Creation Wiki

Tachocline said:

Whoa, you removed a section that was explaining something I was calling you out for not knowing.

In other words you already knew that equilibrium wasn't needed.

Goodnight. You are being fraudulent.

Click to expand...

Arg! Have you come here just to frustrate me? Is it my duty to defend to you every little thing that has been done? Read the discussion page!

http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Carbon-14_dating

The guy who wrote that original section that was deleted was informed and placed it in the discussion page where it belonged. Can you please stop this? Or should I set up a mailing list where you can review every decision we make and confirm it for us?

No but I'll check in there from time to time. Ok if you have a discussion page fine but you were being a little disingenuous at the start of this since you yourself deleted a section that was obviously what I was getting at. And why does that belong in a discussion page it has more scientific credibility than what is left on the main page, can you explain that. If oyu don't want to bother fine.

Tachocline said:

No but I'll check in there from time to time. Ok if you have a discussion page fine but you were being a little disingenuous at the start of this since you yourself deleted a section that was obviously what I was getting at. And why does that belong in a discussion page it has more scientific credibility than what is left on the main page, can you explain that. If oyu don't want to bother fine.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I think you owe me an apology.

I explained above why I deleted it - the way it was worded has no place in an article on a topic. Discussion page is for disagreements and discussions, the article page is for a final, _single_ piece. As I said before, you don't open an encyclopedia and see part way down "Ammendment: The above is incorrect. Signed, Jack". That belongs on the discussion page. If he'd worded it properly then it would probably have been acceptable, although contributions are supposed to be made by creationists only. We won't be draconian about this though if a Darwinist makes valuable contributions.

I don't see how I owe you an apology because you certainly knew where I was going at the start and you never said a thing. I skirted over your reason for exclusion, you didn't tell the story you knew.

Just do a fair job, OK. I'll admit I don't like what passes for Creation Science since the word science is a misnomer for it.

Night, Bed time for me.

Dracil said:

But you yourself lumped us Theistic Evolutionists under OECs. But now you imply that we're not and are "Darwinist"?

Click to expand...

I'm not following what your complaint is. Above when I said "Darwinist" I was referring to atheist/agnostic Darwinists, but it wasn't clear - I apologise. I'm just so used to using it in a different context.

Theistic Evolutionists are permitted to contribute material under the guidelines as a Creationist. If you don't feel you are represented adequately yet, feel free to add yourself, probably fleshing out some more here first:
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Creation_perspectives

Tachocline said:

If you were serious in your endeavours then you would get a science education, as would all contributors to that site but I'd wager that is unlikely.

Click to expand...

From my quick scan of that site's critique on inaccuracy of C-14 carbon dating, due to the false assumption that C-14 production rate is a constant, that fits exactly with what professors say

As I note that you are just a teacher, maybe it's you that needs more education in the nature of true scientific observation, as opposed to parrotting your outdated lecture notes & probably being prepared to bend the true facts to fit your unscientific a priori assumptions

I've just read where you deny that the fault lines of the Mount of Olives are vertical too - in an attempt to mock any possibility of fulfilling the famous prophecy of Jesus returning there, splitting it in 2, & half the mount moving north, half to the south, as per Zechariah 14:4's build-up to Armageddon

Sorry, but top geologists agree that - (as said on UK TV after the recent big earthquake in Israel) - even bigger could hit there any time & do just that

Maybe you forget already the headline news, only this spring, on the book @ the Grand Canyon, by 23 top scientists, of many disciplines, demonstrating how the clear layers of strata & the fossil record support the Genesis 6 global flood - whose cataclysmic pressure was needed both to create & preserve fossils from the normal decay to dust

They also show that fossils are randomly dispersed - both simple & complex species in each strata, with no evidence of gradual development

Indeed, they show that the very arrangement of strata, from heaviest rock at the bottom to lightes soil on the top, is entirely commensurate with the settlement after that global flod, & did not take aeons

Do you also deny man's long-established apocalyptic ability to poison all waters, burn all plants, scorch men, cause eyes, tongues & flesh to rot while they stand?

That last little trio of detail is in Zechariah 14:12, & generals confirm that it's exactly what thermonuclear holocaust does - (the rest are in Revelation 16)

Do you deny that, in the '70s, there were enough WMD to wipe out mankind 12.5 times over?

& enough, in 1985, to do that 70+ times over?

