• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What was the #1 MOST SIGNIFICANT DISCOVERY of "creation science" ?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by MrsLurking, Mar 4, 2013.

  1. Skaloop

    Skaloop Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

    +819
    Atheist
    Married
    CA-NDP
    Nobody's asking for a newspaper article. They are asking for the primary source. If the University did a study, there will be a record of it.

    No, science journals don't publish things that don't meet the criteria of being science articles.

    Again, nobody is asking for blogs, news forums (it's not even the BBC, it's just someone on their forum) that just link back to those blogs, or whatever that last site is supposed to even be. Primary source information on the studies done by the University would be a good start.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2013
  2. Dave Ellis

    Dave Ellis Contributor

    +696
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    CA-Conservatives

    Most "science" publications publish "science"... meaning papers based on empirical research, repeatable experiments and testable claims.

    Creationism is not based on those things, and therefore it is not science. Therefore, until they find evidence to back their claims, they have no place in a scientific publication.
     
  3. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,812
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I don't attend that university, so I can't find and publish their results.
    As defined by their view of science. You'll note that when scientists find things like C-14 or soft tissue in bones that are supposedly mllions of years old, they can only get published in alternative publications.
    Consider, for instance, the following item from the June 11, 1891 edition of the Morrisonville, Ill. Times:
    A curious find was brought to light by Mrs. S. W. Culp last Tuesday morning. As she was breaking a lump of coal preparatory to putting it in the scuttle, she discovered, as the lump fell apart, embedded in a circular shape, a small gold chain about ten inches in length of antique and quaint workmanship. At first Mrs. Culp thought the chain had been dropped accidentally in the coal, but as she undertook to lift the chain up, the idea of its having been recently dropped was at once fallacious, for as the lump of coal broke...the middle of the chain became loosened while each end remained fastened to the coal. This is a study for the students of archaeology who love to puzzle their brains over the geological construction of the earth from whose ancient depth the curious is always dropping out. The lump of coal from which this chain was taken is supposed to come from the Taylorville or Pana mines (in southern Illinois) and almost hushes one's breath with mystery when it is thought for how many long ages the earth has been forming strata after strata which hid the golden links from view. The chain was an eight-carat gold and weighed eight penny-weights.

    Voila!!! The actual newspaper article!!!
     
  4. Skaloop

    Skaloop Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

    +819
    Atheist
    Married
    CA-NDP
    They can be found. Certainly one of those Creationist organizations could come up with it. Or even just a statement from the University about whether they were involved would be nice.

    As defined by science.

    That's not the actual newspaper article. It's someone writing about a newspaper article. An article he neither links to (which of course probably wouldn't be possible) but he doesn't even directly source it in his source section. He just says "Here's an article" without offering any way of verification other than the secondary source from where he got it. A source that I can't find. INFO Journal? I can't find anything about it.
     
  5. OllieFranz

    OllieFranz Senior Member

    +321
    Christian
    Private
    The owner of the Creationist Museum who bought the London Hammer from the original finders has never let any scientists study it, nor can I find any evidence that the finders ever did before they sold it. The mineral it is embedded in is not coal but a limestone concretion. (It is the bell that was supposedly in a lump of coal, I have not yet found more information about that).

    Limestone concretions like the one that encased the London Hammer build up very quickly under the right conditions, People who have access to caves with the right conditions often leave objects to be concreted with limestone, and then sell them as novelties to tourists. I could try to find one and then I could have my own london Hammer. A genuine one, not a reproduction like the Museum sells. It won't tell me a thing about the age of the earth
     
  6. Joshua0

    Joshua0 Guest

    +0
    Sir Charles Lyell whose Principles of Geology (1830) popularized the concept of uniformitarianism. Significant because this brought the theory of catastrophism to an end.
     
  7. Skaloop

    Skaloop Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

    +819
    Atheist
    Married
    CA-NDP
    How does that count as "creation science"?
     
  8. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +616
    Agnostic
    Single
    I am just asking for a citation, though I would like to read the article if it was available.


    Rhetoric. Give me an example.
    Its not a gear,though is it?

    Also from the link you provided:
    "One scientist, geologist Sharon Hill, who goes by the name "idoubtit," says this entire story is "laughable." Writing in Doubtful News.com, Hill insists "there are so many red flags, you should discard it entirely."

