No, that's completely false.

Scientists are following the truth wherever it goes. If the research does not back up the claims, then it will have no legitimacy in the scientific community. This is why creation science has no legitimacy.

This is the same reason people do not believe in Bigfoot. It's not that scientists "see the evidence for Bigfoot and then ignore it due to their own biases," it's that there just simply isn't any proof or research to back up claims that Bigfoot exists.

4/20/2008 11:55:12 AM

Quote :

"All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms)."

4/20/2008 12:03:45 PM

Quote :

"but yes, they do start with "biases." just like every scientist (even the ones who believe in evolution). it's impossible to approach science with no bias. even if they aren't blatant biases or agendas or whatever, we all start with our own presuppositions."

this is a false dichotomy. Yes, some scientists have biases. Yes, there are bad scientists. Yes, there are some scientists that ignore evidence or form conclusions based on preconceived notions. However, the entire scientific community as a whole will pursue the truth, no matter where the evidence leads, and no matter how many previously popular scientific theories it destroys.

The only presupposition that science has is that theories must be based on evidence, and therefore must be observable in the natural world. That's it. If it can be observed, science can evaluate it.

Creationists are in a different mold. Regardless of any amount of evidence in any direction, a Creationist will never change the outcome of their argument. They know the answer, because like you said, it's written in Genesis. So no matter what science and research produce, their answer will never change.

Scientific fields are overturned every day. That is the point of science. Nobody is foolish enough to claim that everything we think we know about the world is correct, or that we know everything there is to know. If we said this, then all scientific research could just simply stop. Once there are no more questions to be answered, there is no reason for science. But if enough evidence is gathered and reproduced and supported, almost any existing scientific claim can and will be overturned. Of course Creationists and anti-science zealots just point to this as a weakness in science because "OH NOES, THEY WERE WRONG BEFORE, HOW CAN WE TRUST THEM NOW?", but any good scientist knows that any modern theory is simply the best answer we can come up with now based on the evidence presented to us.

4/20/2008 1:07:19 PM

Quote :

"If it can be observed, science can evaluate it. "

like the beginning of life eh?

Quote :

"Of course Creationists and anti-science zealots just point to this as a weakness in science..."

creationists=anti-science? i think you just mean creationists=anti-evolution. you should read some of Dr. Ken Ham's writings on that site to see just how fond of science the good creationists are. (Because just like you said about evolutionists, there are bad apples in every bunch)

but when a piece of scientific evidence comes along that is not compatible with the "answers in genesis" then creationism will be exposed for the sham evolutionists claim it to be. that's far from the case now, though.

[Edited on April 20, 2008 at 1:35 PM. Reason : doh]

4/20/2008 1:35:07 PM

CREATION SCIENCE IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.

4/20/2008 1:47:53 PM

Quote :

"but when a piece of scientific evidence comes along that is not compatible with the "answers in genesis" then creationism will be exposed for the sham evolutionists claim it to be. that's far from the case now, though."

Dinosaurs.

Light from stars millions of light years away.

Carbon dating.

The entire field of geology.

etc...

4/20/2008 1:51:09 PM

Quote :

"Although the Bible does not tell us exactly how long ago it was that God made the world and its creatures, we can make a good estimate of the date of creation by reading through the Bible and noting some interesting passages: 1. God made everything in six days. He did this, by the way, to set a pattern for mankind, which has become our seven day week (as described in Exodus 20:11). God worked for six days and rested for one, as a model for us. Furthermore, Bible scholars will tell you that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1, can only mean an ordinary day in this context. 2. We are told God created the first man and woman—Adam and Eve—on Day Six. Many facts about when their children and their children’s children were born are given in Genesis. These genealogies are recorded throughout the Old Testament, up until the time of Christ. They certainly were not chronologies lasting millions of years. As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years."

Sorry, Boone, it's science.

4/20/2008 1:53:05 PM

Quote :

"Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!)"

What a great statement.




Please someone just do < body background = http://b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/ScannersExplodingHead.gif >

[Edited on April 20, 2008 at 1:59 PM. Reason : ]

4/20/2008 1:59:03 PM

Quote :

"Dinosaurs."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp

Quote :

"Light from stars millions of light years away. "

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp (in the How can we see light from stars millions of light years away? section futher down the page)

Quote :

"Carbon dating."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

Quote :

"The entire field of geology."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/geology.asp

and for any other scientific finding that "disproves" creationism, just search that site. seems to be a pretty good consolidation of lots of research and findings that support creationism.

