Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature. Just not on origin-related subjects.
I think you are missing the point. The point is this. Why are none of these scientists doing any science in creationism or ID. You can tout their credentials and research all day long, but at the end of the day none of them are doing any creation or ID science.
No one is questioning that they have strong religious beliefs. No one is questioning whether they are performing science in their fields. (though I think a questioning of the validity of some of their research may be in order.e.g. Dr Clifford Wilson, Dr Kurt Wise, John Whitmore and Bryant Wood to mention a few).They are just not doing any research into creationism and ID. Why is that? I would have to question the strength of some of their beliefs if they are not willing to try to find evidence for their beliefs.
Also,
Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature.
Seems to be bullshit. A lot of these people are very obscure and I can find no peer reviewed articles by them, in any subject matter.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Of course, his opinion is that this nautiloid graveyard was deposited during the biblical flood. Of course this would never pass peer-review, so he simply pushed a watery mega-castrophy as an explanation as far as the peer-review would allow.
So no real creation science then.
The people from the RATE research are there also.
What a crock that was. They threw out all the evidence and enacted some sort of magic effect from their god. Do we have to rehash the RATE thread again?
me writes:
Seems to be bullshit. A lot of these people are very obscure and I can find no peer reviewed articles by them, in any subject matter.
Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature.
You have shown far less than majority. Even just looking at the ones on your list. I have already found that many that are so obscure that hardly anyone knows who they are. You should be very careful on using words like "majority".
But the point still stands. Where is the "creation science"?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
What a crock that was. They threw out all the evidence and enacted some sort of magic effect from their god. Do we have to rehash the RATE thread again?
Let me guess, you never actually read their actual research right ?
I have read papers by the RATE people and criticism's. Are you claiming that they do not invoke a magic effect from their god in order for it all to work?
From the ICR
quote:This month I will complete a three-part review of the RATE project (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth). In October I presented the background considerations leading up to the project. In November I discussed the interpretation of Genesis as history, which was an important biblical basis for the scientific studies. The RATE project found that:
* A large amount of radioactive decay has occurred in earth history. * Nuclear decay processes were accelerated during episodes in earth history. * Conventional radioisotopic dates are therefore incorrect by large factors.
These findings led to the major conclusion that the earth is thousands—not billions—of years old. However, RATE left three unresolved problems concerning theology, heat, and radiation.
The Theological Problem
The use of the term accelerated decay for nuclear processes during the Creation Week seems to create an apparent conflict for some people with the statement given by God in Genesis 1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. The RATE project was able to show that accelerated decay occurred during the Genesis Flood, but this was not sufficient to explain all the observed daughter products in rocks, such as lead. The production of lead by accelerated decay during the first three days of the Creation Week could explain this, but that would introduce the concept of decay during this period that was stated by God to be very good. This issue probably merits further study, but could easily be resolved if the term decay were understood as process. The RATE group suggested that the apparent conflict may only be due to semantics.
The Heat Problem
Of greater concern to both supporters and skeptics of the RATE project is the issue of how to dispose of the tremendous quantities of heat generated
by accelerated decay during the Genesis Flood. The amount of heat produced by a decay rate of a million times faster than normal during the year of the Flood could potentially vaporize the earth’s oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth. The RATE group is confident that the accelerated decay they discovered was not only caused by God, but that the necessary removal of heat was also superintended by Him as well. Dr. Russell Humphreys, a member of the RATE group, has suggested one possible mechanism that may explain this dilemma. He has found evidence, both scientific and scriptural, that cooling of the earth by the expansion of the cosmos may have occurred simultaneously with the heat produced by accelerated decay.
The Radiation Problem
Another consideration is how Noah and his family could have survived the massive dose of radiation unleashed during the Flood. It is likely that the humans aboard the Ark would have been protected from most of the radiation occurring on the surface of the earth by the water covering the planet. It is common knowledge that water absorbs radiation, and an average of 8,000 feet of water covering the earth would have made a very effective shield. However, some have expressed concern that a radioactive element like potassium-40 that is present in the human body may have produced radiation within Noah’s body itself.
This is from Larry Vardiman. They make sure to highlight his Ph.D. You know what his Ph.D. is in? Atmospheric Science, he is a meteorologist. A highly educated weatherman and he is their point person on nuclear decay?