In case you say any of that is off topic, you said above, "a science education" & I'm quoting some general knowledge science to test yours, before returning now to different dating debacles

I heard a lecture, in July, where it was demonstrated that there are 12 common methods of dating the Earth & they all give widely different results

I recall that, decades ago, radio-carbon dating pronounced a living mollusc as having been dead for millions of years

Also decades ago, a high-powered crushing device produced a quantity of oil - in just an hour - that various dating systems said would take millions of years

The plain fact is that, the very day after God had created, & seen that all was good - (translated from a Hebrew word that can also mean perfect/complete), Earth would have looked as if it had always been there

For those who find 6x24 hours incredible, the perfect, permanent new heavens & Earth will be instantly spoken into being, per Revelation 21

Again, the next day, they will look as if they'd always been there

"Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart"

"My ways are higher than your ways, & My thoughts than yours", says God

"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

Yet how many mortal men think that they know more than God, while calling Bible-believing Christians crazy?

The website mocked above seems quite comprehensive, if any open-minded readers want to hit 1st page & check it, & may want to try also www.answersingenesis.org

God bless!

Ian

And this, MrVersatile, is how you have been lied to:

I heard a lecture, in July, where it was demonstrated that there are 12 common methods of dating the Earth & they all give widely different results

Click to expand...

Wrong. All the common methods give the same age. What are these "methods", and can you point to papers that use them to date the earth? No, because I know exactly what they are. They're things like residence times in seawater, which NO scientist uses to date the earth. Whoever told you they did is a liar.

I recall that, decades ago, radio-carbon dating pronounced a living mollusc as having been dead for millions of years

Click to expand...

It would. C14 can't be used on marine organisms because they get carbon from carbonate in rocks dissolved in seawater - carbon that is indeed millions of years old. Again, whoever told you that this was a valid criticism of C14 was a liar.

Moreover, the limits of C14 dating are C. 50,000 years. So who ever told you the C14 date came out as millions of years was a liar.

Also decades ago, a high-powered crushing device produced a quantity of oil - in just an hour - that various dating systems said would take millions of years

Click to expand...

Millions of yearsa under conditions known to exist in the earth. Not in artificially created conditions of higher than natural pressure. Again, whoever told you this was a problem lied.

Here you have it folks. Without the lies, YEC would fall flat on its face immediately.

mrversatile48 said:

From my quick scan of that site's critique on inaccuracy of C-14 carbon dating, due to the false assumption that C-14 production rate is a constant, that fits exactly with what professors say

Click to expand...

That is not a necessary assumption and no professor who works in the field would say that.

As I note that you are just a teacher, maybe it's you that needs more education in the nature of true scientific observation, as opposed to parrotting your outdated lecture notes & probably being prepared to bend the true facts to fit your unscientific a priori assumptions

Click to expand...

Well to use your words (not mine) I am not just a teacher. I mentioned classes I teach. I am actually a professor of physics at a pretty well known university and so I think I know a little more physics than a) you and b) the people contributing nonsense on that web site.

"Maybe you forget already the headline news, only this spring, on the book @ the Grand Canyon, by 23 top scientists, of many disciplines, demonstrating how the clear layers of strata & the fossil record support the Genesis 6 global flood - whose cataclysmic pressure was needed both to create & preserve fossils from the normal decay to dust

They also show that fossils are randomly dispersed - both simple & complex species in each strata, with no evidence of gradual development

Indeed, they show that the very arrangement of strata, from heaviest rock at the bottom to lightes soil on the top, is entirely commensurate with the settlement after that global flod, & did not take aeons"

This one I would like a source for, please. You mention that it was "headline news" but I must have missed it. Given that it would overturn the entire science of Geology as we know it today, I am very surprised it slipped by me.

I really am dead serious. If you make a claim like this based on something you heard at a YEC seminar, or based on something you read on a Creationist site, and not on actual "headline news", then you are walking the fine "Hovind" line of misleading/fraudulent statements.

If this was an actual scientific conclusion reached by legitimate, working scientists in the relevent fields of geology (as opposed to just YEC psuedo-scientists who are making the same un-supported claims they have been making for years), then I will apologize for jumping to any conclusions.

Vance said:

This one I would like a source for, please. You mention that it was "headline news" but I must have missed it. Given that it would overturn the entire science of Geology as we know it today, I am very surprised it slipped by me.

Click to expand...

You know, there were no sources given in his comments, were there? And I was surprised I missed headline news as well.


Hmmm, who was that masked man?

