.

.

LordReed:
Ok so where is his peer reviewed published work on evidence for a 6 day creation?

This is an excerpt from a post I made on this board some time ago. But if you had cared to read it carefully, you would not be here asking this ridiculous question.

Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism.’ This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent ‘the range of opinions ’. e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

Humphreys’ letter and Ms Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article ‘Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps’ to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a ‘slight bias’ exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

The Institute for Creation Research published a laymanized version of Humphreys’ article in their Impact series [No. 233, 'Bumps in the Big Bang’, November 1992]. Reference 5 of that article contains information about the Nature submission.

In the 70s and early 80s, physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn’t publish openly creationist conclusions. Gentry had discovered that granites contain microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. According to evolutionary theory, polonium halos should not be there. Some believe that the existence of polonium halos is scientific evidence that the Earth was created instantaneously.

When Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminated Gentry’s connection with them as a visiting professor (shortly after it became nationally known he is a creationist) the number of his articles slowed down, but he continues to publish.

Another example of blatant discrimination is Scientific American’s refusal to hire Forrest Mims as their ‘Amateur Scientist’ columnist when they found out that he was a creationist, although they admitted that his work was ‘fabulous’, ‘great’ and ‘first rate’. Subsequently Mims invented a new haze detector praised in the ‘Amateur Scientist’ column, without mentioning that Mims was rejected for this very column purely because of religious discimination. So it’s hardly surprising that some creationists write creationist papers under pseudonyms to avoid being victimised by the bigoted establishment.

Cc: johnydon22

budaatum:

Evolution is not "random blind accidents".

Go here and educate yourself.

Lol. Is that not the stronghold of you evolutionists? Semantics and equivocation? I'm not gonna start arguing what random or accident means. But I know that you evolutionists would have us believe that the universe came from nothing, for no reason whatsoever, and all the other events followed for no reason whatsoever, atoms and particles that came from nowhere interacted randomly with each other and after a long long time of mindless atoms interacting with each other, we're here today, with our minds thinking of how to stop climate change, whereas climate change as a whole is just a net result of mindless atoms interacting with each other.

Lol.

Another way to ask the question is, in an evolutionary universe where everything is a result of random blind accidents, why should anyone bother what's happening to the Earth? Did we not arrive here by mere accident? Is it not more or less a case of one random, tiny speck in the universe about to undergo some changes that have no meaning whatsoever? In an evolutionary universe, why should we care to save the Earth?

,.

,,

Up

,

.

According to some people, Prof. Keith Wanser is apparently not doing science simply because he doesn't acknowledge that the Earth is millions of years old.

budaatum:

Anyone doing science cannot refuse to acknowledge earth has been in existence for a very very long time.

Hahahahaha. johnydon22 look at this.

Read.

budaatum:

I have checked them both out alien. Kurt Wise is not at Harvard, he studied there under Jay Gould and his thesis was contrary to his later young earth beliefs. This is he: "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

He is saying he will stick to his beliefs regardless of the evidence which is intellectually dishonest in my opinion.

I could not find anything with which to form an objective opinion about nathaniel jeanson, apart from he studied at Harvard and does not appear to be doing science now.

The main thing has been proven: they got their PhD from Harvard. Whether they're presently at Harvard or not is irrelevant. Moreover it is not baffling if the majority of the people at Harvard are evolutionists. That is the ruling paradigm. Does not make evolution true.

Harvard may be a good school, but it doesn't mean that PhD gotten from other schools around the world are somehow inferior. Check out this list of current PhD scientists who believe that the universe is young: https://creation.com/creation-scientists#modern

Be sure though, that when you say that someone is not doing science, you don't mean that he's not doing evolution. Evolution is not science.

budaatum:
This thread is not about evolution Alien, please don't equivocate it with young earthism, they are very cleary distinct.

Show me one single phd in harvard doing young earth if you would please.

They are not doing "young earth". They are doing science. And they have PhD from Harvard. And they believe that the Earth and the universe is young.

