Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lkingpinl....Watch this video...It highlights the dishonesty of your creationist heros, and tells you what these scientists you listed really think..... If your purpose here is convert atheists I think you are wasting your time...
When are you cretinists going to get it through your thick craniums that it is IRRELEVANT what individual scientists believe. All that matters is what the evidence points to.
All the people on your list could believe the earth was created 6000 years ago, that there was a global flood, or that the moon is made of cheese, the world is flat and the sky is pink. That doesn't change the fact that the evidence provided by REALITY says otherwise.
Also, only a handful of the people on that list are even in a field remotely relevant to evolution (and that's assuming they got their degree from a legitimate university rather than a creationist propaganda diploma mill). One of the "scientists" on the list is a plastic surgeon!
Current Creation scientists. (list cut to save space)
The first thing that I notice is that it is surprisingly short.
"If anyone should be so foolish to think that this is an impressively long list, it isn't. The National Center for Science Education's "Project Steve" (1)shows just how unimpressively small the list is. It appears that no one has ever accuratly estimated the number of science or science-related PhD graduates there are world wide but the consensus appears to be that there are many hundreds of thousands of them."
As noted by Jbird above, the evidence is what matters, not how many names one can sign up.
I checked up on one who seemed to be familiar. Dr. Harold Coffin. There is no doubt that he is reputable scientist. He is mainly known for his work on the petrified forest in Yellowstone national park. I gather that his main contribution to Creation 'Science' has been trees buried in and protruding through several geological layers of supposedly different times. This has been contested.
"Geologists who have studied polystrate fossils found in sedimentary rocks exposed in various outcrops for the last 30 years have described polystrate fossil trees as being deeply rooted in place and typically rooted in recognizable paleosols. This is in sharp contrast to the claims made by creationists such as Harold Coffin (emphasis mine -Arq) and N. A. Rupke. Geologists, such as Falcon[10][11][12][13][14] and Rygel et al.[15], have published detailed field sketches and pictures of polystrate tree fossils with intact root systems, which are rooted within recognizable paleosols. In case of polystrate fossil trees of the Yellowstone petrified forests, geologists, —again in sharp disagreement with creationists like Harold Coffin— found that the polystrate fossil trees, except for relatively short stumps, are rooted in place within the underlying sediments."
I came across this remark for what it's worth
"Coffin, from GRI, is remembered, naturally, for stating in the Arkansas creationist trial that without the Bible he'd accept the scientists' statements about the age of the earth" TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for November 2002
It is quite possible for scientists who are Creationists (as distinct from Creation 'scientists') to do perfectly good work in the field of science, but there is always the faith - based temptation to compromise the science because of the needs of faith. Polystrates have never been a problem and are not a problem now (check talk origins on 'Polystrates') and it makes Coffin look like a compromised scientist because of this faith -based conclusion - jumping.
(1) Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Stephen or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who accept the biblical account of Creation according to Genesis[1] or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors in a "light-hearted" manner to make it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!"[2]
However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which in the United States limits the list to roughly 1 percent of the total population,[3] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, since about 51% of the Steves are biologists.[4]
The "Steve-o-meter" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" that have signed the list. The Steve-o-meter registered 1118 Steves as of October 19, 2009.[5] (Wiki)
Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Galileo, Sam Morse, Lord Kelvin, James Joule, Robert Boyle (Boyle's Law), Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Albert Einstein (firmly denied Atheism, though adopted no religion), Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Matthew Maury
A lot of scientific discplines were founded by Scientists that believed in God and accepted creation.
Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Galileo, Sam Morse, Lord Kelvin, James Joule, Robert Boyle (Boyle's Law), Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Albert Einstein (firmly denied Atheism, though adopted no religion), Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Matthew Maury
A lot of scientific discplines were founded by Scientists that believed in God and accepted creation.
Mathematicians, astronomers, and theologians are not biologists nor geneticists.
Mathematicians, astronomers, and theologians are not biologists nor geneticists.
Indeed. there's a two hat thing going on here, if not three.
First, to be an authority in this whole Creationism debate, one should be a 'scientist' in an appropriate discipline. In fact it is interesting how so many creationists turn out to be engineers. It seems that their discipline misleads them into thinking that the universe must be a sort of machine.
But the other hat is that even in the appropriate regime, the faith -thing can get in the way. One can certainly have a legitimate degree but still, with Bible-Faith being taken as the touchstone rather than the scientific method - I won't say that the certificate is waste -paper exactly, but there's always the danger of it being turned to the wall when it's felt neccessary.
The third hat is just trying to win the argument by cheating. Rather than stick to the evidence for Creationism not being science, just wave a list of 'scientists'. That proves it must be science doesn't it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
