The Evidence For A Young Earth

Originally posted by vivify
I usually don't look at your links because they're crap. But this time I happened to be curious, and yup, it's crap.

-The research cited by was be 'scientists' who believe in creationism. Strike one.

- The speaker says that the pressure from the biblical Flood (which has been discredited) would be enough to hasten the growth of stalactites. Strike tw ...[text shortened]... to form stalactites while that cave is completely flooded. Strike three.

This video's out.

Perhaps you just don't know the real science behind it all. 😏

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Absolutely. The research that matters is peer reviewed.

So far, creationists and their ilk have published in scientific journals exactly one peer reviewed article putting forth their hypotheses. Citing more than that one article is not about scientific research; it is about something else. Belief in most cases. Lies in other.

In answer to your second question. The paucity of peer reviewed articles is easily explained: the research is not sound.

Creationists have put forth many peer reviewed articles. You are just ignorant of them because you are not ....

The Near Genius 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
"-The research cited by was be 'scientists' who believe in creationism. Strike one."

Shouldn't the research be all that matters, not what the "scientists" believes?
Why should a strike be given for any point of view if the research is sound?

Normally, yes; but in the case of creationists, their belief can indicate whether there is some sort of bias or agenda in their research that may affect their conclusions. It would be like if advocates of pedophilia reported that children are more mature than we give them credit for.

Adding to this suspicion is that fact that many creationist claims have been discredited at the same time that creationists are trying to disprove sciences (like evolution) that have been exhaustively peer-reviewed for decades, and are accepted an overwhelming majority of scientists as a result. So any scientists that continue to be creationists in light of this, are likely motivated by religion rather than facts.

Originally posted by vivify
Normally, yes; but in the case of creationists, their belief can indicate whether there is some sort of bias or agenda in their research that may affect their conclusions. It would be like if advocates of pedophilia reported that children are more mature than we give them credit for.

Adding to this suspicion is that fact that many creationist claims hav ...[text shortened]... ntinues to be a creationist in light of this, is likely motivated by religion rather than facts.

I think it goes beyond religion. It is now in the realm of politics. They want VOTES. They ultimately want to destroy evolution as a science and any discipline that shows the true age of Earth. As long as science shows what they want it to show, they are as happy as a pig in shyte. But of course that will never happen so they are now trying to convert weak minded people to their side in the quest for votes to force creationism in schools and evolution out. This is politics pure and simple.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Creationists have put forth many peer reviewed articles. You are just ignorant of them because ...

I referred to articles actually published in peer review journals, not those put forth and rejected. I'll stand corrected when you produce a bibliography.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I referred to articles actually published in peer review journals, not those put forth and rejected. I'll stand corrected when you produce a bibliography.

More chance of him producing a West End play.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
More chance of him producing a West End play.

So far off Broadway he is in the Grand Canyon where that big flood happened........

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Absolutely. The research that matters is peer reviewed.

So far, creationists and their ilk have published in scientific journals exactly one peer reviewed article putting forth their hypotheses. Citing more than that one article is not about scientific research; it is about something else. Belief in most cases. Lies in other.

In answer to your second question. The paucity of peer reviewed articles is easily explained: the research is not sound.

If it isn't sound it isn't sound, but the beliefs of those doing it should not be part of the
process to see if it is good or not. Otherwise, nothing done by anyone you disagree with
no matter how sound will be given a proper chance at review.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If it isn't sound it isn't sound, but the beliefs of those doing it should not be part of the process to see if it is good or not.

With respect to the process of peer review, the beliefs of the author of an article are never part of the consideration.


Of course, if a writer substitutes expression of belief for scientific investigation, that will lead to quick rejection. The author might conclude that his or her beliefs were at issue.




I recall in college when many of my friends believed that they had been discriminated against by their anti-religious professors. I also remember looking at their papers and seeing the substitution of belief for analysis. For one of these anti-religious professors, I wrote a paper on the teaching of Creationism in public schools. It was a legal analysis for a political science class. I did not argue the merits of Creationism, I assumed these merits. I argued the law (I read the relevant Supreme Court cases and a very long article by Wendell Bird in the Yale Law Review--it seems that Creationists can get published in non-scientific journals. Bird did legal work for the Institute of Creation Research.) I also argued education pedagogy to suggest that learning evolution and creationism together facilitated understanding of both. I used materials from Creationists--ICR. But, I also went beyond these to work by secular historians on the Scopes trial, and well as those things mentioned above.