Check our Kurt Wise, and Nathaniel Jeanson.

budaatum:

then something is wrong there and we should investigate the institution that awarded you a PhD,

yeah, this is a nice idea. Some of them got their degrees from Harvard. You can start the investigation from Harvard.

because studying those sciences would hardly have left you time to consider biblical age

exactly what evolutionists are trying to achieve, to infect every field of knowledge with their ideas, and proclaim them very essential to those fields. As though science was not moving on when evolution was not the ruling paradigm. But they have not succeeded. In fact, much to their chagrin, the various fields of knowledge do just fine (I say even better) without evolutionary ideas.

as viably possible and you ought to have intellectually abandoned it anyway in light of contradictory evidence.

Lol. Just as evolutionists should have abandoned their ideas in the light of contradictory evidence.

At best we would perhaps suggest you have a bias and are attempting to use pseudoscience to validate it.

Sounds to me like you're describing evolutionists.

budaatum:

You had a point here. One shouldn't expect a Poetry Phd to know much on the matter if they haven't bothered to learn about it. But nor should they be making out its something they have a clue about. But I guess that's asking for some honesty - an admission of how little one knows. And as they say, flying pigs.

Lol. When I say there are scientists with PhD who hold the Bible to be true, I don't mean PhD in poetry. I mean PhD in those very fields you consider science: Math, physics, biology, chemistry, engineering, medicine, etc.

budaatum:


Intellect is the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract matters. One studies available information on a subject objectively, as in, without personal bias, preconceived opinions or subjective blindness, before coming to a conclussion on the matter.

The evidence for the age of planet earth being much older than biblical suggestions is rather overwhelming so 'intellectuals' who hold to a young earth, in my own subjective opinion, must lack somewhere on the intellectual scale where this particular subject is concerned.

They sure are not showing much book reading intelligence if they place one book so far above every other book on the subject, so I'd say their intellect, on this subject, is deficient and not completely there.

The above bolded is the most important part of this post of yours. All these things are true only in your opinion and in the opinion of people who hold the same view with you. Very honest of you.

I must comment that you're beginning to show understanding, the first sign of which is honesty.

So budaatum, tell me, is this one ^^^ among the intellectuals?

gensteejay:

Lol. I don't even need to waste my time on this sort of discussion.

I agree, you don't need to waste your time.

You're right; the whole of science is nonsense

this is a strawman argument. When will you stop using it?

and only your own Bible (though you didn't state the correct version out of the many out there) is right.

Lol. The many versions of the Bible contain the same information. Only different renderings. You're right though, the Bible is very accurate.

Away from science, all the histories of civilizations that had existed for at least 10,000 years ago (well documented)

Did you know? Dating methods have underlying assumptions. A good number of these assumptions are not necessarily true.

are false and only your Bible that was cobbled together about 2000 years ago is right.

The earth is about 6000 years old.

Yeah, I believe that.

It's really a sorry case.

What's more sorry is that the evolutionists who control the media are censoring opposing ideas. They don't even want you to know that there are people who hold different opinions, not to talk allowing you a chance of considering the opposing arguments.

Why don't you check out [url]Creation.com[/url]?

gensteejay:
All these silly threads people create on Nairaland. SMH.

They're a sad reflection of Nigeria's moribund education sector, especially science and technology.

It's a sorry case.

What of the fact that many scientists who got their PhD from the most prestigious institutions around the world actually hold the Bible to be true? Does it reflect the moribund state of education in those countries too?

Or tell me, is education measured by how much evolution is mixed with it?

Let people read, and understand.

by Tas Walker

1. Evolution?

YES and NO

We observe variation, mutation and natural selection in living things.

Evolutionists call this ‘evolution’, and this is why they claim that evolution is true.

We see how the environment affects the survival of these different animals. We even see new species arising as a result of these processes.

These phenomena are observed and documented scientifically.

Creationists agree with all these observations.

In fact, these sorts of changes happen very quickly. Speciation can occur within a few generations.1 But, dogs remain dogs, frogs remain frogs, and horses remain horses.

We don’t see fish changing into frogs, or lizards into birds.

What we see is consistent with the biblical account of a recent creation. God created different kinds of animals at the beginning. These different kinds were capable of adapting to different environments.

Creationists prefer not to call this variation within a kind ‘evolution’ (not even ‘micro-evolution’2). We call these changes ‘adaptation’.

It doesn’t really matter what word you use, but it is important to know what you are talking about.

Creationists reserve the word evolution for something entirely different from what we see here.

2. Evolution?

NO

We have heard of the idea that single-celled animals changed by mutation and natural selection into reptiles, birds, mammals and people, over millions of years.

