question?

[billychum]

I don’t post on this board very often but I had a friend raise an issue that some of you may be willing to help me out with. Are there any (and I use the word cautiously) serious scientist that believe in a young earth?
Thanks
Billy <><

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I don’t post on this board very often but I had a friend raise an issue that some of you may be willing to help me out with. Are there any (and I use the word cautiously) serious scientist that believe in a young earth?
Thanks
Billy <><

Not that I am aware of. Just the opposite. Some I understand went into science for no other reason than to gain the "title" to sound like they knew what they were talking about.

Go to my blog http://iowamusings.blogspot.com and go down the right column to Science Resources....There are about 7 which are as impeccable as you can get for the evolution, big bag issue. All are directly linked to the pertinent section of their sites. I'm speaking of the National Acadamies of Science, The Smithsonian, stuff like that.

If that doesn't convince you that YEC are dead wrong, then I would be forced to conclude you were intend on not believing regardless of the proof. Not you personally of course...

http://iowamusings.blogspot.com
Blessings.

 

[Dannager]

Are there any (and I use the word cautiously) serious scientist that believe in a young earth?

Maybe a few engineers or chemists or something. But biologists, geologists, physicists, astronomers or anyone else who actually deals with the age of the earth? Nope. If you believe in a young earth it's usually because you've been deluded into it. Science does a very good job of killing delusion.

 

[juvenissun]

I don’t post on this board very often but I had a friend raise an issue that some of you may be willing to help me out with. Are there any (and I use the word cautiously) serious scientist that believe in a young earth?
Thanks
Billy <><

Many scientists "believe" the earth is billions of years old.

So any age less than that could be called young. For example, a 600 million years old earth is YOUNG!.

Is that what you mean? Or it has to be 6000 years?

------

Sorry for the confusion. The question is not that simple. YEC is also not that well defined.

 

[shernren]

I think the issue is not so much whether there are any good scientists who support a young earth as whether there is any good science that supports it. Are there scientists who in some form or another disagree with the orthodox opinion about the age of the earth and the universe and the origins of presently observable biodiversity? Sure. Some of them have even done good work in the past. Halton Arp made a brilliant catalogue of galaxies that, as far as I know, is still being used today. Baumgardner (can't remember his first name offhand) wrote a great earth modeling program, Terra, that as far as I know is still being used today.

And here's a typical example. Baumgardner, having written his program, produced a computer model of a process called "runaway subduction" that claimed to show how the Flood could have occurred recently. However, a closer look reveals that a parameter he has to put into his model called the thermal diffusivity (basically how fast heat travels) of rocks is ten thousand times bigger in his model than it is with anything we see today! Is Baumgardner a good scientist? Maybe. But his runaway subduction theory isn't good science, regardless of his status as a scientist.

See, science in theory never has to be accepted on authority. The experiments are all experiments that you, with enough money and training, could do on your own in your backyard (assuming your backyard is big enough!). So don't bother with asking who supports or rejects evolution and its science. We could line up scientists and play "hack each others' characters to bits" all day. More importantly, do you have any scientific questions about creation and creationism that you need to answer? Or do you have any theological questions that you aren't sure about?

Just ask questions. Scientists shouldn't control how you (and I) think.

 

[billychum]

Quote
"Many scientists "believe" the earth is billions of years old.

So any age less than that could be called young. For More importantly, do you have any scientific questions about creation and creationism that you need to answer? Or do you have any theological questions that you aren't sure about?
example, a 600 million years old earth is YOUNG!.

Is that what you mean? Or it has to be 6000 years?"

I mean 6000 years. Thanks for your help

Quote
"More importantly, do you have any scientific questions about creation and creationism that you need to answer? Or do you have any theological questions that you aren't sure about?"

No more questions. Thanks very much for your help as well.

Billy <><

 

[IFG1P315]

shernren is largely correct in what he says, but all the same I'd like to give you the names of some people that are scientists who are YEC's. And despite what someone mentioned before, they are geologists and biologists and physicists and astronomers and astrophysicists.

I was going to do a list, but there is a pretty thorough one here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

Hope that helps.

 

[Dannager]

shernren is largely correct in what he says, but all the same I'd like to give you the names of some people that are scientists who are YEC's. And despite what someone mentioned before, they are geologists and biologists and physicists and astronomers and astrophysicists.

I was going to do a list, but there is a pretty thorough one here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

Hope that helps.

