• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Creation-based Science Graduate Programs Anyone?

napajohn

Senior Member
Oct 14, 2003
895
0
✟1,056.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Mr_Coffee said:
I'd imagine that you could pursue a Creation based religious studies degree, maybe to do with metaphysics or theology. That's about it.

Besides, where would you possibly get a job with such a degree? Are there any Creation-based scientific research centres that I'm unaware of; because employers would avoid you like the plague.


first of all its not a degree in creation science..its taking data gathered in geology , biology and other sciences and seeing how it may or may not support creation science..the degrees are in their respective fields not creation science..big difference..also most of the faculty are adjunct professors currently working in academia or work for private and govt firms..i believe John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics currently works for Los Alamos Natl Lab in New Mexico...again whether 1 gets a job in the field is dependent on luck and the hiring bias or preference of the company/lab..I know many engineers in electronics currently working in
IT but it doesn't invalidate their degree...PS please get an understanding of
the difference between getting a degree and landing a job...1 does not necessarily reflect on ones competence in the other.
 
Upvote 0

Mr_Coffee

Don't write in this space
Dec 4, 2003
156
6
44
Visit site
✟22,811.00
Faith
Agnostic
napajohn said:
first of all its not a degree in creation science..its taking data gathered in geology , biology and other sciences and seeing how it may or may not support creation science..the degrees are in their respective fields not creation science..big difference..also most of the faculty are adjunct professors currently working in academia or work for private and govt firms..i believe John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics currently works for Los Alamos Natl Lab in New Mexico...again whether 1 gets a job in the field is dependent on luck and the hiring bias or preference of the company/lab..I know many engineers in electronics currently working in
IT but it doesn't invalidate their degree...PS please get an understanding of
the difference between getting a degree and landing a job...1 does not necessarily reflect on ones competence in the other.
:scratch: So you're saying these people have degrees with some non-existent major that is completely based on proving and disproving Creationism with science? That's utter BS, perhaps there are some classes that people can take that apply to this subject indirectly, but to fulfill an entire major? Ridiculous.

I'm sure this Dr. Baumgardner has a LOT more scientific background than the "program" that the original poster had inquired about. Science is 100% reluctant to consider Creationist perspectives in its studies, so why would you think Shadowwolf (or whatever his name is) is interested in scientific study that does not address Creationist perspectives at all?

No, I don't need to "get an understanding of the difference between getting a degree and landing a job" simply because I can apply common sense here. If 97% of the required study is outside of Creationist-science relations, and the rest is 100% science which happens to neglect Creationist theory considerations, your points are irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

Mechanical Bliss

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nov 3, 2002
4,897
242
44
A^2
Visit site
✟28,875.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
napajohn said:
first of all its not a degree in creation science..its taking data gathered in geology , biology and other sciences and seeing how it may or may not support creation science..
Oh come on...you should know that's not true by now.

The instructors at those institutions sign statements of faith that prohibit them from recognizing any data from any field that contradicts young earth creationism. They either try to shoehorn it to creationism, draw bad analogies any honest introductory student wouldn't make, or simply ignore the data altogether. I don't see where or why they would ever present any data that "may not support creation science" considering they are not teaching science but rather an agenda. Doing so would disprove their agenda. After all, all it takes is one piece of falsifying data to do the job no matter how much supporting data they claim to have.

The way you phrased this also illustrates how it's not science or teaching science. When I was getting my undergraduate degree we were given data and discussed conclusions after doing analyses of the data. We didn't try to make it support some sort of "evoluitonary framework" as creationists like to say. In other words, those instructors at creationist institutions present the conclusion and say "the data must fit, period" regardless of whether it really does by following a scientific approach.

the degrees are in their respective fields not creation science..big difference..
But their degrees would be from a place like Institue for Creation Research rather than a reputable institution. Big difference. Call it a geology degree if they want, but it certainly isn't the equivalent of getting a real geology degree.

also most of the faculty are adjunct professors currently working in academia or work for private and govt firms..i believe John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics currently works for Los Alamos Natl Lab in New Mexico...
That's a bad analogy. As far as I am aware, Baumgardner got his degrees from secular universities, not creationist institutions. We're talking about people getting degrees from creationist institutions. For example, a person whose post-secondary "education" was from a creationist institution in geology would simply not be competent enough to work at an oil company.

Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that Baumgardner's young earth belief is set aside in his work and when he publishes papers. There he accepts that the earth is 4.55 billion years old and pretty much rejects young earth creationism to do his work. It's kind of hypocritical in a way.
 
Upvote 0

napajohn

Senior Member
Oct 14, 2003
895
0
✟1,056.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Mechanical Bliss said:
Oh come on...you should know that's not true by now.

The instructors at those institutions sign statements of faith that prohibit them from recognizing any data from any field that contradicts young earth creationism. They either try to shoehorn it to creationism, draw bad analogies any honest introductory student wouldn't make, or simply ignore the data altogether. I don't see where or why they would ever present any data that "may not support creation science" considering they are not teaching science but rather an agenda. Doing so would disprove their agenda. After all, all it takes is one piece of falsifying data to do the job no matter how much supporting data they claim to have.

The way you phrased this also illustrates how it's not science or teaching science. When I was getting my undergraduate degree we were given data and discussed conclusions after doing analyses of the data. We didn't try to make it support some sort of "evoluitonary framework" as creationists like to say. In other words, those instructors at creationist institutions present the conclusion and say "the data must fit, period" regardless of whether it really does by following a scientific approach.

I tell you what MB..heres the number 619-448-0900 and ask to talk to their faculty or leave amessage with your claims..also report them to the Board of Education so they can have their accredition removed...Good Luck if you are man enough to follow thru...

"We're talking about people getting degrees from creationist institutions. For example, a person whose post-secondary "education" was from a creationist institution in geology would simply not be competent enough to work at an oil company."
how do you define competence?..so your saying one has to have an evolutionary POV to be competent in science?..MB don't go to Loma Linda Medical Center if you get sick..they have a bunch of creationists over there and are incompetent accd to your definition or other faith based hospitals
and learning institutions.

"Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that Baumgardner's young earth belief is set aside in his work and when he publishes papers. There he accepts that the earth is 4.55 billion years old and pretty much rejects young earth creationism to do his work. It's kind of hypocritical in a way."..
whoa thats news to me MB..check this out

"As a Christian who is also a professional scientist, I exult in the reality that "in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth" (Ex. 20:11). May He forever be praised." John Baumgardner

like Wells says when you deal with evolutionists be prepared for spin or mistatements
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
Napa: How far do you think someone who gets a degree in flat earth will go in geology or astronomy, or even basic physics? How about someone who gets a degree in geocentrism? Would you trust a geocentrist to do the proper calculations to land a probe on mars?

They not only wouldn't get far, they would screw things up on their way. That would be what a degree in creationism would get you. The only use for a flat earth degree would be to work at a flat earth ministry, only use for a geocentrist degree would be to work at a geocentrist ministry, only use for a creationist degree would be to work at a creationist ministry. Because when you put their supposable "valid" science to the test, you will be fired from just about every non ministry job you find.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
41,836
19,852
Finger Lakes
✟308,107.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Stingerwolf said:
Finally, we come to a fork in the road. All those that have no business posting further comments please show your self-declared maturity/wisdom and stop coming back for more. If you elect to take a final post please do so and stop after that point.
Why do you think that you can dictate who posts?

Mistakes were made during this adventure and I can admit it and go on with life.
Are you saying that mistakes were made by you?

I have patience issues and at times love to antagonize as well (especially at the zoo for some reason).
Sort of the definition of "troll" isn't it?


Arikay was right on the money re projection. I wonder if the kid even knows what a "graduate" program is - he strikes me as being way under 18.
 
Upvote 0

napajohn

Senior Member
Oct 14, 2003
895
0
✟1,056.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Arikay said:
Napa: How far do you think someone who gets a degree in flat earth will go in geology or astronomy, or even basic physics? How about someone who gets a degree in geocentrism? Would you trust a geocentrist to do the proper calculations to land a probe on mars?