This is what creationists call evolution and they distinguish it from adaptation. Evolutionists call this evolution too, the same word they use for adaptation. That is why there is so much confusion on this issue.

Evolutionists use the same word for two entirely different things (called equivocation), and so you don’t really know what they are talking about.

If small random mutations are to produce new genetic information for these amazing changes in animals, then millions of such genetic errors would be needed over millions of generations.3 That is why evolutionists need billions of years for the idea to be plausible.

However, these sorts of changes have never been observed.

Variation and natural selection do not produce new genetic information; they only rearrange or remove the existing information.

Mutations do not generate new genetic information; they destroy some of the existing information.

Furthermore, the fossils are not consistent with the idea of evolution; the innumerable transitional forms expected are missing.

This molecules-to-man concept of evolution is just a hypothetical philosophy without observational scientific support. This concept of evolution is used to justify the assertion that the living world can be explained without God.

It is contrary to the teaching of the biblical account.

It looks scientific, but as we have seen it is not.

It is a bit of a trick played by using sloppy language. Evolutionists use adaptation, which is observed, to support evolution, which is an entirely different process. It is an example of bait and switch.

They get away with it because people do not realize they are using the same word to mean two entirely different things.

Watch out

Next time someone says that evolution is an observed scientific fact make sure you get them to clearly define what they are talking about.

They will almost certainly be referring to adaptation but want you to believe they have proved evolution.

Don’t be fooled. Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking.

You wouldn’t want to make the wrong decision about the reliability of the Bible, where you came from and why you are here because you fell for the bait and switch trick.

Source: https://creation.com/don-t-fall-for-the-bait-and-switch

Johnydon22

by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati

Dr Keith Wanser, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. is Professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton. His research interests lie in fibre-optic sensing techniques, experimental and theoretical condensed matter physics, and basic theories of matter.

With over 30 refereed and 18 other technical papers and seven U.S. patents in his track record, Keith Wanser would be justified in chuckling at the common accusation that ‘creationists don’t publish’, or ‘creationists don’t do real science’ [see Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?—Ed.]. A full Professor at a major U.S. university, we were immediately struck by his warmth and humility.

In this age of physics superstars writing bestsellers, claiming to know the precise state of the universe billions of years ago, and even saying that physicists will soon know ‘the mind of God’, it was refreshing to hear Prof. Wanser bring things back to reality. ‘We don’t even know how to calculate, from first principles, something as basic as the speed of light, or Planck’s constant, the mass of the electron — things like that,’ he said. ‘These seem to just be “givens” from a Lawgiver. It was thought there should be only two or three such “basics” from which we could derive the rest, but it appears that there are vastly more — something like 28 at least.1

‘For every spectacular leap forward, like finding new particles,’ he continued, ‘there’s usually been a price to pay —more and more unknown parameters, with unknown relationships between them. It seems the more we find out, the more we realize how little we really know. Like Ecclesiastes 3:11 and 8:17 say, we can never find out all that God has done. I like what Einstein said, that it would be enough if we just understood the electron. In fact, when I get to Heaven, I’d like to get the chance to ask the Lord to tell me how the electron is held together.’ (Keith told us that, given our current understanding, there is nothing to hold the electron together. It should fly apart under its own electrostatic self repulsion).

Keith Wanser doesn’t talk of Heaven in some vague metaphorical way; for him it is a sure and certain hope. His trust is not in his intellect, nor in his good deeds, but in the shed blood of God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Having received God’s forgiveness of his sins, Keith knows he can anticipate joy and peace with God throughout eternity.

The conservative church in which Keith grew up believed in a literal, six-day creation — and so did he until he went to college. ‘All those professors, who seemed to know so much, told me it couldn’t be that way. So I gradually became a theistic evolutionist. That led to my becoming morally adrift for some years, till I recommitted my life to Jesus Christ in 1976. Since then, I have studied a great deal of scientific evidence, and I am convinced there is far more evidence for a recent, six-day creation and a global Flood than there is for an old earth and evolution.’