Quote :

"Quote : "Although the Bible does not tell us exactly how long ago it was that God made the world and its creatures, we can make a good estimate of the date of creation by reading through the Bible and noting some interesting passages: 1. God made everything in six days. He did this, by the way, to set a pattern for mankind, which has become our seven day week (as described in Exodus 20:11). God worked for six days and rested for one, as a model for us. Furthermore, Bible scholars will tell you that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1, can only mean an ordinary day in this context. 2. We are told God created the first man and woman—Adam and Eve—on Day Six. Many facts about when their children and their children’s children were born are given in Genesis. These genealogies are recorded throughout the Old Testament, up until the time of Christ. They certainly were not chronologies lasting millions of years. As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years." Sorry, Boone, it's science."

well, your sarcasm is justified to a degree. you're right: what you quoted isn't science in and of itself. BUT all sorts of scientific findings have supported those claims, and none have disproved them.

i'll cede that what you quoted are the presuppositions that most creationists start with. just like most evolutionists start with their own presuppositions that God doesn't exist, religions are lies, only the material exists, there is no metaphysical or supernatural, etc. i'm not sure how the latter set of presuppositions is any more truthful than the former.

if science can reasonably support either (which it has been shown to do), then both should be discussed as plausible theories in the classroom.

Quote :

"Quote : "Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!)" What a great statement."

"Thus, if the Bible is wrong (and it is!)"

What a great statement.

your presupposition is that the Bible isn't. again, i don't know why that is any closer to the truth than the presupposition that the Bible is true (since time and time again findings have come forth in support of its validity).

[Edited on April 20, 2008 at 2:25 PM. Reason : ]

4/20/2008 2:21:24 PM

Quote :

"Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."

This is a horrid misuse of "axiom."

Axioms are presuppositions that are supported and justified inductively. The inferences you make based upon them are only as sound as the axioms themselves are. It's not a matter of not being able to prove them -- it's a matter of taking them to be the starting point. But they have to be well-justified inductively based upon experience or utility.

4/20/2008 2:41:50 PM

Quote :

"(since time and time again findings have come forth in support of its validity)"

orly?

Perhaps you could point us in the direction of some of these findings? Also, give me a link that doesn't have creation, genesis, or other words associated with religion in the url.

4/20/2008 2:43:46 PM

^i won't give you a link, because that would hijack this thread, ad i trust you know how to use google. that's for another debate. (but not an entirely separate one at all, because we have just seen how this- evolution, creationism, science, metaphysics, philosophy, and even the (in?)validity of the Bible- is all connected).

Quote :

"Also, give me a link that doesn't have creation, genesis, or other words associated with religion in the url."

why?

4/20/2008 2:51:42 PM

Because all those links are very short on science and very long on mythology.

4/20/2008 2:56:39 PM

wrong.

it's because your presupposition is that the Bible isn't true.

4/20/2008 3:02:06 PM

You can't just make ANY working assumption. The working assumptions have to (1) be justified inductively by experience and (2) work.

4/20/2008 3:09:51 PM

I've said nothing of the sort and you've immediately made an assumption and discounted my opinion.

Which is an ironic way of proving the point of every person in this thread arguing for science.

4/20/2008 3:10:32 PM

So I'm looking at the "answers" page.

Have you noticed that they refer to scientific findings that contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible as "problems?"

As in they're impediments to the Truth, and must be undone.

If you don't see the flaw in this type of thinking, then it's no wonder you're failing so badly at this.

4/20/2008 3:12:48 PM

^^well the "your" was more towards Walter, so don't be offended. and i guess i should have said "it's likely because your presupposition is that the Bible isn't true."

there are plenty of terrible sites that indeed are short on science and very long on mythology, but there are plenty of very valid ones as well.

and to ^....

well if the "problems" are undone, then what's the problem with treating them so badly?

and again...your justified to an extent...but you fail to see the exact same thing happening on the other side. many many evolutionists and secular scientists see "literal" translations of the Bible as "problems" that too must be undone.

which goes to say....once again! that it's all about the presuppositions you form before entering the debate. and based on those, most any finding can be interpreted to form support for most any reasonable presupposition.