They not only wouldn't get far, they would screw things up on their way. That would be what a degree in creationism would get you. The only use for a flat earth degree would be to work at a flat earth ministry, only use for a geocentrist degree would be to work at a geocentrist ministry, only use for a creationist degree would be to work at a creationist ministry. Because when you put their supposable "valid" science to the test, you will be fired from just about every non ministry job you find.

LOL ARrikay..where in icrs curriculum did it say they are teaching such concepts?...or are you trying to invalidate creationism by appealing to outdated ideas not even supported by a valid creationist?..shouldn't you be
supporting racism since its a known fact that
Darwin preached that some humans were subhman and could be mated with apes or Nietzches and Hitlers claim of evolution gave him the right to exterminate the subhuman jews and other "deviants"...I guess this is a part evolutionists never want to acknowledge but are always claiming that creationists are flat earthers ( a lie that was created to make Christians look bad)
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
LoL, creationism IS an outdated idea. And thus it compares to teaching outdated ideas. The fact that it is more popular, only changes peoples willingness to accept it as truth. Luckily for science, popularity does not dictate facts.

Nope, not a lie, there are still flat earther, they think you are a heretic for accepting the secular lies that are obviously made to destroy the bible.

There are also still geocentrists, who thhink you are a heretic for accepting the secular lies that are obviously made to destroy the bible.


But then again, I guess creationists who make these claims are right, and the geocentrists who make these claims are wrong, because creationists are so obviously right.

napajohn said:
LOL ARrikay..where in icrs curriculum did it say they are teaching such concepts?...or are you trying to invalidate creationism by appealing to outdated ideas not even supported by a valid creationist?..shouldn't you be
supporting racism since its a known fact that
Darwin preached that some humans were subhman and could be mated with apes or Nietzches and Hitlers claim of evolution gave him the right to exterminate the subhuman jews and other "deviants"...I guess this is a part evolutionists never want to acknowledge but are always claiming that creationists are flat earthers ( a lie that was created to make Christians look bad)
 
Upvote 0

Mr_Coffee

Don't write in this space
Dec 4, 2003
156
6
44
Visit site
✟22,811.00
Faith
Agnostic
napajohn said:
LOL ARrikay..where in icrs curriculum did it say they are teaching such concepts?...or are you trying to invalidate creationism by appealing to outdated ideas not even supported by a valid creationist?..shouldn't you be
supporting racism since its a known fact that
Darwin preached that some humans were subhman and could be mated with apes or Nietzches and Hitlers claim of evolution gave him the right to exterminate the subhuman jews and other "deviants"...I guess this is a part evolutionists never want to acknowledge but are always claiming that creationists are flat earthers ( a lie that was created to make Christians look bad)
That's pathetic. Darwin preached? Evolution is not a religion, and unlike a religion, the founder doesn't need to be perfect. Darwin was right about a lot of things, but not everything. That's a part of science, and a healthy part as well.

Your sad little attempt to link Darwin + Evolution + Hitler = justification to kill 6 million? Is that what you're trying to say, that people who understand science and evolution are racist because "the lord our god" - Darwin said made it so? Only completely deluded people such as yourself are going to believe that BS. Get a life.
 
Upvote 0

napajohn

Senior Member
Oct 14, 2003
895
0
✟1,056.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Arikay said:
LoL Creationism IS an outdated science. The only difference between it and other outdated sciences is that its more popular and thus easier to accept as truth, luckily for science popularity does not dictate facts. Teaching an outdated science, is teaching an outdated science, no matter how you want to look at it.
Nope, not a lie, there are flat earthers, and they think you are a heretic for accepting the lies of secular science that are obviously out to destroy the bible and god. Especially since the bible plainly says that the earth is flat.
.

