19 Jul 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadWould you care to define what you mean by 'scientifically'?
I am sure they have a lot to say. Oddly enough, they don't want to say it scientifically. Why is that?
Please list the science papers they have published that support either a global flood or young earth creationism.
19 Jul 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYes that indeed discredits the entire list.
I picked names randomly from the list until I found one that has a Wikipedia page. Thomas G. Barnes did publish work on Geomagnetism based around the notion that Einstein's theory of Relativity is incorrect and that the Earth's magnetic field decays. His doctorate is honorary and from Hardin-Simmons University, a private Baptist University. His method ...[text shortened]... d to be flawed (inadequate analysis of error).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_G._Barnes
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou still haven't attributed any work or achievements ~ or indeed any significance ~ to any of them, aside from some clumsy ideological something or other that resonates with you and you think ought to resonate with others in some shallow as yet unexplained way. And when someone looks one of them up and finds him to be bogus, you just pout.
Yes that indeed discredits the entire list.
19 Jul 16
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThese are actual scientists that believe in creation. In your mind they cannot be 'real' scientists if they believe in creation? And you seriously think that no scientists that believe in God have ever done anything of significance?
You still haven't attributed any work or achievements ~ or indeed any significance ~ to any of them, aside from some clumsy ideological something or other that resonates with you and you think ought to resonate with others in some shallow as yet unexplained way. And when someone looks one of them up and finds him to be bogus, you just pout.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt's up to you to make your case about the specific people [and "anything of significance" you are claiming they have done] on your tiny, tiny, tiny list of "actual scientists", as you describe them. Someone sampled your list and found one to be bogus. Have you looked into your own list? Who have you checked out? You have been wriggling and and thrusting out your lower lip ever since your attempted coup de grâce in copy pasting it.
These are actual scientists that believe in creation. In your mind they cannot be 'real' scientists if they believe in creation? And you seriously think that no scientists that believe in God have ever done anything of significance?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI picked one completely at random - Emil Silvestru. He became a scientist before he became a Christian. When he became a Christian (after several near death experiences) he simply turned his back on the science that had formed the basis of his claim to be a called a scientist and altered ["tuned up" he called it] all his opinions so that they fit the six day creation story. I looked at web sites like rationalwiki and creationwiki, the latter didn't even try to deny he had turned his back on science.
I picked names randomly from the list until I found one that has a Wikipedia page.
19 Jul 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkFunny how you switched from 'believe in creation' to 'believe in God'. I suspect you, yourself, are not confident that you can produce that any scientists who believe in creation that have done anything of significance. Hilarious.
These are actual scientists that believe in creation. In your mind they cannot be 'real' scientists if they believe in creation? And you seriously think that no scientists that believe in God have ever done anything of significance?
That you even thought a list of scientists was appropriate suggests you think that creationist scientists are an extremely rare breed.
To answer your question, I am fully aware that many scientists are theists and many are even young earth creationists and even young earth creationists have contributed to science. But science itself, does not point towards young earth creationism meaning that whatever their contributions, young earth creationists are not contributing towards an understanding of the universe that implies young earth creationism (or Noah's flood).
19 Jul 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadMost 'creationist' scientists spend their careers trying to actively tear down results of previous science, not successfully. Like the dudes who dis carbon dating pointing out weaknesses well known as if that tears down the time lines so they can claim 6000 years as max age for everything. Same with radioactive dating and all the rest. That is not science, that is starting with an agenda and bending all the rules of science research in their vain attempts to convince people Earth is 6000 years old.
Funny how you switched from 'believe in creation' to 'believe in God'. I suspect you, yourself, are not confident that you can produce that any scientists who believe in creation that have done anything of significance. Hilarious.
That you even thought a list of scientists was appropriate suggests you think that creationist scientists are an extremely ...[text shortened]... towards an understanding of the universe that implies young earth creationism (or Noah's flood).
Their results seldom go to peer reviewed journals, instead, presented at some tent meeting to convince people they are right, the aim being to garner political force. That is the sum of it.
19 Jul 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy is it funny that creationists believe in God?
Funny how you switched from 'believe in creation' to 'believe in God'. I suspect you, yourself, are not confident that you can produce that any scientists who believe in creation that have done anything of significance. Hilarious.
That you even thought a list of scientists was appropriate suggests you think that creationist scientists are an extremely ...[text shortened]... towards an understanding of the universe that implies young earth creationism (or Noah's flood).
19 Jul 16
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat would you regard as something of significance?
Most 'creationist' scientists spend their careers trying to actively tear down results of previous science, not successfully. Like the dudes who dis carbon dating pointing out weaknesses well known as if that tears down the time lines so they can claim 6000 years as max age for everything. Same with radioactive dating and all the rest. That is not science, ...[text shortened]... convince people they are right, the aim being to garner political force. That is the sum of it.
19 Jul 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIf they proved you can't carbon date anything past say 1000 years or so. Or finding a parakeet fossil in a coal deposit, evolution would be out the window, a 200 million year old parakeet proven, end of evolution. Till then, business as usual.
What would you regard as something of significance?
But there is literally hundreds of years of real science where the motivation is to get to the truth and we have solid results for dating, where a dozen deep time dating techniques all match up within acceptable windows of error. They don't just depend on one technique, that science has been pursued for at least 100 years now and they need several independent means of deep time dating to say, for instance, fossil X is around 1 billion years old, and fossil Y is 200 million years old, each rough dating period using a couple of independent techniques to verify deep time dates. There are certain well known atomic clocks, where stuff A becomes stuff B with half life Y, so if stuff A becomes stuff B with a half life of 1 million years, then after 10 million years there is not much stuff A so that defines the maximum depth of time that particular technique is good for. Other things have half lives of 1 billion years or 100 million years which can be used for really deep time, so if stuff A starts out with 1 kg, 100 million years later it comes in at 1/2 kg and 100 million years later again, 1/4 kg and that is the 50 cent tour of deep time dating.
Creationist 'scientists' try to tear down a particular deep time dating technique to no avail because while they may have a case for one technique, there are a dozen ways to tell the age of stuff. Life forms have the carbon 13 v 14 ratio which poops out at around 40,000 years or so. That fact causes hundreds of so-called creation scientists to dis carbon dating, citing well known weaknesses because they CANNOT allow any age past 6000 years to be known in science circles much less the general public. THAT is not science. THAT is politics.