[Edited on April 20, 2008 at 3:21 PM. Reason : ]

4/20/2008 3:15:12 PM

I like how you haven't addressed anything I've said. Your argument is falling out from under you.

4/20/2008 3:17:31 PM

I have yet to find and scientific data on http://www.answersingenesis.com

4/20/2008 3:18:12 PM

Quote :

"‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality."

So this website pretty much states what the pro-science people in this thread have been saying.

Yet they're unable to see a problem with this line of thought.

4/20/2008 3:20:34 PM

The scientific part is that the op ed's are written by PH'D's you see

4/20/2008 3:20:42 PM

ohmy God, quit posting links to Answers in Genesis. It's just making you look dumber.

Quote :

"your presupposition is that the Bible isn't."

nobody presupposes the bible is wrong. The bible is just a book, just like any of the other millions of books that have been written over the millennia. You don't believe everything that is written in every one of those too, do you? Is this the way it should work - anytime anyone writes something down, we should accept it as fact, then leave it up to the skeptics to disprove it for you?

4/20/2008 3:21:56 PM

I really, really hope that ohmy is just trolling us.

4/20/2008 3:27:21 PM

The bible was written by God you see.


err wait.

4/20/2008 3:29:34 PM

Quote :

"I have yet to find and scientific data on http://www.answersingenesis.com"

you should look harder.

Quote :

"ohmy God, quit posting links to Answers in Genesis. It's just making you look dumber. "

what...should i find links from an evolutionist's site? btw, they cite their works after every article.

Quote :

"Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.""

haha, yeah, he should have left out the logic and reality part. not sure what he was going for there. but as for everything else, i've addressed all that already.

Quote :

"The bible is just a book, just like any of the other millions of books that have been written over the millennia."

Whew. might want to retract that one there. I think there's even plenty of non-Christians that would disagree that the Bible is like any of the other millions of books that been written over the millennia.

Quote :

"You can't just make ANY working assumption. The working assumptions have to (1) be justified inductively by experience and (2) work."

there's millions of christians around the world that would testify to these axioms being justified inductively by experience. but if you mean justified inductively by the scientific method or something, then yes, you have me.

it's just a clash of worldviews that encompasses much more than just science. personally, i don't think the scientific field should or even can be separated from philosophical and metaphysical debates, because i don't think the field should exist in a vaccuum. because it doesn't. for the strict materialists though, they think it does, however. And thus, they think it belongs out of the classroom. But I don't think materialists would conclude that there is no room for debate of the metaphysical or religion or all the different philosophies that acknowledge the existence of something more than the material....so then they shouldn't think the same of a science classroom (ie leaving out creationist perspectives that assume the existence of something more than just the physical....since its ultimate goal imo should be to find truth).

4/20/2008 3:42:18 PM

Look, you can believe whatever you want.

However, none of this is going anywhere near any classroom or textbook until scientific studies and research has been done to support your findings.

4/20/2008 3:45:07 PM

well, like i've said, there is plenty that supports these findings and nothing yet that has disproved them.

but you're probably right about them never making it to the textbooks again, because the majority of those responsible for deciding what does make it to the books are strict materialists.

i think we've come full circle to page 1, where hooksaw said

Quote :

" Some seem to believe schools should teach that science can explain not only the origin of life but of existence itself. I find this to be preposterous."

[Edited on April 20, 2008 at 3:56 PM. Reason : ]

4/20/2008 3:51:41 PM

Hard science pisses off lots of philosophers and theologians because it makes people realize that the Emperor has no clothes.

4/20/2008 3:57:41 PM

the only thing that any of the links you have posted support is the fact that their "research"(still haven't seen any scientific data) is blinded by the assumption that the bible is 100% true

4/20/2008 3:57:50 PM

^i just looked at the carbon dating one and there was tons of data given in there.

4/20/2008 4:01:27 PM

Creationist "science" might be able to cobble together a vaguely coherent picture of the current data, but where are the predictions?