Keith Wanser knows how vitally important this issue is. ‘The foundation for the whole Gospel is in Genesis — the Lord Jesus Christ clearly believed in a young earth, a literal Genesis,’ he said. ‘If we mess with these foundational truths, when do we start taking the words of Jesus seriously? Recently someone said to me, “I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but I don’t believe it can be taken literally.” I was shocked. Maybe we can have a non-literal Virginal Conception, or a non-literal Resurrection, or … where does it end?2

‘It’s desperately sad,’ Keith went on, ‘that so many church leaders have given their flocks a false sense of security, either by downplaying the issue, or by unscriptural dead-ends such as “progressive creation”.3 I believe the Lord will bring these leaders to account. Even churches that believe in Genesis often don’t equip their people with the answers available through ministries such as yours. They don’t understand that kids today are being hit by these supposedly “scientific” beliefs that totally undermine Christianity.’

What did he see as the biggest difficulty for promoting creation today? ‘Because the church in general failed to understand and confront this huge issue, it helped these beliefs to “take over”,’ said Keith. ‘So there is now such a bias against literal Genesis and for evolution/old earth, that people have stopped thinking for themselves. Phrases like “evolution is fact” or “everybody knows the world is old” are repeated like mantras — it’s like a mindless thing that people have had beaten into their heads, so one has to undo years of conditioning by our culture.’

A father of two young children, Keith sees it as crucial to shield them from the anti-biblical conditioning coming from TV and elsewhere. Referring to a popular new ‘cute monsters’ game, he said, ‘Even there, you have this insidious evolutionary brainwashing going on all the time — “Look how this one can evolve into something else”, and the like.’ But he also thinks it is vital to give them positive creation materials like A is for Adam, to train them in thinking in a biblical framework from the earliest age.

‘Parents who ignore the extreme importance of this issue are often taken by surprise when their children grow up and abandon their faith — I see it often and it grieves me that so many people are unaware of the sad consequences of evolutionary thoughts and beliefs.’

Was it tough being a creationist at a secular university? Dr Wanser said, ‘Well, now that I’ve got tenure, that means I can’t be fired for simply believing in recent six-day creation and the world-wide Noahic Flood. If I had been outspoken on the issue before, I doubt I would have obtained tenure. But if you’re doing good science, it makes it harder for your critics.’

Radiometric ‘ages’

Knowing that Keith was part of the creationist RATE4 group, we asked him about radiometric dating. He said, ‘There’s been some good work done by creationists lately, like revealing a fatal flaw in the assumptions behind K-Ar dating.5 I’m currently working on some very interesting stuff involving radiometric decay being non-exponential —at the level of things like quantum tunnelling. It’s still in the early stages, but already I can say that over time periods that are short compared to the half life, the decay is not exponential, despite what is taught.6 This decay thing is actually very complex; there’ve been all sorts of assumptions made to keep it simple, some of which may not be valid.’

What arguments did evolutionists have with his work, we asked? ‘Well, it’s very hard to argue when the maths is there, and it comes out right,’ he said. ‘Actually,’ he went on, ‘it turns out that when you get the nucleus “excited”, decay is going to be much quicker, making things look vastly “older”. People have been talking recently about magnetic stars giving off big bursts of gamma rays; there are all sorts of ways that radiometric “clocks” could have been reset catastrophically, during the Flood for example.’

Professor Wanser made frequent reference to the work of the creationist physicist Dr Russell Humphreys, of Sandia National Laboratories, for examples of fruitful creationist science. An example is Humphreys’ fulfilled written prediction, based on his model of the earth’s magnetic field, that volcanic rock would be found showing that past reversals of the field occurred extremely rapidly.7 He was also very impressed by the way in which Humphreys’ creationist model of planetary formation predicted the strengths of the planets’ magnetic fields.8 He said, ‘There’s no evolutionary model that has come anywhere close in that department.’

Keith Wanser also pointed to Russ Humphreys’ creationist alternative to ‘big bang’ cosmology (explained for the layman in the book Starlight and Time, which also has a technical appendix) as a good example of productive creationist thought. (Humphreys uses the distortion of time in general relativity theory to explain how light could have reached the earth from distant stars in a young universe.)

