Some believe that the existence of polonium halos is scientific evidence that the Earth was created instantaneously.

Another example of blatant discrimination is Scientific American's refusal to hire Forrest Mims as their 'Amateur Scientist' columnist when they found out that he was a creationist, although they admitted that his work was 'fabulous', 'great' and 'first rate'. Subsequently Mims invented a new haze detector praised in the 'Amateur Scientist' column, without mentioning that Mims was rejected for this very column purely because of religious discimination. So it's hardly surprising that some creationists write creationist papers under pseudonyms to avoid being victimised by the bigoted establishment. See Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination


Russell Humphreys said in a 1993 interview: 'I'm part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a good number of these are creationists. Many don't actively belong to any creationist organization. Based on those proportions and knowing the membership of the Creation Research Society, it's probably a conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 practising scientists who are biblical creationists.' ('Creation in the Physics Lab', Creation Ex Nihilo 15(3):20–23).  

10,000 scientists and you can find nothing but passing references on georef?

Dr Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University author of Darwin's Black Box, is not even a biblical creationist, but has experienced blatant censorship simply because he highlights the strong evidence for an intelligent designer of life. Like Dr Gentry, he wasn't even given a chance to respond to his critics — see his Correspondence with Science Journals.

Scientific American refused to allow Phillip Johnson to defend himself against a vindictive and petty review by the atheistic Marxist, Stephen Jay Gould. So Johnson published Response to Gould on the Internet, from Access Research Network.

Dr Donald James Batten

Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati

Dr Pierre Gunnar JERLSTRÖM


The extent of the discrimination
The writer, as part of an ongoing research project, has interviewed over 100 active self-labelled creationists who are, or were, employed in academia.  He specifically asked if they had faced religious discrimination and, if so, to delineate their experience.  Almost all believed that their creationist beliefs caused at least some career problems.  These ranged from open derision to outright firings, and even attempts to rescind earned degrees.  Some cases were tragic in their extent, blatancy and consequences.31  The discrimination experiences discovered were grouped in the following general categories:

(1) Derogatory and clearly inappropriate comments
Examples range from placing obscene or anti-creationist cartoons in the workers’ mailboxes to open, blatant, inappropriate direct name-calling.  Bolyanatz32 noted that evolutionists often assume that

‘anyone holding the creationist viewpoint must be illogical, backward, subversive, uneducated, and stubborn.’

Gross name-calling, even by eminent scientists, is commonly found in the secular literature.33,34  A typical example is Isaac Asimov’s statement that all

‘creationists are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way.’ And that all of their ‘points are equally stupid, except where the creationists are outrightly lying.’35

(2) Refusal of admittance to graduate programs
It was found that it was not uncommon for a creationist to be denied admission to a degree program even if he/she clearly exceeded published admission standards.  In some cases the person denied was able to locate letters of recommendation which recommended against admission specifically because of the candidate’s creationist worldview.

(3) Refusal to award degree
Some creationists interviewed, although they clearly met all of the requirements, were openly denied a degree (usually a Ph.D. in the sciences) because of their creation orientation and/or publications.

(4) Denial of promotion
Many creationists claimed that they were not promoted even though they clearly exceeded the written standards for promotion (high student ratings, more than an adequate number of publications, etc.).  In several cases this was openly because of their creationist publications.36,37

(5) Denial of tenure
Many cases of tenure denial clearly based mainly on the creationist activities of the candidate were encountered.  It was often obvious that bias existed because of active involvement in the creationist movement.  Research has well documented that a known scientific creationist who does not experience some bias in this crucial decision is a rare exception.38  This view was fully supported by the interviews with creationist professors and others.

In many cases of religious discrimination, the university was open and blatant about such, either claiming immunity or citing various laws or precedents which they felt either rendered them unaccountable, or the law ineffective in rectifying their illegal behaviour.  In one case the university did

‘not deny either religious discrimination or [lack of] university specified due process.  Its entire case rests on immunity (as a State institution, immune from lawsuits unless plaintiff is given permission by the State to sue itself).’39

In this case, the university claimed that  

‘as a whole, whatever wrongdoing occurred, it is not  liable to damages’.40
From AiG


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:35 PM on May 2, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 4:35 PM on May 2, 2004 :
Go back and read it again, joe.  No where did I give the indication that you said that "Creationists have made no contribution to the progress of biology, geology,  or any other of the historical sciences."