4/20/2008 4:02:12 PM

what do you mean

4/20/2008 4:03:41 PM

"giving" data and "throwing around" data are two very different things.

4/20/2008 4:06:46 PM

Science makes predictions. It's one of the main ways it's verified or refuted.

4/20/2008 4:06:57 PM

yeah i guess i'm confused on what you want exactly. like...are y'all saying there are no scientists who have made amazing discoveries and introduced solid scientific data who have also been christians?

or are you asking that since evolution predicts that we evolve into another species or mankind becomes extinct or whatever they predict, then what is the creationist's prediction?

btw most creationists, if they're Christians, make the prediction that Jesus is coming back...I guess if that happens then we'll just have this whole debate settled won't we.

[Edited on April 20, 2008 at 4:16 PM. Reason : ]

4/20/2008 4:12:36 PM

Quote :

"are y'all saying there are no scientists who have made amazing discoveries and introduced solid scientific data who have also been christians?"

Of course not, that's fucking moronic. Almost as moronic as giving any credence whatsoever to young Earth creationism. It's one hundred percent ridiculous to act like a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis even can be remotely reconciled with the world we live in. Nor should we, Christians and non-Christians alike, expect it to. It is unreasonable to demand that the humans who wrote the books of the Bible should understand that both Earth and Man were far older than they could possibly imagine, that the lights in the sky were nuclear furnaces untold trillions of miles away, or that giant lizards once roamed the Earth before humanity--or anything like it--came to be. For this very reason, neither should we expect the books of the Bible to bear some sort of scientific accuracy. It's just not a reasonable viewpoint.

4/20/2008 4:34:12 PM

thanks for verifying how moronic that is. i thought it was.

4/20/2008 4:37:27 PM

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/v2i4/coloringLiger.pdf
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHA

Quote :

" A Gigantic Giant Children's January 30, 2008 Keywords * dinosaurs * the-worldwide-flood Scientists have found the remains a huge dinosaur in Argentina. It is one of the largest discovered so far—it is over 105 feet long! That’s longer than 2 school buses lined up end to end. They’ve given this new dinosaur the lovely name of Futalognkosaurus dukei. How would you like to have to say that five times fast? The name comes from the Mapuche Indian words for “giant” and “chief.” Dukei comes from the company that gave money to the researchers—Duke Energy Argentina. Paleontologists—scientists who study fossils—have dug up the neck, back, hips, and some of the tail bones of this monster. They have also found many other fossils in that area: plants, teeth, and other dinosaur remains. The news reports claim that this massive dinosaur was a plant-eater that lived many millions of years ago—88 million to be precise. However, from the Bible, we know that the earth is much younger than that—about 6,000 years. Although we can’t say for certain, it’s possible that this creature died and was buried during the earth-covering Flood of Noah’s day (see Genesis 6–9). This happened about 4,350 years ago—not many millions of years. It’s also possible that Futalognkosaurus drowned in a smaller flood sometime after Noah’s Flood. Creation scientists will need to do some more research on it before we can say for sure. Are you interested in studying dinosaur fossils someday?"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

4/20/2008 4:52:20 PM

Jesus Christ, this is the best site ever.

4/20/2008 5:00:34 PM

i really want to believe that it's a joke site

4/20/2008 5:23:35 PM

Quote :

"Whew. might want to retract that one there. I think there's even plenty of non-Christians that would disagree that the Bible is like any of the other millions of books that been written over the millennia. "

fine, maybe so. Even if non-Christians everywhere concede that the bible is "more than just a book", whatever that means, it still doesn't change the fact that we cannot believe claims made in the bible, just because it's "the bible". Some of the claims in the Old Testament are scientific, historical claims. If they cannot be backed up by evidence, we have no reason to believe them.

Quote :

"LiusClues Creationist "science" might be able to cobble together a vaguely coherent picture of the current data, but where are the predictions? ohmy what do you mean "

I'm sorry, but if you don't know what it means that scientists and scientific theories make testable predictions, then you have no place in arguing against science. This is the very foundation of science - you gather data, you make a prediction (hypothesis) from that data, then you propose a test or experiment to see if the predicted outcome is reached. It's done thousands of times a day, in every field of science. When you have an established theory that makes a prediction which turns out to be false, you must study the method used and the tenants on which that prediction was based. If it is shown repeatably that the prediction is consistently overturned by experiment, than a theory can be stricken from the books.

