Please, don't show me the facts that support it. I simply want this thread to be dedicated to showing what misconceptions evolutionists have used in the past and present and in general, what is wrong with it. If there is a thread like this, please post the link so I don't have to waste everyones time.
Thanks to everyone!
The truth is, I am dizzy from looking at all these websites, I don't know what is true, what is not, it is just really misleading and getting me nowhere.
How much actual evidence is there against Evolution (Macro)
-
godslanguage
- Senior Member
- Posts: 558
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:16 pm
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
Re: How much actual evidence is there against Evolution (Mac
If you're confused and not sure of the truth, why would you seek to frame your question in such a way that you exclude something from the start?godslanguage wrote:Please, don't show me the facts that support it. I simply want this thread to be dedicated to showing what misconceptions evolutionists have used in the past and present and in general, what is wrong with it. If there is a thread like this, please post the link so I don't have to waste everyones time.
Thanks to everyone!
The truth is, I am dizzy from looking at all these websites, I don't know what is true, what is not, it is just really misleading and getting me nowhere.
I am not an evolutionist, in the popular sense of the word.
Were you aware that come Young Earth Creationists actually claim a form of evolution that is way beyond anything claimed by traditional evolutionists? They claim that animals from the original Garden of Eden were only herbivores and so carnivores evolved from herbivores within a very short period of time. Further the distribution of animals from Noah's ark, if you accept the idea of a wolrd-wide flood instead of a local flood, it means the differentiation between such locations as Australia, Madagascar, the galapogas island etc all occured in less than 4000 years.
Most of these claims would make a true evolutionist blush.
What is your opinion on this? Do you believe that evolutions helps to answer questions as to how such great changes took place in such a short period of time and if so, why can't we observe this type of evolution taking place today? If it happened that quickly in the past, we should be able to see things like that today right?
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
godslanguage
- Senior Member
- Posts: 558
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:16 pm
Re: How much actual evidence is there against Evolution (Mac
"If you're confused and not sure of the truth, why would you seek to frame your question in such a way that you exclude something from the start?"
Well, I got to get my facts straight about one thing, then another, then another. I thought if I take it one step at a time (or one topic at a time), then that would help me a bit in understanding instead of just trailing along and looking at 100 sides of the picture, and that confuses me. If the facts about evolution are more true than they are false, then please tell me about it. I don't want detailed information, just the basic fundamentals.
"Were you aware that come Young Earth Creationists actually claim a form of evolution that is way beyond anything claimed by traditional evolutionists??"
What kind of form? What other forms of evolution are there.
Micro and Macro are the only ones I know of.
"They claim that animals from the original Garden of Eden were only herbivores and so carnivores evolved from herbivores within a very short period of time."
No, I was'nt aware of this, in fact, I never heard anything like this. Maybe the reason is that they don't believe in evolution at all. The basic, ofcourse is that humans evolved from a rock to a fish to a monkey and to what we are today, YEC's don't believe in this and neither do I.
"Further the distribution of animals from Noah's ark, if you accept the idea of a wolrd-wide flood instead of a local flood, it means the differentiation between such locations as Australia, Madagascar, the galapogas island etc all occured in less than 4000 years."
See, this is what I mean, sorry to sound so rude and everything, but I don't want to get into other details than what I am asking for. (Please don't take this offensively) If I start trailing off topic, I will look through 100 other articles and in the end, I will remember a big blur. Since your on topic, if Noah's flood did'nt happen, then why study the bible at all, I mean, thats like the basic underlining of Old Testament, is this fiction then? It seems I can't make sense of anything now.
"What is your opinion on this? Do you believe that evolutions helps to answer questions as to how such great changes took place in such a short period of time and if so, why can't we observe this type of evolution taking place today? If it happened that quickly in the past, we should be able to see things like that today right?[/quote]"
I don't believe in evolution, period. What happened quickly in the past? Did'nt human beings arise 5 million years ago, from monkeys mating with other monkeys? Isn't this what evolution claims, what does this have to do with old creation...it is a natural process that we evolved from mere animals, and therefore, what does god care if a monkey does a crime or a human does? I mean, we could teach monkeys to point and shoot a human with a gun, can't we? The problem I am seeing is, why would God just let us evolve by means of evolution? So, lets say, if accidentally, the monkeys did'nt mate, so "chance" makes alot of sense here, so humans would not exist. So most OEC's says that God did this, this is harder for me to believe than YEC which says that God created Adam and Eve, humans first, not monkeys. Please tell me if my facts are straight, I am truly sorry if I misinterpreted something/anything.