I clearly indicated my discussion was regarding the group of evolutionists as a whole in the first paragraph.


JM: I'm not included in that group? LOL!

Well if you knew it was a general claim, why did you get upset and claim that I had lied?


JM: THe intent was to include me as you noted above.  I'm not upset, I am just making an observation that in your earnest to make a point, you did a poor job.


 Clearly I was not quoting you directly, and was indicating a generalized air of belief that permeates the fabric of the evolutionary paradigm.  


JM: Which, of course, is a misrepresentation.  Please show me where evolutionists have repeatedly made claims that ye-creation scientists do not make useful contributions.  They do, it's simply not in the area of ye-creationism.

While I respect the integrity you display here of feeling you may be unaware of some, these comments only boulster the premise that my generalized claim is indeed correct.  


JM: You're so confused.  There is a clear difference between ye-creationists doing science and ye-creationists doing ye-creation science.  You need to get the distinction clear in your head.


Source
[color=navy]On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * 'Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps' to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn't want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn't even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a 'slight bias' exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.


JM: THis means nothing.  We've had Nature papers rejected only to have similar papers appear months later.  Nature is fickle like that.  You need to show that Humphreys was rejected based solely on the fact that he is a ye-creationist.  Past history shows us that secular science has published Humphreys and other ye-creationists many times.  The onus is on Humphreys to show the bias.  These sorts of claims are not clear evidence.

In the 70s and early 80s, physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn't publish openly creationist conclusions. Gentry had discovered that granites contain microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. According to evolutionary theory, polonium halos should not be there. Some believe that the existence of polonium halos is scientific evidence that the Earth was created instantaneously.


JM: I don't get it.  First you say they are censored and then you show they are not censored.  Which story are you sticking to?



Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 4:56 PM on May 2, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Off course, an article from AiG can be accepted as being completely objective and with no bias at all ;)

Gup, you should not act surprised that articles from creationists cannot get publication in mainstream journals. Peer review is going to screen out work which makes radical departure from well accepted theory.

Don't worry though, this is a problem that is not exculsively experienced by ye-creationist work alone. "Mainstream" scientists have found and continue to find the same thing, provided their findings are radical enough.

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/3/2004 at 04:31 AM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 04:30 AM on May 3, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * 'Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps' to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn't want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn't even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a 'slight bias' exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.


Nature published no articles between 1991 and 1993 with the phrases "cosmic microwave" and "compton scattering" in their abstracts. They published only two papers about the cosmic microwave background during the right time frame, and neither was about Compton scattering.   That's not to say Humphreys story is not true, but it would be nice to get the exact reference.  Do you have it?

Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 08:50 AM on May 3, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Joe Meert:  JM: I'm not included in that group? LOL!

Indeed you are in the group, however, you alone does not the entire group make.  Your individual opinions are just that - an individual's opinion.  I was speaking to the group or 'collective' opinion.  

Which is, again, why I made it so general.  

JM: THe intent was to include me as you noted above.  I'm not upset, I am just making an observation that in your earnest to make a point, you did a poor job.

I can accept that criticism, and apologize for creating the impression of inferred acceptance of the general statment on your behalf.  

JM: Which, of course, is a misrepresentation.  Please show me where evolutionists have repeatedly made claims that ye-creation scientists do not make useful contributions.  They do, it's simply not in the area of ye-creationism.

You did state that you did not find ye-creation material on georef.  You followed this finding with the idea that georef would not list 'bad science'.  You hypothosized that since ye-creationists exist, and they are present, they must not be submitting their work, and implied that if this were not the case then it was because they had 'bad science'.  I guess there is no need to directly accuse when you can make a series of vague statments that lead people to believe - is that the methodology here?

The point of this thread is to refute the inferance that Creationists have made no contribution to science, or that ye-creation is bad science.  I don't think I have mis-represented that in any way.  

JM: You're so confused.  There is a clear difference between ye-creationists doing science and ye-creationists doing ye-creation science.  You need to get the distinction clear in your head.

In getting you to confess this, I can see this thread was well worth it.  Most evolutionists are very weary to unlink the direct from the inferred as this statement does.  Most evolutionists are quite happy to ignore anything said or done by a ye-creationist simply because they are a ye-creationist.  Often they are apt to dismiss anything from a person as 'bad science' without even considering the quality of the work simply because the person comes with a YE label.  Am I to take this as your committment to stop doing this?