Evolution is an easily falsifiable theory. Biologists, geologists, archeologists make predictions based on the current theory of evolution all the time. A primate-fossil found in the cenozoic era would turn evolution on its head. Bacteria with advanced human-like DNA would blow molecular evolutionary theory out of the water. The discovery of a single true chimera - the cross-breeding combination of animals from different evolutionary branches, like, e.g. centaurs or mermaids - would be unanswerable by evolution. People try to disprove evolution every day. It's stood up for 150 years, and is probably the most beat-on theory ever. The discovery and analysis of DNA could have completely re-written the evolution text books, but everything DNA has shown us is that the original theory was basically correct, and now with DNA analysis, the revised theory is as strong as ever.

So - please, again. Based on "creation science", what prediction can be made that can then be tested and verified?

4/20/2008 6:16:40 PM

you misunderstood me (and i may be misunderstanding you)...your question made it sound like creationism is a field...as in someone can go to school and major in creationism, study creationism and come up with some giant prediction that in and of itself will prove or disprove the theory of creationism...which would be absurd of course (and i think you would agree).

but you seem to be doing the same thing with predictions and evolution. it's not like a biologist tests THE HYPOTHESIS OF EVOLUTION. he tests hypotheses related to his field, which if proven true, can support the larger theory of evolution. (and we've already discussed how evidence can be interpreted to fit different theories)

there's creationists in the field of biology, geology, and archeology, etc. they all have their own predictions i'm sure (that when proven true don't prove creationism in and of themselves, but can be interpreted to support it). but i'm neither a biologist, creationist, or an archaeologist, so i don't know of any specific ones. i guess i would ask you to do the same with evolution. if all those things you mentioned above are your predictions, then the absence of a true transitional form is a prediction a creationist would make. and for that debate, refer back to earlier in this thread (evolutionists can explain why Archaeopteryx is, and creationists explain why it isn't, for example.)

your last paragraph above is a bit confusing as well. you say it's stood up for 150 years, but to act like evolution has withstood all its criticisms over 150 years is ignorant. it has been modified time and time again to accommodate current observations, which you even acknowledge since you addressed it as the "revised" theory of evolution.

btw i love how you guys keep mentioning how creationists argue "against science," which is a major part of the problem, with you guys perpetuating the idea that science and religion/creationism/God/ any-acknowledgment-of-the-possibility-of-the-existence-of-something-immaterial are mutually exclusive.

[Edited on April 20, 2008 at 7:09 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on April 20, 2008 at 7:14 PM. Reason : ]

4/20/2008 7:01:05 PM

Maybe because you're saying that facts of science, with hundreds of thousands of written articles and studies behind them, aren't true.

4/20/2008 7:49:03 PM

ohmy your main point seems to be "butbutbut creationists can just INTERPRET the data their own way"

why yes they can simply make shit up this is insightful

4/20/2008 8:10:11 PM

Quote :

"you guys perpetuating the idea that science and religion/creationism/God/ any-acknowledgment-of-the-possibility-of-the-existence-of-something-immaterial are mutually exclusive."

NOBODY has said that science and religion are incompatible.

The 'existence-of-something-immaterial' is not the domain of science, however. 'something-immaterial' has no place in a science class.

[Edited on April 20, 2008 at 8:56 PM. Reason : ]

4/20/2008 8:54:47 PM

4/20/2008 9:14:43 PM

Quote :

"ohmy your main point seems to be "butbutbut creationists can just INTERPRET the data their own way" why yes they can simply make shit up this is insightful "

they're not making it up. they're supporting it with scientific data. see all those links i've already provided for examples.

Quote :

"The 'existence-of-something-immaterial' is not the domain of science, however. 'something-immaterial' has no place in a science class."

that's reasonable. and like i said before, for the strict materialist that makes sense. so i certainly understand why it's not in textbooks.

it's just of my personal opinion (and many others like me) that it's a shame that we approach science in a vacuum. as if science can explain our existence. as if science has nothing at all to do with any possibility of the existence of a metaphysical. in a math course, we apply the math to real-world problems and examine how math applies to our everyday lives. in english class we write papers about all sorts of topics far beyond the grammar and linguistics of language. we acknowledge the interdependence of all these various fields of study....except for science.

i suppose i wish science classes defined science more as "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws" instead of strictly "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation," because with the second definition any possibility of the existence of anything beyond the physical and material is not only ignored, but automatically discounted.

