Creation scientists - do they exist?

[Not_By_Chance]

From your creationwiki link I see that Dr. Menton obtained his Ph.D. in 1966, and that he has written a great many creationist articles since 1996 (ten in 2010 alone). What did he publish in the 30 years after he obtained his PhD?

It is a good idea to look at both sides of the story; you would probably agree that conventional scientists ought to examine the evidence for creationism. On searching for 'Dr. David Menton', I found this interesting link by Martin Brazeau, reviewing Dr. Menton's article on Tiktaalik roseae: http://lancelet.blogspot.co.uk/2007/03/dr-david-menton-is-liar.html.

On the principle of looking at both sides of the story you ought to read this; it gives a rather different picture of the quality of Dr. Menton's science from the creationwiki link.

Well, unless the following article is a total lie as well, it sort of confirms that the secular stories can't be trusted either:-
http://creation.com/tiktaalik-finished

 

[Astrophile]

Well, unless the following article is a total lie as well, it sort of confirms that the secular stories can't be trusted either:-
http://creation.com/tiktaalik-finished

I think that you have missed the point of my post. Martin Brazeau was not saying that Tiktaalik roseae was the first tetrapod or that all other tetrapods are descended from it. He was not even saying that Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil, i.e. that it has characteristics of both fish and tetrapods. He was saying that Dr. Menton had made several gross mistakes in his description of the anatomy of fishes. After all, in your opening post you described Dr. Menton as 'an excellent scientist'; the point of my post was to show that Martin Brazeau's analysis casts doubts on the quality of Dr. Menton's scientific work.

 

[lasthero]

Well, unless the following article is a total lie as well, it sort of confirms that the secular stories can't be trusted either:-
http://creation.com/tiktaalik-finished

I would refer you to this:

Now, there is a lot of swearing and other things you might objectionable in this video, so it might be a little sensitive to you. I'll try to summarize the criticisms of Tas Walker.

No paleotologist ever said that titaalik was the direct ancestor of all modern tetrapods. Finding footprints that came before titaalik does nothing to invalidate it. Tiktaalik was never in a line of direct descent, and no one said it was. There are still lungfish and fish that are capable of walking on land today.

So, essentially, this is a none issue. There's nothing preventing tetrapods and tiktaalik from existing with each other.

 

[Jfrsmth]

This reminds me of Project Steve.

You are citing a parody from an openly hostile, anti-creationist organization. So, well, that doesn't really mean much to this excellent thread.

 

[lasthero]

You are citing a parody from an openly hostile, anti-creationist organization.

A) You cited a list from a openly hostile, anti-evolution organization.

B) being openly hostile and anti-creationist doesn't make the list illegitimate.

 

[Shemjaza]

You are citing a parody from an openly hostile, anti-creationist organization. So, well, that doesn't really mean much to this excellent thread.

The scientists of project Steve are quite real and quite sincere. It's purpose is to (in humorous way) demonstrate how trivial the illusion of a growing support for creationism is.

 

[Hoghead1]

Can you give some specific examples Bale-It, of non-creationist scientists who are trying to disprove evolution in other to make a name for themselves?

 

[Jfrsmth]

...the illusion of a growing support for creationism is

Just words, rhetoric, propaganda. Google it. There seems to be mixed opinions about that. People seem to be getting tired of the propaganda. I know I sure am.

 

[lasthero]

Just words, rhetoric, propaganda. Google it. There seems to be mixed opinions about that. People seem to be getting tired of the propaganda. I know I sure am.

When creationists trot out a list of scientists that support them, you champion it.

When evolutionists do it, it's just mindles propaganda that can be ignored.

Gotcha.

 

[Shemjaza]

Just words, rhetoric, propaganda. Google it. There seems to be mixed opinions about that. People seem to be getting tired of the propaganda. I know I sure am.

I don't believe you have any such sources. Please feel free to link them.

Do you deny that the vast majority of scientists support evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life?

 

[sfs]

You are citing a parody from an openly hostile, anti-creationist organization. So, well, that doesn't really mean much to this excellent thread.

Of course it's from an openly hostile, anti-creationist organization. Every scientific organization is openly hostile to creationism: the National Academy of Sciences (US), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Association of Biology teachers, the professional societies for botanists, entomologists, biophysicists, astronomers, physicists, chemists, anthropologists, paleontologists, geologists, geneticists and philosophers of science -- they're all overtly pro-evolution and anti-creationism. That's because creationism really isn't science, despite the occasional scientist who embraces it, and in fact largely consists of attacks on genuine science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it's from an openly hostile, anti-creationist organization. Every scientific organization is openly hostile to creationism: the National Academy of Sciences (US), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Association of Biology teachers, the professional societies for botanists, entomologists, biophysicists, astronomers, physicists, chemists, anthropologists, paleontologists, geologists, geneticists and philosophers of science -- they're all overtly pro-evolution and anti-creationism. That's because creationism really isn't science, despite the occasional scientist who embraces it, and in fact largely consists of attacks on genuine science.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Just because there is no evidence that supports their untestable models that make no useful predictions does not mean that ..... oh ... never mind.