JM: I don't get it.  First you say they are censored and then you show they are not censored.  Which story are you sticking to?

Hasn't my point been clear?  I could have just said 'nope, your wrong', but wheres the fun in that?  I might as well change my name to TQ.

Off course, an article from AiG can be accepted as being completely objective and with no bias at all ;)

Hold on there now!  I don't recall claiming that AiG was not biased.  I would say they are very much biased, as am I - as are most evolutionists.  ESPECIALLY those who claim to be objective.

OccamsRazor:  Gup, you should not act surprised that articles from creationists cannot get publication in mainstream journals. Peer review is going to screen out work which makes radical departure from well accepted theory.

Oh, I am not surprised.  I am a little disheartened.  The greatest accuracy comes when there is pressure to get a thing right.   I would say that radical departure from well accepted theory should be welcomed as it can only serve to sharpening an idea.  The more convincing the opposing view the better.  Progress is made when a new idea is good enough to replace an old one.  

JM: Do you have it?

I do not.  You could ask Humphreys (I know the two of you are great pals).  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:52 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Indeed you are in the group, however, you alone does not the entire group make.  Your individual opinions are just that - an individual's opinion.  I was speaking to the group or 'collective' opinion.  

Which is, again, why I made it so general.  


JM: Hmm, you're logic reminds me of the following

1. Switzerland loves freedom
2. I love freedom.
3. I am Switzerland.

In your haste to make a point, you made no point at all.

You followed this finding with the idea that georef would not list 'bad science'


JM: Science is peer-reviewed.  Good science (including biblical references) can be found in Georef by ye-creation authors.  So can other articles by ye-creation authors be found in Georef.  One might rightly conclude that there is no bias against ye-creationists.  One might also conclude that if ye-creationists have submitted ye-creation articles to mainstream journals they were likely rejected on the basis of their science.  Finally, one might also conclude that ye-creationists do not submit ye-creation articles to mainstream journals because they know the science is bad.  Now, each of these conclusions might be wrong, but you should defend your disagreement with evidence.

In getting you to confess this, I can see this thread was well worth it.


JM: That's the silliest thing you've posted in a while.  I've BEEN saying this the whole thread.  You did not get me to confess anything!  You just finally got knocked over the head with it so many times it sunk in!
:bonk:

Cheers

Joe Meert


 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 09:28 AM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JM: There is a clear difference between ye-creationists doing science and ye-creationists doing ye-creation science.

I've BEEN saying this the whole thread.[/i]

So let me try to echo your sentiment back to you -

It is Joe Meert's assertion that YE-Scientists are capable of and do preform 'good science'.  However, ye-science is not good science;  when a ye-scientist does ye-science, he does 'bad science'.  

Is that a fair representation of what you are trying to express?
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:13 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


So let me try to echo your sentiment back to you -

It is Joe Meert's assertion that YE-Scientists are capable of and do preform 'good science'.  However, ye-science is not good science;  when a ye-scientist does ye-science, he does 'bad science'.  

Is that a fair representation of what you are trying to express?


JM: Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, why don't you try reading my posts with an eye towards comprehension?  This is an incorrect representation of my point.

Cheers

Joe Meert


 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 10:28 AM on May 9, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JM: Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, why don't you try reading my posts with an eye towards comprehension?  This is an incorrect representation of my point.

I am not trying to offend you, sir.  I am simply trying to make logical sense of your argument.  In that, I have requested your clarification so that I do not mis-interpret or mis-understand.

You stated that not all ye-scientists were bad scientists, and they were cable of 'good science'.  (JM: Good science (including biblical references) can be found in Georef by ye-creation authors.)


You stated your belief that ye-science was bad science.  (JM: One might also conclude that if ye-creationists have submitted ye-creation articles to mainstream journals they were likely rejected on the basis of their science.  Finally, one might also conclude that ye-creationists do not submit ye-creation articles to mainstream journals because they know the science is bad.)

You stated that there is a difference between a ye-scientist doing [good] science and a ye-scientist doing ye-science.  (JM: There is a clear difference between ye-creationists doing science and ye-creationists doing ye-creation science.).  

