-
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.
What proof would you need?
- Thread starter Wiccan_Child
- Start date
- Status
No contradiction except if you count everything you say above. If someone says the Earth is 6000 years old then they are contradicted by others who say it is not.
Upvote
0
Astridhere
Well-Known Member
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,240
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
That is absolutely correct Jazer. All established creationist camps have their theories which are stable. Erectus is the only change I know of in any camp. They then look to the data and make their interpretations of that evidence. This is opposed to evolutionists that simply evolve their theory to suit what is found. They create terminology to address the anomolies and call that science eg homoplasy, convergent evolution, parrallel evolution, accelerated evolution, deletions, etc etc. TOE is a knee jerk science where anything goes and has absolutely no predictive capability.
Creationists also have observed evidence of flood, earth being the centre of the universe, the irreduceability of the complexity of a living organism. There are no primitive cells and the term is a contradiction to all that is known about a bacteria.
These evos were surprised at just about everything they found.
At least creationsist have stable predictions eg no intermediates between kinds will be found, junk dna is not junk etc, no vestigal organs. These have remained stable with biblical creationists and holistically suport a creationists paradigm. The vestigal organ garbage evos went on about is falsified and what did they do to save their precious theory....invent a new definition for vestigal organ where it went from a similar organ with no function to a similar organ with different function. Functional non coding DNA is being validated more as time moves on. Irrefuteable fossil evidence for evolution winds up in the garbage bin of delusions past. Ikes..what a non credible story evolution has become.
We have all seen in dog breeding that species have limitation to adaptability. A dog can never evolve to be as small as a mouse or as big as a horse. The genome simply does not have that variability. Yet bacteria became whales. They just don't see they have already been proven wrong and evo assertions falsified so many times I don't think evos even realize it anymore.
The instability of TOE is major tun off. However what is even more obvious is that after libraries of books on TOE they have no evidence for evolution at all.
There are no transitional fossils between kinds and any put up have been falsified by new data or finds. Their genomics and hierarchies are based on nonsense and algorithms and pegged to misrepresented fossils that are part of a revolving door with more inconsistencies than Alice in Wonderland. TOE is not based on real science and never will be.
Any theory is only as good as the assumption it is based on. Wrong assumptions will get confusing data that require knee jerk changes and a plethora of terms to address anomolies. That is exactly what we find with evolutionary theory. They need much more than clarification of a few details. They haven't even got one evolutionary prediction, not thought up in hindsight, that has been established with observed data. Creationist in general have plenty that are being validated.
I like this article from the mouth of evolutionists themselves.
Fossils May Look Like Human Bones: Biological Anthropologists Question Claims for Human Ancestry (2011)
In their paper, Wood and Harrison caution that history has shown how uncritical reliance on a few similarities between fossil apes and humans can lead to incorrect assumptions about evolutionary relationships. They point to the case of Ramapithecus, a species of fossil ape from south Asia, which was mistakenly assumed to be an early human ancestor in the 1960s and 1970s, but later found to be a close relative of the orangutan.
Similarly, Oreopithecus bambolii, a fossil ape from Italy shares many similarities with early human ancestors, including features of the skeleton that suggest that it may have been well adapted for walking on two legs. However, the authors observe, enough is known of its anatomy to show that it is a fossil ape that is only distantly related to humans, and that it acquired many "human-like" features in parallel.
Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry
Case closed........
There is nothing left for me to say as regards the thread topic, other than evolutionists will have to do a heck of a lot better than this to get me to reconsider my view.
If observed science is not going to make an evolutionist reconsider their view we will just have to accept they will remain in story land with libraries of books that tell fantastic, non credible and non plausible stories they call science. This is their signature.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
RickG said:
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Dr. Kenneth W. Funk, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
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. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering
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
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John G. Leslie, Biochemist, Physician, Archaeologist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (19182006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
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. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
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. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
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, Geology
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
George S. Smith, M.S., Chemistry
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
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. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (18921979) Surgeon
Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering
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. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (19151995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
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
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Creation scientists and other biographies of interest
I'll check for publishings if you wish.
Upvote
0
Where is the opposition to independant thought?
If i was a baker and told you the bread was made this morning but, a baker colleague tells you it was made yesterday. Is the second baker not contradicting the first?
Where is your independant thinking? Blindly following the Bible is not independant thinking? <edit>
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Seriously?