Well, I got to get my facts straight about one thing, then another, then another. I thought if I take it one step at a time (or one topic at a time), then that would help me a bit in understanding instead of just trailing along and looking at 100 sides of the picture, and that confuses me. If the facts about evolution are more true than they are false, then please tell me about it. I don't want detailed information, just the basic fundamentals.
"Were you aware that come Young Earth Creationists actually claim a form of evolution that is way beyond anything claimed by traditional evolutionists??"
What kind of form? What other forms of evolution are there.
Micro and Macro are the only ones I know of.
"They claim that animals from the original Garden of Eden were only herbivores and so carnivores evolved from herbivores within a very short period of time."
No, I was'nt aware of this, in fact, I never heard anything like this. Maybe the reason is that they don't believe in evolution at all. The basic, ofcourse is that humans evolved from a rock to a fish to a monkey and to what we are today, YEC's don't believe in this and neither do I.
"Further the distribution of animals from Noah's ark, if you accept the idea of a wolrd-wide flood instead of a local flood, it means the differentiation between such locations as Australia, Madagascar, the galapogas island etc all occured in less than 4000 years."
See, this is what I mean, sorry to sound so rude and everything, but I don't want to get into other details than what I am asking for. (Please don't take this offensively) If I start trailing off topic, I will look through 100 other articles and in the end, I will remember a big blur. Since your on topic, if Noah's flood did'nt happen, then why study the bible at all, I mean, thats like the basic underlining of Old Testament, is this fiction then? It seems I can't make sense of anything now.
"What is your opinion on this? Do you believe that evolutions helps to answer questions as to how such great changes took place in such a short period of time and if so, why can't we observe this type of evolution taking place today? If it happened that quickly in the past, we should be able to see things like that today right?[/quote]"
I don't believe in evolution, period. What happened quickly in the past? Did'nt human beings arise 5 million years ago, from monkeys mating with other monkeys? Isn't this what evolution claims, what does this have to do with old creation...it is a natural process that we evolved from mere animals, and therefore, what does god care if a monkey does a crime or a human does? I mean, we could teach monkeys to point and shoot a human with a gun, can't we? The problem I am seeing is, why would God just let us evolve by means of evolution? So, lets say, if accidentally, the monkeys did'nt mate, so "chance" makes alot of sense here, so humans would not exist. So most OEC's says that God did this, this is harder for me to believe than YEC which says that God created Adam and Eve, humans first, not monkeys. Please tell me if my facts are straight, I am truly sorry if I misinterpreted something/anything.
-
tyler_demerhcant
- Recognized Member
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:42 pm
There is no evidence against macro evolution as there is no evidence for macro evolution.
There are, however, some serious problems with macro evolution.
Case A:
The fossil records include millions upon millions of fossils, yet only several fossils have been found in a transformation state. This also assums that all the fossils that were found were fully developed.
This new fish fossil for example. The fossils were all found in a very close radius I think. It is not likely that these fossils lived to full developement and as they died, were fossilized one by one.
It is likely, however, that these fossils were buried in a sudden state all at the same time. A frog goes through tremendous metamorphasis, aswell as does a butterfly. There is more physical evidence to support metamorphisis during the lifespan than there is to support metamorphasis generationaly.
Also, it should be noted that there is evolution, micro evolution, which exists throughout all species. This can be seen in the changes of skin colour most frequently. 4 thousand years is plenty of time for individuals and animals to change. The dna structure is highly affected by everything around it. Diet, wheather, living habits, polution... the list goes on and on and on.
Case 2:
Ask yourself this...
Chance is the factor of macro evolution.
How, without inteligence, could a creature evolve eyes without knowing that their is a spectrum of light. How could so many creatures have eyes and ears and tastebuds and noses... I think you can understand what I am getting at. It is illogical to imagine chance developed these features on it's own.
Case 3:
The fossil record should be scattered with progressive changes in all species. The reason that it is not, is because fosilization requires sudden burial. The bones of a creature would be long decayed and gone before millions of years worth of layers could form over it. The layer theory is more flawed than evolution, but thats another topic.
The fossil record should also be scattered with unsuccessful transformations and mutations. It is however, not.