You have repeatedly made the implication that all ye-science is 'bad science'.  JM: Perhaps even more telling regarding the bankruptcy of ye-views...   Also - JM: The scientific literature is not exclusionary to creationists, it is exclusionary to poorly documented science..  Also - JM: I am commenting on the material I've seen in TJ, CENTJ and on websites such as AIG and ICR.  They are, nearly all, poorly documented, scientifically incorrect and unreviewed.  My prejudice is against bad science, the source is irrelevant.  Also - JM: Yes, I am being derogatory to bad scientists no matter their religious background.  It just so happens that we are talking about ye-creationists in this conversation, but my 'prejudice' against bad science is universal..

Clearly, it is your notiong that ye-sciece is bad science.  

Also, I found the following contradiction telling:

JM: I actually think that there are not any useful contributions to modern scientific thought because I've not seen any in the published literature (but there may be one or two out there that I am unaware of).

JM: Gup,  You're a goofball.  I've never made a claim that ye-creationists have not made contributions to science.  Indeed, I noted that Baumgrander, Austin, Woodmorappe (aka Jan Peczkis), Humphreys and even Sarfati have made scientific contributions.  Don't lie to make a point.


Whom is lying to make a point?  

My point here is this.  I said:

GUP20: So let me try to echo your sentiment back to you -

It is Joe Meert's assertion that YE-Scientists are capable of and do preform 'good science'.  However, ye-science is not good science;  when a ye-scientist does ye-science, he does 'bad science'.  

Is that a fair representation of what you are trying to express?


To which you responded:

JM: Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, why don't you try reading my posts with an eye towards comprehension?  This is an incorrect representation of my point.

As you can see, Joe.  I am not putting words in your mouth.  I am simply echoing back your very own words in trying to understand the contradictory nonsense you have been saying.  Clearly, the assertion that I said you made, YOU INDEED MADE.  I am simply parroting it back to you so that you can see what nonsense it is.  It is certainly not a congruous argument.  




(Edited by Gup20 5/10/2004 at 2:47 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:34 PM on May 9, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 12:34 PM on May 9, 2004 :
I am not trying to offend you, sir.  I am simply trying to make logical sense of your argument.  In that, I have requested your clarification so that I do not mis-interpret or mis-understand.


JM: Then ask a question, don't mistate my position and ask if you understand me correctly.


You stated that not all ye-scientists were bad scientists, and they were cable of 'good science'.  


JM: So far so good.

You stated your belief that ye-science was bad science.


JM: Technically speaking, I've not seen any ye-creation 'science'.  I've seen writing by ye-creationists that has the outward appearance of science, but, as I noted, nothing published in the scientific literature.


You stated that there is a difference between a ye-scientist doing [good] science and a ye-scientist doing ye-science.


JM: I believe I stated doing 'science'.


You have repeatedly made the implication that all ye-science is 'bad science'.


JM: As I mentioned, I've never really seen any ye-creation science.  I've only seen the propaganda masquerading as science in vanity publications such as CentJ, TJ etc.


Clearly, it is your notiong that ye-sciece is bad science.  


JM: I will concede this on one condition.  If ye-creation 'science' is only to be found in the propganda machines like CentJ, TJ etc, then yes, ye-creation science is really bad science.



Whom is lying to make a point?  


JM: By misrepresenting my position the way you have, I believe you were lying.  Now, I might jut assume you are purposefully dense.


It is Joe Meert's assertion that YE-Scientists are capable of and do preform 'good science'.  However, ye-science is not good science;  when a ye-scientist does ye-science, he does 'bad science'.  


JM: You echoed me wrong.  Here's the subtle distinction that seems to escape you.  I've not seen ye-creation science published in the scientific literature.  That which I've seen published is all about religious propaganda masqerading as science in vanity journals.  It is unequivocally poor 'science'.  Could you perhaps point me to some published ye-creation science that is not in a propaganda rag?

Cheers

Joe Meert


 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 6:17 PM on May 9, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Joe your post was like Clinton asking for the definition of the word 'is' in the Monika Lewinsky scandal.  

JM: Technically speaking, I've not seen any ye-creation 'science'.

Instead of being rediculous about semantics, how about just using some common sense here.

JM: Now, I might jut assume you are purposefully dense.

Gup20:  ...

Could you perhaps point me to some published ye-creation science that is not in a propaganda rag?

So you share the same opinion of the TalkOrigins website then?  Anything that is an apologetic?



 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:05 PM on May 10, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 3:05 PM on May 10, 2004 :
Joe your post was like Clinton asking for the definition of the word 'is' in the Monika Lewinsky scandal.  