4/20/2008 10:03:20 PM

Quote :

" 1. Hayward, Alan, Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies, Triangle, London, 1985. Return to text. 2. Wonderly, D.E., God’s Time-Records in Ancient Sediments, Crystal Press, Michigan, 1977. Return to text. 3. Morton, G.R., Foundation, Fall and Flood, DMD Publishing, Dallas, 1995. Return to text. 4. Ross, H.N., The Genesis Question, NavPress, Colorado Springs, 1998 (see review). Return to text. 5. John Holzmann, Sonlight Curriculum, letter and catalogue on file. Return to text. 6. This was admitted in a letter to creationist David C.C. Watson — see his review of Hayward’s book in Creation Research Society Quarterly 22(4):198–199, 1986. Return to text. 7. Hayward, Ref. 1, pp. 167 ff., ‘reinterprets’ the Bible to mean that God did not create in six days but only gave the orders to create (fiats). It then took billions of years for His orders to be executed. This idea not only contradicts the Bible but is inconsistent with evolutionary geology as well. It achieves nothing but added confusion. Return to text. 8. The Hebrew writers could easily have described long ages if necessary — see Grigg R., How long were the days of Genesis 1? Creation 19(1):23–25, 1996. Return to text. 9. Hayward, Ref. 1, pp. 87–88. Return to text. 10. Ham, K., I got excited at Mount St Helens! Creation 15(3):14–19, 1993. Return to text. 11. Batten, D., Sandy stripes: Do many layers mean many years? Creation 19(1):39–40, 1997. Return to text. 12. Julien, P., Lan, Y., and Berthault, G., Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures, CEN Technical Journal 8(1):37–50, 1994. Return to text. 13. Snelling, A.A., Nature finally catches up, CEN Technical Journal 11(2):125–6, 1997. Return to text. 14. Berthault, G., Experiments on lamination of sediments, CEN Technical Journal 3:25–29, 1988. Return to text. 15. Hayward, Ref. 1, p. 215. Return to text. 16. Garner, P., Green River Blues, Creation 19(3):18–19, 1997. Return to text. 17. Hayward, Ref. 1, pp. 89–91. Return to text. 18. Williams, E., Origin of bedded salt deposits, Creation Research Society Quarterly 26(1):15–16, 1989. Return to text. 19. Hayward, Ref. 1, pp. 125–126. Return to text. 20. Creationists accept that some fossils formed post-Flood, but these are relatively few and do not alter the argument. Return to text. 21. Froede, C., The Karroo and other fossil graveyards, Creation Research Society Quarterly 32(4), pp. 199–201, 1996. Return to text. 22. Woodmorappe, J., The antediluvian biosphere and its capability of supplying the entire fossil record, in The First International Conference on Creationism, Robert Walsh (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, p. 205–218; The The Karoo vertebrate non-problem: 800 billion fossils or not? CEN Tech. J. 14(2):47– Return to text. 23. Hayward, Ref. 1, pp. 126–128. Return to text. 24. Higher atmospheric CO2 has been repeatedly shown to cause more luxuriant plant growth. Return to text. 25. Wieland, C., Forests that grew on water, Creation 18(1):20–24, 1996. Also Scheven J., The Carboniferous floating forest — An extinct pre-Flood ecosystem, CEN Technical Journal 10(1):70–81, 1996, and Schönknecht, G., and Scherer, S., Too much coal for a young earth? CEN Technical Journal 11(3):278–282, 1997. One of the ‘old-earth’ authors dealt with here actually cited this paper without the question mark, implying that the paper presents a problem for young-earthers, whereas it actually shows a solution! See Ross, Ref. 4, p. 152–153, 220 (notes 17 and 21). Return to text. 26. Hayward, Ref. 1, pp. 128–130. Return to text. 27. Morris, J., The Young Earth. Master Books, Colorado Springs, pp. 112–117, 1994, Return to text. 28. Sarfati, J., The Yellowstone petrified forests, Creation 21(2):18–21, 1999. Return to text. 29. Hayward, Ref. 1, p. 185; Ross, Ref. 4, pp. 153–4. Return to text. 30. Walker, T., The pitch for Noah’s Ark, Creation 7(1):20, 1984. See also: ‘Naval stores’, The New Encyclopædia Britannica 8:564–565, 15th Ed., Chicago, 1992. Return to text. 31. Hayward, Ref. 1, p. 122. Return to text. 32. Hayward, Ref. 1, p. 84–87. Return to text. 33. Oard, M.J. The paradox of Pacific guyots and a possible solution for the thick ‘reefal’ limestone on Eniwetok Island, CEN Technical Journal 13(1):1–2, 1999. Return to text. 34. Roth, A.A., Fossil reefs and time, Origins 22(2):86–104, 1995. Return to text. 35. Hayward, Ref. 1, p. 91–92. Return to text. 36. Snelling, A.A., Can Flood geology explain thick chalk beds? CEN Technical Journal 8(1):11–15, 1994. Return to text. 37. Hayward, Ref. 1, p. 93. Return to text. 38. Snelling, A.A. and Woodmorappe, J., Granites — they didn’t need millions of years of cooling, Creation 21(1):42–44, 1998. Return to text. 39. Hayward, Ref. 1, p. 91–92. Return to text. 40. Snelling, A.A., Towards a creationist explanation of regional metamorphism, CEN Technical Journal 8(1):51–57, 1994. Also: Wise, K., How fast do rocks form? In The First International Conference on Creationism, Robert Walsh (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 197–204, 1986. Return to text. 41. Hayward, Ref. 1, pp. 91–92. Return to text. "