If an environment changes gradually, the dna structure can adapt, if it changes suddenly, such as millions of tons of moving earth burying you, your dna struture can not adapt properly
Hope this helps.
One option is that animals do not die during transformation.
There are, however, some serious problems with macro evolution.
Case A:
The fossil records include millions upon millions of fossils, yet only several fossils have been found in a transformation state. This also assums that all the fossils that were found were fully developed.
This new fish fossil for example. The fossils were all found in a very close radius I think. It is not likely that these fossils lived to full developement and as they died, were fossilized one by one.
It is likely, however, that these fossils were buried in a sudden state all at the same time. A frog goes through tremendous metamorphasis, aswell as does a butterfly. There is more physical evidence to support metamorphisis during the lifespan than there is to support metamorphasis generationaly.
Also, it should be noted that there is evolution, micro evolution, which exists throughout all species. This can be seen in the changes of skin colour most frequently. 4 thousand years is plenty of time for individuals and animals to change. The dna structure is highly affected by everything around it. Diet, wheather, living habits, polution... the list goes on and on and on.
Case 2:
Ask yourself this...
Chance is the factor of macro evolution.
How, without inteligence, could a creature evolve eyes without knowing that their is a spectrum of light. How could so many creatures have eyes and ears and tastebuds and noses... I think you can understand what I am getting at. It is illogical to imagine chance developed these features on it's own.
Case 3:
The fossil record should be scattered with progressive changes in all species. The reason that it is not, is because fosilization requires sudden burial. The bones of a creature would be long decayed and gone before millions of years worth of layers could form over it. The layer theory is more flawed than evolution, but thats another topic.
The fossil record should also be scattered with unsuccessful transformations and mutations. It is however, not.
If an environment changes gradually, the dna structure can adapt, if it changes suddenly, such as millions of tons of moving earth burying you, your dna struture can not adapt properly
Hope this helps.
One option is that animals do not die during transformation.
-
tyler_demerhcant
- Recognized Member
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:42 pm
I am a YEC.
You will always find trouble searching for answeres in the science world trying to support YEC.
BOth OEC and Evolutionists believe in a young earth.
YEC is groing though.
You make good sense and try not to lose your mind over it.
Most scientists will agree with radiometrics because it fits there predetermined eath age.
Research the earth moon system if you are looking for some YEC evidence. Macro-evolution is already been proven unplausible, the argument for me becomes YEC or OEC. I am still not totaly convinced that the earth is young, nor that the earth is old. In fact, I think the earth isnt even here. WE are all just figmants of our own imaginations.
You will always find trouble searching for answeres in the science world trying to support YEC.
BOth OEC and Evolutionists believe in a young earth.
YEC is groing though.
You make good sense and try not to lose your mind over it.
Most scientists will agree with radiometrics because it fits there predetermined eath age.
Research the earth moon system if you are looking for some YEC evidence. Macro-evolution is already been proven unplausible, the argument for me becomes YEC or OEC. I am still not totaly convinced that the earth is young, nor that the earth is old. In fact, I think the earth isnt even here. WE are all just figmants of our own imaginations.
-
BGoodForGoodSake
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2127
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Washington D.C.
Here's an interesting topic!tyler_demerhcant wrote:Case 2:
Ask yourself this...
Chance is the factor of macro evolution.
How, without inteligence, could a creature evolve eyes without knowing that their is a spectrum of light. How could so many creatures have eyes and ears and tastebuds and noses... I think you can understand what I am getting at. It is illogical to imagine chance developed these features on it's own.
How indeed...
Well lets get down to the basics, what is light?
Well its a electromagnetic emmision.
Like ripples in a lake, but instead of water it travels in a form called photons.
Different wavelengths are seen as different colors.
The reason grass is green is because it adsorbs every visible wavelength except for the green ones!
Longer ones can't be seen at all we feel it as heat.
Even longer wavelengths can be picked up on a radio.
So how does anything detect it?
Well it must adsorb it. When a molecule adsorbs a photon it becomes energized.
The wavelength is the key to adsorbtion!
Depending on the composition of the material it can adsorb or reflect these wavelengths.
So at the very root of light detection is the ability to detect adsorbtion.
Well as it turns out certain molecules behave differently when a photon is adsorbed. These molecules form the basis for vision and photosynthsys.
From a molecules point of view light is just another thing to interact with. The world is not the abstract place that you would think of it as.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
-
tyler_demerhcant
- Recognized Member
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:42 pm
-
BGoodForGoodSake
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2127
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Washington D.C.