JM: Yours was a poorly laid trap misrepresenting my point.  How would you respond?


Instead of being rediculous about semantics, how about just using some common sense here.


JM: That's what I've been trying to elicit from you.  So far, no luck.


So you share the same opinion of the TalkOrigins website then?  Anything that is an apologetic?


JM: You are not even clever about your dodges are you?  I've never brought up TalkOrigins.  Want to try another poorly thought out argument?

Cheers

Joe Meert







 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 9:52 PM on May 11, 2004 |
IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JM: Yours was a poorly laid trap misrepresenting my point.  How would you respond?

Who is the conspiracy theorist now?  I was echoing back almost word for word your own statements to show you they didn't make sense.

JM: That's what I've been trying to elicit from you.  So far, no luck.

Perhaps if you ilicitations had some common sense, I might respond in kind.  As you are making no sense, my echoing your own words back to you make no sense.  Thank you for proving and verifying my point.  

I was asking if you had the opinion of talk origins that it is a - how did you call it?  -  A "glad rag"?  And, yes, Joe, you do and have brought up Talk Origins.  To say you have not is extremely fallacious.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:05 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 6:05 PM on May 12, 2004 :
JM: Yours was a poorly laid trap misrepresenting my point.  How would you respond?

Who is the conspiracy theorist now?  I was echoing back almost word for word your own statements to show you they didn't make sense.


Actually, conspiracies involve more than one person, you're accusing him of paranoia.  Except, of course, that's it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.  You have repeatedly parroted back what people have said "almost word for word" (emphasis mine).  The almost is a small word or phrase you've introduced, which you then make the cornerstone of your future arguments.  

And before you say "give me an example", just go to any thread here you've posted in, and search for the phrase "no, that's not what I said".  Shouldn't take you too long to find all the examples you want.

 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 11:17 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Recap: in my first post in this thread I wondered how Mr. Harold Coffin was a Paleontologist.

Well, he isn't. He is trained as a biologist, and does not have paleontolgical training. On one occasion he was interviewed and the question was put to him: how old would the earth appear to be to a person with no reference to scripture, and just the observations science has made. After a lengthy pause he replied "about 4.5 billion years".

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/20/2004 at 09:11 AM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 09:10 AM on May 20, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ouch!


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 1:22 PM on May 20, 2004 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from OccamsRazor at 7:23 PM on May 1, 2004 :
Hmmm... so lets examine some of these scientists:

Dr John Baumgardner: his present day modelling of tectonic plates may have received acclaim in the New Scientist,  but I do not think his opinions on timescales for tectonic movement would be as well received

Nothing a creationist writes is likely to be well received by the powers that be in science. They locked up the guy that figured out it was better to wash your hands before an operation. So what is your point. If most scientist agree meant anything Doctors still would wash their hands after surgery. What is your point?
BTW it was a Creationist that figured that out as well as how disease spreads , the MRI , the Laser , The Airplane.
Your argument is political , not logical.

Dr Steve Austin: his paper on Argon inclusions in the 1981 Mt. St. Helens dacites is a classic example of "look! I've found doubt in a specific example! every example is open to doubt!".

That was one of many . That these testing methods are wildly inaccurate has been known for a long time. The same type of readings were made in New Zealand in the 60's and numerous other places and never refuted. Any "dating" that does not "fit" with evolution theory is ignored. It is not an isolated incident , it is the norm.


Dr Harold Coffin: how exactly is this man a Paleontologist?

Dr Coffin has a Ph.Din invertebrate zoology,has taught on the college level and was a senior
research scientist withthe Geoscience Research
Institute at Loma Linda University.

Your arguments are so disingenuous and political. You include every scientist period that you say believes in evolution whether there are biologist , botanist, chemist, census takers  or whatever and want to reduce the tally of scientist that believe in Genesis to those that work in fields of science directly related to origins and are very vocal about it.
If I counted up the number of scientist who's main field of research was origins the numbers would change drastically would they not?
Numbers don't lie but staticians do.

There are more evolutionist than creationist but your numbers are horribly dishonest. I know where they came from . Look at the Bureau of Vital Statistics there are 1,1 million scientist in the USA . All of them were used in your estimate regardless of their field.
Considering 50% of graduating high school students don't accept evolution and less than 13% of Americans period accept undirected evolution I say your estimate is impossible.