That's the citations from the geology article.


Please let me know which one of those isn't a Creationist magazine or book. Please let me know which one of those is from a scientific study. Thanks.

4/20/2008 10:09:12 PM

^clearly you all have gathered by now that the website attempts to make very complicated subject matter accessible to the non-scientist (like myself and most of you all on here). in doing so, it runs the danger of being disregarded for not directly citing sound scientific data. the article you mention is a very comprehensive article attempting to explain a whole lot in a very small article. it's naturally going to leave out the scientific data that probably neither you nor i would understand. so what this one does is cite other creationist articles that have already done the work.

if you follow those sources that you just listed, many of them cite secular sources and studies. it can all be traced back to sound data. if it was a research paper that the author of that article was writing (instead of a quick comprehensive summary for the common person), he would have included the primary sources. i clicked on some of those sources and they listed works like....

6. Campbell. H. and Bauer. W.C., 1966. Chemical Engineering, 73:179–185.
7. Gall, J.C.,1971. Mem. Serv. Carte geol. Als. Lorr., 34:126–128.

This piece of original research was presented to the French Academy of Sciences in Paris on November 3, 1986, and was subsequently published in the Academy’s proceedings—C.R. Acad.Sc.Paris, t. 303, Serie II, no.17, 1986, pp.1569–1574. We are grateful for permission from Guy Berthault to publish this English translation.

Lombard. A.. 1972. Series sédimentaires—Genèse—Evolution. Masson et Cie-Edit. Paris. p.147.

Julien, P. Y., LAN, Y. Q. and Berthault, G., 1993. Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures. Bulletin of the Geological Society of France, 164(5):649–660. Return to Text.

# Makse, H. A., Havlin, S., King, P. R. and Stanley, H. E., 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature, 386:379–382. Return to Text.

# Fineberg, J., 1997. From Cinderella’s dilemma to rock slides. Nature, 386:323–324. Return to Text.

R. Zangerl and E.S. Richardson,‘The paleoecological history of two Pennsylvanian black shales‘, Fieldiana: Geology Memoirs 4, 1963. Return to Text.

# M.M. Ball, E.A. Shinn and K.W. Stockman,‘The geologic effects of Hurricane Donna in South Florida’, Journal of Geology 75:583–597, 1967. Return to Text.
# A. Lambert and K. Hsü,‘Non-annual cycles of varve-like sedimentation in Walensee, Switzerland’, Sedimentology 26:453–461, 1979. Return to Text.

etc

4/20/2008 10:36:11 PM