    Among the red flags Hill wonders about are, "Why is it not published in a journal? We have to accept the man's word for it, where he found it and how he discovered it? Why speculate on the alien origin of aluminum?"

    Hill adds that "It's not part of a gear. It's a natural crystal formation I'd say. ... But as following the typical template for these stories, the extreme speculative and dramatic interpretation is hyped over any consideration of an actual explanation. That's sad because it could be cool."

    The Voice of Russia says that Russian scientists won't jump to conclusions and will run more tests on the metal object."

    Is this really the best of the best when it comes to falsifying deep time?

    BTW: Do you believe my toaster-oven story?
     
  9. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +616
    Agnostic
    Single
    Wow. False, false, false. Schweitzer published her research on dinosaur bone in the well known journal Science. She has been roundly praised for her work by her colleagues. You don't care if you just make stuff up, do you?

    So, forget the pickaxe and the bell... now we have a chain. well, at least we have a citation from a newspaper article. That's considerably more than we had for the other anecdotal stories, one of which you botched badly, but still haven't acknowledged.

    I will ask again. Is this really the best evidence for a young earth?
     
  10. Tomk80

    Tomk80 Titleless

    +386
    Agnostic
    What? Alternative publications like Science?

    Schweitzer, M.H., Wittmeyer, J.L. and Horner, J.R. (2005). "Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex". Science 307 (5717): 1952–1955.

    Keith, M.L., Anderson G.M. (1963). "Radiocarbon dating: ficititious results with mollusk shells". Science 151(3581): 634 - 637


    You really do not care at the least whether your claims are correct or not, do you?
     
  11. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +616
    Agnostic
    Single
    Quoted (and emphasized) for Truth.

    Its all a part of the tactic of throwing as much mud against the wall as possible, hoping that some will stick.
     
  12. Dave Ellis

    Dave Ellis Contributor

    +696
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    CA-Conservatives

    If he did care, he wouldn't be a creationist!
     
  13. MrsLurking

    MrsLurking Retired Biblical scholar; Verysincere's wife.

    208
    +2
    Christian
    Married

    I hate to over-generalize, but it is hard to do the kind of intense research I've been doing of YEC publications without come to that same conclusion.

    Some stereotypes are well justified.
     
  14. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,812
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    It's actually thought to be a piece of mining machinery, but it looks like a gear.
    Obviously if they can't de-bunk it, they ignore it.
    Well, that pretty much proves she's unqualified.
    I think it could not only be cool, it could have some pretty significant implications for the entire notion of "fossil fuels." If coal can form in short periods of time and we have a 200 year supply of coal, then we may never run out of efficient sources of energy.
    I just saw the stories and thought them to be very interesting. Anyone with a real interest in science would want to know more. Internet scientists just want to shut up those who don't agree with them.
     