Prof. Dennis L. Englin: Co-author of "Designs in the Living World", a book aimed at high school students which concerns itself with general issues of science and (most significantly) putting them firmly within a creationist structure. Not talking outside of ones field of expertise are we, Prof. Englin?

Not talking out of your ass are you?
He is a Professor of Geophysics. He is unqualified yet a census taker is qualified as an evolutionary scientist? A forester is qualified as an evolutionary scientist?
When you get your numbers from the National Center for Selling Evolution, the N.C.S.E. you can't be taken seriously .


Dr John D. Morris: I note this man is the President of the ICR. His section, "Dr. John's Question & Answers" on the ICR is certainly illuminating, although sadly not with regard to sound scientific analysis of the evidence available.
That begs the question, how would you know that? You can say anything.


Dr Gary E. Parker: much like Dr Coffin, I find the association of the word Paleontologist with this man tenuous, at least with regard to his work ever being published by a scientific journal concerned with the subject. His assertion that fossils serve to contradict evolution in his book "Dry bones and other fossils" is eye-brow raising to say the least.

Now the truth raises it head. According to you any one who presents evidence that contradicts the "theory" must be ignored regardless. Same thing happened to Gallileo.
Evolution is a priori, a religion , materialism an absolute. It cannot be challenged and any one who would try is stupid or crazy.
Science demands challenges , evolution is not science, it is science fiction, an ancient pagan religion.
Evolutionist have no evidence to prove the theory so it allways comes down to most scientist agree and if you don't your stupid.

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.

That is your argument, it is without merit.



Dr Joachim Scheven: This mans lack of knowledge on Dinosaurs, one of his pet topics, is so lacking as to be embarassing. I could quote a whole page of his rubbish to pull apart, but I will limit myself to his comment that there is no fossil evidence of ancestral forms of Diplodocus and Iguanodon. An uniformed comment at best, a deliberate lie at worst.
And you are?




Dr Andrew Snelling.... co-authored a book with Ken "Evolution: The Lie" Ham I also read his article on the Platypus... where Dr. Snelling sees a "degenerated" present day form, I see a more efficent and well adapted form to its environment. I think I'll take Dr. Tom Grant's conculsions, who has spent the last 20 years objectively studying the Platypus
What does your opinion or that of Dr. Grants have anything to do with the qualification of anyone else.
I have never once heard a creationist say that Crick or Gould were not qualified because of their religious beliefs. Scientist disagree all the time , they are supposed to do  that.
All you are is a politician.



Dr Kurt Wise: there is the old adage that a picture can say a thousand words, and in this instance Dr. Wise's contribution is laudable:


Once again, I think this "paleontologist" is speaking outside of his field of expertise.
Again I say you are speaking out of your ass. Dr, Wise has a P.H.D. in paleontology from Harvard . How can paleontology be out of his field? You must be out to lunch.
All you are is a politician who is so afraid of Creationist you must attack them personnally.
Creationist don't say Crick was "outside of his field" because he he believed in the life from a galaxy long ago far far away theory.

Next time you are told to get an MRI tell the Doc to forget.
After all the MRI is a Creationist lie and Damadian was out of his field when he invented it.

Where is your PHD from Professor?












Now, unlike the above people, I have limited myself to commenting on areas where I have some background knowledge (Earth sciences and Geophysics), and find I cannot take their views as being good science.

Maybe someone else could critique the "Biologists"?

P.s. I note that even Mr. Behe has made sure his name has not cropped up on that list


(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/20/2004 at 09:04 AM).

You don't like the tee shirt or are you refering to the saying?





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 09:23 AM on May 28, 2005 | IP
icemoon

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:




(Edited by icemoon 10/13/2006 at 10:29 PM).


-------
signature
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 10:28 PM on October 13, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[nothing]


Uh, what are you trying to say?


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:36 PM on October 13, 2006 | IP
sodapop112

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if god made people first how would they have survived with the dinosaurs?
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 8:58 PM on November 9, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Easy. Most of the them were stupid,and the ones that weren't couldn't climb trees.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 12:24 AM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Easy. Most of the them were stupid,and the ones that weren't couldn't climb trees.


So... the reason we have not found even one human's remains fossilized in the sedimentary layers where we find dinosaurs is because all human beings hid and lived in trees...