Very briefly, that July lecture featured a display of several resources, inc "Creation" magazine & Creation Research Assoc videos that show leading evolutionists squirm in embarassed silence @ various creationist points @ the myriad missing links at every so-called step/stage, @ the random dispersal of complex & simple fossils, @ the cataclysmic pressure of the global flood, & its abatement, perfectly supporting the fossil record & the layout of strata - the very formation & preservation of fossils too

& the stark choice between Eternal Almighty Creator or eternal matter

I think Creation Magazine, & many books, are available on www.AnswersinGenesis.org

If you do a search on Creation Research Assoc, you will see many have PhD/M.Sc's...

If you do a search on Grand Canyon, that creationist book on it, that came out @ Feb/March, by 23 leading scientists of several disciplines, & media furore, etc, will come up

The most memorable quote was a science prof saying that, if he wants an atheist for a debate, he has to ask the philosophy faculty, as all the physicists in his uni were now born-again Christians

It's similar to @ least 3 leading lawyers setting out, separately, to disprove the Resurrection: each became a Christian & ended up writing books in defence of the Resurrection

The best known may be, "Who Moved The Stone?"

Val Greave wrote, "Evidence For The Resurrection"

I don't recall what Sir Fred Catherwood wrote

Must go!

Ian

But where was the "headline news"? And where are the "top scientists"?

I'm sorry, but Creation Magazine does not qualify as a scientific journal and I do not get my knowledge of the evidence of God's Creation from coffee table books with pretty pictures.

As for the credentials of those at Creation Research Association, how many of those degrees are in the only relevent fields: geology, paleontology, biological anthropology, astronomy, etc. I have a juris doctorate, which means I am very knowledgeable about the law. I would not presume to write a book on science.

You will have to admit that your post, using "headline news" and referring to "top scientists" was misleading, at best.

Vance said:

But where was the "headline news"? And where are the "top scientists"?

I'm sorry, but Creation Magazine does not qualify as a scientific journal and I do not get my knowledge of the evidence of God's Creation from coffee table books with pretty pictures.

As for the credentials of those at Creation Research Association, how many of those degrees are in the only relevent fields: geology, paleontology, biological anthropology, astronomy, etc. I have a juris doctorate, which means I am very knowledgeable about the law. I would not presume to write a book on science.

You will have to admit that your post, using "headline news" and referring to "top scientists" was misleading, at best.

Click to expand...

Vance, describing a book as "coffee table books with pretty pictures" is attempting to use poor logic to disregard something. You are trying to criticise it without actually presenting any reasons why.

Now, I agree - scientific peer reviewed journals are a good method for testing science. But for a scientific world that accepts Darwinism, it is hard->impossible for a YEC to publish material in one. This is not a conspiracy (I hate when people cry conspiracy). It's just simply what happens. The editors think YEC is ridiculous so they reject it. That is why AiG has their own scientific peer reviewed journal, the Technical Journal.

As for scientific qualifications in the correct area, I don't know what the Creation Research Association is, but here's AiG's list:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

But I should add, a lot of the arguments used in defence of Darwinism are philosophical in nature, not scientific. That means that as a lawyer, or even better as a philosopher, you do still have the grounding to argue some aspects of the debate.

Science is to do with empirical research as I understand it - through experimentation and repeating experiment, preferably with a way to falsify the hypothesis.

AIG list of "scientists" and their qualifications has been torn to shreds so many times it's just a joke to list it. What with the guys on the list who have never published or not since they were students or the areas they graduated in are unrelated to the 2 or 3 guys who actually publish using old dates in journals and then turn around for the consumers (oops creationist public) and say another thing, i.e. liars for Christ, the entire thing is a joke.

The point about it being a coffee table book is that it is simply not the type of book that has undergone the rigorous process of scientific peer review. This process is fairly brutal and is actually effective in weeding out the unsupportable arguments. Any publication which circulates only among the like-mided will NOT get the proper scrutiny and criticism. Those organization usually are so desparate for articles from anyone with a degree after their name (whether a degree in the relevant field or not) and the group is so agenda-oriented, that there is very little mutual criticism. AiG lambasting of Hovind is the rare exception.

I would not agree that any of the arguments used in the defense of evolution are philosophical in nature, they are simply based in the evidence and the scientific method. True, there are some atheistic evolutionists who take the concepts of evolution and attempt to use them to forward their hostility to theism. What YEC's do is set up philosophical straw men that they describe as evolution and then work on knocking them down. But still, I would agree that any of them have the qualifications to make such arguments.

The problem arises when the YEC organizations actually DO attempt to confront evolution with scientific arguments. That is where they have serious problems and are just grasping at very thin straws.

The fact is that less than 1/10th of 1% of the scientists in the relevent fields actually accept Creation Science arguments (documented fact). Since we know that there are a LOT more than this number of Christian scientists in those fields, this means that most Christians scientists in the relevent fields do NOT accept Creation Science.