Certainly, it's quite within the realm of posibilities.tyler_demerhcant wrote:Are you insinuating that at one point, there was no form of vision on earth and that it developed naturally.
Protozoans and Algae have "eyespots" which can detect light intensity.
http://physiologyonline.physiology.org/ ... l/19/3/133
Are you surprised?
Here's a quick read which you might find interesting. Be sure to read the other sections found under the heading IN THIS SECTION towards the bottom of the page.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
-
godslanguage
- Senior Member
- Posts: 558
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:16 pm
Re: How much actual evidence is there against Evolution (Mac
Your choices are twofold.godslanguage wrote:Well, I got to get my facts straight about one thing, then another, then another. I thought if I take it one step at a time (or one topic at a time), then that would help me a bit in understanding instead of just trailing along and looking at 100 sides of the picture, and that confuses me. If the facts about evolution are more true than they are false, then please tell me about it. I don't want detailed information, just the basic fundamentals.
a) Find someone you trust and believe whatever they tell you
b) Spend some time learning about the subject so that you have some confidence in your own evaluation.
If you want to do one topic at a time, I recommend age of the earth, since that is much simpler and more straightforward then evolution which requires a much broader background and has less complete evidence.
Here are two references Kurieuo provided:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/po ... ml&t#20961
-
tyler_demerhcant
- Recognized Member
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:42 pm
sorry, i meant they believe in an old earth.
This makes it very difficult for YECs to debate because they are often too easily overcome by knowledgable OECs.
However, my discussions with OECs seems to strengthen my position.
You should also consider there is no evidence for Macro- Evolution, just supported theory.
If someone could provide me a testible system for proving evolution, I would be happy to pick it appart.
This makes it very difficult for YECs to debate because they are often too easily overcome by knowledgable OECs.
However, my discussions with OECs seems to strengthen my position.
You should also consider there is no evidence for Macro- Evolution, just supported theory.
If someone could provide me a testible system for proving evolution, I would be happy to pick it appart.
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
My experience with YEC'rs is that there are many who are very good at debating. They mistake oratorical skill with communication and usually talk by people and say what they intend to say regardless of what the opposition states. OEC usually fairs well when there is a conversation and a requirement to stick to the topic and not jump off into other areas regardless of what your opponent says.tyler_demerhcant wrote:sorry, i meant they believe in an old earth.
This makes it very difficult for YECs to debate because they are often too easily overcome by knowledgable OECs.
However, my discussions with OECs seems to strengthen my position.
You should also consider there is no evidence for Macro- Evolution, just supported theory.
If someone could provide me a testible system for proving evolution, I would be happy to pick it appart.
OEC's can do that too. Maybe it's just a matter of perspective.
Tyler. You do realize that because someone believes in an Old earth they do not have to believe in Evolution, right?
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
tyler_demerhcant
- Recognized Member
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:42 pm
yes, I do understand that.
I do not say this lightly canuckster, but I hold highly in my opinion of the written word of God. I have studied the reasoning behind scriptural backing for OEC and am not in support of it. This is, however, not the topic to be discussing hebrew interpritation.
I also believe that comprimise brings corruption and OEC makes a comprimise ( in my opinion of course).
I have not heard many OEC - YEC debates among the educated and the professional, but I have heard debates between YECs and OEEs. It seems more to me that OECs spend more time arguing an old earth than arguing a creation, but that is just observation.
What brings me grief, is that it is pushed even to the point where ID and OECs try to discredit YEC as bad science practice or manipluation using good debating tactics. Why is this? It troubles me.
There is lot's of good questions that YEC brings with good science practise. Why is factual evidence cast aside so quickly to defend an Old earth. I say factual evidence like the findings of the RATE project, or unless people insinuate that these highly educated people lied or achieved fake readings.
Mainstream science outnumbers Creation science 100 to 1. But then OEC outnumbers YEC 10 - 1. How can it be expected that YEC can undergo the same level of extensive research as Old earth science, when the funding sources are less then 1% the amount of Mainstream science.
Another question, why attempt to prove OEC. OEC isn't going to get us any closer to saving the blind from hell than YEC. The science comunity mocks OEC as an attempt to sneak christianity through the system. Atheists are blinded from the glory of God because they do not deserve to understand his magnificance. God will always hide the science and the christian principles from these people because they would only mock him and deface his glory.