I earned and received an A. My professor wrote, "excellent paper in all respects." He wrote this comment in pencil and then erased "in all respects".

I am no longer a Creationist. But, when I was, I demonstrated that one could argue rationally and the result would be positive. If Creationists could meet the academic standards for good work, they would get published. Perhaps, though, there is a very good reason they cannot meet the standards of science.

Scientific Creationism is not science. Moreover, it is grounded in bad theology (or at least incompetent hermeneutics).

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I referred to articles actually published in peer review journals, not those put forth and rejected. I'll stand corrected when you produce a bibliography.

The journals you and sonhouse believe in are controlled by those that believe in evilution and the only peer reviewers allowed to review the submissions are those that also believe in evilution and billions of years in the past to allow the time necessary to make it believable science. I know how the system works because I am ....

The Near Genius 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
The journals you and sonhouse believe in are controlled by those that believe in evilution and the only peer reviewers allowed to review the submissions are those that also believe in evilution and billions of years in the past to allow the time necessary to make it believable science. I know how the system works because I am ....

The Near Genius 😏

The real reason why there are no peer reviewed 'creation science' papers is they don't submit them. You don't submit, you have a 100% chance of not being published. If you do good science, you will get published.

Show me the rejected submissions before you flap off at the mouth. You are great at spouting off grand sweeping statements but less than poor at proving your points. You don't have the mental capacity to come up with anything like your own analysis, being satisfied to post video after video of other people's excruciatingly bad work.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The journals you and sonhouse believe in are controlled by those that believe in evilution [sic] and the only peer reviewers allowed to review the submissions are those that also believe in evilution [sic] and billions of years in the past to allow the time necessary to make it believable science.

You are correct that it may be hard to find a credentialed scientist who rejects the fundamentals of science. Maybe you think that there should be physicists who don't believe in gravity.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
With respect to the process of peer review, the beliefs of the author of an article are never part of the consideration.


Of course, if a writer substitutes expression of belief for scientific investigation, that will lead to quick rejection. The author might conclude that his or her beliefs were at issue.




I recall in college when many of my fri ...[text shortened]... is not science. Moreover, it is grounded in bad theology (or at least incompetent hermeneutics).

Listen, If the work isn't good enough fine by me. I do think watching the posts here that
as soon as Creation is brought up and something/anything gives support, the ideas,
and both poster and source comes under attack.

Now I'd love to believe that science papers all get fair and balanced reviews, I don't
spend time worrying about it, but with the shear distain I see here, if that at all is part of
the process I doubt fair and balanced is something everyone gets. I could be wrong, and
your post gives me hope I am.

I don't tend to give those involved in science any higher opinion than I do the rest of the
human race, since all those involved are people and they can be buggers from time to
time.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Listen, If the work isn't good enough fine by me. I do think watching the posts here that
as soon as Creation is brought up and something/anything gives support, the ideas,
and both poster and source comes under attack.

Now I'd love to believe that science papers all get fair and balanced reviews, I don't
spend time worrying about it, but with the sh ...[text shortened]... the
human race, since all those involved are people and they can be buggers from time to
time.

There have been papers written on subjects like the rings around those uranium spots on rocks and the like where creationists try to prove that validates a young Earth. But when a paper like that has been shown to have holes in the science, it is rejected if submitted. So the people who write such papers are reduced to making video's to help their buddies to get legislation passed to force creation 'science' to be taught in a science class along side evolution or better yet, get rid of evolution entirely. There used to be a lot of such papers but the refutation of all of them have left creationists out on a very thin very long limb.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Listen, If the work isn't good enough fine by me. I do think watching the posts here that as soon as Creation is brought up and something/anything gives support, the ideas, and both poster and source comes under attack.

I think the main reason bad ideas are attacked so vehemently is that these bankrupt ideas hold a lot of sway in American culture with detrimental consequences. Like or not, some of your fellow believers are at war with reason and with science and with good government. They have captured enough seats in Congress as to render one of the nation's political parties impotent. They have tortured school districts and state legislatures all over the country.

Many wrote them off in 1925 after they were mocked in Dayton, Tennessee, but they came back with a vengeance. The United States still produces many of the world's best scientists, but the scientific literacy of the general population has become the laughing stock of the world.