  15. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,812
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Ah, good for her. Most of the time journals reject such findings. Last I heard people were just attacking the messenger and doubting the evidence.
    Actually, they were all part of the same thing; strange man made things found in rocks. The machinery piece was only the first one I found. The bell and the hammer were in related articles.
    * Adam to Seth ............. 130 yrs (Genesis 5:3) *
    * Seth to Enos ............. 105 yrs (Genesis 5:6) *
    * Enos to Cainan ............ 90 yrs (Genesis 5:9) *
    * Cainan to Mahalaleel ...... 70 yrs (Genesis 5:12) *
    * Mahalaleel to Jared ....... 65 yrs (Genesis 5:15) *
    * Jared to Enoch ............ 162 yrs (Genesis 5:18) *
    * Enoch to Methuselah ....... 65 yrs (Genesis 5:21) *
    * Methuselah to Lamech ...... 187 yrs (Genesis 5:25) *
    * Lamech to Noah ............ 182 yrs (Genesis 5:28-29) *
    * Noah to the Flood ......... 600 yrs (Genesis 7:6) *
    * Flood to Arphaxad ......... 2 yrs (Genesis 11:10) *
    * Arphaxad to Salah ......... 35 yrs (Genesis 11:12) *
    * Salah to Eber ............. 30 yrs (Genesis 11:14) *
    * Eber to Peleg ............. 34 yrs (Genesis 11:16) *
    * Peleg to Reu ............. 30 yrs (Genesis 11:18) *
    * Reu to Serug ............. 32 yrs (Genesis 11:20) *
    * Serug to Nahor ............ 30 yrs (Genesis 11:22) *
    * Nahor to Terah ............ 29 yrs (Genesis 11:24) *
    * Terah to Abraham .......... 70 yrs (Genesis 11:26) *
    * ------- *
    * Adam to Abraham .......... 1948 yrs (This same geneology *
    * is in Luke 3:34-38) *
    ****************************************************************
    ***********************************************************
    * Abraham to Isaac .......... 100 yrs (Genesis 21:5) *
    * Isaac to Jacob ............ 60 yrs (Genesis 25:26) *
    * Jacob to Egypt ............ 130 yrs (Genesis 47:28) *
    * --------- *
    * Abraham to Egypt 290 yrs *
    ***********************************************************
    *****************************************************************
    * From Egypt to Exodus ........ X yrs *
    * *
    * ---- Jacob and his family went to Egypt *
    * *
    * Jacob went to Egypt (Genesis 46:8,11) *
    * Levi went to Egypt (Jacob's son) (Genesis 46:8,11) *
    * Kohath went to Egypt (Levi's son) (Genesis 46:8,11) *
    * *
    * Kohath had a son named Amram (Exodus 6:18) *
    * Amram had a son named Moses (Exodus 6:20) *
    * *
    * ---- Moses to the Exodus ..... 80 yrs (Exodus 7:7, *
    * Acts 7:21-23, 29-30)*
    * *
    * From Egypt to Exodus: X = (Kohath to Amram to Moses + 80) *
    *****************************************************************
    *****************************************************************
    * In Wilderness ................ 40 yrs (Numbers 32:13, *
    * Deuteronomy 2:7, 29:5 *
    * Wilderness to death Joshua ... 30 yrs (Joshua 14:7,10, 24:29)*
    * -------- *
    * Exodus to death Joshua 70 yrs *
    *****************************************************************
    *****************************************************************
    * PERIOD OF THE JUDGES *
    * *
    * Under King Cushanrishathaim .. 8 yrs (Judges 3:8) *
    * Under Othniel ................ 40 yrs (Judges 3:10-11) * * Under King Eglon ............. 18 yrs (Judges 3:14) *
    * Under Ehud ................... 80 yrs (Judges 3:15,30) * * Under King Jabid ............. 20 yrs (Judges 4:1-3) * * Under Deborah ................ 40 yrs (Judges 4:4, 5:31) * * Under Midianites ............. 7 yrs (Judges 6:1) * * Under Gideon ................. 40 yrs (Judges 6:7, 8:22,28) * * Under Abimelech .............. 3 yrs (Judges 8:32-35, 9:22)* * Under Tola ................... 23 yrs (Judges 10:1-2) * * Under Jair ................... 22 yrs (Judges 10:3) *
    * Under Ammonites .............. 18 yrs (Judges 10:5-8) *
    * Under Jephthah ............... 6 yrs (Judges 12:7) *
    * Under Ibzan .................. 7 yrs (Judges 12:8-9) *
    * Under Elon ................... 10 yrs (Judges 12:11) *
    * Under Abdon .................. 8 yrs (Judges 12:13-14) *
    * Under Philistines ............ 40 yrs (Judges 13:1) *
    * Under Samson ................. 20 yrs (Judges 13:24, 15:20, *
    * 16:30-31) *
    * Under Eli/Samuel ............. 40 yrs (I Samuel 4:15,18, *
    * 7:15, 8:1,4-7,19-22, *
    * 9:1-2) *
    * --------- *
    * Judges to Samuel 450 yrs (Acts 13:20) *
    * *
    *****************************************************************
    *****************************************************************
    * THE KINGS OF JUDAH *
    * *
    * Under King Saul .............. 40 yrs (Acts 13:21) *
    * Under King David ............. 40 yrs (I Chron 29:26-27) *
    * Under King Solomon ........... 40 yrs (I Kings 11:42-43) *
    * Under King Rehoboam .......... 17 yrs (I Kings 14:21) *
    * Under King Abijam ............ 3 yrs (I Kings 14:31,15:1-2)*
    * Under King Asa ............... 41 yrs (I Kings 15:8-10) *
    * Under King Jehoshaphat ....... 25 yrs (I Kings 22:41-42,50) *
    * Under King Jehoram ........... 8 yrs (II Chron 21:5) *
    * Under King Ahaziah ........... 1 yr (II Chron. 22:1-2) *
    * Under Queen Athaliah ......... 6 yrs (II Chron. 22:10-12) *
    * Under King Joash ............. 40 yrs (II Chron. 23:13,15, *
    * 24:1) *
    * Under King Amaziah ........... 29 yrs (II Chron. 25:1) *
    * Under Uzziah ................. 52 yrs (II Chron. 26:3) *
    * Under Jotham ................. 16 yrs (II Chron. 27:1) *
    * Under Ahaz ................... 16 yrs (II Chron. 28:1) *
    * Under Hezekiah ............... 29 yrs (II Chron. 29:1) *
    * Under Manasseh ............... 55 yrs (II Chron. 33:1) *
    * Under Amon ................... 2 yrs (II Chron. 33:20-21) *
    * Under King Josiah ............ 31 yrs (II Chron. 34:1) *
    * Under King Jehoahaz .......... 3 mon (II Chron. 36:1-2) *
    * Under King Jehoiakim ......... 11 yrs (II Chron. 36:3-7) *
    * Under King Jehoiachin ........ 3 mon (II Chron. 36:9) *
    * Under King Zedekiah .......... 11 yrs (II Chron. 36:11-21) *
    * --------- *
    * KINGS OF JUDAH 513 yrs *
    * *
    *****************************************************************
    *****************************************************************
    * *
    * SUMMARY OF THE TIME FROM ADAM TO JESUS *
    * *
    * Adam to Abraham .................. 1948 yrs *
    * Abraham to Egypt ................. 290 yrs *
    * *
    * From Egypt to Moses: (X) Let X = 63 63 yrs *
    * *
    * X = (Kohath to Amram to Moses) *
    * *
    * Moses to the Exodus .............. 80 yrs *
    * Exodus to death Joshua ........... 70 yrs *
    * Judges to Samuel ................. 450 yrs (Acts 13:20) *
    * Kings of Judah ................... 513 yrs *
    * Babylonian Captivity ............. 586 B.C.E. *
    * --------------- *
    * Adam to Jesus 4000 yrs *
    *
     