First, it's not a popularity contest- science is based on evidence.
Second, if it was a popularity contest, you'd be losing by a country mile: Project Steve
Please do.
Upvote
0
- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
He did. RickG said no Creationist has ever published a paper in a scientific journal ("there is not one single bit of original research performed by any creationist or creationist groups"), and SkyWriting proved him wrong.
Upvote
0
Yes I wish. List those publications in the peer review scientific literature that refute the mainstream science and have stood the test of time. Show the papers that support a 6,000 year old earth, show evidence of a global flood, and refute evolution.
Upvote
0
No, I did not say that. I said published in a scientific journal that supports creationism. There are many published scientific papers in the peer review scientific journals. Not one of them supports creationism or its claims.
Upvote
0
Research relating to creation or creationism? i couldn't find any from the named scientists.
One thing that i did find interesting is that Dr. Henry Zuill was educated at Loma Linda University, a seventh day adventist university.
Now seventh day adventists believe that the ten commandments are law e.g. thou shalt not kill. However a large part of their money (the university) comes from the defence department. incongruous?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,650
- 52,516
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Here's what you said:
Would you highlight in red, please, what you're looking for?
Upvote
0
I will outline what i want:
a peer reviewed scientific paper that supports creationism. simples
Upvote
0
- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Nor could I, but the request wasn't for research relating to Creationism, it was for published scientists who were also Creationists - regardless of whether their papers related to Creationism or not.
That would be a discussion for another thread, perhaps in E&M or EC.
Upvote
0
- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Not in your post, you didn't. In post #335, you said:
"However, what creationism finds wrong with is nothing but unsupported assertions, hand-waving and obfuscation. There is much written in the creationists literature attempting to discredit many different disciplines of science. With all that, there is not one single bit of original research performed by any creationist or creationist groups. Sure, they write a lot of papers, none of which are ever submitted to scientific publications. At least I've never found any, can you cite any?"
What you said was that Creationists don't publish papers, not that Creationists don't publish papers regarding Creationism. I can see plain as day what you meant to say, but, technically, you didn't say it, and SkyWriting was correct to cite a trite list of published scientists who happened to be Creationists (but, naturally, whose work is unrelated to their Creationism).
I agree. I'm simply pointing out that, technically, SkyWriting is in the right in this particular regard. One thing I've found about Creationists in my time here is that they'll pounce on technicalities and treat them as vicarious trophies - they won a technical battle, and so think they've won the war. Utter nonsense, or course, but it does teach one to be very precise with one's language - corner them, and they'll be forced to either have a rational discussion, or run away in silence (notice, for instance, that Jazer has fallen silent after my post #338; I've confronted him and others a number of times on it, but nothing so far). Both outcomes are deliciously satisfying.
Upvote
0
"However, what creationism finds wrong with is nothing but unsupported assertions, hand-waving and obfuscation. There is much written in the creationists literature attempting to discredit many different disciplines of science. With all that, there is not one single bit of original research performed by any creationist or creationist groups. Sure, they write a lot of papers, none of which are ever submitted to scientific publications. At least I've never found any, can you cite any?"
If you read his request for citation within the context of his post it is clear what he is asking.
Hey Christians, you missed the chance to read something in context. apparently that's how you read the bible, the only book some of you will read.
Just surprised you missed it that's all.
If you read his request for citation within the context of his post it is clear what he is asking.
Hey Christians, you missed the chance to read something in context. apparently that's how you read the bible, the only book some of you will read.
Just surprised you missed it that's all.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,650
- 52,516
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
That seems to be missing from this comment:I will outline what i want:
a peer reviewed scientific paper that supports creationism. simples
I'd say the goalpost got moved after Sky responded.
And for the record, how would one ascertain that they haven't been submitted?
Perhaps they were, but were rejected?
Upvote
0
However, what creationism finds wrong with is nothing but unsupported assertions, hand-waving and obfuscation. There is much written in the creationists literature attempting to discredit many different disciplines of science. With all that, there is not one single bit of original research performed by any creationist or creationist groups. Sure, they write a lot of papers, none of which are ever submitted to scientific publications. At least I've never found any, can you cite any?
Thanks for reminding me of my original statement which I still support.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,650
- 52,516
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Fair enough -- I'll mail them (whoever it is you're talking about) a copy of Genesis 1.
Will that qualify? or will they discard it; and you can keep your integrity intact?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