True love of GOd is what will save people, not OEC or YEC or anything else. i am glad that OEC questions YEC, it forces us to grow and to strenghthen our evidence.
But YEC is Growing and expanding.
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
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
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
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 (interview)
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
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. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
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. David Down, Field Archaeologist
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
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, 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. 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 Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
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. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
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
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
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
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. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
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 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. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
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. 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. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
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
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
This is a list of all the YECs I can find that have Docterites in a science field.
I do not say this lightly canuckster, but I hold highly in my opinion of the written word of God. I have studied the reasoning behind scriptural backing for OEC and am not in support of it. This is, however, not the topic to be discussing hebrew interpritation.
I also believe that comprimise brings corruption and OEC makes a comprimise ( in my opinion of course).
I have not heard many OEC - YEC debates among the educated and the professional, but I have heard debates between YECs and OEEs. It seems more to me that OECs spend more time arguing an old earth than arguing a creation, but that is just observation.
What brings me grief, is that it is pushed even to the point where ID and OECs try to discredit YEC as bad science practice or manipluation using good debating tactics. Why is this? It troubles me.
There is lot's of good questions that YEC brings with good science practise. Why is factual evidence cast aside so quickly to defend an Old earth. I say factual evidence like the findings of the RATE project, or unless people insinuate that these highly educated people lied or achieved fake readings.
Mainstream science outnumbers Creation science 100 to 1. But then OEC outnumbers YEC 10 - 1. How can it be expected that YEC can undergo the same level of extensive research as Old earth science, when the funding sources are less then 1% the amount of Mainstream science.
Another question, why attempt to prove OEC. OEC isn't going to get us any closer to saving the blind from hell than YEC. The science comunity mocks OEC as an attempt to sneak christianity through the system. Atheists are blinded from the glory of God because they do not deserve to understand his magnificance. God will always hide the science and the christian principles from these people because they would only mock him and deface his glory.
True love of GOd is what will save people, not OEC or YEC or anything else. i am glad that OEC questions YEC, it forces us to grow and to strenghthen our evidence.
But YEC is Growing and expanding.
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
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
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
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 (interview)
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
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. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
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. David Down, Field Archaeologist
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
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, 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. 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 Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
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. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
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
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
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
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. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
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 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. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
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. 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. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
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
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
This is a list of all the YECs I can find that have Docterites in a science field.
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
Tyler,tyler_demerhcant wrote:yes, I do understand that.
I do not say this lightly canuckster, but I hold highly in my opinion of the written word of God. I have studied the reasoning behind scriptural backing for OEC and am not in support of it. This is, however, not the topic to be discussing hebrew interpritation.
I also believe that comprimise brings corruption and OEC makes a comprimise ( in my opinion of course).
I have not heard many OEC - YEC debates among the educated and the professional, but I have heard debates between YECs and OEEs. It seems more to me that OECs spend more time arguing an old earth than arguing a creation, but that is just observation.
What brings me grief, is that it is pushed even to the point where ID and OECs try to discredit YEC as bad science practice or manipluation using good debating tactics. Why is this? It troubles me.
There is lot's of good questions that YEC brings with good science practise. Why is factual evidence cast aside so quickly to defend an Old earth. I say factual evidence like the findings of the RATE project, or unless people insinuate that these highly educated people lied or achieved fake readings.
Mainstream science outnumbers Creation science 100 to 1. But then OEC outnumbers YEC 10 - 1. How can it be expected that YEC can undergo the same level of extensive research as Old earth science, when the funding sources are less then 1% the amount of Mainstream science.
Another question, why attempt to prove OEC. OEC isn't going to get us any closer to saving the blind from hell than YEC. The science comunity mocks OEC as an attempt to sneak christianity through the system. Atheists are blinded from the glory of God because they do not deserve to understand his magnificance. God will always hide the science and the christian principles from these people because they would only mock him and deface his glory.
True love of GOd is what will save people, not OEC or YEC or anything else. i am glad that OEC questions YEC, it forces us to grow and to strenghthen our evidence.
But YEC is Growing and expanding.
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
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
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
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 (interview)
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
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. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
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. David Down, Field Archaeologist
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
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, 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. 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 Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
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. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
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
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
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
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. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
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 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. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
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. 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. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
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
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
This is a list of all the YECs I can find that have Docterites in a science field.
It would be a good idea to include a reference to your sources.