 

[Hoghead1]

Good point, The Cadet. Heck, I have logged in 40 major paper presentations at major scholarly organizations such as the American Philosophical Society, American Academy of Religion, etc. In addition, I have published six books, including my dissertation, via a major university press. However, I can't seem to get my foot in the door of academia and obtain a professorship. It really angers me when I read about dead beats like Menton. They get tenure and then they sit on the butts.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes he is, because he sees the Lord's handiwork in creation and as far as he's concerned, when he looks down his microscope, he's looking at the wonders that God has created. Yes, of course, there is a faith element, but so is there even if one rules out God being involved in the process. It all depends on your beliefs where your faith lies.

Not a lot of faith required to say "I don't know, but what I see doesn't seem to be a god here, so I guess I will describe and study what I can". That's the mindset of the agnostic atheist, which most atheists are. You will not find many that feel absolutely certain that deities don't exist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They seem to have found plenty, but secularists just ridicule what they say by and large.

Please, consider the possibility that the ridicule is justified, in that the "evidence for creationism" is actually flawed. I know you don't personally believe that to be the case, but you would agree that, in that kind of situation, the evidence should not be considered worthwhile, yes?

 

[Jfrsmth]

Every scientific organization is openly hostile to creationism: the National Academy of Sciences (US), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Association of Biology teachers, the professional societies for botanists, entomologists, biophysicists, astronomers, physicists, chemists, anthropologists, paleontologists, geologists, geneticists and philosophers of science -- they're all overtly pro-evolution and anti-creationism.

You just hit the nail on the head. Hence, this thread is so cool!

"...overtly pro-evolution and anti-creationism"

So, how can they be non-biased? Isn't science about observing the observable without interpretation? Why not look at the science and exclude the imposing of worldviews?

QUOTE="sfs, post: 69287700, member: 8727"]That's because creationism really isn't science, despite the occasional scientist who embraces it, and in fact largely consists of attacks on genuine science.[/QUOTE]

Clearly, you have not read this thread through.

 

[SteveB28]

Life starting on its own from lifeless chemicals sure sounds like a miracle to me.

Argument from Incredulity.

 

[The Cadet]

"...overtly pro-evolution and anti-creationism"

So, how can they be non-biased?

"...overtly pro-globe and anti-flat-earth"

So, how can they be non-biased?

That's what you sound like. That's how wrong your statement is. These organizations are "anti-creationism" because creationism is not science, and indeed, the creationist movement exists almost entirely to attempt to tear down modern scientific progress and replace it with religious dogma. These are scientific organizations; their purpose is to understand and spread understanding of science, and as such, groups like AiG are the largest hindrance. There's no two ways about this. These groups have become anti-creationist because they recognize the threat to public education posed by religious zealots who don't understand evolution and want to protect their kids from understanding it. Complaining about bias when a scientific organization props up a well-established scientific theory and rejects an unfalsifiable religious dogma that runs directly against essentially everything we've observed in the past 150 years is absurd. You might as well be complaining that NASA doesn't respect the verse about the corners of the earth, like @mike van wyk over in that other thread.

 

[Jfrsmth]

I don't believe you have any such sources. Please feel free to link them.

"Fifty studies were reviewed that surveyed opinions on teaching origins in public schools. The vast majority found about 90% of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools. About 90% of Americans consider themselves creationists of some form, and about half believe that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years."

http://creation.com/teaching-creation-and-evolution-in-schools

Do you deny that the vast majority of scientists support evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life?

Thanks for your question. It led me to search for the figures. Currently, Google has the number at 700 out of 480,000 scientists are creationists. Nevertheless, this is so enlightening when compared with Scripture:

"For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life..." Matthew 7:13-14

"...that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." (Luke 16:15)

 

[Jfrsmth]

"...overtly pro-globe and anti-flat-earth"

So, how can they be non-biased?

That's what you sound like. That's how wrong your statement is. These organizations are "anti-creationism" because creationism is not science, and indeed, the creationist movement exists almost entirely to attempt to tear down modern scientific progress and replace it with religious dogma. These are scientific organizations; their purpose is to understand and spread understanding of science, and as such, groups like AiG are the largest hindrance. There's no two ways about this. These groups have become anti-creationist because they recognize the threat to public education posed by religious zealots who don't understand evolution and want to protect their kids from understanding it. Complaining about bias when a scientific organization props up a well-established scientific theory and rejects an unfalsifiable religious dogma that runs directly against essentially everything we've observed in the past 150 years is absurd. You might as well be complaining that NASA doesn't respect the verse about the corners of the earth, like @mike van wyk over in that other thread.

Whoa, do you have any idea what YOU sound like? Wow. . .