  16. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +616
    Agnostic
    Single
    But it isn't. Why is it being called a "gear?"

    Or if you cannot debunk deep time, you just quote anecdotal stories about stuff found in coal seams.


    Why? Because you don't like what she said?

    That's a big "IF."

    [/QUOTE]
    "Internet scientists" just want to keep down the spread of misinformation and downright lies.


    What do you know about what scientific journals do "most of the time?" I would wager you know Nothing about the subject. You just have your little creationist paranoid fantasies about what goes on in scientific journals because you don't like what they publish.


    These are all anectodal stories that either have mainstream explanations or are misrepresented. You don't want to hear them, because you prefer "coal is made in a few years" fantasies.


    Yes, this is the real evidence for a 6,000 year old earth. No one looks at the planet, or the geological evidence and concludes the earth is only 6,000 years old. If it really was 6,000 years old, one would think it could be determined independent of counting up geneologies in scripture. In any case, it is not clear that these genologies are complete, or that they go back to the beginning of the planet (rather than just the Garden of Eden), or that they are even real in the earliest entries.
     
  17. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,874
    Agnostic


    Since when? Name some examples.



    And yet no one can find rabbit fossils in Cambrian strata, or whales and trilobites in the same desposits. The only things you can find are unconfirmed claims in newspapers that have no science to back them up.

    You were asked for evidence, not more claims.
     
  18. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,812
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    You asked for the best evidence. You can't get better than the word of God.
     
  19. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,812
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    No, I was asked, "Is this really the best evidence for a young earth?" It wasn't. The word of God is.
     
  20. StormanNorman

    StormanNorman Newbie

    619
    +3
    Agnostic
    Single
    Assuming that it is indeed the word of God.
     
Loading...