I do understand that there are some YEC scientists and that they are honest and sincere in their beliefs and support.
They are an incredible minority, but I understand full well that a majority or not, has no bearing on what is right or wrong.
I respect that you believe YEC is an issue of Biblical accuracy. Frankly, that's the only reason to believe in YEC as I suspect you would have a difficult if not impossible task finding anyone who would accept YEC on the basis of the scientific evidence itself.
That's the problem for the YEC position. It starts from the position that the Bible teaches a YEC position and then it embarks on a search for evidence.
It's frankly the most frustrating element of debating a YEC supporter, because I know from observation and experience that no matter how many "scientific facts" thrown out by YEC people there are presented and no matter how many times they are demonstrated to be wrong, it will not matter. They will return to their belief that the Bible says it and continue to look for new ones.
WHile I think that is a sad commentary I kind of respect those who do it who are sincere and honest.
What frustrates me is that many of the YEC position will continue to throw out their "facts" even after they have been shown wrong. It is as if they feel their need to prove the "Bible" right they have to continue to throw as much material out there as they can and hope something sticks.
It is one of the primary reasons the the YEC position is held in such low regard in the Scientific and now more so the Educational community.
YEC doesn't operate by the same rules. They do not hold to the standards of prrof and academic review that others in the field do. Why is that? If the position is so viable, why is there so much academic dishonesty and a lack of refereed, peer-reviewed literature in the field?
I have said before that I am gald you are here Tyler.
It has been encouraging to see the growth in your thinking and communicating that you are displaying here. I think it is great. I think it is fine that you are YEC as well, although I am not going to go easy on pointing out to you or anyone else promoting that position the problems in it.
You've made some pretty strong claims above.
Let's see you back it up. Let me ask you some questions and please tell me what your thoughts and the basis of them are. I don't know as an answer is fine. I'd prefer that to trying to talk out of your hat.
1. You make some claims regarding the Biblical interpretations in the Hebrew and equating them with the reliability of the Bible itself. Have you been trained in Hebrew or are you relying on the representations of others? (No right or wrong answer here. I'd just like to hear what you have to say.)
2. Have you studied the history of YEC and OEC throughout Church History? Why do you think so many held the OEC position prior to the 1700's when geology began to introduce the science which speaks to the measurements we have now which actually quantify the age of the earth?
3. Why do you think that there are so few YEC scientists being published in refereed science journals? Why haven't YEC institutes themselves started this and worked together as a group to address this serious issue of credibility?
That's enough for now.
I'd like to see you begin to back up what you're saying with some references and some logic instead of just throwing unsupported opinions out there.
Bart
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
-
tyler_demerhcant
- Recognized Member
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:42 pm
I am glad we are able to communicate in a sivilized manner Canuckster. Too often I find the manner of my debates pulled into ethicle conflict.
My sources come from a variety of places.
I will list them for you to perhaps perswade you that I am not like other YECs in my info gathering.
AIG and ICR are my two most looked at sources.
I fully agree that YEC needs to be collaberated better, but do you say that some information has been disproved because mainstream science says so?
I have not, but if you watch society discuss church history, it is always inolveing large church factions, such as the Catholic Church, which was highly influenced by the Roman governing body.
Too often, people splash false and true YEC remarks, without knowing anything about them. This does not however disclude these remarks as false just because mainstream science tells us it does.
YEC does have collaberative efforts, but it is rare. It needs to be expanded, I for one will be developing a website to solve this issue.
"YEC doesn't operate by the same rules. They do not hold to the standards of prrof and academic review that others in the field do"
When someone says to me, the earth is young. I say " Why do you believe that, What evidence do you have." I even go as far as to support OEC in debate. It encourages people to explore more thoroughly the science behind it.
1. You make some claims regarding the Biblical interpretations in the Hebrew and equating them with the reliability of the Bible itself. Have you been trained in Hebrew or are you relying on the representations of others? (No right or wrong answer here. I'd just like to hear what you have to say.)
"I am relying on the reprisentations of others because of the debates I have witnessed and people I really know and trust who are knowledged in the matter. It also is influenced by the large number of scholars and and scientists who are not creationists that claim the bible speaks of a young earth so it is false. You said it yourself, YEC takes the bible and attempts to support it, OEC takes science and attempts to accomidate it to the bible.
IF OEC is fact, then at least there are strong arguments in biblicle favor of it.