Arikay your insistence on connecting creationism and flat earthers and geocentrism is getting annoying..typical evolutionist argument..associate creationism with these and magical fairy dragons and it will go away..no one is requring geocentrism or flat earth in ohio..creationists are getting them to see the faults of evolution..its happening in Texas, Kentucky < kansas and even California..and more states are seriously looking at it ..popularity?..no many are concerned parents and educators who with the help of ID and creation scientists are openly starting to question the theory...besides there are mothmen ,yeti and bigfoot proponents who because of evolution give these creatures validity..nope not a lie
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
Yep your right, no one is pushing geocentrism, which only means its less popular than creationism. Falsified science is falsified science, no matter how popular it is. Flat earth is not popular and thus even made fun of by creationists, yet its about as valid as creationism, but not as popular.
 
Upvote 0

Mechanical Bliss

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nov 3, 2002
4,897
242
44
A^2
Visit site
✟28,875.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
napajohn said:
I tell you what MB..heres the number 619-448-0900 and ask to talk to their faculty or leave amessage with your claims..
Why bother when their website already clearly states that I am right?:

...the administration and faculty of ICR are committed to the tenets of both scientific creationism and Biblical creationism...
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm

That sounds pretty dogmatic and supports my position that presenting evidence that falsifies young earth creationism would only violate their own rules. I know I have demonstrated that this is a fact several times to you in the past.

also report them to the Board of Education so they can have their accredition removed...Good Luck if you are man enough to follow thru...
ICR is not accredited by the U.S. Board of Education. They are accredited by a Chrsitian organization, recognized by the USBOE, whose schools are almost exclusively all theological seminaries.

how do you define competence?..so your saying one has to have an evolutionary POV to be competent in science?
No, I never said that. I was talking about geology, so that's not about having an "evolutionary POV." My example was working as a field geologist for an oil company. A person whose geology education has been from a non-reputable institution like ICR and has learned the young earth creationism agenda is most certainly incompetent. How can you reliably find oil reserves in a young earth framework? You can't. That's incompetence.

whoa thats news to me MB..check this out

"As a Christian who is also a professional scientist, I exult in the reality that "in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth" (Ex. 20:11). May He forever be praised." John Baumgardner
Well, then he certainly is a hypocrite indeed. If that is his position, then why does he attach his name to projects that result in papers published dealing with time scales of millions of years if only young earth creationism is reality?:

TIME SCALES AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE IN GEODYNAMIC EARTH MODELS
Bunge, H.-P., Richards, M.A., Lithgow-Bertelloni, C., Baumgardner, J.R., Grand, S.P., and Romanowicz, B., 1998, Science, 280, 91-95
Computer models of mantle convection constrained by the history of Cenozoic and Mesozoic plate motions explain some deep mantle heterogeneity structures imaged by seismic tomography, especially those related to subduction. They also reveal a 150 million year time scale for generating thermal heterogeneity in the mantle, comparable to the record of plate motion reconstructions, so that the problem of unknown initial conditions can be overcome. The pattern of lowermost mantle structure at the core-mantle boundary is controlled by subduction history, although seismic tomography reveals intense large-scale hot (low-velocity) upwelling features not explicitly predicted by the models.
Note that his flawed model for catasrophic plate tectonism, which is what he is famous for among creationists, is not used in his professional career. He uses alternate plate tectonics computer modelling dealing on scales of millions of years as is used in the real geologic community.

Anyway, you can now no longer consider it "news to you."

like Wells says when you deal with evolutionists be prepared for spin or mistatements
Except I never spun or mistated anything. That's just creationist paranoia.


P.S. What is the trouble with using the quotation tags or trying to make your posts more reader-friendly?
 
Upvote 0

napajohn

Senior Member
Oct 14, 2003
895
0
✟1,056.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Mr_Coffee said:
That's pathetic. Darwin preached? Evolution is not a religion, and unlike a religion, the founder doesn't need to be perfect. Darwin was right about a lot of things, but not everything. That's a part of science, and a healthy part as well.