The authors themselves admit they have to invoke godidit. Here is a review.
quote:Two Unsolved Problems: Heat and Radiation The authors report that faced with this evidence, a young-earth advocate must address at least two key scientific problems resulting from a one-year period of accelerated decay rates during the Flood. The first is the heat problem. Thermal energy from radioactive processes is a major source of heat in the earth. If those processes were accelerated by many orders of magnitude, the earth would have quickly evaporated from the heat had there not been an extraordinary mechanism of cooling. The authors state: The removal of heat was so rapid that it likely involved a process other than conduction, convection, or radiation We believe it may be possible to discover how [God] did it (p. 763).
Future research is suggested along the lines of Russell Humphreys’ idea of volumetric cooling based on relativistic principles even though this known phenomenon, the basis for red-shifting of starlight, does not apply to bound particles such as the earth. It is acknowledged that this approach, even if it were valid, has the difficulty of being uniform rather than selective as would be needed to cool only radioactive material and not, for example, the oceans. In other words, the authors acknowledge that accelerated decay requires a most unusual heat removal mechanism that is outside the known laws of thermodynamics. The second unresolved problem cited in the book is the radiation problem. How did Noah and his passengers survive a year in which radioactivity was one million times greater than it is today? No known solution exists, they state. Nevertheless, The RATE group is confident that these issues will be solved /
So explain how they are not invoking godidit.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Seems to be bullshit. A lot of these people are very obscure and I can find no peer reviewed articles by them, in any subject matter.
Now maybe you misunderstood me. I am not saying I could not find any peer reviewed articles by any of them. I am saying that a lot of the people on the list are very obscure and for those people I could find nothing. Then again maybe this is your out "the majority of creationists involved in the debate". Are you saying the only a minor portion of the people on the "list" are "involved" in the debate. If so that is true, you are correct, but the list is just a disingenuous gish gallop.
Now the second comment.
And don't worry that they at least all published in order to get their PhD
Are you going with the idea that to back up you comment every thesis is published and peer reviewed? I mean yeah I guess technically, but that really really sets an incredibly low bar doesn't it. Then again that doesn't really matter because your original comment was this(pay attention to the bold)
Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature.
In other words something other than their thesis. So I stand by my comment that your majority statement is bullshit that you cannot even confirm.
Then again finally. Show the research on creation science. That is the premise of the thread, The premise not that there are not any scientists that believe in creationism and ID. No one has stated that. You have misread something that makes you think that was said, but by continuing down this vein you are just blowing smoke to deflect from the real point that there is no creation or ID science.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
I hop you don't think the article you quote is a paper. Have you read actual papers published in the creationist peer-reviewed litterature, or the 2 RATE volumes of their published results ?
Being a condescending asshole does not become you. I have not read the original articles because I am not proficient in the science. I have read scientific criticisms and writings of members of the RATE tema. It is not necessary for me to read something I wont understand. It is actually conterproductive. The person I quoted read the original and these are his issues with the RATE study. They posit godidit. Not real good science there.
Secondly, a short article on the ICR website does not make him their point person on nuclear decay.
The point is that he himself sees problems with their findings. Yes?
This should seem evident when Humphreys proposes a physical mechanism for removing the excess heat.
This should seem evident when Humphreys proposes a physical mechanism for removing the excess heat. If they were really godiditing it, why bother with such a mechanism ?
There is no mechanism. They have faith one will come up because godidit.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Thousands of donations isn't much when you consider the amount of employees they have, and all the rest, don't you think ?
Don't you think they would be spending their money on research instead of PR people if they actually had anything to go on? Your comment just proves the point that they have nothing. What do all those employees do? The do PR and raise money to keep the PR machine going. They have nothing to research. One piece of science that gave them evidence for their beliefs would do more to raise funds then all the PR in the world. They know they have nothing scientific. If they did they would be making sure it made the front page of every paper and every news website and every science journal in the world. There would be Nobel's all around. Because anything they came up with that supported their views would completely change the paradigm of science. It would be earth shattering. It would be like Pig's flying or being able to turn lead into gold.
But there is nothing is there. There is manipulation and misrepresentation of data that will not stand up to peer-review. Also, I do not think you can accurately call creationists rags peer-reviewed. Please show us the peer-review process for creationist journals.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
To make it easier to follow the good dr.'s advice here is a webpage that gives an easy to understand explanation of a hypothesis and a theory. Hint: They are not the same thing.
quote:Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
The second line can not be compressed.
Wrong!!
Ever hear of data compression algorithms for computer data? Zip files?
With just a quick look I can see how line 2 can be easily compressed to 15. I don't doubt if I spent some time on it, I might be able to compress it even more.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
™ Version 4.2