2. Have you studied the history of YEC and OEC throughout Church History? Why do you think so many held the OEC position prior to the 1700's when geology began to introduce the science which speaks to the measurements we have now which actually quantify the age of the earth?
I know you have, but let's not get into a debate about this until I have found time to do so as well.
It's up to you if you want to debate this or not. I will bring it up without apology when it is relevent to do so.
3. Why do you think that there are so few YEC scientists being published in refereed science journals? Why haven't YEC institutes themselves started this and worked together as a group to address this serious issue of credibility?
Well, this is a two part question.
YEC is not recognized by mainstream science because it goes against mainstream scientific belief. Pro-evolution and Pro-oldearth journals naturally, which I respect, are going to provide pro Evolution adn PRo OEC material moreso.
What is a refereed science journal. HOw is this determined.
TO the second part, they have.
AIG, ICR, CRS ... actual scientific communitiees with clear understanding of their own arguments and of the sciences, all produce science journals and magazines. Trust I ahve tried to find other things than articles on those sites and it is not as easy as one might think.
YEC institues have started to adress your issues and have started to collaberate better. You can not mistake YEC Institutes with YEC groups either.
ICR, to my knowledge, is the leading force behind the collaberative means, but it is not nearly strong enough yet.
FUnding funding funding... who will fund us crazy revolutionists
I will be developing a site one day into an institution to serve as this purpose. I will also provide full details of all arguments made and the answers on both sides of the argument.
My sources come from a variety of places.
I will list them for you to perhaps perswade you that I am not like other YECs in my info gathering.
AIG and ICR are my two most looked at sources.
I fully agree that YEC needs to be collaberated better, but do you say that some information has been disproved because mainstream science says so?
I have not, but if you watch society discuss church history, it is always inolveing large church factions, such as the Catholic Church, which was highly influenced by the Roman governing body.
Too often, people splash false and true YEC remarks, without knowing anything about them. This does not however disclude these remarks as false just because mainstream science tells us it does.
YEC does have collaberative efforts, but it is rare. It needs to be expanded, I for one will be developing a website to solve this issue.
"YEC doesn't operate by the same rules. They do not hold to the standards of prrof and academic review that others in the field do"
When someone says to me, the earth is young. I say " Why do you believe that, What evidence do you have." I even go as far as to support OEC in debate. It encourages people to explore more thoroughly the science behind it.
1. You make some claims regarding the Biblical interpretations in the Hebrew and equating them with the reliability of the Bible itself. Have you been trained in Hebrew or are you relying on the representations of others? (No right or wrong answer here. I'd just like to hear what you have to say.)
"I am relying on the reprisentations of others because of the debates I have witnessed and people I really know and trust who are knowledged in the matter. It also is influenced by the large number of scholars and and scientists who are not creationists that claim the bible speaks of a young earth so it is false. You said it yourself, YEC takes the bible and attempts to support it, OEC takes science and attempts to accomidate it to the bible.
IF OEC is fact, then at least there are strong arguments in biblicle favor of it.
2. Have you studied the history of YEC and OEC throughout Church History? Why do you think so many held the OEC position prior to the 1700's when geology began to introduce the science which speaks to the measurements we have now which actually quantify the age of the earth?
I know you have, but let's not get into a debate about this until I have found time to do so as well.
It's up to you if you want to debate this or not. I will bring it up without apology when it is relevent to do so.
3. Why do you think that there are so few YEC scientists being published in refereed science journals? Why haven't YEC institutes themselves started this and worked together as a group to address this serious issue of credibility?
Well, this is a two part question.
YEC is not recognized by mainstream science because it goes against mainstream scientific belief. Pro-evolution and Pro-oldearth journals naturally, which I respect, are going to provide pro Evolution adn PRo OEC material moreso.
What is a refereed science journal. HOw is this determined.
TO the second part, they have.
AIG, ICR, CRS ... actual scientific communitiees with clear understanding of their own arguments and of the sciences, all produce science journals and magazines. Trust I ahve tried to find other things than articles on those sites and it is not as easy as one might think.
YEC institues have started to adress your issues and have started to collaberate better. You can not mistake YEC Institutes with YEC groups either.
ICR, to my knowledge, is the leading force behind the collaberative means, but it is not nearly strong enough yet.
FUnding funding funding... who will fund us crazy revolutionists
I will be developing a site one day into an institution to serve as this purpose. I will also provide full details of all arguments made and the answers on both sides of the argument.