Changing light speed

Actually, light is a major specialist area for Dr Wanser. So what did he think of proposals that the speed of light has changed, affecting radiometric dating as well as starlight travel-time? He replied, ‘It’s not really widely known that standard quantum electrodynamics predicts that the speed of light (c) is a function of the field strength, thus changeable in principle. I’ve been playing around with this for years, and while it’s still heretical, some are starting to accept that c may not be some eternally immutable thing.’9

Keith was familiar with the theories (including recent work) of Australian creationist Barry Setterfield, which have c declining from a huge initial value. He said, ‘I don’t go along with Barry’s statements on this; he’s well-meaning, but in my opinion he’s made a lot of rash assumptions. For instance, he has a whole sequence of things that have to be held constant just because his theory needs it, and he’s certainly not come up with any real equations explaining anything. There is not a lot of mathematical and physical theory in his work, and there’s a misunderstanding of many of the things that would have happened if c had been 10¹⁰ higher than what it is today.’10

From what Keith told us in more detail, it appeared that the vocal humanist/sceptic critics of the Setterfield theory also needed some lessons in high-level physics. He went on to say, ‘There are other reasons to believe that the speed of light is changing, or has changed in the past, that have nothing to do with the Setterfield theory. It’s an exciting field — a very bright colleague of mine at the University of Colorado in Boulder has just completed some little-known but fascinating work in this area.’11

Keith affirmed that the confident public image of the ‘certainty’ of the latest physical theories was a far cry from reality. He cited the ‘big bang’ as an example, particularly lately with ‘quantum cosmology’. ‘They have to get matter out of energy,’ he said. An experimentally established physical principle12 shows that the only way you can do that is to end up with equal amounts of matter and antimatter. But all around us in the universe there is a huge preponderance of matter over antimatter. Instead of abandoning the “big bang”, they conveniently hypothesized a way to violate scientific law, a fudge factor if you like. But this would make protons unstable, so for years they’ve been looking in vain for even one proton to decay. They haven’t found it, and all indications are that the proton must be stable for a period of time much larger than previously thought possible, more than 1,000 billion billion times the assumed evolutionary age of the universe.13 This makes it completely impossible for the “big bang” to work.

‘The problem hasn’t been pointed out much; it’s there, but it’s ignored in the hope that it will go away. The sad thing is that the public is so overawed by these things, just because there is complex maths involved. They don’t realize how much philosophical speculation and imagination is injected along with the maths — these are really stories that are made up.’

Professor Wanser continued, ‘People look at the sort of science that put men on the moon, and they put these “big bang” theories in the same basket. They’re unaware of all the speculation and uncertainty (even rule-bending) there is in physical theories of origins. It’s a tragedy that evangelicals are being urged to “re-interpret” the Bible because of the so-called “certain facts of science” in this area. It is even more tragic that there are professing Christians who are promoting evolutionary notions of the “big bang” and galactic and stellar evolution as supporting the Bible and belief in God, while at the same time denying literal six-day creation and the global nature of the Genesis Flood.’

Source: https://creation.com/god-and-the-electron

First off, the title of the thread has a No True Scotsman fallacy embedded in it. "Scientists" are not the ones accused by Christians of holding the wrong view. This is because, even on the side of the Biblical narrative, there are scientists too! A lot of them are at [url]Creation.com[/url].

So it is dishonest to pit "scientists" against the other side. Both sides contain scientists. Let me suggest a better title for the thread: Age of the Earth - Naturalists Lie!

budaatum:

The use of the senses.

Empiricism. Well, we all can use our senses in just about the same way. But we may still not arrive at the truth about certain things using just our senses. Empiricism is limited.

budaatum:

Except one has no evidence whatsoever to support what's written in a book in complete disregard for the use of your own senses to see what evolves before you.

Lol. I'm curious you used the word "see". Does it occur to you that all the PhD scientists from prestigious institutions around the world who hold the Bible account of creation as true, actually see the same things that evolutionists see today? How come these things "evolving before them" has not served as overwhelming evidence for them?

As for evidence, let me remind you that people in both camps have what they think are evidences for their views.

hakeem4:


doctoralien, well i read what you wrote up there but this caught my attention how do you know the universe was designed? teaching creationism to student as science is simply child abuse and it is totally wrong. creationism can be taught in history classes but not science classes.

god is irrelevant!

What is science?

LordReed:


This is all the justification that is necessary. Creationism is not science so why should it be taught as science?

Just about in all the ways creationism is not science, evolution is not science too. One appeals to a supernatural Creator, the other appeals to naturalistic processes. However, both tell the story of how the things we observe came about. Before you answer me, make sure you're not holding the erroneous view that science is the search for natural answers. It has not been proven that everything must have a natural answer or cause.

Johnydon22, ihedinobi3.