There are more scientists named Steve in those fields than there are ones who are YEC.

 

[HuntingMan]

I don&#8217;t post on this board very often but I had a friend raise an issue that some of you may be willing to help me out with. Are there any (and I use the word cautiously) serious scientist that believe in a young earth?
Thanks
Billy <><

I think the real issue here is 'what is the definition of serious' ?

To the creationist scientist, it is quite serious.
But since evolutionists do not welcome anything that isnt knee deep in old earth and common descent, the 'serious' creationists scientist will simply be ridiculed and ostracized.

These forums are proof of that assertion...just seeing how some folks act here proves it...

 

[metherion]

To the creationist scientist, it is quite serious.
But since evolutionists do not welcome anything that isnt knee deep in old earth and common descent, the 'serious' creationists scientist will simply be ridiculed and ostracized.

This statement is about as false as false can be. The thing is, they want actual science. Not PRATTs, not irreproducible results, not experiments with major factors wrong, not results that have been predetermined by belief in the Bible, nadda. They want actual science, following the scientific method, with hypothesis and results and predictions and without major problems. We want something that works. Right now, evolution works. Old earth geology, cosmology works. Uniformitarian physics works. If something that completely and irrefutably blew these things out of the water, we'd drop them like an active grenade and embrace the new things after they've proved their worth. But so far, with 150 years of research, experimentation, and so on on the side of actual science and 150 years worth of PRATTs, baseless accusations, strawmen, and supposed faults that turned out to be ignorance on the other side (which still hasn't put for any research) it still hasn't been falsified.

Do real science that shows it wrong, bring it to the scientific community, and see what happens. Don't bring it to message boards. Don't bring it to laypeople. Take it to the scientists and blow them out of the water. Then it will automatically replace the newly-defunct theories it is better than.

For instance, bring me a better method of predicting how a chemical or physical process will occur than what is being taught in my current controls class, and I'll learn and use that because it works better. Similarly, if you bring a geneticist a better way of predicting/explaining changes in DNA than evolution does, if he's worth his schooling he'll drop what he knows, learn the new thing that works better, and use it. Even if for no other reason then to outdo his competitors that don't have the knowledge yet. It would be stupid not to.

Metherion

 

[Dannager]

To the creationist scientist, it is quite serious.
But since evolutionists do not welcome anything that isnt knee deep in old earth and common descent, the 'serious' creationists scientist will simply be ridiculed and ostracized.

This makes it so easy, doesn't it? You don't need to actually have anything resembling evidence if you can just claim that your views aren't accepted because they don't take you seriously.

Screw doing worthwhile research! Playing up the martyr complex is much more painless.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This statement is about as false as false can be. The thing is, they want actual science. Not PRATTs, not irreproducible results, not experiments with major factors wrong, not results that have been predetermined by belief in the Bible, nadda. They want actual science, following the scientific method, with hypothesis and results and predictions and without major problems. We want something that works. Right now, evolution works. Old earth geology, cosmology works. Uniformitarian physics works. If something that completely and irrefutably blew these things out of the water, we'd drop them like an active grenade and embrace the new things after they've proved their worth. But so far, with 150 years of research, experimentation, and so on on the side of actual science and 150 years worth of PRATTs, baseless accusations, strawmen, and supposed faults that turned out to be ignorance on the other side (which still hasn't put for any research) it still hasn't been falsified.

Do real science that shows it wrong, bring it to the scientific community, and see what happens. Don't bring it to message boards. Don't bring it to laypeople. Take it to the scientists and blow them out of the water. Then it will automatically replace the newly-defunct theories it is better than.

For instance, bring me a better method of predicting how a chemical or physical process will occur than what is being taught in my current controls class, and I'll learn and use that because it works better. Similarly, if you bring a geneticist a better way of predicting/explaining changes in DNA than evolution does, if he's worth his schooling he'll drop what he knows, learn the new thing that works better, and use it. Even if for no other reason then to outdo his competitors that don't have the knowledge yet. It would be stupid not to.

Metherion

Well said. I've been laying the same challenge down in every forum of this nature. Show to me how and why such a massive conspiracy (evolution), covering dozens of disciplines, of tens of thousands of people over well in excess of 100 years, has been done. NOBODY answers it...indeed they know it cannot rationally be the case. YEC are so by psychological need. It is not something a rational person could come to after examining the evidence. Its a need that is so great people are willing to appear moronic in order to hold it.