Tachocline said:

AIG list of "scientists" and their qualifications has been torn to shreds so many times it's just a joke to list it. What with the guys on the list who have never published or not since they were students or the areas they graduated in are unrelated to the 2 or 3 guys who actually publish using old dates in journals and then turn around for the consumers (oops creationist public) and say another thing, i.e. liars for Christ, the entire thing is a joke.

Click to expand...

I would think the list from that link that you were trying to deflect folk from checking out would prove you the liar:-

scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation?
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Metrologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer: Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer , Physiologist
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris , Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr Andrew Snelling , Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Prof. James Stark , Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
----------------------------------------------------------------------

All these people are professors/doctors in their specialities

Tacho here claims to be a professor @ a well-known uni

If you click his name & "find all posts by.." you will see much evidence of, shall we say, somewhat dumbing down of professorial standards?

Someone else claimed that only @ 4 fields were relevant

They omitted hydrologists like Dr Henry Morris as well qualified to support the global flood & the order of earth's strata as being entirely consistent with the abatement & settlement after it being as in Genesis 6 & not taking aeons

Other eminent hydrologists contributed to that creationist book about the Grand Canyon, by 23 leading scientists in several disciplines

I'll do a search on that...

Ian

Grand Canyon made by Noah's flood, book says
Geologists skewer park for selling creationism

Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times
Thursday, January 8, 2004


How old is the Grand Canyon? Most scientists agree with the version that rangers at Grand Canyon National Park tell visitors: that the 217-mile- long chasm in northern Arizona was carved by the Colorado River 5 million to 6 million years ago.

Now, however, a book in the park's bookstores tells another story. On sale since last summer, "Grand Canyon: A Different View," by veteran Colorado River guide Tom Vail, asserts that the Grand Canyon was formed by the Old Testament flood, the one Noah's Ark survived, and can be no older than a few thousand years.

The book, which sells for $16.99, includes essays from creationists and theologians. Vail wrote in the introduction, "For years, as a Colorado River guide I told people how the Grand Canyon was formed over the evolutionary time scale of millions of years. Then I met the Lord. Now, I have a different view of the Canyon, which according to a biblical time scale, can't possibly be more than a few thousand years old."

Reaction to the book has been sharply divided. The American Geological Institute and seven geo-science organizations sent letters to the park and to agency officials calling for the book to be removed.

In part to appease some outraged Grand Canyon employees, the book was moved from the natural sciences section to the inspirational reading section of park bookstores.

"I've had reactions from the staff all over the board on it," said Deputy Superintendent Kate Cannon. "There were certainly people on the interpretive staff that were upset by it. Respect of visitors' views is imperative, but we do urge our interpreters to give scientifically correct information."

Park Service spokesman David Barna in Washington, D.C., said each park determined which products were sold in its bookstores and gift shops. The creationist book at the Grand Canyon was unanimously approved by a panel of park and gift shop personnel.

But the book's status at the park is still in question. Grand Canyon Superintendent Joe Alston has sought guidance from Park Service headquarters in Washington.

Meanwhile, the book has sold out and is being reordered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My search just now saw a briefer story in UK's The Guardian

I cut the above in half to avoid exceeding post length limit (& end on showing how popular the book was, of course!)

I'd originally seen a report in www.charismanews.com in @ Feb, that quoted several secular US news media reporting the controversy over the attempt by evolutionists to censor the book off the site

I don't recall any updates on whether its being moved from the scientific section to the inspirational one still holds, but that move was unfair, as it was scientists of different disciplines presenting the support for creation & the global flood that they find in the Grand Canyon

Ian

The problem with this list is that it contains too few scientists! The TalkOrigins statistics actually paints a better picture for the acceptance of YEC science, stating that 700 scientists in the relevant fields accept Creation Science. But what does this mean? Here is the simple numbers, as I have posted elsewhere:

"Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson, 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%."

from http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CA/CA111.html


But, what about those scientists who are Christians, don't THEY come down on the side of Creation Science?

How many of those 480,000 scientists do we think are Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians? Just the 700 who believe in Creation Science? Of course not. Let's say that only 10% of all the scientists were Christians, that is still 48,000, or 68 Bible-believing, Spirit-filled CHRISTIAN scientists who do NOT believe in Creation Science for every 1 that does. Even if only 1% were such Christians, this would still mean that almost 7 out of every 8 Christian scientists do not believe in Creation Science.

The assertion that Creation Science concepts are believed by even the *Christian* scientific community is simply not supportable.