Your sad little attempt to link Darwin + Evolution + Hitler = justification to kill 6 million? Is that what you're trying to say, that people who understand science and evolution are racist because "the lord our god" - Darwin said made it so? Only completely deluded people such as yourself are going to believe that BS. Get a life.

my source:
"The great German exponent of Militarism, Nietzsche, extended the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest in order to inspire his countrymen to fight. According to him, ‘The supreme standard of life is purely materialistic vitality and power to survive.’ The 1914-1918 war was thus the calculated climax of a policy nourished on the diabolical ideas of Nietzsche for the subjugation of the world. General von Bernhardi in his book, The Next War, shows the connection between war and biology. According to him, ‘War is a biological necessity of the first importance, a regulative element in the life of mankind that cannot be dispensed with. War increases vitality and promotes human progress.’ The summuim bonum [highest good] of life according to Nietzsche’s own words is ‘Man shall be trained for war and woman for the recreation of the warrior; all else is folly’ " (Oscar Levy, Complete Works of Nietzsche, 1930, Vol. 2, p. 75).


"Darwin, Nietzsche, and Haeckel laid the foundations for the intense German militarism that eventually led to the Great War of 1914-1918. There were others who participated in the development, of course, including many of the German generals and political leaders, all very much under the spell of the German variety of social Darwinism. General Friedrich von Bernhardi said
Germany and the next war

"One need not read far in Hitler’s Mein Kampf to find that evolution likewise influenced him and his views on the master race, genocide, human breeding experiments, etc."—Robert Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1048), p. 115.

"[The position in Germany was that] Man must ‘conform’ to nature’s processes, no matter how ruthless. The ‘fittest’ must never stand in the way of the law of evolutionary progress. In its extreme form, that social view was used in Nazi Germany to justify sterilization and mass murder of the ‘unfit,’ ‘incompetent,’ ‘inferior races.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 412.

"[Hitler] stressed and singled out the idea of biological evolution as the most forceful weapon against traditional religion and he repeatedly condemned Christianity for its opposition to the teaching of evolution . . For Hitler, evolution was the hallmark of modern science and culture, and he defended its veracity as tenaciously as Haeckel."—*Daniel Gasman, Scientific Origins of Modern Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (1971), p. 188.

*Hitler said this:

"I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed."—*Adolf Hitler, quoted in Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis (1990), p. 155.

"This doctrine of racial supremacy Hitler took at face value . . He accepted
 
Upvote 0

Mr_Coffee

Don't write in this space
Dec 4, 2003
156
6
44
Visit site
✟22,811.00
Faith
Agnostic
Sooo... those who support and see validity in evolution are supposed to justify Hitler's actions somehow? Evolution or its theory aren't responsible for this, Adolf Hitler is.

It's like those two kids in the Southern US who shot a motorist with a shotgun from a sidewalk and blamed it on their exposure to "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City". If you're going to argue that argument and not acknowledge the possiblity that they're probably f'ed in the head, go ahead; but I interject that Hitler was just a wee bit crazy. Placing the blame on an external factor is senseless.
 
Upvote 0

napajohn

Senior Member
Oct 14, 2003
895
0
✟1,056.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Mechanical Bliss said:
That sounds pretty dogmatic and supports my position that presenting evidence that falsifies young earth creationism would only violate their own rules. I know I have demonstrated that this is a fact several times to you in the past.

ICR is not accredited by the U.S. Board of Education. They are accredited by a Chrsitian organization, recognized by the USBOE, whose schools are almost exclusively all theological seminaries.
Do you know what accreditation means?:
"Accredited" means that an institution has been recognized or
approved as meeting the standards established by an accrediting
agency recognized by the United States Department of Education, or
the Committee of Bar Examiners for the State of California

TRACS is recognized by the USDOE as a valid agency..if you read morris acct on the accreditation process the issues with WASC was not educational content and instruction but the doctrinal stmt.:
read the link:http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-081a.htm

Do you believe that anyone can create a univ and get accredited by the USDOE and CHEA?
Most graduates end up teaching or working for Christian colleges?..why?.preference and or the bias of many academic institutions..

The point is there is none other than the evolutionists who bring up icr as teaching quack science..do you have evidence?..can you go to court and prove your claims?..if not icr could theoretically sue you for defamation...
as it stands, if you can't you owe an apology not only to the public but to icr..

again the validity of evolution is on its own merits...for you to attack icr on false claims shows the willingness on your part to do whatever to preserve evolution...your response proves that this theory may be as much dogma as creationism and more so.
 
Upvote 0