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:46 AM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Possibly. Any human that would die on the ground would be mostly destroyed. Just because you haven't found a fossil yet doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 2:40 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Possibly. Any human that would die on the ground would be mostly destroyed. Just because you haven't found a fossil yet doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.


No, it just means your hypothesis is not scientifically valid.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:28 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You mean unproven.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:33 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You mean unproven.


No, I mean "invalid." Nothing in science is "proven," but everything requires evidence in some form, whether that is observation or physical remains of an entity or event. Your idea is merely philosophical pondering.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:56 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Something is not a fact until it is proven. So evolution in your own words, has not been proven.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:15 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Something is not a fact until it is proven. So evolution in your own words, has not been proven.


Correct. "Proof" is not scientific terminology. The fact of evolution will never be "proven"; the fact of gravity has not been "proven"; the fact that we have conscious existence is not proven either. Nothing in science--not even facts like evolution and gravity--is "proven".


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:03 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You know, I did manage to disprove gravity for awhile, but like they say, "What goes up must come down."


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:10 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Something is not a fact until it is proven. So evolution in your own words, has not been proven.

No, evolution is an observed fact, the theory of evolution explains it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:21 AM on January 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is not fact until there is 100% evidence for it, and all questions are answered.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 3:58 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is not fact until there is 100% evidence for it, and all questions are answered.

By that definition, there would be no facts!  Please, learn how science works.  Evolution has been observed, it is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:51 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are still questions to the theory. I have never seen documentation of a complex organism of one species becoming a entirely new species.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:03 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are still questions to the theory. I have never seen documentation of a complex organism of one species becoming a entirely new species.

Name any theory in science that doesn't still have questions...theory of gravity, atomic theory, germ theory, electromagnetic theory...
Science doesn't know everything, but we can be sure enough of some theories to practically apply them.  We understand the atomic theory well enough to build atomic bombs and nuclear power plants, we understand the theory of evolution well enough to use it practically in medicine, in industry, in farming, in food production, if it wasn't valid, we couldn't use it.
And you seem confused about evolution and how it works.  No organism will give birth to something radically different, that's not how evolution works.  But by examining the fossil record, genetics and organisms living today, we deduce that all life is related, descended from a common ancestor and continues to evolve.  How else can you explain transitional organisms, ERVs or twin nested heirarchies?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:09 AM on January 12, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do know that no organism will give birth to something radically different, However there is almost no evidence in the fossil record for small gradual change. There should be more found "missing" than full new species.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:08 PM on January 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do know that no organism will give birth to something radically different,

Yes, according to the theory of evolution, we will never see an organism give birth to something radically different.  Organisms don't evolve, populations of organisms evolve.  

However there is almost no evidence in the fossil record for small gradual change. There should be more found "missing" than full new species.

There is a great deal of evidence for change in the fossil record, most creationists try desperately to ignore it, but any biologist will tell you that there is more than enough evidence of change  in the fossil record to support the theory of evolution.  The creationist problem is that if God created only unchanging "kinds", then there shouldbe NO transitional fossils at all.  But there are, a great deal of them.  Take a look at the series of fossils illustrating whale evolution, the synapsid reptiles to mammals series, the transition fossils for fish evolving into amphibians, and then try to tell us there are no "missing links"...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:10 PM on January 12, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have as of yet to find any transitional organisms in the fossil record confirmed to be transitional by more than just by what they look like.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:09 PM on January 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have as of yet to find any transitional organisms in the fossil record confirmed to be transitional by more than just by what they look like.

Have you bothered to look?  And experts can tell a lot by examining fossils.  Here's what the experts say about the synapsid reptile to mammal series, from here:
ReptiletoMammalEvolution
"As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian."

That mammals evolved from synapsid reptiles is a fact, all the experts agree.  You look at the evidence and explain it (include supporting evidence) any other way.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:52 PM on January 12, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Jeep Commander and the Hummer 2, both look similar, did the H2 evolve into the Commander?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:57 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

The Jeep Commander and the Hummer 2, both look similar, did the H2 evolve into the Commander?

The Jeep Commander and the Hummer 2 don't
reproduce, so this is a meaningless comparison.  Got anything that's relevant?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:12 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, than what about Darwin's finches, he discovered that bids that looked like were not necessarily related. of the birds that are commonly shone, the one that are actually related look even more different than the ones that aren't related.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:26 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.